What Do Protestants Believe About the Early Church?

[Michael68]

There are 960 -965 million" Protestants " plus 85 million oriental Orthodox, so by the numbers the majority say that the papacy has usurped power , I agree that numbers don’t really solve the matter, but it should make you think a bit .

If 1billion people call a duck a horse, its still a duck. Just because a majority decides something doesn’t make it the truth.

 

[pablope]

Sounds like a rousing endorsement of Eastern Orthodoxy.

How did you come to this conclusion?

However he falls into the same trap that the RC apologists are constantly warning about. He is using his own private interpretation to determine truth that is the truth that he believes the RCis the correct church.

 

[pablope]

No, millions ended up agreeing with Luther. And the majority of Christian communions agree that the bishop of Rome is not the universal bishop. That all the other centers of Christiandom reject the claims of the papacy is not evidence of the falseness of its claims on its own but it does give me pause.

With those millions agreeing with Luther…does this make Luther correct, and without error?

So these majority agree then with Luther when he stated, as you do, the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Majority of bishops were with Arius and supported Arianism…yet Arianism was declared a heresy.

So is truth dependent on a majority?

 

[Micosil]

…]Majority of bishops were with Arius and supported Arianism…yet Arianism was declared a heresy.

So is truth dependent on a majority?

Ah, yes, I was about to comment on this, but I forgot which exact heresy it was when the majority of bishops sided with the heretical notion, and not orthodoxy.

That really is quite interesting, though, how things turned out. Even though the majority of bishops supported Arianism, as things turned out, Arianism was more or less suppressed. Having the Holy Spirit on your side does help a lot.

 

[KathleenGee]

The true Catholic Church has the teaching Magesterium through which the Holy Spirit guides and teaches.

Again, it is not about numbers. It is about splitting up the unity of Christ’s believers. And splits cause an eventual breakdown of society, where in time, authentic Christianity passes away. Look at Europe now.

 

[JonNC]

=ChaosGamma;13469185]This is slightly off-topic, but I’ve seen you and some of the other Lutherans on here bring up the word and sacraments before and I’m wondering what your take is then on denominations that don’t believe in the sacraments. Or groups like the Quakers or the Salvation Army that don’t even have ordinances, so don’t have baptism or communion at all.

In regard to the word, I would think Lutherans would consider justification by faith alone as a pretty important part of the Gospel, so how could churches (Catholic, Orthodox, &c) that don’t believe in sola fide be considered to be teaching the word?

Hi Chaos, Welcome to CAF.
I think the Catholic Catechism makes the statement that “eclesial communities” (meaning communion such as mine) are used by Christ’s Spirit, etc. There’s no reason to believe that communions such as the ones you mentioned are not used by the Spirit to engender faith, etc., even though they mix error with truth. How God handles that is up to Him and His grace and mercy.

What term then should we use to refer to not-in-communion-with-Rome, not-Eastern-Orthodox, not-Oriental-Orthodox, not-Church-of-the-East Christian bodies? I don’t really understand the whole issue with the term “protestant”, other than the fact that in some instances (the present question, arguably) it’s rather unhelpful because “protestants” refers to such a broad range of beliefs.

You’ve stated it. There is nothing wrong with the term, properly understood and used. If one simply uses the term to casually refer to those western Christian communions that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are not Orthodox, its fine.
One needs to recognize that in this sense, it is like the term “Europe”, for example: there are many different kinds of Europeans, so it is inaccurate assume that all Europeans act, believe, think the same.
I object when the term is used to group protestants together in terms of teaching, origin, and practice. I object when the term is used to present a charge that protestants have disunity and confusion, implying that it was once one large monolithic church which has since divided.

Is this how the “office” of the Papacy is supposed to be Antichrist? So how could the Pope himself not be Antichrist if he is exercising authority and teaching things that are against the commands of Christ?

Pretty much the same way that Catholics can claim that Lutheranism is heretical, but I, as a cradle, life-long Lutheran am not a heretic, at least in the formal sense. There are specific teachings regarding the Papacy that we view as opposed to Christ, or anti-Christ.
Those are listed in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

Pope Francis in not THE Antichrist. Neither is Pope Emeritus Benedict, nor any particular pope. In fact, this Lutheran is hard-pressed to find more Christian individuals than some of the recent popes.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

With those millions agreeing with Luther…does this make Luther correct, and without error?

So these majority agree then with Luther when he stated, as you do, the pope is the Anti-Christ?

Majority of bishops were with Arius and supported Arianism…yet Arianism was declared a heresy.

So is truth dependent on a majority?

True, but this also doesn’t prove that all of the patriarchs who define papal primacy as a primacy of honor are wrong.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

True, but this also doesn’t prove that all of the patriarchs who define papal primacy as a primacy of honor are wrong.

Jon

What does primacy of honor look like to you? Practically speaking.

To me this is all semantics. If all bishops are equal but one holds a special honor, that makes him supreme in some way to the others. Sounds like Catholicism to me.

 

[JonNC]

What does primacy of honor look like to you? Practically speaking.

Hi Jon,
To me this is all semantics. If all bishops are equal but one holds a special honor, that makes him supreme in some way to the others. Sounds like Catholicism to me.

None of the other patriarchs, nor the early councils, recognized universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. I find this article to be instructive.

Jon

 

[Michael68]

I don’t think Protestants think about church history. It would show them that Catholicism is the true Church

 

[Jon_S_1]

None of the other patriarchs, nor the early councils, recognized universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. I find this article to be instructive.

Jon

Thanks I read through most of it. Interesting write up.

It seems that people are afraid of sort of a straw man of papal authority. Like he is just going to start decreeing this and that at his whim.

The fact this has never happened should tell people something. The pope is a bishop like all the bishops. A visible sign of unity. He is also there, to call bishops together and to be a final arbiter when called upon.

All organizations need a leader. How many organizations run well with thousands of leaders?

The pope is the solution to that.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks I read through most of it. Interesting write up.

It seems that people are afraid of sort of a straw man of papal authority. Like he is just going to start decreeing this and that at his whim.

The fact this has never happened should tell people something. The pope is a bishop like all the bishops. A visible sign of unity. He is also there, to call bishops together and to be a final arbiter when called upon.

All organizations need a leader. How many organizations run well with thousands of leaders?

The pope is the solution to that.

He could very well be. In fact, ISTM there are not other solutions out there.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

I have found that what your church teaches seems to dependent frequently on the situation and the apologist.

No, Salusa, the Church Teaching is One, Cohesive, and consistent. Unfortunately, the members who belong to her are not always unified.

I had the idea that the apologist should be dependent on what the church teaches. But maybe I’m old fashioned.

If that is the case, then may all of us be so old fashioned!

Why does someone need authority to declare something true of false?

I think that depends upon the subject matter. If one is doing scientific research, the standards might be different.

But when it comes the the One Faith, the authority needs to come from the One who founded the Church.

The same authority that your church uses to declare itself the true church that is self authority?

That would be circular, so of little value. No, the authority that is in the Church came from Christ, and exists in the Apostolic Succession.

That's because the church that created doctrine at Trent was not the same church that defined doctrine at Nicea,

Really? What was that?

 That's probably the same reason you stand with the early councils, but reject the EO synods and councils.

The EO had synonds and councils?

That's fine, yet I am not in the minority.

Christs’ Church is not defined by majority vote. It is a Theocracy.

 

[guanophore]

There is no evidence Jesus of Nazareth, a Palestinian Jew would use the LXX, a translation for the Diaspora Jews, many of whom no longer spoke or wrote Hebrew…Paul spoke Greek, and sought converts among the “God fearers” among the Gentiles, who neither spoke nor read Hebrew…Jesus never ventured oiut of Palestine.

On the contrary, Jesus was a Galilean Jew, and grew up with Gentile neighbors. The quotes from the NT indicate that the Apostles used the LXX. This became even more common after the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The writers of the gospels used the LXX, but none of the writers of the gospels were apostles of Jesus, all Palestinian Jews…

I am glad you are on this thread about history, since you may learn a great deal.

What makes you think that John was not an apostle of Jesus?

When Peter and John went to Antioch, do you think the Jews there did not use the LXX?

Do you reject the testimony of early historians that Mark wrote “Peter’s Gospel”?

 

[ChaosGamma]

Hi Chaos, Welcome to CAF.
I think the Catholic Catechism makes the statement that “eclesial communities” (meaning communion such as mine) are used by Christ’s Spirit, etc. There’s no reason to believe that communions such as the ones you mentioned are not used by the Spirit to engender faith, etc., even though they mix error with truth. How God handles that is up to Him and His grace and mercy.

Okay, I guess that’s really more or less the answer I expected. I just find it strange as I’m remembering (I think a different thread) a Lutheran poster saying something along the lines of “the Church is wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered”… It’s probably just the way I was reading it that makes it seem a bit off, because I pretty much agree with what you said.

You’ve stated it. There is nothing wrong with the term, properly understood and used. If one simply uses the term to casually refer to those western Christian communions that are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and are not Orthodox, its fine.
One needs to recognize that in this sense, it is like the term “Europe”, for example: there are many different kinds of Europeans, so it is inaccurate assume that all Europeans act, believe, think the same.
I object when the term is used to group protestants together in terms of teaching, origin, and practice. I object when the term is used to present a charge that protestants have disunity and confusion, implying that it was once one large monolithic church which has since divided.

Teaching and practice I agree. Origin, I would argue protestants could be grouped together, at least in the sense that all of the more recent groups (more or less) are still in some way descended from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, directly or indirectly. Which is why I’d think the statement “they’re not really protestants because they’re not protesting anything” is getting a little nitpicky about how we’re using the term.

Pretty much the same way that Catholics can claim that Lutheranism is heretical, but I, as a cradle, life-long Lutheran am not a heretic, at least in the formal sense. There are specific teachings regarding the Papacy that we view as opposed to Christ, or anti-Christ.
Those are listed in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.

Pope Francis in not THE Antichrist. Neither is Pope Emeritus Benedict, nor any particular pope. In fact, this Lutheran is hard-pressed to find more Christian individuals than some of the recent popes.

Jon

Okay then. I’m still not sure about an office being antichrist, but this at least helps me understand your position more.

Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

This is slightly off-topic, but I’ve seen you and some of the other Lutherans on here bring up the word and sacraments before and I’m wondering what your take is then on denominations that don’t believe in the sacraments. Or groups like the Quakers or the Salvation Army that don’t even have ordinances, so don’t have baptism or communion at all.

Not entirely off topic. Lutherans do agree with Catholics that the Early Church was sacramental.

In regard to the word, I would think Lutherans would consider justification by faith alone as a pretty important part of the Gospel, so how could churches (Catholic, Orthodox, &c) that don’t believe in sola fide be considered to be teaching the word?

Lutherans and Catholics have agreement on this point.

Is this how the “office” of the Papacy is supposed to be Antichrist? So how could the Pope himself not be Antichrist if he is exercising authority and teaching things that are against the commands of Christ?

I boggles the mind, actually. It seems to me that the office is antichrist, or not. How can someone occupy an antichrist office who is not antichrist?

 

[ChaosGamma]

I boggles the mind, actually. It seems to me that the office is antichrist, or not. How can someone occupy an antichrist office who is not antichrist?

Well the way Jon explained it above, I can somewhat understand. Not entirely, but it makes some sense. The thing I still can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is the idea of an office being antichrist. Which may be the part that’s keeping me from completely understanding the first point, I don’t know.

 

[JonNC]

=ChaosGamma;13471695]Okay, I guess that’s really more or less the answer I expected. I just find it strange as I’m remembering (I think a different thread) a Lutheran poster saying something along the lines of “the Church is wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered”… It’s probably just the way I was reading it that makes it seem a bit off, because I pretty much agree with what you said.

Well, yes. That is what the Augsburg Confession says: The Church is the congregation of believes where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

Teaching and practice I agree. Origin, I would argue protestants could be grouped together, at least in the sense that all of the more recent groups (more or less) are still in some way descended from Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al, directly or indirectly. Which is why I’d think the statement “they’re not really protestants because they’re not protesting anything” is getting a little nitpicky about how we’re using the term.

Yes, but Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Anabaptists are not of the same origin, other than the CC. Of course, it isn’t nitpicking if one recalls that the origin of the term protestant comes from the formal protest at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, which was really a protest against government action.

Okay then. I’m still not sure about an office being antichrist, but this at least helps me understand your position more.

If I can explain more, let me know.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think Protestants think about church history. It would show them that Catholicism is the true Church

Why not Orthodoxy? IOW, this is a good cliche, but I’m not sure how helpful it is in proving the Catholic position.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Well the way Jon explained it above, I can somewhat understand. Not entirely, but it makes some sense. The thing I still can’t quite seem to wrap my head around is the idea of an office being antichrist. Which may be the part that’s keeping me from completely understanding the first point, I don’t know.

Perhaps better explained as the teachings that I listed regarding that office.

Jon