1st Century Church

[cascherman]

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

“The apostles and presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, …”

then after his speech:

“The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described…”

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.

 

[Ginger2]

Why all this dancing around anyway? Why not just provide the Conciliar and/or papal evidence showing that current Catholic doctrine was once denounced by the Church?.

Isn’t the papacy of Rome the main reason the for the split in the church between East and West.

How do I know which church is the “true” church founded by Jesus?

The Orthodox claim Rome was claiming power for itself that it was not legitimately given.

If they were correct, and it is the Orthodox church that remained faithful while the RC changed…

Then it is the Orthodox Church that is the true church founded by Christ.

So, How do I know which church remained true to history and which church changed?

 

[cascherman]

I have advise, instead of setting limits on centuries for proofs and making it as challenging as possible to prove our beliefs (I believe you would have a pretty sticky time proving your beliefs in these circumstances as well) why don’t you visit a Catholic Answers page here:

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp

Wonderfully enough, they have already cataloged many of the things you are requesting from us.

It seems silly to me to request absolute proof for doctrine from a time period that has very little writings from it that are not in the Bible. Its like you are trying to make the circumstances as hard as possible and yet still demand absolute proof.

Instead, take some of those 1st century documents, read them, and show us where the Catholic Church doesn’t agree with them. That seems much more reasonable.

Likewise, think about a non-trinitarian coming to you and saying, from the 1st century Christian writings prove the whole of the early Church believed in the Trinity. Is this really fair?

 

[cascherman]

Isn’t the papacy of Rome the main reason the for the split in the church between East and West.

How do I know which church is the “true” church founded by Jesus?

The Orthodox claim Rome was claiming power for itself that it was not legitimately given.

If they were correct, and it is the Orthodox church that remained faithful while the RC changed…

Then it is the Orthodox Church that is the true church founded by Christ.

So, How do I know which church remained true to history and which church changed?

Holy Cow!!

Stick to one thing! You can’t reasonably debate with us about the Early Church while bringing up every other thing you disagree with, thinking it’s evidence, and demanding a miracle response.

Be reasonable!

 

[Ginger2]

Everything I believe can be proven from the first century.

So it is easy to reject new doctrines when they arise, because God does not change.

That is why I asked for 1st century confirmation - to show that the doctrines were truly instituted by God and not later created as a way for men to makes sense of what they find difficult to understand or some conclusion that they have drawn on as a new revelation.

 

[Ginger2]

Holy Cow!!

Stick to one thing! You can’t reasonably debate with us about the Early Church while bringing up every other thing you disagree with, thinking it’s evidence, and demanding a miracle response.

Be reasonable!

I am not the one who brought up the papacy. I am merely trying to respond to the question set before me.

This was not a simple matter of holding a council and going with majority rule - the church split over it.

 

[cascherman]

Everything I believe can be proven from the first century.

So it is easy to reject new doctrines when they arise, because God does not change.

That is why I asked for 1st century confirmation - to show that the doctrines were truly instituted by God and not later created as a way for men to makes sense of what they find difficult to understand or some conclusion that they have drawn on as a new revelation.

…fine… if you want to be that way. Prove to me the Trinity from the First Century alone outside of the Bible.

*Edit- Unless you know of an early Christian writing that I don’t then I think it will be not possible for definitive proof.

*Edit #2- this is about as good as it gets from the 1st century.

“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

But, there are plenty who argue that the same usage of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit from the Bible does not prove our current, post Nicene, view of the Trinity.

 

[Arnobius]

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.

This demonstrates a reading that assumes an a priori rejection. Since you do not believe it possible, you do not see the truth in there. What you do is known as an argumentum ad Ignoratum which assumes that because your assumption is not proven false, it must be true. There is also present an Argument from Silence fallacy which claims that because there is nothing said specifically mentioning something, it must not be there.

In your case, the fallacy is apparent by the claim that since the Papacy was not mentioned by name, it cannot be the papacy they have in mind.

However, we do see that Clement wrote to the Church in Corinth expecting to be obeyed. The final chapter of this epistle reads:

Chapter LIX.—The Corinthians are Exhorted Speedily to Send Back Word that Peace Has Been Restored. The Benediction.
Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with all everywhere that are the called of God through Him, by whom be to Him glory, honour, power, majesty, and eternal dominion,259 from everlasting to everlasting.260 Amen.261

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (21).

If he did not have some sort of authority over Corinth, it makes no sense for him to be expecting them to send a messenger reporting compliance.

As for the Didache, your reading proves superficial if you believe it to call solely for Baptism via immersion:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Clearly it recognizes other forms are valid as well.

 

[Ginger2]

…fine… if you want to be that way. Prove to me the Trinity from the First Century alone outside of the Bible.

*Edit- Unless you know of an early Christian writing that I don’t then I think it will be not possible for definitive proof.

Uh…the Bible is from the first century and before.

It is Catholics who claim doctrines not found in Scriptures. I did not forbid you to use the Bible to prove your case. I only limited our discussion to doctrines not found and supported in Scriptures.

Since all that I believe is backed up by the Holy Scriptures and all the Scriptures were written in and before the 21st century, I don’t suffer that same limitation.

Now then, if you feel I believe something that is not support in Scriptures, I will be happy to respond with Scriptural proofs.

 

[Arnobius]

…fine… if you want to be that way. Prove to me the Trinity from the First Century alone outside of the Bible.

*Edit- Unless you know of an early Christian writing that I don’t then I think it will be not possible for definitive proof.

*Edit #2- this is about as good as it gets from the 1st century.

But, there are plenty who argue that the same usage of the Father , Son, and Holy Spirit from the Bible does not prove our current, post Nicene, view of the Trinity.

Actually, the first mention of the word Trinity dates from AD 180, though the way it was used was clearly understood as a concept before this.

The first known mention of Trinity is:
Theophilus of Antioch in his Letter Theophilus to Autolycus

Chapter XV.—Of the Fourth Day.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. **In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,35 are types of the Trinity,36 of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.**37 And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets,38 they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (100). Oak Harbor

 

[cascherman]

I am not the one who brought up the papacy. I am merely trying to respond to the question set before me.

This was not a simple matter of holding a council and going with majority rule - the church split over it.

Why all this dancing around anyway? Why not just provide the Conciliar and/or papal evidence showing that current Catholic doctrine was once denounced by the Church?

I hardly think this quote is bringing up the schism between East and West.

 

[cascherman]

Uh…the Bible is from the first century and before.

It is Catholics who claim doctrines not found in Scriptures. I did not forbid you to use the Bible to prove your case. I only limited our discussion to doctrines not found and supported in Scriptures.

Since all that I believe is backed up by the Holy Scriptures and all the Scriptures were written in and before the 21st century, I don’t suffer that same limitation.

Now then, if you feel I believe something that is not support in Scriptures, I will be happy to respond with Scriptural proofs.

I joined a thread that asked this question:

“Please provide proof of one doctrine, dogma, discipline, or anything that comes from the early Christian church not found in the Bible. Prove that it comes from … the first century.”

The thread didn’t seem to be addressing that specific issue, so I asked about it and was told:

Then the thread fell silent. So, I am starting this thread.
My question is:

Can you provide proof, from the 1st century, of dogma held by the Catholic Church that is not found in the Bible? Can you prove that it was practiced in the 1st century?

You indeed did ask for extrabiblical, so that is what I ask of you. Or are you not applying the same rules to your own argument that you are applying to ours?

 

[cascherman]

Actually, the first mention of the word Trinity dates from AD 180, though the way it was used was clearly understood as a concept before this.

The first known mention of Trinity is:
Theophilus of Antioch in his Letter Theophilus to Autolycus

Chapter XV.—Of the Fourth Day.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. **In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,35 are types of the Trinity,36 of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.**37 And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness, are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which also are cared planets,38 they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God, abandoning His law and commandments.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (100). Oak Harbor

pssst… I believe in the Trinity as the ever-present and always-has-been form of God. I’m not arguing that point, only saying it is unreasonable to want definitive proof for doctrine from a century with very little writing outside the Bible.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Everything I believe can be proven from the first century.

So it is easy to reject new doctrines when they arise, because God does not change.

That is why I asked for 1st century confirmation - to show that the doctrines were truly instituted by God and not later created as a way for men to makes sense of what they find difficult to understand or some conclusion that they have drawn on as a new revelation.

I actually approached this from the other direction… let me explain:

I was brought up catholic, and as a kid I kept seeing things in the bible which the Catholic church seemed to ignore or do the wrong way. So I decided that I would convert to another religion, but first I felt that I had to find evidence of exactly when the Catholic Church introduced all of these ‘heresies’ and ‘false teachings’ as I saw them. I started learning about history, and eventually found out about the ‘ante-nicene fathers’ and then the apostolic fathers, and the more I searched for the origins of these ‘false teachings’ I jjust couldn’t find a time where they started, no matter how far back I went, even to the first generation after the apostles. I finally just had to admit that things like apostolic succession, infant baptism, the Mass and confession to priests/bishops/the church had been there all along.

One of the principles to keep in mind is that the apostolic fathers like Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr and Polycarp would not have knowingly let the apostolic teachings be replaced with new ideas. These were people who knew the apostles personally and were willing to die for the faith. They certainly would have complained about error being introduced. So where they say nothing, I take that to mean that they did not object.

So, I think it has to do with your outlook. Is it fair to ask for proof that these practices existed in the first century, when there is so little evidence about what exactly went on during that time? Instead why not try to figure out when they were introduced, and find evidence that the ‘real’, loyal Christians complained?

 

[Arnobius]

Uh…the Bible is from the first century and before.

It is Catholics who claim doctrines not found in Scriptures. I did not forbid you to use the Bible to prove your case. I only limited our discussion to doctrines not found and supported in Scriptures.

Since all that I believe is backed up by the Holy Scriptures and all the Scriptures were written in and before the 21st century, I don’t suffer that same limitation.

Now then, if you feel I believe something that is not support in Scriptures, I will be happy to respond with Scriptural proofs.

Well, then prove the Trinity via Scripture in such a way that can reject the Modalist heresy.

The Modalist heresy of course was a Scripture based heresy that read the Scriptures and reasoned since Scripture said God is One, therefore Father, Son and Spirit must only be modes of the one God, who plays different roles.

The Early Christians rejected this as being contrary to the faith taught by the Apostles.

Yet these heretics made use of the Scriptures to reach their conclusion.

 

[cascherman]

Uh…the Bible is from the first century and before.

It is Catholics who claim doctrines not found in Scriptures. I did not forbid you to use the Bible to prove your case. I only limited our discussion to doctrines not found and supported in Scriptures.

Since all that I believe is backed up by the Holy Scriptures and all the Scriptures were written in and before the 21st century, I don’t suffer that same limitation.

Now then, if you feel I believe something that is not support in Scriptures, I will be happy to respond with Scriptural proofs.

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.

 

[Arnobius]

pssst… I believe in the Trinity as the ever-present and always-has-been form of God. I’m not arguing that point, only saying it is unreasonable to want definitive proof for doctrine from a century with very little writing outside the Bible.

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.

 

[Ginger2]

You indeed did ask for extrabiblical, so that is what I ask of you. Or are you not applying the same rules to your own argument that you are applying to ours?

I asked for extra Biblical proofs because the Catholic church claims certain doctrines that are not found in Scripture.

I am not claiming any extra-biblical doctrines.

You are asking me to prove something that I DO NOT believe.

I am asking you to prove something you DO believe.

 

[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.

OH! Sweet, yeah! Agreed.

 

[cascherman]

I asked for extra Biblical proofs because the Catholic church claims certain doctrines that are not found in Scripture.

I am not claiming any extra-biblical doctrines.

You are asking me to prove something that I DO NOT believe.

I am asking you to prove something you DO believe.

Wrong… You don’t get my point.

It should not be hard to find extra-biblical proof for a biblical doctrine (your interpretation of course)