Gospel overshadowed for 1500 years!

[Jim]

On Steve's show today (Nov. 5, 2009) a lady called in concerning the gospel and history. I was appauled when Steve mentioned that the Gospel was overshadowed for 1500 years, I still can't believe he said that. I am not RC, but to impose the sins of Rome over the whole church and declare the whole church was teaching essentially another gospel up until the time of the reformation is appauling at least, and down right blaspheme of the Triune God at worst. What happened to the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth, do you conveniently forget this because of the sins of Rome? Was Rome even the Church or part of the Church at the time of the reformation? Yes the succession of Roman Bishops and their self assumed belief they held primacy of authority over the whole church began a few hundred years after pentecost which eventually lead to the great schism. Was it the East that went into schism or was it the West steve? Do you attribute guilt to the East because of the sins of the west?

Was Jesus not the head of His Church?
Did the Holy Spirit drop the ball and satan steal it?

I can go on but, have you really thought your views all the way through? Why you would believe such a way? Why essentially you are making the same claims as mormons, restorationist, or any other variant sect?

[mattrose]

I didn't hear the show today, but perhaps you are over-reacting to the word 'overshadowed.' I hardly think Steve was saying that Jesus wasn't the head of the church, or that the Holy Spirit dropped the ball, or that Satan was somehow winning (he is, after all, amillennial!), We're all very much aware that there were other movements during those 1500 years than the RC Church AND that there were legitimate followers of Christ within the RC Church.

[steve7150]

On Steve's show today (Nov. 5, 2009) a lady called in concerning the gospel and history. I was appauled when Steve mentioned that the Gospel was overshadowed for 1500 years,




I did'nt hear the show yet but he probably meant that the message of the gospel to the common man was overshadowed by the power of the RCC. After all they barely had access to bibles at all and the few that were around were almost entirely controlled by the RCC.

[steve]

I should have been more explicit. I should not have restricted my purview to that of Western Christianity, because I know that, throughout the whole church age, there were other branches of the Church (e.g., Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, "Thomas Christians" in India, etc.) that did not follow the course of the Roman pontiff. If the true gospel was continuously preached by these other groups, in their respective territories, this does not change the truthfulness of the claim that the true gospel was greatly neglected in significant regions (like in the Western Church, the only one I mentioned by name). Even in the West there were, of course, resistance movements (Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards, etc.) against the papacy, some of which may have preached a less-corrupted gospel than that of Rome—but then, they were persecuted and suppressed by Rome, so that it remained true that the true gospel was overshadowed in the West, even when these movements existed to protest.

I am afraid that I, like most Western Christians, am much more familiar with the particulars of the Roman doctrines than I am with those of the Coptic or Eastern Churches. However (pardon my apparent arrogance), I can't help believing that communions that were kissing icons as a part of their worship had lost some important aspects of the primitive apostolic message and praxis. Perhaps the message of salvation advanced in these groups was more pure than the version preached in Rome? I cannot say, because I do not know. I know they had some wonderful martyrs (but then, so did the Roman Church, in the early days). In the territory concerning which my remarks were intended to apply (the West), I would stand by my statements about the overshadowing of the gospel.

I seldom hear the apostolic gospel being preached even in the evangelical communions with which I have the closest affinity. A gospel that focuses primarily on how to get to heaven, or how to get things from God, hardly overlaps, in any particular, the gospel preached in the Book of Acts. There, the message was a naked proclamation of the lordship of a new King, whom God had seated at His own right hand, and to whom God demands of every person his/her total surrender and allegiance. I would be very surprised and relieved to find this message being preached in this manner anywhere at all in the modern American Church. I do not say it is nowhere preached. But if it is, it is nonetheless greatly obscured by the much more visible preaching of another kind of "gospel." To the extent that the apostolic message is not being preached here, I would have to (most humbly) suggest that the true gospel continues to be overshadowed by tradition in a significant portion of the Church of Jesus Christ—the American Church (which is, or once was, a significant sector of modern Christianity).

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
I seldom hear the apostolic gospel being preached even in the evangelical communions with which I have the closest affinity. A gospel that focuses primarily on how to get to heaven, or how to get things from God, hardly overlaps, in any particular, the gospel preached in the Book of Acts. There, the message was a naked proclamation of the lordship of a new King, whom God had seated at His own right hand, and to whom God demands of every person his/her total surrender and allegiance. I would be very surprised and relieved to find this message being preached in this manner anywhere at all in the modern American Church. I do not say it is nowhere preached. But if it is, it is nonetheless greatly obscured by the much more visible preaching of another kind of "gospel." To the extent that the apostolic message is not being preached here, I would have to (most humbly) suggest that the true gospel continues to be overshadowed by tradition in a significant portion of the Church of Jesus Christ—the American Church (which is, or once was, a significant sector of modern Christianity).

For what it's worth, Steve, I rather liked this paragraph.

[Jim]

I should have been more explicit. I should not have restricted my purview to that of Western Christianity, because I know that, throughout the whole church age, there were other branches of the Church (e.g., Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian, "Thomas Christians" in India, etc.) that did not follow the course of the Roman pontiff. If the true gospel was continuously preached by these other groups, in their respective territories, this does not change the truthfulness of the claim that the true gospel was greatly neglected in significant regions (like in the Western Church, the only one I mentioned by name). Even in the West there were, of course, resistance movements (Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards, etc.) against the papacy, some of which may have preached a less-corrupted gospel than that of Rome—but then, they were persecuted and suppressed by Rome, so that it remained true that the true gospel was overshadowed in the West, even when these movements existed to protest.

Sorry if I came across as if I was over reacting to your statements. As someone who came from western protestantism myself I understand how all too often people see the papacy as the church up until the reformation and superimpose the papal views onto the eastern church. As you may well know there are issues in RCism that are opposed in the East, for example Papal claims of supremacy of authority, infalliblity, indulgences, purgatory, merits, etc. The East, long before protestantism came along in full force, was persecuted by Rome with the killing of Eastern Bishops and Priests and the installation of Loyalist latins, etc.

Needless to say I see a very deep wound that runs through western christianity, which is generational now, of which I too had been part, that hinders growth in Christ. The west is afraid of things such as "God given" actual teaching and shepherding authority given to the Church because of Roman sins.

I am afraid that I, like most Western Christians, am much more familiar with the particulars of the Roman doctrines than I am with those of the Coptic or Eastern Churches. However (pardon my apparent arrogance), I can't help believing that communions that were kissing icons as a part of their worship had lost some important aspects of the primitive apostolic message and praxis. Perhaps the message of salvation advanced in these groups was more pure than the version preached in Rome? I cannot say, because I do not know. I know they had some wonderful martyrs (but then, so did the Roman Church, in the early days). In the territory concerning which my remarks were intended to apply (the West), I would stand by my statements about the overshadowing of the gospel.

Yes, the Gospel is overshadowed in the western church, in part due to the wounds brought on by RCism. the whole system of merits, purgatory, indulgences, papal claims of supremacy, etc. has overshadowed the gospel.

As far as the veneration of saints is concerned, I believe it to be part of the fullfillment of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God and actually proclaims a greater and deeper understanding of the Gospel. I don't want to derail though so I won't go on, but I will put a link so that you may understand.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/flo ... ation.aspx

I seldom hear the apostolic gospel being preached even in the evangelical communions with which I have the closest affinity. A gospel that focuses primarily on how to get to heaven, or how to get things from God, hardly overlaps, in any particular, the gospel preached in the Book of Acts. There, the message was a naked proclamation of the lordship of a new King, whom God had seated at His own right hand, and to whom God demands of every person his/her total surrender and allegiance. I would be very surprised and relieved to find this message being preached in this manner anywhere at all in the modern American Church. I do not say it is nowhere preached. But if it is, it is nonetheless greatly obscured by the much more visible preaching of another kind of "gospel." To the extent that the apostolic message is not being preached here, I would have to (most humbly) suggest that the true gospel continues to be overshadowed by tradition in a significant portion of the Church of Jesus Christ—the American Church (which is, or once was, a significant sector of modern Christianity).

I agree with you concerning the church in america, it is a sad mess. The term "In Christ" has been so watered down that anything goes, believe what you want essentially and truth has become relative to individuals over group.

I have listened to your show for years, not everyday, due to work, even been to some of the group meetings you had here in Albany. You helped my understandings of many aspects of scripture and thank you for your show and teaching.

Former Protestant, now Orthodox,
Jim

Lord have mercy!

[Priestly1]

The Good News has never been "overshaddowed" nor the truth lost until a German Augustinian Monk, while relieving himself on the toilet, had a personal insight on Grace! This is nonsense. Steve errs, but is the gospel overshaddowed by his human fallibility? NO. The gates of hell have never prevailed over the church East or West......even during the Persecutions, the Heresies, the Wars, the Institutional sins etc.......this is modernist nonsesense. I Love ya Steve......but me thinks ye protest to much. Hyperbole maybe.



Ken