The historicity of the Church

[House_Harkonnen]

Call it nonsensical, but I think we’ve found a heresy that can’t be disproven by Scripture alone (along with Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.)

You must be joking.

Yes, I’d be interested.

Are you familiar with the concept of “development of doctrine”, as posited by Bl. John Card. Newman, friend?

Also, the further back I go, the less Lutheran the fathers seem. In fact, the earliest I can find someone even remotely close to Lutheranism is ~AD 1500.

Call it nonsensical, but I think we’ve found a heresy that can’t be disproven by Scripture alone (along with Monothelitism, Miaphysism, Nestorianism, etc.)

That’s silly. It also cannot be supported by scripture. All those guys who fought those heresies appealed to scripture for their arguments, in fact most ECFS did. ECFS were solidly sola Scriptura, that is that scripture is the highest authority.

You must be joking.

Not at all. In fact the ECFS got things wrong, for example Augustine thought that marital sex between two Christians is still at least venially sinful. That’s error.

Yes, I’d be interested.

Okay, give me a while to write it up.

Are you familiar with the concept of “development of doctrine”, as posited by Bl. John Card. Newman, friend?

Yes, I have read it. I think its an ad hoc explanation for the question of “why doesn’t the Catholic Church look like the ancient church?” I agree that the Catholic Church is highly developed, in fact it’s probably one of the denominations that has changed and developed the most.

Also, the further back I go, the less Lutheran the fathers seem. In fact, the earliest I can find someone even remotely close to Lutheranism is ~AD 1500.

No. When I read them I see more liturgical Protestantism, or possible Orthodoxy, but not Catholicism. Luther appealed to and quoted the fathers at length, he wasn’t unfamiliar. I see the Lutheran reformation as a return to the teachings of the apostolic church, not a departure.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

If it’s so clear then why did many deny it, necessitating the need for the CC council to step up and officially define the Trinity?

Did the CC have the authority to do the following. If so then why doesn’t the CC continue to possess this authority?:

About a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius’ teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.” 4 (Learn more about Athanasius here and Arius here.)

If it’s so clear then why did many deny it, necessitating the need for the CC council to step up and officially define the Trinity?

Many deny clear teachings of scripture. Also, the definition can be normed by scripture, so its consistent with the practice of sola Scriptura. I know of no denomination that practices SS that disagrees that the church should have councils to determine doctrine.

Did the CC have the authority to do the following. If so then why doesn’t the CC continue to possess this authority?:

The CC doesn’t have the authority to define any doctrine not normed by scripture. That’s why it was necessary to remove the unscriptural dogmas and doctrines, or at least hold them to be non binding, such as the Assumption etc.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here’s where the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue clarifies apostolic faith:

On the church’s apostolicity, the dialogue works within the horizon of the Lutheran-Catholic consensus on justification by the grace of Christ and agreement in confessing the work of the Holy Spirit in gathering believers into the church. From this basis and notwithstanding remaining differences, Lutherans and Catholics agree at a basic level on what makes a church apostolic and they acknowledge, each with characteristic accents, the true apostolicity of each other’s churches.raadvankerken.nl/fman/3246.pdf

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Here’s where the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue clarifies apostolic faith:

I am fine with that.

I mean I would have never signed the Joint Declaration, but that definition is fine.

I am happy to acknowledge the apostolic nature of both our churches.

 

[spina1953]

People knew them as this and that; but it seems as if the earliest Christians considered themselves, “Christian.” However, they also considered their Church One and Universal; I don’t think this has changed, as we are still in the same Universal Church, going by the strict meaning of the word.

First was at Antioch: Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Paul on trial Acts 26:28And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”29And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”

And Peter in his letter 1 Peter 4:6"Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

So the Disciples were “Christians” first, likewise Paul and Peter proves this as well. Interestingly enough, the Acts says they were “called Christians.”

Tacitus 116ish

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

We were labeled as Christians by the Apostles and Disciples, and were called so by others.

I agree with you, however I was referring to Christians before those who were called Christians at Antioch sometime before the end of the first century. I am not sure when at Antioch they were first called Christians but before that time they were called the way or Nazarians.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I agree with you, however I was referring to Christians before those who were called Christians at Antioch sometime before the end of the first century. I am not sure when at Antioch they were first called Christians but before that time they were called the way or Nazarians.

The inevitable recognition that Early Christianity, those closest to our Lord, is a sufficient standard for today. Covers all Christians in the world.

 

[dronald]

I agree with you, however I was referring to Christians before those who were called Christians at Antioch sometime before the end of the first century. I am not sure when at Antioch they were first called Christians but before that time they were called the way or Nazarians.

I’m not sure what you mean by, “sometime before the end of the first Century.” Antioch would have likely been in the mid to late 30’s or perhaps the early 40’s. Definitely before anyone wrote a letter to the Church. If by sometime before the end you mean the middle first Century then you would be correct, but we were also called Christians well before that.

 

[dronald]

No, of course not: you would be guiding them on the path to truth, which ends at the Catholic Church. Protestantism is better than atheism.

Except it wouldn’t be a Religion of Protest at all; it would be Christianity. When persecution goes on the titles and little disagreements go out the window.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That’s silly. It also cannot be supported by scripture. All those guys who fought those heresies appealed to scripture for their arguments, in fact most ECFS did. ECFS were solidly sola Scriptura, that is that scripture is the highest authority.

Hmmm… Are you sure about that?

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” -Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. **For with this Church, because of its superior origin [or “preeminent authority”] all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1-3, AD 180

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” -Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition, A.D. 251

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” -Pope Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3, A.D. 382

There’s more, if you’d like to see.

Not at all. In fact the ECFS got things wrong, for example Augustine thought that marital sex between two Christians is still at least venially sinful. That’s error.

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were saying that the patristic consensus as a whole has erred, which is false. If you’re simply saying that individual Fathers have been wrong, you’re correct.

Okay, give me a while to write it up.

No problem!

Yes, I have read it. I think its an ad hoc explanation for the question of “why doesn’t the Catholic Church look like the ancient church?” I agree that the Catholic Church is highly developed, in fact it’s probably one of the denominations that has changed and developed the most.

I don’t think you really get doctrinal development. It doesn’t mean that doctrine has changed, only that doctrine has been honed down and specified. For example, early Christians had a general idea that man is naturally evil; now, we have developed the concept of concupiscence.

No. When I read them I see more liturgical Protestantism, or possible Orthodoxy, but not Catholicism.

Really? Do the quotes above sound Protestant?

Luther appealed to and quoted the fathers at length, he wasn’t unfamiliar. I see the Lutheran reformation as a return to the teachings of the apostolic church, not a departure.

Sorry, but to say “Luther read the Fathers, therefore the Lutheran faith is apostolic” is an appeal to authority fallacy.**

 

[JamesTheJust]

Here’s where the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue clarifies apostolic faith:

The Catholic Church does not recognize any of the Lutheran denominations as having maintained apostolic succession. When Luther left, he was a priest, and one must be a bishop to ordain priests and maintain succession.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hmmm… Are you sure about that?

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” -Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. **For with this Church, because of its superior origin [or “preeminent authority”] all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.” -Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1-3, AD 180

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?***” -Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition, A.D. 251

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” -Pope Damasus I, Decree of Damasus 3, A.D. 382

There’s more, if you’d like to see.

Oh, I misunderstood you. I thought that you were saying that the patristic consensus as a whole has erred, which is false. If you’re simply saying that individual Fathers have been wrong, you’re correct.

No problem!

I don’t think you really get doctrinal development. It doesn’t mean that doctrine has changed, only that doctrine has been honed down and specified. For example, early Christians had a general idea that man is naturally evil; now, we have developed the concept of concupiscence.

Really? Do the quotes above sound Protestant?

Sorry, but to say “Luther read the Fathers, therefore the Lutheran faith is apostolic” is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Hmmm… Are you sure about that?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No. Luther went back to what the early church was teaching. He used the early fathers to show that he wasn’t coming up with anything new.

Ok, first I want to let you know that I am not a Luther basher at all. Our brother Jon can confirm this.

But, Luther failed with his faith alone and scripture alone precepts. They are absent from the Early Church. The closest he can come up for Faith Alone is Clement I and it just doesn’t make it. And Scripture Alone is the veneration the Fathers had for Scriptures, but again it doesn’t make if either.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Ok, first I want to let you know that I am not a Luther basher at all. Our brother Jon can confirm this.

But, Luther failed with his faith alone and scripture alone precepts. They are absent from the Early Church. The closest he can come up for Faith Alone is Clement I and it just doesn’t make it. And Scripture Alone is the veneration the Fathers had for Scriptures, but again it doesn’t make if either.

If I showed you some ECFS on scripture being the highest authority, would you be interested?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hypothetically if I wanted to go to North Korea and secretly evangelize; risking death so that others could gather and discuss Christ… Would I be wrong?

Not at all, brother. Jesus Himself told His Apostles: Whoever is not against us, is for us.

The key word here being: for us

 

[JamesTheJust]

Absolutely, I have found that most ECFS were much more Protestant at least liturgical Protestant in their understanding.

Yet you still don’t provide quotes…

I don’t see it as development I see it as innovation. The faith has once and for all been delivered to the saints, no need to develop it or define it farther than what God himself has.

So you reject concupiscence?

Absolutely, especially the Cyprian one. All except for the Damasus one, but that was +350 years. The Pope was already starting to assert his position over and above what was handed down by that time.

Do you accept that one cannot leave communion with Rome without deserting the faith, as Cyprian says?

No. Luther went back to what the early church was teaching. He used the early fathers to show that he wasn’t coming up with anything new.

Evidence or it’s an appeal to authority.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Yet you still don’t provide quotes…

So you reject concupiscence?

Do you accept that one cannot leave communion with Rome without deserting the faith, as Cyprian says?

Evidence or it’s an appeal to authority.

Yet you still don’t provide quotes

…

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) NOTE: Luther quoted this father verbatim as he agreed with him; it is the definition of Sola Scriptura.

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

Do you accept that one cannot leave communion with Rome without deserting the faith, as Cyprian says?

Not in perpetuity for eternity, which was not what Cyprian was saying. In context it was for that present time, when Rome was chief see against a certain heresy.

Evidence or it’s an appeal to authority.

See above.

 

[JamesTheJust]

…

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.310-386):

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.
(Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395):

…we are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings.
(On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) NOTE: Luther quoted this father verbatim as he agreed with him; it is the definition of Sola Scriptura.

St. Gregory of Nyssa:

Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.
(On the Holy Trinity, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. V, p. 327.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430):

Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord; but [let them show their church] by a command of the Law, by the predictions of the prophets, by songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the preaching and labors of the evangelists; that is, by all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.
(On the Unity of the Church, 16, quoted in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971], p. 159.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”
(On the Good of Widowhood, 2, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. III, p. 442. The quotation is from Romans 12:3.)

All that those quotes say is that Christian doctrine must be in harmony with Scripture, not be found inside it.

Hey, I just had an idea: since you contend that Scripture is the highest authority, why don’t you cite Scripture that says that?

Also, I ask again: do you reject concupiscence?

Not in perpetuity for eternity, which was not what Cyprian was saying. In context it was for that present time, when Rome was chief see against a certain heresy.

You’re reading into that quote. Cyprian doesn’t put a time limit on Roman supremacy.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If I showed you some ECFS on scripture being the highest authority, would you be interested?

I have read most of them, my friend. You still miss the alone from it.

The Scriptural Authority in the wrong hands and outside the Church becomes a heresy.

St Peter being the clearest advocate against Scripture Alone:

[bibledrb]2 Peter 3:16[/bibledrb]

It would be silly of me to oversee the authority of Scriptures. But it would be silly as well to not see said authority from within the Church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

All that those quotes say is that Christian doctrine must be in harmony with Scripture, not be found inside it.

Hey, I just had an idea: since you contend that Scripture is the highest authority, why don’t you cite Scripture that says that?

Also, I ask again: do you reject concupiscence?

You’re reading into that quote. Cyprian doesn’t put a time limit on Roman supremacy.

All that those quotes say is that Christian doctrine must be in harmony with Scripture, not be found inside it.

No. “We make scripture the rule and norm of every doctrine”. Can you confess that as a Catholic? This is precisely what Luther and Calvin proposed to do. That was consistent with Gregory of Nyssa.

Hey, I just had an idea: since you contend that Scripture is the highest authority, why don’t you cite Scripture that says that?

2 Timothy 3:16.

Also, I ask again: do you reject concupiscence?

Not at all.

You’re reading into that quote. Cyprian doesn’t put a time limit on Roman supremacy.

No. He was writing in the context of a heresy, Arianism IIRC. The see of Rome was teaching orthodoxy at that point. He certainly didn’t believe that the Roman pope had special universal jurisdiction in perpetuity for eternity over every other bishop, nor infallibility, that would take a few more hundred years to develop.

 

[JamesTheJust]

No. “We make scripture the rule and norm of every doctrine”. Can you confess that as a Catholic? This is precisely what Luther and Calvin proposed to do. That was consistent with Gregory of Nyssa.

Yes, as we hold no doctrines that contradict Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16.

I’m sure you’re aware that that’s been debunked countless times. See here:
jimmyakin.com/library/2-timothy-316-17-and-sola-scriptura

Not at all.

Even though it’s not explicitly in the Bible?

No. He was writing in the context of a heresy, Arianism IIRC. The see of Rome was teaching orthodoxy at that point.

Okay, then why didn’t he say, “As soon as Arianism disappears, so will Rome’s supremacy”?

He certainly didn’t believe that the Roman pope had special universal jurisdiction in perpetuity for eternity over every other bishop, nor infallibility, that would take a few more hundred years to develop.

Surely you realize that “He couldn’t have meant that because nobody ever said that until a few centuries later” is pure fallacy.