How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[KjetilK]

Unlike the early Catholic Churches that you mentioned, the Protestant Churches today are not united doctrinally speaking - correct?

So what? ‘Protestantism’ is a meaningless label put on different churches. There isn’t doctrinal unity between the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox churches either. You keep forgetting that the question isn’t about some formless blob called ‘Protestantism,’ but particular churches, such as the Church of Norway, the Church of England, etc.

You seem to think that ‘Protestantism’ is united, then point out that they aren’t doctrinally so. But who has ever, ever, ever made the claim that all churches defined, either by themselves or by outsiders, as ‘Protestant’ are united or are in any way the same thing? The various particular churches within the Lutheran tradition, at least those who stay true to their confessions, have never, ever seen themselves in communion with, say, Baptists, yet Catholics lump them together in the same formless blob. You are attacking a straw man of your own making.

 

[paulrxp]

…The early church fathers that lived during the first few hundred years after Christ are not only the fathers of the Catholic church, but the fathers of the entire Christian church.

Only partially agree with this. The early Christians are fathers to the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church because of a shared Tradition. Even after schism, there are more doctrines and shared beliefs between the East and West Church, not found in non-Catholic and non-Orthodox churches. So one can argue that yes, being outside of Communion can still link you to the early Church fathers, but this is not necessarily the case with Christians that are not Catholic or Orthodox.

It is by Tradition that today, beliefs, practices and all teachings assure a church and it’s faithful follow the beliefs practices and teachings of the early Church fathers. Besides our faith and devotion to our Lord, this is our link to him and the Truths he revealed to this apostles and their disciples, and only to them. Any deviation from this Tradition drifts further and further away from the Spirit of Truth that the Lord left to his Church

Luther and Calvin both drew heavily from Augustine and other church fathers. Calvin’s view of the doctrine of predestination began with Augustine. You say that you can trace the unbroken succession of the popes and I won’t dispute that with you. But even if that is so, Jesus never stated that we would recognize the true church through it’s unbroken line of bishops which have been appointed by different methods throughout the centuries.

Drawing heavily from a belief doesn’t always lead you to a shared Truth. This is where Communion begins to play a role in binding the Tradition within body of the Church. The Church fathers never unanimously agreed in their opinions on doctrine. Disputes and heretical teachings could be corrected and reconciled by Councils, and considering all the complexities, they did a beautiful job at it.
Even if Calvin drew his views of predestination from Augustine, that view of predestination goes contrary to what the entire Church ultimately accepted as the Truth. So one could not say, “my belief is like Augustines, therefore that is my link to the Church Fathers”. It is the Communion in a shared belief with guidance of Tradition that keeps the teachings of Christ to what we can understand and accept as the fullness of truth.
Another important aspect of Tradition is Authority. When disputes and opinions oppose each other, the councils not only become authoritative, but the Tradition they reference for guidance has Authority over them. This line of precedence preserves the teaching and beliefs. This allows the shortest direct path to the teachings of Christ with the least path of diversion.

The thing that our Lord without a doubt willed is that we be One. Churches can be diverse in their practice and rituals, but divided and separated, especially in Truth was not the design. I’m pretty certain of that.

This just a passing thought and food for your conscience.
In my community, the outskirts of downtown is a slum. It’s absolutely pathetic to see that in a nation so full of riches and wealth there could exists this living hell on Earth right in our midst.
Down the street from the slums is building with several levels. Each level caters to a need, Battered women, drug abusers, all usually homeless and desperate. You enter destitute, you’re not turned away, you’re fed,clothed and bathed. You can remain for 3 days, after that you have to leave. You can come back though later and the process repeats itself. This is run by the communities protestant churches. Catholic parishes participate and they work together and all division is set aside to do the work our Lord. I’m very confident that these people who are doing Gods work will be in the front of the line and will be rewarded with keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not as confident that the ideologues(I’d include myself in that mix) will have as easy of a time being worthy enough to be in the presence of God There’s much work to do my friends. Inspire and humble yourselves and be like these people of God, they remind us the Kingdom of Heaven is in our midst as long as we share the love of Christ with others. One with each other will make us One with Christ.

 

[Lek]

Jesus’ Catholic Church began in Jerusalem, and eventually burgeoned out all over the Roman Empire, even in the first century e.g. Ephesus, Rome Corinth etc… There were Christians spread throughout the entire Roman Empire, and the name adopted, as early as the 1st century, for Jesus’ church was (regardless of location within the Empire) the Catholic Church. The church in Rome was comprised of Catholics; the church in Corinth was comprised of Catholics; the church in Ephesus, comprised of Catholics etc. etc. etc. Prove me wrong, and I will concede,

John Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD) who grew up in Antioch, taught that Ignatius had been ordained at the hands of apostles, including Peter. They all belonged to the same church; all of the early church fathers belonged to the Catholic church:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye 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. …] 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 (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)

I think you’re getting caught up in semantics here, Joe. Yes the earliest Christians did consider themselves to be members of the “catholic” church. But they used catholic in the sense that it was Christ’s “universal” church. When you refer to the “Roman Catholic” church then you’re using “catholic” in a denominational sense. You’re separating yourselves from other “catholics”. I consider myself to be as catholic as the first Christians were. The first Christians didn’t follow all the same doctrines and dogma as you do now.

John Chrysostom and Ignatius were great Christian scholars, but I don’t go to them for the final answers on matters of faith and doctrine. One of the criteria for inclusion into the canon of the New Testament was that it was written by an apostle or one who who had close contact with an apostle. I don’t need to go beyond that criteria for the final word on these matters.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The first Christians didn’t follow all the same doctrines and dogma as you do now.

As nobody does now. **Nobody **does.

There was no New Testament but a collection of letters and writings and the same goes for the Old Testament.

All they had was the Church to learn from. And still, when we look at those “first” Christians’ writings: Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and others. We see a common theme that developed from the [one] deposit of Faith.

This is where Protestantism fails miserably. Trying to establish an Early Christian Church (Outside the space-time continuum) with doctrines and dogmas that those First Christians never heard of (Like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide). And then turn around and criticize the Catholic Church for having doctrines and dogmas that those Christians didn’t follow.

I mean… Really!?

You leave for one thing and then put into practice the very same thing you left for?

It defies any and all reasoning…

 

[joe371]

Lek;12207294]I think you’re getting caught up in semantics here, Joe. Yes the earliest Christians did consider themselves to be members of the “catholic” church. But they used catholic in the sense that it was Christ’s “universal” church.

Agreed. It was used to make a distinction between Jesus’ catholic church and other movements, sects etc…

When you refer to the “Roman Catholic” church then you’re using “catholic” in a denominational sense. You’re separating yourselves from other “catholics”. I consider myself to be as catholic as the first Christians were. The first Christians didn’t follow all the same doctrines and dogma as you do now.

The term catholic church and Roman catholic church - is the same. There are 21 rites
within the catholic church and Rome is one of them.

You suggest that the first Christians didn’t follow all the same doctrines and dogma as the catholic church does today; I say they did? Who or what did God leave us with to resolve the matter once and for all, in view of the fact that we cannot agree using the holy bible?

I do not know if your church follows all the same doctrines and dogma as the catholic church did in the first, second, and third century, so I won’t disrespect…

John Chrysostom and Ignatius were great Christian scholars, but I don’t go to them for the final answers on matters of faith and doctrine. One of the criteria for inclusion into the canon of the New Testament was that it was written by an apostle or one who who had close contact with an apostle. I don’t need to go beyond that criteria for the final word on these matters.

You don’t need to go beyond that criteria for the final word on these matters - OK. In your opinion, where did the table of content in your bible come from, if not the catholic church?

No one should ever defer to any one man regarding doctrine. All authority was given to Jesus, and he passed on that authority to hus church, which is guided by the holy spirit.

Both these men belonged to the same catholic church that I belong to today.

 

[joe371]

As nobody does now. **Nobody **does.

There was no New Testament but a collection of letters and writings and the same goes for the Old Testament.

All they had was the Church to learn from. And still, when we look at those “first” Christians’ writings: Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, and others. We see a common theme that developed from the [one] deposit of Faith.

This is where Protestantism fails miserably. Trying to establish an Early Christian Church (Outside the space-time continuum) with doctrines and dogmas that those First Christians never heard of (Like Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide). And then turn around and criticize the Catholic Church for having doctrines and dogmas that those Christians didn’t follow.

I mean… Really!?

You leave for one thing and then put into practice the very same thing you left for?

It defies any and all reasoning…

Took the words right out of my mouth…

 

[Lek]

As nobody does now. **Nobody **does.

There was no New Testament but a collection of letters and writings and the same goes for the Old Testament.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Outside the space-time continuum? In other words both catholics and protestants embrace some doctrines that the earliest church did not (like the immaculate conception and the assumption).

For the Early Church to not like they would need to have been in existence. Which they weren’t.

But I wasn’t criticizing the catholic church for having those doctrines. I was just saying the earliest church isn’t part of the present day catholic church any more that it is part of the protestant church.

The Early Church developed doctrine. You can’t take the CC out of the equation when we have actual Apostolic Succession. The CC didn’t come into effect in/after the 1,500’s. Our Bishop is a direct successor of Peter. Apples and Oranges.

The earliest church possessed knowledge of everything that is needed for salvation.

Only God possess the knowledge of everything needed for salvation. The Church serves the Lord in carrying out His message (Think Matthew 28 and John 21)

Nothing else needed to be added to their revelation from God in order for them to follow him and be saved.

In that case the New Testament and doctrines like the Trinity go out the window as they didn’t exist. Which only reinforces the position that the Church is needed for Salvation because all other things didn’t exist.

That means that all the dogma that was added since the time of the apostles is important for us to know to become closer to God, but none of it is necessary for salvation.

It is necessary because it is the correct doctrine. The Church spreads the Good News but is reactive against the attacks She suffers. As an inevitable consequence, things need to be expanded and developed in order to set things straight. Otherwise all you have left is Gnosticism.

 

[joe371]

Lek

Outside the space-time continuum? In other words both catholics and protestants embrace some doctrines that the earliest church did not (like the immaculate conception and the assumption).

Whether a particular Protestant Church embraces some doctrines that the early Catholic Church did not, is not for me to say. I can certainly speculate e.g. sola scriptura, but I do not have any infallible knowledge from God that allows me to know. However, scripture clearly indicates that Jesus sent the holy Spirit to be with His church until the end of time, forever guiding and infallibly preserving doctrinal truth, and we have trust and faith that Jesus kept His word, and apostolic succession, which is the main reason why I chose the Catholic Church; to each their own of course…

But I wasn’t criticizing the catholic church for having those doctrines. I was just saying the earliest church isn’t part of the present day catholic church any more that it is part of the protestant church.

If that were the case then there would be no need to belong to the Catholic Church i.e. the CC would be guilty of introducing errors into the world, something, as you posited, Jesus’ early Catholic Church never did. However, that earlier church, infallibly guided by God, in terms of preserving all truth (John 16:13) as opposed to some truth mixed in with some errors, is nowhere to be found today, if you are correct.

The earliest church possessed knowledge of everything that is needed for salvation.

Was that lost? Nah. And they passed that knowledge on to next generation of leaders via apostolic succession, with God guiding the process so that the devil and company could not (cannot) steer His church in the wrong direction, doctrinally speaking. This is our faith as Christians in the CC.

Nothing else needed to be added to their revelation from God in order for them to follow him and be saved.

That means that all the dogma that was added since the time of the apostles is important for us to know to become closer to God, but none of it is necessary for salvation.

If this is what you believe - that’s cool. The CC did not invent something that was never believed by the early Catholic Church. Dogma, like the Trinity, has developed, but never invented. I used to think the same thing until I thoroughly researched each dogma, and its inevitable development, as a former Protestant, what I found to be invented in the 16th century, was the practice of sola scriptura. No one prior to that date embraced it, and I looked and looked…

 

[Lek]

I’m addressing this to both Joe and Isaiah. We all agree that the early church possessed all the knowledge and understanding that God required of them to be saved. I think we can also agree that numerous doctrines such as the trinity, although true at that time as they always were throughout eternity, had not been formulated by the church at the time. Obviously, a knowledge of and belief in these doctrines was not necessary for an individual christian to obtain salvation. Do you believe that Catholic person today who studies the scripture and prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believes differently can be saved? What if that person believes that rather than “three divine persons in one God”, that it is “one God manifesting himself in three different ways?” How would this fit in with the following verses from scripture?

Romans 10:9-10English Standard Version (ESV)

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

As far as the doctrine of sola scriptura not being embraced officially by the reformers until the 1500s - the doctrine of the immaculate conception was formally embraced by the catholic church in 1854.

 

[joe371]

Lek;12208673]I’m addressing this to both Joe and Isaiah. We all agree that the early church possessed all the knowledge and understanding that God required of them to be saved. I think we can also agree that numerous doctrines such as the trinity, although true at that time as they always were throughout eternity, had not been formulated by the church at the time. Obviously, a knowledge of and belief in these doctrines was not necessary for an individual christian to obtain salvation. Do you believe that Catholic person today who studies the scripture and prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believes differently can be saved? What if that person believes that rather than “three divine persons in one God”, that it is “one God manifesting himself in three different ways?” How would this fit in with the following verses from scripture?

Sure, and the Catholic Church agrees. However, that would be putting more trust in oneself than in Jesus Christ, Who said via scripture, that the Holy Spirit is guiding and preserving all doctrinal truth, as opposed to some doctrinal truth, within Jesus’ church.

CCC - Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[joe371]

Lek What if that person believes that rather than “three divine persons in one God”, that it is “one God manifesting himself in three different ways?” How would this fit in with the following verses from scripture?

Outside the confines of the Catholic Church, we see that scripture alone (not in all churches) is the Christians final authority, which gives a person licence to make such a bold claim. If a catholic were to make this claim, well you know the rest…

Romans 10:9-10English Standard Version (ESV)

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

As far as the doctrine of sola scriptura not being embraced officially by the reformers until the 1500s - the doctrine of the immaculate conception was formally embraced by the catholic church in 1854.

The IC was formally defined in the 19th century. Mary being sin-free was believed in the early Catholic Church, in both the east and the west. SS was first introduced by the reformation, and it really upset Martin Luther, because everyone was teaching something different.

That, and those quotes, are a perfect reason why it’s so important to defer to Jesus’ Catholic Church; we let Jesus decide via His church…

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m addressing this to both Joe and Isaiah. We all agree that the early church possessed all the knowledge and understanding that God required of them to be saved. I think we can also agree that numerous doctrines such as the trinity, although true at that time as they always were throughout eternity, had not been formulated by the church at the time. Obviously, a knowledge of and belief in these doctrines was not necessary for an individual christian to obtain salvation. Do you believe that Catholic person today who studies the scripture and prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believes differently can be saved? What if that person believes that rather than “three divine persons in one God”, that it is “one God manifesting himself in three different ways?” How would this fit in with the following verses from scripture?

Romans 10:9-10English Standard Version (ESV)

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

I’ll say it again: Only God fully possess the knowledge of what is required of salvation for each individual person. My personal opinion is that God is merciful and in spite of our shortfalls He knows the heart and He is just, more than anyone of us. I truly don’t like to get into [what-ifs] types of questions.

However, Scriptures do address this matter:

Ephesians 4
7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Romans 12:
3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

As for our different opinions:

1 Corinthians 14
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

As far as the doctrine of sola scriptura not being embraced officially by the reformers until the 1500s - the doctrine of the immaculate conception was formally embraced by the catholic church in 1854.

There is a big difference between something being formally established and something established out of the blue.

BVM’s sinless status was much discussed and preached way before the 1,500’s.

Augustine

We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin (Nature and Grace 36:42 [A.D. 415]).

Romanos the Melodist

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified (On the Birth of Mary 1 [d. ca A.D. 560]).

I don’t want to derail the thread on this subject. There are several good threads in here that talk about this.

SS was completely new and its [sole purpose] (pun intended) was to challenge the authority of the Church and place the Church at odd with Scriptures. Both come from God. Let no man separate what God has joined together, right?

Again Apples and Oranges.

 

[joe371]

I’ll say it again: Only God fully possess the knowledge of what is required of salvation for each individual person. My personal opinion is that God is merciful and in spite of our shortfalls He knows the heart and He is just, more than anyone of us. I truly don’t like to get into [what-ifs] types of questions.

However, Scriptures do address this matter:

Ephesians 4
7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Romans 12:
3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.

As for our different opinions:

1 Corinthians 14
26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

There is a big difference between something being formally established and something established out of the blue.

BVM’s sinless status was much discussed and preached way before the 1,500’s.

Augustine

Romanos the Melodist

I don’t want to derail the thread on this subject. There are several good threads in here that talk about this.

SS was completely new and its [sole purpose] (pun intended) was to challenge the authority of the Church and place the Church at odd with Scriptures. Both come from God. Let no man separate what God has joined together, right?

Again Apples and Oranges.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is very silly. Luther did not change the wording from one holy catholic to one holy Christian. The use of the word Christian means Catholic universal and I understand that only some Lutheran Synods in north America still prefer “Christian” in the Creeds due to some lingering anti-Catholic bias.

Nothing silly about it. It’s there, in the link.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yet the Apostles’ Creed is part of these confessions, and it uses the word ‘catholic.’

It is perfectly true that Scripture doesn’t teach invocation directly, and no exegete – neither Catholic nor ‘Protestant’ – would disagree. But I can assure you that Lutherans believe the saints are praying for us.

It’s great that Lutherans believe in something true, as opposed to their catechism.
But there’s still the problem of what the small catechism teaches, which we apparently agree is false.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Keep in mind that the Church has never accepted human infallibility.

It’s not human infallibility; it’s the infallibility of the Holy Spirit that He will protect the Pope from expounding error when teaching explicitly to the entire Church on matters of faith & morals.

The Church has accepted “human infallibility” in the writing of the scriptures. Papal infallibility is a lesser, not a greater, claim.

 

[estesbob]

I’m addressing this to both Joe and Isaiah. We all agree that the early church possessed all the knowledge and understanding that God required of them to be saved. I think we can also agree that numerous doctrines such as the trinity, although true at that time as they always were throughout eternity, had not been formulated by the church at the time. Obviously, a knowledge of and belief in these doctrines was not necessary for an individual christian to obtain salvation. Do you believe that Catholic person today who studies the scripture and prays for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and believes differently can be saved? What if that person believes that rather than “three divine persons in one God”, that it is “one God manifesting himself in three different ways?” How would this fit in with the following verses from scripture?

Romans 10:9-10English Standard Version (ESV)

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

As far as the doctrine of sola scriptura not being embraced officially by the reformers until the 1500s - the doctrine of the immaculate conception was formally embraced by the catholic church in 1854.

I disagree with your personal interpretation of that scripture passage. How do resolve that? More importantly nobody interpreted it that way until the 1500s. how do we resolve that?

The Church has taught the Immaculate Conception since the second century.

 

[JonNC]

Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.

1] Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country. 2] For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High Priest, and Intercessor. 3] He is to be prayed to, and has promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be called upon, 1 John 2:1: 4] If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, etc.
We believe that Christ has ONE Body; not one on earth and one in Heaven.
The saints in Heaven are not dead, and not devoid of love and concern for us here on earth.
We CAN ask them to pray with us, and since they are cleansed of sin and all propensity to sin (which we are not, fully), their prayers are efficacious.

You see, this is what the Church has always meant by the line in the Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
(notice how close the belief in the “holy catholic church” is tied into the belief in the “communion of saints”)

If you re-define the terms then you can try to lay claim to the creed. But you deny the beliefs espoused therein.

It’s great that Lutherans believe in something true, as opposed to their catechism.
But there’s still the problem of what the small catechism teaches, which we apparently agree is false.

What is false about what the Augsburg Confession says here?

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

There was a church in England long before the year 1500 (Christianity arrived in England in 47 AD).

Yes, until the Church was taken over by the Monarchy of England. At which point it became invalid. We don’t believe in caesaropapism.