T
Theo520
Guest
While I see the truth in your comments, you are rewriting the OP.
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
Ok, here is the post again
You say that you think this thread “is directed toward those evangelical/fundamentalists who believe that the CC went “off the rails” about the time of Constantine.”
Then you say “So if Christians “lost” the true gospel from that time until this, how is this “gap” explained? So whether you admit it or not you are equating the CC which evangelical/fundamentalists believe went “off the rails” with Christians who may have “lost” the true gospel from that time until this”
rags
T
Tomyris
Guest
By your inadmission we can only conclude that you ARE SDA. Are you afraid you will get banned if they find that out?
G
guanophore
Guest
Qute the opposite, rags. Evangelicals who believe the CC went off the rails also often believe that there was a remnant of “real” Christians (who were not really “catholic” since the CC supposedly departed from the true faith).
Proponents of the remnant theology believe that there were always “true Christians” loitering around, but that Jesus had to “restore” the Church.
Some others believe that there were always Protestants who were stamped out by the CC.
The question is, if Jesus failed to preserve His One Church from error for 1500 years (when the Reformation got things back “on the rails”) how is this gap explained? He promises to lead His Church into all Truth, then apparently fails to do so.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
So, “Evangelicals” and “Proponents of the remnant theology” believe the same thing and that is that there were always “real” or "true Christians “loitering around”. But then you say that these people believe that “that Jesus had to “restore” the Church”. Why would He have to do that if they were there already, “loitering around”?
So, you don’t believe Rev.12
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Notice verse 14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
It says that the woman was nourished in the wilderness for three and a half times. Which means He did preserve His church.
My question for you is does your church meet the two criteria of Rev.12:17
rags
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t think that any such broad statement can be made at all, because there is such a wide variety of Protestant/Evangelical beliefs. Traditional Lutheras and Anglicans, for example, accept Sacred Tradition as a valid source, while most others do not. These Protestants have retained the Liturgy, and other practices that have been handed down, such as the Liturgy of the Hours (daily prayer). It is impossible to lump them all together.
Actually “lurking” might be a much better word, because the idea is that they were quietly (and some not so quietly like Savonarola and Hus) practicing their faith.
Restoration would be needed because individuals do not constitute a Church. The idea, as far as I understand it, is that they could not become visible because they would have been persecuted to death. After the Reformation, they could come together in numbers and distinguish themselves publicly over and against the Catholic Church without being put to death for their differing beliefs.
Of course I do, I just don’t believe it means what you are trying to make it say.
Those criteria, rags, do not apply to a Church, but to individuals. There are some people who call themselves Catholics who do not follow the commandments of God.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
Ok, I’m going to address just this one point here because it is getting harder and harder to carry on a dialogue with you when you won’t acknowledge what you yourself have posted.
A couple of posts back you made these statements.
If you carefully read these two statements they are saying exactly the same thing. Right?
rags
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes.
I think where we are missing each other is on the concept of Church. We believe that Jesus founded a Church, visible in the NT. If the “Church” founded by Christ went “off the rails” and all that were left were individuals who clung to the “true faith” then the Church founded by Christ basically disappeared until either the Reformation, or the Restoration (depending upon what version one is reading).
So there was a gap where the Church founded by Christ did not exist.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
What do you mean by visible?
You assume that church to be the CC. I don’t.
Here you say that "all that were left were individuals who clung to the “true faith”. As far as I’m concerned that’s what a church is. A gathering of individuals who cling to the “true faith”.
It’s interesting that you differentiate "the “Church” founded by Christ that went “off the rails” from "individuals who clung to the “true faith” Don’t you view the church founded by Christ as the “true faith”
Not if the collection of individuals who cling to the “true faith” the “Remnant” is the church that Christ founded.
rags
T
Tomyris
Guest
So you deny a gap as well, but for an entirely different rationale. Please demonstrate via links that this counter-church had a continuous historical existence from the beginning until now, and make it clear what exactly made it continuous. What historical figures were in it? Where was it? How many people are we talking about?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Rags, if I may insert, we Catholics likewise have an interpretation of Rev 12 as well that includes us.
What to you exactly is the remnant? You are not clarifying to me who they are.
What to you exactly is the remnant? You are not clarifying to me who they are.
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
You probably have not read all of the posts. As I have said before the bible gives us the criteria for this remnant.
Rev.12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
They keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Which according to Rev.19:10b worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Is the spirit of prophecy.
rags
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
It’s not a “counter church” It is quite biblical Rev.12:17. As for the links, there are none as she was in the wilderness at this time Rev.12:14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
What made it continuous? Haven’t you been reading the posts? There has always been a remnant that "keep the commandments and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Where was it? In the wilderness Rev.12:14. How many?
rags
K
KjetilK
Guest
No, he is not. He is saying that the Church is visible. And I agree. As a Lutheran, I hold that the office of priest is a divine institution (cf. VConfessio Augustana) without which there is no Church, since the Church is constituted when the word is preached and the sacraments administered (cf. VIIConfessio Augustana). And this office is given to those men who are rightly called to it (cf. XIVConfessio Augustana).
R
ragsbinwashed
Guest
Well here is guanophore’s post
I believe he is referring to the CC.
Well you may have something there.
1 Peter 2
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
rags
S
spina1953
Guest
I keep seeing Rev. being used in a way that does not appear to be interpreted correctly so far as I understand the verses used. Rev. 12:17 John is saying in this verse Keep God’s commandments. Simply put they are two: Love God and love your neighbor. Second, Give witness to Jesus Being Christian means more than just keeping the commandments. It calls us to witness to our faith and relate to our personal lives. Rev.12:14 hear John is saying that God does not delay in protecting his Church. We, then, when evil tempts us, can say, “Give us wings, O Lord, so we can fly to the desert of your protection.” God watches over His faithful ones, the ones who place their trust in the Lamb. So I really do not see how this relates to the Op’s question using Rev. in the manor so far has been used.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
If we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government.
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the
Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.
When we read the Church Fathers this is incredibly clear and irrevocable.
So just because we are part of the priesthood - it does not mean that we have the same calling and responsibility of those who are ordained.
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
And this order has been carried out since our Lord established His Church with the
Apostles and the Apostles then established more of His Churches throughout the world.
When we read the Church Fathers this is incredibly clear and irrevocable.
So just because we are part of the priesthood - it does not mean that we have the same calling and responsibility of those who are ordained.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Isaiah: Great Post! makes a lot of sense, your thinking is right on!
K
KjetilK
Guest
Of course he ultimately refers to the Roman Catholic Church. He is Roman Catholic, and is convinced that Church is the one founded by Christ. But his argument, as he presented it, starts a level above, and would be embraced by anyone who believes in a visible Church – including not only Orthodox, but also Lutherans, Catholics, etc.
The Church is visible, and visibly ordered. It is ‘the body of Christ,’ not ‘the soul of Christ.’ And by ‘visible,’ I mean visible to those outside the Church, who see that the word is preached and the sacraments administered. A Church constituted only by ‘believers’ is no Church. By that I do not mean that you need anyone else than believers for it to be a Church, but what constitutes the Church as Church, is not only that she has members – let’s call them the communion or congregation of saints (depending on whether you focus on the universal or local level) – but that these members gather visibly, around the pure teaching of the Gospel, and the rightful administration of the sacraments. This is basically the Lutheran definition of the Church, as we see in VIIConfessio Augustana: “[Lutherans] teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”
I was not referring to the priesthood of all baptised. (Note that I do not say ‘the priesthood of all believers.’) I was referring to the office which only consists of those who are called and ordained to it.
- Status