Пікірлер
@RESISTENCIAPOLOGETICA
@RESISTENCIAPOLOGETICA 11 күн бұрын
maravilha - kzbin.info/www/bejne/pombppKNedeNjtE
@emilyolson5624
@emilyolson5624 12 күн бұрын
Rome is gone, but the message of the cross remains. I love that! Amen!
@twogirl91
@twogirl91 12 күн бұрын
I am absolutely loving learning all this history! Very fascinating!
@AndrewMorgan-i6m
@AndrewMorgan-i6m 17 күн бұрын
Please consider lowering the camera angle to put you in the picture. 3/5 of the picture is your knotty pine ceiling. You are a small image near the bottom left.
@BeniaminZaboj
@BeniaminZaboj 24 күн бұрын
Parham the heretic. Preaching that false tounges are equal with having Holy Spirit = diffrent gospel. Baptism of Holy Spirit was correctly always seen like synonymus with salvation.
@emilyolson5624
@emilyolson5624 27 күн бұрын
fascinating! Made me realize things I hadn't thought of before!
@himmis4all
@himmis4all 27 күн бұрын
Thank you for this teaching pastor
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 27 күн бұрын
You are most welcome! Lord's blessings.
@bornagain6197
@bornagain6197 Ай бұрын
Yes. I subscribe. Thank You.
@christosanesti518
@christosanesti518 Ай бұрын
Good video!!! Eagerly awaiting for another episode. I never knew that Alexandria and Antioch were rival Christian cities. Very well explained.
@stop-motion-joe2110
@stop-motion-joe2110 Ай бұрын
The bottom line, the Vatican claimed ownership of the world and everything on it. Your birth certificates ( main certificate) is sent to the Vatican, you receive a copy. When you app-lie for a birth certificate, you are giving up ownership of your child and become the pa-"rent" <---- key word.
@twogirl91
@twogirl91 Ай бұрын
This video ended, and I wasn't ready! Could have listened easily to another hour. I learned something new tonight. I didn't know this about Antioch!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Ай бұрын
More will be included as we come to the 4th and 5th centuries in a couple of years. I always make these plain history lessons shorter as I want to keep the focus on church history, but I know what you mean! History itself is just fascinating. Lord's blessings!
@m.hopkins1466
@m.hopkins1466 2 ай бұрын
Some great info overshadowed by a horrible presenter. So much of this video is noise in the air but selects some excellent perspectives of early church baptism.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 2 ай бұрын
Why, thank you for your kindness. Signed - the "horrible presenter"
@m.hopkins1466
@m.hopkins1466 Ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheologyClear, concise & informative. Its the difference between 200 views and 2000.
@JamesBavry
@JamesBavry 2 ай бұрын
I liked the episode, but I would like to make one point. Many of those that believe that their is a connection with baptism and salvation do not claim that the baptismal waters save, but rather it is in baptism that God saves. As you have mentioned before the early Church understood that. It wasn’t until Huldrych Swingli came on the scene did baptism’s connection to salvation get called into question. I would suggest that all Scriptural texts about baptism except one, when taken literal, explicitly state or imply that it is at baptism that we are born again, calling on the name of the Lord, buried and raised with Christ, etc.
@macrostrat3gist320
@macrostrat3gist320 2 ай бұрын
Thanks for this breakdown.
@TheBatman777
@TheBatman777 3 ай бұрын
I 1000% agree with putting scripture above church traditions. Much of church history after the 1st century is is the introduction of new ideas and traditions that grow as time passed even further away from scripture. Adding and adding and adding new things. Now, this video could have been a lot shorter if you didn’t add in so many long opinions and commentaries. I prefer when you stick to the facts. I also disagreed with several things you said as fact, including adding that the wolves were not saved in the first place. Thats totally just your opinion. It wasn’t said that way in the words Paul wrote.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
I do not hide that I teach this class from my perspective, just like every other teacher. You are more than welcome to disagree. I welcome it. But I also read the words of Paul verbatim and there is no doubt that "wolves" are not Christians. As I do not hold that one can lose salvation, I teach that they were never Christians to begin with. Lord's blessings.
@TheBatman777
@TheBatman777 3 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology Not saying I disagree with once saved always saved, but Paul doesn’t teach that. His letters to the church (aka the saved) are full of warnings that one can argue reference are warnings about losing your salvation through turning to sin. It’s not specifically addressed either way, so while I respect either side’s opinion, I think a teacher needs to express that it is their opinion, not the Word of God.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
​@@TheBatman777 So, your opinion is that Paul's letters do not specifically address either once saved always saved or losing salvation. You probably should've stated that that is your opinion about Paul's writings rather than stating it as fact. :)
@TheBatman777
@TheBatman777 3 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology good one. Then again my opinion that it’s a fact can reasonably be proven true or not true based on anyone providing two verses that outright say it without a shadow of a doubt.
@AmberchelAllen
@AmberchelAllen 3 ай бұрын
How can the supposed Paul be 10 years younger than if it is assumed Paul was born 5AD?
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
@@AmberchelAllen Ten years younger than Jesus, who was born between 4-6 BC
@Nate_Higgins
@Nate_Higgins 3 ай бұрын
I like your thinking about multiple denominations not being a problem. I love high church liturgy/tradition, but I can't stand the idea that I belong to the only true Church. I guess that's why I go to an Anglican church and not an Orthadox one. God be with you.
@HalLeath
@HalLeath 3 ай бұрын
I appreciate your teachings and your humility Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep, our Lord Jesus, equip you with every good thing to do his will, working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Hebrews 13:20-21
@ArchDLuxe
@ArchDLuxe 3 ай бұрын
Alot of great stuff here. Very informative. One important mistake I noticed was that you identified circumcision as a rite to become a "God-fearer" (Timestamp 26:23). Cornelius is labeled as a God-fearer in Acts 10:2. If this meant that he had been circumcised, why would Peter have felt any trepidation in going to his house? The very significance of Cornelius's conversion is that he is the first Gentile (uncircumcised) to accept the Gospel as Peter makes reference to in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7). Rather circumcision was seen (and still is today) as a way to move FROM the God-fearer category TO the category of Jewish prostelyte.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
A well-received critique! You are indeed correct, I conflated God-fearer and proselyte. Thanks for the clarity!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
And you are right, that further drives home the significance of Cornelius' conversion and receiving the Holy Spirit in his state as uncircumcised. Very cool. I love the Scriptures!
@andrefranklin2311
@andrefranklin2311 3 ай бұрын
I absolutely love how the critique was presented in love and the response in humility. Warms my heart and I pray that as a whole the Body of Christ can be this way. I concur. I live the video and Paul being our Apostle is something that’s not really talked about often. I’ve subscribed 🙏
@ArchDLuxe
@ArchDLuxe 3 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology amen, brother. His word is truly priceless.
@AnHebrewChild
@AnHebrewChild 3 ай бұрын
See 1 Kings 19:15
@BaronReed-rj9rz
@BaronReed-rj9rz 3 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing this with us. I have been living in Christ for 50 years and have seen and even for a short period fallen into some of the satanic potholes of false teachers. 99.9% of those we see on TV, i.e TBN are in fact false teachers living selfish, lavish lifestyles. All they are in fact teaching is how to live a Christian life in the flesh. It's flesh management with a Jesus name tag. I pray that our Lord will soon crush those networks.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
You are more than welcome. Lord's blessings.
@LadyAnchor88
@LadyAnchor88 3 ай бұрын
I found you through a Christian meme page on Facebook XD I really look forward to your videos each week. This content is something I've been looking for but I seem to only find church history info from a catholic slant. Thank you for your diligence in teaching the word.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
My pleasure! Lord's blessings.
@StstephenStudioLA
@StstephenStudioLA 3 ай бұрын
I'm really enjoying this series also! Did I hear you say that you already did the episode about James - the brother of Christ? If not, I'm waiting to hear what your lecture on him may teach me. God bless! Thank you, Pastor.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
@@StstephenStudioLA I am including his story into an episode in the near future called "The Acts of the Other Apostles". Soon! Lord's blessings.
@StstephenStudioLA
@StstephenStudioLA 3 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology Thank you! I'm glad for your repeated emphasis on how the scripture is the highest authority. I've been confused about where to go to be baptized and join a church and I've been afraid of joining anything other than the Orthodox church but have found that - because of where I live - it is impossible to join the "true Church." Thank the Lord for these videos.
@twogirl91
@twogirl91 3 ай бұрын
Absolutely loving this series! I look forward to each episode!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
@@twogirl91 Same here! Lord's blessings.
@emilyolson5624
@emilyolson5624 3 ай бұрын
What proof is there that Peter was married? I ask after having dealt with the group who tend to place him on a very, very, very high pedestal!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
Sure thing, I'll give you two, one from the gospels and one from the epistles: Matthew 8:14-15 is a story about Peter's mother-in-law (wife's mother) being healed of a fever. 1 Corinthians 9:5 is Paul saying, "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" Cephas, here, is one of Peter's names. Hope that helps!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
Just a disclaimer. I have been doing some in-depth research on the Manuscript tradition of Ignatius' letters and will be releasing an updated view of Ignatius in the Season 2 lineup. In short, what I presented in this episode (the normal, consensus view) only took into account the two Greek recensions without considering the shortest recension: the Syriac. I have spent many weeks analyzing my own assumptions about Ignatius, which were standard, and have been challenged to consider that his letters are not as dependable a resource on early church history as I had been led to think. I will leave this episode up for the time being but will replace it with a disclaimer and link to the new lesson, if necessary. Always refining. :) Lord's blessings.
@emilyolson5624
@emilyolson5624 4 ай бұрын
I am really excited to have found this series today, and can't wait to sit and watch! And I think they will be SO beneficial for our homeschool! Thank you for the time investment!!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
My honor! Freely given, freely give. :) Lord's blessings!
@kimdavid4406
@kimdavid4406 4 ай бұрын
Wow!! I didn't realize he was so young!!!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 4 ай бұрын
Indeed! Damascus road was around 25-28 years old. He would've been mid-forties at the Jerusalem Council. About 60 when he was martyred.
@kimdavid4406
@kimdavid4406 4 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology Thank you for this teaching! I really enjoyed it! Because he was so educated and then so used of God I had always pictured him in my mind being middle-aged on the road to Damascus. I also never really had put that whole timeline together. Thank you!
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 4 ай бұрын
@@kimdavid4406 Anytime. :)
@benfrank1572
@benfrank1572 4 ай бұрын
You make a very good point that the DoC was used to establish papal supremacy & political authority in such force that the power continued unchallenged. How Catholics manage to reconcile the ghastly history of the RCC with the Gospel I will never understand.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 3 ай бұрын
99% of them are unaware, in my experience. The other 1% deny the severity of such lies, which is telling.
@gianthebaptist
@gianthebaptist 4 ай бұрын
1:22:30 boomark
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 5 ай бұрын
Apologies about the audio levels on this one! Will fix it!
@JamesBavry
@JamesBavry 5 ай бұрын
I really appreciate your content. Where are you getting your doctorate from? Listening to your stuff and that of Raymond Ibrahim has me rethinking my graduate studies plan.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 5 ай бұрын
I am getting my Doctorate from Evangelical Theological Seminary in Myerstown, PA. They have recently linked up with Kairos. Same school where I completed my MDiv in 2019. What are you looking to study?
@JamesBavry
@JamesBavry 5 ай бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheologyundecided. Looking at either M. Div or something specifically with Church history with a focus on the Crusades. I’m interested in the intersection of faith and war/just war theory. Something that hits close to home. Currently in the military, approaching retirement. Looking at what is next post-military.
@kidikif9523
@kidikif9523 6 ай бұрын
God bless you brother! I have learned a lot from your old videos and I am so excited for this new journey !
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 6 ай бұрын
Happy to have you along! I'm excited too! Fresh starts are great. :)
@Exodus26.13Pi
@Exodus26.13Pi 9 ай бұрын
Exodus 26:13 ≈ π Pi was first recorded by Moses in 1440 BC. Josephus the Historian's description of the Tabernacle in 94 AD was inaccurate. This oversight was discovered in 2015 AD. 330 Exodus 26 :7 15 Exodus 26:12 - 1 Exodus 26:13 makes Pi = 314 3.14 = 314 circumference/100 diameter ≈ π ratio (100 cubit court per Exodus 27:9-18) ................................... This exciting news about the Wilderness Tabernacle is similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Martin Luther's 95 Theses. ............................. Here’s a brief history of finding π. One Babylonian tablet (1900-1680 BC) indicates a value of 3.125 for π. The Rhind Papyrus (1650 BC) the Egyptians gave the approximate value of 3.1605 for π. Moses recorded Pi (1440 AD) in the Exodus blueprints rediscovered in (2015 AD) 3.141592653 Exodus 26:13 ≈ Pi (500 BC) India's Aryabhata approximation was 62,832/20,000, or 3.1416. Zu Chongzhi (429-501 BC) a Chinese mathematician 3.1415926 - 3.1415927 (250 BC) Archimedes showed that π is between 3.1408 and 3.1429 ........................................... The knowledge of Pi was lost from Exodus near 900 BC. Josephus the Historian in 94 AD did NOT know about Exodus 26:13 makes Pi to properly explain the Tabernacle blueprints. He deferred to the Temple's structure and not Exodus 26-27. Pi is found in the spiral of the double helix in your DNA. Consider King Josiah & the Prophetess Huldah rediscovering the scriptures, right?In short this is a monumental oversight corrected in 2015. This might be difficult to grasp at first. Exodus 26:13 ≈ π
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 9 ай бұрын
That's only difficult to grasp because it's nonsense.
@macgrawmarky9654
@macgrawmarky9654 9 ай бұрын
And what happened to all those who left the protestant church?
@macgrawmarky9654
@macgrawmarky9654 9 ай бұрын
Forgery or not the Catholic Church remains the first and only Church that traces her history directly the St. Peter. The facts are too strong to be contradicted.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 8 ай бұрын
"Forgery or not" and "The facts are too strong" do not follow one another. And it is not "Forgery or not" it is undeniably, inexcusably a forgery. This is not debatable.
@ric_gatewood
@ric_gatewood 9 ай бұрын
Many of thier interlectuals were martyard which is why there is not much written in the start of the anabaptist movement.
@davidbates3353
@davidbates3353 11 ай бұрын
This is easily one of my favourite documents in the Early Church. I particularly like the echoes of 1 Peter ("Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, …") and Philippians ("...we hold a citizenship in Heaven").
@reniaesaddler8632
@reniaesaddler8632 Жыл бұрын
I honestly mistook you for a Catholic, Orthodox at best, up til your Church History and Theology podcast episode “Teachers of the Early Church.” It was a bit of a shock, tbh, but not totally, of course. Interesting that for the first few episodes, you states, rightly, that translation shouldn’t matter so much so long as the content is preserved, yet for the Peter passage, translation is only what matters. But which came first, the belief that Jesus couldn’t have meant what he said or that God would have something that a mere translation error/“error” renders two completely different meanings. I think perhaps Jesus meant exactly what he said and any confusion comes from within the heart of the one reading, not from Christ. He’s really not confusing anywhere else, so it’s just not consistent with the person of Christ or God the Father, even. That Peter refers to him as the same as the other apostles is probably exactly why he was given the role of keeping Jesus’ seat warm. Even now, that mindset in no way conflicts with how we each know we are to view one another, from greatest to least, regardless of our level of authority/grace/understanding/ etc. St. Paul reminds us of this. Peter’s unique position doesn’t make him infallible, however. Even today, Papal infallibility doesn’t mean that whatever the Pope says is the truth. Probably more than anyone a Pope will consult with others and if someone else has the right understanding, then he is simply tasked with recognizing that and making it the final word. Jesus has the power to do this and the structure he implemented fits very naturally with our human nature and is most effective for carrying out its mission. Hierarchy fits us, and when its not corrupt, it feels very liberating because we don’t have to always be striving needlessly, we can rest where we are, knowing that it’s God who put is there, not us, and that since we’re all equals, we may actually thrive all the more because we can focus on just being there, doing that, working together most effectively as members of the same body.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology 8 ай бұрын
I would encourage you to check out my episode dealing with Peter's actual role in the Early Church. He was neither a pope (a concept thoroughly created by Rome in the 5th century and beyond) nor was he a Bishop of Rome. What this means is that even IF the interpretation of "On this rock I build my church" applies to Peter (it doesn't), it can in no way apply to Rome.
@asperger77
@asperger77 Жыл бұрын
Hello and thank you for this video. I got saved in a holiness/conservative church in 1983. I've never heard anyone put my spiritual heritage into a historical perspective like that before. It's fascinating. All the details you mentioned about them are still around today.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
You're most welcome.
@AdamTroutt
@AdamTroutt Жыл бұрын
I really appreciate these lessons. You have challenged and caused me to look deeper into my own beliefs. Could you do a lesson on how salvation has been taught or understood from the New Testament days to now? You stated at the end of this lesson that we may not know when the moment of salvation happens. Could you go into that further? Thanks!
@davidbates3353
@davidbates3353 Жыл бұрын
I wouldn’t have gone to the referenced passage from Irenaeus for infant baptism. I would pointed out that, as is typical with the fathers, associated “being born again” with baptism and that he speaks about “infants” being born again.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
What passage of his writings are you referring to where he refers to infants being born again?
@davidbates3353
@davidbates3353 Жыл бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology I'm just listening again to your section on this and maybe it actually is the passage you were referring to. However, I'm not really sure why you think it's invalid: For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men - St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2:22:4 (c. AD 189) He talks about different ages of people being "born again to God" and fragment 34 tells us what he understood by being "born again", namely baptism: "For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord… being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" - St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment #34
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
Appreciate the response! That does bring an additional piece to the puzzle of Irenaeus' views on the nature and person of those being baptized. While it is inconsistent with every other 2nd century writing, we still have a problem of a single fragmentary reference from Irenaeus, not clearly and not in the same contextual discussion, referring to "born again". An unclear connection, on its own amongst its peers, resting on a fragmentary quote is shaky ground. Though, I imagine if we had more of the context from this fragmentary quote (#34) we might see more fully what he is meaning in context. I'm not saying Irenaeus didn't hold to infant baptism. I'm saying that that is not as solid a case for explicit acceptance as those after him. Hippolytus of Rome and the grandaddy of it all: Cyprian. --- As for it being personally unconvincing to me, a credobaptist, it is so because if that fragmentary quote is truly from Irenaeus, then he is removing Jesus' reference in John 3 from its context and entire point why that Gospel was being written, which John says explicitly in John 20:31 is so that the reader might believe on Jesus and thus have life in His name. That is what John includes Jesus' words in John 3 for. If we are to believe that John 3 is inconsistent with the author's own stated purpose for inclusion: that it would result in the reader's belief and faith in Christ, then Irenaeus would be guilty of what many of us are guilty of: seeing in the Scriptures what we want them to say rather than what they actually say. In short, John 3 has nothing to say about infant baptism. Cheers!
@davidbates3353
@davidbates3353 Жыл бұрын
​@@churchhistoryandtheology Thanks for doing the episode - I listened to it while clearing up my garden in time for winter :) I did query your use of the word "inconsistent" in the video. Do you mean it's inconsistent in the sense that other works seem to presuppose an adult? I don't find this particularly surprising since the documents are written by adults to adults, the ones who would require instruction and preparation. It seems unnecessarily skeptical to me to wonder what Irenaeus meant by the phrase "born again", particularly given we have the Fragment. But if we do want to question what Ireaneus meant by that term then what's an alternative explanation of what he's saying - in what way are infants born again through Christ? I was a little bit surprised at your assessment of the Fragment's theology. Every time I read the Fathers speak about "being born again" they connect it to baptism, probably in no small part because in the verse immediately after the discussion of being "born again" we read "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized".
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
@@davidbates3353 Hope your garden is prepped for a beautiful spring! I say "inconsistent" not because other works seem to presuppose an adult, but because they explicitly express a knowledgeable convert. All of them. What we are discussing are those before Irenaeus (absolutely did not reference infants being baptized) and some after Irenaeus (some absolutely referencing baptism of infants, I gave the classic examples above), and Irenaeus himself whose references are dubious and fragmentary at best. As I said, even if Irenaeus is referencing infant baptism it does not affect the main point I am making: the earliest church knew nothing of the practice. They aren't silent on the issue, they explain baptism clearly and succinctly in both the first and second century as being used for converts only.
@kevinseaton3112
@kevinseaton3112 Жыл бұрын
I have really enjoyed all 58 history episodes and the Deep Dives! Do you know where I can find an English transcript of the Leipzig debates?
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
To my knowledge, there is no current english translation of it. But there is a German record. And Google Translate by camera is free. :)
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
Ooo. I just learned how to do chapters. That is very helpful. :)
@thediamondcreeper7566
@thediamondcreeper7566 Жыл бұрын
According to God you can't change your sex so transgenderism is therefore objectively wrong and declaring it as wrong is therefore true.
@thediamondcreeper7566
@thediamondcreeper7566 Жыл бұрын
The real problem is when the postmodernist lens turns on, and attempts to deconstruct the word of God within a Church - This can shipwreck people's faith.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
Absolutely true.
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
(43.00) Indulgences did not purchase salvation. They reduced time in purgatory.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
You are correct that indulgences do not purchase salvation. They only purchase penance in order to return to a state of grace. That is why I did not say that. I said, "purchasing salvation through crusading work." Which is absolutely what was taught. Consider, if you will, Pope Urban II's preaching of the first crusade in 1095, as recorded by Robert the Monk in Historia Iherosolimitana: "'Therefore, take this way in the remission of your sins, assured of the unfading glory of the kingdom of heaven.' This sort of thing which Pope Urban spoke in an urbane manner so united the affections of all who were present that they exclaimed, "God wills! God wills!" The concept of a crusade being an ultimate penance is not debatable. Some argue that maybe it was only for those who die during a crusade (since they would be fully placed in a state of grace through their crusading penance) but many are clear that salvation is secured by merely taking part. So long as you weren't doing it for money.
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology thoughtful reply
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
Popes also considered the Reconquista to be a Crusade.
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
Imagining they paid taxes is quite a leap. What would the government do to a cult today that didn't pay taxes or, probably, obey the law?
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
(6:57) The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants in the 16th century, as an insult.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
Well. It is an accurate description. The Bishop of Rome is taught as being over the church universal (catholic). Furthermore, the church itself has acceptably used the term throughout history since. It is no longer pejorative.
@fantasia55
@fantasia55 Жыл бұрын
@@churchhistoryandtheology Catholics sometimes do accept this pejorative name, but do so out of ignorance. Catholic apologists have begun pushing back against it.
@churchhistoryandtheology
@churchhistoryandtheology Жыл бұрын
@@fantasia55 Fair enough. That is news to me. Be assured my use of it carries no intended pejorative.