A Simple Timeline Proves the Early Church was Catholic---revised

[JustaServant]

Cool! Okay, what about the Marian doctrines? When did the early church fathers allude to Mary being queen of heaven, being immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven?

I’m sure this has been discussed other times but I can’t find any posts or threads that discuss this. This doctrine is probably the biggest stumbling block in my even conceiving the notion of converting to Catholicism.

Again, everyone, no disrespect is meant here. In my research into Catholicism I’ve had some quote me the ECF and some tell me to read the ECFs.

Thanks and God bless!!

Since the timeline is relegated to the first 100 years, what you are asking cannot be answered based on the written material we have. It doesn’t mean the allusions did not exist, it just means we have no written proof of it. For that we would have to go into the next 100 years. IOW, just because something is not written down, doesn’t mean it was not believed or taught.
I’ll get back to you.

 

[JustaServant]

Here are some thoughts I wrote down for an RCIA class last year, which was oddly enough, on the ECFs:

In order to properly understand Church history and the writings of the “Church Fathers” is that the world the people who wrote various books collected into what we call ‘the Bible’, cannot be looked at with 21st century, post Enlightenment, post printing press eyes.
In order to understand the ancient world, we have to step out of our comfort zones and walk in their shoes.
Many times that means accepting things our age rejects. Other times we can see how fragile our ‘modern’ society is. Without our gadgets and toys, we are no different than they were.
Even in parts of the world today family structure is the bedrock of the culture. Things like covenants still exist in what we so arrogantly call the ‘third world’. African and Native American tribes had no written language, yet they were steeped in the history of their culture far more than our so-called ‘enlightened’ society.
Not everything was ‘on paper’. It was timely and sometimes expensive to do that. It was a society far more steeped in oral tradition, and that included pagan societies as well. They had great auditory skills in those days. Communication was by listening. Even when something was put on paper, it was read ALOUD. Reading to oneself was unknown. Most people could not read. That did not mean they were unintelligent. Literacy and intelligence are not the same thing.
Repetition helped people remember. Look up some time the story of how Isaac got his wife in Genesis. The story is repeated three times. Many people in the ancient world had, what we would consider, great memory skills.
Continued…

 

[JustaServant]

According to historian Daniel Boorstin, for millennia “memory reigned over all information. Memory was a faculty everyone had to cultivate; in ways and for reasons we have long since forgotten. In the last 500 years we see only pitiful relics of the power of human memory.”
Many Protestants assume if it is not in written form (a concept that did not arise until the post-printing press days of the Enlightenment) it must be discarded. Our ancestors would have laughed themselves silly at such a thought. Civilizations have existed for years on oral history alone. Many ancient civilizations have no written history, all they have is oral. So…should we discard what they say because no one tribe decided to sit down and write a book? Jesus did not write a book, He promised the Holy Spirit would bring all things to our remembrance. He did, and in due time, the Apostles wrote it down.
Was the Church organized in the 1st century? A simple reading of the works of the ECF reveals they indeed were. It was embryonic, yet that culture and time demanded organization. That’s the way the ancient world was.
One of the areas of Church history that has always fascinated me is the study of New Testament era chronology. Many Protestant sects act as if the Bible was written like a modern novel. Starting with Matthew on. However, the writing of the New Testament was not that cut and dry.
As one puts together a timeline of Church history, including in that works written that are not included in the New Testament, one must reach a conclusion that the early Church was indeed Catholic.
Continued…

 

[JustaServant]

By the time the Gospel of John was written for example, the Church was already 50 years old (which forces a Catholic view of John 6). But more importantly, the Christians that lived at the time all have very Catholic views. I have concocted a timeline here deliberately within a 100 year period between the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr (roughly 130 AD.) Think of it from World War 2 on. There were people still alive, just as there are today, who remember the events.
I do not claim this timeline to be exact, but it’s pretty close.
One of patterns of fundamentalist/evangelical response is ‘well, Constantine changed the Church and all these pagan elements came in after 300 years’.
So, in order to give an answer to this, I limit this timeline to one generation (roughly 80 to one hundred years). That way we can see the events through the eyes of the people who actually experienced them, or were the children and grandchildren of those early Christians. What were they like? How did they think? What did they experience. To walk in their shoes for a short time and see what it was like from the horse’s mouth. How did they view two most important issues that divide Catholics and evangelicals: the Eucharist and Baptism?
Staying within that first generation reveals much.

One cannot pull the New Testament writings out of history as if they were separated from them. The early church never thought that way. The writings of the Apostles and the Gospels were part of who they were, not separated from them.
They also accepted writings not found in the NT. Many churches read excerpts from Clement and the Shepherd in this period.
One could easily add non-christian writings to the list as well to show the first generation early church was Catholic.
Seventy years after the Resurrection we have Ignatius telling those to whom he wrote to stay close to the Bishop, and denouncing those who rejected that the Eucharist was Body and Blood of Christ.
Sixty years after the Resurrection we have Clement writing Corinth exhorting them to reinstate a priest they had expelled (which they did). Clement was Bishop of Rome at the time.
Thirty years after the Resurrection (some scholars say twenty) we have the Didache telling us how to Baptize (including sprinkling if running water isn’t available), and telling of a need to reconcile before receiving the Eucharist so that the “sacrifice” (not memorial meal) may be pure.
In structure, sacrament, etc., the Church then was, as the Church now, Catholic.
The writers of the New Testament either wrote as eyewitnesses of the events they described or recorded eyewitness firsthand accounts of the events.
II Peter 1:16:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our LORD Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty”.
THAT is the reason I stayed within a 100 framework of time. Also, keep in mind I left out certain documents contemporary to that period, such as Josephus and Roman pagan writers.
Continued…

 

[JustaServant]

The use of historical methods draws upon authorship, sources, interpretation, style, and bias of the period we are discussing. That is all we have, so therefore our conclusions must be drawn from that narrow field.

1. The first 100 years after the Resurrection.
2. The events and writings in chronological order (as much as we can)
3. Accepted historical facts only. Not “alternative” or “revisionist” history.
   I would also suggest you read The History Of The Church By Eusibius ( although a forth century work, it fills in many of the ‘gaps’. I also recommend selected portions of Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews”. The events of 70AD with the destruction of Jerusalem was the 911 of its day, the world (at least for Christians and Jews) changed dramatically.
   I would also suggest read these works objectively, not like WC Fields who read the Bible “looking for loopholes”.
   IOW, put aside your opinions, agreeing or disagreeing with what is written is not what you are doing. You are just soaking up the atmosphere of the first one hundred years of Christianity.
   Keep in mind the “forensic evidence” is all we have to work with and the personal integrity of the men who gave them their oral tradition and Christian teachings. Let’s never forget that almost none could read and write in the day – including many of the apostles.
   If I am from Mars and am trying to put this ‘Christianity’ thing together…where do I start? What do I go back to? How do I understand the world Jesus lived in? The Apostles? The disciples of the Apostles?
   I can’t pull it out of the air, I have to go back to the original source material. The people who were there AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS.
   We simply use the tools any honest, unbiased historian would use.
   Lets us the American Civil War as an example. People from that era didn’t have long life expectancies. But they had children and grandchildren who were still very much alive 100 years after the Civil War. So, we don’t have to ‘fill in the blanks’.
   We know what happened, because they TOLD us what happened.
   The forensic evidence is what we are relying on, nothing else.
   I am using the same historical philosophy used in Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”, a Protestant work.

 

[JustaServant]

I think a better question to ask, is that since many Christians believe that the non-canonical writings listed above were written contemporary with the NT Inspired writings, then “why” weren’t they included in the NT? I would be curious to hear your answer. And with the exception of the Didache, the “alleged” Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, & the fragments of Papias, the only writings you’ve listed were the NT Scriptures - which is what sola scriptura Protestants believe in anyways.

BTW, why did you leave out Justin Martyr?

 

[thetazlord]

You missed the point.
First, until the coming of the printing press most people did not read, everything was through oral communication. Since we obviously cannot have a record of oral communication, all we can rely upon is what was written at the time. If I am an archaeologist trying to piece together the world of the first century, I have to look at all the evidence, whether it is in the NT or not.
Second there was no “New Testament” in the first century, all we have are the writings listed above. The canon was not decided until centuries later. That is not what this thread is about.
This thread is about the first 100 years from the Resurrection of Christ to Justin Martyr, exactly 100 years. What did they believe? What kind of world did they walk in? How did they think? Why do the quotes I cited earlier in the thread point to Christianity that is very much in alignment with the Catholic Church?

Oh, I got your point. But the fact is that the job of the Church was to teach what Jesus & His disciples believed & taught. And what we know what they believed in taught is what is now known as the “New Testament” - most of which was recognized as Inspired Scripture by the mid-first century, such as ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16), as well as Luke’s (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7). And had we lived in the first century, as did the first century Church, even if we couldn’t read Greek (which is what the NT was written in), we would be believing what the apostles, like Paul, Peter, James, & John said, because they backed up what they spoke & wrote by the miracles God worked through them. That’s why we can trust their writings as being Inspired, as well as the fact that none of them contradict themselves, nor contain any errors in them. The same can’t be said about Papias’ fragments, nor 1 Clement, etc, because they “do” contain errors in them, & it is questionable “who” even wrote the epistle to Barnabas (it’s not “universally” believed to be the “Barnabas” of Acts), let alone the Didache. That’s why God, through Jesus’ disciples, gave us the NT, so we could know what Jesus & His disciples believed & taught, and compare other people’s beliefs TO it, just as the Bereans did with the OT Scriptures, which is made them “more like-minded” than the Thessalonicans (Acts 17:10-11). And in order to for a piece of writing or belief to be “apostolically succeeded,” like a friend of mine said, "who is the “apostle” who said or believed it? And had we lived in the second century, when the NT was completed, an “unofficial” NT canon, comprised of the same 27 books we had today, was in circulation in the Church, as was the term “New Testament” referring to those 27 books. However, as early as the early second century, although the writings - for the most part - were Scripturally sound, you “do” see discrepancies here & there, including second century ECF’s who disagreed with each other on things, including Papias. Plus, in terms of literacy, obviously there were churches who were literate, otherwise, there would be no point of Paul, & other NT writers, to write them letters, especially the churches in Rome & Corinth, which were his longest epistles, which Paul even states, “not to exceed what is written.” Obviously, they would have to have the ability to read, in order not to “exceed” what is “written.” So, although these non-inspired writings you listed there were written in the late-first, to early-second century are valuable because much of them agree with NT Scripture, because they aren’t Inspired Scripture, & many of them “do” contain errors & contradictions in them, we have to use caution about basing our beliefs on them, especially the ones whose authorship is questionable. And as far as the anonymous writer of Hebrews goes: 1) early ECF’s believe it was written by Paul, and even if it wasn’t: 2) it was written during the time of the apostles who could verify it’s authenticity as being God-breathed, because it contained the same godly attributes that both the OT Scriptures, as well as the already recognized NT Inspired Scriptures, like Paul’s & Luke’s, did.

 

[DaveBj]

You may not be aware, but gazelam has repeatedly cited this quote (which is used in LDS apologetics in relation to a supposed great apostasy and the corrupting influence of Greek philosophy on ancient Christianity) over the years, and I have yet to see actual evidence that what Hatch is asserting (and what gazelam presumably also believes) is really the case. Hatch’s book gives no source for substantiation of his claim. So, I challenge the citation of this quote whenever I see it, and I have yet to see gazelam actually provide further evidence that the real presence belief originated with the Gnostics. Hatch’s claim without a source to back it up is meaningless.

I understand, but that means that your argument is with Hatch, not with gazelam.

 

[thetazlord]

BTW, why did you leave out Justin Martyr?

Having read Justin Martyr, I have great respect for him & his writings, & especially for what he endured, including how his life ended. However, not only do his writings post-date the completion of the NT canon (around 95-96 A.D. with Revelation), “some” of his writings like Dialogue with Trypho the Jew contained some exaggerations, slips of memory, & added material - something that would disqualify a writings as being God-breathed. Even his First Apology wasn’t written until around 155 A.D. No offense against Justin, but in his writings, he didn’t view great philosophers, like Socrates as enemies to the faith. Rather, he believed that they had gained saving knowledge of God from “seeds of reason” sown by the “Logos” (Christ), which is a form of universalism, & I dare saw a form of gnosticism, and that philosophy’s best teachings could be attributed to divine revelation. No disrespect intended to Justin, but these “beliefs” of his would be shunned by the writers of Inspired Scripture. In fact, even in his First Apology, Justin refers to the bread & wine as “elements” (just as Protestants describe them), & a “prayer of thanksgiving” (rather than referring to the actual “bread” as the “Eucharist”). I’m well-aware that “eucharist” comes from the Greek word translated “thanksgiving” or “giving thanks” in the NT, but it’s never referred to as the actual bread itself in Scripture. This “belief” came much later. However, Justin Martyr should be respected for his work during a VERY difficult time for the early Church that was under intense persecution by the Roman government.

If you’re interested, there is a really good book out called “Getting to know the Church Fathers: an evangelical introduction” by Bryan Litfin. Very well researched & translated from the earliest writings of ECF’s like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, etc. What makes this such as an insightful book is unveils the time period, of each of these ECF’s, “when” certain beliefs, including church polity, began to emerge.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think a better question to ask, is that since many Christians believe that the non-canonical writings listed above were written contemporary with the NT Inspired writings, then “why” weren’t they included in the NT? I would be curious to hear your answer. And with the exception of the Didache, the “alleged” Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, & the fragments of Papias, the only writings you’ve listed were the NT Scriptures - which is what sola scriptura Protestants believe in anyways.

These writings provide important historical information about the Church, its beliefs and its practices in the first and second centuries.

While they may be accurate records of history, they were not inspired.

 

[clem456]

…But the fact is that the job of the Church was to teach what Jesus & His disciples believed & taught. And what we know what they believed in taught is what is now known as the “New Testament” - most of which **was recognized as **Inspired Scripture by the mid-first century,

“**was recognized as **inspired”
Implying an action by the Church.
That’s a very Catholic thing.
Recognition implies catholicity, a universal acceptance and proclamation by a unified whole.
Recognition implies an authority to speak for the whole, otherwise recognition is meaningless and reduced to one person’s opinion, which is
-not- recognition.
Recognition implies Christ as the source and living inspiration of a community.

And they recognized him in the breaking of the bread.

Before this passage was put into scripture, the Church recognized the life contained therein.

The inspired life of the scriptures *is one with *the unified community and it’s inspired authority to recognize these things, all of which has Christ as it’s source. There is no inspired scripture without the community Christ established.

That’s a great support for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

 

[wmscott]

Oh, I got your point. But the fact is that the job of the Church was to teach what Jesus & His disciples believed & taught. And what we know what they believed in taught is what is now known as the “New Testament”.

So a quick question here, in John 21:24-25… [24] This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Is it your position that since it was not written down that what Christ did and said to the Apostles after His Resurrection was insignificant and not worthy incorporating into the Christian faith?

 

[wmscott]

Justa; I am interested if you have the earliest evidence of someone calling themselves “A Catholic” and not just a part of the Catholic Church?

Dronald I am sure you have seen this before, haven’t you?

The Church is called “Catholic”

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

Being Catholic was not a new concept at the date cited. It was already in use.

 

[spedteacherita]

Since the timeline is relegated to the first 100 years, what you are asking cannot be answered based on the written material we have. It doesn’t mean the allusions did not exist, it just means we have no written proof of it. For that we would have to go into the next 100 years. IOW, just because something is not written down, doesn’t mean it was not believed or taught.
I’ll get back to you.

I appreciate that but that isn’t a convincing argument for me. I’ve heard a lot of people say that “Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” That’s too easy to bring in all kinds of doctrines…

In fact, in some of my recent studying I made that note because it was stated a number of times. (I can quote them for you if you need me to)

Take care and God bless!

 

[clem456]

I appreciate that but that isn’t a convincing argument for me. I’ve heard a lot of people say that “Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” That’s too easy to bring in all kinds of doctrines…

In fact, in some of my recent studying I made that note because it was stated a number of times. (I can quote them for you if you need me to)

Take care and God bless!

But consider that none of the doctrines you believe as a Christian were written down. What was written down later, begins with the life of a community, a Tradition.

Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men

Not

Hey guys, grab your kindles I’ve got a really cool book for you to read

Christ gives a personal invitation to a people, and then before he can codify everything in unambiguous modern English, he goes the way of the cross, and leaves the all-too-human disciples to issue his invitation to the end of time. Why didn’t Christ simply write a book of doctrines???

Christ gives the faith to a people, not a book. Whether or not it was all written down is not the determining factor for faith, to determine whether we follow Christ is to listen to the community be breathed life into.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But consider that none of the doctrines you believe as a Christian were written down. What was written down later, begins with the life of a community, a Tradition.

Not

Christ gives a personal invitation to a people, and then before he can codify everything in unambiguous modern English, he goes the way of the cross, and leaves the all-too-human disciples to issue his invitation to the end of time. Why didn’t Christ simply write a book of doctrines???

Christ gives the faith to a people, not a book. Whether or not it was all written down is not the determining factor for faith, to determine whether we follow Christ is to listen to the community be breathed life into.

Your arguments are sound and have been convincing to many who have " come home. "
The reason why most don’t " come home " are personal and not related to the logic of such arguments.

Linus2nd

 

[spedteacherita]

But consider that none of the doctrines you believe as a Christian were written down. What was written down later, begins with the life of a community, a Tradition.

Not

Christ gives a personal invitation to a people, and then before he can codify everything in unambiguous modern English, he goes the way of the cross, and leaves the all-too-human disciples to issue his invitation to the end of time. Why didn’t Christ simply write a book of doctrines???

Christ gives the faith to a people, not a book. Whether or not it was all written down is not the determining factor for faith, to determine whether we follow Christ is to listen to the community be breathed life into.

But He did leave “a book” of doctrines. It’s simply the compilation of the inspired inerrant Word of God. I can’t think of any doctrine from the Bible that the LCMS has.

As I said before, I am interested in when the Doctrine of Mary - Mediatrix, Theotokos, Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Many of these do not get in the way of Christ - and, as many have said here lead us to Christ rather than focusing on worshiping her

So far, in my studies I do not see any of the above written or even alluded to. Maybe this should go into another thread. Seriously, I don’t want the wrath of some apologists here to erupt…I seriously just want to know more about this -

Thanks everyone and God Bless!!

In Christ, Rita

 

[clem456]

But He did leave “a book” of doctrines. It’s simply the compilation of the inspired inerrant Word of God. I can’t think of any doctrine from the Bible that the LCMS has.

Christ did not leave a book of doctrine.

He lived, died, rose, and ascended. He left a community, not a book. The inspired community wrote the inspired book. This is not an opinion, it’s simply an observation of the way it happened. This is the way Christ himself shows us: trust in a community of persons.

If the community that Christ established can be trusted to formulate the scriptures we rightly revere, why is it not trusted to formulate doctrines?

 

[spedteacherita]

Christ did not leave a book of doctrine.

He lived, died, rose, and ascended. He left a community, not a book. The inspired community wrote the inspired book. This is not an opinion, it’s simply an observation of the way it happened. This is the way Christ himself shows us: trust in a community of persons.

If the community that Christ established can be trusted to formulate the scriptures we rightly revere, why is it not trusted to formulate doctrines?

I agree that the inspired community wrote the inspired book…but we base our doctrines on that book. And any doctrines developed must stand up to that which has been taught within that book. I guess that is really what I meant as for leaving a book of doctrine.

I looked back and saw this statement that I wrote I can’t think of any doctrine from the Bible that the LCMS has.. It’s a wonder that others have not jumped on me for that. That statement is incorrect. Luther used the Bible to develop doctrines from the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

 

[clem456]

I agree that the inspired community wrote the inspired book…but we base our doctrines on that book. And any doctrines developed must stand up to that which has been taught within that book. I guess that is really what I meant as for leaving a book of doctrine.

I looked back and saw this statement that I wrote I can’t think of any doctrine from the Bible that the LCMS has.. It’s a wonder that others have not jumped on me for that. That statement is incorrect. Luther used the Bible to develop doctrines from the inerrant, inspired Word of God.

Right, Luther developed doctrine.
So this is an implied admission that inspiration accepts the living transmission of the faith through the Church. Scripture is not dead in the word.

It is good that doctrines are supported by, or contained in, the book, but understanding and proclamation develops through the living community with the scriptures.

Luther is a person. The Church is composed of persons. Christianity is intensely personal.