Protestantism the earliest christianity?

[kepha1]

The Trail of Blood theory makes the rounds from time to time. This theory attempts to trace certain Protestant groups back to apostolic times. I call it an Apostolic Succession of Heresy* since its proponents (mostly some Baptists and Fundamentalists) attempt to lay claim to almost any group so long as it is outside the Holy Catholic (& Orthodox) Church. [Most “classical” Protestants acknowledge their history through the historic Church.]
http://www.shasta.com/sphaws/trail.html

When Baptists attempt to discover the origins of their tradition they are faced with a historical dilemma. The search for Baptists roots hits a dead end in the sixteenth century. Most acknowledge that Baptist tradition is a tributary flowing out of the Protestant Reformation, but others attempt to discover a line of historical continuity, of doctrine and practice, back to Jesus and even John the Baptist. These Baptists are commonly referred to “Baptist Successionists”.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/Documents/TrailOfBlood.doc

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. “That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We’ve got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner’s Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow’s closing communion service . . .”

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I’m not making this up. The article, “What Really Happened at Nicea?” actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response. .

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.4/coverstory.html

 

[Cat]

I grew up evangelical Protestant.

What you will be told by “knowledgeable” Protestants (not just fringe wackos) is that the early church was NOT Catholic, but that over the centuries the Catholic Church destroyed all the writings by the real early Church fathers that would prove that non-Catholic teachings were taught in the Early Church. Even the names of these early Christians have been destroyed by the Catholic Church in their attempt to spread the false “religion” of Catholicism.

You will also be told that many of the early Church fathers may not have even existed and that there is proof that their so-called “writings” were actually written centuries later by the Catholic Church.

Calvin College currently houses the repository of all the writings of the early Church fathers. Apparently these writings are accompanied by articles written by learned Reformed teachers stating that several of these fathers are merely legendary people who really didn’t exist. I haven’t actually read these articles, but have been referred to them by Protestant apologists.

You may also be told that the TRUTH about the Early Church was not destroyed, but is hidden somewhere in the Vatican under lock and key. All the “real” documents written by the “real” early Church fathers are there, suppressed by the Catholic Church.

I’m not kidding.

It’s very difficult to argue with this because you are told that researchers who have discovered the truth are “taken care of” by the Catholic Church. How can you argue with a historical account that doesn’t exist, but “true scholars” (who won’t share their names because of fear of reprisal from the Catholic Church) know that it’s true?

It’s like trying to argue against a dream–you can’t prove a dream, but you know you had it.

I’m not kidding about any of this. My husband grew up in the Assemblies of God, and he heard this all the time. His parents still seem to believe it.

I highly recommend the excellent PROTESTANT book, Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. amazon.com/Church-History-Plain-Language-Updated/dp/0849938619

The problem is that Protestant apologists will tell you that Bruce Shelley is a “liberal” and that his book is a tissue of lies.

Your best bet is to pray that the Holy Spirit will help these people to see clearly and that the father of lies will be driven away from them.

 

[JMBNH]

The Husites are the only pre-Luther group that were anything like Protestant, BUT:

1. They were founded just 100 years before Luther and had no predecessors.
2. They very strongly believed in the necessity of good works, and thus rejected the very central point of the Reformation

 

[Jolly_Joe]

In the beginning-Jesus

At the end of time-Jesus

In between- Jesus

Unlike the list of Popes, this list doesn’t change repeatedly.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

I grew up evangelical Protestant.

What you will be told by “knowledgeable” Protestants (not just fringe wackos) is that the early church was NOT Catholic, but that over the centuries the Catholic Church destroyed all the writings by the real early Church fathers that would prove that non-Catholic teachings were taught in the Early Church. Even the names of these early Christians have been destroyed by the Catholic Church in their attempt to spread the false “religion” of Catholicism.

You will also be told that many of the early Church fathers may not have even existed and that there is proof that their so-called “writings” were actually written centuries later by the Catholic Church.

Calvin College currently houses the repository of all the writings of the early Church fathers. Apparently these writings are accompanied by articles written by learned Reformed teachers stating that several of these fathers are merely legendary people who really didn’t exist. I haven’t actually read these articles, but have been referred to them by Protestant apologists.

You may also be told that the TRUTH about the Early Church was not destroyed, but is hidden somewhere in the Vatican under lock and key. All the “real” documents written by the “real” early Church fathers are there, suppressed by the Catholic Church.

I’m not kidding.

It’s very difficult to argue with this because you are told that researchers who have discovered the truth are “taken care of” by the Catholic Church. How can you argue with a historical account that doesn’t exist, but “true scholars” (who won’t share their names because of fear of reprisal from the Catholic Church) know that it’s true?

It’s like trying to argue against a dream–you can’t prove a dream, but you know you had it.

I’m not kidding about any of this. My husband grew up in the Assemblies of God, and he heard this all the time. His parents still seem to believe it.

I highly recommend the excellent PROTESTANT book, Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. amazon.com/Church-History-Plain-Language-Updated/dp/0849938619

The problem is that Protestant apologists will tell you that Bruce Shelley is a “liberal” and that his book is a tissue of lies.

Your best bet is to pray that the Holy Spirit will help these people to see clearly and that the father of lies will be driven away from them.

Assemblies of God have never been noted as a hotbed of solid scholarship. They are just getting to where one could even say they have a systematics text of their own.

Many early writings were destroyed. Many by people outside the church. Some by people within.

For instance after a Council declared those who claimed to be followers of Origen as heretics much of Origen’s writings were destroyed, others were altered to be in agreement with accepted doctrine.

And there have been more than a few cases where things were intentionally altered, or destroyed or produced by people who considered themselves defenders of the church. Which does add a significant layer of complications when studying church history.

Things are getting a bit better from the standpoint that where possible, critical texts are being produced. And some of the translations that weren’t the best are being updated. We see commonly where people speak a lot about their concern with translations of the bible, but often the same people haven’t thought about it and quote a translation of an early father as rock solid trustworthy, meaning exactly what they want it to mean.

And there’s still a fair amount of stuff that has never become public, it’s sitting in a library basically unknown to us.

But anyway, even with all those things, often the truth is quite evident if one takes the time to do the work.

For instance the early fathers very much supported the Jewish canon as the authoritative Old Testament. People miss it because many did not make a specific list. But thanks for instance to the wonders of the internet, you can go to English translations of the early fathers and search for “twenty-two” the number of books of the Jewish canon, and while you get other things too, it doesn’t take long to find several references to the 22 books as the accepted authoritative canon.

And then a bit later, we get councils which list those books that were to be read in the churches, but people confuse those lists of ecclesiatical canon as equivalent to the authoritative canon for doctrine, and so on.

In any case, the historic church is there, but the many editorials over the years can make the whole thing confusing.

JJ

 

[inthecloud]

Tin foil hat on.

 

[jblake]

Valtiel;:

this would show maybe protestantism was earliest form of Christianity

Using the First Council of Nicaea in 325 as the base line, you don’t find the major tenants of Protestant Christianity discussed by anybody. Whilst branches of Christianity were not represented at that Council, there is no hard evidence to suggest that those branches espoused anything that could be construed as even remotely congruent with any aspect of Protestant Christian theology.

xan

jonathon

 

[Milliardo]

Many early writings were destroyed. Many by people outside the church. Some by people within.

Yes, though much of the work destroyed, admitted even by Protestant historians, were heretical in nature.

And there’s still a fair amount of stuff that has never become public, it’s sitting in a library basically unknown to us.

Yes–the “scholarly” work of Dan Brown and the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” are surely worth reading and are good for “scholastic” research.

For instance the early fathers very much supported the Jewish canon as the authoritative Old Testament.

We’ve been down this road before, I believe. Numerous threads about this and one has yet to know which Church Father actually says so. But the next statement makes the point raised above even more doubtful:

People miss it because many did not make a specific list.

And yet no specific list. No specific Father, no specific list. How much more convenient can one get?

And then a bit later, we get councils which list those books that were to be read in the churches, but people confuse those lists of ecclesiatical canon as equivalent to the authoritative canon for doctrine, and so on.

And once a Council does make such a list, it then is brushed off as “people confuse such a list…” Again, how convenient. We now have a list, and it is not an authoritative list? Yet where there is no specific list, one would deem it to be “conclusive” and “authoritative”?

In any case, the historic church is there, but the many editorials over the years can make the whole thing confusing.

Yes, it’s always been right in front of people’s eyes; but for some reason, many miss it. These two ancient Churches–the Catholic and Orthodox Churches–have stood as testament to that historic, Apostolic Church, yet people still miss them. They look for a Church where it is not there, and when they find that Church which is there, they dismiss these two Churches. People prefer to look at what is convenient to them rather than face to a reality that is hard to grasp, yet is nonetheless the truth. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are witnesses to this ancient truth, the only thing left is to simply accept these facts.

In the beginning-Jesus

At the end of time-Jesus

In between- Jesus

Unlike the list of Popes, this list doesn’t change repeatedly.

If we go by this notion, then each and every church that has ever existed on this planet must be the true Church; yet that cannot be true. As Bishop Soc Villegas (Catholic bishop of Balanga, Bataan, Philippines) always say: only Jesus, always Jesus. Catholics believe in that and say with conviction it is always Jesus through and through. So what you say has little point, other than to malign the Apostolic roots of the Papacy.

 

[markomalley]

I was in the car with my brother earlier today and we were talking about how christians in other countries suffer and how there was very little concern about it. Towards the end of it he mentioned in the middle ages that protestants went through many of the same troubles. Now this got me thinking protestants way back then??? I thought what if me and him get into another catholic argument, he could take i further, this would show maybe protestantism was earliest form of christianity and that the catholic church was man made trying to keep them silenced. Though this was nothing of what he implyed, this is what concerned me. Were there really protestants back then and could all this be true???

There have been schisms and heresies since the times of the apostles. Some of those heresies have followers to this day. (I think of some forms of gnosticism, in particular)

If you read the Church Fathers, you will see that the true Faith, passed down from the Apostles, has existed since the time of the apostles. It has morphed to a degree, it has become more bureaucratic, but it has always been there.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Millardo,

I gave you simple instructions so you could see for yourself. It wouldn’t take but a few minutes, but instead you just malign my character and scholarship. Why is that?

St Gregory Theologus: Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books]. Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond to the Hebrew letters.

Jerome: That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified by the Syrian and Chaldæan languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also employ just the same number of letters in their copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, and differ only in the shape and outline of the letters…And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law.

Josephus: We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

Athanasius: As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament.

John of Damascus: that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue.

Origen: We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.

Hilary: "making up the full number of twenty-two.”

Gregory Nanzienzen: “therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate the canonical books from the beginning; and those which belong to the Old Testament are two-and-twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, as I have understood”

Cyril of Jerusalem: “Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, which were translated by the seventy-two interpreters.”

That’s not a comprehensive search by any means, I just went several pages into the search.

Maybe you would list all those early fathers that give a quote of the number of books that you would say the canon should be?

JJ

 

[Milliardo]

Millardo,

I gave you simple instructions so you could see for yourself. It wouldn’t take but a few minutes, but instead you just malign my character and scholarship. Why is that?

Because I don’t agree to your post, plain and simple. By the way, nowhere in my post can you find that your character was maligned; however, your post is found to be dubious at best, more particularly your comment about things not yet known to the public but is sitting in some secret library. More than anything, that gave everything away. One would have to ask—if there is this “secret library”, then how did you happen to know of it by chance? See, it is not hard to see through such notions, glaring in its contradictions as they are.

St Gregory Theologus: Let not other books seduce your mind: for many malignant writings have been disseminated. The historical books are twelve in number by the Hebrew count, [then follow the names of the books of the Old Testament but Esther is omitted, one Esdras, and all the Deutero-Canonical books]. Thus there are twenty-two books of the Old Testament which correspond to the Hebrew letters.

We’ve discussed this on another thread before; non-mention does not necessarily mean non-acceptance, which are two different things.

Jerome: That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified by the Syrian and Chaldæan languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also employ just the same number of letters in their copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, and differ only in the shape and outline of the letters…And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Testament; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the old law.

As I remember correctly, Jerome has retracted this view and accepted the Deuterocanonicals.

But more than that, these are views expressed by these men; in the end, the last say still rests with what the Church has decided, and that is the fact that the canon done at Carthage was the canon used by the Church. It has been argued that the Council was a local one, yet it is also true that the Council sent its canon over the other patriarchs and bishops for ratification; none found them to be erroneous. Given that then, what has the Church adopted? Again, the argument that was said here was that there was no authoritative canon made by the Universal Church until Trent, but such a need was not necessary as the Church by and large have already adopted the canon laid down by Carthage.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

The canon at Carthage was those books to be read in the church. That is different than authoritative for doctrine.

They are two questions. Making them one confuses the issue.

Anyway, I gave you a specific list of specific Fathers. Just a few posts ago you seemed to argue I should be ignored because I didn’t give them.

Now would you give references to the early fathers who said the canon was the number of books that you would have be authoritative scripture?

It would seem only fair, wouldn’t it?

JJ

 

[Junebug999]

The first protestants were about 470 years ago. Here’s a timeline of the various churches.

Do you have any idea when your church was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by about 4,000 years ago.
If you are of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30…

Bless you and thank you for that list. I’m printing out a copy. I was raised on the “the Landmark Baptist Missionary Church – and later the Southern Baptist Church is Christ’s only and true church which was the true remnant of the church from the time of Christ” belief.

I thank Our Lord that his church is apostolic. As a baptist I just used to wonder, “Who’s in charge here? SOMEONE has to be in charge here.”

Now I am thankful to be joining Our Lord’s true church that is apostolic, and Christ’s representation on earth.

 

[Milliardo]

The canon at Carthage was those books to be read in the church. That is different than authoritative for doctrine.

Since the Church proclaims doctrine, then what do you think? It is not different; it is essentially one and the same. What is used to be read should flow from it also the authority for use in doctrine, or else one would have to argue that one shouldn’t be reading what would not have such an authority.

As stated as well, citing some Fathers is nice, but does not prove your point: it is akin to having some clergy say they are for abortion, and you would quote them at length, but it does not reflect on what the whole Church actually believes in. Merely quoting them does not then show much, other than having their opinions on the matter. In the end, what is important is what you left out: they expressed their opinion, but they still bowed to what the Church used or decreed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I was in the car with my brother earlier today and we were talking about how christians in other countries suffer and how there was very little concern about it. Towards the end of it he mentioned in the middle ages that protestants went through many of the same troubles. Now this got me thinking protestants way back then??? I thought what if me and him get into another catholic argument, he could take i further, this would show maybe protestantism was earliest form of christianity and that the catholic church was man made trying to keep them silenced. Though this was nothing of what he implyed, this is what concerned me. Were there really protestants back then and could all this be true???

Protestantism didn’t exist until 1517-1545…

 

[GJx86]

Athanasius: As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament.

Athanasius quoted from books outside of these 22 when making theological points. Here’s an example where he quotes from Tobit:

Athanasius:

And as for the cup belonging to the mysteries, what was it, or where was it broken by Macarius? for this is the report which they spread up and down. But as for Athanasius, even his accusers would not have ventured to blame him, had they not been suborned by them. However, they attribute the origin of the offence to him; although it ought not to be imputed even to Macarius who is clear of it. And they are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, ‘It is good to keep close the secret of a king (Tobit 12:7);’ and as the Lord has charged us, ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6).’

Note that Athanasius refers to “what is written,” which has Scriptural overtones in the New Testament.

See newadvent.org/fathers/28081.htm (paragraph 11) and vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/athanasius-and-canon-of-old-testament/ for additional citations.

 

[po18guy]

I was in the car with my brother earlier today and we were talking about how christians in other countries suffer and how there was very little concern about it. Towards the end of it he mentioned in the middle ages that protestants went through many of the same troubles. Now this got me thinking protestants way back then??? I thought what if me and him get into another catholic argument, he could take i further, this would show maybe protestantism was earliest form of christianity and that the catholic church was man made trying to keep them silenced. Though this was nothing of what he implyed, this is what concerned me. Were there really protestants back then and could all this be true???

Middle ages? No.

 

[JMBNH]

Also the doctrine of Tobit and 2 Maccabees is distinctive enough that if they weren’t meant to be used for doctrine they wouldn’t be allowed to be read in Church either

 

[Jolly_Joe]

The Orthodox read them in Church and do not use them for doctrine.

That would be true of the Anglicans as well.

It’s also been true of the Roman Catholic.

JJ

 

[Jolly_Joe]

Athanasius quoted from books outside of these 22 when making theological points. Here’s an example where he quotes from Tobit:

QUOTE]

It’s pretty common to quote someone or something when making theological points that one does not consider authoritative scripture.

Should I look through this site and assume everything people point to in making theological points is what they consider scripture?

JJ