Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[Protestant101]

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Karl Adam; [1876-1966] is one of the most reliable “modern-day” theologians, ordained to the priesthood in The Roman Catholic Church. Here is a quote, capping what he says about The Roman Catholic Church:

Chapter VI: The Church and Peter
“Upon this rock I will build my Church” (Mt. xvi, 18).

Our Lord’s Gospel of the Kingdom pressed on to the foundation of a visible Church. The more definitely He opposed the ruling religious authority, and the clearer it became that He was dethroning the Law and setting His own word in its place, that the new Kingdom was bound up with His Person and with faith in Him, that it was His Kingdom (cf. Lk. xxii, 29, 30; xxiii, 42; Mt. xiii, 41), and that it was the New Covenant in His Blood, so much the more inevitable was the gradual detachment of His disciples from their previous religious fellowship. “No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment.” And naturally the fellowship which held His disciples together was bound to become all the more intimate and conscious. How often had He not told them: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.” They shall call one another brethren, they shall be His family (cf. Mt. x, 25), His marriage guests, who cannot be sorrowful so long as the Bridegroom is with them (Mt. ix, 15), who drink together out of the same cup of the New Covenant. And one day they are to be His elect, and at His table and in His Kingdom to eat of the glad messianic feast (Lk. xxii, 29 f.; Mt. xiii, 41) The messianic consciousness of Jesus necessarily led to the formation of a community…

Of course, this all sounds good until you think it through a little more. For one thing; this “messianic consciousness” has been experienced by many people in many denominations, leading to formation of their respective church communities. In Christ; there is unity in diversity.

Someone asked me for names of people that Adventists descended from. OK Here are just a few - these ones are in the Bible; but before you critisize; remember, that this is where Roman catholics have descended from too. This is where we all come from. We come from the “By Faith” movement, which Roman Catholics on this thread have critisized Protestants heavily for: (see next post)

 

[Protestant101]

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
Heb 11:15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Heb 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Heb 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Heb 11:20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
Heb 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
Heb 11:22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
Heb 11:23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.
Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;
Heb 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Heb 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
Heb 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Heb 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.
Heb 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.
Heb 11:31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
Heb 11:32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
Heb 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
Heb 11:34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
Heb 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Heb 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
Heb 11:38 (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Heb 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

protestants date their major tenet of “salvation by faith” all the way back to eden. Isn’t it curious that Roman catholics don’t also do this?

 

[Protestant101]

The Bible is clear that “without us,” none of the ancestors we have from the OT, who believed “by faith;” would have any hope of “being made perfect,” WITHOUT those of us who believe likewise, “by faith.” (see Heb 11:40) There will be a whole unit of people, from OT & NT who believe that we are saved “by faith” [see Hebrews 11] and this whole unit is The Church. The church is not just some denomination like Roman Catholics who arose out of the first few years of new testament times. The appearance of Roman catholics at this time proves their separation from believers who were our predecessors.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry I mispoke. On mine it is on the left hand side at the top of the thread just below the “post reply” button but it says “view first unread”.

Ah. I see! Love it! Thanks.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

So, you do not want to say it was the Catholic Church that was the ‘Early Church’ you were studying? And, if it wasn’t, then what happened to this group?

This is the same straight forward question - you still have not answered.

I am just wondering why you have produced all of this smoke - and still have not gotten to the heart of the matter. Strange.

God bless

The Early Church doesn’t correspond to any modern body, in the sense that it has become divided. It was the undivided Christian Church, the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch and the rest, the Body of Christ, the catholic and orthodox Church.

You could make an argument that any, or even many modern groups are in some sense or other are descended from that institution, or even constitute that institution. But you actually have to make the argument, which you haven’t really done. Trying to play with language to make your argument is not going to work.

If you are asking which argument I think might be plausible, I’d say there are two possibilities. One is that the institution that existed then has fragmented (due to human sin), and no longer exists at this time as a temporally unified body; presumably it is united in the Body of Christ and perhaps will even be reunited temporally in the future. The other possibility is that the Orthodox Church is that body and other Christian groups are of uncertain status.

I think one could make good arguments for versions of both of those positions.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible is clear that “without us,” none of the ancestors we have from the OT, who believed “by faith;” would have any hope of “being made perfect,” WITHOUT those of us who believe likewise, “by faith.” (see Heb 11:40) There will be a whole unit of people, from OT & NT who believe that we are saved “by faith” [see Hebrews 11] and this whole unit is The Church.

To which Catholics respond with a hearty AMEN! Of course we are saved by faith. Just not by faith* alone.*

See what the Bibles say about how we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a tenuous argument, I must say, but I’m only saying what’s believed, not claiming it’s logical.

It is good that you acknowledge this, Lovesa.

I suggest that you investigate the Catholic Church, which presents untenable arguments! In addition, we have logic, reason, and a 2000 unbroken history of the kerygma!

 

[PRmerger]

OK. Let me just make sure I understand here. Is the position of Catholicism, then, that the church is what gives the Bible its validity, and not the other way around?

Well, no, Lovesa. It’s not the Church’s position that we gave the Bible its validity.

History tells us that it was Pope Damasus (a Catholic, of course) who commanded that the books known to be inspired by the Holy Spirit be gathered together into one codex and translated.

It was the Catholic Bishops of the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo who discerned which books those were. Believe me, there were no Protestants in those Councils.

When their work was done, it was Pope Innocent I who promulgated the canon of the Scriptures to the whole world, and made it possible for St. Jerome (a Catholic priest) to fulfill the command to gather them together into one codex and translate them.

These are all historical facts that you can look up in any secular encyclopedia. (originally posted by jmcrae here.)

 

[PRmerger]

And how could the church, if it does not get its power from the Bible it supposedly wrote and developed (Surely God was in there somewhere too, right?

Of course. Just like when Christians claim that Paul wrote the Letter to the Corinthians, we understand that God was in there somewhere too. Or when we talk about the Mosaic law–it is tacitly understood that the source of these laws was God.

Heck, when Christians speak about procreating and giving birth to our babies (quite apropos on Mother’s Day today ) it is with the understanding that God had something to do with this.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

I am just not moving as fast as I used to … and, I will have to take just a few items at a time…

OK. Let me just make sure I understand here. Is the position of Catholicism, then, that the church is what gives the Bible its validity, and not the other way around?

I guess you had a chabnce to review the dates I gave you and saw that the Bible (OT & NT) came from the Catholic Chruch. The Church gets its power from God - it is His Bride and Christ has not only promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail, but that the Spirit of Truth would guide His Church to all Truth. So, the same God that lives in the Church and its members is giving the Bible is life and freedom from error.

However, if the events described in the Bible are what gave Peter and gives the papacy …shortened for brevity… his/its power, respectively, it would seem that the church could very well just pick whatever scripture for canon that seems to support its own power.

Let us look at the audience that was around in 400AD when the Canon of Sacred Scriptures was released. There were still three main religious groups: Pagans, Jews and Catholics. By 400AD there had already been about 3 Successors to the Chair of Peterhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm. While gone, the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire must have still inspired fear in the hearts of believers, there would have been two church councils by then dailycatholic.org/history/councils.htm mainly concerning the major heresy of Arianism (Christ was not God). So, the idea of creating mischief by manipulating scripture would have not made any sense - really. What do you think would have been accomplished? Besides, Christ is Truth - and it is the Devil who is the Father of Lies. Resorting to devilish lies to bolster God’s Kingdom really makes no sense. This is where faith is needed. Admittedly, it is not nearly as exciting as a conspiracy theory involving God, the Church and a lot of evil to deceive innocent believers. This is more like Dan Brown material, eh?

As big a role as the church played, is it fair to say the Catholic Church wrote the Bible when the apostles only kindof wrote it themselves? I don’t say this to raise the question of whether the apostles were Catholic.

Matthew and John were the two Apostles (original Twelve) who wrote the two Gospels bearing their name and Mark and Luke were disciples. When it comes to the who wrote what - I think the best approach is to start out with teh concept that God is the Principal Author. While God did not dictate to the Sacred Writers, He did inspire them - and the bottom line is that God’s message of Salvation was communicated then - and still communicates today.

Now, do you thnk the Apostels were … Lutheran…? Seriously, if not Catholic, just what were they? They had already been arrested, beaten and thrown out of the Temple - so they could not really call themselves Jews. They believed Jesus was the Christ and prayed for His return, as he promised. This question is as serious as a heart attack! Most of the Protestants i have interacted would much rather come up with a fanciful story of pre-Protestant Rebellion individuals hiding out in the desert … until the 16th Century! It is a fanciful tale because - there is absolutely no merit in this tale.

There really is a paper trail - beginning with Christ, appointing Peter as the leader of the Apioostle, and all the apostles as the First Bishops. The Catholic Church can really traces its roots back to Christ and the Apostles - the 16th Century Protestant only have men to look at for these man-made relistions as they developed the traditions of men.

Perhaps this power to compile scripture could also be verified w/the history of the church, i.e. claimes of error-free status? However, what could be done about claims of errors from dissident groups, if the power of the church comes from an event described in a book compiled by the church, which the church also has power over?

I think the take home message is that the Catholic Church has never taught error - not that individual Bishops have not taught error - they have - but, this was not official Chruch doctrine - it was a corruption of it. Like the Judas example previously given - no matter how bad Judas was, He could not nullify Christ’s message of salvation!

Look at the link I gave you on the Church Councils - the Council Fathers joint to the Pope really did fought error And because of the work they did, you believe in the truths as identified by these councils. These truths did not come from Luther (or any of the others) and I think that is an important concept.

God bless

 

[SyCarl]

This is in response to the original posters initial question. I have not read the entire thread and so apologize if I repeat something that has already been said.

Yes Christ did start a Church. Whether we accept a distinction between visible churches and the true Church as invisible consisting of all true believers, it appears that the original church was called Catholic. This name has been carried by one institution from post-Apostolic time to present. However continuity of name does not mean that the present Catholic Church is the same as that original institution.

I do not claim to be an accomplished patristic scholar although I am trying to read as much as I can. To me though, the Church started out as a broad tent in which different views on various subjects could be expressed without someone being called heterodox. Over time this situation of tolerance changed and more things were defined as being necessary for belief with the result that those who disagreed were excluded from the Catholic Church. These departures were more of a branching of the original church than the creation of entirely new churches independent of the shared history.The Reformation was one of the most significant times when that happened.

Many Protestant teachings can be found in the writings of the early church fathers without giving rise to a charge that those writers were heretical. The teachings may not have predominated but neither were they condemned. I have yet to find many situations where Protestant teachings had actually been condemned prior to the Council of Trent.
I will try to provide an example of what I mean.

Purgatory and indulgences were a spark that ignited the Reformation. What did Augustine have to say about a belief in Purgatory?

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it.

(The Enchiridion Chapter 69)
newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm

Purgatory was something that could be believed or not. It seems that Augustine did not limit optional beliefs to Purgatory. He wrote elsewhere:

And if any comparisons shall have been made for thee, if thou hast found them in the Scriptures, believe: if thou shalt not have found them spoken of except by report, do not very much believe them. The thing itself perchance is so, perchance is not so. Do thou profit by it, let that comparison avail for thy salvation.

(Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXVII)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXVII.html

and

But if it is supported by the evident authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which in the Church are called canonical, it must be believed without any reservation. In regard to other witnesses of evidence which are offered as guarantees of belief, you may believe or not, according as you estimate that they either have or have not the weight necessary to produce belief.

(Fathers of the Church, Catholic University of America, Volume 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 147)

To give all the examples I have found in the fathers would take many posts.

 

[CMatt25]

This is in response to the original posters initial question…

Thank you Sy for all you presented in your post. Obviously it is helpful to understand Protestant thought about the original question better when Protestants respond. And I appreciate all of the answers. God bless and peace.

 

[guanophore]

Again with the word deficient. OK. Maybe so.

The Reformers jettisoned some of the Apostolic Teachings in order to justify disobeying the authorities appointed by the successors of the Apostles. They did not realize that they could reject the wolves among the sheep without rejecting the office of the shepherd.

However, I hardly think the average protestant lacks confidence in God. One could even argue that it takes a great deal of confidence in God to believe that he’d leave his church, not only without an single earthly leader, but without absolute guidance, and still believe that the scriptures and such are correct.

I agree. It is only apparently lacking when it comes to God working in and through Catholics.

:bible1: Yes? :bighanky:

LOL.

Actually, that’s only partly it. The idea that God would allow His Word to be corrupted just seems bogus on the face of it to most Christians. After all, Christ said he’d be “with [us] always, to the very end of the age”.

Exactly! So, why would this principle not apply to the Word He placed in the Church? On what basis would He abandon that Word?

Most Lutherans I know take His presence with us to be, for the most part, His presence in scripture, as well as His spiritual presence. The idea that part of God (in this case, His Word) could be corrupted is seen as unbiblical and horrifying. It’s circular reasoning, yes (the Bible is right because it says it’s right and it says it’s right because it’s the Bible which is right) but that’s the logic.

Not so circular, since God is not confined to the Bible. He has made promises to this effect that existed long before the NT.

The curious thing is, why do our separated brethren not apply this principle to the Church?

Spirit of truth=the Bible, or perhaps somebody who hasn’t come along yet. Honestly, this is the only Bible passage I’ve seen so far that seems to validate the papacy. So yay?

No, the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church. Granted He is expressed in the pages of Holy Scripture, but He is not confined to it.

The only relevance this has to the papacy is that God has promised He will lead the Church into all Truth, so that the Pope cannot teach errors to the flock. If error were taught, then souls would pass through the gates of hell, and Christ will not allow this to happen.

I’m not sure why “the powers of death will not prevail against it” is so important, but yes, it is good to know God will not allow His church to be corrupted irreparably. However, the church is still going. I’m pretty sure this is one of those instances where the church is interpreted (by Lutherans) as not being a literal, physical organization. It’s the invisible church again, which is impossible to corrupt. It seems like that’s the way the church is virtually always read.

The two are not separated. Jesus intended for HIs Church to be visible. He will not allow His Holy Bride to be corrupted at all!

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly again. I don’t mean to imply that the teachings of the apostles could not possibly introduce new material, or that Sacred Tradition need confine itself to the Bible. It would not be tradition, then. Granted, my understanding of Sacred Tradition is in its early stages, but I’m hoping to get the hang of it.

The most commonly known product of Sacred Tradition is the Bible.

My issue with Sacred Tradition, as with most Lutherans, is where it seems to directly contradict scripture. Laws that Christ said were rendered unnecessary by the New Covenant, for example.

There are no contradictions between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They both came from the same Source (God) and therefore, cannot contradict. Sacred Tradition (the teaching of the apostles) produced the New Testament.

If it seems they contradict, then one does not understand one, the other, or both.

 

[guanophore]

Difference of opinion again. A Lutheran would argue that that is precisely what the Apostles believed and taught. Their authority was real, yes, but did they have successors? This seems to be a key argument.

It seems to me that a Lutheran could not accept that Apostolic authority has been preserved by God through the Succession. If he did, he could not, in good conscience, continue to exist outside of the authority appointed by Christ. It is the witness of the Scripture, though, and the early church, that this is the case. In scripture their successors are called “episkopos” or overseers of the flock. We call them bishops. They are assisted by presbyters (priests) and diakonos (deacons).

Purely spiritual. The word will remain incorrupt, for the Word has alway been ("& the Word was with God"), and the church invisible will not be completely wiped from the earth. No more or less.

If the word of God is to remain incorrupt, the God will not allow it to be corrupted where He has placed it.

Isa 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Jesus put His Word into the Church, He breathed the Spirit into the Church. If He did not preserve His word in it, why not?

It seems to me that God does take care of those who commit harm. Pontius Pilate, also, was unharmed.

We don’t know this. We know he did not listen to his wife, and he may have regretted it.

that divine intervention happens in a lot of ways and for a lot of people, and does not necessarily point out anyone as totally right.

I agree, but Jesus made certain specific promises to His Church.

What happened to the powerful Jesus we see in Revelation? Are we to think He stopped intervening in this way to keep His Church pure?

I stated that badly. Yeah, evil deeds are not good. However, they can be incredibly useful to God. After all, Jesus had to be crucified some way or another. Is it fair to claim the people responsible are more to blame than any given human being?

Yes.

John 19:10-11
10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

Jesus did not excuse Pilate of his sin. He did say the Jews bore a greater sin.

However, in all seriousness, most Lutherans I know also hate that the Reformation opened the door to so many sects. That was, at least in the beginning, in no way the intention, [my opinion]and it’s a shame it got that far. [/my opinion]

I think the Reformers share that same opinion. All of them despaired of the factions.

One person could compile a book as long as the Bible, having access to all necessary documents? The idea that all individuals had to be corrupt for the Catholic Church to be turned to also seems odd.

I find it very odd, but in order for the Reformers to find it necessary to rewrite the Apostolic faith, it seems that it would be necessary. There could be no really holy Catholics who embraced Catholic faith existing. If there were, they would have embraced false doctrines, and been unable to walk in purity before God.

God could also very well have chosen a faithful disciple to hand over Jesus to the courts, but did he? Also, the church was not terribly corrupt at the time, to my estimation. For what cause would one call all the individuals in it corrupt? The leadership may have been arguably baseless, but it hadn’t declared anything heretical.

There were many corrupt persons in positions of authority. The leadership of the Church had been conflated with secular affairs for centuries. The purity of the gospel was not reaching the people.

Indeed. That was the whole point, after all.

Yes. They did not realize that they could be freed of corruption without changing what was once for all commited to the Church by the Apostles. This being the case, they changed the meanings of some of the words, and reoganized the doctrines of the faith to meet their needs.

:thumbsup: Concurred. You won't get anything against Sacred Tradition from me. Not a typical Lutheran position, but I've never claimed to be a perfect Lutheran.

Better watch yourself! You may have already drifted into Catholicism!

The thing wondered about is whether the church Christ founded is, in fact, the Catholic Church. History doesn’t seem enough of a basis for this, in many humble opinions.

Perhaps you have not studied enough of the history yet?

Agreed. It's an awful shame, too, but if one doesn't accept the idea of one sole authority on scriptural interpretation (which, without divine protection of truth, would invariably lead to hideous corruption) it would seem that it's unavoidable.

Exactly! YOu have arrived at the reason Jesus needed to give the gift of infallibility to the Church. That is what keeps us out of unavoidable corruption based upon our own perceptions.

Evidently I agree here more than I think I do. What's up with that? :shrug:

Luther was a Catholic, and much of the Lutheran faith has retained Catholic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

protestants date their major tenet of “salvation by faith” all the way back to eden. Isn’t it curious that Roman catholics don’t also do this?

I think something slipped your mind, P101. This chapter you cite was written by a catholic, to Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. If Catholics did not trace theri lineage of salvation by grace, through faith, all the way back to Eden, then it would not be there!

The Bible is clear that “without us,” none of the ancestors we have from the OT, who believed “by faith;” would have any hope of “being made perfect,” WITHOUT those of us who believe likewise, “by faith.” (see Heb 11:40) There will be a whole unit of people, from OT & NT who believe that we are saved “by faith” [see Hebrews 11] and this whole unit is The Church. The church is not just some denomination like Roman Catholics who arose out of the first few years of new testament times. The appearance of Roman catholics at this time proves their separation from believers who were our predecessors.

I don’t suppose you could tell us when and how the “roman catholics appeared out of the first few years”?

Perhaps you could also explain how they are separated from the believers of “true” Christians?

I am assuming that you believe all true believers are sabbatarians, are you not?

Perhaps you can also explain how the Eastern ORthodox got off track?

 

[Protestant101]

I think something slipped your mind, P101. This chapter you cite was written by a catholic, to Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. If Catholics did not trace theri lineage of salvation by grace, through faith, all the way back to Eden, then it would not be there!

I don’t suppose you could tell us when and how the “roman catholics appeared out of the first few years”?

Perhaps you could also explain how they are separated from the believers of “true” Christians?

I am assuming that you believe all true believers are sabbatarians, are you not?

Perhaps you can also explain how the Eastern ORthodox got off track?

Well; maybe you can show us where in that scripture the phrase “Roman Catholic” is found?

Every Roman Catholic here traces their church’s beginnings around AD 32 so that leaves you some pretty serious back-tracking to do here.

I might add that when your church says “saved by grace;” (through faith;" you mean something different than do many Christians/Protestants when they say it. “use the language” but keep your own doctrines, seems to be the approach of the Roman Catholic denomination.

The Bible is Christian; it is nowhere close to being “only Catholic.”

 

[seamusmohr]

Read the Bible and passages which correspond?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42 Cephas and Peter are from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively .

Ephesians 2:20

2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Revelation 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

IGNORED before 350 AD? I don’t think so.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church, Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: “I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***

I’m most gratefull for your answer to my mail, how-and-ever, it isn,t so much what I think that matters, or even how your thoughts are taken,it is how the biblical matters we’re discussing were seen by the early fathers.

Your own Church tells us that scripture should be seen through the eyes of those same fathers, yet you signally fail to carry this out!
Casually throwing odd verses of scripture, or mention of the Catholic Church in to the ring doesn’t answer I am a member of a Communion of Catholics some two thousand years old the problem. You have to prove that a catholic Sect that originated at Trent, in 1545 substantiates its claim to be one of the two One, Holy Catholic Church in its entirety!

 

[seamusmohr]

Read the Bible and passages which correspond?

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42 Cephas and Peter are from the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek, respectively .

Ephesians 2:20

2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Revelation 21:14

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

IGNORED before 350 AD? I don’t think so.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine *, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]). \

Shortly after the death of the apostle John, his disciple, Ignatius of Antioch, referred to the Church as the Catholic Church. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans he wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In reading the Early Fathers we see a Church with bishops in authority over priests and deacons. We see a church that baptized infants and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. We see a Church that believed in the primacy of Rome, the intercession of the saints in heaven and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Thus we are lead to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was the Catholic Church.

Justin Martyr

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus

“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place *” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria

“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

In Matthew 16:18 as He was establishing His Church, Jesus gave us a guarantee. He said: “I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” If the Protestant hypothesis is correct, the gates of hell did some serious prevailing and Jesus Christ is a liar. But of course such is not the case.

God Bless, Gary***
GKC;7848254:

And in fact, since you are the one asserting an innovative position not held by the Aposltes and their disciples, it is incumbent upon you, rather, to prove that the three rocks in that passage, Christ, Cephas, and the rocky statement can or should be somehow separated one another.

Read the early fathers! Not just isolated clips.

You have to go farther still and tell us how the Petrine mantel falls upon the Bishop of Rome?

How’s Fred?

GKC
Sadly Fred died at Christmass, a lovely dog! It was after a short period of ,slowing,’ down,not a particular illness that I could see, but he died in his sleep!
It isn’t the same, but I’m obliged that you remember him and taking the trouble to enquire!

 

[seamusmohr]

Hi, Seamushmohr,

Now, accusing your ‘opponents’ of ‘childish’ behavior sounds a bit simplistic to me.

The basic problem was Henry’s marriage to Catherine - everything else orbited around that fact. To claim it was inconsequential is to throw out the driving force (not just libido) that kept Henry at it.

Henry was pridful and willful - and did not tolerate any opposition. His desire to have all the money he wanted to spend on himself and his friends at court (sleeping partners and others) cost his country a lot - and caused discontent amongst the population. Henry was angry at the delay in Rome deciding his case and just took matters into his own hands. If he was his own pope he could wed and bed whomever he wanted - and that too is what he did. He appropirated the monesteries to gain needed revenue - for him it was a strictly financial arrangement. Throwing St. Thomas aBecket’s bones in the river was truly an royal but untimely hubris.

So, no, really - it is not JUST about GKC’s ‘Tripple H Theory" (“Henry Horney Hormones”) but any explanation of Henry’;s break with Rome that did not include Henry’s behavior would be truly a deficient explanation.

But, your continued defense of this philandering monarch and the absolute destruction he wrought on his own subjects is curious, indeed.

God bless
seamusmohr;7847901:

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

Henry was no better and no worse than any of the other European Monarchs at that time. He was, as far as I can tell and according to an article published by the BBC and made in to a watchable and interesting programme, mentally ill, certainly from 1536 onwards, and possibly earlier.
I do not defend monarchy as such, but I object to Henry’s peccadilloes being claimed as a major part of the Reformation. I was taught at infant school that,’ Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. So forget Henry and lets return to the power struggle that existed from 800AD to the 17th, Century within the Catholic Church on the question of the Magisterium ? Four or five councils discussed the matter, this is what you and your colleagues are ignoring, as well as the fact that only two English Kings, neither of whom were honourable men, actually supported the Papal Claims! For about 800 years no papal delegates or letter,bull or any other communication were allowed on to English soil without the state’s permission. Neither were any pope or his emissaries allowed in, why? because the English Church, whilst they would accept the pope’s spiritual position as head of the Roman Church and indeed Primate of the West, wouldn’t allow his interference in English ecclesiastical affairs! They had bishops of their own, with orders dating from scriptural times and rejoiced in this fact!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Let’s face it, Bluegoat, no argument I can make will ever be good enough. I give you dates, facts and documentation and you dismiss them because they are not in keeping with the position you have established.

If I understand you, there are multiple answers - but, basically, the ‘Early Church’ is an abstraction. It’s existence is difficult to prove because, while we may have a starting time (about 32AD and recorded in Matt 16:18) it ceased to exist as “…a unified body” at some unknown date.

One of the few attributes of the ‘Early Church’ is that it was undivided - but, this is an apparant illusion because in the list of churches you provided you include the ‘orthodox Church’ (and I am guessing you meant the Eastern Orthodox Church) which revolted from Rome in 1054 (catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp).

What ever you have studied about the ‘Early Church’ has been an illusion. Since you appear to be evading there is no sense in my continuing on this path.

The Early Church is not only a historic reality - the Church founded by Christ on Peter as recorded in Matt 16:18 and happened about 32AD - but a living reality today. In some superficial physical aspects, it looks nothing like the Church founded by Christ. It is headquartered in Rome (Christ lived His entire life in what is now modern day Israel, except for a brief time in Egypt) There are phones and televisions - and the pope even has an e-mail address! But, when we look beyond the exteriors - we find consistent doctrinal teaching for the past 2000 years:

Baptism is required - and infants are baptized!
Christ is REALLY PRESENT (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity) in the Eucharist
There is one leader - and we affectionately call him ‘Papa’ or Pope
There is an established clergy with Holy Orders in a recognized hierarchy
The Pope and his brother bishops make up the teaching authority of the Church
Men can confess their sins to a priest and have God’s Word that they are forgiven

While I could go on, I will stop here. All of these elements - found in the Early Church, recognized and defended by the Early Church Fathers and continuing on to this very day are found in the Catholic Church.

And, that is the way it is.

God bless

The Early Church doesn’t correspond to any modern body, in the sense that it has become divided. It was the undivided Christian Church, the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch and the rest, the Body of Christ, the catholic and orthodox Church.
You could make an argument that any, or even many modern groups are in some sense or other are descended from that institution, or even constitute that institution. But you actually have to make the argument, which you haven’t really done. Trying to play with language to make your argument is not going to work.

If you are asking which argument I think might be plausible, I’d say there are two possibilities. One is that the institution that existed then has fragmented (due to human sin), and no longer exists at this time as a temporally unified body; presumably it is united in the Body of Christ and perhaps will even be reunited temporally in the future. The other possibility is that the Orthodox Church is that body and other Christian groups are of uncertain status.

I think one could make good arguments for versions of both of those positions.