Relationships of various Christian groups
Comments
-
No Paul, I do not believe that passage is addressing the issue of the church, but is addressed to an issue dealing with Israel, while Romans 4 is dealing with both groups and demonstrating that both groups of believers are connected to Abraham directly through faith. He is the father of both groups, I believe the chapter actually uses that term.
In Christ,
Jim
0 -
JimVanSchoonhoven said:
In light of Romans 4, setting the foundation for Romans 9-11 I am not so sure that Romans 9 and 11 mean what has been stated. None of the comments have dealt with my comment on Romans 4 and how it appears to show that the church is related directly to Abraham just as Israel was.
The main argument of Romans 4 is that justification by faith preceded the Law and that faith has always been the vehicle of right standing with God. It does not trace the lineage of Christianity as rising from Abraham and bypassing Judaism. Jesus lived as a faithful Jew, practicing the Jewish religion, all the leaders of the early Church were Jewish. To deny the Jewish roots of Christianity is to ignore both Scripture and history.
0 -
JimVanSchoonhoven said:
No Paul, I do not believe that passage is addressing the issue of the church, but is addressed to an issue dealing with Israel, while Romans 4 is dealing with both groups and demonstrating that both groups of believers are connected to Abraham directly through faith. He is the father of both groups, I believe the chapter actually uses that term.
In Christ,
Jim
It would seem to me that Paul is making the point that physical descendancy does not make one a true child of Abraham, but belief in Christ does.
For he is describing what the true Israel is, as apposed to those who felt they had special privilege as physical descendants.
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Paul Golder said:
It would seem to me that Paul is making the point that physical descendancy does not make one a true child of Abraham, but belief in Christ does.
For he is describing what the true Israel is, as apposed to those who felt they had special privilege as physical descendants.
You hit the nail on the head.
0 -
Islam is not pre Christian.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Islam is not pre Christian.
Correct. But in this thread I am trying to capture self-identification. For Islam this has two components - the Ismael connection and the post-Christian time frame/influences.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Jesus in the Koran makes a strong argument that Islam is a Christian heresy to me.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Here is what is probably the final draft - giving dual relationships to Islam and Radical Reformation.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
But in this thread I am trying to capture self-identification
Alright I get to jump in. Enjoyed the conversation this day and the block diagrams very informative. How about a line from Abraham (Gen 15:6) through the ages, through Antioch were we were first called Christan's, through the Apostolic era were we would meet in homes celebrating the Lord's Supper, proclaiming His death till He comes, to the present, having no hierarchy, only elders and deacons supported by the Lord through the gifts of their brothers and sisters. (Assembly?)
Thanks, Larry
0 -
Larry Fisher said:MJ. Smith said:
But in this thread I am trying to capture self-identification
Hey no fair, this is my second post not the first!
Larry
0 -
Larry Fisher said:
Hey no fair, this is my second post not the first!
Wuups, sorry, give it a minute to update.
0 -
Larry Fisher said:
How about a line from Abraham (Gen 15:6) through the ages, through Antioch were we were first called Christan's, through the Apostolic era were we would meet in homes celebrating the Lord's Supper, proclaiming His death till He comes, to the present, having no hierarchy, only elders and deacons supported by the Lord through the gifts of their brothers and sisters. (Assembly?)
The closest to that scenario that I know of is the Restorationists - which I see as moving through the western Church in order to have something to restore. What groups see themselves as coming from Abraham but not through Judaism? You are not the only one to mention it, but I've not heard of it before and do not know to what group of churches this self-identification belongs.
FYI: as the diagram does not intend to show time, such an entry is simply another entry parallel to Judaism and Islam
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I just wanted to say something.
I have really enjoyed reading all of the posts here. There is so much history that I now want to get a "feeling" for.
I guess I just have to ask if we know of anything about the religions that would have come from the other two brothers of Noah. Abraham came from Shem....What about the line of Ham or the line of Japheth? It would seem that from Genesis 10 that its not the line of Abraham that we get the Assyrians and/or others. Maybe those are just all "dead" lines?
Again, Thanks a great deal for all the discussion!
William
0 -
William Bingham said:
that would have come from the other two brothers of Noah.
It took me a bit to figure out but I think you mean "sons" not "brothers". I'm not aware of churches that trace themselves back to Noah - but if there is one thing these forums have shown me is the amazing diversity. The Assyrian Church as shown on my chart may be loosely identified with the St. Thomas Christians. These include the early Christians of India - a group isolated enough to have avoided most awareness of the church divisions until the Portuguese explorers made an issue out of it.
It would also be interesting to chart the Christian Church against the 12 apostles (and friends); for the Oriental Church, this becomes:
St. Mark: Coptic (41 AD)
St. Philip: Ethiopian Orthodox (see Acts 8)
St. Thomas: Indian Orthodox (52 AD)
St. Peter: Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (37 AD)
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Here is what is probably the final draft - giving dual relationships to Islam and Radical Reformation.
Looks pretty good, but I would have to take exception still, with the positioning of Christianity.
If I were to change this, I would put a 3rd box on the same plane with Islam and Judaism.
Considering Romans, we were not grafted onto Judaism. We were grafted onto where Judaism used to be. But due to their own rigidness, they were "unseated". So the hope remains for Israel to "come back" and we will be joined. But Christianity must stand, in its own right.
0 -
My awkward attempt to correct your chart.
0 -
Dan Sheppard said:
Considering Romans, we were not grafted onto Judaism. We were grafted onto where Judaism used to be. But due to their own rigidness, they were "unseated".
Your point is well taken and accurate. However there is also Matthew 15:21-28 (thank Logos for my being able to find the reference) implying that Jesus' mission was first to the Jews - and the original "band of Christians" were initially Jews ... and the early Church argued over whether or not one had to first become Jewish to become Christian. So, at the moment, I think I'll leave it as it is and see if I ultimately am convinced by your argument.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ Smith, I believe if you start reading in Romans 3 and read to the end of Romans 4, you will see that Paul is demonstrating to the Jews that the salvation of the Gentiles without the law, was not something new, and he is pointing out to them that salvation was never dependant on the law, but rather the law was only an aid to show Israel of their need to be saved by faith alone.
He uses Abraham to demonstrate that he was saved before he was circumcised and demonstrates how this is the same way the current Gentiles are being saved.
10 How then was it credited? While he was 1circumcised, or 2uncircumcised? Not while 1circumcised, but while 2uncircumcised;
11 and he areceived the sign of circumcision, ba seal of the righteousness of the faith which 1he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be cthe father of dall who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which 1he had while uncircumcised.Paul than goes into more details about Abraham and how he was saved and ends up showing once again how this is connected to the current believers, which is the body of Christ.22 Therefore ait was also credited to him as righteousness.23 Now anot for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those awho believe in Him who braised Jesus our Lord from the dead,25 He who was adelivered over because of our transgressions, and was braised because of our justification.In Christ,Jim0 -
JimVanSchoonhoven said:
MJ Smith, I believe if you start reading in Romans 3 and read to the end of Romans 4, you will see that Paul is demonstrating to the Jews that the salvation of the Gentiles without the law, was not something new, and he is pointing out to them that salvation was never dependant on the law, but rather the law was only an aid to show Israel of their need to be saved by faith alone.
He uses Abraham to demonstrate that he was saved before he was circumcised and demonstrates how this is the same way the current Gentiles are being saved.
10 How then was it credited? While he was 1circumcised, or 2uncircumcised? Not while 1circumcised, but while 2uncircumcised;
11 and he areceived the sign of circumcision, ba seal of the righteousness of the faith which 1he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be cthe father of dall who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which 1he had while uncircumcised.
1 Lit in circumcision
2 Lit in uncircumcision
a Gen 17:10f
b John 3:33
1 Lit was in uncircumcision
c Luke 19:9; Rom 4:16f
d Rom 3:22; 4:16
1 Lit was in uncircumcision
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 4:10-12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
Paul than goes into more details about Abraham and how he was saved and ends up showing once again how this is connected to the current believers, which is the body of Christ.
22 Therefore ait was also credited to him as righteousness.
23 Now anot for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those awho believe in Him who braised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
25 He who was adelivered over because of our transgressions, and was braised because of our justification.
a Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3
a Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 9:9f; 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16f
a Rom 10:9; 1 Pet 1:21
b Acts 2:24
a Is 53:4, 5; Rom 5:6, 8; 8:32; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2
b Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:17; 2 Cor 5:15
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 4:22-25). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
In Christ,
JimI agree here, The way to eternal life has been the same from adam until today. The only thing the law did was give us no excuse.. since no one can obey the law. Remember the passage that even before the law was given God passed over sins. And how could sin be charged if there is no law.
Paul made it clear. Abraham was saved before the law. He also became the father of all because of the promises God made to him.. which we share today in part. because Christ who came through him is our savior.
As paul said. He died because of every one of my sins.. He was raised because my justification ( right standing with him ) is complete..
Theworks of the law did not save anyone,, nor will the works of many churches.. We are saved by faith in Christ.. our justification is complete because Christ rose from the dead proving God the father accepted his sacrifice as payment in full for our sins..
Praise be to God!!
0 -
As for the chart, it is still wrong.. For you have the church -non jewish- The church began jewish and spread to the gentiles.. It is not now, nor has it even been non jewish..
0 -
Brian, I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish, although the first believers were part of Israel, but God created a new group which was neither Gentile or Jew.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.Although it would take a while for the early Jewish believers to understand this.
11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “ Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—
12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.I believe the last half of Romans 4 is addressing this new man the body of Christ when talking about them calling Abraham their father. Both Israel and the Church have they roots in Abraham if they are believers.In Christ,Jim0 -
JimVanSchoonhoven said:
I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish,
In a very real sense this is true. However, for my purposes, I would show any Christian group that recognizes the Old Testament as being a branch through Judaism. Similarly, because Islam accepts the (uncorrupted) Torah and Gospels I show it as a branch of both.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
JimVanSchoonhoven said:
Brian, I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish, although the first believers were part of Israel, but God created a new group which was neither Gentile or Jew.
We agree. But he has them as non jew.. or gentile.. I would have put both jew and gentile so as not to leave one out.. The church is not strictly gentile..
0 -
MJ. Smith said:JimVanSchoonhoven said:
I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish,
In a very real sense this is true. However, for my purposes, I would show any Christian group that recognizes the Old Testament as being a branch through Judaism. Similarly, because Islam accepts the (uncorrupted) Torah and Gospels I show it as a branch of both.
Who said Muslims accept (uncorrupted) the Gospel?
I would maintain that Islam is closer to apostasy, than Gospel.
0 -
Dan Sheppard said:
Who said Muslims accept (uncorrupted) the Gospels?
The Qur'an -The Qur'an teaches that Islam is the continued faithful religion in
the same line as the Prophets who were before Muhammad: The same
religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah ...
and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (42:13
AYA). The result of this view is that the scriptures given by these
Prophets are considered to be genuine scriptures from God: But say, "We
(Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that
which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One"
(29:46 AYA).In the Qur'an there are many references to the Jewish and Christian
Holy Books. In fact the Qur'an addresses Christians and Jews in terms of
the Book: O People of the Book! (5:68 AYA).Most Muslims I have read on the subject limit this to the Gospels and the Torah i.e. a 9 book canon. They also imply that are manuscripts are corrupt - sufficiently that they need to consult only the Qur'an despite this broader canon.
...
The key sentence from the above is, For each We have
appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. This verse is
teaching that the different religious groups (Jews, Christians
and Muslims), have each been given a divine law (Torah, Gospel and
Qur'an) and that each group is to make their decisions based upon
what they have been given.Thus the Qur'an encourages Jews to judge by the Torah:
How come they (come) unto thee (Muhammad) for judgment
when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered
judgment (for them)? (5:43, MP)And the Qur'an urges Christians to judge by the Gospel:
Let the People of the Gospel judge by that
which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that
which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. (5:47, MP)And it encourages Muslims to judge by the Qur'an:
And unto thee (Muslims) have We revealed the Scripture (the Qur'an)
with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it,
and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which
Allah hath revealed. (5:48, MP)Again, we see that the Qur'an refers to the scriptures of the Christians
and Jews as God's reliable word. Jews and Christians are commanded to consult their
scriptures when desiring to know God's
will. The Qur'an therefore considers these scriptures to be reliable. Surah 5:43-48
also shows that the Qur'an is not claiming to abrogate (replace)
the Gospel and Torah but is a parallel revelation to them.Note my correction to your quotation of me .. Gospels, as in the 4 Gospels.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I know we're never going to agree on something like this, but it does seem to me that this is flawed in lots of ways:
- Islam is a corruption of Christianity and Judaism. I'm really not sure there's any point inventing a religion called Abrahamic religion just to place it on the chart.
- Why the separation between Messianic Judaism and Gentile Christianity? The Messianic Jews I know are nothing like the the Jewish 'Christians' Paul wrote to in Galatia. They're Christians by faith and Jews by nationality. They belong with us, and Jewish/Gentile is a false dichotomy.
- Lutherans are protestant. Or at least they were in Luther's day.
- Anglicans are protestant. Even thought there's a few Anglicans who wish they were Catholics, there's no way they straggle their division.
- Within Protestantism you should probably have: Lutheran, Episcopalian, Reformed, Other. Within Reformed, you should then have Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational. If you wished, you could then have more coming from the baptist tradition.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
Why would Christianity be considered a heresy like islam. When did the islamic religion started and by whom?
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Here is what is probably the final draft - giving dual relationships to Islam and Radical Reformation.
MJ,
I admire your intent to build a view of the hierarchy of the sects of the "Abrahamic" religions as viewed from the perspective of the different sects. I do hope that you carefully weigh the input given and keep to this goal.
One thing I have noted that should be corrected is the boxes describing the "Assyrian Church" and the Nestorians. The Assyrian Church is what the sect that was traditionally known as the Nestorians calls themselves. So this is really the same group. Therefore you might want the box to be labeled the "Assyrian Church."
This effort may get real complex, or may simplify greatly, within the next several years
The Catholic Church is working through differences with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is working through differences with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church. The Anglicans and Lutherans are working out their differences. Now if the Oriental Orthodox Church would work with the Assyrian Church... It might become one big happy family in the next century or so. Except that is for the sects that fall under the modern term of Protestant, the Restorationist Church(es) (which is from where I hail), and the Messianic Jewish movement.
0 -
Mark Barnes said:
Islam is a corruption of Christianity and Judaism. I'm really not sure there's any point inventing a religion called Abrahamic religion just to place it on the chart.
Mark,
Martha is not trying to capture the historical or theological divisions of these religions or worldviews. She is trying to reflect how each of these sects view themselves. And from that angle Islam should be a parallel development of Judaism. Muslims and the Q'uran do not view themselves as an extension of either Jewish or Christian thought even though we know historically that Muhammad had been exposed to and taught by Christians. Muslims view themselves as a separate or parallel tract that is a more correct revelation of God's true will.
0 -
James W Bennett said:
Martha is not trying to capture the historical or theological divisions of these religions or worldviews. She is trying to reflect how each of these sects view themselves.
Then that is an impossible task. The mutually-contradictory views held by these groups ensures that. Even more problematic is the inherent assumption that this a linear process. Protestants, for example, view themselves as going back to an earlier theological position. In no way do they view themselves as a 'child' of Catholicism. A linear graph like this leaves no room for rediscovery of lost doctrines, nor the shedding of earlier ones now viewed heretical.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0
