Beliefs of the Early Church

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

We -know- the Bible is from God, we don’t -know- that the various traditions are true, or perhaps not. That would be in the provence of historiography. When was it first recorded, what are the earliest dates for the extant texts containing these traditions, and so forth.

But you DON’T know that the Bible is from God. How do you KNOW this? Did YOU get a personal message from the Holy Spirit telling you this or are you merely relying on the authoritative teaching of the Church in the past (what Catholics call Tradition) to make that determination. Most of the Scriptures do not claim to be such. Many of them do not even identify who the author is. Why do you believe that the writing we both call the Gospel of Matthew is - in fact - written by the Apostle Matthew? It doesn’t claim to be written by an Apostle or even by anyone named Matthew. You may claim that the writings of the Early Church show that they believed that this was his writing, but then you are going beyond what the New Testament actually says and are relying on what the Church taught as your authority for making this determination. It is amazing that Protestants don’t see this blatant contradiction! The only reason that we believe that this writing was written by someone named Matthew is that the Church teaches us so. The only reason we believe that the Matthew in question is the Apostle Matthew is that the Church teaches us so. The only reason that we believe that this particular writing is divinely inspired Scripture instead of a non-inspired writing is because the Church teaches us so.

Historical accuracy of the texts don’t qualify something as Scripture - otherwise we would have to regard any accurate history book as Scripture. General acceptance - not even that of the Early Church - qualifies a writing as Scripture - otherwise we would accept the Didache as Scripture. The fact that Jesus quoted from a Jewish writing does not make it Scripture - otherwise we would have to accept Enoch as part of the Old Testament! I’m sorry, your arguments simply don’t work.
Wil Peregrin:

Jimmy, a number of the letters attributed to Ignatius are considered spurious. I don’t know which ones, and I don’t know the reasoning, but that does have to be addressed.

By whom? Some of the New Testament is considered to be spurious by certain modern “scholars,” doesn’t that also need to be addressed by the same tests you seem to suggest for the writings of Ignatius?

Scholars don’t agree because they are fallen, if justified mere men. They have personal perspectives and agendae that get in their way. That is why we talk of the hermeneutical spiral, each time we study the Bible, our minds become more transformed (Romans 12:1-2) and our understanding is improved, plus we submit our findings to our colleagues, whether in academic journals, or a group of Christians getting out their Bibles with each other and challenging the odd one out to “prove it”

 

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

How do we understand the Magisterium? Surely if the Bible cannot be understood, neither can the Catechism or papal encyclicals. Both are written in human language, all of the same exegetical issues come to play. If you try to use the pomo/fascist “hermeneutic of despair” to attack Protestants, you have to use the same principles on those documents that you -do- consider authoritative and perspecacious. Or, you might realize the fallacy and many dangers of using a hermeneutic alien to the Faith that believes “ean archae aen ha Logos”, and rethink, and improve your apologetic. If you wish to be the best servants of God that you know how to be.

Trying to associate us with fascists is not going to get anywhere with us. We do use the same principles but you do not understand what they are. The Magisterium is a living thing which is just as active today as it was when the past documents were written. The same Magisterium that we believe infallibly defined the canon continues to this day despite the fact that the men of that magisterium are different - because it is the same Holy Spirit who protects its teachings. Therefore we submit the teachings of the early Church writings to the same tests that we submit the teachings of the Protestants - the test of the living Magisterium.

Since you are as verbose as I am, I will need to address your other posts later

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Ok, I’m confused (like no duh?) so, when you said you were a Catholic, you were not meaning to distinguish yourself from the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, the “Nestorian” Church, the Armenian Church and the Coptic Church? I thought you were, that is why I wrote what I did in regards to that.

MKellog, I thought this site existed for the sake of poor, benighted individuals like myself.

BTW, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that you know people’s motives and their hearts. We mortal Men are not so equiped.

WBB,
What is a liturgical, eucharistic evangelical? Lonely.

Well, the believing Lutheran synods, and the Bible-believing Anglican groups would tend to be such.

Anyway, that is where I’m at. So I thought that might be descriptive.

 

[mtr01]

Wil Peregrin:

Ok, I’m confused (like no duh?) so, when you said you were a Catholic, you were not meaning to distinguish yourself from the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, the “Nestorian” Church, the Armenian Church and the Coptic Church? I thought you were, that is why I wrote what I did in regards to that.

MKellog, I thought this site existed for the sake of poor, benighted individuals like myself.

The moniker “Roman Catholic” is not an accuarate description of the Church. As mentioned before, if was coined by Anglicans to classify those who were loyal to the Pope. Now, if I understand you, you (as do most non-Catholics) are using the term in the same way: In union with the Pope = Roman Catholic. Is this accurate?

We use “Catholic” because there are other Rites of the Church besides the Latin Rite (which could be called “Roman”). In the Catholic Church, there are also the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Byzantine Rites (they can be considered “Eastern Rites”).

Within these various rites are also different Churches, such as the Maronite, Chaldean, Armenian, Melkite, and Coptic (to name a few). By the way, I’m no expert on the Eastern Rites, if I made a mistake, I’d appreciate it if one of our Eastern Rite brothers would correct me.

All of these Churches are in union with the Pope. To use the term “Roman Catholic” in reference to someone in the Maronite Church (for example) is doing that person a disservice, and could possibly be offensive to him/her. It is an artifically narrow term that doesn’t do justice to the breadth of the faith. Granted, the term may be accurate for a member of the Latin Rite Church, but it is more correct just to use “Catholic.”

 

[RBushlow]

Wil Peregrin:

The books entered into the canon of the NT were done so because they were known to have been written by an apostle or the scribe of an apostle.

How do you know the books you consider Paul’s writing were actually written by him? 16 centuries is a long time. Who watched for the authenticity of those books for 1600 years? When was it determined that Paul’s’ and not Barnabus’s writings should be included? By whom was this done? Where did this happen. This information is available if you wish to know the Truth. Pray for the Holy Spirit to lead you in Truth and you will find out if you want to.

God bless you and keep you in His care.

 

[WBB]

Wil Peregrin:

Ok, I’m confused (like no duh?) so, when you said you were a Catholic, you were not meaning to distinguish yourself from the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, the “Nestorian” Church, the Armenian Church and the Coptic Church? I thought you were, that is why I wrote what I did in regards to that.

MKellog, I thought this site existed for the sake of poor, benighted individuals like myself.

BTW, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that you know people’s motives and their hearts. We mortal Men are not so equiped.

WBB,
What is a liturgical, eucharistic evangelical? Lonely.

Well, the believing Lutheran synods, and the Bible-believing Anglican groups would tend to be such.

Anyway, that is where I’m at. So I thought that might be descriptive.

I understand what you are talking about with the term liturgical, eucharistic evangelical. And about how I see myself, I do not presume to define for Copts, Armenians, or the Orthodox who they are or aren’t. However, I don’t use the term “Roman” Catholic (funny, my wife does ). We get so caught up in what separates us instead of celebrating what unites us, and that is Faith in Jesus, the Christ. I prefer to say that I belong to Christ’s Church (which the Creed describes as One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic), and I choose to worship and accept the teachings according to the Latin Rite.

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

There is a great deal now in this thread that requires careful study on my part, which I don’ think I have time for for a few days. That is why I’m not responding to it. But these posts by David and others are the sort of thing I find very helpful.

One thing I see right off, is the citing of verses that are not canon. The Gospel of Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8. I know the small catechism cites a spurious passage, which is late, written by a different writer, and is not part of the canonical gospel.

And I was most certainly not meaning to associate you with fascism!!! Catholicism and fascism are anthetical to each other! But the hermeneutic of despair is a post-modern hermeneutic, and post-modernism is the same ideology as fascism on the ideological level, taught by the same people who were fascist apologists, Heidegger, Derrida, Pound, etc. They never really changed their stripes. So, what I was intending to convey is that that hermeneutic is alien to us. That isn’t what we, whatever our communion, believe. That’s all I was trying to say. Since in the “protestant” circle’s we are even now struggling against heretics and heresiarchs who would teach that hermeneutic, it pains me to see faithful Catholics using it. It is poison, and I would spare you that diifficulty, if I could.

WBB,
I perceive myself as belonging to that same church, as opposed to being opposed to that Church, FWIW.

 

[Les_Richardson]

ahimsaman72:

I realize that some letters are simply attributed to authors in which we have no way of officially knowing who they belonged to. But this even helps my case for general acceptance of Scripture without a “council” to determine what is canon and acceptable and what is not. For instance, the book of Hebrews is debateable. Protestant scholars attribute it to Paul, although we can’t be sure. The message of Hebrews is outstanding. It is written well and is solid in its theology and appears similar to Paul’s other writings.

I believe the message of the letter or book is also just as important as the author. Some texts strayed away from what was generally accepted as true. You have the gnostic gospels for example. They are so different in meaning and delivery and content that it’s obvious that they should not be on the same level as the the gospel books and epistles.

Some of the letters were obvious. The letters to Timothy were sent by Paul. Timothy would know if they were from him. Look for instance at this passage of Scripture. This is from Colossians 4:14-18:

1. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.
2. Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
   16. And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
3. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.
4. The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds. Grace be with you. Amen.

The Colossians knew it was from Paul and Paul expects them to listen and then to pass it on to the Laodiceans. Paul’s letters along with the other letters in the New Testament were circulated and accepted as valid and binding. No council needed.

Notice the hand-off of the letter to the Laodiceans. Also notice that there was an epistle from Laodicea. The early believers shared the NT writings and considered them valid without Peter, Paul or any other persons authority.

You are going in circles. If they considered the letters of St. Paul valid without question it was precisely because of his authority as an apostle. On the other hand, if you are attributing to them a special perception to believe St. Paul’s writings were the truth because of what he said to them, ie. his doctrine, then you have two problems.

By what authority (authentication of truth) apart from St. Paul did they assess the truth of his doctrine, when he was the one most central to introducing them to the risen Christ? And, as a matter of record, his letters were sent in most cases to interdict and correct an error or heresy that had sprung up in doctrine or practice.

How could anything be obvious to these new Christians? They did not have the benefit of 1500 yrs of church development of doctrine to rely on as you do (and don’t even realize it.) If you believe, as most protestants today believe, that the Holy Spirit will guide the believer in understanding and interpreting the Scripture and indeed was guiding the recipients of St. Paul’s letters to determine their validity, how is it that he needed to send them in the first place for their correction? And of course, how is it there are so many guided by the Holy Spirit saying so many and conflicting things to this day?

The issue of authority is unavoidable, particularly when you get a better understanding of the historical context into which these early churches were established. The world around was not a cultural or religious vacuum, no more than it is today.

 

[Les_Richardson]

gmk:

I am coming into this late, so please forgive me if I have missed some detail.

I think the point that Chrisw is trying to make is that you do in fact accept what was delivered to you, just as your forefathers. That in itself, is a very Roman Catholic position.

In order to justify accepting the Canon without full research yourself, you must forego the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

As you have said, you accept what was delivered to you. Whether or not you believe it was the Roman Catholic Church that handed it down, you are in fact accetpting a Tradition (The Canon) as the foundation for your sole authority.

In short, the fact that there was debate in the early church about which writings were actually Inspired, is some what irrelevent. Simply because you are already saying that you accept the authority of Tradition to identify Scripture itself.

Precisely!

 

[Les_Richardson]

ahimsaman72:

What the apostles preached is what exists in Scripture. Luther and Calvin were well versed in Scripture. Not even Christ’s actions from day to day were all recorded. The apostle John reminded us of that. That doesn’t make Him any less of a Messiah. That doesn’t change the message.

My belief in Christ and essential doctrines are all found in the pages of Scripture. Isn’t it obvious that if Christ wanted a church organization that He would explicitly spend His time on earth doing so? The feeling I get is that people think the mission of Christ on earth was to establish an earthly kingdom built upon men. (The Jews believed this, by the way). Don’t you think He would have spent his whole waking moments establishing this magnificent organization to carry on His work before He was crucified?

The truth of the matter is that Christ told the disciples in Matthew 28:19,20

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

These were some of His last words to them before His ascension. He didn’t make up the complex catholic theology that exists today. He didn’t need to.

Note that Christ didn’t say, go ye therefore and write all of this down.

Actually, the doctrines of the Church are not as complex as you might think. Start with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:37-40;
*37. *He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,

*38. *This is the greatest and the first commandment.

*39. *The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

*40. *The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Catholicism today is 2000 years of learning how to do just that, by the grace of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
You mentioned the Baptist tradition. I was raised in that tradition, recently I came home to the Catholic Church. As others have pointed out, you won’t find the doctrine of the Trinity in the pages of scripture, it must be extrapolated. And I know that Baptists believe it.

What you are missing is summed up by the church historian Philip Hughes in his work the “History of the Church to the Eve of the Reformation.”

The writings which make up the New Testament were none of them written to be a primary and sufficient source of information as to what the new religion was. They were all of them evidently addressed to readers already instructed, to recall what they have learnt, to supplement it, to clear up disputes which have arisen since the first instruction. Yet, though none of them profess to describe fully either the teaching or the organisation, we can extract from them valuable information on these two points. Though the facts may be few they are certain, and among these certain facts is the character of the early propaganda and of the primitive organisation. Page 46.

 

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

One thing I see right off, is the citing of verses that are not canon. The Gospel of Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8. I know the small catechism cites a spurious passage, which is late, written by a different writer, and is not part of the canonical gospel.

And by what authority do you make such a declaration??? In the Catholic canon, Mark ends at 16:20, not 16:8. Even though it is considered possible, by some biblical scholars, that verses 16:9-20 were added later (because they are missing from some manuscripts), the Catholic Church teaches that these verses are inspired Scripture and are, therefore, part of the canon.

As a Protestant, you should be aware that the canons are different for Catholics and Protestants. If you want to declare that they are not part of the canon, you will have to cite the authority by which you make such a declaration. Until you can make your case, don’t expect Catholics to accept your claim without challenge. Now, such a challenge would not fit within the topic of this thread (at least, not until we can get an agreement on what timeframe we will consider constituting the “Early Church.”)

 

[RobbyS]

ahimsaman72:

Even the poster agreed these were historical documents. Historical documents are that - historical documents. Let me be clear - I don’t think we need a “canon” to decipher the gospel message. The gospel message is clear. It is the peripherals that get in the way.

All “canon” means is publicly recognized. The matter is still open: by what mechanism have we come to know which early Christian works are “inspired” and which not? What, in practical terms" are the marks of an inspired work? ZThe Didache may not be part of the canon, but I don’t think that anyone would say that it contains anything false.

 

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

Ahimamsan, and we can see how all of this happened with regards to the canon of Scripture. Were are the papyrii and ostraca proving the validity of what is claimed to be the Word of God not enscripturated? Where is the evidence trail? If Israel could get off track, if those who sat in Moses Seat could become heretics over time, why should we not heed the Prophets and go “to the Law and the Testimony”. How am I to know that what is claimed to be tradition, is in fact true?

GMK, I fail to see how your argument establishes that “the Law and the Testimony”? are not more to be relied upon that the teachings of men? They might be true, they might not, and they weren’t important enough to include in the Word of God. Have you a better argument?

I’m sorry, but look at your own argument and its self-contradictions. How do you know what writings constitute the Law and the Prophets? Unless you have received a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit, you are relying on the testamony of men regarding these writings. The same is true regarding the New Testament writings. We only know what writings constitute Scripture because God established churches in which He vested the authority to determine what writings constitute the Word of God. Under the Old Covenant, that Church was the Jewish church. In the New Covenant it is the Christian Church. The whole point of this thread is to discuss what the Early Christian Church believed.

The Early Church passed around a lot of writings and there were disagreements on what were inspired writings for more than 2 centuries. So, the real question is, “by what standard did the Early Church settle this issue?” I have posted extensively above to show that the Early Church believed the standard to be the authoritative teaching of the Church with Peter and his successors as the head of the entire Church.
Wil Peregrin:

We must neither trivialize, nor exagerate our differences -and- our unity. Now as perhaps never before, we need each other. Christ has only one bride, and that includes all of the Patriarchies, and all of the idiosyncratic fragments. Ut Unam Sint and Dominus Iesu provide the guidelines for Roman Catholics. The rest of us had better heed Christ’s High Priestly Prayer (and read those two works, St. Karol of Praha is not only saintly, but wise.)

AMEN - I would only add that Ut Unam Sint and Dominus Iesu are based on that same High Priestly Prayer of Christ that we all be one; which means that it is the guideline for all of us.

 

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

Ahimamsan, the apostolic era Christians accepted them because they were from the -apostles- the only ones who had the right to speak for Christ, and to whom Jesus had promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal the NT Scriptures.

Where did Jesus make such a promise? I can’t find one place where Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would reveal the Scriptures. He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all truth and that is why we believe the Church to be exactly what St. Paul described it to be; the pillar and foundation (bulwark) of truth.
Wil Peregrin:

WBB, how can you be Catholic as opposed to Roman Catholic, when the other Patriarchies disagree with your Patriarch so much? Katholicos means universal, not merely Western.

I can only assume that you are referring to those patriarches that broke from the Catholic Church. All of the Eastern Patriarchs in the Catholic Church are in full union with the bishop of Rome. We are opposed to “Roman Catholic” to the extent that is implies that the pope is only the head of the Latin Church. To the extent that it affirms the pope as the head of the Entire Church, the phrase is not offensive. However, it is true that the addition of “Roman” to the phrase originated within Protestantism.
Wil Peregrin:

David, your claims can be made equally well by the Pope of the Copts, the Patriarchs of Moscow and Byzantium and Jerusalem. And the Syriac and Armenian Churches would make the same claims. I think that until better arguments are presented, I will stick to the teaching of the Prophets and the example of Jesus and stick to the Word of God as authoritative over the traditions of men.

Not all of them, one of my principle claims is that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus estabished Peter as the head of the Apostles and of the entire Church and that his successors hold that same role down to this day. None of the others you cite can make the claim and this is the point where their own claims fall apart. You are misquoting Jesus - who also said that we are to listen to the Church. Protestants love to throw out the “tradtions of men” argument without ever explaining how we determine what constitutes a tradition of men. Is it something for which we only have human testimony to verify - like the canon of Scripture? The only place in Scripture where Jesus taught against the “traditions of men” was when a tradition was established to circumvent the Law. Catholic Tradition does not do this and so your argument doesn’t apply.
Wil Peregrin:

Actually, it was either Ignatius or Irenaeus who changed the structure of the Church, separating the mutually-referent terms episcopos and presbyteros into separate offices in order to create a hierarchy to fill the void left by the passing of the Twelve. Various Protestant denominations have gone back to what is described in Acts and the various letters.

Interesting. Here is another example of the extreme disagreement within Protestantism, for there are many Protestants who don’t agree with this claim. Why were two terms used to describe the same office? It is because they were not, in fact, the same office. The Scriptures clearly describe that the successors to the Apostles were established as authorities within the Church - authorities based on succession through ordination which passes on authority from one individual (who already has it) to another (who does not).

 

[theMutant]

Wil Peregrin:

Rjm, but Peter writes that Paul’s letters are Scripture. . .

But how do we identify Paul’s letters? Simply because they CLAIM to be written by Paul? And how do we know that Peter actually wrote the letter which makes the claim about Paul’s letters? I’m sorry, but your argument doesn’t work. An outside authority is needed to make these determinations.
Wil Peregrin:

Mr. Santa, Luther did not take any books out of the Bible. He translated from the Hebrew text, which does not include the apocrypha.

But the Hebrew texts which Luther used were more recent than the Latin texts that the Catholic Church used. Additionally, the Hebrew texts which Luther used did not include the deuterocanonical writings because the Jewish church declared that they were not Scripture - but this declaration was made after Christianity had been established and so they no longer had the authority to make such a declaration.
Wil Peregrin:

It was only Trent that declared the apocrypha to be canon, and that was not an ecumenical council of the Church, and the scholars at Trent didn’t even understand what the Protestants were teaching, and so anathematized teachings that Luther and Calvin would happily have joined in anathamatizing.

Here you show your own misunderstanding. The first and most obvious is what constitutes an ecumenical council. An ecumenical council is one that addresses the teaching of the entire Church and has either been called by or approved by the pope.

The council fathers at Trent did understand what the Protestants were teaching but Protestantism already had deep divisions among them by the time the council took place. Your post seems to imply that the Protestants were somehow a unified force agains the Catholic Church when, in fact, they were in strong disagreement on several doctrinal issues. The Council of Trent did not gather to address the issues of the Protestants, it was held to present the teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the fact that the council pronounced anathema on teachings that (some of) the Protestants would have also does not show a lack of understanding of Protestantism by the Council. Quite the contrary; it shows a deep understanding and defended the faith from potentially reactionary Catholics who might assert false teachings in response to Protestant claims.

This is why session 6 of that council taught that anyone who teaches that we are justified by our works in such a way that faith and/or grace is not required is anathema.

 

[RBushlow]

RobbyS:

All “canon” means is publicly recognized.

Actually, the Canon is the God Breathed body of work as determined bye the Authority of the Church in the early Councils. It is certainly not still open for debate.

Peace be with you.

 

[RobbyS]

RBushlow:

Actually, the Canon is the God Breathed body of work as determined bye the Authority of the Church in the early Councils. It is certainly not still open for debate.

Peace be with you.

In other words “inspired.” But a canon is simply an authoritative list. The Council of Trent was really the first to define the canon.

 

[mayra_hart]

and i quoted: " for evangelicals and reformers alike, there are no objective criteria sufficient for faith. this is most obvious when we discuss the canon. evangelicals have no good,objective explanation for accepting the canon they do accept. catholics did not change the canon of the early church or the deposit of faith to make them fit preconceived ideas. the fact that the reformers did is one of the saddest chapters in all christendom." from david currie.

 

[Bob_Rowland]

Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Whatever you retain will be retained. These are the beliefs from the earliest Church.

 

[RBushlow]

RobbyS:

In other words “inspired.” But a canon is simply an authoritative list. The Council of Trent was really the first to define the canon.

Actually, the council of Hippo was the first. Trent just reiterated it for clarity because of heresies being propagated at that time.

May the peace of Christ be with you.