Catholicity of the Early Church

[PRmerger]

It potentially could be wrong on that subject, yes.

That’s honest.

And what is it that you use as the canon for discerning when this church is wrong on a particular subject?

 

[pablope]

The promise of Christ to the church is not that the church will always and at all times be correct in all that it does and teaches. That is a presupposition that is not warranted by the text, given the warnings that the apostles give regarding false teaching within the church. The promise is that, in the eschatological reality of things, the church will be triumphant over Satan. That the church has allowed error is demonstrable by church history itself.

Given the current topic of Eastern vs. Western apostolicity, it is evident that both halves of the church were part of the gates of hell promise, yet one or the other erred in what is taught by it.

Iggy and Zelda…

I hope this article will shed more insights…it discusses this premise of the Church falling into apostasy…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

From which I will quote the following…Mohler is a Baptist…

Mohler claims that we have an “objective standard” by which to define what is and what is not Christianity. That objective standard is “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But this subtly pushes back the question: What is the objective standard for what counts as “traditional Christian orthodoxy”? Mohler appeals to the early creeds, and the first four ecumenical councils. He seems to think that the end of the fifth century is roughly the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” But picking the fifth century as the cutoff for “traditional Christian orthodoxy” is no less ad hoc than picking the first century. If one thinks that the Church fell into heresy or apostasy, there is no more principled reason to think the ‘apostasy of the Church’ did not begin for five hundred years than there is to think it began in the first century.

Moreover, the first five centuries of Christian tradition are replete with beliefs and practices that Mohler rejects…The problem here is that Mohler’s position faces a very serious dilemma regarding the tradition to which he is appealing as the basis for “Christian orthodoxy.” On the one hand, Mohler cannot reject the tradition of the early Church, because that would make his own position fail to count as “traditional Christian orthodoxy,” and thus fail to count as “Christian,” by the very same argument he uses to claim that Mormonism is not Christian. On the other hand, Mohler cannot embrace the tradition of the early Church, because, as shown above, in many important ways that tradition is incompatible with his own Baptist theology…How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

Because any person who chooses to leave the Catholic Church or remain separated from her, while intending to remain a Christian, has to claim that the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy or apostasy, so that separating from her is justified. We can find this idea throughout the history of the Catholic Church. The Gnostics of the second century justified being separated from the Catholic Church by claiming that even the Apostles had perverted Christ’s teachings…I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”28 This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church,…The Church is not a merely human institution; it is the Body of Christ, who is divine. He is the greatest good, the good than which there can be none greater. So God could never separate Christ from the Church in order to lead the Church to something greater than Christ. The promises of Christ to the Church are not accidentally tacked on to the Church; they flow from the very identity of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Church cannot fall into heresy because she is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot fall into heresy or apostasy. The Holy Spirit, who is the very Soul of the Church, cannot be led into heresy or apostasy. The essential holiness (i.e. purity of doctrine) and unity of the visible hierarchy of the Church50 entail that God will never allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy. The four marks of the Church are not accidents that can be variously gained or lost; they are intrinsic to the very nature of the Church.

 

[pablope]

To be fair, no denominations have stemmed from Luther. From the Reformed and Anglican wing, yes.

I would challenge you to identify the 75% that was thrown out. Sola Scriptura? Well, Luther rejected that church councils and the papacy could be infallible, and he insisted that tradition, however sacred, must be in accord with Scripture. I think the view you are attaching to Luther on sola scriptura is probably not the one he espoused.

Lutheranism has separated into different…synods…the LSMS, WELS, ELCA…and this is just what I know of…

In one thread here, some Lutheran posters, in closer examination of Luther’s teachings…found some deviation of succeeding generations, from what he actually said or taught…for example on the sacrament of confession…it just shows the need for a teaching authority…a Magisterium.

In listening to one Church historian discussing Luther, he said Luther never actually defined SS, he just asserted it. In different threads on SS, different protestants have different ideas about SS…there is no one defined definition.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

That’s honest.

And what is it that you use as the canon for discerning when this church is wrong on a particular subject?

We have a number of resources at our disposal in determining these things. Scripture, the Fathers, the development of church history, etc.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Lutheranism has separated into different…synods…the LSMS, WELS, ELCA…and this is just what I know of…

Synod does not equate to denomination. It denotes a regional body that governs a specific geographic and/or ethnic area. For example, the WELS governed the upper midwest, etc. Groups like the ELCA have moved away from Lutheranism, as it is taught in the Lutheran Confessions.

In one thread here, some Lutheran posters, in closer examination of Luther’s teachings…found some deviation of succeeding generations, from what he actually said or taught…for example on the sacrament of confession…it just shows the need for a teaching authority…a Magisterium.

That is because he is not the standard of what is and is not dogma.

In listening to one Church historian discussing Luther, he said Luther never actually defined SS, he just asserted it. In different threads on SS, different protestants have different ideas about SS…there is no one defined definition.

It is clearly defined in the Lutheran Confessions. What the Reformed or Baptists assert about it, is not the interest of the Lutheran Church

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And then Luther comes along and throws off 75% of what made Apostolic Christianity identifiable? No more Scripture and Sacred Tradition, but Sola Scriptura? Not to mention the countless denominations that have stemmed from Luther and Calvin…

I’m not sure where you are getting this information, but it’s quite inaccurate. Luther didn’t “throw off” Sacred Tradition, although he did have different ideas about where the borders of magisterium lie.

And I’m guessing you probably have also been misinformed about Luther’s understanding of Sola Scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

We have a number of resources at our disposal in determining these things. Scripture, the Fathers, the development of church history, etc.

I’m not exactly sure what this means. Are you saying that if there’s a doctrine that’s promoted by your church you evaluate it in light of what Scripture, the ECFs and the historical evidence proposes?

If that’s what you mean, how does that work with, say, the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which was taught by the ECFs, as well as the historical church.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I’m not exactly sure what this means. Are you saying that if there’s a doctrine that’s promoted by your church you evaluate it in light of what Scripture, the ECFs and the historical evidence proposes?

If that’s what you mean, how does that work with, say, the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which was taught by the ECFs, as well as the historical church.

Well, if by my church you mean Baptist… I am sure there are doctrines where that is done. But if I thought they did so consistently, I wouldn’t be re-evaluating my position on Baptism

In the case of Semper Virgo, well, it works the same way it would work with any doctrine. Are you asking specifically what I think about that teaching?

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of Semper Virgo, well, it works the same way it would work with any doctrine. Are you asking specifically what I think about that teaching?

Not exactly.

I am trying to discern how it is that you determine what’s true regarding Christological teachings.

That is, what’s the canon you use for your discernment as to whether a preacher is preaching truth or error?

 

[pablope]

Synod does not equate to denomination. It denotes a regional body that governs a specific geographic and/or ethnic area. For example, the WELS governed the upper midwest, etc. Groups like the ELCA have moved away from Lutheranism, as it is taught in the Lutheran Confessions.

But they are independent of each other, right? There is no central governing body? And there is no common practice (one is conservative in outlook, one is not)?

 

[JonNC]

But they are independent of each other, right? There is no central governing body? And there is no common practice (one is conservative in outlook, one is not)?

In America, synods historically developed along lines of immigration and nation of origin. Lutheranism has never had a hierarchical polity such as that in the Catholic Church. Generally, however, the unity of Lutheranism has been its adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, most notably the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism. To say that there is no common practice would also not be quite accurate, at least liturgically speaking, and in practice regarding confession, Baptism, and the Eucharist.

Within what is typically called confessional Lutheranism (some of the more liberal synods have moved away from this), the differences are often more based on fellowship, and other less doctrinal issues. One also must remember that Augsburg was clear that practices did not need to be the same everywhere, so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are flavors of Lutheranism as one travels from synod to synod.

Jon

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Not exactly.

I am trying to discern how it is that you determine what’s true regarding Christological teachings.

That is, what’s the canon you use for your discernment as to whether a preacher is preaching truth or error?

Scripture, and the continuous teaching of the church from its earliest times down through to the present age. I would give you a fuller answer, but am pressed for time cause the military isn’t patient!

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture, and the continuous teaching of the church from its earliest times down through to the present age. I would give you a fuller answer, but am pressed for time cause the military isn’t patient!

How does this work, though, Iggy?

Let’s say your pastor preaches on 1 Peter 3:21: baptism now saves you.

He gives an hour long sermon on the fact that this means that baptism must be done in the same way that Jesus was baptized.

Now, as you know, there’s A LOT of different things Christians profess about baptism:
it’s an ordinance!
it’s a sacrament!
it’s done on adults only!
it’s for even little babes!
in a river only!
in a pool!
in a fountain!
by immersion!
by sprinkling!
in Jesus’ name only!
using the trinitarian formula!

Now, what??

What Scripture do you use to discern that the pastor is correct?

And, BTW, what Scripture verse tells you to use Scripture as the canon for discerning what a pastor preaches is the Truth?

 

[pablope]

In America, synods historically developed along lines of immigration and nation of origin. Lutheranism has never had a hierarchical polity such as that in the Catholic Church. Generally, however, the unity of Lutheranism has been its adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, most notably the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Small Catechism. To say that there is no common practice would also not be quite accurate, at least liturgically speaking, and in practice regarding confession, Baptism, and the Eucharist.

Within what is typically called confessional Lutheranism (some of the more liberal synods have moved away from this), the differences are often more based on fellowship, and other less doctrinal issues. One also must remember that Augsburg was clear that practices did not need to be the same everywhere, so it shouldn’t be surprising that there are flavors of Lutheranism as one travels from synod to synod.

Jon

Thanks, Jon…as always…just a some more questions…

Each synod is independent of each other? There is no governing body?

And let us say, one synod would like to ordain a female minister/pastor…could it decide on its own? Or would it have to get approval somewhere? from a governing body?

 

[pablope]

Scripture, and the continuous teaching of the church from its earliest times down through to the present age. I would give you a fuller answer, but am pressed for time cause the military isn’t patient!

I hope you had time to read the link in my post 62…

And what is your objective standard? And are you not picking and choosing what is and is not Christianity?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

How does this work, though, Iggy?

Let’s say your pastor preaches on 1 Peter 3:21: baptism now saves you.

He gives an hour long sermon on the fact that this means that baptism must be done in the same way that Jesus was baptized.

Then I would expect him to provide some evidence that it must be done the same way Jesus was baptized. No injunction to do so exists in Scripture, so I would imagine he’d have a very tough time making a coherent argument for it.

Now, as you know, there’s A LOT of different things Christians profess about baptism:
it’s an ordinance!
it’s a sacrament!
it’s done on adults only!
it’s for even little babes!
in a river only!
in a pool!
in a fountain!
by immersion!
by sprinkling!
in Jesus’ name only!
using the trinitarian formula!

Now, what??

What Scripture do you use to discern that the pastor is correct?

Same as above.

And, BTW, what Scripture verse tells you to use Scripture as the canon for discerning what a pastor preaches is the Truth?

Since Scripture is the word of God, I would expect He has some say over the matter! On a more serious note…Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the word. This would mean not preaching those things which are not in accordance with that word.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I hope you had time to read the link in my post 62…

And what is your objective standard? And are you not picking and choosing what is and is not Christianity?

The objective standard is Scripture, in the sense of being an infallible authority. That the church is not an infallible authority does not prevent it from being an authority nonetheless. Picking and choosing? No more so than any other ecclesiastical tradition. That Roman Catholicism claims an infallible magisterium does not prevent the same accusation from being directed its way.

 

[pablope]

The objective standard is Scripture, in the sense of being an infallible authority. That the church is not an infallible authority does not prevent it from being an authority nonetheless.

And how would the Scripture be an objective standard?

Let me give you a situation…a Church…interpreted a Scripture passage…but it does not agree to your understanding or private interpretation…would then accept the teaching of the Church over your private interpretation and understanding?

Picking and choosing? No more so than any other ecclesiastical tradition. That Roman Catholicism claims an infallible magisterium does not prevent the same accusation from being directed its way.

And can you show how the CC, or RCC, has done a pick and choose approach?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

And how would the Scripture be an objective standard?

Let me give you a situation…a Church…interpreted a Scripture passage…but it does not agree to your understanding or private interpretation…would then accept the teaching of the Church over your private interpretation and understanding?

No, though I am sure a healthy dose of common sense goes a long way. If a pastor comments on, say, 1 Peter 3, as was mentioned earlier, and says baptism doesn’t save you, and the text says baptism now saves you…it should probably raise eyebrows. Scripture, for the most part, is not a calculus exam. Most of it is not very difficult. But if the interpretation given is out of accord with what the church has always expressed in relationship to the deposit of faith, then it should be questioned.

And can you show how the CC, or RCC, has done a pick and choose approach?

No, because for the most part, it hasn’t. However, simply saying “we are infallible” doesn’t really answer the question when it is accused of picking and choosing. When a secularist makes the argument that the Roman See picked and chose what was and wasn’t Scripture, see how far “that’s impossible, because Rome is infallible” gets you in an argument.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No, though I am sure a healthy dose of common sense goes a long way.

And thats why we are in the Catholic Church. Biblically speaking their is NO-WAY around the Sacramental Covenant of the Eucharist.

So wheres the scriptural common sense here? All four Gospels point to …DO THIS. God wasn’t asking. Then its pounded home in “common sense” in JOHN in case you missed the other three Gospels.

God didn’t say read this, understand this, He said DO THIS!

Biblically speaking there is NO-WAY Christs words to St Peter in Matthew. So I guess it comes down to WHO’s common sense your listening to?

In my English comprehension the CC has it RIGHT:thumbsup:

And of course from here, we could just read St Ignatius of Antioch and so forth. Which confirms 2000- years of tradition.

So in common sense I would have to ask YOU. Why are YOU in a Baptist Church??? Oh because you are listening to the fallible interpretation of exactly who???

Peace