Church History: 600-700

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Xenia says:

    Maximus the Confessor: Canonized by both the East and west, he is one of the most important theologians you’ve never heard of. <<<<

    He's quite well known among Eastern Christians. People name their kids after him!

    Before the Schism of 1054, all Saints were equally recognized by both East and West. After the Schism, the Orthodox canonized her own Saints and the Roman Catholics canonized theirs. For example, the Orthodox do not recognize St. Francis of Assisi as an official Saint and the Catholics do not recognize St. Seraphim of Sarov. This does not mean we don't think each other's Saints aren't Christians, it just means they can't be considered to be teachers of orthodoxy. So you won't find icons of St. Francis in an EO Church.

    St. John of Damascus (7th century) wrote about Islam. He thought it was a cult of Christianity, much like we consider Mormonism to be a cult derived from Christianity today. There are a lot of similarities between Islam and Mormonism and I think the same evil "angel" was behind both groups.

  2. Michael says:


    I did a poor job of explaining theosis…I think it’s very much worth discussing.
    Oddly enough, I hear echoes of it in Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ.
    Very interesting idea from St. John of Damascus regarding Islam…I might have to follow that up…

  3. Steve Wright says:

    He thought it was a cult of Christianity,
    I was given a little book written in India about the religious battle in her search for the true and living God and His Christ. There was quite a bit about Islam in there and in large part that is what was presented as well. Mohammed knew of some rather poor examples of Christianity and much of his teachings were counter to what he had learned.

    I am no expert in the Koran but in reading it, it certainly is filled with Christian references (though falsely portrayed)

  4. The problem with delineating the Koran in contrast to Christianity is always the violence. Both sides of the issue have initiated harm against each other at differing times in history.

    As I started to read this post I reflected on this.

    I live in a neighborhood with many traditional Catholics, originally from Mexico, and in recent years Muslims. Both groups seem to be getting along peacefully.

    Although the Muslims are more economically secure and drive newer vehicles then the local Catholics.

    Added to this mix are the vast amount of Jehovah’s Witnesses roaming the side walks daily in my neighborhood and the odd young men riding bikes in black slacks and white shirts with black ties.

    I really do marvel at how peacefully everyone coexist in my small neighborhood. As land becomes more valuable around here the developers are slowly taking down older homes and putting in several smaller homes on the same large lots.

    Young professionals are purchasing these newer homes. I think that over time the eclectic nature of my neighborhood will evolve into just another typical affluent area of white people.

    The economic privileged around these here parts tend to look down at others with disdain and contempt. I see them as a problem more then I do any of the people groups who live around me…

    I would rather have the Muslims, Catholics, JW’s and Mormons as neighbors.

  5. Steve Wright says:

    The problem with delineating the Koran in contrast to Christianity is always the violence. Both sides of the issue have initiated harm against each other at differing times in history.
    But would you not see that as more the result of the union of church/mosque and state?

    And as far as “initiating” the violence, I think that scale tilts pretty heavily in one direction.

  6. This would also be the period at which Protestants looking back would become less connected to the creedal positions. Is that not so? As I look at the parsing over Jesus possessing both divine and human wills I find myself put off by the endless attempt to reduce incarnation to a kind of explanation that suits the mind.

    I wonder if I am alone in my admission that I despise Islam and find myself hard pressed to fight off prejudiced inclinations. It is people that save me. I have no trouble engaging the people of Islam. So it is a tension.

  7. Michael says:


    I can’t find anything or any group remotely resembling Protestantism at this stage of history.
    The church itself both in East and West would be affirming the creeds, but also placing great weight on the councils.

  8. Michael says:


    I do affirm your Islamic tensions…

  9. Paige says:

    Interesting comment davidsurfer51…… while I do love Jesus and the Bible,I find that I am repulsed by many “fellow christians” and the anger, arrogance, self righteousness and hatred in the name of ‘righteous indignation’…(which I believe is reserved for God Himself)…. as if we are all not sinners.

    I have to admit, I am often more comfortable around Muslims, Catholics and agnostics….and find myself drifting from church culture.

    The Lord Jesus said “all people will know you are My disciples by your love, one for another”.
    If this is strictly true (of course it is)….. I suspect that “all people” are not seeing this, thus, calling into question, much so called ‘discipleship”.

  10. Michael says:

    Well said…Paige and David. 🙂

  11. Steve Wright says:

    Well, this may not be PC – but just as the professsing Christians that do not model love to others are not being faithful to Christianity, so too the professing Muslims (uniquely found here I might add) that speak of tolerance and respect to Christians and their beliefs are not being faithful to their religion – as noted in every other nation where that religion is the majority

    I crack up when I see some lady on one of the political shows with long flowing hair, buttoned down blouse adorned in makeup and jewelry pretending to speak as a representative of Islam….might as well have some active porn actor talking about the Christian faith. That lady as presented would not last five minutes on the streets of any Islamic nation today.

  12. You missed my point about the Protestants… so let me put it this way.

    Protestants affirm the Apostles Creed and The Nicene Creed. After that we get OFF the bus and reject most of creedal Christendom.

    I realize Protestantism post dates this period… of course I know this but we do fish in the Catholic pond for our Canon and our basic beliefs about what is heresy up to a point.

  13. Michael says:


    After about 500 we Protestants take a more “buffet table” approach to doctrine for sure.
    We still receive much from the “Catholics” in this period, however.

  14. Michael says:

    What is most fascinating to me is how long it took some of the hills we die on to show up…

  15. Lutherans disagree with RCC on very few things ancient. The purgatory and Mary stuff comes late and most of the justification issues were really more papal corruption issues than firm doctrine.

    I don’t think the popes cared one way or the other on justification – just used it to make money. Trent 1600’s solidified their doctrine.

  16. #5
    Depending on what period of history. The crusades were tilted pretty heavily in one direction at one point.

    You do make a great point though…
    “But would you not see that as more the result of the union of church/mosque and state?”

    Communism tries to level the playing field with bad results I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.