Home » Posts tagged 'Roman Catholic Church'
Tag Archives: Roman Catholic Church
Local Only Ecclesiology and Historical Theology
My graduate school required a large amount of theology, which included the branch of historical theology. Before I took the class, I must admit, I had not thought much about the category. I know men introduced historical theology to me at different times and varied manners in other classes, but it became important to me at that time between the ages of 22 and 25 years. Now when I listen to a presentation of a position, I want to hear its history for good and biblical reasons.
I know I’m writing on this subject because of an article I read today (as I first write this), called, “Five Reasons Historical Theology Is Necessary for the Local Church.” The man who wrote it is not local church. I would point out to you, if someone uses “local church” language, he may believe in two churches, universal and local, rather than the biblical one church, which is local only. However, churches need historical theology. They need to know that churches always believed what they believed, because it is the truth. Caleb Lenard in the article gives good reasons.
Examples for Historical Theology
A strong argument for perfect preservation of scripture in the original languages comes from historical theology. Christians believed this doctrine, as read in historical confessions of faith. In a theological way, no one has yet upended that position on preservation. Since this is what Christians have believed, you could call a change, heresy. A new position on the preservation of scripture diverges off the already established belief.
Sometimes I hear the language, “the reformed doctrine of justification.” Did the doctrine of justification originate with the Protestant Reformation? I don’t believe that. Maybe they dusted it off or took it out of the trash bin, but men kept believing it or else no one was saved not long after the advent of the Roman Catholic Church.
Is local only ecclesiology also historical theology? Christians do not have to prove that a majority of believers received and propagated local only ecclesiology. If it is true, scriptural doctrine, then believers should reveal its history, tell the historical story of local only ecclesiology. It is also helpful to show how that other ecclesiology diverged from the path of truth, if local only ecclesiology is true.
Historical Ecclesiology
I would like those with a different ecclesiology to consider the historical problem of a catholic ecclesiology and the bad consequences too. Roman Catholicism affected corrupt thinking on the doctrine of justification and many other doctrines. That did not disconnect with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Correcting justification and not rectifying the other corrupted doctrines still leaves churches with much bad doctrine. This dishonors God and hurts many people.
Men often will not say, perhaps because they don’t know, that their doctrine is Roman Catholic. They don’t teach the false gospel of Roman Catholicism, but they teach other false doctrines. Those false doctrines lead back to a false gospel. One Roman Catholic doctrine accepted is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the church. Catholic church is universal church. That ecclesiology, a false one, spread in a widespread way to Christians.
Some of you reading right now are nodding your head, “no.” Back and forth, maybe smirking, rolling the eyes. Maybe. Just think about it though. Did you get your ecclesiology from Roman Catholicism? What kind of effect does that have for your life, others’ lives, and for all the other doctrines?
On the other hand, did I get my ecclesiology from mid 19th century landmarkists (see this series, and this one)? Everyone had believed in catholic ecclesiology (just like they denied justification before) up to that point. Local only ecclesiology then arose as a knee jerk reaction from J. R. Graves and Baptists in America. They didn’t like the ecumenism spreading among Southern Baptists, so they invented the local only position to combat it. Is that what happened instead? What is it about Baptists that made them in particular prey in a widespread way to a teaching that the church was only local, never universal?
Catholic Ecclesiology
I wouldn’t believe the local only position if I thought it originated among 19th century Baptists in America. Instead, I believe that looking in the Bible and also tracing history of doctrine supports something different. The universal church view grew from seeds of neo-platonism previous to Constantine and took hold as the predominant ecclesiology only with the state church in the 4th century. The Catholic Church persecuted churches separate from the state church. Those churches existed and they believed the church was local, not universal.
A platonic system of theology, Origen’s allegorical or spiritualizing system, affected everything in the Roman Catholic Church. Sprinkling of infants proceeded from this. A corrupt human priesthood arose. Amillennialism, the view that the kingdom was the Roman Catholic Church, took hold. Hierarchical church government became the norm. Tradition took prominence. The Pope. Transubstantiation.
Roman Catholicism and universal ecclesiology led to the dark ages. It caused regression or glacially slow progress in measurements of living standards. Most people stayed stupid for a long time because of Roman Catholic ecclesiology now embraced by many professing Christians. Satan used it greatly. The Protestant Reformation did not correct all that Roman Catholicism ruined. It embraced or absorbed Roman Catholic ecclesiology and eschatology with few exceptions.
Consequential Regression
Byproduct of Roman Catholic Ecclesiology
Even if there is notable minute progress to which someone might point in correct thinking about issues of life, it is an exception. It is usually a few bright spots mixed into still astounding darkness. Useful scientific discovery overall, subduing and having dominion, came to a stop for over a thousand years because of Roman Catholicism. Wherever it spread, such as Central and South America, left its destructive nature.
Everywhere the Roman Catholic Church took hold still continues a worse place to live because of its influence. It is a byproduct of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, that can’t be separated from its system of interpretation. As I say that, anticipating this argument, I understand that forms of paganism like animism also left the culture in ruins. It wasn’t much worse than Roman Catholicism, and I compare the consequences to biblical Christianity in contrast.
Still today people think “Christian” means Roman Catholic. Evangelicalism is a branch off a Catholic root in the mind of the general population. Every Christian then becomes responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, the conquistadores, feudalism, a flat earth, religious wars, and widespread poverty.
Once the hold of Roman Catholicism was broken, including Catholic state church ideology, the freedom brought astounding progress. People don’t trace that to ecclesiology or even talk about it in history classes, but it is true. When Warren Buffet says that John Rockefeller did not live as well as Buffet’s middle class neighbors, this relates to progress arising from the downfall of a state church.
Wreaking Havoc
The ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism, however, still continues, reeking its havoc everywhere. Globalism itself and its damage comes from Roman Catholic ecclesiology. It is a utopian, universalist concept, that first existed in Roman Catholicism. It stems from the mystical, spiritualistic, and allegorical system of Roman Catholicism.
A religious grounding from the system of Roman Catholicism continues in leftist thinking, which spreads utopian thinking, exerting power over individuals. It has the capacity to return the world to neo-feudalism and another dark age. None of this is true. The trajectory of the American colonies and the first one hundred fifty years of American history changed the world by overturning the influence of universal church doctrine. A nation begins to suffer as it welcomes it back.
I have written about the founding of catholic ecclesiology, the universal church doctrine, many times here (here, here, here, here, and here among other places). I have also written about the history and biblical doctrine of local only ecclesiology, offering that position (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and see these two on English separatism–here and here).
Because of the dominance of a universal church through history through the Roman Catholic Church, in comparison not much local only material exists. The winners told the story. They could destroy anything that countered their viewpoint. You hopefully know the same practice occurs today in almost every institution. Some call the falsehoods, fake news. It is revisionist history based on a system of interpretation similar to what hatched Roman Catholicism.
More to Come
The Tale of Two Archbishops of Canterbury
Most, I believe, would argue that Thomas Becket is the most famous archbishop of Canterbury. More than any other figure, he put Canterbury itself on the map in England. Fame came from his brutal death at the hands of knights of King Henry II.
In his late thirties, early forties, Becket, not even a Roman Catholic priest, served Henry II as the chancellor of England. When the opportunity came to insert a new Archbishop at Canterbury, Henry was happy to choose Becket. Henry II brought many important features to English civil rights and a just legal system. He had no jurisdiction over the misbehavior of Roman Catholic leaders. He expected Becket to help him with that.
Becket instead defended the power of Roman Catholicism against state intervention, even in criminal cases. Years Becket antagonized the King. Then Henry said aloud in his knight’s presence, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Whatever their original intentions, four of the knights killed Becket on December 29, 1170.
Monks took blood of Becket poured out in the Cathedral, mixed it with water, and used it for the anointing of the sick. Apparently men witnessed miracles. In stain glass at Canterbury is a portrayal of a death bed where the man drank the concoction and vomited out the cause. He walked away well.
The Pope venerated Becket as saint and martyr. Thousands took a pilgrimage to Canterbury to visit the shrine of Becket. Geoffrey Chaucer wrote about these pilgrims in Canterbury Tales. King Henry did penance of hundreds of blows with a rod. A memorial still decorates the place where Becket died in Canterbury Cathedral. A candle remains perpetually lit where Becket’s shrine once sat.
Almost no one cares about the death of another Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. He held that office during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and shortly Mary I. Cranmer opposed the power of the Roman Catholic Church. He led the English Reformation. He wrote the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer, the official liturgy for the Church of England. If you try to find the place in Oxford where Queen Mary, Roman Catholic “Bloody Mary,” executed him, it will not be easy.
Shortly before his execution, Cranmer said:
And now I come to the great thing that troubleth my conscience more than any other thing that I said or did in my life, and that is the setting abroad of writings contrary to the truth which I thought in my heart, and written for fear of death and to save my life if it might be; and that is all such bills which I have written or signed with mine own hand since my degradation: wherein I have written many things untrue. And foreasmuch as my hand offended in writing contrary to my heart, therefore my hand shall first be punished, for if I may come to the fire, it shall be first burned. And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and anti-Christ, with all his false doctrine. And as for the Sacrament. . . .
As he died in the flames, burnt at the stake, he cried: “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” Whatever Cranmer may have believed, he attempted to distinguish himself from Roman Catholicism at least and wrote the following in the Book of Common Prayer:
Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.
I don’t write this to advocate for the Church of England, just to provide a distinction between the way England treats these two Archbishops, even though the former was Roman Catholic.
The Seriousness of Religious Authority As Illustrated by Russia and Ukraine
Some reading may have heard that the Russia invasion of Ukraine relates to the religion in these two countries. They might consider it a religious war. I will go back to give perspective on this issue and then dovetail with something from the last few days.
No one has more authority than God. In fact, God possesses all authority and any group has authority only because of God. To say that you have authority means that you function for God and even speak for God. People who want to stay in good standing with God will do what God’s authority says. It’s like God telling them. Disobeying this authority, since it is from God, is disobeying God. This could also relate to someone’s eternal destiny, this often going along with the authority claim.
The true church authorized by Jesus Christ, the only church, is local only. Jesus started it in Jerusalem in the first century during His earthly life as seen in Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-17. The New Testament book of Acts records that first church reproduced other assemblies with scripture as their sole authority. The Lord Jesus Christ gave the true church authority, autonomy, with Him as the Head of each true church (Eph 1:22, 5:23, Col 1:18).
A true church has authority. It is serious enough that Jesus says the church looses and binds (Matthew 16:9, 18:18). It makes authoritative declarations as to whether someone is in the church or out. If someone is loosed, the true church regards him as unsaved. When the church sends someone out of the church, 1 Corinthians 5 says the church delivers this person unto Satan (5:5). These are true or real occurrences. They aren’t games being played. It’s very serious.
HISTORY
In the fourth century AD a counterfeit church arose in Rome. It claimed Christ’s authority through a bogus declaration of Petrine successionism (Petrine Theory). This spurious organization with the influence of Roman Emperor Constantine turned the church into a state church, the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic meaning universal. One could place the date at 313AD with the Edict of Milan, 325 with the Council of Nicea, 337 with the baptism of Constantine, or 380 with the Edict of Thessalonica. This institution, which preached a false gospel, claimed an authority it did not possess.
Nevertheless, for purposes of rule, Constantine split the empire into East and West in 330AD and the empire divided after the death of Theodosius I in 395AD. Roman Catholicism was still unified until it split into two in 1054, the Great Schism. The Orthodox Church (called Eastern Orthodox) formed from the division. The schism much related to authority, as the Eastern Church rejected the infallibility and unique authority of the Pope.
The authority of Eastern Orthodoxy describes itself a fellowship of self-headed churches, the term “autocephalous.” Orthodox churches recognize the preeminence of Constantinople, called the primacy of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. This means Constantinople is a first among equals. The Orthodox hold that God’s authority passes down directly to Orthodox bishops and clergy through the laying on of hands. They consider this apostolic succession and each Orthodox. Each bishop has a territory, called a “see,” that he governs.
Roman Catholicism invented its own authority by procuring a non-existent apostleship. Eastern Orthodox then appropriated it as its own. It’s difficult to estimate, but stats say 1.3 billion Roman Catholics and 220 million Orthodox in the world, top two of Christendom in numbers. Neither of them possess authority. When they talk about authority, it’s not true. They say they have it. They don’t. Yet, if a religious organization says it is from God, we shouldn’t be surprised when it acts like it has authority.
Of all the autocephalous churches of the Orthodox by far the largest is the Russian Orthodox with over 100 million. It is known as the Moscow Patriarchate. This Orthodox church started when the early, original Russian prince, Vladimir I, was baptized by the Patriarchy of Constantinople in 988. The center of Russian Orthodoxy was Kyiv. It remained under Constantinople authority until 1488, when it moved to Kyiv as an autocephalous church. The Russian Orthodox Church relocated then to Moscow in 1686 when the region of Kyiv came under authority of the Tsars there.
I zoom forward to the period after the Soviet Union. The atheistic Soviet Empire swallowed religions. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged again. Alexy Ridiger first became Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1990. This continued under Patriarch Kirill in 2009, who remains in that position.
CONSIDERING AMILLENNIALISM
Not only did and does the Roman Catholic Church not have authority, but it operates with a corrupt system of interpretation of scripture. The Eastern Orthodox and its autocephalous churches continued that system of allegorization or spiritualization of the Bible. These denominations within Christendom rationalized themselves with an eschatological and ecclesiological program called amillennialism.
According to amillennialism, the kingdom of God exists on earth in the present age in a universal church, a kind of spiritualized nation Israel. In the Old Testament passages about Israel, someone can read in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. With amillennialism a nation can function like one that authoritatively enforces the precepts of the Bible as seen through the lens of church authority. This explains a Christian holy war fought on behalf of the church.
Amillennialism says there is no literal millennium where Christ comes to rule for a thousands years on the earth. The “a” of amillennialism means “no,” as in “no millennium.” This view allowed for a state church that functioned like a kingdom.
An inquisition that tortures or puts to death heretics also comes from authority allowed by an amillennial eschatology. The church does the work of God by punishing sinners and implementing what God said.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
In 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople, the foremost of the autocephalous churches, gave autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox. This formed a Ukrainian Orthodox Church, taking the jurisdiction of the Ukraine, the region of original Russia and the initial Russian Orthodox Church from the Patriarch of Moscow. Not all of the Orthodox Churches operate under the authority of the Ukrainian Patriarch but under the Moscow Patriarch, who now is Patriarch Kirill.
The Associated Press reported that just this week Kirill came out in support of the invasion of Ukraine by saying the following:
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, leader of Russia’s dominant religious group, has sent his strongest signal yet justifying his country’s invasion of Ukraine — describing the conflict as part of a struggle against sin and pressure from liberal foreigners to hold “gay parades” as the price of admission to their ranks.
Kirill, a longtime ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, had already refrained from criticizing the Russian invasion – alienating many in the Ukrainian Orthodox churches who had previously stayed loyal to the Moscow patriarch during a schism in their country. Several of these former loyalists are now snubbing Kirill in their public prayers, with some demanding independence from the Moscow church even as their country’s political independence is imperiled.
Kirill, in a sermon delivered Sunday before the start of Orthodox Lent, echoed Putin’s unfounded claims that Ukraine was engaged in the “extermination” of Russian loyalists in Donbas, the breakaway eastern region of Ukraine held since 2014 by two Russian-backed separatist groups. [He] focused virtually all of his talk about the war on Donbas — with no mention of Russia’s widespread invasion and its bombardment of civilian targets.
Kirill on Sunday depicted the war in spiritual terms.
“We have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance,” he said.
He contended that some of the Donbas separatists were suffering for their “fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power.”
He claimed that this unnamed world power is posing a “test for the loyalty” of countries by demanding they hold gay pride parades to join a global club of nations with its own ideas of freedom and “excess consumption.”
God holds all authority. When He looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, he saw the corrupt lifestyles. This included homosexual or same sex activity. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Within the nation Israel, God expected punishment of death upon such behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20.
The fall of communism in Russia left a vacuum of authority the Russian Orthodox Church filled. Putin had become antagonistic to communism. The Russian Orthodox Church filled that void in harmony with his nationalistic thinking. This mirrors such a historical figure as Henry VIII in England in his role in the Anglican Church. He put many opponents to death. This arose from a belief held called “the divine right of Kings.” Henry was also the head of the state church in England, which like the Russian Orthodox, borrowed from the amillennialism of Roman Catholicism.
Putin may rationalize his acts according to an Eastern worldview. He sees the corruption, decline, and decay of the West. The West in hypocritic fashion commits its own barbaric acts by murdering its own children through abortion. Putin sees a Ukraine following in the trajectory of the West with its gay parades and then its separation from the state religion of Russia. Kirill expresses this. Many Russians still dwell in the Ukraine both ethnically but also religiously. They still submit to the Moscow Patriarchy.
I’m not saying I support Putin’s position, just that this is a matter of authority. God is still on the throne. He’s not ruling through the Russian Orthodox, but its strong adherents at least admit that God rules in some manner. They follow a historical position without a biblical basis. This is not inferior to those who do not give acquiescence in any way to God’s authority, even if they see themselves as having superior values.
RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY
God reigns. Authority exists. The United States and Western nations reject Divine authority. They face consequences for their rebellion.
The Orthodox do not possess genuine Divine authority, but many of them recognize it exists. Indications of belief in Divine authority appear all over historical monuments of the United States. It is seen in the founding documents. Statements like “In God we trust” evince these foundations. Even if a nation stops acknowledging the authority of God, it is still subject to His reign.
Recent Comments