Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

Hi all! Have been following this discussion with interest. Faith may not be interested in looking up these interesting assertions, but I have a little time to spare for a few. The word "Eucharist" does not exist in scripture. The word "εὐχαριστία" is originally a word unrelated to The Lord's Supper and means thankfulness, gratitude or the giving of thanks (aka the prayer granpa prays at thanksgiving). In its original meaning it has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper and is used many times as a term of mindset for believers (2 Cor. 9-11, Acts 24:3, Eph. 5:4, Phil 4:6)"The Eucharist" is one of the sacraments of the Catholic church (Source). You're referring to Paul's frustration with the Corinthian Church over the Lord's supper. If you had read a little bit before those verses you quoted we get painted for us the picture of the situation. The church was in division, certain members hogging all of the wine, denying specific people and not including them in the lord's supper, basically the antithesis of the Lord's supper which is meant to bring everyone together in unity. As this is a letter from the apostle Paul in response to a letter the Corinthian church had sent previously, and one of several letters from Paul to the Corinthians, we can assume there was a point where the church was conducting the Lord's supper in unity, including everyone. This does not represent some "golden age of the church," merely human people taking something good and unifying, and making it selfish, the natural tenancy of humans. Paul's frustration with the "circumcision party" (Galatians 2:12) was with Jewish Christians who were legalistically attempting to make circumcision a requirement for salvation and entrance into the christian community. This trend is not representative of early Christianity as a whole, merely a specific group or way of thinking that emerged with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Body of Christianity. This is another great example of selfish humanity trying to be exclusive, when in reality the gift of salvation is given freely to all, not relying upon specific acts or deeds to make man "good enough." Christ was good enough. (Ephesians 2:8-9). so again, this does not represent some sort of "christian golden age," this is a great example of humanity falling short into selfishness, as we still do. Pointing out the mistakes of the early church helps rather than hinders Faith's case for "true Christianity." True Christianity is messy and broken. There is an ideal, there is a goal in thought and theology, but we're broken. mankind has not lived up to the ideal, and yet "true christianity" is when the church relied more upon Christ than buildings, rules, sacraments, and politics. James is writing to Jews who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in name and words but not actually in deed. They are religious but do not actually practice what they preach. (James 1:22). Therefore James is attempting to communicate that it doesn't really matter what you say you believe, if it does not appear in your life, it's basically meaningless. It doesnt matter if you say you are religious, if you believe in a God who byppassed your mistakes, and you do nothing to live that out, and extend that to others, your religion, and faith, means nothing:

quote:

---

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. - James 1:26

---

As this issue is unique to the Jews James is writing to, we can again infer that this is not a Christianity-wide issue, merely specific people who have become hypocrites in their religiosity, much like many of us who fall into hypocrisy even today. This again helps rather than hinders Faiths case for "true christianity" in that James specifically speaks to the hypocritical religious attitude of early christians, which has been and still can be the attitude of Christians across the board.Hopefully a little clarity has helped illustrate that the "Golden Age" of Christianity was not really a golden age in the sense that everything was perfect. However it was a Golden Age in that originally, with the establishing of Churches by Paul and many of Apostles, The church was much more about unity, love, community, and encouragement than it has been over the centuries. While the doctrine of the early church was also much more representative of the teachings and revelations of Jesus given to the apostles, as new believers joined the church we can begin to already see deviations as close as 60 years after the death of Christ (the teaching that Christ did not actually come in a physical body, Docetism).There has never been a "Golden Age," only broken humans, messing up, all the while still being loved by Christ.Hope this helps! - RaphEdited by Raphael, : Added friendly wordstudy Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Sorry for late response! Sure. I mean, I am not the originator of the term "Dark Age," nor am I a scholar on the history of the Dark Ages. This is not some derogatory smear, but a simple classification created by historians in order to be able to have a name with which to refer to a specific time in history. So sure, it is my Dark Age just as the Enlightenment is the Enlightenment and the War of 1812 is the War of 1812 and so on. Well it is the point of Christianity after all. Sin, brokenness, messing up, "messyness," and the sacrifice of Christ; these are all the central focus of Christianity. So 100% yes. To read that people so close to the time of Christ, people who had met the Apostle Paul, had dinner with him, heard him preach potentially, had become selfish, regardless of those amazing things, is encouragement to everyone and anyone. We all make mistakes. We think about ourselves. This is OK, because that is why Christ did what He did. To find fault in some golden age because people made mistakes is pretty counter-productive since grace for mistakes is the whole name of the game. Not really. I fact I don't ever remember saying anyone was heretical. I don't even really like the term "Golden Age," it is really only useful for determining the time in history when the Church looked to Christ for its authority instead of itself. I'm not here to hate on any denomination or belief system. I love the Church. But simple facts are simple facts. There was a time in history, before canons were decided upon, before buildings were erected, before power was gained, when the People Of The Way simply met in homes, read the scriptures, broke bread, prayed/encouraged one another, and loved their community. This is not the church of the Dark Ages, any historian would affirm this. When did I ever assert that it was not? Or even give the appearance that it wasnt? I love everything you just said. Messy, fallible, human beings all around, doin the best they can. Im sure there were genuine clergy in the Dark Ages who wondered why the scriptures were chained in the church, written in a language the common people couldnt read. I'm sure there were those who wondered why the Church had walked away from the free gift of grace given to all people and opted for rules created by itself. I'm sure some felt sorrow at the extortion and manipulation of thousands in the form of indulgences. And I'm sure there were those who knew the Church had become a political power and no longer a group of individuals devoted to Christ, and wished for something different, but the hard truth is that it happened.And regardless of this fact, Jesus loves every single one of them. Every broken, corrupted, selfish human, like me. Should I hate the church now because of mistakes made in the past? Definitely not. I love the church. We're just taking a long time to figure it out So was there a Dark Age? Definitely. Read any history book on the era for confirmation. Was there a "Golden Age?" Youre the one who called it that, not me, so sure, if you mean a time when followers of Christ were a family united around a mission, and again, relied more upon Christ than buildings, rules, sacraments, and politics.- Raph

Faith you know that I respect you and your faith but I do not quite see eye to eye with you on this point. Here's why:

quote:

---

Therefore, as one trespass[f] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[g] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. - Romans 5:12

---

quote:

---

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. - Romans 5:1-2

---

quote:

---

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous personthough perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. - Romans 5:6-9

---

quote:

---

What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my[e] Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. - Matt. 18:12-14

---

and of course,

quote:

---

For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16

---

It is pretty clear that God loves the world, and has justified the entire world. This is a theme throughout the entire Bible, from creation. The human race has been declared righteous, not through works, but simply because of the grace of God. It is His character to love, and so He does, through becoming human and dying. This, I would argue, is the penultimate example of love for the entire world and is the theme of salvation.To say that Jesus does not love "religious leaders who mislead people with their corruptions" does not make sense at all, looking at the character of God revealed throughout the Bible and in the character of Christ. This does not mean however, that they will inherit the Kingdom.I think this is where we're disconnecting, or you saw some sort of mistake in my previous post. Jesus can love all of mankind sure, but sometimes love means leaving people to their decisions. This is the loving rather than wrathful thing to do, and I agree with you that many corrupted religious leaders will not inherit the kingdom. But because they will be destroyed is not sufficient reason to say they are not loved by God. God is love (1 Jhn. 4:8). Well again, "power hungry religionists" are broken sinners. If Jesus did not die for every child molester, murderer, rapist, liar, hypocrite, hateful human being than salvation means nothing. Its not really up to us to choose who God loves, unfortunately. Scripture certainly tells us that it is God's nature to love though, and his people's job to be His hands in the world, aka, do the actual loving instead of placing religionists into boxes because we don't like their sin. It's pretty much what they would do, and not really a balanced perspective.Hope that makes sense!- RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.