If Protestantism is so good, then where was it for the first 1,500 years?

[Atemi]

Try again.

Nope. Nothing.

Nowhere in all of Scripture do we find the Apostles teaching how to invent new dogmas Christians must believe to be saved later on down the road.

Yet Catholics claim they did.

…

 

[Tomster]

Nope. Nothing.

Nowhere in all of Scripture do we find the Apostles teaching how to invent new dogmas Christians must believe to be saved later on down the road.

Yet Catholics claim they did.

…

That’s because the Apostles and their successors, Catholic bishops, have never “invented” new dogmas.

 

[Atemi]

And then one can move to the letters of Saint Paul, now there is some excellent theological development in response to problems creeping up within the Church!

Nope,

Absolutely nothing in all those epistles where Paul taught "how to develop doctrine."

Hasn’t been there in about 2000 years now.

Interesting.

…

 

[Atemi]

Then why do many Protestant sects claim they are part of the Body of Christ when they disagree on many points of doctrine?

Any denom claiming they themselves are the Body of Christ is in great error…and very avoidable error.

Whether that be your sect or my own.

You are correct about one thing, though, the Protestant version of developement of doctrine has produced countless errrors.

Any and every version of “development of doctrine” has produced countless errors. I could care less who attempts to do it.

…

 

[DCNBILL]

Nope,

Absolutely nothing in all those epistles where Paul taught "how to develop doctrine."
Hasn’t been there in about 2000 years now.
Interesting.
…

Please note that one can teach by actually doing.
If you are saying that Paul did not develop theological principals in his letters you are not being truthful.
If you are saying that one does not teach by example you are not being truthful.
If one is going to make such blanket statements such as “nowhere in scripture” one must not be suprised when this statement is refuted honestly.

 

[Atemi]

That’s because the Apostles and their successors, Catholic bishops, have never “invented” new dogmas.

Of course they did.

One day such a dogma does not exist, and the next day it does.

As we all can see, the Apostles never taught how to invent such new dogmas that any Christians would have to suddenly believe to be saved.

…

 

[Drawmack]

When one makes a statement, and proclaims it as fact that anyone belived anything about something that they would have very little concept of leaves me questioning their honesty. My response may seem a bit “over the top” but when one considers that the early fathers did not have the 1700 year experience of the development of the Church and the continued fleshing out of theological concepts and social implications over the years, I, for one would be very hesitant to say what they believe about the Church as it stands today.

If that is the case then you would not affirm that they would approve of the Catholic Church either.

 

[Drawmack]

Then why do many Protestant sects claim they are part of the Body of Christ when they disagree on many points of doctrine? You are correct about one thing, though, the Protestant version of developement of doctrine has produced countless errrors.

You are aware that the Catholic Church says that almost all Protestant denominations are in fact members of the Catholic Church, but not in perfect communion, and therefore the Catholic Church says that almost all Protestant denominations are members of the Body of Christ. Gee, maybe that’s why Protestants claim this.

 

[DCNBILL]

If that is the case then you would not affirm that they would approve of the Catholic Church either.

This statement is exactly correct, and I agree with it 100%. Without having been through the some 2000 year history of The Church, there could be little understanding of where The Church stands today.

 

[Drawmack]

This statement is exactly correct, and I agree with it 100%. Without having been through the some 2000 year history of The Church, there could be little understanding of where The Church stands today.

So, if you do not affirm that the Apostles would affirm the Catholic Church’s teachings and you do not affirm that the Apostles would not affirm Protestant teachings then (as I’ve been saying for months) what’s the point of arguing. We are all Christians. Why are we all trying to convert one another, let’s go help some people who aren’t Christians get saved.

 

[DCNBILL]

So, if you do not affirm that the Apostles would affirm the Catholic Church’s teachings and you do not affirm that the Apostles would not affirm Protestant teachings then (as I’ve been saying for months) what’s the point of arguing. We are all Christians. Why are we all trying to convert one another, let’s go help some people who aren’t Christians get saved.

Please note that the conversation was concerning the early fathers not the Apostles.

Note further that my “arguments” are in defense of attacks on my faith which is the most important aspecct of my life.

I will, however, have to agree with your point on argument, I for one would love to see a mutual affirmation among Christians, begining with that most important of all commandments to love God and neighbor as ones self. I yearn for the day when the world can once again say of Christians, “see how they love one another.”

May the love and peace of Christ be with you.

 

[jhigh]

I am a lifelong Protestant currently considering conversion. In fact, I will be meeting with the Monsignor of a local parish this afternoon, along with my wife, to seek some answers to some questions that I have. That being said, this is a very interesting conversation to me.

One of the most compelling reasons that I’m considering conversion is the belief in the Magisterium and Holy Tradition. Having examined Catholic teaching, and having been a Protestant, I just can’t see how you can have a Church without authority and without Tradition. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church claims direct descent from Peter makes the RCC, in my mind, the most authentic authority that there is.

However, I have seen reference in this thread to the fact that the RCC has changed doctrinal beliefs over the years. If anyone has any of evidence of this, I would be very interested if they would post it. It has been my understanding that, at it’s core, the RCC believes doctrinally exactly what was handed down from the Apostles. If this is not the case, I would be interested in evidence of this.

Thanks.

 

[JustaServant]

Of course they did.

One day such a dogma does not exist, and the next day it does.

As we all can see, the Apostles never taught how to invent such new dogmas that any Christians would have to suddenly believe to be saved.

…

Really? Please provide us with those.

 

[JustaServant]

So, lets see.
The Ressurection is now 70 years old, and here is what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore
Letter to the Ephesians 20.

And, oh dear…look at what the Didache says about Baptism:

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days
Didache 7:1.

And, oh, look what Clement of Rome has to say about Saved by Faith and Works, and Not Faith Alone:

“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 30.

“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 31.

“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 32.

 

[JustaServant]

Oh, and compare what Ignatuis says about the Eucharist:

…the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ…
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1.

to what John wrote in his Gospel just twenty years before:

John 6 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Compare this verse Luke wrote in Acts:

Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

to this statement by Barnabus probably only a decade or so later:

“Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water…we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” (The Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11

How did these early first generation christians describe themselves?

Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church
Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2.

When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ***, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath
The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.

 

[JustaServant]

One of the earliest Church Councils (Carthage in 252) debated whether to wait 8 days before baptizing.
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
So, if infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?

Where are these ‘invented doctrines’?
I await your response.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One of the earliest Church Councils (Carthage in 252) debated whether to wait 8 days before baptizing.
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
So, if infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?

Where are these ‘invented doctrines’?
I await your response.

Infant baptism is most antiquated. It’s not an innovation and you are correct. I think it’s in Colossians where Paul even says baptism is the new circumcision (which was or course done to babies.)

Of interest is this, however, if someone tries to bring it up ---- According to Dr. Alan Schreck, whose class I took through Steubenville, there was a brief period (closer to Constantine’s time I believe) where some considered it wise for to postpone baptism until one’s deathbed because they didn’t fully understand blasphemy against the Spirit. It was a way to make sure you wouldn’t commit mortal sin after baptism and thus lose your salvation. Infant baptism wasn’t condemned, and as far as I know, still practiced. But those who went with the deathbed gamble gave a testament to how baptism cleansed one of all sin. This teaching came after infant baptism had already been in practice and it also didn’t stick—too many people dropped dead unexpectedly without ever getting the deathbed baptism I think…

 

[Sword_Brethren]

“Protestantism” has always been the Christian norm and has always been here since Pentecost.

BTW, I am defining “Protestantism” here as any Christian faith and practice that is not totally Roman Catholic.

The fact is that the early church and all of the early church fathers did not believe Roman Catholicism as it is taught today.

A piece here and a piece there is not enough for the RC paradigm. Some similarities rather than all similarity is total proof of this “Protestantism” rather than some mythological, monolithic Roman Catholicism for 2000 years.

For example, a man like Augustine could not be a modernist Roman Catholic today. He would not even call modernist Catholics, “Catholics.”

To abandon “Protestantism” is to abandon how the Christian church is designed to operate.

Best of luck to you.

…

All wrong.
To abandon protestantism is to abandon men like, Luther, Hus, Calivn, Henry VIII, thomas mustzer, Oral roberts, etc, etc etc.

To abandon the Cathoic Church is to abandon how the Christian church is designed to opertate

 

[Cristian_B]

I think it’s in Colossians where Paul even says baptism is the new circumcision (which was or course done to babies.)

And only males were circumcised, of course. If you go this far with this comparison, then I understand that you believe only men should be baptized, but we know this is not true.

Paul made this comparison in the sense that baptism was the new ‘sign’ of the covenant.

 

[Scoobyshme]

And only males were circumcised. If you go this far with this comparison, then I understand that you believe only men should be baptized, but we know this is not true.

Paul made this comparison in the sense that baptism was the new ‘sign’.

See 1 Peter 3:21: “This prefigured baptism, which saves you now…”

Peter is speaking of water baptism, which is not merely a “sign” but has an “effect” on one’s soul, namely salvation.

The problem with most Protestants, as I see it, is that they never complete the thought, and don’t really know the Bible very well. They know snippets, out of context of the whole. And upon these, interpreted according to their own desires, they make their doctrines, and fall into error. And what’s really sad, is that all these attempts at reinventing the theological wheel all the time is so unnecessary! Jesus provided us with a Chruch, not a book, to learn His truths. We should be like sheep, and listen obediently. Not like goats, who cannot be shepherded because they want to have a mind of their own. (See Matt. 25:32-46)