Protestants: Why wasn't this guy the first Protestant?

[LilyM]

I wouldn’t disagree on that one. The doctrine of the trinity was created to clarify what Christians believed in which is a tri-une GOD. Other doctrines were created to refute heresy but said doctrines came right from scripture. Point of fact, Ignatius was the first to push for an official canon to refute the writings of Marcion who began to re-write the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s letters while refuting other works like Revelations, James etc. All ECFs pointed to scripture in defense of the faith. And we clearly read in Acts that Paul’s teachings were benchmarked against scripture to gauge if he was preaching the truth.

But the church plainly states that in the case of Mary they have developed a better understanding of scripture which resulted in the doctrine of the assumption and the immaculate conception. If you really study church history with the best information we have you will see that no type of devotion to Mary existed until around the 5th century. That’s not to say that the ECFs didn’t respect and love Mary, but they never held the current beliefs nor did they write about them.

PEACE

Yes, but the only reason most Christians believe these things (the Trinity as we understand it for example) was that Church councils (Catholic councils, there was no other Church around at the time) defined them.

No devotion to Mary before 500? Rubbish. The earliest Marian prayer - ‘We fly to your protection, Most Holy Mother of God …’ dates from 250 and this same prayer was used in Coptic liturgy (public worship) in the same century - so you’re way out with that assertion.

So devotion to Mary dates at least from the third century (and it’s highly unlikely that this devotion would be included in public liturgy if it was a new invention, so it must’ve been old enough in the third century to be widely known and commonly accepted already). SO does the doctrine of ‘Mother of God’, which so many non-catholics dislike.

No writings about current doctrine? There’s a whole explicit written account of the Assumption (or Dormition as the Orthodox call it) of Mary that dates from the 5th century. So it was certainly written about for 1,500 years before it was proclaimed official dogma. Likewise with the Immaculate Conception - constantly written about from the time of Augustine onward.

 

[allhers]

Some of the early Church Fathers wrote about it also, some of them dating from the 1st century, so…obviously they held this belief. The early Church Fathers believed and accepted what the Apostles believed. This is something interesting to read.
Clear back in Genesis 3:15 She is The Woman
Exodus Exodus 40:34-35 Prefigures her as the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Harpazo]

Thanks for the responses so far. Are there any other takers?

Why wasn’t Venerable Bede the first Protestant? Why didn’t he believe in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or say that women should be admitted to the presbyterate? He had the same access to the Bible as Protestants today have, and then some.

Was it because he didn’t have to justify proof-texting with the corruption of others?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Reformation was just that a reforming of what had gone on before it. You cannot seperate the reformation from the climate of the times. Much of the climate of the times was years of clerical corruption at the highest levels. Britian at the time of Bede was somewhat remote. Also Bede was before the the climate of the times.

Do you see how your attempt to explain the problem destroys the efficacy of sola scriptura? If all that is needed to know true doctrine is the scriptures and the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, then “the climate of the times” is not relevant to knowing truth. If what you say is accurate, then the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation is incorrect… *more than scripture * - i.e. a proper cultural, political, and social environment - is also needed to ascertain true doctrine.

Quite a conundrum you’ve created here.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[SIA]

This quote is from the Venerable Bede, a pious monk that lived in the late 7th and early 8th centuries in England. He tirelessly studied Scripture and copied it for the next generations to have. If he studied Scripture on his own and had access to it, why did he not come to the same conclusions as the Reformers of the 16th-18th centuries?

This is not a baiting thread. I am curious to how many Protestants can think that all one needs to do is read the Scriptures and that’s that. This man did that and he did not come up with the same theology. So what gives?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

By what the Gospels say, Catholics should be calling Jesus Christ the first Protestant.

 

[Harpazo]

By what the Gospels say, Catholics should be calling Jesus Christ the first Protestant.

I don’t think that would be accurate. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. The intentions of the “Reformers” were to destroy traditions that they deemed worthy of being destroyed. There was no fulfillment.

Could you please address the question as per the OP?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[ralphinal]

By what the Gospels say, Catholics should be calling Jesus Christ the first Protestant.

I would disagree for a reason that many might not say. Jesus had authority from God. No Reformer since had a mandate from the Creator that could be verified apart from his claims.

 

[SIA]

I don’t think that would be accurate. Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. The intentions of the “Reformers” were to destroy traditions that they deemed worthy of being destroyed. There was no fulfillment.

Could you please address the question as per the OP?

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

The Reformers didn’t destroy traditions. They discarded unbiblical schemes and shams that had infiltrated the Church. Purgatory didn’t come from the Apostles or Scripture. It didn’t even exist in church teaching until the 5th century.

 

[ralphinal]

The Reformers didn’t destroy traditions. They discarded unbiblical schemes and shams that had infiltrated the Church. Purgatory didn’t come from the Apostles or Scripture. It didn’t even exist in church teaching until the 5th century.

Incorrect. Purgatory was part of the Jewish heritage that we inherited. Ask the Jewish posters on here such as Sepharad or Valke. It was part of the understanding of the afterlife that the Apostles had and Jesus never once corrected them or changed it.

Now, if you mean the term “Purgatory” that might be different. After all the term “Trinity” was not there day one, but the Triune God was.

 

[SIA]

Incorrect. Purgatory was part of the Jewish heritage that we inherited. Ask the Jewish posters on here such as Sepharad or Valke. It was part of the understanding of the afterlife that the Apostles had and Jesus never once corrected them or changed it.

Now, if you mean the term “Purgatory” that might be different. After all the term “Trinity” was not there day one, but the Triune God was.

You are wrong sir. The Jews didn’t have a formula of purchasing indulgences to shorten one’s stay in Purgatory and such. None of this came from the jews or the Apostles. As i said, it didn’t even exist in imagination until the 5th century. Can you prove that Purgatory existed as the RCC teaches today prior to the 5th century?

 

[ralphinal]

You are wrong sir. The Jews didn’t have a formula of purchasing indulgences to shorten one’s stay in Purgatory and such. None of this came from the jews or the Apostles. As i said, it didn’t even exist in imagination until the 5th century. Can you prove that Purgatory existed as the RCC teaches today prior to the 5th century?

Two separate issues. Indulgencies are related to Purgatory, but not required to have an understanding of it. Further, the Catholic Church NEVER ONCE taught that an indulgence could be purchased or sold. The concept of indulgencies as you seem to understand it is the Reformer idea, but not the Catholic one at all. Can I prove that the concept of Purgatory as the Catholic Church teaches it existed prior to the 5th century? Perhaps. Would it change anything that you say if I do? Perhaps.

THe Ancient Jews had a concept that those who died would go through a purification process before heaven. It was a periof of 12 months, though only the worse people were in it all 12. You can see this referenced in Maccabees (even if you don’t accept it as scripture, it is from the era in question).

Here is a website with quotes from early church Fathers on Purgatory
staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm

Along with those quotes from Augustine, his mother Monica wanted him to remember her soul during mass.

None of these people beleived in a hell that was not permanent, so they must be talking about purgatory.

Does this help? Well, I know that I did not get into indulgences. The first step is to get you to see that Purgatory exists.

 

[SIA]

Two separate issues. Indulgencies are related to Purgatory, but not required to have an understanding of it. Further, the Catholic Church NEVER ONCE taught that an indulgence could be purchased or sold. The concept of indulgencies as you seem to understand it is the Reformer idea, but not the Catholic one at all. Can I prove that the concept of Purgatory as the Catholic Church teaches it existed prior to the 5th century? Perhaps. Would it change anything that you say if I do? Perhaps.

THe Ancient Jews had a concept that those who died would go through a purification process before heaven. It was a periof of 12 months, though only the worse people were in it all 12. You can see this referenced in Maccabees (even if you don’t accept it as scripture, it is from the era in question).

Here is a website with quotes from early church Fathers on Purgatory
staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm

Along with those quotes from Augustine, his mother Monica wanted him to remember her soul during mass.

None of these people beleived in a hell that was not permanent, so they must be talking about purgatory.

Does this help? Well, I know that I did not get into indulgences. The first step is to get you to see that Purgatory exists.

I am aware of the Scriptures that Catholics use to try and get Purgatory. I am an ex cradle Catholic. I remember a debate about 12 years ago that featured a Catholic priest Fr. mitch Pacwa and a Protestant theologian. Fr. Pacwa after much debate finally conceded that Purgatory in its doctrinal Catholic form came from the Magisterium and not from Scripture. I was still Catholic at the time of the debate.

 

[ralphinal]

I am aware of the Scriptures that Catholics use to try and get Purgatory. I am an ex cradle Catholic. I remember a debate about 12 years ago that featured a Catholic priest Fr. mitch Pacwa and a Protestant theologian. Fr. Pacwa after much debate finally conceded that Purgatory in its doctrinal Catholic form came from the Magisterium and not from Scripture. I was still Catholic at the time of the debate.

Did you overlook the quotes from the early Church Fathers? The doctrine of a place where sins are purged was understood from day one. That is what you asked for. Some of the quotes include Scripture verses.

 

[SIA]

Did you overlook the quotes from the early Church Fathers? The doctrine of a place where sins are purged was understood from day one. That is what you asked for. Some of the quotes include Scripture verses.

Not in the detailed fashion that the RCC says Purgatory exists. here on earth sins are purged as well.

 

[ralphinal]

Not in the detailed fashion that the RCC says Purgatory exists. here on earth sins are purged as well.

That is correct and is a part of Church teaching. Now, the doctrine has developed, and Father Pacwa is correct that it is more from the Sacred Tradition than Sacred Scripture, but that does not make it incorrect. The reality is that we have always understood that prayers for the dead were needed. That is clear from many sources, including the Jewish roots of the faith and the EO beleive it as well. Further, Scripture alludes to a place where we will be cleansed, Paul saying like Gold through a fire. The two together lead us to an understanding of Purgatory, though the EO have a different understanding.

Now, indulgences are not directly related to Purgatory but to Confession. Historically, penences were harsh. SO much so that the Church, in the early years (4th and 5th Century), began to substitute things for these harsh sentences. Goodbye sack cloth and ashes while you proclaim that you are a sinner on the steps of the Church and hello cleaning the Church for a month. Now, the Church understood that there was a place and time for purgation for those who were not clensed on earth. If someone performed some of these acts without being told to do so, that would help them after death. The EO understood something similar, though not exactly the same. Anyway, these became known as the indulgences. Now, a donation to the CHurch was considered an indulgence if and only if it was on top of any regular donation that you made and it was also a sacrafice to you to make it. In some places, bishops hired people to gather these monies for a cut of the action, leading to the sale of the indulgence. It was not propper nor was it church teaching. THat is what landed us here.

 

[SIA]

That is correct and is a part of Church teaching. Now, the doctrine has developed, and Father Pacwa is correct that it is more from the Sacred Tradition than Sacred Scripture, but that does not make it incorrect. .

and I disagree with that on the grounds that it is counter to what the Scriptures tell us about salvation.

 

[ralphinal]

and I disagree with that on the grounds that it is counter to what the Scriptures tell us about salvation.

Based on the fact that Jesus’s sacrafice was sufficent for the salvation of all?

 

[Harpazo]

SIA, rather than giving us another one of your misconeptional tirades, can you please answer the original question in the OP?

Let’s try to stay on topic, guys.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[SIA]

Based on the fact that Jesus’s sacrafice was sufficent for the salvation of all?

based upon all the things that cannot separate us from the love of God as well. Based upon Paul’s statement of being absent of the body is to be present with God. based upon all that Jesus spoke of and preached.

 

[ralphinal]

based upon all the things that cannot separate us from the love of God as well. Based upon Paul’s statement of being absent of the body is to be present with God. based upon all that Jesus spoke of and preached.

And that is what we see to base it on. Different interpretations