Must we return to the first century church?

[RNRobert]

On these forums, I’ve seen one or two people criticize the Catholic Church on the grounds that it does not resemble the church of the first century as it appears in the New Testmanent writings. It seems many Protestants expect the church to remain “frozen” from the time the ink dried on the New Testament, and treat development in doctrine or devotional practices as “additions” to the “pure gospel” of Jesus Christ. Lorraine Boettner’s book, Roman Catholicism, is a good example of this.
There are, I think, three issues here. The first issue is that the church is a living organism. Most Protestants accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, yet those words are found nowhere in Scripture. They were developed to further explain the faith and to combat error. Throughout the 2,000 years of Christianity there have been challenges to the faith in the forms of various heresies, or simply questions in theology that needed to be addressed; hence the need for the Church as a living interpreter to apply the deposit of faith (both written and oral) to new situations as they arise. Some dogmas, like the Trinity in the third century or transubstantiation in the thirteenth, were not simply ‘new’ doctrines that were ‘added’ to the faith, but rather a means of defending a long-held belief that had come under attack. Other doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, were not declared to combat heresy but to clarify beliefs that were long held by many Catholics.The books of the New Testament were written to deal with specific problems of that day. Let me explain that this in no way invalidates Scripture for the purposes of “teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Also, the Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and considers the magisterium the servant of Scripture (Dei Verbum 10, Vatican II documents). However, we live in the 21st century, not the 1st, and we face problems that the early Christians could never have imagined (stem cell research, cloning, genetics, medical/moral issues like Terry Schiavo, to name a few), and we need a living interpreter to apply the Apostolic Deposit to these issues. Those who want to restrict the church to what was written in the 1st century would do well to heed this quote from of Karl Adams’s Spirit of Catholicism:

(they treat) revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must be passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further development of its germinal content.

Why must non-Catholics put a limit on the ability of the church to grow in its understanding?

Continued…

 

[RNRobert]

The second issue I believe involves a form of nostalgia. Many Christians, seeing the problems in Christianity in the present day, seem to view the first century church as somehow better than the church of today. I remember seeing and hearing this reverence for first century Christianity in the Baptist Church I attended. To be sure, the first century church was the one that saw Jesus on this earth, that learned its faith from the apostles, and saw firsthand the writings that would later become the New Testament. However, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will notice that the first century church wasn’t perfect- it had its share of problems. Some churches were lax spiritually or were leading immoral lives (read Paul’s letters to the Corinthians or John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation). Also, even in the first century false teachings were starting to pop up- read Galatians, or 1 John, or Jude.
The third issue deals with worship. Many Evangelicals believe that their services are a return to the “simple worship” of the first century. However, is this the case? There is nothing in the New Testament documents about “altar calls” or “praying the sinner’s prayer.” Instead, we read that the disciples devoted themselves “to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42, NAB). What exactly is meant by the “breaking of the bread?” Was this merely a communal meal, or was it something more? We see when Jesus instituted the Last Supper, he broke the bread (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). We also see in Luke 24:30-31 how the travellers to Emmaus did not recognize their Risen Savior until he broke the bread. Therefore, the “breaking of the bread”: in Acts 2:42 refers to the Eucharist, celebrated daily by the Catholic Church in the Mass (The “clean offering” of the Gentiles foretold in Malachi 1:11. Michael Voris, in his program One True Faith compares the events on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:15-32 to the Mass: First, Jesus explained the Scriptures (Liturgy of the Word) and then broke bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Evangelicals may complain that the liturgy of the modern church is more elaborate than the services of the early church. However, it must be remembered that the church in the first centuries was oftern persecuted, so the forms of worship used in those times (or in any times of persecution) would be simpler compared to times of peace.

In conclusion, the Church is a living organism that spans the centuries. To criticize the Church of today because it is not exactly like the first century church is like finding fault with an oak tree because it does not resemble an acorn. Remember Christ’s parable of the mustard seed:

It is like a mustard seed that, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth.
But once it is sown, it springs up and becomes the largest of plants and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the sky can dwell in its shade." (Mark 4:31-32, NAB).

 

[kaycee]

…Most Protestants accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, yet those words are found nowhere in Scripture. They were developed to further explain the faith and to combat error.

The doctrines are derived directly from the teaching of scripture and no other source! The comparison to late marian doctrine and other non scriptural novelties is hardly the same.

Some dogmas, like the Trinity in the third century or transubstantiation in the thirteenth, were not simply ‘new’ doctrines that were ‘added’ to the faith, but rather a means of defending a long-held belief that had come under attack. Other doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, were not declared to combat heresy but to clarify beliefs that were long held by many Catholics.

The Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Pope Gelasius signifies the following work as heretical: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). **This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble.

The books of the New Testament were written to deal with specific problems of that day. Let me explain that this in no way invalidates Scripture for the purposes of “teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

** I imagine you would agree that the teaching of unique RCC doctrines is a good work. If Paul says that scripture equips the man of God for EVERY good work, then you must believe Paul to be in error! **

Also, the Catholic Church teaches that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, …Those who want to restrict the church to what was written in the 1st century would do well to heed this quote from of Karl Adams’s …

I believe you would do better to heed the words of Vincent of Lerins, who promulgated a concept of development. In his teaching, Vincent delineates the following parameters for true development of doctrine:

“But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.”

Vincent is saying that doctrinal development must be rooted in the principle of unanimous consent. That is, it must be related to doctrines that have been clearly taught throughout the ages of the Church. In other words,** true development must demonstrate historical roots. Any teaching which could not demonstrate its authority from Scripture and the universal teaching of the Church was to be repudiated as novel and therefore not truly catholic. It was to be considered heretical.** This is the whole point of Vincent’s criticism of such heretics as Coelestius and Pelagius. He says, ‘Who ever before his (Pelagius) monstrous disciple Coelestius ever denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin?’(6) Their teaching, which was a denial of original sin, was novel. It could not demonstrate historical continuity and therefore it was heretical.

 

[Truthstalker]

Actually I’ve seen this issue more from the other side, the continually developing, always reforming, Reformation church, returning to Scriptural Truth and increasing in knowledge and holiness of faith and practice with time, contrasted with (it is said) the stagnant and decadent Catholic church.

We cannot return to the first century. We can only follow God as we know Him and ever seek to reform not only ourselves but His church that it would be presented pure and spotless. The history of the church - and I do not just target Catholics here - is one of continued stagnation and compromise with the world, always accompanied by God working to bring good out of what has been happening and the testimonies of holy people fighting corruption and seeking to follow God even at horrendous personal cost.

The first century was’t so great. Heresy flourished in the midst of heavy persecution.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yeah… well. Lessee here.

It is a fact that the early church writers believed in the Real Presence of Christ in their Eucharist. And there is more than ample scripture that supports that.

It is a fact that there is clear scriptural precedent for the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary within the Word of God.

There is also clear scriptural evidence to support the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Especially in the text of the Greek.

There is ample scriptural evidence of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.

There is plain scriptural evidence to support the Communion of Saints.

There is over abundant scripture to support the necessity of baptism for salvation and its sacramental nature in washing away sins.

However…there is no scriptural evidence that supports the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

There is no scriptural evidence to support the errant doctrine of Sola Fide.

There is no scriptural evidence to support OSAS.

There is no scriptural evidence to support evangelism by altar call, or by preaching that one should “accept Christ as personal savior”.

So…where is that 1st century Church?

[SIGN]In the Catholic Church![/SIGN]

 

[Mannyfit75]

The 1st Century Church is Catholic because it is Apostolic. Protestants didn’t exist until 1517 A.D. Faith Alone and Scriptura Alone is totally alien for first Century Christians, even OSAS is also alien. OSAS developed out of John Calvin’s theology…

 

[Eileen_T]

Ahhhhhh!!! …a tradition of Man!

 

[kaycee]

Yeah… well. Lessee here.

It is a fact that the early church writers believed in the Real Presence of Christ in their Eucharist. And there is more than ample scripture that supports that.

It is a fact that there is clear scriptural precedent for the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary within the Word of God.

There is also clear scriptural evidence to support the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Especially in the text of the Greek.

There is ample scriptural evidence of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin.

Guess your not of the partim partim view. You do realize the material sufficiency view is only one hundred or so years old.

 

[Mickey]

The Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Pope Gelasius signifies the following work as heretical: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). **This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. At the end of the decree he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble.

Another direct cut and paste from the famous anti-Catholic William Webster.

 

[kaycee]

Another direct cut and paste from the famous anti-Catholic William Webster.

I guess i am not that clear on how name calling somehow refutes all arguments, ie “anti-catholic” :yawn:

 

[Mickey]

Its somewhat humerous to think that name calling somehow refutes all arguments, ie “anti-catholic”

Those who are reformed and are loving, charitable and humble, I never refer to as anti-Catholic. Those who are ego driven and make a living out of bashing the Catholic Church, I refer to as anti-Catholic–as well as those who plagiarize their quotes on discussion boards.

So in short, I am not refuting anything with name calling. I am stating an obvious prejudice and lack of charity–and there is nothing humorous about that.

 

[kaycee]

Those who are reformed and are loving, charitable and humble, I never refer to as anti-Catholic. Those who are ego driven and make a living out of bashing the Catholic Church, I refer to as anti-Catholic–as well as those who plagiarize their quotes on discussion boards.

So in short, I am not refuting anything with name calling. I am stating an obvious prejudice and lack of charity–and there is nothing humorous about that.

Sorry for the cut and paste. I dont have all day to type. I will in the future give references.

Sorry, you think that those who report factually from history and patristic evidence are anti-catholic and preducial but, do we ignore the contradictions for the sake of charity? Are we to look the other way even after catholic historians show the rcc claims to be out of sync historically? Is it really anti-catholic to bring up the obvious discrepancies? While you may not like that the evidence is contrary to your churches views, I have never seen Bill Webster write anything uncharitable. Unfortunately it seems that anyone who does not agree with Rome is deemed “anti-catholic” which somehow “refutes” the evidence by basically saying he’s a meany. Its basically, poison the well, kill the messenger, and ignore or spin the message.

 

[Mickey]

Sorry, you think that those who report factually from history and patristic evidence are anti-catholic and preducial

I will not debate you regarding the “lovingkindness and charity” of William Webster. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with his “historical interpretations”. I find that his polemics are less than charitable. His opinions have been thoroughly refuted many times–do a search and you will see.(Here is one example) ic.com/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM
I find his arguments weak and you do not. Oh well.

Unfortunately it seems that anyone who does not agree with Rome is deemed “anti-catholic”

Poppycock! That is the biggest copout. I respect those who speak or write about the Christian faith in a charitable manner–even if it is from a reformed viewpoint. But again, Webster makes a living from bashing the Catholic Church. Those who like his style , usually wear the same colored glasses as Webster.

Of course I cannot stop you from agreeing with his perspective–but I respect the fact that you will begin citing your references. Thank you.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Guess your not of the partim partim view. You do realize the material sufficiency view is only one hundred or so years old.

Time of definition is not relative to early church belief and practice. The Church only defines things when they are questioned or attacked.

 

[mark_a]

The second issue I believe involves a form of nostalgia. Many Christians, seeing the problems in Christianity in the present day, seem to view the first century church as somehow better than the church of today. I remember seeing and hearing this reverence for first century Christianity in the Baptist Church I attended. To be sure, the first century church was the one that saw Jesus on this earth, that learned its faith from the apostles, and saw firsthand the writings that would later become the New Testament. However, if you read the New Testament carefully, you will notice that the first century church wasn’t perfect- it had its share of problems. Some churches were lax spiritually or were leading immoral lives (read Paul’s letters to the Corinthians or John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation). Also, even in the first century false teachings were starting to pop up- read Galatians, or 1 John, or Jude.
The third issue deals with worship. Many Evangelicals believe that their services are a return to the “simple worship” of the first century. However, is this the case? There is nothing in the New Testament documents about “altar calls” or “praying the sinner’s prayer.” Instead, we read that the disciples devoted themselves “to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42, NAB). What exactly is meant by the “breaking of the bread?” Was this merely a communal meal, or was it something more? We see when Jesus instituted the Last Supper, he broke the bread (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19). We also see in Luke 24:30-31 how the travellers to Emmaus did not recognize their Risen Savior until he broke the bread. Therefore, the “breaking of the bread”: in Acts 2:42 refers to the Eucharist, celebrated daily by the Catholic Church in the Mass (The “clean offering” of the Gentiles foretold in Malachi 1:11. Michael Voris, in his program One True Faith compares the events on the Emmaus road in Luke 24:15-32 to the Mass: First, Jesus explained the Scriptures (Liturgy of the Word) and then broke bread (Liturgy of the Eucharist). Evangelicals may complain that the liturgy of the modern church is more elaborate than the services of the early church. However, it must be remembered that the church in the first centuries was oftern persecuted, so the forms of worship used in those times (or in any times of persecution) would be simpler compared to times of peace.

In conclusion, the Church is a living organism that spans the centuries. To criticize the Church of today because it is not exactly like the first century church is like finding fault with an oak tree because it does not resemble an acorn. Remember Christ’s parable of the mustard seed:

It is like a mustard seed that, when it is sown in the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth.
But once it is sown, it springs up and becomes the largest of plants and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the sky can dwell in its shade." (Mark 4:31-32, NAB).

 

[jemfinch]

The doctrines are derived directly from the teaching of scripture and no other source!

So were the heresies they opposed.

Jeremy

 

[mark_a]

Some churches were lax spiritually or were leading immoral lives (read Paul’s letters to the Corinthians or John’s letters to the seven churches in Revelation).

Thanks for a couple of well thought-out posts.

I also would throw into the mix Jude and other letters of John.

I don’t think Jesus is overjoyed with Christian society in general, but there have been some bright spots in the past 2000 years.

 

[Church_Militant]

For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb.

Then if this is the case why do you attempt to refute it?

Further…Where is there anything that condemns crucifixes? There isn’t…and the passages I cited plainly indicate that the depiction of Christ crucified is a valid Christian device.

I don’t really care what that particular scholar says the Greek says because the context of the passage as literally interpreted (LINK) as well as the other passages I cited show that there should be no issue with it.

 

[Bishopite]

[kaycee;1934794]

**

The doctrines are derived directly from the teaching of scripture and no other source!

**

Protestants complain that Catholicism goes “beyond Scripture” yet they adhere to major theological decisions e.g. hypostatic union, canon, Trinity, original sin, all authoritatively proclaimed by the Catholic Magisterium; whether they give affirmation to this fact or not is another issue.

**

The comparison to late marian doctrine and other non scriptural novelties is hardly the same.

**

I’m not sure you understand that just because a document is spurious, non-canonical therefore fallible, DOESN’T mean it does necessarily contain ALL untruth.

Some dogmas, like the Trinity in the third century or transubstantiation in the thirteenth, were not simply ‘new’ doctrines that were ‘added’ to the faith, but rather a means of defending a long-held belief that had come under attack. Other doctrines, like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, were not declared to combat heresy but to clarify beliefs that were long held by many Catholics.

Exactly. The dogma is defined most of the time after long disputes which can not be resolved, or are disrupting Christiandom so the Magisterium makes a dogmatic declaration defining what was taught by the Apostles.

The Transitus literature is the real source of the teaching of the assumption of Mary and Roman Catholic authorities admit this fact. Juniper Carol, for example, writes: ‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

The transitus literature is a wittness to the truth of the time about Mary’s assumption, just as Josephus gives “evidence” that the early Christians regarded Jesus as divine. Your argument it simply NOT pursuasive nor rational.

"Last time we saw that the New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The so-called apocryphal gospels are forgeries which came much later and are for the most part elaborations of the four New Testament gospels.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. "
leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

**

Pope Gelasius signifies the following work as heretical

**

: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). ***This specifically means the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary. ***

At the end of the decree** he states that this and all the other listed literature is heretical and that their authors and teachings and all who adhere to them are condemned and placed under eternal anathema which is indissoluble**.

So what? That a Pope condemns some writing as heretical is nothing new nor incriminating on Catholicism. A document(s) can be heretical but still have aspects of truth within them.
You need to rethink your irrational postition.

 

[Bishopite]

[kaycee;1936573]Sorry for the cut and paste. I dont have all day to type. I will in the future give references.

Yes, you need to give citations or links to your statements instead of just posting them as though they are your words, which is not an honest “work.”