Church history from a Protestant perspective

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

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

Hi La,

Yes, but are we to assume that God is with us therefore we are infallible (faith,morals, biblical interpretation), that God was with Adam, and Abraham and Moses, and David , and all OT also , but somehow He really cares about us more in that we shall be perfect like no other dispensation ? All of sudden no conditionality to our perfect understanding , that has existed since Adam ?

Sorry, but I won’t see a perfect church (in faith and morals, in biblical interpretations) until His second coming. It is also one of the reasons we pray and yearn for His coming, indeed to be perfect as He is perfect and to see as He sees.

Yet there is a degree of perfection we have in Christ now, even in faith and morals. Unfortunately it is my opinion, anyone espousing Catholicism, Orthodoxy, even Protestantism, is but a sign of imperfection in all three.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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

Hi La,

There are many promise made to various "promise keepers’’ of OT, that are very similar to promises made to church (and I alluded to the method of how He keeps them changes, but He does keep them all perfectly).

Agree there are no mysteries anymore, yet we do see thru a glass darkly. Just in that we ought tread lightly on claiming better "vision’’ than others.

Christianity and Judaism is about reconciliation and fellowship with God. Very concrete. I maybe baptized in the holy ghost , but I dare say I have not wept like David,"wetting his pillow’’ as oft as he did when talking to God. Did the Lord "taste’ differently then as now ?

Paul warns of the church thinking it is better, more loved, or more ‘‘promised’’ than poor old testament Judaism.

Perseverance was not just for individuals but for churches also.

Conditionality still exists, in obtaining the fullness of God’s promises, even for His NT church.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Hi La,

There are many promise made to various "promise keepers’’ of OT, that are very similar to promises made to church (and I alluded to the method of how He keeps them changes, but He does keep them all perfectly).

Agree there are no mysteries anymore, yet we do see thru a glass darkly. Just in that we ought tread lightly on claiming better "vision’’ than others.

Christianity and Judaism is about reconciliation and fellowship with God. Very concrete. I maybe baptized in the holy ghost , but I dare say I have not wept like David,"wetting his pillow’’ as oft as he did when talking to God. Did the Lord "taste’ differently then as now ?

Paul warns of the church thinking it is better, more loved, or more ‘‘promised’’ than poor old testament Judaism.

Perseverance was not just for individuals but for churches also.

Conditionality still exists, in obtaining the fullness of God’s promises, even for His NT church.

Blessings

Hi ben!

I would say the mysteries are still there in the sense they are still mysteries. We contemplate these mysteries during the Rosary. We meaning Catholics and others who pray the Rosary.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Yes, but are we to assume that God is with us therefore we are infallible (faith,morals, biblical interpretation), that God was with Adam, and Abraham and Moses, and David , and all OT also , but somehow He really cares about us more in that we shall be perfect like no other dispensation ? All of sudden no conditionality to our perfect understanding , that has existed since Adam ?

Sorry, but I won’t see a perfect church (in faith and morals, in biblical interpretations) until His second coming. It is also one of the reasons we pray and yearn for His coming, indeed to be perfect as He is perfect and to see as He sees.

Yet there is a degree of perfection we have in Christ now, even in faith and morals. Unfortunately it is my opinion, anyone espousing Catholicism, Orthodoxy, even Protestantism, is but a sign of imperfection in all three.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

Not we, not you and I, but THE Church(Singular) has to be able to speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals just like in ACTS 15. Because this is a living institution.

In this era where people and so called Churches try to determine truth by democratic vote, we need a voice we can count on to be the Pillar and foundation of truth.

We can say, well let’s just stick to the bible the best you can. But they were sticking to the bible from the time of the reformation until 1929 and birth control wasn’t accepted in any protestant churches. Now it’s accepted pretty much everywhere. I don’t have to ask what happened, we already know. Christians with those same bibles swayed with the times and peer pressure to accept it from modern day society. Because if it’s not spelled out perfectly in the bible we can use it as a out and essentially murder our own consciences.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

There are many promise made to various "promise keepers’’ of OT, that are very similar to promises made to church (and I alluded to the method of how He keeps them changes, but He does keep them all perfectly).

Agree there are no mysteries anymore, yet we do see thru a glass darkly. Just in that we ought tread lightly on claiming better "vision’’ than others.

Christianity and Judaism is about reconciliation and fellowship with God. Very concrete. I maybe baptized in the holy ghost , but I dare say I have not wept like David,"wetting his pillow’’ as oft as he did when talking to God. Did the Lord "taste’ differently then as now ?

Paul warns of the church thinking it is better, more loved, or more ‘‘promised’’ than poor old testament Judaism.

Perseverance was not just for individuals but for churches also.

Conditionality still exists, in obtaining the fullness of God’s promises, even for His NT church.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

It’s not a matter of being better or favored and that is not what I am saying.

Actually, the Jews are the apple of his eye as I pointed in a previous post. They still in some mysterious way have a everlasting covenant with him.

But those same Jews didn’t accept or recognize their own Messiah, while Christians did/do.

So yeah, one of us obviously had better ‘vision’ than the other one. And one of us were given the power to loose and bind(Acts 15/Matt 18) and the keys to the Kingdom - even the forgiveness of sins - that authority was given to men(John 20:21-23). That means this is a new age with matters taken to heights not seen before.

Can we know everything there is to know? Do I know what your house looks like in heaven? Of course not, but we can on matters of faith and morals as that is why Jesus came here, to save and provide clarity. (Matthew 5:17)

 

[steve_b]

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.

benhur,

Am I seeing a change here in your thinking?

 

[benhur]

benhur,

Am I seeing a change here in your thinking?

Hi s,

There was supposed to be a period (.) after the first 7 churches. I posted “our churches”, as in our congregations, as opposed to CC view of they were one church (Roman Catholic) and seven congregations. I believe the 7 churches were all apostolic but somewhat autonomous, distinct. One even suffered error in doctrine.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi ben!

I would say the mysteries are still there in the sense they are still mysteries. We contemplate these mysteries during the Rosary. We meaning Catholics and others who pray the Rosary.

yes of course. I was referring to the Pauline use of the word, where it is a mystery to the world but not us.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

Not we, not you and I, but THE Church(Singular) has to be able to speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals just like in ACTS 15. Because this is a living institution.

Hi La,

Agree, yet we can not speak as one on all things because one is Catholic, and one is Orthodox, and one is Protestant.

Now we can speak as one on many things, but we must also drop other things if we want to speak as say the council at nicea (even there not in all things , unless we all agree to civil enforcement as Nicea did)

.In this era where people and so called Churches try to determine truth by democratic vote, we need a voice we can count on to be the Pillar and foundation of truth.

Agree that Truth is beyond a vote. It can lead astray , but it can also show that there is a wisdom in a multitude of council. Is the CC beyond any type of "voting’’ on matters at a vatican council, or for putting in place Christ head on Earth ?

We can say, well let’s just stick to the bible the best you can. But they were sticking to the bible from the time of the reformation until 1929 and birth control wasn’t accepted in any protestant churches. Now it’s accepted pretty much everywhere. I don’t have to ask what happened, we already know. Christians with those same bibles swayed with the times and peer pressure to accept it from modern day society. Because if it’s not spelled out perfectly in the bible we can use it as a out and essentially murder our own consciences.

Again, I am stating that though imperfect ,churches are still God’s light in this dark place. Only the CC claims eternal infallibility in all faith and moral matters and biblical interpretations.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

It’s not a matter of being better or favored and that is not what I am saying.

Actually, the Jews are the apple of his eye as I pointed in a previous post. They still in some mysterious way have a everlasting covenant with him.

Hi La,

Well it can be taken that it seems the CC is favored more highly than any other dispensation before it. That only she , of all Promise keepers ever, will be 100 % accurate in relaying God’s Word 100% of the time.

What I am suggesting to you is that God is faithful to the end , but in sometimes mysterious ways, as with Judaism, without her being infallible 100 % of the time. The NT may be no different than the OT in this. The CC can fail , some of the time, or even once, for a period of time (while others may be “truer”) until she "recovers’. All of this without imputing "negligence’’ on His shepherding.

As you say , all’s well in the end , as with the Jews. No one will impute Shepherding negligence.

So yeah, one of us obviously had better ‘vision’ than the other one

Yes agree that any Christian church has the right vision on Christ as compared to the Jews as a whole.

I was rather referring to* being careful,* seeing we see thru a glass darkly, of claiming better vision not better than Judaism, but better than other churches.

.

And one of us were given the power to loose and bind(Acts 15/Matt 18) and the keys to the Kingdom - even the forgiveness of sins - that authority was given to men(John 20:21-23). That means this is a new age with matters taken to heights not seen before.

Again, many dispensations had things that were unprecedented before them also, yet they were not above conditionality.

Can we know everything there is to know? Do I know what your house looks like in heaven? Of course not, but we can on matters of faith and morals as that is why Jesus came here, to save and provide clarity. (Matthew 5:17)

Citing straw man(knowing color of future house) can not detract from discussion of CC presumption of knowing all other things more pertinent (faith and moral) with 20/20 vision

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Citing straw man(knowing color of future house) can not detract from discussion of CC presumption of knowing all other things more pertinent (faith and moral) with 20/20 vision

Blessings

Hi Ben.

Not a straw man. I’ll break it down a little further…

There are many questions each and everyone of us has for God once we take our last breath. Mother Teresa started having doubts and bouts of depression towards the end of her life because she saw so much suffering.

And all of these mysteries will be answered there.

Jesus said that eventually everything will be brought into the light.

Doesn’t mean we can’t be sure of doctrine or teaching of faith and morals.

The verse you cited, in it’s context, has its focus on love over spiritual gifts… not doctrine.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Agree, yet we can not speak as one on all things because one is Catholic, and one is Orthodox, and one is Protestant.

Now we can speak as one on many things, but we must also drop other things if we want to speak as say the council at nicea (even there not in all things , unless we all agree to civil enforcement as Nicea did)Agree that Truth is beyond a vote. It can lead astray , but it can also show that there is a wisdom in a multitude of council. Is the CC beyond any type of "voting’’ on matters at a vatican council, or for putting in place Christ head on Earth ?
Again, I am stating that though imperfect ,churches are still God’s light in this dark place. Only the CC claims eternal infallibility in all faith and moral matters and biblical interpretations.

Blessings

Hi Ben.

I’m not saying all solid Churches of different denominations aren’t a light to this world. They absolutely are.

In regards to taking votes…the CC cant change her teachings, though. She cant add a 4th person to the Trinity. She will never in a million years put a stamp of approval on homosexual lifestyle through a vote, such as what we see in these liberal denominations…Can’t happen, won’t happen…

And that’s my point…if you see a Church this consistent with her teaching on morals for the past 2000 years, you know the house was built on a rock, and not on shifting sand…

Pax

 

[steve_b]

Hi s,

There was supposed to be a period (.) after the first 7 churches. I posted “our churches”, as in our congregations, as opposed to CC view of ***they were one church (Roman Catholic) ***and seven congregations. I believe the 7 churches were all apostolic but somewhat autonomous, distinct. One even suffered error in doctrine.

Blessings

Ah, glad I asked. Periods do make a difference

to your point,

The 7 Churches of Rev

1. 
   *]Pergamos
   *]Thyatira
   *]Sardis
   *]Smyrna
   *]Philidelphia
   *]Ephesus
   *]Laodecia
   
   Since 3 of those Churches John mentions in Rev were also in the list of Churches Ignatius writes to,
   
   The 6 Churches Ignatius writes to
   • Epistle to the Ephesians
   • Epistle to the Magnesians
   • Epistle to the Trallians
   • Epistle to the Romans
   • Epistle to the Philadelphians
   • Epistle to the Smyrnæans
   and Ignatius being a direct disciple of John, wrote his letters about the same time John wrote revelations, and Ignatius calls the Churches “Catholic”, then I’d say you’re characterizations, are definitely trying to put a non Catholic spin on Catholic history, which after all is the topic of the thread
   
   The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church from the first century. Eastern rite Catholics of many different names, are just as Catholic as Roman **rite **Catholics. It just so happens, today, the Roman rite, is ~98% of the total Catholics in the world. And Ignatius is the one who identifies the Church of Rome out of the others he writes to, as the Church that presides, or said another way, holds the presidency.
   
   As for Churches in error, over time, that’s why councils are called and popes as well get involved directly in correcting errors.

 

[Rohzek]

Which conclusion?

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

Here is a list of books and articles that you might find interesting. Long story short tho, the field of papal and church history has stagnated for the most part. And where it hasn’t stagnated, it usually avoids the question of papal authority.

I also want to note the following however. Church history, especially regarding the authority of Rome, before the fifth century is very hard. There isn’t much evidence in the historical record to arrive at a conclusion for either side. Most of my suggestions will be stuff concerning the period between the 5th and 11th centuries. This list concerns the subject of specifically papal Rome and Western Christianity as a whole.

You don’t have to read in order, but you should at least read numbers 1 and 2 before deciding to skip around. I do suggest reading in order though.

1.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “The Christian Church as an Institution.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, 3: Early Medieval Christianities, c. 600 - c. 1100, pgs. 249-274. Edited by Thomas Noble and Julia Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

2.) Noble, Thomas F. X. “Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy.” The Catholic Historical Review 81, no. 4 (Oct. 1995), 505-540.

3.) Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Division: The Church, 450-680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Valdimir’s Seminary Press, 1992.

4.) Democopoulos, George. The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

5.) Brown, Peter. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000. 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. (Note: Second edition is okay too, but don’t read the first edition.)

6.) Deliyannis, Deborah. “The Roman Liber Pontificalis, Papal Primacy, and the Acacian Schism.” Viator 45, no. 2 (2014): 1-16.

7.) Jong, Mayke de. “Hincmar, priests and Pseudo-Isidore: The Case of Trising in Context.” In Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work, pgs. 268-280. Edited by Rachel Stone and Charles West. Manchester, MI: Manchester University Press, 2015.

8.) Noble, Thomas F. X. The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, 680-825. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.

9.) Dvornik, Francis. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. Corrected edition, 1979.

10.) Gallagher, Clarence. “Diversity in Unity: Approaches to Church Order in Rome and Byzantium.” Ecclesiastical Law Journal: The Journal of the Ecclesiastical Law Society 6, no. 30 (2002): 208-238.

11.) Herrin, Judith. “The Pentarchy: Theory and Reality in the Ninth Century.” In Cristianità d’Occidente e cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI) : 24-30 aprile 2003. Spoleto, Italy: Settimane di studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 2004. 591-628.

12.) Runciman, Steven. The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches during the XIth and XIIth Cenuturies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

13.) Grant, Ken. “A Divine Mandate: Pope Gregory VII’s Defense of Papal Authority.” In Authorities in the Middle Ages: Influence, Legitimacy, and Power in Medieval Society. Edited by Sini Kangas et al. 2013. 39-54. ISBN 978-3-11-029449-1

 

[steve_b]

Here is a list of books and articles that you might find interesting. Long story short tho, the field of papal and church history has stagnated for the most part. And where it hasn’t stagnated, it usually avoids the question of papal authority.

Re: history, and particularly “Papal authority”,

I did a quick search of CA and found 33 threads on “Papal authority” going back to 2005
forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?searchid=26753828

lots of information there. I selected the dates of the threads placing them in descending order from earliest to oldest.
R:

I also want to note the following however. Church history, *especially regarding the authority of Rome, before the fifth century is very hard. There isn’t much evidence in the historical record to arrive at a conclusion for either side. *

all one has to do is their homework to see that is wrong
R:

Most of my suggestions will be stuff concerning the period between the 5th and 11th centuries. This list concerns the subject of specifically papal Rome and Western Christianity as a whole.

Why skip all that history? The links to forums I posted, cover history, going back to the beginning, to the 1st century.

 

[Rohzek]

steve, your search link didn’t show me anything. Something must be wrong with it.

As for why skip all of that history, well because the sources are scarce and left open to a variety of interpretations. Where there is less concrete info, there is more room for speculation. You are more than welcome to not agree with that assessment. I am merely posting information regarding a crucial period of history for Christianity that tends to be better documented than the preceding centuries.

And to be fair, the poster asked for works written by historians, not CAF threads.

 

[Rohzek]

Until the pope crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor because Irene had usurped the eastern throne & killed her own son - both against all Christian law.

The pope crowned Charlemagne emperor because Charlemagne saved him from a revolt in Rome. Pope Leo III was accused of sexual misdeeds, perjury, and simony, and then run out of the city. He called on Charlemagne for support and Charlemagne answered. Pope Leo III then crowned Charlemagne as a reward, and because he thought he had the authority to do so based upon the spurious Donation of Constantine. The Franks argued that the crowning was legitimate because Empress Irene was a woman, and therefore had no right to the throne.

Usurpation was normal in Byzantium and the murder of her son regrettable. However, given that Constantine VI was incompetent, cruel, and morally repugnant, I would say Irene probably did the right thing in deposing her son. In any case, Charlemagne was not crowned because of Irene’s deposition of Constantine VI, but for the following reasons: as a reward based on the “authority” of the Donation of Constantine, and because Irene was a woman.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

Not a straw man. I’ll break it down a little further…

There are many questions each and everyone of us has for God once we take our last breath. Mother Teresa started having doubts and bouts of depression towards the end of her life because she saw so much suffering.

And all of these mysteries will be answered there.

Jesus said that eventually everything will be brought into the light.

Doesn’t mean we can’t be sure of doctrine or teaching of faith and morals.

The verse you cited, in it’s context, has its focus on love over spiritual gifts… not doctrine.

Pax

Hi La,

Yes very good point in rebuttal , yet the gift of knowledge is then limited, that we know in part, not fully. Therefore it behooves to be careful when making pronouncements of “knowledge” , such as IC, or the Assumption, even testing the charity/endurance of others by asking for a mandatory belief on these.

So we can know doctrine, but it should be limited, such as the Nicene Creed, or as Barnabas said , “as many as are written”.

Blessings

PS I Corinthians CH 13:9 “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.”

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben.

I’m not saying all solid Churches of different denominations aren’t a light to this world. They absolutely are.

In regards to taking votes…the CC cant change her teachings, though. She cant add a 4th person to the Trinity. She will never in a million years put a stamp of approval on homosexual lifestyle through a vote, such as what we see in these liberal denominations…Can’t happen, won’t happen…

And that’s my point…if you see a Church this consistent with her teaching on morals for the past 2000 years, you know the house was built on a rock, and not on shifting sand…

Pax

Hi La,

Ok but she "votes’’ nonetheless’ , just like some Pand O’s.

As far as you’r one litmus test (sexuality) , that I agree with, well then many, many P and O churches are stride for stride with CC.

And one may not change something from the past but they can certainly add something that was not dogmatic before (some would say papacy , or priesthood, or sacrificial mass or IC or Assumption…such things have not been consistently dogmatic).

Blessings

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi La,

Yes very good point in rebuttal , yet the gift of knowledge is then limited, that we know in part, not fully. Therefore it behooves to be careful when making pronouncements of “knowledge” , such as IC, or the Assumption, even testing the charity/endurance of others by asking for a mandatory belief on these.

So we can know doctrine, but it should be limited, such as the Nicene Creed, or as Barnabas said , “as many as are written”.

Blessings

PS I Corinthians CH 13:9 “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.”

Hi La,

Ok but she "votes’’ nonetheless’ , just like some Pand O’s.

As far as you’r one litmus test (sexuality) , that I agree with, well then many, many P and O churches are stride for stride with CC.

And one may not change something from the past but they can certainly add something that was not dogmatic before (some would say papacy , or priesthood, or sacrificial mass or IC or Assumption…such things have not been consistently dogmatic).

Blessings

Hi Ben, thought I would cobble these together since you mentioned IC /Assumption in both.

There was no scriptural precedent to make the ruling on circumcision (Acts 15). So they hold a council and use the authority given to them by the Lord. (Matt 16/18) The Lord knew the circumcision issue was coming. So before he ascended he very easily could have given them the answer. But instead he let’s the Church work it out.

So that was the template given. Why would this change all of sudden around 1517 AD?

And if I’m practicing SS and using the bible as a manual, then i need to find this coming drastic change prophesied in the bible. For example, Paul talks about how in latter times people will turn from God and become lovers of self pleasure. (2 Timothy 3:2) And well, that has already happened and it didn’t usher in the end times. The reformation is probably a bigger event than that and it’s extremely relevant to our faith. So I think I should find this total change in template prophesied in the scriptures if it what the Lord had intended for us. Even just a indistinct sort of reference about how in the “latter times” the Church will become full of itself and need reform, would likely suffice.

I do often wonder if Luther pondered this same question during his break. Not a hint of prophesy about a coming reformation. What we do find is the Lord making promises to her to keep her steering in the right direction.