What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[jmtosh]

Of this I am certain that “that Rock was Christ”! Matt 16 does not give to Peter and vicariously to Rome the sole authority over interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. In believing that you are gravely mistaken. This text speaks of the authority Christ gave to the Apostles. That authority was not passed down to anyone else but was transposed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the Church that Jesus founded. The Apostles were of one faith but that faith was not the confusing gospel of Rome. What is that gospel anyway?

Paul, Peter and Apollos visited church in Corinth. Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcision and was present at Antioch with Paul and Barnabus and was a pillar with John / James in Jerusalem. John was the last surviving Apostle. What is that gospel anyway? They had one faith, one Lord , one baptism. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for remission of sins and lived to spread that gospel message of free salvation to sinners by trusting in Jesus Christ and His blood. To be in submission to the Apostles was to be in sumission to their doctrine which is in the Holy scriptures. But Rome has no authority to claim that she is that primitive church.
If any of the Apostles came to St. Peter’s today they would not recognise it as the Church of Jesus Christ.

The gospel according to John 1:12 But as many as received Him (Jesus Christ) to them He gave the authority to become the sons of God." Jesus Christ is the authority and trusting in Him is salvation. The Holy Spirit speaks of Jesus Christ and glorifies Christ on earth as He has gone into heaven. Chrit gave authority to the Apostles to start the infant church and write scripture through which the Holy Spirit speaks to the church.

The pope of Rome takes Christ’s titles and applies them to Himself. This Jesus never authorised. It is blasphemy and he is therefore a false Christ which the scriptures warn us of.

 

[Padrej]

I would say that in the English and German speaking world, the greatest modern theologians (say 1800’s to present) are Protestant. Modern biblical scholarship is very heavily dependent on Protestants. Go to a religious book store and you will also discover that the best study bibles by far are Protestant. The NAB is just sad in terms of study notes. Most of the popular spiritual books (solid ones) are Protestant. Most of the good marriage programs and family programs are Protestant (e.g Christian Psychologist James Dobson’s programs that have touched millions of lives for the better).

The Catholic Church is thankfully trying to catch up (eg some of the stuff on EWTN).

I know the Catholic Church does much good in terms of charities but in the disaster stuff I have been to I see the Salvation Army and the Baptist Men’s disaster relief services. Please, I know that the RCC does a great deal of wonderful work but this is another example of practical theology at work.

Excellent points. I had not thought of Dobson. Although I must admit that they had Bishop Fulton Sheen and I still appreciate his writings today. I wish they would run more of his programs on EWTN.
BUT was there a Joel Osteen amongst the Catholic ranks or a Norman Vincent Peale both running on positive thought?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Of this I am certain that “that Rock was Christ”! Matt 16 does not give to Peter and vicariously to Rome the sole authority over interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. In believing that you are gravely mistaken. This text speaks of the authority Christ gave to the Apostles. That authority was not passed down to anyone else but was transposed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the Church that Jesus founded. The Apostles were of one faith but that faith was not the confusing gospel of Rome. What is that gospel anyway?

Paul, Peter and Apollos visited church in Corinth. Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcision and was present at Antioch with Paul and Barnabus and was a pillar with John / James in Jerusalem. John was the last surviving Apostle. What is that gospel anyway? They had one faith, one Lord , one baptism. They believed in the Lord Jesus Christ for remission of sins and lived to spread that gospel message of free salvation to sinners by trusting in Jesus Christ and His blood. To be in submission to the Apostles was to be in sumission to their doctrine which is in the Holy scriptures. But Rome has no authority to claim that she is that primitive church.
If any of the Apostles came to St. Peter’s today they would not recognise it as the Church of Jesus Christ.

The gospel according to John 1:12 But as many as received Him (Jesus Christ) to them He gave the authority to become the sons of God." Jesus Christ is the authority and trusting in Him is salvation. The Holy Spirit speaks of Jesus Christ and glorifies Christ on earth as He has gone into heaven. Chrit gave authority to the Apostles to start the infant church and write scripture through which the Holy Spirit speaks to the church.

The pope of Rome takes Christ’s titles and applies them to Himself. This Jesus never authorised. It is blasphemy and he is therefore a false Christ which the scriptures warn us of.

your first statement shows that you are an envious person. thank God it is all your opinion without any basis in the Truth. your enterpretation, that is all it is. like so many out there. nothing more.

the CC Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and the Apostles, submit to it and you will understand what Jesus is talking about.

the third statement, you have just described the CC. One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. can you say that baptists, presbyterians, evangelicals, assemblies of God, church of Christ, are One? can honestly say that these community of believers have any authority here on earth?

4th statement. you said the Apostles started the infant Church. then what? did the Church stayed infant? and died out? is it what you are saying here?

i know, you think you know what you are talking about. you keep jumping all over Scriptures and it is yet to show us how Christ let His Church died at its infancy. show us how Scriptures survived wihtout the Church. please, i am waiting.

 

[Contarini]

I would say that in the English and German speaking world, the greatest modern theologians (say 1800’s to present) are Protestant.

The most fashionable ones, perhaps. And Barth is arguably more important than any modern Catholic theologian (by “important” I mean that his ideas are, and ought to be, taken more seriously and studied more intensely). But next to Barth, the theologians I’d name as most valuable of the past couple centuries are at least as likely to be Catholic as Protestant. Just off the top of my head, I’d name Newman, Von Balthasar, Ratzinger, Dulles (besides Rahner, with whose work I am not very familiar but who is of course very influential). On the Protestant side there’s Bonhoeffer Moltmann, Pannenberg, Yoder. There are a lot of good Protestant theologians in the generation just before mine (people in their 50s and 60s today): Rowan Williams, Oliver O’Donovan, Ephraim Radner, possbly John Millbank and Catherine Pickstock though I know those (and mostly know O’Donovan as well) just by reputation, Stanley Hauerwas, Robert Jenson, Miroslav Volf, N. T. Wright (and yes, most of these are Anglicans, I admit!), just to name a few. I can’t think of Catholic theologians of that generation whose work has deeply impacted me or for whom I have a really high regard based on their reputation, unless we count church historians such as Robert Louis Wilken and Brian Daley (this may say something rather sad about the immediate post-Vatican-II generation, or just about my own prejudices). But among my own contemporaries–the “rising stars”–there’s Telford Work on the one hand and Matthew Levering on the other (sticking to folks I know personally from grad school!).

Modern biblical scholarship is very heavily dependent on Protestants.

Agreed, although there are some big Catholic names as well, such as Raymond Brown. Of course you may not like him, but he’s very influential. I actually find that Catholic scholars are often more responsible and sensitive in their use of the historical-critical method. We could put it crudely by saying that they have the Magisterium breathing down their necks, but the more positive way of putting it is that they do scholarship in the context of a rich tradition rather than being seen as themselves the foundation for theology, which is too heavy a burden to put on a mere scholar.

Most of the popular spiritual books (solid ones) are Protestant.

I’d put it the other way round, but maybe I’m not thinking of “popular” books. Or maybe my definition of “solid” is different than yours (perhaps you don’t consider Merton either solid or popular!) I’m not sure what books you have in mind (please not Rick Warren!). I’d put Fr. Benedict Groeschel up against nearly any Protestant devotional writer I can think of, although I want to read Eugene Peterson and my wife loves Dallas Willard, and Richard Foster is pretty good as well.

Most of the good marriage programs and family programs are Protestant (e.g Christian Psychologist James Dobson’s programs that have touched millions of lives for the better).

Or arguably, in some cases, for the worse

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To what theological contributions: I would say all the differing theories of the rapture, they were not around before the 1830s (pre trib, post trib mid trib , historical etc).

I think that is a “contribution” that we could very well have lived without!

I don’t think the Roman Catholic church can claim revival meetings (tent meetings) as part of their theological contributions to Christianity with the “mourner’s bench” and “sawdust trail.”

Yes, though these are a mixed blessing.

Nor could they claim the great evangelists like Billy Sunday, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham.

Again, all of these are somewhat of a mixed blessing. I like Spurgeon by far the best of the three you mention.

Nor can the claim the Wesley brothers, John and Charles.

Indeed–I will absolutely claim the Wesleys as stars in the Protestant crown

I don’t see the Christian writer Charles Sheldon

Ho-hum

CS Lewis for that matter.

Indeed, though Lewis was mostly a popularizer, and much (not all) of the material he popularized was Catholic in origin.

But of course, your legitimate point is that Protestants have a stellar record of producing evangelists, hymn-writers, and popular authors (and although the quality is highly uneven there are many good ones), while Catholicism often seems to function best on a very “high” level, creaking and groaning a bit when it gets down to the pews.

Edwin

 

[Padrej]

your first statement shows that you are an envious person. thank God it is all your opinion without any basis in the Truth. your enterpretation, that is all it is. like so many out there. nothing more.

the CC Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and the Apostles, submit to it and you will understand what Jesus is talking about.

the third statement, you have just described the CC. One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. can you say that baptists, presbyterians, evangelicals, assemblies of God, church of Christ, are One? can honestly say that these community of believers have any authority here on earth?

4th statement. you said the Apostles started the infant Church. then what? did the Church stayed infant? and died out? is it what you are saying here?

i know, you think you know what you are talking about. you keep jumping all over Scriptures and it is yet to show us how Christ let His Church died at its infancy. show us how Scriptures survived wihtout the Church. please, i am waiting.

"the CC Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and the Apostles, submit to it and you will understand what Jesus is talking about.

Can you possibly explain THAT statement!!! I have yet to open a Bible Catholic OR Protestant edition edition and see the “Gospel of Roman Catholic” I see Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

 

[Padrej]

I think that is a “contribution” that we could very well have lived without!

Yes, though these are a mixed blessing.

Again, all of these are somewhat of a mixed blessing. I like Spurgeon by far the best of the three you mention.

Indeed–I will absolutely claim the Wesleys as stars in the Protestant crown

Ho-hum

Indeed, though Lewis was mostly a popularizer, and much (not all) of the material he popularized was Catholic in origin.

But of course, your legitimate point is that Protestants have a stellar record of producing evangelists, hymn-writers, and popular authors (and although the quality is highly uneven there are many good ones), while Catholicism often seems to function best on a very “high” level, creaking and groaning a bit when it gets down to the pews.

Edwin

I agree too we could have lived without all the theories on the Tribulation, especially when you consider the source of some of them.

 

[FrJohnB]

Can you possibly explain THAT statement!!! I have yet to open a Bible Catholic OR Protestant edition edition and see the “Gospel of Roman Catholic” I see Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

I would curious to the answer to that one myself. I suspect that wisdomeseeker got a bit ahead of himself in typing and that came out a bit wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Gospel. We do maintain the historic teaching handed down to us from Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
I think the problem is that most protestants feel that submitting to the Bible would be submitting to those teachings to that point would be a moot one.

 

[jmtosh]

QUOTE=wisdomseeker;6217774]your first statement shows that you are an envious person. thank God it is all your opinion without any basis in the Truth. your enterpretation, that is all it is. like so many out there. nothing more.

the CC Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and the Apostles, submit to it and you will understand what Jesus is talking about.

the third statement, you have just described the CC. One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. can you say that baptists, presbyterians, evangelicals, assemblies of God, church of Christ, are One? can honestly say that these community of believers have any authority here on earth?

4th statement. you said the Apostles started the infant Church. then what? did the Church stayed infant? and died out? is it what you are saying here?

i know, you think you know what you are talking about. you keep jumping all over Scriptures and it is yet to show us how Christ let His Church died at its infancy. show us how Scriptures survived wihtout the Church. please, i am waiting.

I don’t have to show you how Christ left the infant Church to die for the simple reason that He didn’t and I never said that so harp on something else. Jesus said that He would build His Church and the gates of Hell would not revail against it. I can categorically tell you that Jesus was not tlking about thr RCC! You have been indoctrinated and are mistaken in thinking that He did.
Jesus said you are Petros (Gk - a stone) and on this Petra (Gk Rock) I will build my Church. Prior to this Peter had acknowledged Christ as the Son of the living God by revelation of the Father.
Paul says in 1 COR 10 - That Rock was Christ - what Rock? As I said the O.T.is replete with allusions to God / LORD as the Rock.
You have said some pretty heavy things about me because I do not believe in your Augustine’s City of God Church in Rome Kingdom, and I will reserve comment about what I think of you.
You ask me to explain and then ignore scripture and accuse me of jumping all over scripture. What I am saying to you is that the N.T. is full of scriptures on the Church, the identity of Christ and warnings of apostacy. You still have’nt mentioned or commented on the answer I gave you at the beginning: The Kingdom of God does not cme with observation. Neither will one say “there it is” or “here it is”. The Kingdom of God is within you.
You are hooked on authority. I told you for the Christian Jesus Christ is the authority and the Word of God is His authority. What authority do you have to appropriate Christ’s titles to yourself and build a kingdom on eart? Don’t you know what the scriptures say about that?
The last living Apostle was John circa 96 A.D. By this time the N.T. had been written and was being copied and circulated. God has promised to preserve His Word. The Church of Rome claimed prominence and usurped authority over the other bishoprics in the time of Gregory 1st circa 590. Although the Church up until this time was Catholic there was no central authority where one bishopric enjoyed sovereignty over another. Until the fall of Rome in 476 - early 500s Rome was the capital of the Empire and naturally enjoyed a certain prestige of leadership. But the idea of popes holding sway over the church before 590 is a pipe dream.
By this time the faith was flourishing. In Constantinople, Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch in fact all over th known world. The Roman Catholic Church took over the role of the Roman Emperors and because they had no Temporal Power at this point abd desperate for that power pulled of a political coup with the Franks forming the precarious relationship with what became the Holy Roman Emperors. The world hit the Dark Ages until the 1380s - 1530s when Wycliff, Hus, Luther, etc brought the ight of the Reformation in by God’s grace. The unwieldy theology of Rome and its devolution from Christ back to paganism was checked for a while.
These are historical facts. Or do you want to appropriate the right to rule on history too?
Oh, by the way you can add Dr. William Albright,F.F.Bruce, Merrill Unger to the list of great contributions to theology. For the record I am not a Charismatic, stadium packing, ground stomping, rapture preaching fanatic either.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Can you possibly explain THAT statement!!! I have yet to open a Bible Catholic OR Protestant edition edition and see the “Gospel of Roman Catholic” I see Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

i was just answering to your statement.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the Church that Jesus founded. The Apostles were of one faith but that faith was not the confusing gospel of Rome. What is that gospel anyway?

perhaps i misunderstood you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I would curious to the answer to that one myself. I suspect that wisdomeseeker got a bit ahead of himself in typing and that came out a bit wrong. The Roman Catholic Church is not a Gospel. We do maintain the historic teaching handed down to us from Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
I think the problem is that most protestants feel that submitting to the Bible would be submitting to those teachings to that point would be a moot one.

i was just answering to his statement.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the Church that Jesus founded. The Apostles were of one faith but that faith was not the confusing gospel of Rome. What is that gospel anyway?

perhaps i misunderstood what he was saying.

 

[jmcrae]

I know the Catholic Church does much good in terms of charities but in the disaster stuff I have been to I see the Salvation Army and the Baptist Men’s disaster relief services. Please, I know that the RCC does a great deal of wonderful work but this is another example of practical theology at work.

You might not be aware that the Christian Children’s Fund and Development and Peace are Catholic charities, and they have been on the ground in Haiti from the very first moment, since they were already present, doing their ordinary day-to-day work there. They have the added advantage of not adding any extra mouths to feed, nor any extra beds required, when they do disaster relief, because they have already been resident there for quite some time - the same people who are already there just had to switch gears and change their daily list of tasks to get done.

 

[wisdomseeker]

QUOTE=wisdomseeker;6217774]your first statement shows that you are an envious person. thank God it is all your opinion without any basis in the Truth. your enterpretation, that is all it is. like so many out there. nothing more.

the CC Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and the Apostles, submit to it and you will understand what Jesus is talking about.

the third statement, you have just described the CC. One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. can you say that baptists, presbyterians, evangelicals, assemblies of God, church of Christ, are One? can honestly say that these community of believers have any authority here on earth?

4th statement. you said the Apostles started the infant Church. then what? did the Church stayed infant? and died out? is it what you are saying here?

i know, you think you know what you are talking about. you keep jumping all over Scriptures and it is yet to show us how Christ let His Church died at its infancy. show us how Scriptures survived wihtout the Church. please, i am waiting.

I don’t have to show you how Christ left the infant Church to die for the simple reason that He didn’t and I never said that so harp on something else. Jesus said that He would build His Church and the gates of Hell would not revail against it. I can categorically tell you that Jesus was not tlking about thr RCC! You have been indoctrinated and are mistaken in thinking that He did.
Jesus said you are Petros (Gk - a stone) and on this Petra (Gk Rock) I will build my Church. Prior to this Peter had acknowledged Christ as the Son of the living God by revelation of the Father.
Paul says in 1 COR 10 - That Rock was Christ - what Rock? As I said the O.T.is replete with allusions to God / LORD as the Rock.
You have said some pretty heavy things about me because I do not believe in your Augustine’s City of God Church in Rome Kingdom, and I will reserve comment about what I think of you.
You ask me to explain and then ignore scripture and accuse me of jumping all over scripture. What I am saying to you is that the N.T. is full of scriptures on the Church, the identity of Christ and warnings of apostacy. You still have’nt mentioned or commented on the answer I gave you at the beginning: The Kingdom of God does not cme with observation. Neither will one say “there it is” or “here it is”. The Kingdom of God is within you.
You are hooked on authority. I told you for the Christian Jesus Christ is the authority and the Word of God is His authority. What authority do you have to appropriate Christ’s titles to yourself and build a kingdom on eart? Don’t you know what the scriptures say about that?
The last living Apostle was John circa 96 A.D. By this time the N.T. had been written and was being copied and circulated. God has promised to preserve His Word. The Church of Rome claimed prominence and usurped authority over the other bishoprics in the time of Gregory 1st circa 590. Although the Church up until this time was Catholic there was no central authority where one bishopric enjoyed sovereignty over another. Until the fall of Rome in 476 - early 500s Rome was the capital of the Empire and naturally enjoyed a certain prestige of leadership. But the idea of popes holding sway over the church before 590 is a pipe dream.
By this time the faith was flourishing. In Constantinople, Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch in fact all over th known world. The Roman Catholic Church took over the role of the Roman Emperors and because they had no Temporal Power at this point abd desperate for that power pulled of a political coup with the Franks forming the precarious relationship with what became the Holy Roman Emperors. The world hit the Dark Ages until the 1380s - 1530s when Wycliff, Hus, Luther, etc brought the ight of the Reformation in by God’s grace. The unwieldy theology of Rome and its devolution from Christ back to paganism was checked for a while.
These are historical facts. Or do you want to appropriate the right to rule on history too?
Oh, by the way you can add Dr. William Albright,F.F.Bruce, Merrill Unger to the list of great contributions to theology. For the record I am not a Charismatic, stadium packing, ground stomping, rapture preaching fanatic either.

:dts::yawn:

 

[jmtosh]

the Roman Church is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. there is no other. first, she has always been called Catholic Church by the whole world. just because england decided to start calling her roman Church, it doesnt change the Truth. i cant go into to much detail on this.

What about the other Catholic Churches? Orthodox. Coptic. In 450 most of the Church was Arian until Clovis was baptised catholic.

When you claim that RCC wrotre the Bible that is preposerous. You obviously mean Jerome’s Vulgate in the 5th century. This was the basis for Wycliff’s work. Origen compiled the Hexapla the Hebrew O.T. and 5 Greek versions in the 3rd Century. There was also the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jews preserved the Masoretic O.T. text up to 10th Century. The Church fathers prior to 6th Century all quoted portions of greek MSS.
The modern Bibles of course have no relation to the Vulgate whatsoever but are based on Codex Sinaiticus, Codes Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus.

To claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the whole Catholic Church of the first 5 centuries is arrogant and quite simply wrong.

 

[wisdomseeker]

the Roman Church is One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. there is no other. first, she has always been called Catholic Church by the whole world. just because england decided to start calling her roman Church, it doesnt change the Truth. i cant go into to much detail on this.

What about the other Catholic Churches? Orthodox. Coptic. In 450 most of the Church was Arian until Clovis was baptised catholic.

When you claim that RCC wrotre the Bible that is preposerous. You obviously mean Jerome’s Vulgate in the 5th century. This was the basis for Wycliff’s work. Origen compiled the Hexapla the Hebrew O.T. and 5 Greek versions in the 3rd Century. There was also the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Jews preserved the Masoretic O.T. text up to 10th Century. The Church fathers prior to 6th Century all quoted portions of greek MSS.
The modern Bibles of course have no relation to the Vulgate whatsoever but are based on Codex Sinaiticus, Codes Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus.

To claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the whole Catholic Church of the first 5 centuries is arrogant and quite simply wrong.

who were the Church’s Fathers? i am glad you mention them. who were they?

 

[jmtosh]

The Church Fathers a.k.a the Apostolic Fathers were, inter alia, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc who lived in the period from the last of the Apostles to the usurpation of the Roman Catholic Church.
They helped compile the canon of scripture and wrote of the Apostles, the common faith, apologies,etc. They are a link with the primitive Church. However, rarely were they unaminous on an interpretation of scripture. For instance on the famous passage in Matt 16 cited above the majority of the Fathers (44) interpreted the Rock on which Christ would build His Church as the faith St. Peter expressd in Christ.

Some of the Fathers espoused heretical views e.g Origen at one time on the Trinity
saying that the Son was inferior to the Father.

What of the ancient Culdee / Celtic Church of St. Patrick in Ireland which, after operaing independantly of Rome for centuries and having preached the pure gospel opf Christ to Britain, was mercilessly subjugated in 1172. The irony of it all is that King Henry II of England was armed with a papal Bull from Adrian IV (upheld by Alexander III) to invade Ireland and ensure that the Celtic Church was brought into subjection to the Roman Pontiff. Fact of History.

After England became Protestant the Popes began supporting Irish emancipation from the English. These are facts of History.

As for the RCC being ONE in 1414 (not for the first time) there were 3 warring Popes anathamatising one another and resorting to arms to assert their causes. (John XXIII of Italy, Gregory XII of France Benedict XIII of Spain) together with the false miracles of the relic of Wilsnack this caused Jan Hus, a learned priest and confessor to Queen Sophia of Bavaria to speak out against these abuses. His examination of the Holy Scriptures caused him to see the truth of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. He was matyred in 1415.

Why is it that learned Romanists like Hus, Luther and Wycliff changed when they read the wonderful truth of scripture? The were convertedto Christ and gladly preached against the idolatrous worship imposed on them.
What did they have that caused the to choose affliction rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season? My friend they had Jesus Christ and forgveness of sins by His blood shed on the cross. The Holy Scriptures had made them wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:15). Like Abraham they enduredas seeing Him who is invisible looking for a city that is to come.

Jesus sid to the Pharisees search the scripture for in them you think you have etrnal life but they speak of me.

With all respect the Roman Church is not a Catholic it is more correctly a Papal Church putting faith in the decrees andtraditions of the Popes rather than in the Word of God.
As you said yourself Catholics arenot followers of the Bible but of the Church.

I would rather put my faith in hat God has said and has entrusted to His Apostles to record rather than n a system that is moving further and further away from tha truth.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Church Fathers a.k.a the Apostolic Fathers were, inter alia, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc who lived in the period from the last of the Apostles to the usurpation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some of the Fathers espoused heretical views e.g Origen at one time on the Trinity
saying that the Son was inferior to the Father.

After England became Protestant the Popes began supporting Irish emancipation from the English. These are facts of History.

Why is it that learned Romanists like Hus, Luther and Wycliff changed when they read the wonderful truth of scripture? The were convertedto Christ and gladly preached against the idolatrous worship imposed on them.
What did they have that caused the to choose affliction rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season? My friend they had Jesus Christ and forgveness of sins by His blood shed on the cross. The Holy Scriptures had made them wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:15). Like Abraham they enduredas seeing Him who is invisible looking for a city that is to come.

Jesus sid to the Pharisees search the scripture for in them you think you have etrnal life but they speak of me.

With all respect the Roman Church is not a Catholic it is more correctly a Papal Church putting faith in the decrees andtraditions of the Popes rather than in the Word of God.
As you said yourself Catholics arenot followers of the Bible but of the Church.

I would rather put my faith in hat God has said and has entrusted to His Apostles to record rather than n a system that is moving further and further away from tha truth.

here is what i said: “we are not the people of the Bible, we are the people of God.” Pope BXVI.

here is something that i woud like you to read. perhaps this gives you some understanding of why we are Catholics, the Church Jesus found. how we came to be. it is lots of reading, so it will take a while.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html

Peace.

 

[Contarini]

You have said some pretty heavy things about me because I do not believe in your Augustine’s City of God Church in Rome Kingdom

If you bothered to read the City of God (admittedly it is a very long book indeed), you would see that Augustine very clearly distinguishes between the City of God and the Roman Empire. That’s kind of the point of the book

The last living Apostle was John circa 96 A.D. By this time the N.T. had been written

Many scholars disagree. Many of them think that parts of the N.T.: the pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter, maybe even Acts–may come from the second century. How do you know they are wrong? Yes, you trust the Word of God. But what makes you so confident that all the 27 books we have are the Word of God in the first place?

I know this is an old Catholic-apologetics standby. Obviously I don’t think this argument proves the truth of Roman Catholicism, since I’m an Anglican myself. But it does destroy the idea that we can simply “trust the Word of God” without any reliance on the testimony of the historic Church.

God has promised to preserve His Word.

Again, this assumes that the early Catholic Church (no, I don’t think that this was simply identical with the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today, but they called themselves the Catholic Church so that’s the term I’m going to use) was right in its determination of the 27-book NT canon. If they were wrong, then not all the books we have are in fact God’s Word, so God has not promised to preserve them. (Note that I’m not saying they had to have been “infallible” in the RC sense, only right.)

The Church of Rome claimed prominence and usurped authority over the other bishoprics in the time of Gregory 1st circa 590.

That’s not true. There were plenty of claims of prominence before, and Gregory himself did not make anything like the claims that were made later. Sure, he was a very strong leader and helped cement the authority of Rome in the Western Church, but it was one moment in a larger story, and in fact Gregory’s denunciation of the patriarch of Constantinople for taking the title “universal bishop” has been quoted by Protestants and Orthodox as evidence against the legitimacy of later papal claims.

Although the Church up until this time was Catholic there was no central authority where one bishopric enjoyed sovereignty over another.

Depends what you mean by “sovereignty.” Certainly the bishops of Rome had claimed some kind of authority since at least the second century (Pope Victor’s “attempt” to excommunicate the Asian churches–and no, I don’t buy the explanation that this was just about Asian communities in Rome, though I’m sure that’s how the controversy started–makes it clear that Rome’s word counted for something throughout the universal Church, although the upshot of the controversy also shows that Rome could be successfully resisted). And earlier popes such as Damasus, Leo, and Gelasius arguably contributed more to the development of Roman claims than Gregory himself.

The Roman Catholic Church

I do not myself use this phrase for the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.

took over the role of the Roman Emperors and because they had no Temporal Power at this point abd desperate for that power pulled of a political coup with the Franks forming the precarious relationship with what became the Holy Roman Emperors.

This doesn’t make sense. As you admit, they didn’t have temporal power, which means in plain language tha they did not take over the role of the Roman Emperors, but (as you admit) helped install the Frankish monarchs in that role. If you seriously believe that either the Frankish “Roman Emperors” or the later “Holy Roman Emperors” (from the 10th century on) were simply puppets of the Pope, then I’m afraid you need to read a lot more medieval history. The Emperors were serious rivals of the Papacy as leaders of the Christian world right through the Middle Ages. Indeed, the rivalry between Pope and Emperor was one of the things that allowed Protestantism to flourish.

The world hit the Dark Ages until the 1380s - 1530s

Oh please. No historian uses the phrase “Dark Ages” for anything after the eleventh century, and it’s probably a misleading and not very helpful term even for the earlier Middle Ages. Only to people blinded by ideology do the 12-13th centuries appear “dark.” Of course there were lots of evils in that era, as in any era–but culturally it is one of the most glorious periods of Western civilization. (And spiritually too, in my opinion–even if you are judging things from a strictly Protestant perspective. I don’t think evangelical Protestantism would exist in the form it does today without the work of St. Bernard of Clairvaux.)

when Wycliff, Hus, Luther, etc brought the ight of the Reformation in by God’s grace.

Luther’s theology was very different from that of Wycliffe and Hus, as he himself recognized.

Oh, by the way you can add Dr. William Albright,F.F.Bruce, Merrill Unger to the list of great contributions to theology.

I don’t know Merrill Unger’s work, but I am with you with regard to Albright and Bruce. They were Biblical scholars, but I have already mentioned N.T. Wright–I don’t think Biblical scholarship and theology should be kept far apart!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Church Fathers a.k.a the Apostolic Fathers were, inter alia, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc who lived in the period from the last of the Apostles to the usurpation of the Roman Catholic Church.

When was this “usurpation”? Any date you can give (at least before the 11th century) will be arbitrary and will owe more to Protestant apocalyptic speculation (never mind that most Protestants have abandoned historicism–it still shapes the popular Protestant view of history) than to historical scholarship.

What of the ancient Culdee / Celtic Church of St. Patrick in Ireland which, after operaing independantly of Rome for centuries and having preached the pure gospel opf Christ to Britain,

There’s no evidence that Patrick preached what modern Protestants would consider “the pure gospel of Christ.” This is Protestant fantasy.

was mercilessly subjugated in 1172.

Henry’s invasion certainly led to stronger links with England and thus with the Continent, ecclesiastically as in other respects. But I am unaware of any documented historical evidence (as opposed to Protestant propaganda) that justifies your characterization of this year as the “subjugation” of a hitherto independent church (and bear in mind that Henry was no papal lackey–he tried to control the Church as much as possible himself)

His examination of the Holy Scriptures caused him to see the truth of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ.

Could you define in one sentence or so what you consider the core truths of the Gospel, and then show these truths in Hus? He certainly did not believe in justification by faith alone, for instance.

Why is it that learned Romanists like Hus, Luther and Wycliff changed when they read the wonderful truth of scripture?

The idea that people just “read the Bible” and became Protestants is, again, fantasy rather than history. Lots of people were reading the Bible in the later Middle Ages. Some of them wound up dissenting from established Church doctrine, not all of them in ways that correspond with what modern Protestants believe.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Baptism as a savig ordinance - 150 A.D.

Earlier than that–see Romans 6, John 3, etc. Even if you think the Catholic interpretations of these passages are unconvincing, the fact is that there is not one shred of evidence for anything *other *than a salvific view of baptism–so this example is not an example of change at all.

Infant Baptism - 225

Tertullian’s On Baptism, which refers to the practice disapprovingly but with no indication that it was a new one, probably dates from closer to 200. So we can be quite confident that the practice predated 200.

One could put the shoe on the other foot and ask for the first evidence of the children of Christians being baptized in adulthood or adolescence (rather than infancy). I am not aware of any such evidence before the fourth century. The evidence we have is fully compatible with the theory that Christian children were always baptized as infants, with Tertullian representing a growing discontent with the practice, which culminated in the post-Constantinian era in a widespread habit of delaying baptism. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between–probably both practices can be found quite early. But there’s no way to be sure in the present state of the evidence.

The Lord’s Supper as an elaborate sacramental sacrifice 250

Whatever the heck an “elaborate sacramental sacrifice” is. Have you even bothered to think about these terms you are using, or did you just copy this list from somewhere? This one is too vague even to address. But if you are claiming that the idea of the Eucharist as a sacrifice only started then, you have to deal with the clear parallels 1 Clement draws between OT sacrifices and Christian worship.

Prayers for the dead 300

The martyrdom account of Perpetua, written around 200, describes prayer for the dead. This is assuming that the prayer for Onesiphorus found in 2 Timothy is not a prayer for the dead. Again, there’s no way to be sure either way. I think the language points toward Onesiphorus being dead, but I admit that this is highly speculative. The question here as with your other examples is: why assume that the practices you prefer must be the earlier ones? If you go into the evidence with that assumption, you will of course be able to make the evidence fit your assumptions.

Making the sign of the cross 300

Tertullian refers to it, again around 200.

Worship in Latin 600

That is silly. Christians had been worshiping in Latin since about the second century. It’s as if Protestant propagandists forget that Latin was a living language!

I will not go through the rest of your examples, but you aren’t batting a very good average so far. You need better sources.

Edwin