Church history from a Protestant perspective

[ajcstr]

I have long been looking for information that outlines the Protestant view of Church history. I have heard people like James White state that the Catholic Church essentially “hijacked” Christianity.

I found this video last week and I think it does a good job of laying out this position. The first 45 min discusses this and the time after that is spent on differences in salvation theology. I think he presents his position fairly though smug at times but I would not say he is demeaning. So if you have the patience to hang in there for 45 - 70 min, it may be a worthwhile discussion.

youtube.com/watch?v=TPG3vMeexks&t=82s

I definitely would be able to defend the Catholic position on salvation/justification but I don’t know enough about Church history to really wrap my arms around this. For instance he makes a statement that 80% of the early Fathers of the Church did not acknowledge the Papacy but really does not state his source.

So to Catholics, how would you counter some of his arguments regarding history and to Protestants, is this an accurate summary of what you believe. I know his description of salvation lines up exactly with my understanding of reformed theology. I would hesitate to include the salvation portion in this discussion because I think it would take over the topic and because so much of that is based in interpretation and you really need to resolve the authority issue before interpretation.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

For some strange reason I watched it. This guy would get embarrassed by Dr. Sungensis or Staples or whoever.

Some points:

1.) He points to James giving the final word in Acts 15 council.

It is not uncommon, from my understanding, for a Pope to not even attend a council, even though he has primacy. So this refutes nothing. Peter speaks first and James does not try and refute him.

2.) He makes claims that nobody recognized the primacy of Peter until the 7th century.

If this is true then why do the Eastern Orthodox acknowledge the primacy of Peter, even if it is just honorary?

And he contradicts himself. Because at around 19:30 of the video he says Tertullian(3rd century) is mocking the authority of the Pope. Which is it, they knew of his primacy or not prior to 7th century?

3.) He says Catholics have doctrines not supported by the bible.

What he is leaving out here is the element of his interpretation of the bible. He may not agree with infant baptism while other SS practicing protestants do agree with it based on their interpretation of the bible. etc, etc.

And the bible doesn’t just point to itself. It also points to councils (ACTS 15) to TRADITION (2 Thess 2:15) and to the Church - ( Matt 18:17/1 Tim 3:15) He is operating based off a assumption which is his TRADITION of Sola scriptura. And that tradition is foreign to historical Christianity.

4.) He says the Church Fathers are not holding hands in unison on such issues such as purgatory and the rosary, etc.

We are talking about a faith that didn’t have a complete canon until 405AD. That didn’t have Christ defined in nice terms like Trinity and communicatio idiomatum until the 4th or 5th centuries. It takes a while for complete definitions in a living faith.

The council of ACTS 15 is interesting. Jesus knew the circumcision issue is coming. Why did he choose to not tell them the answer before his ascension? Why did he let the Church wrestle with such issues when they had no scriptural precedent to do so? Could it be because those keys in Matthew 16 are a thing?

5.) at 23:00 minutes refers to infallibility

First of all, it’s not impeccability as those who critique the RCC think or claim…

Secondly, go back, again to ACTS 15. The apostles spoke and it was infallible…and they had no real scriptural precedent to do. And so this should be a clue that a precedent was set at that council.

Thirdly, how can the Church be the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth if it isn’t teaching truth? 1 Tim 3:15. And it’s not teaching truth when it is splintered into thousands of pieces with conflicting doctrines that cant all be true. So yes, infallibility is needed on matters of faith and morals. And we have a Lord that promised to be with the Church every step of the way.

6.) at 26:30 goes on a tirade comparing the Pharisees to Catholic clergy. Then refers to chair of Peter, etc

What he seems to miss here, unsurprisingly, is that upon close review of Matt 23, Jesus refers to the Chair of Moses which is a TRADITION found no where in the OT. And tells them DO WHATEVER they tell you, just don’t follow their poor example.

So this validates the role of Apostolic tradition in our faith and the STRUCTURE and AUTHORITY that has always existed dating back to early Judaism. It doesn’t support SS and the idea that we can wing it and start our own autonomous Churches.

Basically, God doesn’t change and to think he is going to revamp his entire system, midflight is rather foolish, imo. Nothing human beings have ever done has caught the Lord by surprise.

The Jews became corrupted because all they knew was fleshly circumcision and not inward circumcision of the heart. This is the role of the Church…to bring us Jesus and true conversion so the entire cup is cleaned instead of just the outside.

7.) around 33 minutes he claims the typical nonsensical baloney that the Church was trying to keep the scriptures from the people to keep them ignorant.

Yes the Catholic Church burned and chained bibles…(((GASP)))…did they do it to keep people ignorant like this dude claims? NO!!! They chained them because back then bibles had to be translated by hand and it would take a year or two to do this correctly. So we are talking a $30,000 book here. If any of us had a book that valuable we probably wouldn’t leave it sitting on our front porch. And the Church burned bibles but so did Protestants…who burned CATHOLIC bibles. Many of these bibles had copyists errors and had no business being circulated in the first place.

8.) He says the Churches’ chief location was Jerusalem initially. And he points to ACTS 15 council again.

We have had councils/synods in various areas of the world. Doesn’t mean they suddenly become central as a result of said councils.

9.) tries to claim RCC says you must work your way into heaven.

If he studied the issue closely he would understand that the Church teaches we merit nothing on our own. Strict merit was outlawed at Trent. We respond to the grace of God. So anytime you hear the word merit being tossed around for the laity, it is talking conduit merit…cooperating with the grace of God.

C’s and P’s are actually saying the same thing here just speaking different languages. True faith will produce works… but if you have agenda you won’t see it, because you don’t want to.

 

[ajcstr]

For some strange reason I watched it.

Well, thanks for putting the time in, I agree with every point you made (lots of low hanging fruit there), but I was more intrigued with his version of how the Bishop of Rome became recognized as having primacy in the Church and how that developed. Also how the early church in the East reacted to it. I know the split was over more than the Papacy but I don’t know that the East ever viewed the Bishop of Rome as having primacy. If anyone can shed some light on that I would much appreciate it.

I realize there is a stronger biblical case for the Pope than he presented as his straw-man in this video, I am curious about the actual acceptance of the Bishop of Rome as the Pope.

C’s and P’s are actually saying the same thing here just speaking different languages. True faith will produce works… but if you have agenda you won’t see it, because you don’t want to.

Yes we are closer than most will admit, I see the biggest difference as being the Catholic belief that we have the option to corporate with grace or reject grace and this notion is what separates the C’s and P’s (along with the notion of assurance of salvation).

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Well, thanks for putting the time in, I agree with every point you made (lots of low hanging fruit there), but I was more intrigued with his version of how the Bishop of Rome became recognized as having primacy in the Church and how that developed. Also how the early church in the East reacted to it. I know the split was over more than the Papacy but I don’t know that the East ever viewed the Bishop of Rome as having primacy. If anyone can shed some light on that I would much appreciate it.

I realize there is a stronger biblical case for the Pope than he presented as his straw-man in this video, I am curious about the actual acceptance of the Bishop of Rome as the Pope.

Yes we are closer than most will admit, I see the biggest difference as being the Catholic belief that we have the option to corporate with grace or reject grace and this notion is what separates the C’s and P’s (along with the notion of assurance of salvation).

He’s making the assumption that absence of evidence means evidence of absence, which is fallacious.

And this is something that comes up frequently with the Churches’ critics. If you point to ECFs they want it spelled out perfectly for them in the first 200 years or so before they give it any credence. But they fail to realize the amount of heavy persecution the church was under, and therefore we just dont have much early work to examine.
It’s always comical to see this modern day guys sitting in their air conditioned rooms, sipping on lattes and placing themselves in the same category with those were burned alive and thrown to the lions. I say that because they seem to denigrate the Church for valuing their literature and service to the Lord

But this fellow refutes himself by saying there’s no mention of papal authority until the 7th century…then ten minutes later he says Terullian mocks papal authority in the 3rd century. So obviously something was already there for him to mock it, according to his assertion.

And also, common sense and objectivity would do him some good. Like the formation of the New Testament he holds so dearly? How does those 27 books get in there? It was the Pope that got the ball rolling on that. And that’s because he was a somebody lol.

I’d love to see him debate even one of our middle of the road apologists examining the papacy from a historical and biblical POV.

Orthodox view on Peter’s primacy. It’s honorary but first means first:

catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/orthodox_recognize_pope_first_among_equals_disagreements_remain/

 

[Vonsalza]

I took a Church History course or two at a reputable Baptist seminary back in my young and frisky days.

There was heavy, HEAVY effort to paint various Catholic Bishops and other historical church-men in as non-Catholic and independent light as rhetorically possible. “True Christians” were part of the “independent church”. Never mind that the webs that connected those historical “True Christians” were often tenuous at best. You simply can’t defeat the Spirit, right?

I smile to this day when I think of all the quotes from guys like St. Augustine and Justin Martyr we used to defend our Protestantism. Naturally, the list of quotes was pretty selective and quotes from the same guys that didn’t readily affirm Protestantism were given limp dismissals as a rule. But since we were young, zealous Baptists learning about the “True Faith”, the dismissals weren’t given a whole lot of critique on our part. Hearing it from Dr. Mohler was about as authoritative as reading it directly from scripture.

Had ole St. “Auggie” been there in person, he would have “flipped his lid”.

 

[ajcstr]

I took a Church History course or two at a reputable Baptist seminary back in my young and frisky days.

Always wondered about stuff like this also when a speaker is billed as being an expert in Church History.

In those courses you attended, was the Eucharist ever even brought up?

 

[Vonsalza]

No!

Only “The Breaking of Bread” in the context of “ancient Christian fellowship”. Distinguishing that from communion was largely unimportant.

For most Baptists, communion is an ordinance of Christian obedience. Absolutely nothing more. The congregation I grew up in which pointed my in the school’s direction only observed once a year. The school would observe quarterly, if I remember correctly.

Naturally, ancient Christians felt the same way Any statement otherwise was representative of the individual and not the greater whole of Christendom.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

No!

Only “The Breaking of Bread” in the context of “ancient Christian fellowship”. Distinguishing that from communion was largely unimportant.

For most Baptists, communion is an ordinance of Christian obedience. Absolutely nothing more. The congregation I grew up in which pointed my in the school’s direction only observed once a year. The school would observe quarterly, if I remember correctly.

Naturally, ancient Christians felt the same way Any statement otherwise was representative of the individual and not the greater whole of Christendom.

I’ve heard those who went through a protestant seminary say they cover to about 100AD…then take a lunch break and come back talking about Martin Luther’s break lol

As if 1400 years inbetween didn’t actually happen

 

[rfournier103]

I lurk on a handful of Protestant web forums and it seems to go something like this:

1 AD: Christ is born.

30-33 AD: Christ’s Ministry.

33-c.85 AD: Apostolic Age.

c.85-1517 AD: Nothing to see here/papal heretics.

1517-present: Real Christianity.

That’s just what I’ve seemed to gather.

 

[benhur]

4.) He says the Church Fathers are not holding hands in unison on such issues such as purgatory and the rosary, etc.

We are talking about a faith that didn’t have a complete canon until 405AD. That didn’t have Christ defined in nice terms like Trinity and communicatio idiomatum until the 4th or 5th centuries. It takes a while for complete definitions in a living faith.

Hi La,

Did not see video but I believe he was countering what many in CC say, that fathers were unanimously in tune on doctrinal matters…what is it I hear, " the unanimous consent of the fathers’’ ?

I see that in fact as defending the CC view of real presence , and the appointment of a bishop, not bishops, for instance, by saying it was held by all early fathers, when clearly they were not.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

1.) He points to James giving the final word in Acts 15 council.

It is not uncommon, from my understanding, for a Pope to not even attend a council, even though he has primacy. So this refutes nothing. Peter speaks first and James does not try and refute him.

Hi La,

Understand that, like much of writ, we both read the same thing, and come away with different “illumintaion”, as is here about the Jerusalem council of Acts.

My take is that Peter did not speak first . He is the first that is recorded, and rightly so , for he was effectual in stopping all other disputing tongues (other people speaking first). Was it because he was Pope ? For sure he was the lead apostle, and for sure , God had given him the revelation of the gentile being "clean’’ as evidenced in their salvation and baptism in the Holy Ghost. He should have spoken first , for the vision was to him. Perhaps he was embarrassed for failing that vision , found being a respecter of the Jew, more than the gentile, for which he was "challenged’ by Paul, face to face.(if indeed the incident happened between the vision and the council).

Regardless, he finally spoke the truth, not as a ruling , but as a testator to the vision, and what God had done in the gentiles, and leaving it as an imploring question laid at the feet of his fellow brethren.

3.) He says Catholics have doctrines not supported by the bible.

What he is leaving out here is the element of* his interpretation of the bible.* He may not agree with infant baptism while other SS practicing protestants do agree with it based on their interpretation of the bible. etc, etc.

And the bible doesn’t just point to itself. It also points to councils (ACTS 15) to TRADITION (2 Thess 2:15) and to the Church - ( Matt 18:17/1 Tim 3:15) He is operating based off a assumption which is his TRADITION of Sola scriptura. And that tradition is foreign to historical Christianity.

Yeah I would never say that . In fact I have stated sometimes that the CC has a form of SS sola scriptura, in that, every doctrine, and maybe practice, is justified/defended, taught to be “scriptural”.

Agree when you say the statement is due to his biblical interpretations. Disagree when you imply that the speaker denies any councils or tradition or early father writings etc., that he is against history.

Again, you really are saying the CC is 100% biblical . He is addressing that, that to his audience and beliefs, there is disagreement as to whether the 100% CC interpretations of Writ is “correct”.

The statement by the video could also reflect the knowledge that the CC supports itself equally thru Tradition.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

5.) at 23:00 minutes refers to infallibility

First of all, it’s not impeccability as those who critique the RCC think or claim…

Secondly, go back, again to ACTS 15. The apostles spoke and it was infallible…and they had no real scriptural precedent to do. And so this should be a clue that a precedent was set at that council.

Thirdly, how can the Church be the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth if it isn’t teaching truth? 1 Tim 3:15. And it’s not teaching truth when it is splintered into thousands of pieces with conflicting doctrines that cant all be true. So yes, infallibility is needed on matters of faith and morals. And we have a Lord that promised to be with the Church every step of the way.

Hi La,

Agree"infallibility’’ has nothing to do with impeccability , but yes to defining it as 100% accuracy of doctrines of faith and morals. Not sure if video shows same understanding.

Not sure the council would describe their edict as infallible. But yes , it was breathed by the Holy Ghost, as they somewhat state.

As to precedent not sure. They were Jews. They knew they had the Word of God, the visions of God. They come from a history of then figuring out how to apply that Word, to judge it.The fact that there was always debate amongst the Jews, would somehow show no seat was infallible in such interpretations.

But still agree that conciliarism may not have been explicit in judaism, and so maybe a new thing. Notice that the council did use scripture to "justify’’ its position. It had to be biblical (the decree). The CC was divided for a time on the sentiment that power laid in the council supremely or in the pope supremely.

The church is only pillar to the truth when she proclaims it truthfully. That is the whole point of that scripture, that the church by definition and role must be truthful, for if she is not , who will? It is conditional. Truth carrying has always been by the grace of God, but it is conditional, right back to Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.

And God always has his man for the season, His remnant at times.

Are we ORAR…Once Right Always Right ? Only one interpretation, ours ? Wouldn’t mind if we stuck to basics , like the early church as recorded in the Apostles Creed. Then for sure we stand united , as a pillar.

Blessings

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve heard those who went through a protestant seminary say they cover to about 100AD…then take a lunch break and come back talking about Martin Luther’s break lol

As if 1400 years inbetween didn’t actually happen

In terms of time spent in class per century, that’s not super-far from the truth.

 

[benhur]

.) at 26:30 goes on a tirade comparing the Pharisees to Catholic clergy. Then refers to chair of Peter, etc

What he seems to miss here, unsurprisingly, is that upon close review of Matt 23, Jesus refers to the Chair of Moses which is a TRADITION found no where in the OT. And tells them DO WHATEVER they tell you, just don’t follow their poor example.

So this validates the role of Apostolic tradition in our faith and the STRUCTURE and AUTHORITY that has always existed dating back to early Judaism. It doesn’t support SS and the idea that we can wing it and start our own autonomous Churches.

Hi La,

Actually we disagree . The Chair of Moses was conditional. Not from Moses Chair , but from men (pharisee etc), representing that chair, came leaven , bad doctrine. Writ tells us that .The pharisees and leaders had bad doctrine, not just bad example. .

So not sure how you can claim such an interpretation to CC structure.

When the Moses Seat speaks correctly about Writ, and just Writ, she is to be followed.

That is the essence of SS, that leaders put Writ forth as the norm from which to judge by.

Furthermore , Moses seat is mentioned implicitly in Exodus 18:13… Not sure anyone past Moses could make new laws. Not sure there was that kind of succession. The chair was a figurative chair after Moses, and as expressed by Christ. And Moses delegated his power to six levels I think (leader of 50’s , 100’s etc).

The Jews became corrupted because all they knew was fleshly circumcision and not inward circumcision of the heart. This is the role of the Church…to bring us Jesus and true conversion so the entire cup is cleaned instead of just the outside.

Yes, but remember , there is always a remnant. Not all jews were corrupt, many were born of God, born again. Yes they had differing factions and divisions, and it did hurt them .Yet Jesus tells the world , as he did the Samaritan at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews”.

And totally agree with your underlined, that it is universal to CC P and O churches, that we are light of the world, and have the message of salvation.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

7.) around 33 minutes he claims the typical nonsensical baloney that the Church was trying to keep the scriptures from the people to keep them ignorant.

Yes the Catholic Church burned and chained bibles…(((GASP)))…did they do it to keep people ignorant like this dude claims? NO!!! They chained them because back then bibles had to be translated by hand and it would take a year or two to do this correctly. So we are talking a $30,000 book here. If any of us had a book that valuable we probably wouldn’t leave it sitting on our front porch. And the Church burned bibles but so did Protestants…who burned CATHOLIC bibles. Many of these bibles had copyists errors and had no business being circulated in the first place.

Hi La,

Agree to the above reply, of the expense to be guarded of such a work as a bible for much of history. Augustine testifies that nothing is surpassing to Writ, for it is easily read and accessible to all men.

Yet I believe you do not cover accurately portray a long history that the CC claims of 2000 years. I believe there were a few ups and downs on this topic. Of course we can debate motive. One might say some wanted folks to be kept ignorant(keep the feudal system), others to keep from ignorance (bad translations) . it can not be denied that some eras believed it would be dangerous to read without proper guidance, and therefore better not to read privately ,as in ones home.

I know the 1800’s was not a good time for the bible to be distributed amongst Catholic homes, or at least, it was not the practice to have "family’ bibles’. Again, just in specific areas and that century. The pope also condemned non latin bibles (vernacular) and bible societies in 1800’s.

What I am trying to say as charitably as possible is that we are to heed C.S Lewis’s words, that are paraphrased as such," those ignorant of history are slave to the recent past". That is to say , that the CC today with admonition for all to read the bible ,and have them in the vernacular , and have them at you beside and coffee table, was not always the case, even after the printing press (that brought your beautiful $30,000 bible down to 30 or 300 dollars).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

9.) tries to claim RCC says you must work your way into heaven.

If he studied the issue closely he would understand that the Church teaches we merit nothing on our own. Strict merit was outlawed at Trent. We respond to the grace of God. So anytime you hear the word merit being tossed around for the laity, it is talking conduit merit…cooperating with the grace of God.

HI La,

Last response…thank you

Perhaps it is the righteous works of sacraments that are taught in CC and others. That is , being part of a church , the right one , to some seems like a "work’. That you need to participate in the communion ,and confessional for absolution (generally speaking, not extreme cases), and of course purgatory , where you suffer your way into maturity ( of course God does it to you).

The work is like having God inside you, but for you to access some of His blessings you need to go outside to another(priest) , which is like an intermediary, which is like work.

Finally the righteous works of prayer and mass that will guarantee you to die in grace at a future date (novenas(?) and 9 consecutive first fridays and other venerations, some dealing with Mary, or promises form her) Sorry , don’t know the exact name of such rituals, but I think there are several.

Blessings

C’s and P’s are actually saying the same thing here just speaking different languages. True faith will produce works… but if you have agenda you won’t see it, because you don’t want to.

 

[ajcstr]

Hi La,

Did not see video but I believe he was countering what many in CC say, that fathers were unanimously in tune on doctrinal matters…what is it I hear, " the unanimous consent of the fathers’’ ?

I see that in fact as defending the CC view of real presence , and the appointment of a bishop, not bishops, for instance, by saying it was held by all early fathers, when clearly they were not.

Blessings

Well, I can say that no Catholic apologists I have heard failed to point out that the Fathers were rarely unanimous on anything. The only exception may have been regarding the Eucharist. Also that the fathers are not infallible collectively or individually but their writings are useful to understand what the early Church believed.

 

[susanlo]

I have long been looking for information that outlines the Protestant view of Church history. I have heard people like James White state that the Catholic Church essentially “hijacked” Christianity.

I found this video last week and I think it does a good job of laying out this position. The first 45 min discusses this and the time after that is spent on differences in salvation theology. I think he presents his position fairly though smug at times but I would not say he is demeaning. So if you have the patience to hang in there for 45 - 70 min, it may be a worthwhile discussion.

youtube.com/watch?v=TPG3vMeexks&t=82s

I definitely would be able to defend the Catholic position on salvation/justification but I don’t know enough about Church history to really wrap my arms around this. For instance he makes a statement that 80% of the early Fathers of the Church did not acknowledge the Papacy but really does not state his source.

So to Catholics, how would you counter some of his arguments regarding history and to Protestants, is this an accurate summary of what you believe. I know his description of salvation lines up exactly with my understanding of reformed theology. I would hesitate to include the salvation portion in this discussion because I think it would take over the topic and because so much of that is based in interpretation and you really need to resolve the authority issue before interpretation.

I don’t know if I would exactly consider this a Church history lesson as much as a pastor backing up why he believes that the Catholic Church does not have the authority that they say they do. It sounds like it is one of a series of lectures he gave on the topic of Catholicism. He made some good points. I agree with what he alluded to a couple of times about Catholic theologians running to the church fathers to back up the parts of Catholicism that are not in the Bible. These quotes are cherry-picked, but very few people actually go to the sources to read further. There were a few slight errors. It seems he is a pastor and not a university professor, so while there are good points it was not overly scholarly.

I believe I have heard the 80% number before. Someone (I don’t know who) calculated that 20% of the “church fathers” believed that the rock of Matthew 16:18 was Peter. The other 80% believed that it was Christ or Peter’s faith in Christ. However, when we look for a writing from the first 500 years that says that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16 AND he was the first bishop of Rome AND therefore the current Bishop of Rome is the supreme ruler of all Christianity, we would find 0. It seems from some responses in letters that were saved by writers like Tertullian, Firmilian, Cyprian and maybe more that some Bishops of Rome asserted power based on this passage, which these early church leaders found ridiculous. In fact Tertullian would be in the 20% that said that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16, but in reference to Bishop of Rome, Callistus he wrote specifically that the church was built on Peter and the keys were given to him, not you (Bishop of Rome). This is the letter where he uses the term Pontifex Maximus as a sneer. Whatever specific claims of power Callistus made, Tertullian and Hippolytus strongly disagreed with him.
(Tertullian On Modesty Chapter 21 newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm)

Here is a list of quotations from the early centuries in regards to the rock of Matthew 16 if you are interested in what was written about this in the early centuries. The sources are down at the bottom of the page. christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Agree to the above reply, of the expense to be guarded of such a work as a bible for much of history. Augustine testifies that nothing is surpassing to Writ, for it is easily read and accessible to all men.

Yet I believe you do not cover accurately portray a long history that the CC claims of 2000 years. I believe there were a few ups and downs on this topic. Of course we can debate motive. One might say some wanted folks to be kept ignorant(keep the feudal system), others to keep from ignorance (bad translations) . it can not be denied that some eras believed it would be dangerous to read without proper guidance, and therefore better not to read privately ,as in ones home.

I know the 1800’s was not a good time for the bible to be distributed amongst Catholic homes, or at least, it was not the practice to have "family’ bibles’. Again, just in specific areas and that century. The pope also condemned non latin bibles (vernacular) and bible societies in 1800’s.

What I am trying to say as charitably as possible is that we are to heed C.S Lewis’s words, that are paraphrased as such," those ignorant of history are slave to the recent past". That is to say , that the CC today with admonition for all to read the bible ,and have them in the vernacular , and have them at you beside and coffee table, was not always the case, even after the printing press (that brought your beautiful $30,000 bible down to 30 or 300 dollars).

Blessings

Hi Ben.

I’ll have to address the other points at a later time.

I think radical protestant history has shown us just how dangerous the Word could be if put in the wrong hands with no hierarchy and restraint. Especially in previous eras.

You mentioned the 1800s and that just happens to be the era of Pentecostals drinking poison and handling snakes…and dying as a result.

So yeah, the Church’s job is to shepherd souls and so her concerns were warranted imo.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Understand that, like much of writ, we both read the same thing, and come away with different “illumintaion”, as is here about the Jerusalem council of Acts.

My take is that Peter did not speak first . He is the first that is recorded, and rightly so , for he was effectual in stopping all other disputing tongues (other people speaking first). Was it because he was Pope ? For sure he was the lead apostle, and for sure , God had given him the revelation of the gentile being "clean’’ as evidenced in their salvation and baptism in the Holy Ghost. He should have spoken first , for the vision was to him. Perhaps he was embarrassed for failing that vision , found being a respecter of the Jew, more than the gentile, for which he was "challenged’ by Paul, face to face.(if indeed the incident happened between the vision and the council).

Regardless, he finally spoke the truth, not as a ruling , but as a testator to the vision, and what God had done in the gentiles, and leaving it as an imploring question laid at the feet of his fellow brethren.
Yeah I would never say that . In fact I have stated sometimes that the CC has a form of SS sola scriptura, in that, every doctrine, and maybe practice, is justified/defended, taught to be “scriptural”.

Agree when you say the statement is due to his biblical interpretations. Disagree when you imply that the speaker denies any councils or tradition or early father writings etc., that he is against history.

Again, you really are saying the CC is 100% biblical . He is addressing that, that to his audience and beliefs, there is disagreement as to whether the 100% CC interpretations of Writ is “correct”.

The statement by the video could also reflect the knowledge that the CC supports itself equally thru Tradition.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

No, he actually accuses the CC of being a non biblical faith on some matters.

Gives credit where we “agree”. But on other matters claims we delve outside the scriptures and use cherry picked ECF quotes to justify our doctrines.

By applying today’s standards/conditions with his assumption of SS, he’s missing the point of historical Catholic Christianity operating with tangible authority given to her by the Lord.

And I’d say that the CC unofficially practices Prima Scriptura, meaning scripture first so long as it’s properly interpreted.