Church history from a Protestant perspective

[susanlo]

Hi Ben,

Just to clarify, you said:

And so to recap…

The Jews had the Chair of Moses.

The Church has the Chair of Peter.

The Jews had an official interpreter.

The Church has an official interpreter

The Jews had laying on of hands with succession/authority

The Church had/has laying on of hands with succession/authority.

I realize you are concerned about bad leaven. But do you see the continuity there, even though you don’t agree in principle ?

Moses’ seat in Matthew 23:2 was a chair or platform in every/most synagogue where the Scriptures were read. They may have expounded on the Scriptures and given a little sermon or homily as well. It would be similar to a pulpit or podium in many modern churches.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1283-almemar

This may have been a common "t"radition, but I don’t think it was mandatory in Judaism that every synagogue has something termed a “seat of Moses.” It would have been something Jesus and the apostles were aware of.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Moses’ seat in Matthew 23:2 was a chair or platform in every/most synagogue where the Scriptures were read. They may have expounded on the Scriptures and given a little sermon or homily as well. It would be similar to a pulpit or podium in many modern churches.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1283-almemar

This may have been a common "t"radition, but I don’t think it was mandatory in Judaism that every synagogue has something termed a “seat of Moses.” It would have been something Jesus and the apostles were aware of.

May not have been mandatory, but obviously understood commonly for him to refer to it.

In the CC, each bishop shares in the authority of the one See of Peter.

And the See of Peter is represented by the cathedral of each diocese that the bishop sits in.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

But it’s not just the crazy off-shoots that were the problem.

I’m sure you are aware that some of these bibles had copyists errors?

Have you ever heard of the “murderers bible”?

Well, in this error riddled copy, it said LET THE CHILDREN FIRST BE KILLED.

And bibles such as*** that*** were circulating. Not good.

So I don’t agree with your assertion that the Church was wrong by attempting quality control measures. She is/was the visible shepherd of souls and we are talking about a transitional period as people gradually became more and more educated and literate as a whole.

Always easy to monday morning quarterback.

Hi La,

You definitely stick to your guns. Seems like you will not budge an inch in seeing *any *error on this topic, for 2000 years.

I have admitted that bibles were expensive at one point and should be “guarded” so to speak. I have also not denied guarding against poor translations as proper. But at times it is more than a quality control issue, as much as a control issue period. At times.

One could also ask why would there be "bad’’ translations in the first place, before the reformation? Why would Catholic folks have to do their translating and printing in secrecy, hindered and unaided by the Catholic church ? Why would bible distributors sometimes find resistance, when bibles are distributed to Catholics, who go to Catholic churches, under Catholic shepherding and teaching, and the translation is as accurate as the Vulgate ? (again, both examples only during a small portion of a 2000 year history, but still a real history.)

And yes, much time elapsing after the game can also lead to an idealizing, even embellishment, whitewash, as well as what you state , unfair critiquing. Goes both ways.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

Can you clarify what you mean here?

Thanks

Hi La,

well you state the video misses the point , your point, that irregardless of his arguments that the CC is “unauthorized” biblically , interpretively, she still operated with God’s authority in a tangible way…So , my question is, what justification is there besides a biblical/early fathers one today, in hindsight ? What point does the video miss ? He does not deny history, just the CC’s biblical, even early fathers, interpretation for her authority thru out history.

So if he looks at the early church and her writings , and Writ, and does not see the papacy, what is your point that he is missing ( and not just that he is wrong and CC right ) ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Just to clarify, you said:

And so to recap…

The Jews had the Chair of Moses.

The Church has the Chair of Peter.

The Jews had an official interpreter.

The Church has an official interpreter

The Jews had laying on of hands with succession/authority

The Church had/has laying on of hands with succession/authority.

I realize you are concerned about bad leaven. But do you see the continuity there, even though you don’t agree in principle ?

Hi La,

Understand. Not sure it is totally apples to apples. The Jews had nothing like the Papacy.

Blessings

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi La,

Understand. Not sure it is totally apples to apples. The Jews had nothing like the Papacy.

Blessings

Not sure what you mean “nothing like the Papacy”. I mean, Samuel had full authority, even over secular rulers, as the voice of God. Elijah had temporal and spiritual authority over Armies and kings. David, the icon of righteous leadership, was at times performing spiritual rites, as well as temporal leadership. Noah was prophet, priest and king at various times throughout his life, as was Abraham and Adam. There are various examples of leadership in Jewish history that go beyond a mere spiritual figureheadship.

Perhaps define what your definition of “the Papacy” is, since the term sometimes becomes whatever negative connotation whoever states it intends without actually defining it

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

You definitely stick to your guns. Seems like you will not budge an inch in seeing *any *error on this topic, for 2000 years.

I have admitted that bibles were expensive at one point and should be “guarded” so to speak. I have also not denied guarding against poor translations as proper. But at times it is more than a quality control issue, as much as a control issue period. At times.

One could also ask why would there be "bad’’ translations in the first place, before the reformation? Why would Catholic folks have to do their translating and printing in secrecy, hindered and unaided by the Catholic church ? Why would bible distributors sometimes find resistance, when bibles are distributed to Catholics, who go to Catholic churches, under Catholic shepherding and teaching, and the translation is as accurate as the Vulgate ? (again, both examples only during a small portion of a 2000 year history, but still a real history.)

And yes, much time elapsing after the game can also lead to an idealizing, even embellishment, whitewash, as well as what you state , unfair critiquing. Goes both ways.

Blessings

Ben,

I’m not saying that certain individuals did not make some bad decisions over the last 2,000 years. We can point all the way back to the NT with Paul having to correct Peter.

There were even those who were rotten - tare among wheat.

But like Peter at that time, I think the Church, as a whole anyway, had good intentions.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

well you state the video misses the point , your point, that irregardless of his arguments that the CC is “unauthorized” biblically , interpretively, she still operated with God’s authority in a tangible way…So , my question is, what justification is there besides a biblical/early fathers one today, in hindsight ? What point does the video miss ? He does not deny history, just the CC’s biblical, even early fathers, interpretation for her authority thru out history.

So if he looks at the early church and her writings , and Writ, and does not see the papacy, what is your point that he is missing ( and not just that he is wrong and CC right ) ?

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Thanks for clarifying.

What I was saying was that he makes the common mistake of applying his modern understanding of the historical Church with SS lenses on his face.

Sola Scriptura was never practiced in the Church established by our Lord - EVER.

He briefly refers to the Orthodox in his video in the schism. He should go ask them what they think about Sola Scriptura. They will tell him just like I would tell him, that it is not a biblically mandated practice and that it is a assumption. And that if you practice this in the strictest sense, of course you will have a terrible view of the historical Churches (RCC/EO) practices because you lack the complete picture.

God bless

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for clarifying.

What I was saying was that he makes the common mistake of applying his modern understanding of the historical Church with SS lenses on his face.

Sola Scriptura was never practiced in the Church established by our Lord - EVER.

He briefly refers to the Orthodox in his video in the schism. He should go ask them what they think about Sola Scriptura. They will tell him just like I would tell him, that it is not a biblically mandated practice and that it is a assumption. And that if you practice this in the strictest sense, of course you will have a terrible view of the historical Churches (RCC/EO) practices because you lack the complete picture.

God bless

Hi La,

Have not seen entire video.

Does it deny the role of the apostles? Does he deny the role of presbyters /bishops ? Does he deny the role of prophets or teachers ? Does he deny the role of councils ? Does he deny that Peter was the lead apostle , of even first amongst equals ? Does he deny the apostles oral gospel ? Does he deny any corporate church role ? Does he deny the appointment of bishops, which implies succession, that is, a church city congregation should always have presbyters/bishops, down to this day ? Has citing him with belief that Writ is normative for the church (SS) wiped any of these away ?

Did first reformers have SS viewpoint ? Did they not have a Catholic upbringing ? If indeed the Catholic church strayed , or was wrong on a topic, on what was their basis for it concluding this ? If they say primarily biblical, then do you just accuse them of SS attitude ? Isn’t that a straw man ? I said primarily for if it is biblical, then one can secondarily find it in earliest tradition, history, father writings.

Another words, not sure the video denies Peter’s papacy with succession , because of SS lens (unless of course one thinks SS means, “me , the bible, and that is all i need”…which then is putting words in the videos mouth).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

But like Peter at that time, I think the Church, as a whole anyway, had good intentions.

Hi La,

Yes as a whole Peter , and the church has good intentions. yet at times she has been wrong ,even had bad intentions, just as Peter did when he sinned against the vision of gentiles truly being clean , even equal in God’s eye. And does intention matter when one heeds Satan’s prompting, as Peter did denying any suffering for the Messiah.?

Anyways, maybe you are right. Intentions are subjective, tough to “prove”. All we have for sure is the outward action(s).

Blessings

PS agree about wheat and tares, of some individuals being bad at implementing policies. But i think we also have to see there are policies , decrees, that are symptomatic of the corporate church culture, beyond individuals, as being bad, wrong.

 

[benhur]

Not sure what you mean “nothing like the Papacy”. I mean, Samuel had full authority, even over secular rulers, as the voice of God. Elijah had temporal and spiritual authority over Armies and kings. David, the icon of righteous leadership, was at times performing spiritual rites, as well as temporal leadership. Noah was prophet, priest and king at various times throughout his life, as was Abraham and Adam. There are various examples of leadership in Jewish history that go beyond a mere spiritual figureheadship.

Perhaps define what your definition of “the Papacy” is, since the term sometimes becomes whatever negative connotation whoever states it intends without actually defining it

Hi SM,

The comparison is between Moses and Moses’ Chair, and Peter and Peter’s Chair , as far as delivering and interpreting God’s law and not God’s Writ and gospel. The successors of Moses (Scribes and Pharisees at Christ’s time) did not resemble the CC papacy of today, as far as the structure.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Not to derail the conversation, hopefully this will add to it.

The council of Nicea seems to be a focal point for a lot of people. Now of course the issue at hand was the divinity of Jesus which by my understanding was not settled at that time.

It’s also my understanding that there was a Pope (Damisus I ?) and there were 250-300 bishops with reportedly 1800 being invited.

So would all agree that this group represented a “Catholic” hierarchy or is this up for debate?

I’m trying to determine where an shift from the Church of Acts to a RCC would have occurred.

Hi a,

Nicea seems to fit into everybody’s view of church history. Seems close to first council, save that the bishop of Rome or any elders did not call for it but an earthly emperor did.

Not sure the bishop of Rome was explicitly seen as the pope of all Christendom at this time either. For sure Jerusalem saw Peter as the main arbiter for God’s vision and direction, though not necessarily explicit in saying he was head of all other apostles, or even the church (leader yes). Not sure Rome had as much leadership impact at Nicea as Peter did at Jerusalem.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Are you suggesting that there was some authority to appeal to beyond the the Chair of Moses, especially if Moses ruled against you in your personal understanding of “Writ”?

Hi V,

Well yes, but I am not the one suggesting it. Jesus suggested it. Jesus and the apostles demonstrated it also , for the “Chair of Moses” ruled against Christ’s and the apostles personal understanding on a few matters.

I’m afraid that when Moses spoke specifically from his position of authority, “that was it”. I’ve even read a few protestant commentaries that described his seat as “infallible”, even though we’d agree that if they had their “anti-Cathiolic” brains switched on, there’s no way they would have used that word.

Moreover, in the time of Moses, there was very little, if any “Writ” as the only biblical events to have happened up to his life are contained almost exclusively in the book of Genesis. The proto-Jewish faith was still taught, largely, in the oral traditions of the Patriarchal priesthood.

We have not been speaking of the time when Moses literally sat, but as in Christ’s time , as a figurative chair. For sure Mose was head judge and “his” writ is infallible.

Augustine also wrote “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See (Rome) and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished”.

Commonly given as: “Rome has spoken, the case is closed”.

Augustine understood that there was no written text more important in Christianity than the bible. He also understood that a divine text requires a divinely appointed teacher.

Yes, thank you . Understand . Writ is not alone , as he points out implicitly,and explicitly. Indeed there is a teacher and a church, but when both Writ and teacher/church speak , the “Teacher” teaches, He also said that. Now we have covered all the bases.

Do not think Augustine would deny that when Rome speaks, it is "biblical’’, that is Writ is normative for her in such rulings like nothing else.

Imagine that! A living Church that didn’t want to encourage the idea that your personal interpretation of a text was somehow authoritative apart from that living Church that predates the text by God’s own decree.

The authority and responsibility for teaching was given to the Apostles and their heirs. Not you and me. Just because I have a different view of 1 Peter does not, in any way, make it a potentially correct view.

So the church says live perfect lives , in the power of the Spirit. We are to be holy with no excuses. Yet if we read Writ in the comfort of our own home we will rebel ??? We are shepherdless in our own home devotions ? What kind of disciples are we, or did the church back then not see us as capable disciples ?

Seems like an obtuse defense of some varied past practices.

“The Word” in any sort of written form simply didn’t exist in this point in history. The priesthood did. It always has. But not the written “Word”.

I am sorry , but i thought the Word was eternal ?

“Priesthood” needs an explanation, for there are more than a few types of priesthoods, especially if Adam and Abel were priests (and they were, so to speak).

As charitably as I can, these sound like the very accusations made against the JWs by the majority of remaining Christendom, not just Catholics.

Not what I meant . i am critiquing the strategy of limiting the Word of God simply because it might be “misunderstood”, and not trusting the Lord to teach thru it, but trusting only in you shepherding. Fine balance(need both), and key word “only”.

I would argue about how “clear” or complete that training was.

The most fundamental problem with the approach to Christianity that consists of "A man and his bible -

Straw man argument…obtuse.

My $.02 is that people might have learned to read if they had something to read (this is after the printing press came about)…from my understanding in P countries the Book was the primary learn to read book.

No, I like the modern CC in this, she now not only insists on family bible reading, but also put great effort in educating the young ,even to read and write ect (schools). (very unlike the feudal days).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You read my mind, forget the Watchtower and the NWT for a moment. Russell picked up his KJV Bible and this is what he came up with. If the Bible is his only authority and the Bible is your only authority and you both search the scriptures and you both say the other is wrong after such search…you see where I am going with this. From Luther to Calvin to … Russell, all used the Bible alone. Who has the authority to say the other is wrong.

Would the Church have split in the 300’s between the Arians and Trinitarians if there was no authoritative Council to decide the matter?

Hi a,

well we just read, “The cause is finished;* would that the error were as quickly finished”*,Augustine.

Point being rule all you want, council all you want, distribute or limit Writ all you want…you still have misunderstanding , even schism, as with Arian, and as pointed out by Augustine…the problem* did not go away* immediately at all.

Unfortunately folks debate this also , but Athanasius major normative tool was then using the sword of the Spirit , which is rightly dividing the Word of God, and in his case that was the written word of God in planting seeds of a death blow to Arianism.

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Have not seen entire video.

Does it deny the role of the apostles? Does he deny the role of presbyters /bishops ? Does he deny the role of prophets or teachers ? Does he deny the role of councils ? Does he deny that Peter was the lead apostle , of even first amongst equals ? Does he deny the apostles oral gospel ? Does he deny any corporate church role ? Does he deny the appointment of bishops, which implies succession, that is, a church city congregation should always have presbyters/bishops, down to this day ? Has citing him with belief that Writ is normative for the church (SS) wiped any of these away ?

Did first reformers have SS viewpoint ? Did they not have a Catholic upbringing ? If indeed the Catholic church strayed , or was wrong on a topic, on what was their basis for it concluding this ? If they say primarily biblical, then do you just accuse them of SS attitude ? Isn’t that a straw man ? I said primarily for if it is biblical, then one can secondarily find it in earliest tradition, history, father writings.

Another words, not sure the video denies Peter’s papacy with succession , because of SS lens (unless of course one thinks SS means, “me , the bible, and that is all i need”…which then is putting words in the videos mouth).

Blessings

It’s not so much what he is denying, but more what he is obviously failing to acknowledge with those thick, SS, coke bottle type lenses on lol.

And let me just say if this guy and his ilk were more of the ‘benhur’ mold, I probably wouldn’t even bother post in the non Catholic section of the website as it wouldn’t be necessary. You are much more rational even though we fail to come to agreement on certain matters.

Pax

 

[benhur]

It’s not so much what he is denying, but more what he is obviously failing to acknowledge with those thick, SS, coke bottle type lenses on lol.

And let me just say if this guy and his ilk were more of the ‘benhur’ mold, I probably wouldn’t even bother post in the non Catholic section of the website as it wouldn’t be necessary. You are much more rational even though we fail to come to agreement on certain matters.

Pax

Pax thank you also

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Yes as a whole Peter , and the church has good intentions. yet at times she has been wrong ,even had bad intentions, just as Peter did when he sinned against the vision of gentiles truly being clean , even equal in God’s eye. And does intention matter when one heeds Satan’s prompting, as Peter did denying any suffering for the Messiah.?

Anyways, maybe you are right. Intentions are subjective, tough to “prove”. All we have for sure is the outward action(s).

Blessings

PS agree about wheat and tares, of some individuals being bad at implementing policies. But i think we also have to see there are policies , decrees, that are symptomatic of the corporate church culture, beyond individuals, as being bad, wrong.

Hi Ben

Wrong on what, though?

And who determines that and by what authority are they determining it?

I can claim you are wrong because your determination is based on your own personal, fallible interpretation of the scriptures. You can make the same claim about me.

So where does one go to settle such disputes?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi SM,

The comparison is between Moses and Moses’ Chair, and Peter and Peter’s Chair , as far as delivering and interpreting God’s law and not God’s Writ and gospel. The successors of Moses (Scribes and Pharisees at Christ’s time) did not resemble the CC papacy of today, as far as the structure.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

With all due respect, there is no authority or ‘chair’ of protestant Christianity in any sense of the word. There are individual pastors preaching from the Word based on their own, private interpretation of it. However, no official interpretation exists such as that mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23, or such as what the Catholic Magisterium can provide. Both of which rely on tradition and the tangible authority of the individuals interpreting it all to deliver the message.

So while the Chair of Moses isn’t Peter’s twin, it is much closer in appearance to the Roman See than anything that protestant Christendom has to offer, imo.

The claim was, we should see the fingerprints or parallels from Judaism and Christianity, not that they would be completely identical.

Pax

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

With all due respect, there is no authority or ‘chair’ of protestant Christianity in any sense of the word. There are individual pastors preaching from the Word based on their own, private interpretation of it. However, no official interpretation exists such as that mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 23, or such as what the Catholic Magisterium can provide. Both of which rely on tradition and the tangible authority of the individuals interpreting it all to deliver the message.

So while the Chair of Moses isn’t Peter’s twin, it is much closer in appearance to the Roman See than anything that protestant Christendom has to offer, imo.

The claim was, we should see the fingerprints or parallels from Judaism and Christianity, not that they would be completely identical.

Pax

Hi la,

Well if you want to claim a closer kinsmanship to the scribes and Pharisees go right ahead, for they figuratively sat in Moses seat, as we have been discussing here (and the rest of Mat 23 chapter is not pretty beyond vs 2.)

My point was that there was never one lead scribe or one lead Pharisee such as a pope today. But yes, the church today can claim the better part of the role of the OT scribes and Pharisees, proclaiming and teaching, and that by the Word of God.

Anyone or any church today, rightly dividing and proclaiming the Word of God, has authority, as it is God’s Word. The big difference though , and I mean big , for it is also addressed in scripture , is that we all now have "new hearts’’, with His Law written on them and not only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost like never before , but also His giftings.

Yes there are pastors and churches today teaching some things that are not in Truth and Spirit, and the barbs cross CC and O and P lines. I know what you would say about an “authorized” arbiter, but *some things *await the Final Arbiter.

Blessings

 

[CatholicSpirit]

Here are a few things I have considered and may be of use to support the Catholic position:

1. The Eucharist

Jesus Christ says at the last supper: “do this in memory of me.” Thus, denominations that do not have a Eucharist do not adhere to his (the Holy Trinity’s) request

1. Confession / Reconciliation

In the Book of James, chapter 5, a request is made to confess your sins. Now, we know that human beings are imperfect and confessing to them for certain sins which become known to them are regarded as HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. They simply cannot understand the individual at fault is “the evil one” and this process can end in stigmatizing the human offender. The Catholic Church offers a better approach to following the doctrine and not ruining the lives of those sorry for their foolishness. Other denominations should be challenged to express their method of following the doctrine of James 5.

1. Apostles

There are two Basilicas for deceased Apostles at the very least (Peter and Thomas) which contain the remains of the two named Apostles. They are both locations maintained by the Catholic Church on two continents (Rome and India). Which other denominations trace their roots to such, and isn’t it well stated in the Holy Bible that Saint Peter was given the keys of Heaven by Jesus Christ himself?

1. Luther

Martin Luther himself was (prior to issues) a devout Catholic. Do all of the denominations recall that their development was to be like the Church with a handful of modifications? If so, what are they doing to “track” those reasons and when suitable yet again, intend to rejoin their Church with the original? At what point are they actually following their own guidelines?