Many today are totally unfamiliar as to what happened at the Council of Nicea. Some of the people who feel that they know only heard bits and pieces, but didn't check any hard evidence or records, nor can they name any names besides "Emperor Constantine".
What REALLY happened at the Council of Nicea? What was the various decrees at that council?
Me and a pastor (friend) of mine was just talking about this kind of issue. While many are still debating over issues like baptism and tongues, much of church history is untouched. I've looked over all of the ecumenical councils but all of the details I don't remember. I know the first council of Nicea was the first Catholic council that formed the first formal Christian doctrine or creed. The major issues of discussion were the relationship between Christ and the Father and settling the date of Easter. He invited 1800 bishops, among them I know Athanasius was in attendance. Good post!
Amen. Most of the arguments that are being tossed around are merely ancient issues that were settled long ago. If the members of the Church would just pay attention to history, they wouldn't be repeating the mistakes, and going over the same debates. Only a fool would turn away from information that is this important, especially when they are unfamiliar with it.
Yes, 1800 Bishops were invited, yet roughly 315 (give or take) showed up. Even with its small numbers, it became universally accepted by virtually all who claimed Christianity. Those who rejected it were the ones who supported Arius, Sabellianism, Unitarianism, and the like. Few are familiar with the role that Emperor Constantine or the Pope played in this council as well. Many actually believe that Christianity took a "nose dive" here at this point, then was "restored" at the Protestant Reformation or later on at the Azuza Revival.
Well there had to be a reform because episcopalianism and the papacy was wicked in their beliefs and practices. Christianity under Rome's control has never been a totally holy establishment. The Roman Catholic church is responsible for the bloody crusades and inquisitions in history. As far as the Azuza Street Revivals, and the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements... I'd rather not comment on them.
Rome wasn't responsible for all that was mentioned. We would do well in mentioning Pope St. Gregory the Great, arguably the greatest Bishop of Rome that they ever had. He was directly against the form of Papacy that exists today, calling such a heresy and the spirit of antichrist. Furthermore, the Roman CAtholic Church did in fact do well in their crusades, even though they didn't fully suceed. It wasn't a total flop on their part. While Islam was overrunning various Patriarchates (the Patriarchate of Constantinople being smaller in size to this day, and none of the Patriarchates of Antioch are even in Antioch anymore because of Islam), all were calling for the Bishop of Rome to help. During the time frame of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Papacy was way better off than now.
As for the Azuza Revival, I'm not sure as to what your doctrinal and historical standpoint is on it, so all I can say is that it started off wel and produced much, but many took some wrong turns here and there. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements aren't given the fair and proper treatement due to prejudices from Cessationists and a host of others.
The Roman Catholic Church originated the inquisitons against heresy/heretics. As if all of their theology was orthodox according to scripture. And I ask... Where does the bible support inquisitions? If you're talking about Pope Gregory IX, he assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order in the 1300's. The RCC declared heresy a religious crime punishable by death by burning. And again I say where does scripture support this? So maybe I should have said the Roman Catholic Church instead of Rome. But remember Christianity became Rome's state religion.
OK, so they did. Thats true. The Protestants picked up from where they left off. Everything that the RCC did, Protestants did as well.
No, I wasn't referring to Pope Gregory IX at all (he wasn't even canonized by Rome). I was talking about Pope St. Gregory the Great, aka Pope Gregory 1st, aka Gregory the Dialogist. John Calvin called him "the last good Pope".
I didn't know the Protestants fostered inquisitions, and its funny Calvin said this when the papacy is unorthodox in Christianity.
The ORIGINAL form of the Papacy isn't unorthodox. You're speaking from the current standpoint, as if the Church in Rome was always like this. Read up on Pope St. Gregory the Great and you'll see a different Roman Papacy.
Protestants had their own heresy-hunting done just as well. Take note of why John Wesley couldn't openly declare that he was consecrated a Bishop outside of Anglican authority. Take note of the Protestants witch hunting.
Okay... Give me an example of orthodox papacy in the RCC and give me an example of this in scripture because I'm missing something here obviously. And I'm not surprised that the Protestants fostered inquisitions because punishment for heresy was common back then.
I'll do one better for you. I'll give you a LIST of Orthodox Roman Popes.
Each one came way before anyone declared the Pope to be infallibile, or supreme over all Christianity.
As far as the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements are concerned, I wasn't there to witness the authenticity of the origin. So maybe they haven't received proper treatment. But I/we have witnessed today's representation of the movements and again... I'll keep my comments to myself. Good dialog!
Lets be fair: the same can easily be said of Christianty as a whole. You weren't there to witness the beginning of the Church structure, or even to look Jesus straight in the eye and see Him rise from the dead. So to be honest, your standpoint, if given fairly, is the same standpoint that atheists and other skeptics have towards Christianity.