Church history from a Protestant perspective

[Lenten_ashes]

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.

I think she means even a modern day secular/historian who objectively examines the historicity of the Papacy and sides with Rome.

Thing is, personally I won’t rely on Bert Ehrman or any of these other secular sources as they all have their axes to grind. If the Papacy is legitimate, tracing roots and authority back to Peter, it adds credence to Christendom as a whole. They aren’t in the business of furthering our cause. They, instead, would like to make assertions that we borrowed from Mithraism or whoever else. Because if Jesus existed and was who he said he was, and they persist in their sin, they are in a little bit of trouble.

 

[Vonsalza]

What I am seeking is a modern day historian…

Oh, mea culpa!

 

[Cassianus]

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.

So you’re saying God lied when He promised the Church He founded would never be overcome by Hell’s Gates? Or did he lie when Saying the Apostles (church hierarchy, above the disciples) would be guided into All Truth by the Holy Spirit? Or did He lie when He said He would be with us always even unto the end of the world? Or did God lie when He said through the words of St Paul that the Church of the Living God is the Pillar & Ground of the Truth?

The simple literal meaning of the text can never contradict the possible deeper meanings it indicates. & the simple meaning of the text is that He gave Simon 2 keys to bind & loose & He specifically renamed him to Petrus - the Rock - & said He was to build His Church upon that Rock. Yes the Rock can also mean the Orthodox Faith in Jesus as the Son of the Living God - but not at the expense of the literal meaning that Peter is the Rock. The whole Bible shows the Catholic position to be the only true. For the scripturally literate it’s obvious that Christ alludes to how God appointed a Prime Minister to serve under the King during the Davidic Kingdom & the apostles would be known this.

Why is it the Roman bishop see & not the antiochian which was also founded by St Peter?
Because of the Consensus of the Fathers saw the petrine authoriy in Rome alone & that had to do with the fact that he was martyred there & that the shrine of Peter to which christians made pilgrimages was there & everybody knew it.

During the Caledonian council, the bishop of Constantinople tried to assume the same power to His See but that specific canon was rejected by the Pope. When the pope Leo sent a book to be read by his nuncio at the council that definitively rejected the heresies of monophysitism (oriental churches) & nestorianism (Syriac, & today’s Calvinist heresy) the other bishops said ‘Peter has spoken’.

The Greek orthodox has always recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome but they object to the extent of the primacy - they say he is a bishop like all others but that he is like the ‘chairman’ of the world’s bishops conference.

Historically, the primacy of Rome was based on Christ’s giving of the 2 keys & that was accepted & believed in by the Greeks during the so-called ‘byzantine papacy’ when popes were Greeks & Italy was a Romanian byzantine province. Until the pope crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor because Irene had usurped the eastern throne & killed her own son - both against all Christian law.

After this event the Greeks deny the ‘Rock’ being Peter & began speaking as they so today (but couldn’t have another ecumenical council as it would require popal approval) - the Russians simply extend this logic; if the primacy is only impartially based - Russia’s patriarch should be the 1st among equals. Not Constantinople, who didn’t have a bishop in the apostolic era & who has less believers & no empire. But Greeks still maintain belief in Roman primacy based on Matt 16 because without it - Constantinople loses it’s primacy which is ‘instead of’ the actual Primate in Rome, which is in schism.
As the Latin Church researched & theologized deeper & deeper into the deposit of faith it found just those parallels with the Davidic Kingdom in Isaiah & the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem that were so similar they couldn’t be coincidence but were specifically echoed by Christ & the Pope got a larger & larger role. The college of cardinals & the Vatican is like that chief rabbinate of the Temple. It’s a doctrine that developed just like the Holy Trinity developed without contradicting but by unpacking what’s implicitly there.

What’s clear is that all protestant sects are heretical & this has been agreed on by all apostolic churches. If you want to change a doctrine - you call an ecumenical council & have the bishops unanimously proclaim that doctrine & the pope approve it in a decree - you can’t just separate & form your own sect without cutting yourself off from the Church founded by God - I myself has painfully realized this is what my ancestral King did to our nation.
The Lutheran scholar Melanchton understood the illegitimacy of protestantism & pleaded with the patriarch of Constantinople to accept them in their communion - but the patriarch simply couldn’t neglect his duty to call the Lutherans to repent of their heresy & accept the teaching consensus of the fathers. Melancholy sent several letters, the patriarch reiterated the orthodox position on Sola Fide & Sola Scriptura & eventually didn’t even answer the letters.

Heresy is to choose to believe what’s wrong obstinately. If Protestantism is true all Christians before the reform were heretics because no one held protestant doctrines & that would mean Christianity itself is false because of Christ’s Promise that the Church would never Fall. Individual members practicing simony & selling indulgences wrongfully is 1 thing - but the doctrine & law remains pure

 

[Logical2]

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.

yes

Yes ken Johnson book what the ancient church fathers taughr. Or go on utube for the quick over vieq

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

Sola Scriptura as it functions in modern day Protestantism doesn’t have seemed to have had a place before the reformation in my estimation of things. Consider what the Fathers of Nicaea were thinking when the proscribed rules for the clergy and creed which must be confessed by Christians in order to have faithful standing the Church. It decidedly goes beyond what is in scripture and is the working out of from scripture of a specific theology which is then ratified by the whole Church. Subsequent ecumenical councils would recognise the authority of the Fathers of Nicaea, then Constantinople and others. They would never qualify this recognition as loyalty “insofar as it agreed with scripture,” but that the fathers of those councils were guided correctly in their judgement and thus we cannot oppose them.

Before the reformation, when Church fathers made a mistake there wasn’t this flippant attitude of dismissing them merely because they were wrong. Often times there was an attempt to understand why they might have said something wrong. I can think of Saint Photius who when confronted with quotes from Augustine regarding the filioque didn’t do away with Augustine but defended him rigorously and excused Augustine’s error as non intentional. It seems to me only after the reformation do we see this strict dichotomy between the bible and everything else.

The bible had great authority before the Reformation, it was quoted more than any single Church father in church literature but it was always understood within that context of Church, never formally separated from it. As much as Saint Basil the Great utilised scripture, he utilised also the Church around him and the teaching he had received from it.

If you want to say all tradition is merely hearsay, then how do you justify the authorship of the gospels? How do you know the Mark who wrote Mark’s Gospel is realiable?

 

[ajcstr]

Hi a,

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.

Blessings

But there was still only ONE Church at the time. To disagree meant to be outside the Church once the council ruled. Same would have been for JW if it had risen in 400 instead of 1800.

 

[Michael68]

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.

You assume there is error in what the Apostles taught by word of mouth? Any evidence for this or just your assumption?

 

[benhur]

But there was still only ONE Church at the time. To disagree meant to be outside the Church once the council ruled. Same would have been for JW if it had risen in 400 instead of 1800.

Hi aj,

That is right, but then also depended on which council , and who was emperor for awhile.

I think the JW’s would still have existed back then just as now. Arianism is alive now as then, but as you state, not part of Christian orthodoxy since Nicene.

Blessings

 

[mackbrislawn]

You assume there is error in what the Apostles taught by word of mouth? Any evidence for this or just your assumption?

Excellent point. Actually, much of what is in the gospels, especially Luke, is simply hearsay and word of mouth reporting.

 

[benhur]

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

Hi La,

Apparently so, just as he allowed Israel to have a king, and to only have the tribe of levi be priests , instead of all twelve, and allowed factions of Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes all under the same banner of salvation. Those thousands of differing groups still have unity enough to declare, as was of the similar diverse Jews, “salvation is of Christianity”.

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.

Not that simple. The OT had saving Truth, just that it was limited in operation, just as she only had one tribe be priests , as we now have all twelve be priests(but they still had one entire priestly tribe) . I mean he inhabits the praise of His people back then and today. His Word penetrated the marrows back then as today (two corporate functions)
The method of illumination may have changed, but the dynamic of free will and differing maturity levels and faith levels remains. That is , the indwelling of the Holy Ghost still unites all believers, but it does not robotize us to perfect conformity. That won’t happen until that Great Day.

Point being 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.

and how intimate He is with the believer…Saul persecuted believers, and the charitable faithful give water and food and clothes to ''people" , being indwelt by the Godhead, thereby touching God with these elements.

Blessings

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi La,

Apparently so, just as he allowed Israel to have a king, and to only have the tribe of levi be priests , instead of all twelve, and allowed factions of Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes all under the same banner of salvation. Those thousands of differing groups still have unity enough to declare, as was of the similar diverse Jews, “salvation is of Christianity”.

God obviously “allowed” Israel in these matters, just as He apparently allows the many disparate denominations to exist. However, God’s allowing these disparate understandings is not the same thing as saying He “gives” them the different understandings of the same book. Since God cannot be giving them all different understandings, these different understandings must come from another source.

 

[pablope]

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”

Well…for one thing…there was no such Bible as you know it today back then…they were scrolls and were in the synagogues…and needed a rabbi.

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.

 

[MartinJordan]

Well…for one thing…there was no such Bible as you know it today back then…they were scrolls and were in the synagogues…and needed a rabbi.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Are you really saying, you’re desperately hoping to find anyone who contradicts that conclusion?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Apparently so, just as he allowed Israel to have a king, and to only have the tribe of levi be priests , instead of all twelve, and allowed factions of Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes all under the same banner of salvation. Those thousands of differing groups still have unity enough to declare, as was of the similar diverse Jews, “salvation is of Christianity”.

Hi Ben.

But it cant be God giving them all different understandings. Truth is absolute, correct?

Not that simple. The OT had saving Truth, just that it was limited in operation, just as she only had one tribe be priests , as we now have all twelve be priests(but they still had one entire priestly tribe) . I mean he inhabits the praise of His people back then and today. His Word penetrated the marrows back then as today (two corporate functions)
The method of illumination may have changed, but the dynamic of free will and differing maturity levels and faith levels remains. That is , the indwelling of the Holy Ghost still unites all believers, but it does not robotize us to perfect conformity. That won’t happen until that Great Day.

Not perfect conformity, even in the Catholic Church as we have different rites therein.

But what I am saying is the picture is much clearer for us than in the Old Testament. Things aren’t abstract, they are concrete by virtue of the Lord’s promises to us and to work through the Church.(Acts 9:4)

Just start with revelation. OT is God’s will concealed, NT is God’s will revealed. That alone is a big indicator that things have changed…

And He promises to be with the Church always and that Hell will not prevail against it. That’s how she can speak authoritatively and judge matters(Matthew 18:18) such as circumcision (Acts 15) or whatever modern day issues that may arise. There were no qualifiers or expiration dates added to the Lord’s statements.

Pax

 

[susanlo]

Are you really saying, you’re desperately hoping to find anyone who contradicts that conclusion?

Which conclusion?

I am not desperately hoping to find anything. I am just discussing the various “versions” of history.

 

[pablope]

Which conclusion?

I am not desperately hoping to find anything. I am just discussing the various “versions” of history.

I think you are making a false assumption that authority of Rome was instants…that it did not develop?

Well…have you considered looking at the actual events that showed the authority of Rome in the first 1000 yrs?

These are book reviews:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1355

orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/CarlsonPrimacy.php

The Church of the first millennium recognized the Holy Spirit’s leading through three primary means: ecumenical councils, the see of Rome, and the witness of the faithful (even one lone witness to truth, such as in the case of St. Maximus the Confessor).

The Church of Rome over the first four centuries moved incrementally to view herself as inheriting Peter’s special charism of responsibility, concern, and right of appeal for the entire Church. She was the first of the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). By Leo’s time (440-446), the pope was “the head (princeps) of the entire Church.”

It has to be admitted that the Church of the East recognized the papacy as having special privileges. From the 5th century onward, various Eastern Fathers were referring to the pope as the successor of Peter, and it was to Rome that the East turned when the harmony of the Church was threatened.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Are you really saying, you’re desperately hoping to find anyone who contradicts that conclusion?

I think she just wants a independent source to confirm one way or the other if the Papacy is what we claim it has always been.

I’d like to find the same thing for the Fatima “sun dancing” occurrence. Because practically everyone was Catholic or religious in 1917 in that country and I’d like to hear testimony of those who have no biases or agendas.

And in both cases it will be practically impossible to find such sources, imo.

I’m sure there are modern day historians with opinions, but are they really going to be objective? They don’t want to add credence to the papacy because it also adds credence to Christianity since these are our roots. They would rather accuse us of ripping off pagan faiths and creating an imaginary Jesus.

 

[steve_b]

Which conclusion?

I am not desperately hoping to find anything. I am just discussing the various “versions” of history.

Actually you have been trying to find a contrary conclusion to the one that keeps presenting itself, not just in this forum, but others as well.

#**243 **, Irenaeus (bishop and saint in the Catholic Church) was from Smyrna, in present day Turkey. Where did Irenaeus learn what he wrote? He was as one man away from John the apostle. That one man was Bp Polycarp who was a direct disciple of John. And where was Polycarp from? Smyrna. Irenaeus had heard Polycarp in his youth.

#231 ,Ignatius (bishop & saint in the Catholic Church) was a direct disciple of John.

#204 , Clement, (bishop and saint, in the Catholic Church, 3rd successor to Peter in Rome) settles sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece

#111**, **400 year condensed history of the Catholic Church, all from primary sources, all properly referenced

Isn’t it fair then to ask, the point of this thread, “from a Protestant perspective” is almost begging to find a different history than the one that is there.

 

[benhur]

God obviously “allowed” Israel in these matters, just as He apparently allows the many disparate denominations to exist. However, God’s allowing these disparate understandings is not the same thing as saying He “gives” them the different understandings of the same book. Since God cannot be giving them all different understandings, these different understandings must come from another source.

Hi m,

Of course, we understand the point of being “wrong”, carnal. But my point was that despite our wrongness in some things, each of us, each church, we still have enough "right’ to be light of the world.

Yes, Jesus is the most perfect being ever to grace this earth. We as Christians, and our churches that we form and congregate in, are the next best thing. The pillar of Truth. The church is universal in this, even catholic.That is how I see the 7 churches of Revelations Understand The CC claims sole ownership of all universal light and ‘‘pillarship", from which “others” owe there existence to (that the 7 churches were not only universal, but Catholic,and that Roman Catholic), and has no "wrongness’’ in her about biblical interpretations.

Blessings.