How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KjetilK
Click to expand...
The Church is the congregation of saints (Lt. congregatio sanctorum) – the gathered people of God, God’s ecclesia, gathering around the right teaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Right, and from the 1st century, leading up to the 16th century Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Churches post schism) was where you could find the gathered people of God, God’s ecclesia, gathering around the right teaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments, therefore there is no gap. The only way there could be a gap is if the CC (somewhere between the 1st century and the Reformation) apostatized which would translate to the gates of hell prevailing.

Just curious: those who claim that the CC introduced errors, doctrinally speaking, do they feel the same about the Eastern Orthodox Churches? That question is for anyone, of course.
 
joe371 said:
Right, and from the 1st century, leading up to the 16th century Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Churches post schism) was where you could find the gathered people of God, God’s ecclesia, gathering around the right teaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments, therefore there is no gap. The only way there could be a gap is if the CC (somewhere between the 1st century and the Reformation) apostatized which would translate to the** gates of hell prevailing.**
Click to expand...
Gates are a defensive, not offensive, structure in warfare. It is wrong to use it in claiming that therefore doctrine will be protected. Rather, Satan’s kingdom will fall.

This is the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Church:
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]
Click to expand...
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
Click to expand...
III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.[7]
Click to expand...
IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]
Click to expand...
V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]
Click to expand...
VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof
Click to expand...
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

No gap. One church.
 
Tomyris said:
Gates are a defensive, not offensive, structure in warfare. It is wrong to use it in claiming that therefore doctrine will be protected. Rather, Satan’s kingdom will fall.

This is the Westminster Confession of Faith on the Church:

reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html

No gap. One church.
Click to expand...
The following means that Satan’s kingdom will fall: "And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

This is a clear reference to hell not overcoming Jesus church. Overcome it - it being the church.
 
joe371 said:
The following means that Satan’s kingdom will fall: "And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it?

This is a clear reference to hell not overcoming Jesus church. Overcome it - it being the church.
Click to expand...
No, it is a reference to the CHURCH overcoming Satan’s kingdom. You have it backwards.
 
joe371 said:
Right, and from the 1st century, leading up to the 16th century Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Churches post schism) was where you could find the gathered people of God, God’s ecclesia, gathering around the right teaching of the Gospel and the proper administration of the sacraments, therefore there is no gap. The only way there could be a gap is if the CC (somewhere between the 1st century and the Reformation) apostatized which would translate to the gates of hell prevailing.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure you understood my point, since you seem to respond to my post as if I was writing not from Lutheran, but Roman Catholic, ecclesiology. According to Lutheran ecclesiology the Church is found wherever “the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered” () VIIConfessio Augustana**CA) If you have a person who is called and ordained to perform the priestly office (cf. CA V, XIV), and he rightly teaches the Gospel, and rightly administers the sacraments, you have the Church. And that can happen in the Roman Catholic Church, the LCMS, the Church of Norway, the Church of England, the Russian-Orthodox Church, etc.

Note that I didn’t say ‘the Lutheran Church,’ since Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, not a Church. I can also point out that while you have Anglican churches, you do not have ‘the Anglican Church.’ What you have is an Anglican ecclesial tradition which manifests itself (along other ecclesial traditions) in different particular churches. You have the Church of England (CofE), the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA or TEC), the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA), etc. These are not all in communion with each other.

There is a difference with a Church and an ecclesial tradition. In the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, you find many ecclesial traditions (in communion with each other): Armenian, Alexandrian, Chaldean/East Syrian, Antiochian/West Syrian, Byzantine, and Latin (which now includes what we might call the Anglican use). Maybe one day, through union with certain Lutheran churches or through some kind of Ordinariate solution, you might have a Lutheran use in the Roman Catholic Church.
 
QUOTE=KjetilK;12204376]I’m not sure you understood my point, since you seem to respond to my post as if I was writing not from Lutheran, but Roman Catholic, ecclesiology. According to Lutheran ecclesiology the Church is found wherever “the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered” (Confessio Augustana (CA) VII) If you have a person who is called and ordained to perform the priestly office (cf. CA V, XIV), and he rightly teaches the Gospel, and rightly administers the sacraments, you have the Church. And that can happen in the Roman Catholic Church, the LCMS, the Church of Norway, the Church of England, the Russian-Orthodox Church, etc.
Click to expand...
Note that I didn’t say ‘the Lutheran Church,’ since Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, not a Church. I can also point out that while you have Anglican churches, you do not have ‘the Anglican Church.’ What you have is an Anglican ecclesial tradition which manifests itself (along other ecclesial traditions) in different particular churches. You have the Church of England (CofE), the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA or TEC), the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA), etc. These are not all in communion with each other.
Click to expand...
There is a difference with a Church and an ecclesial tradition. In the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, you find many ecclesial traditions (in communion with each other): Armenian, Alexandrian, Chaldean/East Syrian, Antiochian/West Syrian, Byzantine, and Latin (which now includes what we might call the Anglican use). **Maybe one day, through union with certain Lutheran churches or through some kind of Ordinariate solution, you might have a Lutheran use in the Roman Catholic Church./**QUOTE]
Click to expand...
I raised that question some time back but have come to a different conclusion, post JDDJ. That of a relationship as a “sister communion” of Lutherans under pastoral care by the Pope. Ordinariates seem a better fit for Anglicans but has never been seriously considered for Lutherans aside from small groups of Lutheran priests/ parishes that have entered the Catholic Church.
 
Tomyris said:
No, it is a reference to the CHURCH overcoming Satan’s kingdom. You have it backwards.
Click to expand...
This:

…That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

translates to this:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the CHURCH will overcome Satan’s kingdom?

OK. That means Jesus’ Church will not fail?

Jesus said to His fledgling church leaders (apostles):

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.”

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own…"

This is a promise of perpetuity and a promise of infallibility in terms of doctrine. God gets all the credit for being with His church until the end of time, and preserving doctrinal truth until the end of time - right?
 
KjetilK said:
I’m not sure you understood my point, since you seem to respond to my post as if I was writing not from Lutheran, but Roman Catholic, ecclesiology. According to Lutheran ecclesiology the Church is found wherever “the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered” (Confessio Augustana (CA) VII) If you have a person who is called and ordained to perform the priestly office (cf. CA V, XIV), and he rightly teaches the Gospel, and rightly administers the sacraments, you have the Church. And that can happen in the Roman Catholic Church, the LCMS, the Church of Norway, the Church of England, the Russian-Orthodox Church, etc.

Note that I didn’t say ‘the Lutheran Church,’ since Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition, not a Church. I can also point out that while you have Anglican churches, you do not have ‘the Anglican Church.’ What you have is an Anglican ecclesial tradition which manifests itself (along other ecclesial traditions) in different particular churches. You have the Church of England (CofE), the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA or TEC), the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC), the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), the United Episcopal Church of North America (UECNA), etc. These are not all in communion with each other.

There is a difference with a Church and an ecclesial tradition. In the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, you find many ecclesial traditions (in communion with each other): Armenian, Alexandrian, Chaldean/East Syrian, Antiochian/West Syrian, Byzantine, and Latin (which now includes what we might call the Anglican use). Maybe one day, through union with certain Lutheran churches or through some kind of Ordinariate solution, you might have a Lutheran use in the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
👍🙂
 
pablope said:
Well…have you asked yourself…Did Christ establish only one church or many churches?

In the 1st century, if one wanted to join the Church…which church would he have joined?

Do you think protesant churches existed in the 1st century?
Click to expand...
Christ established one church which is made up of all followers of him. If you limit the meaning of “church”, then you can say that there was the church as Ephesus, the church at Laodicea, the church at Galatia, the church at Rome, etc. I use the first meaning of the word. That one church was not the Catholic church, and according to the apostle Paul, there were many differences concerning matters of faith within that church. 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. 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.
 
Lek said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would it matter that there have been different methods have been employed to appoint bishops?
 
Lek said:
Christ established one church which is made up of all followers of him. If you limit the meaning of “church”, then you can say that there was the church as Ephesus, the church at Laodicea, the church at Galatia, the church at Rome, etc. I use the first meaning of the word. That one church was not the Catholic church, and according to the apostle Paul, there were many differences concerning matters of faith within that church. 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. 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.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Denise1957 said:
Why would it matter that there have been different methods have been employed to appoint bishops?
Click to expand...
Maybe it wouldn’t. But I would think that if the church was appointing individuals to be a succession of bishops or the infallible leader of the church, that they all would be required to meet the same criteria.
 
Lek;12205253]Christ established one church which is made up of all followers of him. If you limit the meaning of “church”, then you can say that there was the church as Ephesus, the church at Laodicea, the church at Galatia, the church at Rome, etc.
Click to expand...
Hey Lek. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that the church in Ephesus, the church in Laodicea, the church in Galatia and the church in Rome, to name a few, were one and united, in the same way that the Lutheran church, the Baptist Church, the Evangelical churches, the non-denominational churches, the Anglican Church and the Methodist church, to name a few, are one and united?
 
joe371 said:
Hey Lek. So, it’s reasonable to conclude that the church in Ephesus, the church in Laodicea, the church in Galatia and the church in Rome, to name a few, were one and united, in the same way that the Lutheran church, the Baptist Church, the Evangelical churches, the non-denominational churches, the Anglican Church and the Methodist church, to name a few, are one and united?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, yes. They were united by their faith in Christ.
 
Lek said:
Generally speaking, yes. They were united by their faith in Christ.
Click to expand...
Unlike the early Catholic Churches that you mentioned, the Protestant Churches today are not united doctrinally speaking - correct?
 
joe371 said:
Unlike the early Catholic Churches that you mentioned, the Protestant Churches today are not united doctrinally speaking - correct?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming when you mention the early Catholic Church you’re referring to the Catholic (meaning universal) church, since the Roman Catholic church didn’t exist at the time. In Paul’s day there was very little doctrine to be united under. The church had not come together to formulate doctrines such as Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, baptism of infants, original sin, and practically all of the doctrines that we disagree on. Paul, Peter and the other teachers of the time focused pretty much on basic doctrines that we all agree on, such as salvation through Jesus Christ, the resurrection, the Lord’s supper and the command to baptize. As doctrine developed over time the factions grew.
 
Lek;12205770]I’m assuming when you mention the early Catholic Church you’re referring to the Catholic (meaning universal) church, since the Roman Catholic church didn’t exist at the time.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top