Church history from a Protestant perspective

[Lenten_ashes]

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

Hi Ben.

Closer kinsmanship to hard-hearted Pharisees? No :nope:

Closer to the authoritative system established by the apple of God’s eye (Zechariah 2:8), those whom Jesus said salvation is of, the Jews? Yes.

Only this time, there was promises made to the Church, by the Lord, to prevent widespread corruption.

I understand your point, but God has always had his guy - Moses…then he laid hands upon Joshua, etc.

And you listened to that guy.

Agree on us having new hearts. This was prophesied in the OT.

Disagree with lack of any real authority being the norm in the New covenant as Jesus points to the singular Church as authoritative.(Matt 18:17)

I’ll give you this, anyone has authority over evil spirits by using the name of Jesus. And anyone has the authority and duty, really, to proclaim Jesus is Lord… And where 2 or more are gathered, there he is in the midst of them.

But there must be a establishment somewhere with the ability to make final decisions. Concrete decisions, not ones that could be overruled by a independent church across the street.

 

[ltwin]

I’m sorry. I don’t see how the seat of Moses can be compared to the Papacy. According to Christ, Moses’s seat was occupied by “teachers of the law and Pharisees”. These were not priests. Priests were in charge of the Temple. They were not in the synagogues teaching people. The Pharisees in fact represented a popular movement in contrast to the priestly caste living off the Temple, who were seen by many Jews of the time as being illegitimate.

Furthermore, suggesting that Second Temple Judaism was monolithic is a problem.Judaism then as now was a dynamic religious tradition that was made up of many different factions and schools, the Pharisees were just one set. There were also Sadducees (who were made up of the priestly caste) and Essenes (who were ascetics) and Zealots (who were radical freedom fighters).

 

[Michael85]

Protestants generally claim that the Church originally taught generally the same things that Protestants today teach, and it was after the time of Constantine that the Church gradually began to be corrupted by the influence of paganism, a process which by 1517 had created the need for someone to return the Church to Her original form.

For a start, the conversion of the Romans to Christianity after the time of Constantine had gone so far that when Emperor Julian the Apostate tried to revive paganism, his attempt failed miserably. So much for hordes of half-converted pagans bringing their ideas into the Church.

Secondly, besides the Catholic Church, there are three other groups that can trace their origins back to Apostolic Christianity. They are 1) the Eastern Orthodox church, 2) the Oriental Orthodox church, and 3) the Assyrian church of the East.

If early Christianity was essentially Protestant, then one would expect these three groups to be similar to modern Protestantism. But they’re not.

• They all believe in the same seven sacraments.
• They all have a priesthood.
• They all believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
• They all have liturgical worship services.
• They all have days of fasting.
• They all venerate Mary.
• None of them have a 66-book Bible.

Since these ‘offshoots’ of the Catholic Church are very similar to her, then it’s obvious that the early Christians maintained at least some of these practices. Saying that the early Church was essentially Protestant is anachronistic.

 

[benhur]

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?

Hi La,

Well, you are leaving one key ingredient out from “personal”, and that is the revelation from the Father, for as Elihu said in Job, “it is God who puts understanding in a man”. He did not say “magisterium” , or high priest, or prophet etc, though they are part of the process.

So now as to disputes, many can claim a better “teacher” or a better 'tradition", and that may be true (that one is better than another on a given topic). Yet that is not foolproof, for even Jesus’s detractors claimed a better teacher/tradition, claiming Abraham and Moses (not bad, right, Moses and Abraham?), but who had the better present day revelation ? Was it not Jesus and the apostles, and not those Pharisees and Jewish leaders who claimed legitimacy thru a sort of "succession " down from Abraham and Moses?

So let’s call upon our spiritual fathers, our current churches and their respective teachers and elders and work this out. Yet isn’t that exactly what you and I have been doing? Is it really foolproof to say “my church is more legitimate and therefore more authoritative” than yours ? It didn’t always work in Jesus’s time, and I dare say not today either.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Disagree with lack of any real authority being the norm in the New covenant as Jesus points to the singular Church as authoritative.(Matt 18:17)

Hi La,

Actually i said the same with ," 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.

That is a bit like Barnabas said," Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as have been written" That is, listen to your church, do as they say (like Jesus said do what those speaking for Moses say), but beware of any leaven, any bad doctrine. It is conditional, as Barnabus suggests, and requires discernment by every member of the body.

Like I have been saying , the church is authoritative in that she speaks the Word of God. When she does not, she is not. Of course if you see the church as "monolithic’’ as a term used by Itwin, that is ,top down as with a papacy, then we all have a problem. But if we have a church with the invisible Christ and Holy Ghost as head over all visible presbyteries or bishops, then the conditionality is palpable with Christ still guiding his church , even though some bishops may falter, even disagree with one another.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Protestants generally claim that the Church originally taught generally the same things that Protestants today teach, and it was after the time of Constantine that the Church gradually began to be corrupted by the influence of paganism, a process which by 1517 had created the need for someone to return the Church to Her original form.

For a start, the conversion of the Romans to Christianity after the time of Constantine had gone so far that when Emperor Julian the Apostate tried to revive paganism, his attempt failed miserably. So much for hordes of half-converted pagans bringing their ideas into the Church.

Secondly, besides the Catholic Church, there are three other groups that can trace their origins back to Apostolic Christianity. They are 1) the Eastern Orthodox church, 2) the Oriental Orthodox church, and 3) the Assyrian church of the East.

If early Christianity was essentially Protestant, then one would expect these three groups to be similar to modern Protestantism. But they’re not.

• They all believe in the same seven sacraments.
• They all have a priesthood.
• They all believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
• They all have liturgical worship services.
• They all have days of fasting.
• They all venerate Mary.
• None of them have a 66-book Bible.

Since these ‘offshoots’ of the Catholic Church are very similar to her, then it’s obvious that the early Christians maintained at least some of these practices. Saying that the early Church was essentially Protestant is anachronistic.

Hi M,

thank you for thoughtful post.

I think your argument is a double edged sword. The cutting goes both ways. It can help both sides of the argument. To say those three branches are similar in practices can also show that they came thru the same bath of "impurities’’, and reacted, compromised, erred in similar fashion.

Of course one must answer then why do they not agree on the biggest divisive doctrine ever, the papacy. In that the reformation is in tune with these others , from a very early beginning of church history.

Blessings

 

[mackbrislawn]

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.

A couple of comments in matters alluded to in the video.

In regards to the Jerusalem Council, the way I see it is that after the long discussion, Peter as the chief of the apostles present, eventually got up, spoke, and finalized the debate, which quieted the whole assembly. The matter was settled. Now, why did James then speak? Because he was the leader of the losing faction (Gal 2:12) and this faction needed the additional assurance from James that yes, we must follow Peter’s declaration.

Why didn’t Jerusalem remain the seat of Christianity? First, the apostles eventually dispersed from Jerusalem into the world to become missionaries, and secondly, Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 and any Christians remaining there would have been slaughtered along with everyone else. The Jerusalem church had to be reestablished later on from outside and so couldn’t be a direct continuance of the original one.

 

[mackbrislawn]

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?

.

Talking about the Watchtower, they agree with Catholics, and against the Reformation, that an official institution must exist that has the God-given authority to interpret scripture. Of course, they think it is the Watchtower!

Same with the Mormons.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi M,

. To say those three branches are similar in practices can also show that they came thru the same bath of "impurities’’, and reacted, compromised, erred in similar fashion.

Blessings

Hmm…and Protestantism erred in a multiplicity of fashions.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Well, you are leaving one key ingredient out from “personal”, and that is the revelation from the Father, for as Elihu said in Job, “it is God who puts understanding in a man”. He did not say “magisterium” , or high priest, or prophet etc, though they are part of the process.

So now as to disputes, many can claim a better “teacher” or a better 'tradition", and that may be true (that one is better than another on a given topic). Yet that is not foolproof, for even Jesus’s detractors claimed a better teacher/tradition, claiming Abraham and Moses (not bad, right, Moses and Abraham?), but who had the better present day revelation ? Was it not Jesus and the apostles, and not those Pharisees and Jewish leaders who claimed legitimacy thru a sort of "succession " down from Abraham and Moses?

So let’s call upon our spiritual fathers, our current churches and their respective teachers and elders and work this out. Yet isn’t that exactly what you and I have been doing? Is it really foolproof to say “my church is more legitimate and therefore more authoritative” than yours ? It didn’t always work in Jesus’s time, and I dare say not today either.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

It’s not about my stuff is better than yours. It’s about did the Lord actually establish something for us and should we adhere to that establishment?

I definitely agree that the Lord checked the Pharisees on their interpretation of the law. They missed the greater meaning therein; and refused to listen even after being corrected…

But do you think the Lord is going to give thousands of groups different “understanding” of the same book?

In the OT there was somewhat of a lack of intimacy between the Lord and the Church/Synagogue because He had not yet incarnated. We have that intimacy now and can know the truth. ACTS 9:4 is a often overlooked passage that I continually emphasize because it demonstrates just how intimate the Lord planned on being with his Church after he ascended.

In other religions, their gods pretty much drop books from the sky and expect you to listen w/o any real intimacy. Thankfully, the Lord’s relationship with the Church is the exact opposite.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

.

Talking about the Watchtower, they agree with Catholics, and against the Reformation, that an official institution must exist that has the God-given authority to interpret scripture. Of course, they think it is the Watchtower!

Same with the Mormons.

That’s actually a bad thing.

I’ve heard Matt Slick and others try and lump us in with those groups for that very reason.

Failing to take into account the pedigree of the 2,000 year old Church.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Actually i said the same with ," 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.

That is a bit like Barnabas said," Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as have been written" That is, listen to your church, do as they say (like Jesus said do what those speaking for Moses say), but beware of any leaven, any bad doctrine. It is conditional, as Barnabus suggests, and requires discernment by every member of the body.

Like I have been saying , the church is authoritative in that she speaks the Word of God. When she does not, she is not. Of course if you see the church as "monolithic’’ as a term used by Itwin, that is ,top down as with a papacy, then we all have a problem. But if we have a church with the invisible Christ and Holy Ghost as head over all visible presbyteries or bishops, then the conditionality is palpable with Christ still guiding his church , even though some bishops may falter, even disagree with one another.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

When the apostles went to council in ACTS 15, did the people decide for themselves if this was a correct ruling on circumcision?

How about when the canon was formed, did they get a vote, too?

Or did Christians submit to the ordained Bishops as taught in the early Church?

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

John’s student, Ignatius, talking here…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi M,

thank you for thoughtful post.

I think your argument is a double edged sword. The cutting goes both ways. It can help both sides of the argument. To say those three branches are similar in practices can also show that they came thru the same bath of "impurities’’, and reacted, compromised, erred in similar fashion.

Of course one must answer then why do they not agree on the biggest divisive doctrine ever, the papacy. In that the reformation is in tune with these others , from a very early beginning of church history.

Blessings

Hi Ben…

With all due respect, I think generally speaking, non-Catholics are looking for evidence of the papacy like criminals are “looking” for the police lol.

That’s not to say there aren’t unconvinced folks who did do some homework. But seriously, who actually wants to acknowledge this as truth knowing he/she will then have to submit if they want to remain honest with themselves?

Same can be said for authoritative Church, whether it’s EO or RCC, that means submission and people are generally turned off by that idea, especially in this day and age of individuality and relativism…

 

[susanlo]

Hi Ben…

With all due respect, I think generally speaking, non-Catholics are looking for evidence of the papacy like criminals are “looking” for the police lol.

That’s not to say there aren’t unconvinced folks who did do some homework. But seriously, who actually wants to acknowledge this as truth knowing he/she will then have to submit if they want to remain honest with themselves?

Same can be said for authoritative Church, whether it’s EO or RCC, that means submission and people are generally turned off by that idea, especially in this day and age of individuality and relativism…

Are there any non-Christian/secular academic historians who acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all of Christianity beginning in the 1st century?

The “secular” textbooks I have read present a gradually evolving papacy over the early centuries that gains recognition and authority over time. The only history sources I have found that declare that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all of Christendom from the 1st century are written and published by Catholic institutions. I would like to know if there are non-Catholic sources that present this view of history as well.

 

[ajcstr]

.

Talking about the Watchtower, they agree with Catholics, and against the Reformation, that an official institution must exist that has the God-given authority to interpret scripture. Of course, they think it is the Watchtower!

Same with the Mormons.

As opposed to the Old Testament which was written over hundreds (thousands?) of years, the NT was pretty much written in a 30-40 year period. I think all would agree that the NT church was already in place before the first gospel was written. That’s why Catholics argue that the NT was written by the Church for the Church.

And a note on private interpretation. How long would I last in a, say, nondenominational church if my Bible reading lead me to the conclusion that justification is a process and not a one time event? Really, I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m using the Bible as my only authority and I truly believed this - just as Russell believed through his study that Jesus was not divine. I’m testing what my pastor says with the Bible and I don’t agree with him. Where does that leave me? So even though its easy to say “The Bible is my only authority” when really you are saying “My interpretation of the Bible is my only authority”

 

[Vonsalza]

Hey Ben,

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.

In fairness, Christ also said of the Pharisees: “The Scribes and Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore, all that they tell you, do and observe.”

Yet if we read Writ in the comfort of our own home we will rebel ???

looks at the continuing, endless fracturing of Protestantism

Well, if you think your personal “take” on scripture is somehow authoritative, yes. That appears to be the case.

Keep in mind that a Catholic is encouraged to read scripture - it provides a blessing. But when we encounter a difficult passage - consult the Church, not our “gut feeling” - for no scripture in the NT was ever written outside of the Church.

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

If by “Word” per John 1:1 you mean “the divine logos”, then you’re totally right. It’s Christ and He IS eternal. That, however, is not a reference to any written text.

…there are more than a few types of priesthoods

Not really. There was the Patriarchal. Then by God’s command there was the Levitical. Then by God’s command there was the Apostolic, which continues to this day.

Per Paul in Hebrews 7:12, all issued by divine command.

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”.

Every protestant sect that fractured into existence from disagreement did so because they thought they were following the Spirit of the Lord in truth. The sect they fractured from maintained their beliefs for the same reason. So your defense here doesn’t hold up very well.

Straw man argument…obtuse.

Could you please elaborate on how “A man and his bible” is a straw man?
In your reply, please assume that all men reading their scripture are assuming to be reading it “in the Spirit”. If you cannot make this assumption, please provide how one can know that they are indeed learning “writ” as instructed by Christ.

Thanks!

 

[Vonsalza]

Are there any non-Christian/secular academic historians who acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all of Christianity beginning in the 1st century?

The “secular” textbooks I have read present a gradually evolving papacy over the early centuries that gains recognition and authority over time. The only history sources I have found that declare that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over all of Christendom from the 1st century are written and published by Catholic institutions. I would like to know if there are non-Catholic sources that present this view of history as well.

Hey Susan,

It would be prudent to keep in mind that Islam burned much of the Christian east and northern European tribal peoples (commonly “barbarians”) burned much of the Christian west. So writing before the 6th century is a little hard to come by and what few examples we have inherently get more “weight” than perhaps they should due to the simple scarcity.

You’ll find very little (if any) pre-Augustinian writing from secular sources on Christianity in general - much less anything that covers a topic with any depth, including Christian practices you currently agree with. For example, where can we find a secular, pre-Augustinian explanation of Christian baptism, or communion, or “how to get saved” in general?

No doubt, papal authority has developed. Also with no doubt, the Chair of Peter held some level of authority that was not enjoyed by the other bishops in the Church. Augustine himself seemed convinced that in order for council to be binding, it required papal approval.

From my own perspective, Christ said that the gates of hell itself wouldn’t prevail against His Church. So if I’m not at least a member of a communion that can visibly trace it’s existence back to the 1st century, then I’m probably not a member of a church that can credibly claim to be The Church without inadvertently making a liar of Christ.

What groups can make this claim? Catholic, Orthodox and the Orientals, by and large.

I think you’re asking for proof that doesn’t exist. Not because it isn’t true. It likely doesn’t exist because paper has always been quite flammable. And one of the favorite activities of the conquering is to burn the possessions of the conquered, religious or otherwise.

 

[believerdoc]

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

First I think you make an assumption that you can in no way back up that “Sola Scriptura was never practiced in the Church established by our Lord - EVER” It is your assumption that you can identify the church that Christ establised" which can only be assumed through the eyes of your particular church. Secondly most of Tradition is based on assumption, hear say, and word of mouth. Because of errors in word of mouth transmission writing was invented as a means to avoid such errors.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

First I think you make an assumption that you can in no way back up that “Sola Scriptura was never practiced in the Church established by our Lord - EVER” It is your assumption that you can identify the church that Christ establised" which can only be assumed through the eyes of your particular church. Secondly most of Tradition is based on assumption, hear say, and word of mouth. Because of errors in word of mouth transmission writing was invented as a means to avoid such errors.

Hi BD

Agree things needed to be written down and thankfully they were.

My statement is 100% factual as i am referring to the pre-reformation era.

If you can show me a 1,000 yr old Baptist Church(for example) then I will reconsider.

Thanks.

 

[susanlo]

Hey Susan,

It would be prudent to keep in mind that Islam burned much of the Christian east and northern European tribal peoples (commonly “barbarians”) burned much of the Christian west. So writing before the 6th century is a little hard to come by and what few examples we have inherently get more “weight” than perhaps they should due to the simple scarcity.

You’ll find very little (if any) pre-Augustinian writing from secular sources on Christianity in general - much less anything that covers a topic with any depth, including Christian practices you currently agree with. For example, where can we find a secular, pre-Augustinian explanation of Christian baptism, or communion, or “how to get saved” in general?

No doubt, papal authority has developed. Also with no doubt, the Chair of Peter held some level of authority that was not enjoyed by the other bishops in the Church. Augustine himself seemed convinced that in order for council to be binding, it required papal approval.

From my own perspective, Christ said that the gates of hell itself wouldn’t prevail against His Church. So if I’m not at least a member of a communion that can visibly trace it’s existence back to the 1st century, then I’m probably not a member of a church that can credibly claim to be The Church without inadvertently making a liar of Christ.

What groups can make this claim? Catholic, Orthodox and the Orientals, by and large.

I think you’re asking for proof that doesn’t exist. Not because it isn’t true. It likely doesn’t exist because paper has always been quite flammable. And one of the favorite activities of the conquering is to burn the possessions of the conquered, religious or otherwise.

What I am seeking is a modern day historian who has studied Ancient Rome including the available information on the religions of the time and has concluded that in the first few centuries all of the Christians followed the Bishop of Rome as the supreme leader of Christianity on earth. Historians who do not practice Christianity would not seem to be biased in trying to support or disprove that a papacy-like office was in place. It can be hard to find accurate historical information from thousands of years ago, but there is a lot of information that exists and many long books written about history at this time.