How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[House_Harkonnen]

Sensationalizing? How so? And yes thes questions are absolutly in good faith. these are things that I wrestled with myself.

Annie

Ok. I will give them a shot.

Seems like Athanasius was a Catholic Bishop who didn’t believe in sola scriptura right?

He was a bishop, but hardly a bishop in the modern Roman Catholic sense (this was before lots of error creeped into the RCC). In fact he composed a list of the scriptures that corresponds to the Protestant canon (he relegated the deuteros to apocryphal and totally not inspired). As for believing or not believing in sola Scriptura. I think you have a distorted view of what sola Scriptura means. It means, for the reformers and for the church, that the scriptures are the highest authority, not the only authority. From what I read of Athanasius, he was constantly appealing to scripture.

He fought against the first sola scriptura folks called the Arians, right?

Actually the Arians diverged sharply with scripture, they were definitely not practicing sola Scriptura, as sola Scriptura declares that scripture is the highest authority, and scripture most definitely admits that Christ is God.

It seems that you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura either right?

My church practices sola Scriptura, and I hold scripture to be the highest authority. I don’t reject other authorities like church tradition etc. I think all those other authorities are subject to scripture, scripture being the norm that it itself is not normed, the norming norm.

 

[andrewstx]

Having converted to the Church from the church of Christ (cambellite), I can give you a little background of what it is my understanding that they believe about the 1500 year gap.

From my understanding they believe that the Church went into apostasy very early on, however, there was always a very small remnant of the “true church” (aka church of Christ) that was suppressed and persecuted by the Catholic Church. Then in the 1800’s the coC recreated the early church during the restorationist movement. However, in all honesty church history is never spoken about.

During high school I remember asking several times where was the proof for the claims of the church of Christ and other protestants claiming to be the original church, I was never given an answer and was treated poorly for even questioning. This is what led me to learn more about Church history and eventually I became Catholic.

You know NorthTexan, I too was raised and dunked in the churches of Christ. I caused trouble when I asked the youth preacher “what happened to the millions of souls who lived and died before the cofc was invented in 1906”. Of course I never got an answer.

But reading history it became clear that the cofc ‘restored’ nothing. History never tells of a clergyless church that ‘observed’ a symbolic Lord’s Supper on Sundays only.

My reading and studies taught me the self named churches of Christ, taught the same as a lot of other Protestants at the time and began as a movement to unify Protestantism.

I also learned of a cambpellite/Mormon connection which happened at about the same time as the Restoration Movement. Mormons also teach the apostacy/restoration dichotomy. In fact they got a lot of their ideas from Sidney Rigdon who became Mormon.

 

[JonNC]

Follow up:

I refer to my first post (#20) where I mentioned the Protestant attitudes (to “the gap”) from my background:

*To see this easily, I suggest that you try, at a Protestant study, to bring in any passage from, say, St Benedict or St Bonaventure, or to mention the brave act of any Pope. For some reason St Francis of Assisi is exempted - and I’ll commend them for for that! *

How would this go with Lutherans? If you mention St Benedict, or Pope Leo the Great would it be treated with respect?

My experiences have been similar to those of CaliLobo:

Except that in my experience church history and writings from before 1500 are less than relevant - they treated with suspicion. You might get away with St Ignatius, or Polycarp, or St Francis… but that’s about it.

Get away with St Ignatius, or Polycarp, or St Francis?
I remember part of my Sunday School studies, 7th grade if I recall correctly,
was that of the martyrs of the early Church. Not get away with, but part of our instruction! I’m not sure why you would think Lutherans would shy from Leo the Great, or St. Benedict (there are Lutheran monasteries using the Benedictine rule), but that said, I thought I might provide a brief list of the Fathers recognized on the Church Calendar of the LCMS:
January 10
Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa
January 27
John Chrysostom, Preacher
February 14
Valentine, Martyr
February 23
Polycarp of Smyrna, Pastor and Martyr
March 7
Perpetua and Felicitas, Martyrs
March 17
Patrick, Missionary to Ireland
April 21
Anselm of Canterbury
May 2
Athanasius of Alexandria
May 11
Cyril and Methodius, Missionaries to the Slavs
May 21
Constantine, Emperor, and Helena, his mother
June 1
Justin, Martyr
June 5
Boniface of Mainz
June 27
Cyril of Alexandria, Pastor and Confessor
June 28
Irenaeus of Lyons, Pastor
August 19
Bernard of Clairvaux, Hymnwriter and Theologian
August 28
Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church
September 3
Gregory the Great, Pastor
September 16
Cyprian of Carthage, Pastor and Martyr
September 30
Jerome, Translator of Holy Scripture
October 17
Ignatius of Antioch, Pastor and Martyr
November 11
Martin of Tours, Pastor
November 14
Justinian, Christian Ruler and Confessor of Christ
November 23
Clement of Rome, Pastor
December 4
John of Damascus
December 7
Ambrose of Milan, Pastor and Hymnwriter
December 13
Lucia, Martyr

lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=756

One can go to the link to see the brief descriptions, and other names that are listed. Another interesting link is to the Lutheran Catholicity blogsport:
lutherancatholicity.blogspot.com/

To answer the OP, there is no 1500 year gap.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, **I simply cannot imagine why I would need to read the Lutheran Confessions as a Lutheran I believed in Sola Scriptura. ** We had bible studies and bible discussion groups. Why on earth would I need anything else? If I did find studying and discussing the bible empty with no power to lead me to object truth I would begin seeking objective truth. And of all things that’s what I did. I discovered much to my amazement that the Catholic Church is the true Christian Church. If it is ever proven to my satisfaction that the Catholic Church does not hold God’s revealed truth, I will leave it but I will never join an heretical sect I’ll just leave and live it up objective truth would be unknowable “eat, drink and be merry”.

Annie

All I can say, Annie, is you truly were poorly served in your Lutheran parish. I am so sorry, but I am happy that you have a home the CC where your faith is strengthened.

The very basics of Lutheran Catechesis and Confirmation is Luther’s Small Catechism. The very distinguishing document of Evangelical Lutheran teaching is the Augsburg Confession. To be Lutheran means you understand Lutheran teachings regarding scripture via the Confessions, not unlike the Catholic does with the Catholic Catechism.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon I’m trying to get to a bottom line here.

Would you define “scripture”. If you say it is the “word of God” or like I would the written word of God would you please tell me why you believe this. Otherwise I’d be interested in what you would say.

Annie

Hi Annie,
Maybe you can help me by telling me what the bottom line is, then I can respond in a way that properly answers your questions. The thread is, specifically, How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap. He further says: When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to baptists
His mentioning Lutherans as implying that Polycarp and Ignatius were “false teachers”, brought the Lutheran posters to the thread, because he is simply mistaken, not only in that accusation, but also in his assumption that we believe there is a 1500 year gap in the Church.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Hi HH

“He was a bishop, but hardly a bishop in the modern Roman Catholic sense (this was before lots of error creeped into the RCC).”

Well when you make this assertion without any information to back it up I can just say oh yes he was instead of posting a lot of history to prove my assertion I could do it but it would take lots of time. If you want to post something specific I will try to find time to reply to it.

It is your opinion that the Church went into error. This may be the time to tell you that only the Latin or Roman Rite of the Church is Roman Catholic, the Eastern Rites which there are many are not Roman Catholic but are in union with the Bishop of Rome. Those are the only non Roman Catholics who are truly Catholic. I know some Eastern Rite Catholics who are offended if someone calls them Roman Catholic.

“In fact he composed a list of the scriptures that corresponds to the Protestant canon (he relegated the deuteros to apocryphal and totally not inspired)”

But he didn’t, I don’t know where you get your information. See thecatholicvoyager.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-athanasius-reject-deuterocanon.html

“Actually the Arians diverged sharply with scripture, they were definitely not practicing sola Scriptura, as sola Scriptura declares that scripture is the highest authority, and scripture most definitely admits that Christ is God.”

Actually the Arians diverged sharply with your interpretation of scripture as well as the Catholic interpretation but they were indeed used the scripture. That is why the first Council of Nicaea was forced to write a creed that was more clear than the words of the Bible.

How Homoousios Affected Nicea
All of this applied to Arius’ theology at the Council of Nicea. If the Son had a beginning, as Arius was asserting, then he must be made of matter. After all, the substance of God can have no beginning.
On the other hand, if Christ is of God’s substance, then he always existed.
It seems Arius was confused by the fact that the Church taught that Jesus was begotten of the Father, not just here on earth as a man, but in the beginning as the Son of God. Proverbs 8:22, in the Greek Septuagint version used by the early churches, says, “The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.” The early churches universally understood this to refer to the begetting of Christ from the Father in eternity past. Arius mistakenly thought and argued that the begetting of the Son constitutes a beginning. He could not have existed before then.

The Church, however, taught that before Jesus was begotten by the Father, he already existed inside the Father as the Word, Wisdom, and Reason of the Father. The Father had always had Logos inside himself, so Jesus had always existed inside of him. (This is described thoroughly in Tertullian’s Against Praxeas, ch. 5.)

Not only is this what they taught, but they claimed to have received it from the apostles. Thus, the idea that the Son has always existed qualified as apostolic tradition, which carried as much—or perhaps almost as much—authority as Scripture (Irenaeus, ibid. III:2:2). This is the tradition that Arius was disagreeing with, and this is the reason that Constantine wanted homoousios inserted in the Creed of Nicea. christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-3.html

“My church practices sola Scriptura, and I hold scripture to be the highest authority. I don’t reject other authorities like church tradition etc. I think all those other authorities are subject to scripture, scripture being the norm that it itself is not normed, the norming norm.”

May I have chapter and verse(s) of the bible that states this doctrine?
Annie

 

[Annie39]

All I can say, Annie, is you truly were poorly served in your Lutheran parish. I am so sorry, but I am happy that you have a home the CC where your faith is strengthened.

The very basics of Lutheran Catechesis and Confirmation is Luther’s Small Catechism. The very distinguishing document of Evangelical Lutheran teaching is the Augsburg Confession. To be Lutheran means you understand Lutheran teachings regarding scripture via the Confessions, not unlike the Catholic does with the Catholic Catechism.

Jon

That’s just it Jon. Even though Luther took the bible out of the Church and ostensibly taught SS, what he meant was that he wanted to chuck the Catholic Tradition and start his own as did Calvin, Zwingli and all the other founders of sects. It is not just “not unlike” it is very like the Catholic does with the Catholic Catechism. The difference is, Catholic Church does not believe in SS and openly teaches this doctrine. Lutherans teach what they call SS but as interpreted by Luther and those teachers who followed him. Calvin did as well. I do know some people, in fact I am related to some of them who actually do believe in SS. One day I was in the room when the bible was being discussed. I asked them “if you can give your opinion on what the bible means, why can’t I”. A member of my family said “oh you can, you just can’t say your right”. Sigh. For some reason the word “nominalism” just jumped into my head.

It seems that you also do not believe in objective truth. Lutheran and Catholic doctrine cannot exist side by side. You are missing out on the true sacrament of Confession and the true Eucharist

Annie

BTW your post below suggested that we have gotten off topic here and I agree.

 

[JonNC]

That’s just it Jon. Even though Luther took the bible out of the Church and ostensibly taught SS, what he meant was that he wanted to chuck the Catholic Tradition and start his own as did Calvin, Zwingli and all the other founders of sects. It is not just “not unlike” it is very like the Catholic does with the Catholic Catechism. The difference is, Catholic Church does not believe in SS and openly teaches this doctrine. Lutherans teach what they call SS but as interpreted by Luther and those teachers who followed him. Calvin did as well. I do know some people, in fact I am related to some of them who actually do believe in SS. One day I was in the room when the bible was being discussed. I asked them “if you can give your opinion on what the bible means, why can’t I”. A member of my family said “oh you can, you just can’t say your right”. Sigh. For some reason the word “nominalism” just jumped into my head.

It seems that you also do not believe in objective truth. Lutheran and Catholic doctrine cannot exist side by side. You are missing out on the true sacrament of Confession and the true Eucharist

Annie

BTW your post below suggested that we have gotten off topic here and I agree.

Yes. off topic to an extent. In your previous post regarding when you were Lutheran, I would suggest that what you practiced was not SS. Perhaps at some point in another thread we can pursue the topic.

Anyway, Peace,
Jon

 

[Annie39]

Get away with St Ignatius, or Polycarp, or St Francis?
I remember part of my Sunday School studies, 7th grade if I recall correctly,
was that of the martyrs of the early Church. Not get away with, but part of our instruction! I’m not sure why you would think Lutherans would shy from Leo the Great, or St. Benedict (there are Lutheran monasteries using the Benedictine rule), but that said, I thought I might provide a brief list of the Fathers recognized on the Church Calendar of the LCMS:
January 10
Basil the Great of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa
January 27
John Chrysostom, Preacher
February 14
Valentine, Martyr
February 23
Polycarp of Smyrna, Pastor and Martyr
March 7
Perpetua and Felicitas, Martyrs
March 17
Patrick, Missionary to Ireland
April 21
Anselm of Canterbury
May 2
Athanasius of Alexandria
May 11
Cyril and Methodius, Missionaries to the Slavs
May 21
Constantine, Emperor, and Helena, his mother
June 1
Justin, Martyr
June 5
Boniface of Mainz
June 27
Cyril of Alexandria, Pastor and Confessor
June 28
Irenaeus of Lyons, Pastor
August 19
Bernard of Clairvaux, Hymnwriter and Theologian
August 28
Augustine of Hippo, Doctor of the Church
September 3
Gregory the Great, Pastor
September 16
Cyprian of Carthage, Pastor and Martyr
September 30
Jerome, Translator of Holy Scripture
October 17
Ignatius of Antioch, Pastor and Martyr
November 11
Martin of Tours, Pastor
November 14
Justinian, Christian Ruler and Confessor of Christ
November 23
Clement of Rome, Pastor
December 4
John of Damascus
December 7
Ambrose of Milan, Pastor and Hymnwriter
December 13
Lucia, Martyr

lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=756

One can go to the link to see the brief descriptions, and other names that are listed. Another interesting link is to the Lutheran Catholicity blogsport:
lutherancatholicity.blogspot.com/

To answer the OP, there is no 1500 year gap.

Jon

Jon did your Sunday School use Eerdmans pre and post Nicaean Fathers?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Jon did your Sunday School use Eerdmans pre and post Nicaean Fathers?

Annie

Couldn’t tell you. It was 50 years ago and I was about 12.

I can tell you that, over the years, we discussed both.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

Couldn’t tell you. It was 50 years ago and I was about 12.

I can tell you that, over the years, we discussed both.

Jon

I had logged of to begin the day and began thinking about this. I wondered how you could study the Church Fathers and remain Lutheran. Then I thought “Eerdmans!” . I used to own a set and did a little studying using it myself I just skipped the references at the bottom explaining away the obvious Catholicity of what was written.

Annie

I donated the set to my parish.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I had logged of to begin the day and began thinking about this. I wondered how you could study the Church Fathers and remain Lutheran. Then I thought “Eerdmans!” . I used to own a set and did a little studying using it myself I just skipped the references at the bottom explaining away the obvious Catholicity of what was written.

Annie

I donated the set to my parish.

Your comments about Lutherans conspicuously lacks official Roman Catholic understanding/ consensus if you read the last 50 years of dialogue between the two Communions.

It is ironic for a Catholic to specify Lutherans as representing Protestantism and only weakens any argument against Protestants. Some Lutherans believe that we are the “via media” between Protestants [Anglican/ Reformed/ Methodist] and the Holy See and will be the vehicle for reunification of the holy Church.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

He was a bishop, but hardly a bishop in the modern Roman Catholic sense (this was before lots of error creeped into the RCC).

How so?

In fact he composed a list of the scriptures that corresponds to the Protestant canon (he relegated the deuteros to apocryphal and totally not inspired).

Sorry, HH, but you’re misinformed.

Read Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

My church practices sola Scriptura, and I hold scripture to be the highest authority. I don’t reject other authorities like church tradition etc. I think all those other authorities are subject to scripture, scripture being the norm that it itself is not normed, the norming norm.

Except that this “norming norm” doesn’t express this doctrine at all. Interesting.

 

[JonNC]

I had logged of to begin the day and began thinking about this. ** I wondered how you could study the Church Fathers and remain Lutheran.** Then I thought “Eerdmans!” . I used to own a set and did a little studying using it myself I just skipped the references at the bottom explaining away the obvious Catholicity of what was written.

Annie

I donated the set to my parish.

Hi Annie,

You would have to ask that question of virtually every Lutheran pastor and theologian in the history of the communion, as well as many laymen. I can only tell you that my reasons for remaining Lutheran have far more to do with ecclesiology and the role of the Roman Pontiff than anything else.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Sorry, HH, but you’re misinformed.

Read Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

My impression - neither truly expert nor uninformed - is that Athanasius seems to have been more or less exactly halfway between modern Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, in treating those books as an actual deuterocanon. He uses them in his writings and he orders them read in the churches; yet they are not within the canon proper.

I’d be so bold as to say that he appears not far from the Church of England’s position on the deuterocanon (which she misleadingly calls Apocryphal), nor from that of the Lutheran churches.

 

[Novocastrian]

Your comments about Lutherans conspicuously lacks official Roman Catholic understanding/ consensus if you read the last 50 years of dialogue between the two Communions.

It is ironic for a Catholic to specify Lutherans as representing Protestantism and only weakens any argument against Protestants. Some Lutherans believe that we are the “via media” between Protestants Anglican/ Reformed/ Methodist] and the Holy See and will be the vehicle for reunification of the holy Church.

Ouch!

 

[GKC]

My impression - neither truly expert nor uninformed - is that Athanasius seems to have been more or less exactly halfway between modern Roman Catholic and Protestant positions, in treating those books as an actual deuterocanon. He uses them in his writings and he orders them read in the churches; yet they are not within the canon proper.

I’d be so bold as to say that he appears not far from the Church of England’s position on the deuterocanon (which she misleadingly calls Apocryphal), nor from that of the Lutheran churches.

Possible to find Anglicans calling the deuteros correctly, over here.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Ouch!

Lutherans are in full communion with Anglicans so our conversations with Roman Catholics could be interpreted as representing Anglicans as well. Anglicans know the Augsburg Confession and have never questioned it’s 'catholicity".

 

[Novocastrian]

Possible to find Anglicans calling the deuteros correctly, over here.

GKC

Yep. Likewise, it’s my preferred term to refer to them. But I’m aware of the Articles, etc., which (as you frequently state) are marginally more authoritative in this realm of England…

 

[GKC]

Yep. Likewise, it’s my preferred term to refer to them. But I’m aware of the Articles, etc., which (as you frequently state) are marginally more authoritative in this realm of England…

Alas, tis true.

GKC