The Roots of the Emergent Church by Francis Schaeffer

[aThinkingChristian]

Excellent and true history.

[VictorLepanto]

It is strange listening to Schaeffer speak this way. I admired him so much during my Pentacostal phase. Now that I have returned to Christ's one & only Church, I know from my personal studies how absurd & anachronistic is his version of Church history here. You should note how he hardly ever uses contemporary quotes to substantiate his claims. He could not quote anyone for the whole bulk of Christian history contradicts him.

[ToshiroHoshi]

Respond to this video... You sound like a Roman Catholic......? I believe Schaeffer to be spot on. The Catholic church elevates tradition and the word of the Pope on equal ground with scripture--which is heresy....not sure if that's where you are theologically/spiritually.

[VictorLepanto]

@ToshiroHoshi: You obviously know nothing of the Early Church Fathers. It is absurd that all is Christendom fell into "heresy" as you call it w/in 1 generation of the Apostles. In fact, we have writings from Early Church Fathers from when some of the Apostles still lived. They are very Catholic also. You are the one who requires Christ's promise to lead us into all truth & that the gates of Hell wouldn't prevail against His Church to be a lie. Either the Catholic is true or Jesus is a fraud.

[ToshiroHoshi]

@VictorLepanto I know we have the canonized scriptures; the 66 books (obviously w/o the apocrypha) with the inspired writings of the apostles. Therefore, I know quite a bit about them. They teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone; no efficacious work necessary on our part. You believe Christ paid it all or nothing at all. The efficacious work being necessary for salvation is the heretical teaching of the Catholic church. No, the true Church of God is the world-wide body of believers.

[VictorLepanto]

@ToshiroHoshi: So would you have us believe that someone was just walking through the woods one day & tripped on a set golden plates w/ the scriptures inscribed on them? We got our Bible through Christ's Apostles & their successors. No one talked about an "apocrypha" until after Luther. I would far sooner trust a 2nd or 3rd cent. Christian on the canon b/f I'd trust some 16th cent. German academic or French lawyer. If you don't know you have all the scriptures, how do you know you know them?

[ToshiroHoshi]

@VictorLepanto No, Mormonism is a false religion. Not sure exactly what you're saying but I believe the 66 books of the canon are the only inspired works of God; they hold up to the strictest scrutiny. I know God's character; He would want us to have sufficient revelation of Himself for us to be saved and to live in a way pleasing to Him. I have found the scriptures of the 66 books of the Bible to state in direct quote or principal, all that is needed to receive eternal life and to live now. : )

[VictorLepanto]

@ToshiroHoshi: My point is that you have no way of knowing you have scripture if no one tells you that you do. If we are all to just figure it out for ourselves, why would Jesus bother founding a Church in the 1st place? No one believed in your 66 books being the only scripture until Luther came along. Are we to dismisss every single generation of Christians up until he set us all straight? Why did Christ & his Apostles fail wher Luther & his followers succeeded? Do you think Luther was better?

[mpwilhelm1966]

Christians do not worship a book but the God this book talks about. To make the literal text of Scripture the infallible source of Christian teaching is to pull Christianity off its only foundation: Christ, crucified and risen, and alive by His Spirit working through scripture, but not subject to scripture. Luther said that "whatever promotes Christ" is the criterion for the Word of God in Scripture. Not everything in the Bible has equal authority or value.

[redletterchurch]

The Teachings of Jesus are Fundamental. The Rest of Scripture is Contextual. Closely study how the Biblical Canon was arrived at. Also consider that 'By Faith Alone', 'By Grace Alone', and 'Sola Scriptura' - are Not Scriptural. Finally - consider Responsible Freedom - as being central to the Teachings of Jesus - and the U.S. Constitution. Is this the truth which will set us free from the Old World Disorder Demonic Theocracy? Shine the bright lights on this present darkness! Namaste.

[hlly530]

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

[hlly530]

2 Peter 1:20-21: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Thessalonians 2:13: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

[jimtrueblue99]

Scheaffer claims that in the early church, "the authority rested on the Bible alone." This is perfect nonsense. The New Testament canon did not form until well into the 4th century at the earliest, and many documents like the Didache, the letters of Barnabas and Clement plus many gospels other than the four canonical gospels were widely used in churches as authoritative texts alongside Paul's letters and the canonical gospels. Francis Schaeffer simply does not know what he's talking about!

[nicoheckens1]

@jimtrueblue99 "he letters of Barnabas." If you are talking about the Gospel of Barnabas, there is substantial evidence that it was written in the sixteenth century, well after Jesus. Thus, making sense of the Quran akin dogmas therein. How then could this have been used in the emergent church?

[njjudah]

Schaeffer says, "In the early Church, authority rested on the Bible alone." Why then were there Church Councils? The first is recorded in the book of Acts. Also, where do doctrines such as the Trinity or Christ being fully God and fully man, not two natures but one come from? They are not clearly stated in the Scriptures, but come from the Church's understanding of the Scriptures and were verified in the Councils.

[asimpleinstrument]

@njjudah, there were councils because there were many false teachers who were teaching heresies, and sound doctrine had to be protected (by Scripture alone) by the members of the council.

[njjudah]

I used to think so too, but Sola Scriptura was invented by the Reformers. The Apostolic tradition was upheld in the Councils with Scripture, but again, not all of those teachings are clear from Scripture. Why does Scripture call the Church "the pillar and foundation of the truth" in 1 Tim 3:15? If the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head, how can it fall into apostasy? These questions led me to Orthodox Christianity. Schaeffer's son, Frank, converted to Orthodoxy 20 years ago.

[asimpleinstrument]

@njjudah The TRUE church is the spiritual one that supports and promulgates Scripture. The local church contains devils (e.g. Judas). The local churches can fall into apostasy -- but not the true church which consists of true believers not wolves in sheep's clothing.

[njjudah]

When Shaeffer speaks of the early church, he imagines it to be identical to the Protestant Reformation.  There is no historical basis for many of his claims. Christians didn't begin submitting to the Chruch's authority because of humanism. Rather the opposite. Humanism inspired individuals to elevate their personal understandings of the Bible over the understanding revealed by the Holy Spirit in the Church. That's why the Reformation happened in the 16th century and not in the fourth.

[BenAliGtor]

"In the early church, the authority rested upon the Bible alone."

Quite a claim- in light of the fact that a canon of scripture was not declared by the western Church until the 4th Century AD. There was no "Bible", as we know it now: manuscripts existed, but there was no compilation of scripture that we would recognize as identical to our "Bible".

In point of fact, three distinct traditions that ALL claim Apostolic origion (Coptic, Orthodox, RC) each have different canons of scripture.

[littleredbirdy]

The Bible as in the writings of the apostles and those they selected to be teachers.

[BenAliGtor]

"The Bible as in the writings of the apostles and those they selected to be teachers"

Really? And insomuch as there is no documentation whatsoever, that any given church during the First Century possessed a comprehensive collection of all of the writings of the Apostles, what primary source of historical documentation can you cite to substantiate this?

[littleredbirdy]

Who said they possessed comprehensive writings? They HAD to at least heard the apostles speak...and we can be sure the apostles stuck around to create new apostles and they wrote letters often.

ALL of those converted HAD to come into contact with the apostles or those converted by the apostles.

If you read the Bible it makes it VERY clear that the spirit is ALL one needs to learn ALL things. Paul had no writings, yet when he retreated to Arabia for three years he learned all things.

[Used2bBlue]

What I wonder is what the early Christians, that lived in the time before a compiled works of ancient scriptures, chronicles, epistles and the like (the Bible)used as their final authority. Keeping in mind that hand written copies of the old testament were probably hard to obtain and to own a personal copy wouldn't be very likely, Wouldn't stand to reason that they received instruction in and from their living relationship with Christ? I'm not trying undermine the importance of scripture.