Where can I find early Christian history?

[pointer]

Luther was a giant in bringing the Church closer to Christ.

Perhaps a dwarf who saved a cult.

Pointer with comments like this, you will never sway a person to your beliefs.

I don't think I need to.

Pointer do you believe in Predestination?

I believe in correct Engish usage.

What you don't understand what Predestination is?

No idea. Is it a new sort of fizzy drink, a musical band, or a make of refrigerator?

I understand what predestination is. But you didn't ask about that.

[Guest godgivesall4us]

It is indeed messy.

But I would just ask that Christians be secure and at peace with what you follow, confess and believe. My study had led me to Luther and his confessions as being the most accurate guide to all of scripture, you may find that your study leads you to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church which also claims an historical succession to Peter.

One cannot look at the reformation and indeed the division it eventually wrought and not realize that there was a tremendous cost to the reformation. Luther himself would be shocked to see the division, which exists today. Some of his strongest words were against these people.

But in the end God did allow it, I don't think we have multiple truth, we have a bunch of sinful humans who argue. So I believe the costs of the reformation were worth the benefits. There may come a day when we do become one unified Church with only one doctrine.

Luther already conceded the point when he stated that there were as many heads as there were denominations in the church. Some have rumored that he reverted at his deathbed after seeing this terrible division.

I have no idea, and God only knows that.

What I do know, is that Christ is Truth itself, and Truth does not contradict itself.

Therefore, if baptism saves you, then it can't be that baptism does not save you. It is either/ or, not both /and. If 1+1=2 then thats the only way to see it. One truth. One Church. To say that God allows something, like he allows murder, does not make it okay. If 1 million people believe and do the wrong thing, does that make it right? no.

God gave us a Church, not one among many, and I am going to find the Church that God gave us, without looking through a protestant nondenominationlens, nor an orthodox lense, nor a catholic lens. I am just going to read the writings from the early church thay God was faithful, and able to save for this very prupose. I believe.

The only way possible to get a unified church, is to stop trying to interpret scripture for ourselves claiming the Holy Spirit is leading us. They didn't do this IN scripture, and we don't see this occurring until after the turn of the 16th century, and that is when all this division occurred. Then look to the church that still stands since the beginning, because Christ said it would, even til the end of time. I believe it still stands, and still has set doctrines that are all true, not false, because that is how God works.

That of course is narrowing my search a bit, as I read Irenaeus, it it becoming a bit more evident, that there is a very Eastern orthodox/catholic undertone to it all. That is weird, but I am staying open.

[Smalcald]

Well do what you need to do. I think it would be a fascinating study.

But in your search don't forget Christ and His Word contained in scripture, what I mean is test what is true against scripture. My only suggestion is don't ever let these things get in the way of your faith in Christ alone, which in the end is all that matters.

My search led me to put on the lens of Luther, and that is how I now see the Church. But I also realize I have these glasses on and understand that, and that the true church of Christ is eternal and made up of all those who have true faith in Him.

I think though that you may end up just as confused about the true visible church as before. Certainly the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Split was every bit as problematic for church unity as the much later reformation.

[Pax]

Well do what you need to do. I think it would be a fascinating study.

But in your search don't forget Christ and His Word contained in scripture, what I mean is test what is true against scripture. My only suggestion is don't ever let these things get in the way of your faith in Christ alone, which in the end is all that matters.

My search led me to put on the lens of Luther, and that is how I now see the Church. But I also realize I have these glasses on and understand that, and that the true church of Christ is eternal and made up of all those who have true faith in Him.

I think though that you may end up just as confused about the true visible church as before. Certainly the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Split was every bit as problematic for church unity as the much later reformation.

Smalcald as a Catholic I would disagree with you. The eastern/Roman split was not on the same level as the Protestant Reformation. As I have stated on here before the Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to all 7 Sacraments as the Roman Catholic Church does. The only issue here is that the East doesn't recognize the Pope as the head of the Church. So they are what we would call, in Schism with Rome. If an eastern Orthodox Catholic walkes into a Roman Catholic Church, they can receive the Holy Eucharist. The Protestants only really held onto about 2 of the Sacraments (Marriage and Baptism) and some don't even Baptize anymore, and of course they don't even use the word Sacrament in most Churches. The Protestant Reformation was a total break from Catholicism, where many of the doctrines and traditions of the early Church were done away with. A Protestant can't walk into a Catholic Church and receive the holy Eucharist and are classified as heretics by Rome.

[Floatingaxe]

A Protestant can't walk into a Catholic Church and receive the holy Eucharist and are classified as heretics by Rome.

Aha, the truth comes out!

[Smalcald]

Certainly they are more like the RCC than some of the Evangelicals are, there is not doubt about that, I agree.

Just a couple of points of clarification. The two sacraments held by the Reformers were Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and some held Penance. Marriage was not seen as a Sacrament. Today of course you are correct, many Protestant groups don't even recognize the word sacrament or the concept. Although I don't know of any who don't baptize?

But I have a question. Is not the legitimacy of the Eucharist based on the ordination of a Priest, through the succession of the Pope from Peter and His calling from Christ? If so, does that mean that a Catholic can still take the Eucharist in a Eastern Church, and how can a person who does not recognize the legitimacy of the Pope an Eastern Orthodox believer, accept the Eucharist from a Catholic Priest? I was just curious about how that was justified? Also how does the Roman Catholic Church define Heretic? What I mean is that what happens to a heretic who refuses to recant in the eyes of the RCC?

I have another question (sorry I know I am hijacking this!), but if a person who was not an official member of the Catholic Church, believed that the Eucharist was valid, was the true transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, could that person take the Eucharist?

[Pax]

Certainly they are more like the RCC than some of the Evangelicals are, there is not doubt about that, I agree.

Just a couple of points of clarification. The two sacraments held by the Reformers were Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and some held Penance. Marriage was not seen as a Sacrament. Today of course you are correct, many Protestant groups don't even recognize the word sacrament or the concept. Although I don't know of any who don't baptize?

But I have a question. Is not the legitimacy of the Eucharist based on the ordination of a Priest, through the succession of the Pope from Peter and His calling from Christ? If so, does that mean that a Catholic can still take the Eucharist in a Eastern Church, and how can a person who does not recognize the legitimacy of the Pope an Eastern Orthodox believer, accept the Eucharist from a Catholic Priest? I was just curious about how that was justified? Also how does the Roman Catholic Church define Heretic? What I mean is that what happens to a heretic who refuses to recant in the eyes of the RCC?

I have another question (sorry I know I am hijacking this!), but if a person who was not an official member of the Catholic Church, believed that the Eucharist was valid, was the true transubstantiated body and blood of Christ, could that person take the Eucharist?

I would first like to say that I have respect for all people, especially someone such as yourself Smalcald. Your fist question is a very good one and I am not totally sure. Maybe an eastern Orthodox Catholic wouldn't want to receive communion in a Roman Catholic Church. I have research this matter enough to know that they are allowed communion if they so choose. I however would be denied communion in an eastern orthodox church since I am Roman Catholic. Heretic is defined as a person who adheres to false doctrines by the Catholic Church. I want to add something to this, I don't believe that Protestantism is 100% false doctrine and any knowledgeable Catholic would say the same thing. Many Protestants have a very good personal relationship with Christ and are very holy people.

What happens to a heretic who refuses to recant in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Every situation is different, and I am not God so I won't comment on this. But obviously it isn't a good situation for that person.

Only Catholics in good standing with the Church can receive holy communion. So if a person truley believes in transubstantiation, the Church would say why aren't you a member? Why deny yourself the Body, blood, soul and divinity or Jesus Christ. If that person truely understood this they would come running to the Church.

[Smalcald]

Thanks for you answers Pax.

Only Catholics in good standing with the Church can receive holy communion. So if a person truley believes in transubstantiation, the Church would say why aren't you a member? Why deny yourself the Body, blood, soul and divinity or Jesus Christ. If that person truely understood this they would come running to the Church.

I was thinking about the Eastern Orthodox who didn't want to give up being Eastern Orthodox and who did not recognize the Pope, but indeed recognized his or her own Bishop. That person may believe in the full RCC view of the Lord's Supper, and let us say lived in an area where the RCC was the only option, which would actually be a good portion of the US. In that case a person could it would seem, takes part in the Eucharist and never make a move to become a member of the RCC.

[Pax]

Thanks for you answers Pax.

Smalcald,

Sometime you will have to fill me in on what Lutherans (orthodox Lutherans) consider as Sacraments. You can send me a P.M. with the info.

[Smalcald]

No problem Pax.