Southern Baptist Al Mohler...read for yourself.

[steve_b]

Most professional historians would not agree that the Catholic Church of the 4th century was the same as the churches of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

The creed states as an article of faith

“I Believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Church.”

Therefore, the 4 marks of the Church are that it is

1. 
   *]One
   *]Holy
   *]Catholic
   *]Apostolic
   
   Those marks are NOT what the Church became. Those marks are what the Church is from the beginning. And it will be that way forever…guranteed!.
   T:
   

   There were many different churches with many different views about who Jesus was in the early period and what became the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries.

   No, there are The Great Heresies in every era of history, NONE of them are “the Church”, and NONE of them “won out”, but they ARE stubbornly persistent in their existence.
   
   Regardless of what Satan does
   
   When Jesus said to Simon, “You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church”, that’s the only Church that matters. That’s the only Church I will belong to. That’s the Church Jesus gave all His promises to. When Jesus said “not even the gates of hell will prevail against it” Outside of which there is no salvation. That’s the Catholic Church. Everyone else is just fooling themselves.
   
   Those who divide from the Church or cause division and convince others to follow them, don’t serve Our Lord Jesus but Satan. How far do you think that’s gonna get THEM?
   
   From Pauls letter to the Church of Rome Romans 16:17-20

 

[Thorolfr]

This is to ignore actual Christian history, Thorolfr, in favor of the Dan Brown method of Chistian history… which is to immediately and promptly make it up as you go along in order to push forward a narrative that advances an agenda.

What we know about the history of Christianity in the first few centuries is still quite vague. Just to give an example, we don’t even know if Clement was the second, third of fourth bishop of Rome. The Liber Pontificalis has a list which shows Linus as the second bishop after Peter. Tertullian considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter whereas Jerome listed Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter”. We also don’t know for sure that First Clement was written by this supposed bishop since it does not mention the name of its author in the text. If it was written by a Bishop of Rome, we might have expected it’s author to assert his authority by mentioning his position. The author of the Shepherd of Hermas who was from Rome mentions a Clement but does not say that he or anyone else was Bishop of Rome. Ignatius wrote the church in Rome but does not mention that there was any single bishop in charge.

 

[Per_Crucem]

What we know about the history of Christianity in the first few centuries is still quite vague.

No, it isn’t. Some of the details of the lives of individuals may be vague, but not the overall picture of the early church’s history. We know a remarkable amount of detail about it, actually, not only because it was preserved by Christians themselves but also by those persecuting them.

Just to give an example, we don’t even know if Clement was the second, third of fourth bishop of Rome. The Liber Pontificalis has a list which shows Linus as the second bishop after Peter. Tertullian considered Clement to be the immediate successor of Peter whereas Jerome listed Clement as “the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter”. We also don’t know for sure that First Clement was written by this supposed bishop since it does not mention the name of its author in the text. If it was written by a Bishop of Rome, we might have expected it’s author to assert his authority by mentioning his position. The author of the Shepherd of Hermas who was from Rome mentions a Clement but does not say that he or anyone else was Bishop of Rome. Ignatius wrote the church in Rome but does mention that there was any single bishop in charge.

That’s irrelevant to the issue you raised, specifically about what early Christians believed about Christ. That there is simply NO evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Church “suppressed” these other views about who Christ is, is historical fact. No amount of modern revisionism is going to change that.

 

[Thorolfr]

That’s irrelevant to the issue you raised, specifically about what early Christians believed about Christ. That there is simply NO evidence whatsoever that the Catholic Church “suppressed” these other views about who Christ is, is historical fact. No amount of modern revisionism is going to change that.

Any religious movement which develops a language about “heresy” and “orthodoxy” and an apparatus for enforcing those definitions is in the business of suppressing competing and heterodox views.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/29880-mohler-says-churches-to-blame-when-youth-leave-the-fold

What was actually most interesting to me in this article is how much many Baptists and Catholics have in common. When someone leaves a church, many jump to the conclusion that “they were poorly catechized,” not being able (I guess) to countenance the fact that someone did indeed understand what their church is teaching and decided that they just didn’t buy it. I think people find the idea that knowledgable, rational people would reject their religion to be very threatening.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Any religious movement which develops a language about “heresy” and “orthodoxy” and an apparatus for enforcing those definitions is in the business of suppressing competing and heterodox views.

No, it isn’t. Rather, it is a witness against those who are teaching doctrines that were not taught by Christ or His apostles. The fact of the matter is that the heresies that were examined in the early church were all demonstrably not apostolic, having arisen years after the apostolic period and has no historical foundation in the life of the Church.

 

[zz912]

Any religious movement which develops a language about “heresy” and “orthodoxy” and an apparatus for enforcing those definitions is in the business of suppressing competing and heterodox views.

So how do you know about these other groups in the first few centuries, since they were suppressed as you claim?

Could you give some extra information about what exactly was different between the first Christians and the Church of the 4th/5th century?

 

[steve_b]

Any religious movement which develops a language about “heresy” and “orthodoxy” and an apparatus for enforcing those definitions is in the business of suppressing competing and heterodox views.

error has no rights.

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

 

[total_Catholic]

Most professional historians would not agree that the Catholic Church of the 4th century was the same as the churches of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There were many different churches with many different views about who Jesus was in the early period and what became the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries.

I would tend to agree, especially after reading this: ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

 

[steve_b]

Originally Posted by Thorolfr forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Most professional historians would not agree that the Catholic Church of the 4th century was the same as the churches of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There were many different churches with many different views about who Jesus was in the early period and what became the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries.

I would tend to agree, especially after reading this: ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

Really tC? You agree with that commentary? "and what became the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries."

 

[pnewton]

What we know about the history of Christianity in the first few centuries is still quite vague.

If the history of that time is quite vague, how can one make a statement that the fourth century church was so different than the second century church?

I will note that no time of break, or evidence of some contradiction between the two has been produced. It would seem the best thing for someone interested in what really happened to read what does exist in search for this break away.

 

[Contarini]

Most professional historians would not agree that the Catholic Church of the 4th century was the same as the churches of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There were many different churches with many different views about who Jesus was in the early period and what became the Catholic Church is only the one that won out and suppressed the others and revised the history of the preceding centuries.

Professional historians are not, or ought not to be, in the business (as historians) of making such declarations, understood theologically. Obviously the Church is always changing in its empirical reality, and it’s the job of historians to note these changes, thus complicating triumphalist claims.

But that’s not a judgment that the basic Catholic claim is false.

Also, most of the skepticism in my experience (and I studied the early Church with an ex-Christian scholar, Elizabeth Clark, who is a leading proponent of the “celebrate diversity” approach to early Christian history) is focused on the gap between Jesus and the second century rather than between the second and the fourth. Sure, plenty changed between the second and fourth centuries. But I think most scholars would actually agree that by 200 the basic outlines of patristic Catholicism were in place: apostolic succession and episcopal authority, a New Testament canon (Catholic apologists are actually the ones who exaggerate the lateness of this), a “rule of faith” excluding “heretical” views, and so on.

The bigger question is whether the claims of the second-century Church over against Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists, etc., were valid. I don’t mean of course that skeptical historians wouldn’t also question whether Athanasius was any more faithful to tradition than Arius, or Augustine than Pelagius (in fact, the consensus in the seminar I took on Augustine in grad school seemed to be that it was the other way round, if anything, on that point). But these later controversies took place within a framework of orthodoxy that had been constructed in the second century.

Edwin

 

[Thorolfr]

Professional historians are not, or ought not to be, in the business (as historians) of making such declarations, understood theologically. Obviously the Church is always changing in its empirical reality, and it’s the job of historians to note these changes, thus complicating triumphalist claims.

Historians shouldn’t make pronouncements about theological questions such as whether Jesus was really the son of God, but it would seem proper for them to make a judgement based upon the historical evidence, for example, as to whether they think that there was a monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century or even in the first part of the second century.

 

[steve_b]

What was actually most interesting to me in this article is how much many Baptists and Catholics have in common. When someone leaves a church, many jump to the conclusion that “they were poorly catechized,” not being able (I guess) to countenance the fact that someone did indeed understand what their church is teaching and decided that they just didn’t buy it. I think people find the idea that knowledgable, rational people would reject their religion to be very threatening.

Dave,

To use your phrase,

"What’s most interesting to me "

is to look at how many people think they can be in a whole other protestant religion outside Our Lord’s one and only Catholic Church HE established, and think it’s okay for them. It’s not just interesting it’s astounding to me given that protestants “claim” to be led by scripture alone… Where does it say in scripture that division from Our Lord’s Church is okay? It doesn’t.

The reality is, men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Henry VIII, etc etc etc thought that what they did 1600 years after Our Lord established HIS Catholic Church… is valid. And in extension, all the people over the next 500 years, who followed **them **into one of The Great Heresies in history, bouncing around endlessly within the 30,000+ divisions caused by their actions, is perfectly okay to do. It’s not . Open the internal links #34. The consequences for division and heresy are disasterous to one’s soul.

Dividing from Our Lord’s Church is condemned in scripture. The only Church that is there BEFORE the NT scriptures were written is the one Our Lord established. The Catholic Church. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James are all in the Church they are writing to and for. That’s the Catholic Church. #34 . And Peter is not just the leader of the apostles he is leader of the Church. Not 1st among equals but the greatest among the apostles. And Jesus confirmed that point. These posts #30 & #385 discuss this from different points. It validates that when Jesus will give Peter the keys of Our Lord’s kingdom, Peter is Our Lord’s prime minister. He has primacy over the Church that not even the gates of hell will prevail against.

 

[pnewton]

as to whether they think that there was a monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century or even in the first part of the second century.

There was a monarch, but the Church was persecute, not in exercising secular authority.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Historians shouldn’t make pronouncements about theological questions such as whether Jesus was really the son of God, but it would seem proper for them to make a judgement based upon the historical evidence, for example, as to whether they think that there was a monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century or even in the first part of the second century.

For what? It seems to be begging the question. Monarchical how, in what context, during suppression??? Was there a monarchical Jewish monarch in Israel, was he a Roman pawn, does that make him less monarchical?

 

[Thorolfr]

For what? It seems to be begging the question. Monarchical how, in what context, during suppression??? Was there a monarchical Jewish monarch in Israel, was he a Roman pawn, does that make him less monarchical?

“Monarchical bishop” or “monarchial bishop” is a term used by historians to describe “a single bishop over all house churches in a city”. According to Wikipedia:

Around the end of the 1st century, the church’s organization becomes clearer in historical documents. In the works of the Apostolic Fathers, and Ignatius of Antioch in particular, the role of the episkopos, or bishop, became more important or, rather, already was very important and being clearly defined. While Ignatius of Antioch offers the earliest clear description of monarchial bishops (a single bishop over all house churches in a city) he is an advocate of monepiscopal structure rather than describing an accepted reality. To the bishops and house churches to which he writes, he offers strategies on how to pressure house churches who don’t recognize the bishop into compliance. Other contemporary Christian writers do not describe monarchial bishops, either continuing to equate them with the presbyters or speaking of episkopoi (bishops, plural) in a city.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

According to the German historian Peter Lampe in his book From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (2003), there was no single bishop in Rome with authority over all Christians there (i.e. a monarchical bishop) until the second half of the 2nd century.

 

[SyroMalankara]

“Monarchical bishop” or “monarchial bishop” is a term used by historians to describe “a single bishop over all house churches in a city”. According to Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

According to the German historian Peter Lampe in his book From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (2003), there was no single bishop in Rome with authority over all Christians there (i.e. a monarchical bishop) until the second half of the 2nd century.

This is quite misleading since the general Catholic claim is that there were at least 2 strains - one from Peter which led the Hebrew Catholics, and the other from Paul which led the Gentile converts. Peter and those whom he laid hands having primacy. So while there was “no since bishop… over all Christians” your implication is a non-sequitur.

 

[Contarini]

Historians shouldn’t make pronouncements about theological questions such as whether Jesus was really the son of God, but it would seem proper for them to make a judgement based upon the historical evidence, for example, as to whether they think that there was a monarchical bishop in Rome in the first century or even in the first part of the second century.

Oh, agreed.

Again, though, that’s not a second to fourth century gap.

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

This is quite misleading since the general Catholic claim is that there were at least 2 strains - one from Peter which led the Hebrew Catholics, and the other from Paul which led the Gentile converts. Peter and those whom he laid hands having primacy. So while there was “no since bishop… over all Christians” your implication is a non-sequitur.

For clarification,

This argument has already been fought and answered in scripture. After the last supper, Satan got the apostles in an argument over who is greatest among THEM.

Here’s 2 different ways to present it

#30 and #385 ]

Jesus settled their argument. Jesus made Peter His prime minister over all His Church. It doesn’t mean the other bishops don’t have authority. It’s that one bishop has primacy of authority over all the Church.