Copied from @TrevorL

[Josheb]

I D C

Then I will proceed to expound on the op without you.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

That is incorrect.

First of all, Baptists started in the 1600s, not the 1800s. During the 1800s a number of sects were "birthed" beginning with - but not limited to - the Church of Christ, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Brethren sects (which included the latter Dispensationalists of John Darby's and Cyrus Scofield's influences), the Christadelphians, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. The Methodists and Baptists did markedly ascend in prominence during the 1800s but they had their beginnings long before the restoration movement of the 1800s. What the sects I listed all shared in common was 1) a belief the Church was/is corrupt(ed), 2) the need to return to a New Testament era set of practices, 3) their teaching being the correct return to the NT-era standards, 4) a belief in apocalypse and5) the imminent return of Christ preceded by the removal of Christians from the earth. This can be reduced to simple beliefs: 1) the Church is corrupt and sect X is the true Church and 2) if you belong to us then Jesus will rescue you from the soon-coming apocalypse.

There are sects that fall within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, and sects that do not. The CoC manage to fall within the pale of orthodoxy. The JWs and LDS do not. The inclusion of the SDA is debated. Within those that fall within the pale of orthodoxy is the increasing influence of Darby's hermeneutic that separated Israel from the Church, God having two purposes for creation, one for each group), adhered to a (supposedly) strict literal reading of scripture, and a pre-millennial rapture. Nowadays we have a HUGE section of Christendom that holds these beliefs.

You've lumped together the RM and Dispensationalism. They aren't the same and don't come from common origins.

The RM includes the CoC and SDA. Your criteria #1 (the church is corrupt and sect X is the true church) properly applies to them. However, criteria #2 does not. The CoC is predominantly post-millennial in their eschatology, and tolerates amillennial and preterist views. The SDA does believe in a future tribulation, but their eschatology is post-trib. They don't think Jesus is going to rescue them from an apocalypse. The desire to return to a New Testament practice of Christianity is the defining characteristic of RM churches.

Dispensationalists hold to pre-trib eschatology (#2) but they do not view themselves as the one true church (#1), excepting a few fringe groups. Pentecostals in particular have very little use for church history, and their identity as a church was formed in opposition to what they call "high church" (Lutheranism and Catholicism) of the wealthy. They are churches of poor converts. They neither care what the NT church did, nor have any desire to "return" to it. They tend to be anti-intellectual, and emphasize fellowship over doctrine.

The JW's are a wild branch off of dispensationalism (#2). They do think of themselves as the one true church (#1). However, they are not trying to return a New Testament practice of Christianity. They are trying to synthesize an Old Testament practice of Judaism with modern Christianity.

The LDS is not an offshoot of either group. While it has some Methodist influence, it has far more influence coming from the Masonic Lodge, and more material yet that has been plagiarized from various mythologies or just invented from thin air.

Today we have a lot of Christians who believe the Church is corrupt, the world is going to hell in a hand basket and there is nothing Christians can do about it because it is God's plan for the world to decay, but do not worry because He will rescue His people and remove them from the planet before the tribulation. BECAUSE that is the pre-ordained plan..... there is no sense resisting it. Christians should remove themselves from the affairs of the world and let it happen. Our only job is the preaching of the gospel. John Darby took this to an extreme and it was nearly 100 years before anyone within Dispensationalists circles thought that should change. Those are views that 1) would have been completely alien to Wesley but 2) are nonetheless a direct consequence of an emphasis on personal experiential conversion.

All of this applies to dispensationalism and pre-trib rapture belief. It doesn't really hold for the RM churches, who are only too happy to dabble in politics.

-Jarrod

 

[Josheb]

You've lumped together the RM and Dispensationalism. They aren't the same and don't come from common origins.

That is incorrect. John Darby was the chief originator of Dispensationalism, Darby was Brethren and the Brethren were part of the RM.

And I did not "lump together" anything. This is now the second time what I wrote has been either misconstrued or misrepresented so I am going to ask you to take greater care reading what I post and not making assumptions nowhere stated. I detailed a rough evolution of change going from the methodism of Wesley and the similar experientialism of Whitefield to the RM and took a more encompassing view of the movement based on shared theological precepts and teaching.

The RM includes the CoC and SDA.

Yep. I included them. The RM was a much larger movement than just those two sects. Limiting the RM to just those two sects is incorrect. I explained how and why such a limit is incorrect.

Your criteria #1 (the church is corrupt and sect X is the true church) properly applies to them.

Yep. It also applies to all the other sects I mentioned. They all share those views.

However, criteria #2 does not. The CoC is predominantly post-millennial in their eschatology, and tolerates amillennial and preterist views.

That is incorrect. The SDA's historical position is that there will be a global crisis, after which Jesus will have a physical kingdom here on earth for a literal 1000 years after which the unsaved will be annihilated. That makes the post-tribulational but premillennial. That modern SDAs accept a more diverse set of views has nothing to do with what I posted about their origins and the roots of Christian separation from politics, social policy, and culture founded in the RM.

The SDA does believe in a future tribulation, but their eschatology is post-trib.

They adjusted their doctrines after the Great Disappointment. Miller predicted Jesus would return October 22, 1844 and when that did not happen many "Christians" left the faith, many Christians left the SDA, and those who stayed experienced distress. Miller proved to be a false teacher and a false prophet. SDA of the early 1800s is much different than SDAism of today. Do not conflate the two.

Nowadays a lot of Christians of many varieties are involved in politics..... and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

They don't think Jesus is going to rescue them from an apocalypse.

Nope

The desire to return to a New Testament practice of Christianity is the defining characteristic of RM churches.

Yep

Dispensationalists hold to pre-trib eschatology (#2)

Yep

Immaterial. The thread is about Christians' getting involved in politics, not eschatology. Because of the apocalyptic vies of the RM sects they thought it was best to abstain from worldly endeavors and they included secular politics a worldly endeavor. That is the only relevance to eschatology.

but they do not view themselves as the one true church (#1), excepting a few fringe groups.

They did in their origins. Darby moved from the Anglican Church to the Church of Ireland and then from the Plymouth Brethren to his own sect he called the Exclusive Brethren. He thought the Plymouth Brethren failed to live up to biblical standards and they kicked him out/he left. He mocked them with the name of his own sect. 175 years later Dispensationalism looks much different and is accepted by many of the post-Reformation denominations, but it was not that way during the RM.

Pentecostals in particular..

Irrelevant to the point being discussed. I included them merely as a bookend to the history I surveyed.

The JW's are a wild branch off of dispensationalism (#2).

No, they are a cult. It's possible, perhaps even likely Russel was familiar with Darby's writings, but Russell was not building his sect on Darbyism. JWism is not a branch of Dispensational Brethrenism (wild or otherwise).

The LDS is not an offshoot of either group.

I never said they were. What I did say is the all the sects I listed arose during the period in Church history we now call the "Restoration Movement" and all of them shared views tied to their claims and their intent to "restore" the Church. What I did say is Joseph Smith, the founder of the LDS was a Christian prior to his starting a cult - and that is what they are. That is what I said. I did not say the LDS were an "offshoot."

While it has some Methodist influence, it has far more influence coming from the Masonic Lodge,

I could expound on the Masonic influence, too, but that is not made the restoration movement.

All of this applies to dispensationalism and pre-trib rapture belief. It doesn't really hold for the RM churches, who are only too happy to dabble in politics.

-Jarrod

With respect. You have your facts wrong.

Dispensationalist nowadays are very involved in politics and social policy. Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was one of the early departures from the old Darby-informed separation, and an example that was uncommon when it began but considered normal 40+ years later. If you are as old as I am then you watched it happen. Falwell and others were influenced by Francis Schaeffer's works. Schaeffer almost single-handedly awoke the evangelical Church out of a century of slumber unintentionally caused by the restoration movement.

That includes the CoC and the SDA.



Every statement I have posted can be looked up and verified. Don't just disagree with me. Verify your dissent first. Look up Campbell, Miller, Russel, Darby and the other early 19th century leaders. Start with their own words, not second- and third-hand reports. The information I posted is readily available and objectively verifiable. Darby, especially, wrote quite bluntly about Christians separating from politics. Read up on the SDA support of Temperance (a curious mix of involvement, disdain, and apocalyptic thinking).

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Every statement I have posted can be looked up and verified. Don't just disagree with me. Verify your dissent first. Look up Campbell, Miller, Russel, Darby and the other early 19th century leaders. Start with their own words, not second- and third-hand reports. The information I posted is readily available and objectively verifiable. Darby, especially, wrote quite bluntly about Christians separating from politics. Read up on the SDA support of Temperance (a curious mix of involvement, disdain, and apocalyptic thinking).

Your internet research doesn't mean much to me. I've been around the CoC for 20 years, and before that I spent a decade in the AoG.

You're wrong, and no amount of googling is going to overturn my personal experience.

 

[Josheb]

Your internet research doesn't mean much to me.

It's not internet research. I've done what I recommended: read the original sources in their own words.

I've been around the CoC for 20 years, and before that I spent a decade in the AoG.

Me too. It should not have been assumed otherwise AND personal anecdotal report is worthless (which is why I did not appeal to it).

You're wrong

No, I am not.

and no amount of googling is going to overturn my personal experience.

The evidence shows you were the one using Google (and Wiki), and your personal experience has nothing to do with the 19th century. You cannot possibly imagine Post #24 is a rational response to anything. It is nothing more than conjecture, false-cause fallacies (what percentage of 21st century Presbyterians do you think agree with everything Calvin wrote?) and opinion.


Would you be persuaded if I quoted Thomas and Alexander Campbell (I have his "Millennial Harbinger" and other writings), William Miller, Ellen White, Charles Taze Russel, John Darby, Joseph Smith and others?

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Would you be persuaded if I quoted Thomas and Alexander Campbell (I have his "Millennial Harbinger" and other writings), William Miller, Ellen White, Charles Taze Russel, John Darby, Joseph Smith and others?

You want to cherry-pick quotes across history, some of them by notable heretics? No, that's not going to be compelling.

 

[Josheb]

You want to cherry-pick quotes across history, some of them by notable heretics? No, that's not going to be compelling.

So be it. I am not a big fan of the prejudice I have just experienced. Ask anyone here who has traded posts with me, and they will testify I am exacting, and I eschew second- and third-hand sources, especially biased ones. When I write about Augustine, I use Augustine's own words and I do not quote mine. When I write about Calvin, I use Calvin's own words. When I write about Arminius, Wesley, Darby, or anyone else, I use their own words. and I can do the same with every single name I mentioned (else I would not have mentioned their names).

It is wrong to assume otherwise.


I the original authors in their own words will not persuade then 1) we don't have anything more to discuss and 2) I'm glad Post #26 is on the record. Thank you for your time.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb and Greetings Wycliffes_Shillelagh,

I appreciate some of the information concerning various denominations, some of them that you claim to be outside "Orthodox Christianity." I am still uncertain who you include in this group, and you seem to endorse these. Possibly you include the Roman Catholic Church and the various divisions of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I would like to briefly comment on some of your statements.

What the sects I listed all shared in common was 1) a belief the Church was/is corrupt(ed), 2) the need to return to a New Testament era set of practices, 3) their teaching being the correct return to the NT-era standards, 4) a belief in apocalypse and5) the imminent return of Christ preceded by the removal of Christians from the earth. This can be reduced to simple beliefs: 1) the Church is corrupt and sect X is the true Church and 2) if you belong to us then Jesus will rescue you from the soon-coming apocalypse.

This may be a correct general overview, but looking at each element:

1) a belief the Church was/is corrupt(ed)

Yes, but if you claim the opposite, who is included in your (orthodox) Church?

2) the need to return to a New Testament era set of practices, 3) their teaching being the correct return to the NT-era standards

Yes, we should always seek to follow the NT example.

4) a belief in apocalypse

I am not sure what you define as "apocalypse". The "Apocalypse" is an alternative word for the word Revelation, as per the Book of Revelation.

5) the imminent return of Christ preceded by the removal of Christians from the earth.

I agree with the imminent return of Christ, but there is a variety of what will happen to the faithful at the return of Jesus or immediately before his return. Chtistadelphians believe that they will remain on the earth and share the Kingdom with Christ for the 1000 years, with Israel converted and the mortal nations subjected. JWs send 144.000 to heaven and the rest of the faithful (mainly JWs in this era) remain on the earth but all the nations are destroyed. The SDAs send the faithful to heaven (mainly Sabbath keeping SDAs in this era) and the earth is burnt and then desolate for the 1000 years and all the nations are destroyed. I am unfamiliar with what the other denominations believe, some of which you have mentioned.

1) the Church is corrupt and sect X is the true Church and 2) if you belong to us then Jesus will rescue you from the soon-coming apocalypse.

I assume then from this that you equate the word "apocalypse" with the Battle of Armageddon, or the destruction of the earth, or something similar.

Today we have a lot of Christians who believe the Church is corrupt, the world is going to hell in a hand basket and there is nothing Christians can do about it because it is God's plan for the world to decay, but do not worry because He will rescue His people and remove them from the planet before the tribulation. BECAUSE that is the pre-ordained plan..... there is no sense resisting it. Christians should remove themselves from the affairs of the world and let it happen.

The only part that I strongly disagree with is "remove them from the planet". God is going to replace the present kingdoms of men with the Kingdom of God and the faithful will be very much involved at every level of society as kings and priests to the mortal population.

The SDA does believe in a future tribulation, but their eschatology is post-trib. They don't think Jesus is going to rescue them from an apocalypse.

The SDAs believe that Christ will return to take the SDAs to heaven for the 1000 years and the eath will be burnt and all the nations, the non-Sabbath keepers will return to the earth or grave as dust or soul sleep, and these are "the wicked" and they will then be raised at the end of the 1000 years and be judged and perish again.

The SDA's historical position is that there will be a global crisis, after which Jesus will have a physical kingdom here on earth for a literal 1000 years after which the unsaved will be annihilated.

No, they send the SDAs to heaven and the earth will be burnt and then desolate for the 1000 years.

They adjusted their doctrines after the Great Disappointment. Miller predicted Jesus would return October 22, 1844 and when that did not happen many "Christians" left the faith, many Christians left the SDA, and those who stayed experienced distress. Miller proved to be a false teacher and a false prophet. SDA of the early 1800s is much different than SDAism of today. Do not conflate the two.

The SDA Church was not established until 1863, well after 1844. The Millerites of 1843-1844 consisted of three groups, loosely tied together by the belief in Daniel 8 and 1843-1844. 1. Those who believed in going to heaven and a burnt earth and this was what William Miller believed. 2. Those who believed in the Kingdom of God upon the earth, occupied only by the faithful, but no mortal nations and 3. Those that believed in the return of Jesus to the earth, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, their conversion and the subjugation and education of the mortal nations. Christadelphians are represented by this third category.

When I write about Augustine, I use Augustine's own words and I do not quote mine. When I write about Calvin, I use Calvin's own words.

Do you consider Augustine and Calvin as good representatives of mainstream "Orthodox Churches"? In other words, do you support their theology in contrast to some of the other denominations mentioned?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb and Greetings Wycliffes_Shillelagh,

I appreciate some of the information concerning various denominations, some of them that you claim to be outside "Orthodox Christianity."

Small "o" Trevor.

The branch of Christendom known as the Orthodox Church should not be conflated or confused with orthodoxy, or orthodox Christianity. Capital "O" Orthodox Christianity can be different than small "o" orthodox Christianity (although those in the Orthodox Church might disagree ).

 

[Josheb]

This may be a correct general overview, but looking at each element:

Yes, but if you claim the opposite, who is included in your (orthodox) Church? Yes, we should always seek to follow the NT example.

It is a correct "general overview" and it is correct in detail, too.

For 18 centuries Christianity held a set of beliefs. practiced a kind of thinking, developed a set of doctrines, and held to specific practices and many of them were changed in the restoration movement. Some of the changes were still consistent with scripture, or what is permitted in scripture, but some were not. Some were radical departures from ANYTHING ever thought or practiced in Christendom for eighteen hundred years. Some of those beliefs and practices were so different that if the new "rules" are true then every Christian in the first 18 hundred years of Christendom was not a Christian!!!!!

I know..... many reading that doubt what they just read.

So..... I will provide two examples. My time is limited this morning so I will be brief. In the early to mid-1800s John Nelson Darby developed a theology built on a hermeneutic he invented. He invented it. Up until Darby no one practiced what has become known as the Dispensationalist hermeneutic. No one. Darby's theology begins with the premise Israel and the Church are two completely different entities and, they evidence two completely different plans for creation. Darby believed scripture should be read literally. Darby invented what are known as "dispensations," saying a dispensation is a change in the way God interacts with humanity. Darby ignored the structure of the covenants provided by scripture and to this day Covenantal thought and Dispensational thought are seen as opposing views. Opposing views. I want everyone to think that through because what it means is Darby developed a theology that openly opposes what had been taught in scripture and what had been taught for 18 hundred years in Christianity. Along with the dispensational structure, Dispensationalism emphasizes what is known as "discontinuity" in scripture. Simply put, the dispensations have little or nothing to do with one another; they each stand as separate and unrelated epochs in history. There is little or no continuity between them. This to is a radical departure from 18 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine and practice and it is being vigorously debated in seminaries and academia as I write this post. Search "discontinuity and continuity" in Amazon and see for yourselves.

This belief Israel is separate from the Church leads to a variety of other problems but one of the most serious is a change in soteriology (or the doctrine of salvation). Darby taught what is now known as Dispensational Premillennialism, and one of the specific eschatological teachings in that view is the belief Israel will have its original boundaries restored, and the Jews will rebuild a temple of stone, reinstitute the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law, and begin animal sacrifices again. Jesus will come to earth and live here on earth for a literal 1000 years during which the Jews that did not come to salvation during what they call the "Church Age," will be brought to salvation through the presence of his rule on earth.

Dispensationalists claim their doctrine of salvation is the same as everyone else's = faith in Christ. That's usually where their defense ends and nothing more is said. The problem is that if a person must first build a building, make changes in ecclesiastic structure and legal practices and begin slaughtering animals again then those are all works!!! So we find the truth about Dispensationalism is that they hold to two doctrines of salvation while claiming to have only one. They claim to believe in salvation by grace through faith but when it comes to millennial era Jews that salvation is actually salvation by works-plus-faith!

No one in 1800 centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice ever held to such a view. If Dispensationalism is correct than every single Christian who lived before Darby was wrong. So too is every Christian in modernity who does not believe Darbyism.




Now most of that is off-topic.

I included id solely as evidence of radical departures that arose as a consequence of the restoration movement. This op is about God's people participating in politics. The restoration movement sects had a variety of perspectives on Christians participating in politics. The diversity is not new. Benedictines and Franciscans, for example, practiced a life largely removed from affairs of the world. John Darby taught Christian isolation. As I noted earlier, the SDA took an interest in the Temperance movement. One of the common elements in all these sects' views on politics was their belief the end times were upon them in the 19th century.

I'll add more when I have time, but I will close with this: the effort to return to NT-era Christian practices was spotty at best and often times misguided and mistaken. When it comes to involvement in the affairs of the world the NT gives us some evidence many Christians were involved in politics in various ways.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb,

I included id solely as evidence of radical departures that arose as a consequence of the restoration movement. This op is about God's people participating in politics. The restoration movement sects had a variety of perspectives on Christians participating in politics. The diversity is not new. Benedictines and Franciscans, for example, practiced a life largely removed from affairs of the world. John Darby taught Christian isolation. As I noted earlier, the SDA took an interest in the Temperance movement. One of the common elements in all these sects' views on politics was their belief the end times were upon them in the 19th century.

You give the impression that the (orthodox) Church had been steady and continuous until the Restoration Movement disturbed the peace. I suggest that there were many changes from the Apostolic era, and Gibbon describes a major change, and the following indicates that some elements of the RM are only a reawakening of what was taught by the Apostles.

“The ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium,” says Gibbon, “was intimately connected with the second coming of Christ. As the works of creation had been finished in six days, their duration, in their present state, according to a tradition which was attributed to the prophet Elijah, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed (as they supposed), would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years; and that Christ, with the triumphant band of the Saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection. So pleasing was this hope to the minds of believers, that the New Jerusalem, the seat of this blissful kingdom, was quickly adorned with all the gayest colors of the imagination. A felicity consisting only of pure and spiritual pleasure would have appeared too refined for its inhabitants, who were still supposed to possess their human nature and senses. A garden of Eden with the amusements of pastoral life, was no longer suited to the advanced state of society which prevailed under the Roman Empire. A city was therefore erected, of gold and precious stones, and a supernatural plenty of corn and wine was bestowed on the adjacent territory; in the free enjoyment of whose spontaneous productions, the happy and benevolent people was never to be restrained by any jealous laws of exclusive property. The assurance of such a millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers, from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine. Though it might not be universally received, it appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers; and it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind, that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith. But when the edifice of the church was almost completed, the temporary support was laid aside. The doctrine of Christ’s reign upon earth was at first treated as a profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism. A mysterious prophecy (the Apocalypse) which still forms a part of the sacred canon, but which was thought to favor the exploded sentiment, has very narrowly escaped the proscription of THE CHURCH.”

The (orthodox) Church replaced the return of Jesus, resurrection and the Kingdom of God upon the earth with immortal souls and going to heaven or hell at death.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

You give the impression that the (orthodox) Church had been steady and continuous until the Restoration Movement disturbed the peace.

Baloney.

That's just utter hogwwash. I explicitly stated

I suggest that there were many changes from the Apostolic era, and Gibbon describes a major change, and the following indicates that some elements of the RM are only a reawakening of what was taught by the Apostles.

“The ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium,” says Gibbon, “was intimately connected with the second coming of Christ. As the works of creation had been finished in six days, their duration, in their present state, according to a tradition which was attributed to the prophet Elijah, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed (as they supposed), would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years; and that Christ, with the triumphant band of the Saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection. So pleasing was this hope to the minds of believers, that the New Jerusalem, the seat of this blissful kingdom, was quickly adorned with all the gayest colors of the imagination. A felicity consisting only of pure and spiritual pleasure would have appeared too refined for its inhabitants, who were still supposed to possess their human nature and senses. A garden of Eden with the amusements of pastoral life, was no longer suited to the advanced state of society which prevailed under the Roman Empire. A city was therefore erected, of gold and precious stones, and a supernatural plenty of corn and wine was bestowed on the adjacent territory; in the free enjoyment of whose spontaneous productions, the happy and benevolent people was never to be restrained by any jealous laws of exclusive property. The assurance of such a millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers, from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine. Though it might not be universally received, it appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers; and it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind, that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith. But when the edifice of the church was almost completed, the temporary support was laid aside. The doctrine of Christ’s reign upon earth was at first treated as a profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism. A mysterious prophecy (the Apocalypse) which still forms a part of the sacred canon, but which was thought to favor the exploded sentiment, has very narrowly escaped the proscription of THE CHURCH.”

The (orthodox) Church replaced the return of Jesus, resurrection and the Kingdom of God upon the earth with immortal souls and going to heaven or hell at death.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

You give the impression that the (orthodox) Church had been steady and continuous until the Restoration Movement disturbed the peace.

Baloney.

That's just utter hogwwash. I implicitly implied the fragmentation of the Church in Posts #6 and #17 and anyone intelligent enough to use a computer knows the epistles to Corinth, Ephesus, and Galatia were addressing very real behavioral problems and divisions within the New Testament era Church. One man is having sex with his father's wife and the congregations in Corinth tolerated it! The early seeds of sectarianism are evident in Corinth when some say the follow Apollos, others Cephas, and others Christ. The history of the early Church is filled with examples of rigorous and prayerful debate because it took the Church nearly 400 years to settle on sound doctrine and a plethora of heretics and heresies were confronted.

The Church has always been a messy place.

The great irony being that any restoration movement wanting to emulate the early Church should also be messy .

So read my posts for what they actually state.

The (orthodox) Church replaced the return of Jesus, resurrection and the Kingdom of God upon the earth with immortal souls and going to heaven or hell at death.

More hogwash and completely off-topic.


This op is specifically, explicitly, about the opening statement in the opening post:

"Do not participate in politics - God rules in the kingdoms of men Daniel 4:17."​

Aside from the fact the statement creates a false dichotomy and a false two-kingdoms theology, the statement is also wrong because God ruling in the kingdoms of men has often involved His people involving themselves in politics and it is most ironic that Daniel would be referenced because Daniel was an advisor to the king of Babylon.

God rules in the kingdoms of men AND His people are supposed to involve themselves rightly in politics. In our modern times, the premise of separating Christians from the affairs of the world has had a sporadic history (the Benedictines and Franciscans would be earlier examples of institutionalized separation), but in modern times this separation can be attributed to the restoration movements of the 19th century, and the influence of John Darby in particular.