The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Valerie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Josh wrote:
That's a good question; they have been in schism since AD 451 (or, in their view, Rome and Constantinople have been schism from them since AD 451). Regardless of that, many in Kerala have turned to the church and Christ anyway, despite all these schisms.

If One True Visible Church thinking and teaching really excites you, I invite you to come to services at the church of God in Christ, Mennonite any evening or morning on a Sunday. You will find lots of people who are very sure they are definitely the one church and are quite hopeful about all the other born again people out there eventually joining them.
Well this is the issue I have- most people in the Anabaptist world seems to think the Church 'immediately' (almost) fell away and became apostate and there was no longer a 'visible' church. I think that speaks very low of what Jesus promised, and of the Holy Spirit that was deposited at Pentecost (Pentecost Sunday was yesterday, the birthday of the Church). When the Church became the Israel of God according to Apostle Paul, why would it be so hidden, so obscure? When Israel was God's Church of the Old Testament, the whole world knew about Israel, and their God- if the Apostles were taking the Gospel to the entire world to convert it, reconciling those which had no hope before, to God, why would we assume it to be an invisible Church, only this small remnant throughout this Church age? I just cannot see it that way- it speaks very weak of the Holy Spirit. IF groups came up against the established Church, where were they when the Church canonized the Holy Scriptures? It's very perplexing to me to hold that view that just because someone gathered followings after themselves against the Church, that God handed the Church over to them- Israel of the OT was never a perfect Church- but God didn't discard them, and we are grafted into them- as Jesus said, Salvation is of the Jews- so why would we think that just because the New Testament Church had issues, that God discarded them?
Correction. The church did not canonize the scripture, God did. There was simply universal recognition as to what God did, after a rather brief process.

Show me an action where a council of the church canonized the scripture....you can't.

J.M.
Christ is the Head, the Church was the body, and through this body, the Scriptures were canonized, it didn't fall from the sky.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Valerie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Josh wrote:
That's a good question; they have been in schism since AD 451 (or, in their view, Rome and Constantinople have been schism from them since AD 451). Regardless of that, many in Kerala have turned to the church and Christ anyway, despite all these schisms.

If One True Visible Church thinking and teaching really excites you, I invite you to come to services at the church of God in Christ, Mennonite any evening or morning on a Sunday. You will find lots of people who are very sure they are definitely the one church and are quite hopeful about all the other born again people out there eventually joining them.
Well this is the issue I have- most people in the Anabaptist world seems to think the Church 'immediately' (almost) fell away and became apostate and there was no longer a 'visible' church. I think that speaks very low of what Jesus promised, and of the Holy Spirit that was deposited at Pentecost (Pentecost Sunday was yesterday, the birthday of the Church). When the Church became the Israel of God according to Apostle Paul, why would it be so hidden, so obscure? When Israel was God's Church of the Old Testament, the whole world knew about Israel, and their God- if the Apostles were taking the Gospel to the entire world to convert it, reconciling those which had no hope before, to God, why would we assume it to be an invisible Church, only this small remnant throughout this Church age? I just cannot see it that way- it speaks very weak of the Holy Spirit. IF groups came up against the established Church, where were they when the Church canonized the Holy Scriptures? It's very perplexing to me to hold that view that just because someone gathered followings after themselves against the Church, that God handed the Church over to them- Israel of the OT was never a perfect Church- but God didn't discard them, and we are grafted into them- as Jesus said, Salvation is of the Jews- so why would we think that just because the New Testament Church had issues, that God discarded them?
Correction. The church did not canonize the scripture, God did. There was simply universal recognition as to what God did, after a rather brief process.

Show me an action where a council of the church canonized the scripture....you can't.

J.M.
Christ is the Head, the Church was the body, and through this body, the Scriptures were canonized, it didn't fall from the sky.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Valerie wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Well this is the issue I have- most people in the Anabaptist world seems to think the Church 'immediately' (almost) fell away and became apostate and there was no longer a 'visible' church. I think that speaks very low of what Jesus promised, and of the Holy Spirit that was deposited at Pentecost (Pentecost Sunday was yesterday, the birthday of the Church). When the Church became the Israel of God according to Apostle Paul, why would it be so hidden, so obscure? When Israel was God's Church of the Old Testament, the whole world knew about Israel, and their God- if the Apostles were taking the Gospel to the entire world to convert it, reconciling those which had no hope before, to God, why would we assume it to be an invisible Church, only this small remnant throughout this Church age? I just cannot see it that way- it speaks very weak of the Holy Spirit. IF groups came up against the established Church, where were they when the Church canonized the Holy Scriptures? It's very perplexing to me to hold that view that just because someone gathered followings after themselves against the Church, that God handed the Church over to them- Israel of the OT was never a perfect Church- but God didn't discard them, and we are grafted into them- as Jesus said, Salvation is of the Jews- so why would we think that just because the New Testament Church had issues, that God discarded them?
Correction. The church did not canonize the scripture, God did. There was simply universal recognition as to what God did, after a rather brief process.

Show me an action where a council of the church canonized the scripture....you can't.

J.M.
Christ is the Head, the Church was the body, and through this body, the Scriptures were canonized, it didn't fall from the sky.
In other words, you can't.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3969
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by ken_sylvania »

Valerie wrote:I don't know Ken, because all through Israel's history, there were wicked leaders and good leaders, but they were always Israel- and within Israel, there were a remnant, and even with their wicked history and God's warnings, & punishments, He didn't cast them off & make someone else His Church- would He handle His Church in the New Covenant, any different if there were 'some' leaders who were not right, they were still the Church? Are you suggesting entire congregations were to blame if they had a wicked leader? I don't know this part of church history at all- I do know many who are in these churches that are very sincere followers of Christ, and so they have made it through and still going strong and to say they are not the Church because of some-would be like saying Israel wasn't Israel because of some of their leaders blaming 'all' the people because of 'some' of the people- I am trying to understand how God would be seeing all this, not my personal opinion- He had an organized body from the beginning of Pentecost- and He gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors & Teachers (Ephesians 4:11) Did He raise up a prophet to discard the established Church? It became a 'worldwide' Church, for the first time in history- growing, developing, etc- I don't read in any of the prophecies regarding the New Covenant & New Israel of God, where He would at some point, start it over again and again with a variety of different understandings of how His Church should be organized- maybe He gave a lot of freedom in this area-again I lack the knowledge of history to see if the entire church became corrupt- or if they were going to persevere as Israel did. Even when Christ came, there remained Israel that we were grafted into, in spite of the fact there were some pretty bad days and years, for Israel- I do know, He is longsuffering. Hierarchy, seemed necessary and we see it starting in the New Testament, in the infant days of the Church- to keep such a worldwide body in the Unity that Christ was emphasizing seemed there had to be some type of hierarchy to keep it "One" and on the same page as it grew & matured- (I never used to think about things like this, just was a content lil' church goer happy in my own denomination for decades). Probably because I do know of so many faithful in the established Church- i have a hard time agreeing that God gave up on them and started over. But if He did, it seems there would be an obvious "oneness" about the new Church too- but we don't see that out of the Reformation either.
Valerie, the difference between Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ is that a person was born into the nation of Israel by natural birth, but a person is not actually a part of the true Church unless he has been "born of the spirit." Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore it follows that if a person is not submitted to the headship of Jesus Christ, he is not a part of the body. It is the duty of the Church to exclude such people from membership.

In the NT, there are two different concepts of Church. Jesus talks about His Church in a singular form, apparently referring to the global body of those who believe and accept his Lordship. There are also references made to "the Church" and "the Churches" located in various cities. These references seem to refer to the local organization of the Church. It looks to me like you are trying to merge the two concepts, which I believe results in a flawed understanding.

The NT is clear that Churches should be organized - that there are leadership roles, an understanding of who is in and who is out, etc. It is also clear from Revelation that a Church can fall away, in which case, if it does not repent, Christ will "remove [its] candlestick out of his place." Jesus said that we will know people by their fruits.

Christ isn't starting His Church over and over again. Christian believers have passed on the torch of true faith for nearly 2,000 years. There's a continuity in His Church, but it is not provided by a big earthly organization with costly temples, images, and relics.

No, we don't blame all of the people just because some of the people sin, but that wasn't the case in the RC church of the middle ages. What we had in the reformation years was an organization that was corrupt from the top down. From the supposedly infallible pope to the priests who were known to be immoral and drunkards, the organization itself was corrupt. Those who desired to search the Scriptures and preach the truth were not suffered to remain a part of this organization, but were mercilessly hounded out of town, or drowned, or imprisoned, beheaded, or burned at the stake. This was not an occasional renegade parishioner or leader, this was done by order of the earthly "head of the church" and carried out at all levels of leadership. Please study your history before you suggest that this was a case of "some of the people doing wrong." The organization known as the EO church has also had its own share of physically fights over doctrine. In fact, before the schism between Rome and the EO church, the eastern part of the Catholic Church experienced significantly more theological turmoil than did the western part. This turmoil continued past the schism, with whichever party was stronger using the sword to force its way. This did not Christ. If they had been the children of Christ, they would have done the works of Christ.

I find the account of Paul and Barnabas interesting. We read that the contention between the two of them was sharp, and that they departed one from the other, but they are not condemned for their actions. I believe they were still united in Christ, which is what allowed Paul to later say of John Mark (who was the object of their contention) that "he is valuable to me for the ministry."

Let us not miss the forest for the trees. There is a lot of unity among God's people, even among those who do not go to meeting together and don't gather at the same annual conferences.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Valerie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Correction. The church did not canonize the scripture, God did. There was simply universal recognition as to what God did, after a rather brief process.

Show me an action where a council of the church canonized the scripture....you can't.

J.M.
Christ is the Head, the Church was the body, and through this body, the Scriptures were canonized, it didn't fall from the sky.
In other words, you can't.

J.M.
All I know is, there was the Church, there were people that kept the records of the saints, the epistles, the Gospels, etc- these were not unbelievers, and it didn't fall from the sky- this was pre-denomination so it had to be the Church- so that part is really irrelevant as to 'how' the Church put it all together- by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Valerie wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Christ is the Head, the Church was the body, and through this body, the Scriptures were canonized, it didn't fall from the sky.
In other words, you can't.

J.M.
All I know is, there was the Church, there were people that kept the records of the saints, the epistles, the Gospels, etc- these were not unbelievers, and it didn't fall from the sky- this was pre-denomination so it had to be the Church- so that part is really irrelevant as to 'how' the Church put it all together- by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If you really want to understand canonization, Mc Dowell's "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is an excellent resource. It has a chapter on canonization, and the process was more organic than councilor.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Valerie »

ken_sylvania wrote:
Valerie wrote:I don't know Ken, because all through Israel's history, there were wicked leaders and good leaders, but they were always Israel- and within Israel, there were a remnant, and even with their wicked history and God's warnings, & punishments, He didn't cast them off & make someone else His Church- would He handle His Church in the New Covenant, any different if there were 'some' leaders who were not right, they were still the Church? Are you suggesting entire congregations were to blame if they had a wicked leader? I don't know this part of church history at all- I do know many who are in these churches that are very sincere followers of Christ, and so they have made it through and still going strong and to say they are not the Church because of some-would be like saying Israel wasn't Israel because of some of their leaders blaming 'all' the people because of 'some' of the people- I am trying to understand how God would be seeing all this, not my personal opinion- He had an organized body from the beginning of Pentecost- and He gave some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors & Teachers (Ephesians 4:11) Did He raise up a prophet to discard the established Church? It became a 'worldwide' Church, for the first time in history- growing, developing, etc- I don't read in any of the prophecies regarding the New Covenant & New Israel of God, where He would at some point, start it over again and again with a variety of different understandings of how His Church should be organized- maybe He gave a lot of freedom in this area-again I lack the knowledge of history to see if the entire church became corrupt- or if they were going to persevere as Israel did. Even when Christ came, there remained Israel that we were grafted into, in spite of the fact there were some pretty bad days and years, for Israel- I do know, He is longsuffering. Hierarchy, seemed necessary and we see it starting in the New Testament, in the infant days of the Church- to keep such a worldwide body in the Unity that Christ was emphasizing seemed there had to be some type of hierarchy to keep it "One" and on the same page as it grew & matured- (I never used to think about things like this, just was a content lil' church goer happy in my own denomination for decades). Probably because I do know of so many faithful in the established Church- i have a hard time agreeing that God gave up on them and started over. But if He did, it seems there would be an obvious "oneness" about the new Church too- but we don't see that out of the Reformation either.
Valerie, the difference between Israel and the Church of Jesus Christ is that a person was born into the nation of Israel by natural birth, but a person is not actually a part of the true Church unless he has been "born of the spirit." Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore it follows that if a person is not submitted to the headship of Jesus Christ, he is not a part of the body. It is the duty of the Church to exclude such people from membership.

In the NT, there are two different concepts of Church. Jesus talks about His Church in a singular form, apparently referring to the global body of those who believe and accept his Lordship. There are also references made to "the Church" and "the Churches" located in various cities. These references seem to refer to the local organization of the Church. It looks to me like you are trying to merge the two concepts, which I believe results in a flawed understanding.

The NT is clear that Churches should be organized - that there are leadership roles, an understanding of who is in and who is out, etc. It is also clear from Revelation that a Church can fall away, in which case, if it does not repent, Christ will "remove [its] candlestick out of his place." Jesus said that we will know people by their fruits.

Christ isn't starting His Church over and over again. Christian believers have passed on the torch of true faith for nearly 2,000 years. There's a continuity in His Church, but it is not provided by a big earthly organization with costly temples, images, and relics.

No, we don't blame all of the people just because some of the people sin, but that wasn't the case in the RC church of the middle ages. What we had in the reformation years was an organization that was corrupt from the top down. From the supposedly infallible pope to the priests who were known to be immoral and drunkards, the organization itself was corrupt. Those who desired to search the Scriptures and preach the truth were not suffered to remain a part of this organization, but were mercilessly hounded out of town, or drowned, or imprisoned, beheaded, or burned at the stake. This was not an occasional renegade parishioner or leader, this was done by order of the earthly "head of the church" and carried out at all levels of leadership. Please study your history before you suggest that this was a case of "some of the people doing wrong." The organization known as the EO church has also had its own share of physically fights over doctrine. In fact, before the schism between Rome and the EO church, the eastern part of the Catholic Church experienced significantly more theological turmoil than did the western part. This turmoil continued past the schism, with whichever party was stronger using the sword to force its way. This did not Christ. If they had been the children of Christ, they would have done the works of Christ.

I find the account of Paul and Barnabas interesting. We read that the contention between the two of them was sharp, and that they departed one from the other, but they are not condemned for their actions. I believe they were still united in Christ, which is what allowed Paul to later say of John Mark (who was the object of their contention) that "he is valuable to me for the ministry."

Let us not miss the forest for the trees. There is a lot of unity among God's people, even among those who do not go to meeting together and don't gather at the same annual conferences.
I can understand both sides of this, just not sure where I land. When you became a Christian like I did, in a Church that came from the Pentecostal branch, you were led to believe all the churches were somewhat dead until the Holy Spirit was poured out once again- you just accepted this without really looking into it- because it seemed the other denominations didn't believe in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit that Apostle Paul taught about, as being active in the Church- so in a way I guess we were among those that assumed the Lord was starting the Church over again, didn't really consider all this Church history- wasn't important to us. Really, it was the Anabaptists that spurred my interest in learning more about Church history-
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Josh »

That's because Pentecostalism is built on doctrinal error and foolishness, with its adherents still teaching that somehow the Holy Spirit was on a very long break until 1903 at Azusa Street. There is no honesty at all about what actually happened there, nor any honesty that most of their doctrine is just warmed-over Wesleyan Holiness thinking, except usually in modern times with any actual holiness replaced with vague "being filled with the spirit".

Now with that said, I have good fellowship with Pentecostal people (despite them believing they are the "One True Church"), talk about Jesus with them, and pursue holiness together.
One Apostolic Pentecostal pastor near me even personally affirms nonresistance, although he won't preach it from the pulpit.

Instead of quarrelling over doctrine or which church is the true one, we just co-labour together.

If one longs to feel like you are in the One True Church, by all means, you have RCC, EO, Apostolic Pentecostals, Holdemans, and Swartzentrubers to choose from. And folks in every one of those groups will be really excited if you join them and affirm how wonderful the One True Church is.

I prefer to just find people who need Jesus and try to show Christ's love out there, try to obey Jesus daily in my walk, and appreciate the traditions my church is faithful to keep upholding. Solving putting all the pieces back together - that's Jesus problem. It won't be solved with a few artful posts on this message board.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Valerie »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Valerie wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
In other words, you can't.

J.M.
All I know is, there was the Church, there were people that kept the records of the saints, the epistles, the Gospels, etc- these were not unbelievers, and it didn't fall from the sky- this was pre-denomination so it had to be the Church- so that part is really irrelevant as to 'how' the Church put it all together- by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If you really want to understand canonization, Mc Dowell's "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is an excellent resource. It has a chapter on canonization, and the process was more organic than councilor.

J.M.
I am not sure about investing time in that, because I do believe the established Church had to have been responsible since it was cannonized in the 4th century- I just looked this up-

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture

and so within that was this:

The Canon of Scripture
Canon of Holy Scripture
Old Testament Canon | New Testament Canon

The Old Testament canon of Scripture is that of the Septuagint, which was the Bible of the apostles. Other Christian communions through the years have deviated somewhat from this apostolic canon which the Orthodox Church still uses. The canon of the New Testament was developed over the early centuries of the Church. Its first known listing in its final form is the Paschal Letter of St. Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367.

So from that:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

which states:
(Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria during this time)
Athanasius is also the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today; up until his Easter letter, various similar lists were in use. However, his list was the one that was eventually ratified by a series of synods and came to be universally recognized as the New Testament canon.

This is the information the Church has kept all this time & I am not sure how it would differ from McDowell's.
0 x
Ernie
Posts: 5445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: The Pilgrim Church, E. Hamer Broadbent

Post by Ernie »

Here is what Bercot has to say about the Pilgrim Church...

"...the phrase "Pilgrim Church" really has no historic meaning. It was a term coined by Broadbent in his book The Pilgrim Church. Broadbent was a Baptist. So the groups that he calls "the Pilgrim Church" don't necessarily hold to kingdom values.
Baptists include themselves as part of the Pilgrim Church, as do the Plymouth brethren. Yet, their values are quite different than ours. In the end, "Pilgrim Church values" simply mean non-Catholic values."
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Post Reply