Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[Lovesa]

I could see why the discussion of the ECF;s would not be very beneficial. They were clearly all Catholic.

See, that is where Protestants and Catholics differ. According to Protestants, the ECFs, the accurate, non-heretical ones anyway, were indeed in line with Protestant thinking. However, they could not be called Protestants, because such a word was not in use nor logical back then.

The CC is not a “denomination”.

Ah, but Protestants believe it is. Most, if not all, start out with the assumption that the CC is a denomination like any other.

and yes the beliefs of the Reformers, by and large, can be found throughout the early church, At that time, they were called “heresies” and those who embraced them “apostates.” They were no longer considered members of the Church founded by Christ.

Yes–and calling them apostates is something Protestants may point to as proff of the growing corruption in the church. These so-called “apostates” are seen as the ones with the truth, and as members of the Church founded by Christ, even if the fallible men of the church administration wanted to declare them seperated.

I will be interested to look at the evidence that supports this imaginative rendition of history.

I’m not sure what kind of evidence I can offer, except that, as you have said, there have always been people in the church that the church claimed were “heretics” or “apostates”. Lutherans would point to the fact that such people stayed in the church as a remnant of truth left in the church. Also, since, if one follows extremely traditional Lutheranism (as I do), they find no argument with the official statements of the papacy up until the Reformation, when things really got ugly. After all, what were the “Catholic” positons of the early church fathers? Bishops? Mary and the saints? The Real Presence in the Eucharist? Baptism of infants? Very traditional Lutherans embrace all of that, so arguing the Catholicity of the ECFs would require something a little more substantial than that.

I am also eager to see the “unity” among the Christians that have separated themselves from the Apostolic Succession.

So am I. It’s a shame that there is so much division. However, Protestants are united where it matters–in the mercy of Christ Jesus.

I am curious to see how this idea can be demonstrated in the Holy Scripture (especially the NT).

Which idea are you referring to?

1. Christ protected His Church by keeping the truth alive in people unjustly deemed “heretics”.
2. He allowed the Church to break away from a false institution. (Which can be seen in any number of warnings against false prophets. There is also a claim in Revelation somewhere about somebody claiming the throne of God, which some read the papacy into.)
3. Since Protestantism survived and continues to teach Biblical truth (Protestants say) to this day, the Church is, in fact, protected.

After all, if there are incorrect doctrines in various denominations, that is the fault of mankind. The important truth–Christ died so save all–is intact, and since the Bible does not confuse people, it is not important to squabble over minor tents of faith. Christ did not come to cause debates about “when does it become the Body” or “do we baptize babies”. He came with a simple message for a world that needed it.

Yes, this is not the first time I have heard this very creative accounting.

Certainly; it’s one of the more popular theories. However, one must keep in mind that Prosestants are used to being told that “God must have abandoned the church” as well, when they do not believe that to be the case. The definition of abandonment seems different from the Catholic and Protestant points of view, a thng that is important in recognizing why the viewpoints on whether Christ abandoned the Church differ. After all, many Protestants would find it silly to suggest that God’s Word is weak enough to need constant correction and policing, along with an earthly authority designed to keep up the truth. Surely God’s Word doesn’t need all that.

Also, I think it noteworthy that many Protestants do not have an absolutist view of Scriptural truth, the way some Catholics seem to. The Bible is seen as something that God wrote, and which is clear, yes. However,

1. This does not mean historical information is never needed.
2. The Jews themselves apparently debated scripture quite a bit in Jesus’ time. Scriptural debate is one of the cornerstones of Christian thought, the idea goes, and an attempt to stifle someone’s voice simply because they disagree with the church seems dishonest and wrong.
3. Even the child Jesus engaged in this debate, Lutherans argue, else He could not have impressed them with His knowlege. Christ did a fair amount of scriptural explanation for others in His time on Earth, but one notices He did not stifle debate, only point out that His view was right. God has that right, but who else? According to Protestants, no one. Even the ECF, even Luther, even the pope could be wrong.
4. It’s fairly accepted that debate and even dissent are, in many Jewish circles, seen as healthy things, and one of the purposes of scripture. In a way, Protestants carry on that tradition by continually seeking the truth in scripture, with religious and historical research, yes, and even with reference to the older traditions, but a solid, never-able-to-refute-it doctrine? It seems misplaced, except perhaps in Lutheran synods, which have been bound by the Augsburg Confession etc. since their rise.

 

[hn160]

Hi, Hn160,

It looks like there has bee activity about the Lutherans following the Anglican example and coming back to the Catholic Church.

500 years is a long time … can you tell me what progress has been made, from your perspective, in this reunification?

God bless

Depends what branch of Lutheranism, the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) which the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and is the liberal branch would like nothing better than to have inter-communion with Rome, after all they signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDL). The ELCA is in communion with The Episcopal Church and Reform Churches. The 500 anniversary of the Reformation is coming up in 2017 and the ELCA would like to have inter-communion by that time and gloss over other differences as they did with the other Churches.
The branch of Lutheranism that I am a member is the Lutheran Church-Missouri (LC-MS) is a conservative confessional Church, We are not a member of the LWF and did not sign the JDDL and are only observers at talks between Lutherans and Catholics.
If Rome was serious about talks between Lutherans and Catholics, they would try to have them with the LC-MS because we have only male clergy, closed Communion and do not ordain homosexuals. The pastors have to sign and subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions. The ELCA ordains women and homosexuals and has open communion with everyone and they are not faithful to the Confessions.

 

[Lovesa]

How would explain the writtings of the ECF in post 456? Considering the Scriptures of the Last Supper were all dated between 30-AD and 50-AD. And today the thinking is closer to all within a decade. Then immediately after you have the ECF such as Ignatius clearly writting “Catholic” how could there be any debate on it significance? Add to equation when Ignatius, for example wrote “Catholic” he found no need to define the word. It was already a known that everyone would understand exactly what he was talking about?

Considering that there was no Protestantism at the time, the idea that the word “Catholic” must invariable refer to the Catholic Church as it stands today, only one of many Christian church bodies, seems to Protestants reading back into history a debate which had no relevance at the time. After all, there was only one visible church at the time, and if Catholic was the word used, very well. However, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church (as the term is used today) ceased being the only church, or, indeed, the true church. Therefore, its use only connotes that the church had not, as of yet, split, and that the word Catholic was still useable and unassociated with false teaching. After all, Protestants frequently use the word catholic, small c, in the creed. It may not be taken with a meaning other than the CC today, but, back then, it was not relevant to squabble over “what kind of Christian” one was.

So, in other words, it doesn’t matter what the ECFs called themselves; there was no split, so they were Catholic in the old sense, not in the post-Reformation “the people the Reformers broke away from” sense.

Also, 456 is a really late date. Considereing the 400 years between that and when the gospels were written, there is a lot of time for error to creep in, no? As long as church history is, that is not recent enough for many Protestants to be impressed. After all, nobody then was alive that knew the apostles. That’s quite a time break, and room for error, considering how quickly history gets manipulated.

After all, it’s 2011. Does anyone remember the 80s accurately? We have the internet to store information, advanced book printing, and all that. However, if we had to recreate the 80s right now we would be heinously inaccurate.

Thus you have the bridge from the Last Supper to then Ignatius being fed to the Lions crossed within a couple decades?

While I believe it makes for wonderful conversation, and I also believe its no wonder there are doubters, we have young men and women who doubt we landed on the Moon in the 60’s. So this here comes as no surprize. Nonetheless, scripture and the ECF leave “zero” doubt to the authentic church, which is the Catholic Church.

I can clearly understand why one who is not part of the CC would want to deny the Truth of it. The magnitude of the alternative is enormous. Wouldn’t you agree?

The idea that the Catholic Church is correct? It would have a big impact on Protestants if proven irrevocably true, yes. However, I think a lot of Protestants would have no regrets in having been Protestant all that time. After all, all humans can do is follow the Word to the best of their abilities and in a way that adheres to the rule of their conscience, as informed by God’s Word. As long as we do that, God is merciful and will forgive.

Theres a special place in my heart for Lutherans, I’ve done much reading and research on out lost brother Martin Luther. In many ways I seen some great thinking. But the error is very hard to overlook which I believe Erasmus latched onto very quickly.

I could easily picture Luther kneeling and ascending up those Holy Stairs for the indulgence of each step with time erased from Purgatory. I wasn’t there but I could feel him.

Awww… That’s such a cute picture. I’ve always had a soft spot in my for Luther and his sincerity and zeal, and that just seems too sweet.

However, in all seriousness, I do think that Luther’s beliefs have been a little corrupted by newer Lutherans. Granted, with the doctrine of sola scriptura, they have abandoned many things he did not abolish, but it still seems a shame to me that a new church should have resulted where he did not want one to. (And I do believe he did not intend to cause a split; I know there’s debate over this, but that’s the side I’m on.) It’s one of the reasons I’m looking into succession, on the off-chance that his rejection of it was informed a little by his rejection from the church. After all, the church was far more heinously corrupt back then than one could claim it is now.

 

[Lovesa]

If Rome was serious about talks between Lutherans and Catholics, they would try to have them with the LC-MS because we have only male clergy, closed Communion and do not ordain homosexuals. The pastors have to sign and subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions. The ELCA ordains women and homosexuals and has open communion with everyone and they are not faithful to the Confessions.

If these are the criteria, Rome could also call the WELS. W’ere so conscious of the above and of the Confessions that we’ve been known to annoy the more liberal synods. Not that I’m advocating the idea or anything.

The main obstacle would be their consciousness of the confessions, and the rampant misconceptions about Catholicism. npatrol: They’re stubborn as all getout, and the church I go to has “sola scriptura sola fidele sola gracia” painted on the wall. . :knight1:

 

[hn160]

If these are the criteria, Rome could also call the WELS. W’ere so conscious of the above and of the Confessions that we’ve been known to annoy the more liberal synods. Not that I’m advocating the idea or anything.

The main obstacle would be their consciousness of the confessions, and the rampant misconceptions about Catholicism. npatrol: They’re stubborn as all getout, and the church I go to has “sola scriptura sola fidele sola gracia” painted on the wall. . :knight1:

It would seem to me, if Rome was serious about talks, they would talk to the conservative Lutheran Churches where they would have more in common than with the liberal branches.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

Let me address a couple of the ideas you presented and see if we can throw some light on some of the shadowy areas… You really cover a lot of ground … more than I can keep up with.

See, that is where Protestants and Catholics differ. According to Protestants, the ECFs, the accurate, non-heretical ones anyway, were indeed in line with Protestant thinking. However, they could not be called Protestants, because such a word was not in use nor logical back then.

I think it is time to get down to specifics. We can talk about the Love of Christ and still fail to do what He told us to do - and we will be like the people He described who called out, :Lord! Lord! (Matt 7:21)

For example, my understanding is that Luther invented or devloped or created “Sola Scruptura” as one of his main contributions to the Protestant Revolt.

Could you identify any of the ECFs who:

1,) actually championed SS as appropriate doctrine.

2.) promoted the idea that the Holy Spirit actually guides everyone into a proper interpretation of the Holy Scripture

3.) identified man as totally corrupt and devoid of any goodness (I think Luther compared humanity to cow dung out in a pasture.) with the grace of God covering us (so, we have this cow dung covered with snow so it simply appears to be white mounds on a white field… but, we are still like the cow dung under the snow). Now, I just happen to remember this analogy of his … but, the idea is that we are totally corrupt.

The ECFs were very good for the most part, but there were not infallible. The challenge is to identify these early threads of the Revolt as coming from the ECF.

Yes–and calling them apostates is something Protestants may point to as proff of the growing corruption in the church. These so-called “apostates” are seen as the ones with the truth, and as members of the Church founded by Christ, even if the fallible men of the church administration wanted to declare them seperated.

This is where it is important to keep our sense of history in check with actual time periods.

If we look at the ECF as being roughtly from the 1st to the 6th Century (here is a link on who the ECF were: newadvent.org/fathers/ ) If you go to this link and look for Ambrose and click on his work on Repentance and then look at the top left you will get a lot of inforation. For example, this item begins with:

“These two books were written against the Novatian heresy, which took its name, and to a considerable extent its form, from Novatus, a priest of the Church of Carthage, and Novatian, schismatically consecrated bishop at Rome. It was the outcome of a struggle which had long existed in the Church upon the question of the restitution to Church privileges of those who had fallen into grievous sin, and the possibility of their repentance.”

So here you have a recogized ECF fighting a hersy. It wold be good to see exactly which heresies were in existence at the time and which one(s) in the 16th Century are being claimed. There is this wonderful paper trail - and it is all dated. Luther was not the first to split witht he Catholic Church - and he will not be the last. What is important is to try and accurately determine what was going at the time of the Apostles and the ECF and to see who is stretching the truth about their place in history.

I wold like to work on this before venturing into the other areas you touched on.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

You really have to defend that statement with references. Basically what I understand you to be saying is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) with the promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevailed - went out of existence! It would appear that Christ’s Church was vanquished!!! What I see in Protestantism is competing and conflicting groups all claiming to have true doctrine and all contradicting one another - and you multiply this by 30,000 of them!

Please, when did this major disaster take place and what is the reference?

Considering that there was no Protestantism at the time, the idea that the word “Catholic” must invariable refer to the Catholic Church as it stands today, only one of many Christian church bodies, seems to Protestants reading back into history a debate which had no relevance at the time. After all, there was only one visible church at the time, and if Catholic was the word used, very well. However, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church (as the term is used today) ceased being the only church, or, indeed, the true church. Therefore, its use only connotes that the church had not, as of yet, split, and that the word Catholic was still useable and unassociated with false teaching. After all, Protestants frequently use the word catholic, small c, in the creed. It may not be taken with a meaning other than the CC today, but, back then, it was not relevant to squabble over “what kind of Christian” one was.

So, in other words, it doesn’t matter what the ECFs called themselves; there was no split, so they were Catholic in the old sense, not in the post-Reformation “the people the Reformers broke away from” sense.

 

[Lovesa]

I think it is time to get down to specifics. We can talk about the Love of Christ and still fail to do what He told us to do - and we will be like the people He described who called out, :Lord! Lord! (Matt 7:21)

For example, my understanding is that Luther invented or devloped or created “Sola Scruptura” as one of his main contributions to the Protestant Revolt.

Could you identify any of the ECFs who:

1,) actually championed SS as appropriate doctrine.

No; I’m afraid I’m not a scholar on the ECFs. Besides that, I’m not sure that the overriding definition of sola scriptura presented by many Catholics is quite fair. Scripture may be the only definitive source of truth, but Luther never banned using tradition, history,etc. to help interpret it.

This, however, is one area where the early church fathers seem Catholic, yes. However, one must keep in mind that they, in the protestant view, do not have an authroritative position in declaring tradition equal to scripture–They were simply men using the resources they had.

Also, one could argue that it was unnecessary to “champion” sola scriptura at the time. Tradition hadn’t been seen to eclipse scripture yet.

2.) promoted the idea that the Holy Spirit actually guides everyone into a proper interpretation of the Holy Scripture

Did I make it seem that way? If that were the case, we would not have almost as many interpretations as there are protestants.

However, scripture is understandable in that, when read with due research or with guidance from someone who has studied it, it is always clear. Also, there is a tendency among some Protestants to take the Bible literally, except clearly stated parables. It means what it says, some say, and if others disagree with me they’re not reading it in an unbiased manner because I totally am (silly; I know). I don’t know of any ECFs with this view of scripture as easy to understand on one’s own, but Protestants see it right in the Bible.

31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

1 Corinthians 14:31-33

3.) identified man as totally corrupt and devoid of any goodness (I think Luther compared humanity to cow dung out in a pasture.) with the grace of God covering us (so, we have this cow dung covered with snow so it simply appears to be white mounds on a white field… but, we are still like the cow dung under the snow). Now, I just happen to remember this analogy of his … but, the idea is that we are totally corrupt.

Again, I don’t know the Church Fathers perfectly. I do, however, know that Lutherans find this in Scripture.

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”**
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Romans 13:9-19
**

6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Isaiah 64:6

 

[Lovesa]

The ECFs were very good for the most part, but there were not infallible. The challenge is to identify these early threads of the Revolt as coming from the ECF.

Exactly. However, the ECFs had no teachings with contradicted traditional Lutheran teaching, with the possible exceptions of tradition and succession, and I have yet to hear an ECF talk about a pope. Bishops, yes, but no pope. Why is that?

This is where it is important to keep our sense of history in check with actual time periods.

If we look at the ECF as being roughtly from the 1st to the 6th Century (here is a link on who the ECF were: newadvent.org/fathers/ ) If you go to this link and look for Ambrose and click on his work on Repentance and then look at the top left you will get a lot of inforation. For example, this item begins with:

“These two books were written against the Novatian heresy, which took its name, and to a considerable extent its form, from Novatus, a priest of the Church of Carthage, and Novatian, schismatically consecrated bishop at Rome. It was the outcome of a struggle which had long existed in the Church upon the question of the restitution to Church privileges of those who had fallen into grievous sin, and the possibility of their repentance.”

So here you have a recogized ECF fighting a hersy. It wold be good to see exactly which heresies were in existence at the time and which one(s) in the 16th Century are being claimed. There is this wonderful paper trail - and it is all dated. Luther was not the first to split witht he Catholic Church - and he will not be the last. What is important is to try and accurately determine what was going at the time of the Apostles and the ECF and to see who is stretching the truth about their place in history.

Indeed; Lutherans also would hold that belief to be a heresy. It is the duty of any Christian to fight heresy where he/she sees it. Also, it is accepted that Luther was not the first to split with the Church. He was merely

1. one of the most successful
2. not seen as heretical by many people to this day.
   Can one say the same of Novatians?

Another problem with the ECFs is that, while they may have helped keep the church alive and well, they are, as you said, not infallible. While Lutherans may look to their writings, their writings are seen neither as errorless nor as necessary to a person’s faith. Therefore, pointing out that the ECFs disagreed on a couple minor points while having no definitive church authority except that allowed by various bishops seems to imply that their differences in belief are not that important. After all, there are ECFs that disagree with modern Catholicism on a couple things. This does not mean they were not Catholic in the modern sense. In the same way there are ECFs that agree with Protestantism on many issues, while having one or two errors. This is not seen as such a problem, as they are only human.

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, Lovesa,

You really have to defend that statement with references. Basically what I understand you to be saying is that the Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) with the promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevailed - went out of existence! It would appear that Christ’s Church was vanquished!!! What I see in Protestantism is competing and conflicting groups all claiming to have true doctrine and all contradicting one another - and you multiply this by 30,000 of them!

Please, when did this major disaster take place and what is the reference?

The major disaster is the Reformation (or, rather, the abuses leading to it), to most Protestants’ understanding. I don’t know what kind of reference I can offer–I think we’re all agreed that the Reformation happened. The people with Reformist ideas (not confined to Luther–as someone pointed out, there were actually several reformations) were the true church.

And, no, the church did not go out of existence.

How about an analogy? The Reformers (who were Catholics) and the non-reformed Catholics were part of the same church–like a loaf of bread. However, the Catholic part of the loaf got moldy and bad. It was impractical, given the CCs size and influence, to remove the moldy part, so the good part seperated itself, removed itself, in other words, as an act of preservation. Did the loaf in this scenario cease to exist? No; it merely seperated itself form the moldy part, which, claim as it might to be the loaf in its whole and to have lost part of itself, is not the whole loaf. The good part of the loaf lives on, not destroyed, merely with a slightly different identity.

I hope that makes sense; my metaphors sometimes get lives of their own if I don’t watch them.

As for Protestantism contradicting itself through various denominations, obviously not all these denominations are correct. However, the one with the whole truth is difficult to find, if not impossible, so Protestants are free to take the view that either

1. their denomination is correct because of suchandsuch proof, or
2. Christ did not establish a church with the intent for people to nitpick over fussy details, but to keep strong the faith of His followers. Little disputes between denominations don’t really matter, unless they wildly contradict scripture and thereby become heresy.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Considering that there was no Protestantism at the time, the idea that the word “Catholic” must invariable refer to the Catholic Church as it stands today, …

Well, as it stands today and stood at the time the were feeding Christians to the Lions with Nero.

only one of many Christian church bodies, seems to Protestants reading back into history a debate which had no relevance at the time. After all, there was only one visible church at the time, and if Catholic was the word used, very well. …

No problem here, I’m good with that, the evidence is substancial.

However, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church (as the term is used today) ceased being the only church, or, indeed, the true church. …

No it never ceased being the True Church but indeed it ceased being the only church. We still have but “one” Catholic Church, how many protestant denomnations exist? I’ve lost count around 1000.

Therefore, its use only connotes that the church had not, as of yet, split, and that the word Catholic was still useable and unassociated with false teaching. …

The Church has alays been the only church with Apostolic Succession. We already know human error existed in the church with the deial by Peter trice. Far as I know He never returned and gave anyone else authority of His church, which by Gospel and apostolic succession still belongs to the Catholics?

After all, Protestants frequently use the word catholic, small c, in the creed. It may not be taken with a meaning other than the CC today, but, back then, it was not relevant to squabble over “what kind of Christian” one was…

Well back then you were either in schism or a heretic of followed the One True Church of God. Its really no different today.

So, in other words, it doesn’t matter what the ECFs called themselves; there was no split, so they were Catholic in the old sense, not in the post-Reformation “the people the Reformers broke away from” sense…

Agree’d and we now have a split, of a split with more splits. Geez you need a scorecard

Also, 456 is a really late date. Considereing the 400 years between that and when the gospels were written, there is a lot of time for error to creep in, no? …

I don’t know where you came up with that date. Mark and John were written by 50. The destruction of the Temple is included in Mark and that occured in 70?

As long as church history is, that is not recent enough for many Protestants to be impressed. After all, nobody then was alive that knew the apostles. That’s quite a time break, and room for error, considering how quickly history gets manipulated…

Its doesn’t change the Truth, Gods timeline is perfect for he is perfect. Man makes mistakes in interpretation. Thats what is sad. I understand the state of mind. Nonetheless History and Archaelology, and btw not just Christian, but Jewish and Roman also confirm the Christian movement with the Apostles and the death of Peter and Paul. And historians of many cultures have dated the Roman period with Nero and the Christians being blamed for the Fire etc. All historic.

After all, it’s 2011. Does anyone remember the 80s accurately? We have the internet to store information, advanced book printing, and all that. However, if we had to recreate the 80s right now we would be heinously inaccurate…

I guess it depends on what you were doing. I was dodging bullets so I remember the 60-70’s very well. Matter of fact, like yesterday.

The idea that the Catholic Church is correct? It would have a big impact on Protestants if proven irrevocably true, yes. However, I think a lot of Protestants would have no regrets in having been Protestant all that time…

Well one truth is for sure. The Kindom of Heaven to come, cannot exist as we live here on earth today. Simply put, this isn’t working. And I agree with Billy Graham “That if God allows the USA to continue as it is, He will have to make ammends to Sodom and Gomorrah” And I assure you, that won’t happen!

After all, all humans can do is follow the Word to the best of their abilities and in a way that adheres to the rule of their conscience, as informed by God’s Word. As long as we do that, God is merciful and will forgive…

Well you have to realize theres what God is telling you, what satan in telling you, then what “you” think. problem is satan’s greatest trick is placing an “I” in front of all his thoughts so you think they are your thoughts.

So right, moral and good and really become a constant Bible check. Lets face it it all depends how far you chose to climb up Jacobs Ladder. You ever read the Catholic Mystics?

God Bless, Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres another Time Line. Theres a few glitchs in it for exapmle its known today that the Gospel of John was written by 50 and written within a decade of Mark. But you have to do so much cross-referrencing to verify it, that it in itself becomes a long time consuming process. Pope Benedict XVI does much of the cross-referrence in his latest Book “Jesus of Narareth”.

bibleprobe.com/church_history.htm

 

[Lovesa]

Well, as it stands today and stood at the time the were feeding Christians to the Lions with Nero.

You know, Lutherans also consider the Christians and their situation with Nero part of their history? The fact that the church was not divided at the time means that all Christians can embrace that as their heritage, not merely “Catholic” heritage, which is, by its nature, exclusivist.

No it never ceased being the True Church but indeed it ceased being the only church. We still have but “one” Catholic Church, how many protestant denomnations exist? I’ve lost count around 1000.

Are there really over 1000 Protestant denominations? Somehow that feels like a very high number. Also, there is still only “one” Lutheran church, “one” Methodist church–divided into synods, maybe, with a few minor differences, but the argument that there are different denominations doesn’t say much.

Besides, what about the Orthodox and the Anglicans? The Eastern church, even, has certain different customs. While all Catholics are under the pope, they aren’t exactly alike. In the same way, Protestants still have a uniting factor–the break away from Rome.

The Church has alays been the only church with Apostolic Succession. We already know human error existed in the church with the deial by Peter trice. Far as I know He never returned and gave anyone else authority of His church, which by Gospel and apostolic succession still belongs to the Catholics?

Peter didn’t officially preach incorrect things, and Peter did not abuse his station. Also, his successor did not do that. A long string of bad popes had to occur for the Reformation to come about.

Well back then you were either in schism or a heretic of followed the One True Church of God. Its really no different today.

Ah, but Protestants say that the Catholic Church is a schism. It broke off from God’s truth, leaving only the Reformers left.

Agree’d and we now have a split, of a split with more splits. Geez you need a scorecard

Indeed, a lot of splits. But, even if this is not the will of God, it is what has happened. It is not God’s will that people not be saved either, but it happens. Can we take this as proof that the Church fails to evangalize? Of course not.

I don’t know where you came up with that date. Mark and John were written by 50. The destruction of the Temple is included in Mark and that occured in 70?

I got it from you:

How would explain the writtings of the ECF in post 456?

It was to point out that writings written that long after the gospels are prone to error, because of the distortion history causes. Lutherans do not see that date as close in the least to when the apostles were alive, and it does not fall under the authority of the writings of 70 and before.

Its doesn’t change the Truth, Gods timeline is perfect for he is perfect. Man makes mistakes in interpretation. Thats what is sad. I understand the state of mind. Nonetheless History and Archaelology, and btw not just Christian, but Jewish and Roman also confirm the Christian movement with the Apostles and the death of Peter and Paul. And historians of many cultures have dated the Roman period with Nero and the Christians being blamed for the Fire etc. All historic.

Has anyone ever suggested that Protestants deny the persecution of Christians by Nero? This was all covered in our high school’s Church History class. All Christians were united, so there was no need for asserting the importance of that incident in the debate about Catholicism vs. Protestantism. The fact that Christians died for their faith back then says nothing to the truth concerning the Bible.

I guess it depends on what you were doing. I was dodging bullets so I remember the 60-70’s very well. Matter of fact, like yesterday.

You must have a marvelous memory, then. Unfortunately, the human mind has a tendency to either blacken or sugar-coat the past in a way that distorts history, even in textbooks. If I were to remember the 90s, say, I would remember the things I encountered and little else. After all, a lot happened beyond the scope of my experience that I’m not qualified to talk authoritatively about.

Well one truth is for sure. The Kindom of Heaven to come, cannot exist as we live here on earth today. Simply put, this isn’t working. And I agree with Billy Graham “That if God allows the USA to continue as it is, He will have to make ammends to Sodom and Gomorrah” And I assure you, that won’t happen!

Here’s hoping.

Well you have to realize theres what God is telling you, what satan in telling you, then what “you” think. problem is satan’s greatest trick is placing an “I” in front of all his thoughts so you think they are your thoughts.

That’s certainly the greatest difficulty in reading the Bible, especially from a Protestant point of view. That’s why it’s not seen as something to do without guidance or research. That’s not the official church position; in theory you can do it alone. However, in practice, I find that one frequently consults the pastor, synod, etc.

Besides, a popular Protestant view is that Satan is behind the extra-biblical teachings of the Catholic Church. After all, successors, infallibiliy, etc. Just sounds a little too good, doesn’t it?

So right, moral and good and really become a constant Bible check.

Yup. :yup: That’s what it’s all about.

 

[Lovesa]

Lets face it it all depends how far you chose to climb up Jacobs Ladder

Indeed. Protestants have their way(s), and Catholics seem to find that way to be contrary to church teaching on occasion. It seems to me, however, that if one relies on Christ and His teachings, they cannot go very far astray. That is the Lutheran view anyway. (After all, there are people who treat Jacob’s Ladder like an escalator. )

You ever read the Catholic Mystics?

I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean. I did a quick Google search, and didn’t find a definitive list of “mystics”. However, I have read works by St. Teresa of Avila and St. Therese of Lisieux, both who were called mystics on various websites.

Are they? And, if so, what would I learn from them in relation to the discussion?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

Maybe the heart of the matter lies with the loaf of bread similie you used…

How about an analogy? The Reformers (who were Catholics) and the non-reformed Catholics were part of the same church–like a loaf of bread.

First, let’s take a quick look at Luther’s actions. Being a Catholic is more involved than having been baptized into the faith. It is clear that Luther was in active revolt from the authority of the Pope Leo X prior to his formal excommunication. Here is a Lutheran site you may be interested in: susanlynnpeterson.com/luther/reform.html Based on my reading, Luther was correct in criticizing the sale of indulgences i 1517 - those who were engaged in this gravely sinful practice were truly giving public scandal. But,he went on to criticize indulgences, the temporal remission of sin and Purgatory. He really went beyond what he started out to do - and here were the beginnings of the problems. By the time 1520 comes around, we find Luther is no longer interested in just the sinful practice of selling indulgences - but, has set his sites on learning the teaching of Hus and Wyclif.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm Luther is actively preaching against the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope,. He is then formally excommunicated.

I took the liberty of modifying the loaf of bread analogy you provided.

I would submit that Christ brought in all of the ingredientes - from the prophecies of His coming in the OT to His miracles in the NT and established that He was “The Divine Baker” (bear with me on this…) In Matt 16:18 He selects the head baker that will do the baking once He leaves earth. Jesus tells the head baker that there will never be any errors in the recipe, but this does not mean that the head baker or his assistants can’t make a mess! On Pentecost the Holy Spirit comes and the baker and his assistants see the first loaves emerge from the oven - 3,000 souls declare for Christ and are Baptized. The name of the bakery is called the Catholic Church.

Many learned and wise men came to the bakery and wrote words of encouragement and information on the what the bakery was doing and how they all relate to the Divine Baker. During this time rival bakers tried to produce bogus loaves that were neither nutritious or beneficial and the head baker worked to provide the proper recipie to all.

There were times when the some of the head bakers and their assistants made a mess in the bakery, did not properly clean the area and gave the impression that they were not totally focused on fulfilling the requirements of the Divine Baker. While the ingredients were as the Divine Baker wanted them - changes or reforms needed to be made to the bakery.

Some were not satisfied with having a bakery that was messy and failed to live up to expectations - and took it on themselves to set up competing bakeries with modified recipies not from the Divine Baker… although these rival bakers tried to claim that their bread was better because they were not associated with a messy bakery - their bread was not the real thing. (And, before long, these rival bakeries fell into mess themselves… causing still more rival bakeries to split off until over 30,000 bakeries - all promising a nutritious product but all lacking approval of the Divine Baker flooded the area.)

The Divine Baker never withdrew His love for the bakery he founded - or pulled His authority from the head baker. Those who left - even though there was a mess from time to time - were not able to get the nutritous bread made originally by the Divine Baker from His Own Flesh and Blood.

The bakery continues to follow the recipie given by the Divine Baker and nutritious Bread is served to all who come in accordance with the requirements to receive this Free Bread. Other bakeries can not offer this, no matter what their bakery may look like. All are awaiting the return of the Divine Baker.

Now, while more elaborate … this may not offer as much light as I would like. Believe me when I say, this is an original story - so, there are bound to be problems… but, I think you get the idea I am trying to convey.

God bless

I hope that makes sense; my metaphors sometimes get lives of their own if I don’t watch them.

If you use ‘like or as’ the metaphor is now called a similie…

God bless

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

I must admit, I am quite surprised with your answer about this being so well established in the academic world.

The science and art of history is discovery and of placing things within context. This ‘advantage’ you speak of is a cover. Academics are to let the light of knowledge shine in their discipline and throughout the world so that learning can advance. I was honestly sad to read your response… it is a true disappointment.

There really was a Jesus Christ who was executed in Judea by the Roman Empire under Governor Pilate. Christ really did found His Church - and that Church can be traced from Him to Peter and through the 1st - 5th Centuries specifically and most clearly through the Early Church Fathers. There were only three religious groups at the time: Pagan, Jew and Catholic. So I say and so attest the ECF of this fact.

And, that is the way it is.

Did everyone live righteous lives filled with faith and charity … no. Did everyone do their absolute best to constantly further the Kingdom of Heaven … probably not. Is God still in charge … oh, yes and His Church, the Catholic Church is bringing the Grace of God to all who come to her. God’s Church has also been officially teachig the faith without error for the 1500 years before the Protestant Revolt and the 500 years following it.

God bless

Does it ever occur to you that there might be another way to look at things? Does it worry you that there are many very holly, intelligent, and learned people who don’t read the history of the Church, or the Fathers, the way you do? People like C.S. Lewis, or Timothy Ware, or heck even the Dali Lama?

All of the things you mention here are well understood and acknowledged by non-Catholic Christians. And yet they are not all led immediately to the conclusion that Catholicism is true.

As to the other point: As far as I know, Catholic scholars have no problem with the term early Church. They of course think the Catholic Church was the early church, but they still use it when that is what they are talking about. I haven’t, however, seen any try to argue that Protestants or the Orthodox do not share the history of the early church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Of course it has occured to me - there are over 30,000 different ways of looking at Christ and coming up with answers that Christ did not give. There is no disputing that Faith is a gift.

You know, in an era where precision is valued, claiming that Catholic Scholars have not trouble in talking about the Early Church as the Catholic Church but others talk about the Early Church as something else - makes no sense. Why anyone would not only acknowledge confusion on terminology but claim this is appropriate and currently going on in the academic world is truly a mystery to me…

There was no nameless group following Christ for the 1st - 6th Centuries. The first group was called The Way and we only hear about the once. Then in 108AD we hear from Ignatius of Antioch calling the group catholic. There were only 3 groups around at the time: Pagan, Jewish, and Catholic (upper case “C”) This is the group of Christians that Nero blamed on burning Rome, this is the group whose leader resided in Rome and called the Pope, this is the group that Constentine freed from the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire - and this is the group that the Protestants revolted from.

Now, if there is another group, please name it.

God bless

Does it ever occur to you that there might be another way to look at things? Does it worry you that there are many very holly, intelligent, and learned people who don’t read the history of the Church, or the Fathers, the way you do? People like C.S. Lewis, or Timothy Ware, or heck even the Dali Lama?

All of the things you mention here are well understood and acknowledged by non-Catholic Christians. And yet they are not all led immediately to the conclusion that Catholicism is true.

As to the other point: As far as I know, Catholic scholars have no problem with the term early Church. They of course think the Catholic Church was the early church, but they still use it when that is what they are talking about. I haven’t, however, seen any try to argue that Protestants or the Orthodox do not share the history of the early church.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Of course it has occured to me - there are over 30,000 different ways of looking at Christ and coming up with answers that Christ did not give. There is no disputing that Faith is a gift.

You know, in an era where precision is valued, claiming that Catholic Scholars have not trouble in talking about the Early Church as the Catholic Church but others talk about the Early Church as something else - makes no sense. Why anyone would not only acknowledge confusion on terminology but claim this is appropriate and currently going on in the academic world is truly a mystery to me…

There was no nameless group following Christ for the 1st - 6th Centuries. The first group was called The Way and we only hear about the once. Then in 108AD we hear from Ignatius of Antioch calling the group catholic. There were only 3 groups around at the time: Pagan, Jewish, and Catholic (upper case “C”) This is the group of Christians that Nero blamed on burning Rome, this is the group whose leader resided in Rome and called the Pope, this is the group that Constentine freed from the murderous persecutions of the Roman Empire - and this is the group that the Protestants revolted from.

Now, if there is another group, please name it.

God bless

You know, I had Catholic teachers when I was in university, who were published scholars. Another of my professors was the first Protestant to ever be visiting Patristics professor at the Augustinianum in Rome. Are you suggesting that I am making up the fact that they would use the term “Early Church” or that they understood that non-Catholics might actually have some real grasp of history and patristics? Really?

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, Lovesa,

Maybe the heart of the matter lies with the loaf of bread similie you used…

First, let’s take a quick look at Luther’s actions. Being a Catholic is more involved than having been baptized into the faith. It is clear that Luther was in active revolt from the authority of the Pope Leo X prior to his formal excommunication. Here is a Lutheran site you may be interested in: susanlynnpeterson.com/luther/reform.html Based on my reading, Luther was correct in criticizing the sale of indulgences i 1517 - those who were engaged in this gravely sinful practice were truly giving public scandal. But,he went on to criticize indulgences, the temporal remission of sin and Purgatory. He really went beyond what he started out to do - and here were the beginnings of the problems. By the time 1520 comes around, we find Luther is no longer interested in just the sinful practice of selling indulgences - but, has set his sites on learning the teaching of Hus and Wyclif.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm Luther is actively preaching against the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope,. He is then formally excommunicated.

True; his teaching did change as he became more distanced from the Catholic Church, which seems to me unfortunate. However, this does not negate for Protestants the idea that he had truth in what he taught.

I took the liberty of modifying the loaf of bread analogy you provided.

I would submit that Christ brought in all of the ingredientes - from the prophecies of His coming in the OT to His miracles in the NT and established that He was “The Divine Baker” (bear with me on this…) In Matt 16:18 He selects the head baker that will do the baking once He leaves earth. Jesus tells the head baker that there will never be any errors in the recipe, but this does not mean that the head baker or his assistants can’t make a mess! On Pentecost the Holy Spirit comes and the baker and his assistants see the first loaves emerge from the oven - 3,000 souls declare for Christ and are Baptized. The name of the bakery is called the Catholic Church.

…

The bakery continues to follow the recipie given by the Divine Baker and nutritious Bread is served to all who come in accordance with the requirements to receive this Free Bread. Other bakeries can not offer this, no matter what their bakery may look like. All are awaiting the return of the Divine Baker.

You see, in these two analogies we have the difference between the Catholic and Protestant views of the Reformation. What I find interesting in yours that, unlike in mine (if I’m reading correctly) the loaf represents the teachings of the church, whereas in mine the loaf is believers. Not sure what that might mean–I just find it interesting where the emphasis lies.

Now, while more elaborate … this may not offer as much light as I would like. Believe me when I say, this is an original story - so, there are bound to be problems… but, I think you get the idea I am trying to convey.

Sure; it’s pretty much the position the Catholic Church has on the Reformation. It’s with this idea that the CC seems to proceed when considering the Reformation. However, that is not how it is understood by Protestants–which leads to strange debates. With the people talking coming from these two points of view, things can get confusing at times.

If you use ‘like or as’ the metaphor is now called a similie…

Also, though I don’t mean to seem picky, the sentence in which I used the word like is a simile: “like a loaf of bread”. However, in subsequent sentences the word “like” is abandoned, providing for the use of “is”, where this “is” that. While it started as a simile, the paragraph turned into a metaphor. So, I guess the paragraph has both, but the main meat of the sentence fails to use “like” or “as” and so it cannot be called a simile.

Example: Rain is like soda.(<simile) Raindrops are fizz, and puddles are the glass. (<metaphor) (Not that important. I’m just an enthusiast of the English language. Also, I study it a lot.)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

The conclusions I have made are from my understanding of the statements you have offered.

I think it is time to return to the thread.

God bless

You know, I had Catholic teachers when I was in university, who were published scholars. Another of my professors was the first Protestant to ever be visiting Patristics professor at the Augustinianum in Rome. Are you suggesting that I am making up the fact that they would use the term “Early Church” or that they understood that non-Catholics might actually have some real grasp of history and patristics? Really?