What Do Protestants Believe About the Early Church?

[Hatikvah]

From what I can glean, most Protestants (not myself, though) believe that the Church is the entire Christian body (Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc, etc).

God bless!

 

[Jon_S_1]

The council was right because it agreed with scripture.

That just leads me to say, “agrees with scripture according to who?” Scripture needs to be interpreted.

Are you saying if you did not believe the council followed scripture you would reject it?

What good is the council then?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

That just leads me to say, “agrees with scripture according to who?” Scripture needs to be interpreted.

Are you saying if you did not believe the council followed scripture you would reject it?

What good is the council then?

There is no need here, does scripture teach the divinity of Jesus or not? What does the Catholic Church teach that scripture teaches?

Yes. If the council didn’t follow scripture I would throw it out, and the church has done just that with several councils over the generations.

The councils only have authority insofar as they agree with scripture.

 

[JonNC]

That just leads me to say, “agrees with scripture according to who?” Scripture needs to be interpreted.

Are you saying if you did not believe the council followed scripture you would reject it?

What good is the council then?

What’s interesting is that Lutherans, by and large, have little disagreement with anything in the 7 great councils of the Church. It’s only since the Great Schism that councils have been disputed, by more than just Lutherans.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

How many times has the topic of church history came up while you have been attending Roman Catholic Church?

It comes up every day with the saint of the day.

We don’t have to explain that away at all. Many early church fathers such as Cyprian understood that the church being built on Peter was the foundation of all bishops, not one singular bishop of Rome. We simply agree with the early church in this regard.

Also, the rock being Peters confession or Peter himself was widely debated by the Early Church with many falling on both sides of that issue, so I don’t see a problem with it either way.

Yes, I don’t think it is possible to separate Peter from his confession, anymore than it is for each of us. Further, Jesus grafted Peter into Himself so that he could become the foundation of the Church. So Cephas, his confession, and his connection to THE ROCK are inseparable.

We accept the EC, we simply recognize that they were all over the map in many issues just like the church is today. We don’t need to pretend that there was any such thing as a “unanimous consent” because that would be playing fast and loose with history and dishonest.

I agree. I think where we differ is that Catholics believe Jesus appointed the Magesterium (Teaching Authority) to resolve the disputes. The Church is not a democracy, or something that ever has “unanimous consent”, but a Theocracy. Jesus intended to rule His Church through authorative persons which He appointed. So people can believe whatever they want (all over the map) but He promised to guide His church into “all truth” and has done so.

From what I can glean, most Protestants (not myself, though) believe that the Church is the entire Christian body (Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, etc, etc).

God bless!

And how is what you believe different?

There is no need here, does scripture teach the divinity of Jesus or not? What does the Catholic Church teach that scripture teaches?

Yes. If the council didn’t follow scripture I would throw it out, and the church has done just that with several councils over the generations.

The councils only have authority insofar as they agree with scripture.

Teaching is an activity of persons, not books. In order to teach, one must have intellect, be able to choose, and be able to take responsibility for one’s actions. These are qualities of persons, not books, however Holy. The duty of teaching was given by Christ to persons, not writings.

We see the divinity of Christ in Scripture when we read it from the point of view that the Apostles taught. This is reading with the mind of the Church. Others who reject this perspective do not see Christ’s divinity in Scripture.

What you are saying is that, if a Council does not agree with how YOU understand scripture, you reject it. So basically, you have become your own Magesterium, or authority, but self appointed, rather than Jesus appointed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There is no need here, does scripture teach the divinity of Jesus or not? What does the Catholic Church teach that scripture teaches?

Yes. If the council didn’t follow scripture I would throw it out, and the church has done just that with several councils over the generations.

The councils only have authority insofar as they agree with scripture.

Well the Mormons say none of them agree with scripture.

The early church had hot debates on the trinity and it took more than scripture to settle that matter as is evidenced by the many times Jesus’ divinity came up in councils.

So it seems you accept the councils in tradition but don’t hold the early councils to the same standard as later councils.

 

[Peter_J]

Question, those that willfully misrepresent another viewpoint…aka “lying”, is confession required? Is such a lie " venial" or “mortal” or do they get a “pass” since its apologetics and the person putting fort the lie as Truth is trying to convert the one the lie is presented to?

Unfortunately you’re asking me at the wrong time, as my sinometer is out for repairs. (I think they’re recalibrating the veniality axle.)

 

[SalusaSecondus]

It comes up every day with the saint of the day.

Yes, I don’t think it is possible to separate Peter from his confession, anymore than it is for each of us. Further, Jesus grafted Peter into Himself so that he could become the foundation of the Church. So Cephas, his confession, and his connection to THE ROCK are inseparable.

I agree. I think where we differ is that Catholics believe Jesus appointed the Magesterium (Teaching Authority) to resolve the disputes. The Church is not a democracy, or something that ever has “unanimous consent”, but a Theocracy. Jesus intended to rule His Church through authorative persons which He appointed. So people can believe whatever they want (all over the map) but He promised to guide His church into “all truth” and has done so.

And how is what you believe different?

Teaching is an activity of persons, not books. In order to teach, one must have intellect, be able to choose, and be able to take responsibility for one’s actions. These are qualities of persons, not books, however Holy. The duty of teaching was given by Christ to persons, not writings.

We see the divinity of Christ in Scripture when we read it from the point of view that the Apostles taught. This is reading with the mind of the Church. Others who reject this perspective do not see Christ’s divinity in Scripture.

What you are saying is that, if a Council does not agree with how YOU understand scripture, you reject it. So basically, you have become your own Magesterium, or authority, but self appointed, rather than Jesus appointed.

Teaching is an activity of persons, not books. In order to teach, one must have intellect, be able to choose, and be able to take responsibility for one’s actions. These are qualities of persons, not books, however Holy. The duty of teaching was given by Christ to persons, not writings.

That’s not what your church teaches about scripture. Your Catechism does in fact rightly admit that scripture does teach.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

What you are saying is that, if a Council does not agree with how YOU understand scripture, you reject it. So basically, you have become your own Magesterium, or authority, but self appointed, rather than Jesus appointed.

Not at all. At least not any more than Catholic apologists do. And all folks do. Can you tell me how I would go about discerning whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church without relying at least in part on my private interpretation of scripture and history. At some point I am going to have to use my private interpretation to declare that history and scripture points towards Catholicism over all other denominations. There is really no way around it.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Well the Mormons say none of them agree with scripture.

They have their own scripture which is quite obviously false.

The early church had hot debates on the trinity and it took more than scripture to settle that matter as is evidenced by the many times Jesus’ divinity came up in councils.

Sure. I differ my judgment to the church in most things.

So it seems you accept the councils in tradition but don’t hold the early councils to the same standard as later councils.

No I hold them all to the same standard. It’s just that as the Roman Catholic Church added more and more and become more and more doctrinally corrupted, as in the post schism councils, there is just more to reject from those councils. For example the early councils dealing with the person of Christ we are generally happy to accept those pronouncements as scripturally accurate, but we are happy to reject the pronouncements of Vatican I as neither scriptural or historically accurate.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what your church teaches about scripture. Your Catechism does in fact rightly admit that scripture does teach.

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The Scripture is a testimony to the Truth, but the duty of teaching was given by Christ to persons. In the hands of the persons He has appointed, the Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness. Jesus never intended for the Gospel to be extracted from the pages of the Sacred texts, but committted it to persons.

I think we will both agree that the Scriptures can be as easily used to teach error.

Not at all. At least not any more than Catholic apologists do. And all folks do. Can you tell me how I would go about discerning whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church without relying at least in part on my private interpretation of scripture and history. At some point I am going to have to use my private interpretation to declare that history and scripture points towards Catholicism over all other denominations. There is really no way around it.

I guess what you are saying is that you would have to come to a point where your private interpretation of Scripture agreed with what the Apostles believed and taught that is infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church.

There is a way around it, especially if one can acknowlege that the Church was not dependent upon Scripture. That would be to accept the kerygma as it was preached by the Apostles. Otherwise, how could the church grow before there was a Bible?

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I guess what you are saying is that you would have to come to a point where your private interpretation of Scripture agreed with what the Apostles believed and taught that is infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church.

There is a way around it, especially if one can acknowlege that the Church was not dependent upon Scripture. That would be to accept the kerygma as it was preached by the Apostles. Otherwise, how could the church grow before there was a Bible?

No, because the Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and other denominations all teach they they are the church and their tradition is the true one. Appealing to tradition is a recipe for disunity. How would I go about determining whose tradition is true without relying on my own personal interpretation at least in part.

 

[Jon_S_1]

They have their own scripture which is quite obviously false.

Sure. I differ my judgment to the church in most things.

No I hold them all to the same standard. It’s just that as the Roman Catholic Church added more and more and become more and more doctrinally corrupted, as in the post schism councils, there is just more to reject from those councils. For example the early councils dealing with the person of Christ we are generally happy to accept those pronouncements as scripturally accurate, but we are happy to reject the pronouncements of Vatican I as neither scriptural or historically accurate.

This argument is incoherent. You claim Mormons are “obviously false”. Not to the millions of Mormons though!

Who are you to say they are false? What authority do you use to declare it so?

I am reading in your responses a cognitive dissonance due to your errors in your tradition.

On the one side you are happy to stand with the early councils. In doing so you recognize the authority of the church. Of the bishops assembled who say “this is orthodox Christian belief”. You stand with them and say they are right on.

Then when it comes to that same church assembled who said “this is the orthodox Christian belief” at Trent you wave your hands and say no they are wrong.

I say, you have no more authority than Arius or any other minority dissent at any other council to say so snd do so.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s not what your church teaches about scripture. Your Catechism does in fact rightly admit that scripture does teach.

Catechism eh? Sounds like you’re a poster who cares about what our church teaches, and not just what’s been posted on a website with catholic.org or .com or whatever in the address.

I think I can feel ripples going out into the forum …

 

[Peter_J]

(I know, you don’t have to say it: that wasn’t very funny. I guess spending so much time on discussion forums over the years has warped my perspective, not to mention sense of humor.)

 

[SalusaSecondus]

Catechism eh? Sounds like you’re a poster who cares about what our church teaches, and not just what’s been posted on a website with catholic.org or .com or whatever in the address.

I think I can feel ripples going out into the forum …

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

 

[Peter_J]

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

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

 

[SalusaSecondus]

This argument is incoherent. You claim Mormons are “obviously false”. Not to the millions of Mormons though!

So? Millions of Mormons are wrong.

Who are you to say they are false? What authority do you use to declare it so?

Why does someone need authority to declare something true of false? The same authority that your church uses to declare itself the true church that is self authority?

On the one side you are happy to stand with the early councils. In doing so you recognize the authority of the church. Of the bishops assembled who say “this is orthodox Christian belief”. You stand with them and say they are right on.

Then when it comes to that same church assembled who said “this is the orthodox Christian belief” at Trent you wave your hands and say no they are wrong.

That’s because the church that created doctrine at Trent was not the same church that defined doctrine at Nicea, and obviously so. That’s probably the same reason you stand with the early councils, but reject the EO synods and councils.

I say, you have no more authority than Arius or any other minority dissent at any other council to say so snd do so.

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

 

[JonNC]

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

I think we make a mistake when we listen to apologists, and assume they speak for the communion they claim membership of, without confirmation of what they claim from that communion itself. I’ve seen some Lutherans apologists who fall into that category.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

So? Millions of Mormons are wrong.

Why does someone need authority to declare something true of false? The same authority that your church uses to declare itself the true church that is self authority?

That’s because the church that created doctrine at Trent was not the same church that defined doctrine at Nicea, and obviously so. That’s probably the same reason you stand with the early councils, but reject the EO synods and councils.

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

How are you not in the minority?

Last I checked Luther was himself with a handful of friends against hundreds of bishops.

 

[Michael68]

From what I have seen, Protestants believe the early churches were independent. They like to stress churches instead of church, imo, to justify the thousands of churches we have today