How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[Eark]

Otherwise put, why would God allow the full truth of Christianity to be unknown for a millennium? I see two, not mutually exclusive, kinds of responses.
First, one might simply say “And the same to you.” That is, Catholics now have dogma that could not have been wholly known to early Christians, so the same argument applies. Papal infallibility comes to mind, established in 1869 or so.
Second, one might argue a historical case for how the protestant view was always known. Baptist successionism doesn’t seem to hold water but I’m sure Christians of the early and middle of Church history, with their diversity of heresy and opinion, harboured a few who could arguably be called proto-protestants. Of course, these would only be a few, so a similar question arises: “Why was the full truth of Christianity withheld from so many for so long?”
I’m only a fledgling Christian so these thoughts might be a bit misinformed. Let me know what you think

 

[JimG]

Just a comment. Papal infallibility was not “established” in 1869. It was acknowledged and declared as doctrine, but already believed. The Church did not write a list of approved doctrines on the day after Pentecost. It preached the gospel, and when something needed specific clarification it was clarified.

 

[ATraveller]

The question is unclear. What do you mean by full truth?

If you mean new declarations, then that’s because new developments arise, whether technological or social. For example, artificial intelligence and its moral consequences.
If you mean the Five Solas and other doctrines that Protestants hold, we would argue we’re going back to what many of the Early Church Fathers already explained.

 

[NostalgicBaptist]

Have you also posted this question in a Protestant operated forum as well? That’d be a good way to compare opinions from multiple points of view.

 

[dochawk]

In a word: poorly.



Although there are somewhat claimed the early church was Baptist, but it’s kind of hard to reconcile that with those bishops running around in Acts, as well as the ordination of the deacons . . . or, well, just about anything else about the Eucharist, and . . .

 

[Bushum]

Mostly nonsensically and with vast leaps in logic. This is one of the many reasons I could no longer be Protestant. You have to be open to history revisionism and I am not.

 

[ZMystiCat]

As a convert from Protestantism…it’s messy…like really, really messy.

A couple things that tend to be consistent are:

1. The early Church had correct doctrine. “Early Church” in this case has no really well-set dates.
2. Protestantism goes back to this early Church’s doctrine. Again, there is no real consistency to what exactly that means.
3. There was also a presence of the “real Church” even as, they allege, Catholicism became too corrupt to really be Christian. Again, though, what this “real Church” was is not consistent.

As already hinted at, even within these points of agreement, there’s considerable diversity of explanation. Some will basically stop at the end of the first century, saying that corruption basically took hold of the Church right away. Others will quote mine the Church Fathers till St. Augustine (I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Protestant go further), either ignoring statements that they disagree with or rejecting them because…they disagree with it…Sure, they have reasons, but finding one that can’t be easily reduced to “I interpret Scripture differently” is hard.

With all that said, Protestants don’t really have the concept of “full truth” that Catholics do, and what concept exists is considerably looser than what Catholics have, but that’s a whole other can of worms that you’d need a book to explain.

Edit: Oh yeah, and all this is assuming that they even think about it. I don’t have hard numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that most don’t think about it much, if at all.

 

[HD0521]

As a Protestant I wasn’t an apologist or really much of an evangelizer. With that said, it never crossed my mind to think about the time between Christ and when my nondenominational church was started. Why did I need to? I had the Bible. Never crossed my mind how the bible came to be. Until I saw a KJV bible with the “apocrypha” in it. “What’s that? Why’s it there?” “Martin who?” “Eucharist?” “St Ignatius of Antioch?” Next thing I knew I was Catholic. Haha. I think most of the Protestants I know don’t care about the in between time. Because they have the Bible and are sola scriptura. To them they are right, because Catholics are wrong. Because “we do things that aren’t in the Bible” But that’s the thing, Protestantism is based on Catholicism being wrong. If They can’t prove Catholics wrong, they are wrong. I think that’s the thing that makes some sola scriptura people very ego and pride driven when it comes to the Bible. Catholics worship Mary. But Protestants worship the Bible. Haha

 

[meltzerboy2]

As long as you’re asking such questions, another one might be, why would Gd allow Christianity itself–apart from its full truth–to be withheld for so many millennia? I think one answer might be that Gd does things in His own time, which is extra-temporal, rather than in ours, and when He knows that we are ready to understand it.

 

[dochawk]

Never crossed my mind how the bible came to be. Until I saw a KJV bible with the “apocrypha” in it. “What’s that? Why’s it there?” “Martin who?” “Eucharist?” “St Ignatius of Antioch?” Next thing I knew I was Catholic.

Gotcha!

:crazy_face:

There are some denominations, such as Methodists, that actually encourage their seminarians to read the Church Fathers.

There are words for the handful that actually do this: “Catholic” and “Orthodox”. In all seriousness, a great many who do this convert.

As long as you’re asking such questions, another one might be, why would Gd allow Christianity itself–apart from its full truth–to be withheld for so many millennia?

I put that as, “So, when are you saying that the Holy Spirit ababndonbed the church?”

 

[Dlee]

Until I researched Catholicism, I truly never thought about 70 AD to the Reformation. I had heard (and believed) that the Reformation was needed because the Catholic Church was corrupt and had changed and added to the teachings found in the Bible. A funny thing happened when I searched for myself - I became Catholic!

 

[ltwin]

Although there are somewhat claimed the early church was Baptist, but it’s kind of hard to reconcile that with those bishops running around in Acts, as well as the ordination of the deacons . . . or, well, just about anything else about the Eucharist, and . . .

Baptists have bishops–they are called pastors (aka elders). They also have deacons–they are called deacons.

 

[Fauken]

Maybe you should ask them why the only bibles they allowed were in Latin.

Wrong.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/is-the-vulgate-the-catholic-churchs-official-bible

Maybe you should ask the RCC why it hunted down and murdered the reformers for printing the Bible so people could read it in their own language.

Wrong.

They know that if people actually read the Bible, they would see that the RCC does not care about the word of God

You missed the part about how the Bible translations that the Catholic Church condemned were riddled with heresy in the translation. How many people do you even imagine were literate in the first fifteen centuries of human history? What’s an easier way to prevent error from being propagated: dealing with a few translations, or three-hundred?

because the RCC is their god.

Wrong and outright slander.

 

[Eark]

The question is unclear. What do you mean by full truth?

If you mean new declarations, then that’s because new developments arise, whether technological or social. For example, artificial intelligence and its moral consequences.
If you mean the Five Solas and other doctrines that Protestants hold, we would argue we’re going back to what many of the Early Church Fathers already explained.

So you’d say that the majority of Christians, at all times since Christ, have known all essential truths of the faith? If so: I’ll admit I don’t know enough to agree or disagree. I suppose I have some reading to do.

 

[DeniseNY]

Flagged

123456789

 

[nightshade]

Catholics worship Mary. But Protestants worship the Bible.

Bible worshipping is a really good way to realistically describe sola scriptura.

 

[Kiliann]

I’ll be frank, as a currently questioning Protestant, most of us, particularly Evangelicals, just never think about it. No one at any of my churches ever discussed saints, martyrs, or any kind of early church writing unless it was only briefly to make a point of some sort. I didn’t start thinking about church history or what it might be pointing to until only recently when I began studying it at university.

 

[Thom18]

@IAmBaptist You’re on your way to getting a permanent suspension. Spreading misinformation and hate isn’t welcome here. How much longer do you plan on violating the forum’s rules?

 

[DeSales111]

I would like a Protestant to explain to me when and how the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the core belief of the Catholic faith, crept into Christianity. This is no ordinary doctrine, it is the hardest doctrine of all to believe.

There is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows early Christians having open dialogue on many doctrines. They made no secrets about any person or belief they thought to be heretical.They had great councils, not just any councils, but historical councils. The Bishop’s under threat of persecution traveled hundreds, even some over a thousand miles, to discuss the most important issues pertaining to the Church, such as the Canon of Scripture and the Holy Trinity.

In what year did a Pope, Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, or for that matter, any laity introduce the hard doctrine of believing the real Body & Blood of Christ was to be eaten by It’s members? Everyone knows what idolatry and cannabolism is, especially anyone back then with Jewish roots. Those were the most serious of sins! I can not find any formal introduction of this extraordinary doctrine.

You know what else I can not find? Any refutes, dissenting Christians, any arguments, councils, or heretical condemnations. There is just a void,
a vacuum concerning such a hard doctrine that would ask it’s members to commit idolatry and cannabolism.

If the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist was not always believed then when between 70AD and the Reformation was this doctrine introduced or even refuted? And even the roots of the Reformation was over Church authority and abuses, not over the belief in the Real Presence.

So there was one unified belief in Christianity for over 1500 years before any Christian ever disputed this doctrine, then within 100 years of Protestantism there was over two hundred and fifty different beliefs about it? Was there not one faithful, heroic, intelligent, and insightful Christian to introduce or stand up to such a doctrine from 70 AD until the Reformation? Hmm.

 

[lanman87]

In what year did a Pope, Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, or for that matter, any laity introduce the hard doctrine of believing the real Body & Blood of Christ was to be eaten by It’s members? E

There were multiple views on the meaning and reasons for the Lords Supper in the early church. So yes, the literal Real Presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine have been believed since the beginning, although the understanding of Transubstantiation came about many centuries later.

But there was also, in the early church, a spiritual/symbolic understanding of the Lords Supper.

In my reading of Early Church Fathers I came across Hippolytus of Rome and His instructions to the Church in His Apostolic Tradition. He tells the church to do this

Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread,which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome Chapter 26) --this is almost exactly what is said by the Pastor/Elder every week at my local church.

Later Hippolytus says Having blessed the cup in the Name of God, you received it as the anti-type of the Blood of Christ. 2Therefore do not spill from it, for some foreign spirit to lick it up because you despised it. You will become as one who scorns the Blood, the price with which you have been bought (Chapter 38)

So while in other places Hippolytus calls the Bread the Body of Christ and the Wine the Blood of Christ (which all Christians do) it is also clear that Hippolytus believed in a symbolic/spiritual meaning of the elements. There is no hint of Transubstantiation in what became one of the most influential documents in the church.

So there were multiple views on the Eucharist from the 1st Century onward. It didn’t become a controversy until the 9th Century when two Monks (Ratramus and Radbertus) offered differing opinion on how “Christ is in the Eucharist”. This sparked a long debate within the church which ultimately resulted in Transubstantiation being declared dogma. Those who today hold a symbolic/Spiritual view of the Eucharist believe the the church was wrong, and at the very least, should have left the understanding of mystery of the Lord’s Supper to individual conscious.