Post Reply
4 years ago  ::  Jan 04, 2011 - 10:39AM #1
Clydson
Posts: 75

The Church in 1492


The world of 1492 was very small. Man knew very little about the earth as we know it today. Christopher Columbus sailed this important year with a crew of 87 to discover a new world. His adventure literally changed the face of the world and man came to realize the world was a much larger place. The world of 1492 was very different in regards to religion. We are familiar with the multitude of churches in our community. Today there are hundreds of different churches that fill the landscape. The Bible is interpreted responding to current thoughts and understanding of doctrine. But how does 1492 fit into this formula?


In almost every community, there are varied types of churches that bear different names with their own creed books and dogmas and beliefs. There are churches called Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Church of Christ, Mormon, Nazarene, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic, Episcopalian and a myriad of differing forms of faith systems. In 1492, Columbus would not find a Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Mormon, Nazarene, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventist and Episcopalian church. At best, the Lutheran church was still 38 years away; the Presbyterian did not form until 1535; John Smyth established the Baptist church 115 years later and John Wesley organized the Methodist church 237 years after Columbus sailed to the new world.


The Roman Catholic Church had been in existence for centuries as the apostate church prophesied by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 4. Other churches such as the Mormon, Jehovah Witness and Seventh Day Adventist were nearly 400 years away from beginning. When Columbus sailed in 1492, the modern day representation of “worship the church of your choice” was non-existent. Yet, there were in 1492 people of God devoted to Christ who worshiped in simple form of the New Testament pattern throughout the known world. How do we know this?


The church of the Lord began in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. It was called the “church” (Acts 2:47); “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16); “church of God” (I Corinthians 1:2); “churches in Judea which were in Christ” (Galatians 1:22); “the body” (Ephesians 1:22,23); “saints in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1:1); “church of the living God” (1 Timothy 3:15); “church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23); among other descriptive terms. The book of Acts is filled with the early work of the church and the epistles show the fulfillment of that early work. This pattern continues to this day by those who follow the New Testament pattern given by God concerning His church.


It is important to understand that man has created a varied form of doctrine that has suited his own needs and wisdom of interpretation creating a myriad of churches. Does it matter if a church is not found in the Bible yet found in history of man as beginning by man? If a man lived in 1246 could he worship in the same manner as people do today with the many churches? God has given a simple book to follow and understand for all men – those living in the year 1246, 1492 or 2006 – or those living in 3006 (if the Lord wills). The Hebrew writer said the kingdom of his day “cannot be moved” (Hebrews 12:28). This kingdom has remained for nearly 2,000 years. This kingdom is the church patterned after the New Testament alone.


by Kent Heaton 


www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles...


Jake

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 05, 2011 - 12:56AM #2
Pam34
Posts: 2,678

You do realize, I hope, that that entire essay is 'doctrine' and is essentially devoid of historical fact, don't you? Or don't you?


 


But if you are looking for a Christian church that called itself the church of Christ, in the fifteenth century (and for centuries before, and centuries after) then you are looking for the Roman Catholic Church, which has always applied that name to itself, and still does.

Blessed are You, HaShem, Who blesses the years.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2011 - 2:58AM #3
Clydson
Posts: 75

First, the church's doctrine, historically, is recorded in Holy Writ. 


Secondly, the RCC was not established in Jerusalem.  There is no record of it.   RCC doctrine is not even taught in scripture, nor is its government  supported, which, btw, identifies it as counterfeit.


Jake

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2011 - 10:42AM #4
Pam34
Posts: 2,678

a) I think you are wrong and


b) I'm not Catholic.


 


But certainly Catholics can point to NT writings and find their 'doctrine' in it, and their authority. Just like everybody else. And it is perhaps interesting to point out that it was 'the Catholic church' that compiled and organized that same 'Bible' including the 'NT' which you consider absolutely authoritative, in the first place. Plus that same church then, and now, terms itself the 'church of Christ'.


 


You don't have to believe they are right, but you do have to admit they actually did those things, and call themselves that, and have done so for around 1800 years (rather than 'since about 1800' which is the best the 'Church of Christ' can manage).

Blessed are You, HaShem, Who blesses the years.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 06, 2011 - 12:32PM #5
Xapisma
Posts: 155

Just to add a further layer of complexity on this, what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church, prior to about AD1054, was only one part of the larger body of what was simply The Church. Rome was (and remains) one of the five Patriarchs of the Ancient Church, along with Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and later Constantinople.


In 1054, Rome broke with the rest of the undivided Church for too many complicated reasons to account for here.


There was no "secret, underground church" which practiced their faith as a proto-church of Christ/ restorationist group. That is a pius fiction.


The historical truth is that the 20th/21st Century churches of Christ parted ways with the other Stone Campbell Movement churches between 1895 and 1906. (I know, my family were part of that break up.)


The Stone Campbell Restoration Movement grew out of a reform on the American frontier, and all of the leaders were former Scottish Presbyterians. So we are sometimes called Presbyterian-lite. (All the Biblical foundations without the Calvinist gloom.)


Presbyterians in turn were started by John Calvin and brought to Scotland by John Knox.  Calvin along with Luther, Zwingli, et alia were part of the Protestant reformation in Europe, who in the 16th Century first tried to reform the Western Church under the Patriatrchy of Rome, and failing that, ended up parting ways with Rome.


Which means that when you trace our religious lineage, you end up along the way in Rome. Anyone who says otherwise is either sadly misinformed, or flat out lying.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2011 - 12:32PM #6
Clydson
Posts: 75

Possibly the only part of Kent Heaton's article that I might not completely agree with is, "The Roman Catholic Church had been in existence for centuries as the  apostate church prophesied by the Holy Spirit in 1 Timothy 4".


That just might be giving the RCC a little too much scriptural recognition. The RCC did not necessarily come from or fall from anything scriptural, as some Christians have claimed. It can just as logically be claimed that She came from the corrupt and heretical minds of men who were long estranged from the Lord's body as revealed by NT scripture.


Jake

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2011 - 1:15PM #7
Xapisma
Posts: 155

Jan 8, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Clydson wrote:


It can just as logically be claimed that She came from the corrupt and heretical minds of men who were long estranged from the Lord's body as revealed by NT scripture.




Jake, one could make that claim, but that wouldn't make it true.


The history of the Christian faith is a long and convoluted one. And the truth of church history is far more interesting than the pius fiction of a "Great Apostacy". That never happened. What really did happen was that the faith of generation after generation of followers of Jesus has shaped and formed and informed us. We are the heirs of a rich heritage.


What saddens me is that some groups of Christians (and the c of C is not alone in this) have prided themselves on their ahistoricity*. The universe stopped moving when the last Apostle died, and time and history resumed at the Cane Ridge Revival. (Or maybe Martin Luther's posting on the door at Wittenberg.)


 


 


---


*that is not a typo.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 12:13PM #8
Clydson
Posts: 75

I agree that a claim without evidence is useless toward proof.  I also agree that scripture allows and demands that one test the spirit of another's teaching before receiving it in one's heart.  Also, one's nature is evidenced by one's fruit, which is then observed by all.


Your understanding of some "Great Apostacy" may indeed be fiction, if you want to clarify, that's up to you.  However, scripture does speak of falling away.  "Falling away", 2 Thes 2:3, is rendered from the Greek, "apostasia", which according to Strong's simply means "defection from truth".  There is nothing in the Greek in this verse that may be rendered "Great", nor is "that Day will not come" in the original language.  To then conclude "That never happened" begs the question "that what?" 


The definition of "apostasia", "defection from truth," is the main reason I believe the RCC is not necessarily an apostate church.  In order to apostatize, one must first abide in the truth.  I really don't see the RCC ever operating within that scope.


And, if I understand your post, you do not believe that a defection from truth has ever occurred?  If that is correct, then I disagree with your conclusion.


Personally, whatever may be related to the RCC is debated by many, I don't really care one way or the other.  However, I remain convinced that the RCC did not begin by divine inauguration, OT prophecy or NT fulfillment.  It is nothing more that one of many human inventions.


Jake

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 05, 2011 - 6:11PM #9
Xapisma
Posts: 155
Jake,
The Church of Jesus Christ has never been entirely uniform. Even the Twelve Apostles are famous for their disagreements and arguments. That is why the First Ecumenical Council was called in Jerusalem. The minutes of that Council are included in the book of the Acts of the Apostles.

And while there have been ample examples of individuals apostasizing, the church herself has not done so. I am not trying to defend Rome for the errors or indescretions they have committed. I am only interested in the truth about the history of the Christian faith. Pious fiction remains fiction. The truth is far more interesting.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook