1st Century Church

[TOME]

Ginger2,
I think your thread is not only interesting but important because as it continues I think we may have the potential of learning some things that might surprise us. Thank you.

I see a problem with the way the question is worded or it might be because of our understanding of what dogma is and how it developes and is proclaimed.

Actually, a formal Dogma is usually at the end of a long process which begins with the Apostolic Tradition; the proclamation of the Kerygma (The Good News). The Apostolic Tradition itself is based on the witness of the Apostles of what Jesus taught in public, did (miracles), and taught privately to the Apostles and disciples. But it’s most important foundation is the Apostles’ experience of Christ Paschal Sacrifice and The Resurrection.

If you study the history of the Apostolic Church there was no need for formal Dogma because in the beginning what the Church believed and proclaimed was being proclaimed by the eyewitnesses (The Apostles and disciples) themselves and those in the Churches founded by the Apostles. The Kergyma was passed on orally however as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and with time and persecutions developed and the first eyewitnesses we dying (either through age or martyrdom) it became necesary for the the Oral Traditions of the Apostles to be written down - The Gospels.

However, turning back to Dogma, again there were no formal declarations as we know it. So it is necessary to look at other sources for Church belief duing the Apostolic Time and the period immediately following the age of the Apostes. I think there are two vital sources we must use.

The first source are the Letters we find in the New Testament. These letters, especially Paul’s were addressed to specific churches or people dealing with specific problems with in a church or needs of a paticular person. Then there are the “catholic” letters not addressed to any church or person but do address and express the belief of the Church. Eventually, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church came to see these works as more than just letters but Inspired Works.

The second source, older than the Letters of the NT is what the Church proclaimed through her worship. We do not have any definitive writings, during the time the Apostles were alive, giving us a detailed description of Liturgy of the Church however we do have references to the Liturgy contained in the Letters, especially Paul (e.x. Phil.2) and the Gospels (Mt 28).

To borrow a saying from Pope Benedict XVI I guess you could say the Church of the 1st Century was more involved in Proclaiming what she believed than Explaining what she believed.
Even the works such as St. Clement’s letter, which someone already mentioned, and the Didache was more in light of proclamation than explanation. And as the missionary activity of the Church was expanding Church we begin seeing the early development of our Creeds of Belief but again this was more of the nature of proclamation.

It wouldn’t be until the 2nd and 3rd Centuries when heresies within the Church developed that we find the process of defining Church belief dogmatically starting to develop.

So I guess the best way to summarize the above is we really have to understand that the Church of the 1st Century real focus was on the proclamation of the Good News (Kergyma) based on the witness of the Apostles and thier teachings (Apostolic Tradition) and proclaimed through the Church’s Liturgical worship.

 

[cascherman]

Oh I agree… I was merely pointing out as an addendum that Ginger will find nothing before the year 180 that actually uses the term Trinity. So her limiting of the proofs to the works of the 1st century leaves her without a leg to stand on.

Sorry if I was unclear.

Ginger,

This is a good point above from Arnobius. You do indeed believe in something that is not in the Bible. The Trinity. That word is NOT in the Bible. The idea of Three Persons in One God is not explicit in the Bible, it is interpreted from various passages and endorsed by the Church as opposed to Arianism or another alternative.

 

[ChangingHeart]

I am not claiming any extra-biblical doctrines.

Well then, support the doctrine of “Sola-Scriptura” using Scripture alone. Don’t change the subject. Don’t comment on ANYTHING else. Just support “Sola Scriptura” using Scripture alone.

 

[cascherman]

Well then, support the doctrine of “Sola-Scriptura” using Scripture alone. Don’t change the subject. Don’t comment on ANYTHING else. Just support “Sola Scriptura” using Scripture alone.

Ultimately, I think this is what is going to come down to (as it SO often does).

So, agreed, why not cut to the chase. Sola Scriptura.

 

[Ginger2]

Then ultimately, maybe you should look for a thread that is currently debating whether the Bible is all sufficient and there cannot be absolute truth outside of it. Because it looks like you are not holding to the point of this thread.

That’s not the point of this thread.

I am merely stating that it’s absurd to ask me to prove something I don’t believe in existed from the beginning.

Whereas I am asking you to prove something you do believe in.

I am not asking you to disprove that which is false. I am asking you to prove that which you believe is true.

I am no longer going to respond to those who want to turn the tables and make this thread about Protestant beliefs or any other non-Catholic beliefs.

If you want to talk about proofs for Protestant doctrines start a new thread.

This thread is about whether or not there is any documentation from the 1st century for extra-biblical doctrines claimed by the Catholic Church.

Take your pick. Any doctrine that has been disputed as non-Scriptural by Protestants will do. You pick the topic within the limitations set for this thread.

I’m all ears.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger2,
I think your thread is not only interesting but important because as it continues I think we may have the potential of learning some things that might surprise us. Thank you.

I see a problem with the way the question is worded or it might be because of our understanding of what dogma is and how it developes and is proclaimed.

Actually, a formal Dogma is usually at the end of a long process which begins with the Apostolic Tradition; the proclamation of the Kerygma (The Good News). The Apostolic Tradition itself is based on the witness of the Apostles of what Jesus taught in public, did (miracles), and taught privately to the Apostles and disciples. But it’s most important foundation is the Apostles’ experience of Christ Paschal Sacrifice and The Resurrection.

If you study the history of the Apostolic Church there was no need for formal Dogma because in the beginning what the Church believed and proclaimed was being proclaimed by the eyewitnesses (The Apostles and disciples) themselves and those in the Churches founded by the Apostles. The Kergyma was passed on orally however as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and with time and persecutions developed and the first eyewitnesses we dying (either through age or martyrdom) it became necesary for the the Oral Traditions of the Apostles to be written down - The Gospels.

However, turning back to Dogma, again there were no formal declarations as we know it. So it is necessary to look at other sources for Church belief duing the Apostolic Time and the period immediately following the age of the Apostes. I think there are two vital sources we must use.

The first source are the Letters we find in the New Testament. These letters, especially Paul’s were addressed to specific churches or people dealing with specific problems with in a church or needs of a paticular person. Then there are the “catholic” letters not addressed to any church or person but do address and express the belief of the Church. Eventually, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church came to see these works as more than just letters but Inspired Works.

The second source, older than the Letters of the NT is what the Church proclaimed through her worship. We do not have any definitive writings, during the time the Apostles were alive, giving us a detailed description of Liturgy of the Church however we do have references to the Liturgy contained in the Letters, especially Paul (e.x. Phil.2) and the Gospels (Mt 28).

To borrow a saying from Pope Benedict XVI I guess you could say the Church of the 1st Century was more involved in Proclaiming what she believed than Explaining what she believed.
Even the works such as St. Clement’s letter, which someone already mentioned, and the Didache was more in light of proclamation than explanation. And as the missionary activity of the Church was expanding Church we begin seeing the early development of our Creeds of Belief but again this was more of the nature of proclamation.

It wouldn’t be until the 2nd and 3rd Centuries when heresies within the Church developed that we find the process of defining Church belief dogmatically starting to develop.

So I guess the best way to summarize the above is we really have to understand that the Church of the 1st Century real focus was on the proclamation of the Good News (Kergyma) based on the witness of the Apostles and thier teachings (Apostolic Tradition) and proclaimed through the Church’s Liturgical worship.

Wow! I think that was very insightful. But I disagree that there were no heresies in the first century. Paul spoke about being on guard and not being deceived.

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger,

This is a good point above from Arnobius. You do indeed believe in something that is not in the Bible. The Trinity. That word is NOT in the Bible. The idea of Three Persons in One God is not explicit in the Bible, it is interpreted from various passages and endorsed by the Church as opposed to Arianism or another alternative.

Please start a new thread for this question and send me the link - I would love to respond!

 

[Ginger2]

Well then, support the doctrine of “Sola-Scriptura” using Scripture alone. Don’t change the subject. Don’t comment on ANYTHING else. Just support “Sola Scriptura” using Scripture alone.

I believe you can find several other threads that already address Sola Scripture and see my comments there.

 

[ChangingHeart]

That’s not the point of this thread.

I am merely stating that it’s absurd to ask me to prove something I don’t believe in existed from the beginning.

So are you saying that you don’t believe Sola-Scriptura?

If not, what do you see as the pillar and bulwark of truth?

 

[Arnobius]

Ginger2: If you claim that everything you believe in can be traced to the First Century and you claim to believe in Sola Scriptura, then where is Sola Scriptura in the First Century?

It doesn’t exist, neither in that term nor the concept. The Scriptures do allude to the usefulness of the (Old Testament) Scriptures, but they say it is profitable, not the sole rule of faith

 

[cascherman]

ginger,

Okay, do us a favor, answer SOMETHING instead of passing it off.

We have brought up many things about you believing in the Trinity (assuming you do) and finding extra-biblical proof for it. Because it is implicit and had to be interpreted and the very same supporting verses have been used to prove another idea.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are presupposing that the audience here is the laity. That is where your logic falls flat. If you notice, that language is similar to 1 Timothy 3:1-10, which was instructions for Timothy, who at that point had already been ordained. The audience here in the Didache is clergy who will have the task of further Apostolic Succession. Keep in mind, the laity would only hear this if read at Mass, so they could not possibly be the intended audience of those instructions.

The audience is the laity.

But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: “In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

So the bishops are supposed to gather together? The bishops are supposed to come together unless they are not reconciled?

Why would they only hear this at a church service? What proof do you have?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why don’t you finish the verse and see that Paul and Barnabas “described all the signs and wonders God had worked among the gentiles through them.” What they were saying was in no way conflicting, or expounding upon the Pope’s final word. The issue at question was over. It was then time for friendly discussion, as the doctrinal declaration had already been made.

Did I really need to point that out to you, though? That was REALLY grasping for straws on your part.

If you approach this discussion with a genuine heart for the truth, rather than a pre-conceived idea that you already know it, then you would see that my points are sound and solid.

The audience got quiet to listen to Barnabas and Peter and then James, the Lord’s half brother makes his pronouncement. Why are you talking about me? I am trying to talk about the text. But thanks for the commentary on my motives.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If you read right before Peters speech in Acts 15 and see the atmosphere of that particular topic, it says:

then after his speech:

Simply, this topic was in ‘much debate’ prior to Peter speaking, so you may think it is not significant that they fell silent and listened to Paul and Barnabas afterwards but indeed it is, the issue was settled. No debate continued.

No they got quiet because what Paul had to say was very important.

 

[ChangingHeart]

The audience is the laity.

So the bishops are supposed to gather together? The bishops are supposed to come together unless they are not reconciled?

Why would they only hear this at a church service? What proof do you have?

Ths is giving the Bishops instruction as to elements of how the Mass (which includes the laity) is to be conducted.

They would only hear this at Mass, because back then the printing press was not yet invented, so it would not have been accessable in the way that the Bible is, today. It would have been kept among the church leaders, as each copy would have had to have been hand written. Is it possible that members of the laity may have acquired a hand written copy at a hefty price? Maybe, but even then they would have understood that what was written about appointing Bishops and Deacons would not have applied to them.

 

[cascherman]

No they got quiet because what Paul had to say was very important.

Interesting. That might be the way you take it, but pretty much your view on that, to me, does not seem very probable. We know specifics about what Peter talked about. And yet, Luke leaves it rather vague on what Paul and Barnabas say.

What about the debating before and no debating after Peter speaks? You see nothing in that?

 

[NotWorthy]

Wrong

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/catacombs.html

Wrong.

From: revneal.org/Writings/aletter.htm

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

[Rolltide]

Ginger2, do you believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? If you do not, I can site some documents to prove that that particular belief existed all the way back to the first century, as an example of a belief that most Protestants do not hold but that Catholics do.

 

[NotWorthy]

No Clement does not assert that authority. That never happened. He wrote a letter just like Paul did, who was a companion of his. It never appeals to any for of Papal primacy.

The Didache teaches:
Baptism by immersion.
Churches selecting their own leaders and testing the works of the Apostles. It completely refutes so called Apostolic Succession.

Be careful. Does the Didache teach Baptism by immersion only, or does it say pouring and dipping are also valid?

 

[ChangingHeart]

No they got quiet because what Paul had to say was very important.

Are you joking? That is so lame that I’m starting to think that you are just intentionally being antagonistic, and are so stiff-necked and hard-hearted that you’d say something that even you don’t believe just to try to validate your argument that you realize you’ve already lost, but can’t accept defeat. If what Paul had to say was so important, why doesn’t the Bible record it?

A proper translation of Acts 15:12 would start with the words, “At that the whole assembly fell silent.” They fell silent because of Peter’s proclamation, not because they were able to prophetically predict that Paul was about to say something.

If you can’t see that and admit to that, I’m sorry, but you aren’t even worth continuing this discussion with, as I’d only be casting my pearls before swine if I went any further.