Hi Tom, my apologies for misunderstanding what it was you were interested in me further elaborating on. If “whatever” is taken literally to an extreme, it could include the selling of indulgences. Which as we know opened the floodgates for reform. God bless and peace!
OK, so, how do you explain omitting Lutherans from the early years of church history? Can you claim that, because Lutherans did not exist, any Christian may not look back on those times as his or own past, due to his or her faith? That seems a large claim to make. Also, note that I have never claimed that there were Lutherans back then. There were Christians. Not Catholics. Not Methodists. Not Orthodox. Christians. Even if you believe they differ from the ECFs on some matters, they (people who would not be Catholics today) were still part of the church. There were no divisions, therefore all Christians may look to that as part of the greater Christian past.
There isn’t a logical fallacy, and I have only ever seen this idea argued on internet forums. I am not sure why people use it - it cannot be a very effective apologetics tool, because for it to work, one already has to accept that the modern Catholic Church is the same as the pre-Schism Church. Obviously if one thought that one would likely already be Catholic.
Of course it is your history. Even secular scholars like Bart Ehrman (former evangelical now atheist) acknowledge that all Protestant religions came from the Catholic Church.
No person was referred to as a Catholic in early Christianity. The term “Catholic” only referred to the Church and its members were the Christians. Even the Pagans knew this.
The only other type of “Christians” (and I use that term loosely) were the various Gnostic groups and they were not part of the Church.
You are correct! There was one Universal non-denominational Church. BTW, Catholic means Universal and the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that is not a denomination (division). Ironically, the modern day Christian Churches that refer to themselves as non-denominational are actually more denominational than the main-stream Protestant denominations.
Actually they were hidden before 400. The Roman Empire would have campaigns to destroy Christian Scripture and they often did destroy it. The Christians had to protect the Scripture and so they would hide them when not in use. It would be hard to believe they would put the scriptures in the hands of people who were not members of the Church.
Check out Acts 8: 9-24 where we see how Simon Magnus is greeted for his offer to purchase the Grace of God. Simony has a long history of falling outside of acceptable behavior.Even though Christ and the Apostles were Jews, I omit calling myself a Jew - because I never was one, I do not believe in the Jewish faith and I recognize that there are other and far more effective ways to be united to Christ.
Yes, you may not call yourself a Jew, but surely you take the Old Testament, which began as a Jewish work, as part of the Christian faith. Surely, you accept the Old Testament prophets as your forefathers in faith, as well as being Jewish ones. It is in the same way Protestants see early church history.
Protestants would argue that projecting the idea of Catholicism (as known today) back on an unsplit church is illogical. It simply was not in the vocabulary back then.
This is Lutheran history from a non-Lutheran perspective. The idea that Lutherans must claim their beginnings in the 16th century denies the very basis of the faith. Sure, fine, if you don’t believe that. However, Lutherans, while acknowleging the start of their denomination in the 16th century, do not believe they can only be Lutherans. They are Christians first, Lutherans second. They are embracing their Christian heritage.
I do claim a certain heritage from the country my ancestors immigrated from to arrive at America, as Lutherans may claim heritage in the early church. I might also claim a certain union of history with England, as that is where this country’s first settlers came from and is a country from which America gets much of its culture. So, yes. I do carry back my history a big further.
I concur. As long as you view this exclusively from a Catholic perspective, it is not going to help to explain my position further. However, the facts (read: supported opinions) relating to the Protestant read of history remain as I present them. After all, it must be remembered that your major premise is the onetrueness of Catholicism, a premise I reject, even if I believe the martyrs had it right. Therefore, no consensus is going to be met here.
Well in terms of dogmatic teaching of course there are no examples, Tom, you believe could be wrong because you are convinced by faith in your belief that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. You accept in faith Her interpretation of Herself, Her interpretation of Scripture and Her interpretation of history, tradition and the ECFs. And that She has never been wrong on teaching from day 1. And you thus believe Christ has never needed to make corrections so the gates do not prevail in the end. And that’s great! That’s your faith and belief, Tom.
Well in terms of dogmatic teaching of course there are no examples, Tom, you believe could be wrong because you are convinced by faith in your belief that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ. You accept in faith Her interpretation of Herself, Her interpretation of Scripture and Her interpretation of history, tradition and the ECFs. And that She has never been wrong on teaching from day 1. And you thus believe Christ has never needed to make corrections so the gates do not prevail in the end. And that’s great! That’s your faith and belief, Tom.
Yes in faith I trust God and believe when He comes again, we’ll have it all known. Until then our human finite minds have faith. And God bless you in yours Tom and God bless all who journey in search of the ultimate truth. Peace.
Its not the point of omitting any Christian who was there. Your posts indicate a Protestant mindset existed. These are followers who either directly knew Christ are or in the immediate Generations following. They didn’t kinda of believe. They were 100% convinced He was God. There was no division in thinking. Theses were Radical who were Stoned like Stephan, Crucified, de-captiated. There was no Grand Catherdral downtown Rome. They hid and snuck around from Roman soliders. They had to be careful with the Jewish Rabbi’s. Stephan was killed for Blashemy, same charge against Jesus only the charge which killed was his claim to me the Messiah. Which is tacked on His Cross? Being Christian wasn’t a popularity contest in Nero’s time. There’s was One Mind set. Or they were outcasts. It couldn’t have been any other way
You keep claiming there weren’t Catholic’s, they were all Catholics, so you don’t believe Ignatius of Antioch from 110-AD? Who was the Apostles Johns student? There letter’s exist. Could you debate Christian/Catholic? Of course, but regarless both are documented History. There were no Lutherans, Methdoist, Baptist, Mormons, LDS, or any one else existing then. There were Christians/Catholic as per History. Did some of those eventually evolve to be Lutheran 1500 years latter? Yes, I don’t know which ones, do you?
The ecumenical councils were based on heresy. GW used to minimize heretics and schism is a far shout from reality. Had the ecumenical councils not exited the Truth is Jesus Chirst would be part of “your” Lutheran History today. The fact the Luther has a heretic is beside the point.
Yes there was a Canon before 400. You can’t discount Jewish Canon which existed 200-BC till 200-AD. As much as I see Protestants whould like to seperate themselves from the Jewish Faith in OT the OT-NT are intrinsically entwined, How could they not be when Chirst is telling you he did not come come to change one law of His Father, not one iota where His words?
I do not mean to indicate what is today a protestant mindset existed. However, back then the views were not inconsistent with either Catholicism or Protestantism, so claiming that Lutherans (of today) cannot look back on that as part of their history is moot.
First of all, there were Catholics because that’s what they called themselves. They simply were not Catholic in the modern use of the word. They were simply Christians. & Ignatius said Catholic, maybe, but I don’t recall him claiming to be Catholic in the modern sense. Words change meaning. This happens.
“Luther has a heretic”? Like in his basement? And who is GW? And Jesus Christ is part of all Christians’ history. No one has the (intellectual) right to deny that.The ecumenical councils were based on heresy. GW used to minimize heretics and schism is a far shout from reality. Had the ecumenical councils not exited the Truth is Jesus Chirst would be part of “your” Lutheran History today. The fact the Luther has a heretic is beside the point.
We do not “like to seperate themselves from the Jewish Faith”. I don’t know where you get that.
The hour has been “almost over” for at least a thousand years, if not more. Christians have been claiming that for ages. Not saying it isn’t necessarily true, but I don’t see how it factors into church history.
Have I ever claimed that people should ditch the OT? I embrace the OT, as I stated, though I am not a Jew. The idea that I don’t follow the 10 Commandments feels out of nowhere.
Again, I never made these claims. Where do you get the idea that I want to involve politics? I am quite opposed to the mixing of politics and religion.
No one is claiming Luther was perfect. Some of his early writings were quite good; the fact that his age made him a little less sound in mind does not invalidate what he wrote earlier.
Really? So the majority can think Jesus was a time-traveling alien and they’re right? Hardly.
The parable? I’m aware of the parable, thank you.
I evidently misunderstood the thread’s first question, then. Oh, well. I agree the idea isn’t conversion. I’m not exactly a perfect Lutheran, as I’ve stated, and I’m hardly solidly in one faith or another, so the idea of converting me is moot at this point.
It is indeed unfortunate because he did retain a majority of the Apostolic Teaching preserved infallibly in the CC. The departures, however caused such a severe break as to create what we understand as "a different gospel from what we reveived of the Apostles.
This is a good point. For Catholics, to be part of the “loaf” means to embrace the Truth. To the extent that the Truth is rejected, the believers get separated from the “loaf”, some to the extent the part they have left is moldy and stale (no longer able to nourish).
Catholics believe that the public revelation from God of Himself closed with the death of the last Apostle. This revelation was deposited to the Church “once for all”, and we do not have the liberty to change it. When Luther and other Reformers decided to change the meanings of some of the terms, we see that as an innovation.
It is a mistake to interpret the meaning of the Scriptures according to our modern perceptions.The Apostles understood the Key as the Key of David, so we need to understood what is written according to their point of view.I don’t know. Sure I know the Catholic faith’s interpretation.
It is a mystery why such “news” would have any relevance to you, since you don’t consider the teachings and precepts of the CC to have any authoriative influence over you.
No, not at all. To me, the text clearly indicates that Peter was acting according to his God given role.
An Apostle is not restricted to a geographical area, so in selecting Matthias, Peter presumed that the Church, on whose behalf he was acting, has the power to appoint/ordain those that the HS has chosen.
This would be a strawman, since the CC does not teach or practice any such thing. All bishops act on behalf of God toward the flock, and on behalf of the flock for their care and feeding in the ordination of ministers.
Your confusion probably stems from the false premise that eveything necessary for the care and feeding of the flock is found in scripture. Scripture does not say this of itself, and no effort was every mady by the early church to make the NT a full compendium of the faith.
Can you produce any evidence to support this assertion?
Of course not. Anyone can say anything about everything and claim it is factual. It is called: hearsay,opinions,etc,etc.