Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

I have no problem with non-Catholics. I once was one myself! I do get cranky with anti-Catholics. But if you’ll look on the thread about blasting the homosexual Anglican bishop, you’ll see that I can get pretty cranky with ignorant Catholic anti-Anglicans. I guess I’m anti-Anti.

Oh. About Paul and the bishop thing, look at Acts 13:2 ff

This is exactly Catholics mean when we say that the bishops are the descendents of the Apostles – apostle means “one who is sent.” We pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit in choosing a bishop, we call the Holy Spirit down upon him when laying hands upon him . . . and we “send him off” to do the work to which the Holy Spirit has called him. Actually, all holy orders are consolidated in the bishop, we dispense some of the sacred faculties to the other major orders (priesthood and diaconate) but the bishop is the centerpiece. (Note that Paul doesn’t just set out on his own. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to send him.) See the CCC:

Yes, I’ve noticed you are a convert. Which is partly why you are so receptive and open to non-Catholics. On top of that you are probably a good person and it shows through your posts.

Anyway, I would almost agree with the definition of “apostle”. I would define an apostle as a “messenger sent to give a message”. One could say that Paul was actually a member of the church at Antioch. He was sent out from among them along with Barnabas as “missionaries”. We do the same in the Baptist faith. When going out on a mission we gather together, lay hands on the persons going and pray over them. We simply pray God’s protection over them and that He will guide them in their journey. It is clear that Paul went on at least 3 missionary journeys in his Christian life. They were simply that - missionary journeys.

His task (along with the other apostles) was to teach others the Christian faith and baptize (MT. 28). The question becomes then, What does it take to teach the Christian faith? I would say not that much given what Paul had referred to throughout his epistles as the gospel. The gospel was simple. It wasn’t complicated. As I have mentioned before elsewhere, I use I Cor. 15 as a great summary of the Christian faith and expected beliefs of the Christian. It works the way Baptists do it. We share the gospel message. We give the new believer a Bible, encourage them to regularly attend Bible study and church services in order to grow their faith that began with accepting the gospel message Paul so frequently spoke of. Of course, there are messages from the pastors and sunday school teachers which helps us grow our faith and knowledge of God’s will.

 

[hlgomez]

Ahimasamman,

You may not be convinced by our explanations here, but let’s face this, this is my challenge for you:

Who is better to understand the Gospels taught by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church of whom some hear the teachings themselves directly from the apostles or the Protestant Reformers who came 13-15 centuries later than the Fathers?

Pio

 

[ahimsaman72]

JPrejean:

Thank you. I think an honest assessment is important in Protestant-Catholic dialogues. When people feel as if their trust has been betrayed, discussions usually break down quickly, so I think it’s very important not to let anybody be blindsided.

Actually, that’s not true. Calvinists and Lutherans (not to mention Anglicans) use the term “sacrament” even today. The use of the term “ordinance” is unique among Baptists, who believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of grace, but not means of grace. Calvin, Luther, and the majority of the magisterial Reformers taught that sacraments were means of grace, although not in the same sense as Catholics mean it.

I believe in honesty.

Well, I didn’t explain myself well on the sacraments issue. It is true that the original reformers used sacraments, because as I said, they were Catholic priests and retained some Catholic beliefs. Baptists, Pentecostals (which includes Assembly of God and Holiness, etc), Quakers, Salvation Army, etc do not accept sacraments. Presbyterians, Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Methodists, etc, accept sacraments. It is not only unique within the Baptist tradition.

I can accept the term sacraments for the two - being Lord’s Supper and Baptism. My denomination would not accept that term. Most denoms only have 2 sacraments, compared to the Catholic, Orthodox which obviously have 7.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

Ahimasamman,

You may not be convinced by our explanations here, but let’s face this, this is my challenge for you:

Who is better to understand the Gospels taught by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church of whom some hear the teachings themselves directly from the apostles or the Protestant Reformers who came 13-15 centuries later than the Fathers?

Pio

Even the Catholic Church accepts that beliefs can become clearer over time. I absolutely believe that the reformers got it right (I could be wrong!) I don’t believe there is an absolute for every single doctrine espoused by any denom. I believe some are more right than others. We are fallible people in sin soaked bodies with a hope of heaven and immortal bodies. We simply must do the best we can with what we have.

 

[hlgomez]

Ahimsaman,

Please, don’t divert yourself from my question. Read the writings of the Early Fathers if it is nothing new to Luther and Calvin’s doctrines.

Pio

 

[JPrejean]

It is not only unique within the Baptist tradition.

Thanks for the info! I am, by and large, unfamiliar with lots of the charismatic/Pentecostal movements and other denominations of more recent origin, so I have a great deal to learn in that regard. I hadn’t come across the use of the term elsewhere, so I thought that it was unique. Correction noted.

I can accept the term sacraments for the two - being Lord’s Supper and Baptism. My denomination would not accept that term. Most denoms only have 2 sacraments, compared to the Catholic, Orthodox which obviously have 7.

OK, I understand what you mean now. Just wanted to clear that up.

Also, I clearly perceive the egg on my face now that people are having a perfectly civil, non-argumentative discussion with you. Obviously, I should be less pessimistic.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

Anyway, I would almost agree with the definition of “apostle”. I would define an apostle as a “messenger sent to give a message”. One could say that Paul was actually a member of the church at Antioch. He was sent out from among them along with Barnabas as “missionaries”. We do the same in the Baptist faith. When going out on a mission we gather together, lay hands on the persons going and pray over them. We simply pray God’s protection over them and that He will guide them in their journey.

The Catholic (also Orthodox & Anglican) wrinkle is that we believe there is a special charism of the Holy Spirit for the bishop’s work which is transmitted from Christ’s breathing upon the 10 on Easter Sunday and carried on through Apostolic Succession even into our times.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

So, you admit your claim about the laying of hands done to Paul and Barnabas were not for ordination, because obviously the laying on of hands was done for many people. It was simply “confirmation”.

You claimed Paul was ordained a bishop. I asked you where that was. You referenced laying of hands. I have shown that is false. Now, you avoid that subject by going to other subjects. Paul was never ordained a bishop. He was not a member of the church at Rome. He was not the bishop of Rome either.

I admitted no such thing. I admitted that there are different things within the Early Church that involved the laying on of hands. One of those things was ordination which passes on a charism of authority that is not passed on in the other aspects of laying on of hands (Confirmation and Extreme Unction). However, Paul was clearly ordained to an authoritative role. This is clear in the fact that he claimed to have such an authority and to have passed that authority on to others. This is revealed in the Scripture passages I cited. It is supported in the writings of the Early Church which identify Paul as a bishop. You have clearly not shown that my claim is false.

The Early Church also disagrees with you on the matter of Paul being in the church at Rome. In fact, the writings I previously cited show that the Early Church credits Paul with actually founding the Church at Rome along with Peter.

 

[ahimsaman72]

JPrejean:

Thanks for the info! I am, by and large, unfamiliar with lots of the charismatic/Pentecostal movements and other denominations of more recent origin, so I have a great deal to learn in that regard. I hadn’t come across the use of the term elsewhere, so I thought that it was unique. Correction noted.

OK, I understand what you mean now. Just wanted to clear that up.

Also, I clearly perceive the egg on my face now that people are having a perfectly civil, non-argumentative discussion with you. Obviously, I should be less pessimistic.

God bless you JP.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

The Catholic (also Orthodox & Anglican) wrinkle is that we believe there is a special charism of the Holy Spirit for the bishop’s work which is transmitted from Christ’s breathing upon the 10 on Easter Sunday and carried on through Apostolic Succession even into our times.

I understand.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

Ahimsaman,

Please, don’t divert yourself from my question. Read the writings of the Early Fathers if it is nothing new to Luther and Calvin’s doctrines.

Pio

Who’s diverting? The fact is - truth can be progressive and the reformers and even theologians up to today know more and better the Christian doctrines than the early church.

Finds such as the dead sea scrolls have helped us in our scholarly pursuit of truth contained in the Scriptures.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72 in post #133:

I feel hoodwinked and the thread hijacked by one person who says this thread is not about me or my beliefs.

In the off-chance that you may still be here, I’d like the opportunity to address your feeling hoodwinked and that the thread has been hijacked.
ahimsaman72 in post #91:

This thread is not about sola scriptura, it is about “beliefs of the early church”. … I suggest we keep to the topic of “beliefs of the early church”.

You also posted that you viewed the New Testament as representative of the beliefs of the Early Church. In response, I made a series of posts that used the New Testament to show what the Early Church believed. I backed up that claim with writings from the Early Church that show how they interpreted the Apostolic teaching that had been handed down to them. If I made any reference to the Catholic Church as she exists today, it was merely to point out that, in the present time, the Catholic Church - and only the Catholic Church - holds the same beliefs as did the Early Church. Your initial response was to assert that I had adhered to your own understanding and you agreed that we would try to proceed on that basis.

:tiphat: Yes, I agree, it is within the scope. Although, I’m afraid our definitions of church will certainly not agree from the onset. Nonetheless, why not give it a shot, eh?

From that point forward, I have tried to restrict myself to what is actually said in Scripture and the understanding of the Early Church itself. I have not brought forth any Catholic source beyond that scope. (I word it that way deliberately for Catholics believe that the Early Church and the Catholic Church are one and the same. I respect your right to disagree on this point in the debate).
ahimsaman72 in post #129:

Oh, I’m sorry too. I didn’t realize this thread was only about your beliefs or your church and accepted only the Catholic view. Since this is the case, I will not write further. It seems pointless that given your view of the thread, nothing I will say to you matters anyway.

You seem to be saying that, unless I accept your own view, I am somehow making this thread about my own views in accordance with the Catholic view. However, starting with the long series of posts I made, I have deliberately restricted myself to the New Testament and Early Church sources.

You, on the other hand, have solely brought in your own interpretation of the meaning of the relavent passages of Scripture but you have not cited any source to show that the Early Church shared this view.

I’ll make you a promise here and now. If you can convince me that the Early Church did not hold the Catholic view as I have outlined it, I will write a lengthy document for you to share with your own Church on how you saved me from Catholicism. Naturally, I make this with full confidence that you won’t be able to do so because I have studied the writings of the Early Church and those writings are ultimately why I came back into the Church after having left in my adolescence.

I WILL listen to what you have to say; but that does not mean that I will blindly accept your interpretation of Scripture as representative of the beliefs of the Early Church. You must be able to show me that the Early Church interpreted Scripture in the same way that you do.

 

[theMutant]

I will also make one last offer. If I am hindering this debate; I will leave it on your request. There is no point in my pursuing it if it will only drive you away. I am not so proud as to think that I am the only one who can carry on this debate with you. If it is your wish, I will not make any futher posts in this thread.

May the peace of Christ always be with you!

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

You seem to be saying that, unless I accept your own view, I am somehow making this thread about my own views in accordance with the Catholic view. However, starting with the long series of posts I made, I have deliberately restricted myself to the New Testament and Early Church sources.

You, on the other hand, have solely brought in your own interpretation of the meaning of the relavent passages of Scripture but you have not cited any source to show that the Early Church shared this view.

I’ll make you a promise here and now. If you can convince me that the Early Church did not hold the Catholic view as I have outlined it, I will write a lengthy document for you to share with your own Church on how you saved me from Catholicism. Naturally, I make this with full confidence that you won’t be able to do so because I have studied the writings of the Early Church and those writings are ultimately why I came back into the Church after having left in my adolescence.

I WILL listen to what you have to say; but that does not mean that I will blindly accept your interpretation of Scripture as representative of the beliefs of the Early Church. You must be able to show me that the Early Church interpreted Scripture in the same way that you do.

Sorry, I edited for length.

Turns out you were right, I am still here.

I don’t expect you to accept anything I say, friend. What I expect is the same courtesy I have shown you in that you have the right to share your beliefs whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim…you get my point.

I see that most of the mis-understanding here can be attributed to our definition of “early church”. My definition of early Church is the church as it existed in the NT epistles. Your defintion (I gather) is the church as it existed in the NT epistles and beyond till ???.

It is obvious that the “early church fathers” were the apostles themselves, wouldn’t you agree? The early church consisted of the Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, church at Antioch, etc. That is the early church. Those were the early Christians. They were the foundation of Christendom.

Your challenge reminds me of the Seventh-Day Adventists who claim they will give you $1,000 if you can show them where the Sabbath day was changed from Saturday to Sunday.

I’m not here to convince you to come to the Baptist faith. I simply seek to share and explore great things in the Catholic faith. If you seek to convert me to your faith, that’s your deal, but it is not my intent this end.

I have yet to look at all you posted in that long string of posts. There’s alot of info there and others have posted short posts which I can easily manuever through and answer. Yours, on the other hand, will take some time.

I will be away quite a bit in the next few days. I manage a distribution center and we are having physical inventory the next couple days, so if I don’t reply or post it’s because I have to work sometime!

I will make you a promise (which I rarely do) - I will read your looonnngggg posts.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

I will also make one last offer. If I am hindering this debate; I will leave it on your request. There is no point in my pursuing it if it will only drive you away. I am not so proud as to think that I am the only one who can carry on this debate with you. If it is your wish, I will not make any futher posts in this thread.

May the peace of Christ always be with you!

Mutant, I only expect courtesy. I won’t go away, unless they kick me out . Feel free to post away, friend. I wish you no harm and have no ill feelings. I wish you only peace and love (sounds like the 60’s doesn’t it?) .

Seriously, we can continue. I have no problems with your being here. I respect you.

Peace…

 

[hlgomez]

Who’s diverting? The fact is - truth can be progressive and the reformers and even theologians up to today know more and better the Christian doctrines than the early church.

Ahimsaman,

I think you are over-stating it. The reformers (Luther and Calvin) and theologians of today knew better than the Fathers, people who heard for themselves what the Apostles preach? And the voices of the Apostles were constantly “ringing in their ears” and saw their actions and observed what they do from day-to-day and wrote them down? That’s a strange claim.
I would just like to repeat what St. Augustine said, and this time with regards to the Fathers of the Church: “TAKE AND READ.” See if what they believe (the basic truth at least) are nothing new with the Reformers and your theologians and even what Catholic Church believes.

Pio

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

I see that most of the mis-understanding here can be attributed to our definition of “early church”. My definition of early Church is the church as it existed in the NT epistles. Your defintion (I gather) is the church as it existed in the NT epistles and beyond till ???.

Now, I think, we can begin to make progress! Since the topic of the thread is what the Early Church believed, I can see the reasonableness of the position that there needs to be an agreed upon time frame from which we will consider the writings. After all, if we disagree on what constitutes the “Early Church,” then how can we discuss its beliefs?

My personal view is this. If we are going to restrict it to the writings of the New Testament, then we will never get an idea of what the Early Church believed about those passages where we disagree on interpretation. In effect, we will be arguing our own beliefs rather than those of the Early Church. When we present our arguments from Scripture, are we actually presenting how the Early Church viewed those passages of Scripture or the views of our respective religious positions? Additionally, the New Testament only treats the first 40 years of the Church (possibly a few more if some of John’s writings were truly written after AD 70). Are we really not going to consider even one generation beyond that as being part of the “Early Church?”

At the same time, I can see why, from your position, it might not be correct to include five and six generations beyond that. It is widely accepted by non-Catholics that, by the end of the thrid century, the structure now known as Catholicism was in place. Therefore, from your own view, writings from that time, and even some time before it, could be suspect in terms of faithfullness to the Gospel message. (I am not claiming that this is your own view, I am merely trying to reason what your position - as well as other non-Catholics who may be reading this thread - could be and account for it.)

Therefore, I would like to propose two generations beyond the New Testament; each generation being 40 years. This would effectively define the “Early Church” for the purposes of this thread as being from the Death of Christ to AD 150. This would limit presenting for evidence of our positions to those writings that we both consider to be Scripture plus the writings of the first generation after the Apostles (those directly taught by the Apostles) and the writings of the second generation (those directly taught by the first generation).

My reasoning is thus. By restricting the writings to those composed prior to AD 150, we will be steering well clear of those which could be considered suspect. Also, when we disagree on the interpretation of passages of Scripture, we would be looking at the actual writings of the Early Church - those in the immediate time frame of the Apostles - regarding what they themselves believed about these passages of Scripture rather than simply arguing without any evidence that our own interpretation of Scripture is also what they believed.

I understand the necessities of work as I am about to go beyond my break. I will wait patiently while you attend to your responsibilities. Consider what I have proposed and let us know if it is acceptable or what changes you would like to make to it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

hlgomez:

Ahimsaman,

I think you are over-stating it. The reformers (Luther and Calvin) and theologians of today knew better than the Fathers, people who heard for themselves what the Apostles preach? And the voices of the Apostles were constantly “ringing in their ears” and saw their actions and observed what they do from day-to-day and wrote them down? That’s a strange claim.
I would just like to repeat what St. Augustine said, and this time with regards to the Fathers of the Church: “TAKE AND READ.” See if what they believe (the basic truth at least) are nothing new with the Reformers and your theologians and even what Catholic Church believes.

Pio

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.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Luther and Calvin were well versed in Scripture

The Fathers of the Church too…

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

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?

Catholics believe that their essential doctrines are found in Scripture as well and that Scripture clearly reveals this Church organization as having been established by Him.

ahimsaman72:

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?

We believe that Scripture reveals that He established a heavenly kingdom and a Church on earth to guide the faithful until the end of the age.

ahimsaman72:

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.

And yet, Catholics cite Scripture to show that He did make up Catholic theology and the Structure of the Church.