Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nanotwerp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore said:
Ben, the disciples were practicing liturgy for decades before a word of the NT was ever written. Liturgy was already solid before the earliest epistle, and the books of the NT were produced through a liturgical community. Liturgy was an inheritance from our Jewish roots. The modern Divine Liturgy is rooted in the Synagogue service and prayers at Temple. This is part of our Apostolic inheritance, and is the reason why all those Churches founded by Apostles are liturgical.
Click to expand...
And ? Yes our churches have liturgy and liturgy came before NT.
 
guanophore said:
This is well said. The Holy Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the faith that produced them. Whenever they were separated from those authentic keepers of the Gospel, heresies were rampant.
Click to expand...
I spoke in the context of a church less than 150 years old, or Iranaeus did. As others have mentioned, I would not say he addressed something he did not see, that 1300 years later others did see. That would be not when Scripture is wrested from authentic keepers but when the keepers wrest themselves from scripture.
 
guanophore said:
The modern prevalent perception is that it is not possible to be blameless before God, following all of His commandments.
Click to expand...
And there is an ancient entrenched perception that by works of righteousness, even keeping the law, we can be blameless.
There is a rampant denial that Jesus Christ has triumphed over sin, and that it is now possible to live without sin.
Click to expand...
And who is it (John ?) that wrote, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"…I do not deny we are a new creation and are to live holy and pleasing to God. Not sure who is rampantly denying that but perhaps not emphasizing it enough.

I
 
benhur said:
And there is an ancient entrenched perception that by works of righteousness, even keeping the law, we can be blameless.And who is it (John ?) that wrote, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"…I do not deny we are a new creation and are to live holy and pleasing to God. Not sure who is rampantly denying that but perhaps not emphasizing it enough.

I
Click to expand...
Ben, in regards to your quote from St. John, one does not have to be sinless to be in a state of Grace. One just cannot be guilty of “mortal sin” (or what St. Paul calls deadly sin).

(More on difference between Moral and Veinal click here: catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/mortal-and-venial-sin)

Grace is granted to use via the Seven Sacraments. Since Protestants do no believe in the Seven Sacraments (which are all held by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East – which I will call Apostolic Churches), Baptized Protestants must make Perfect Acts of Contrition in order to return to a State of Grace. Members of Apostolic Churches utilize the Sacrament of Penance (also call Reconciliation and Confession) to return us to Grace even if we only have an Imperfect Act of Contrition.

But sin still leaves damage on our Souls which must be purified via fire when we die, before we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven (assuming we die in a state of Grace). This purifying fire is what Latin Catholics call purgatory.
 
benhur said:
And saved by grace and not of works doesn’t really mean…
Click to expand...
I don’t know what this means… Catholics believe we are saved by sanctifying Grace alone.

However, to gain Grace, one must not only have faith, but must also have “works.” The “works” can be a number of things: service, prayer, the Sacraments, alms giving, self sacrifice, giving suffering up to The Lord, penance, etc.

Faith alone will not help one enter a State of Grace. One must act on their Faith. We are judged by our works.
 
benhur.

You said in post 120:
Was not Iraneus contending for one gospel over another (Gnosticism) ?
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree. St. Irenaeus WAS contending for the ONE Gospel.

But St. Irenaeus never reduced “the Gospel” down to the printed page as per post 114 (bold and ul of St. Irenaeus quote added for clarity to what I am referring to).
St. Irenaeus does not reduce “the Gospel” down to the printed page: “For the Lord of all gave to His apostles the power of the Gospel, through whom also we have known the truth, that is, the doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also did the Lord declare: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me, and Him that sent Me.”—Book 3 Against Heresies
Click to expand...
Not ALL “His Apostles” wrote Scripture. Yet they ALL had “the power of the Gospel”. Even the non-Scripture-writing Apostles. Even Judas was described as having a “bishopric” (see Acts 1:20). This “power of the Gospel” was bestowed even before the New Testament was “penned”.

Also as pointed out in post 114.

IF St. Irenaeus asserted sola Scriptura (in the sense of formal sufficiency) . . . .

. . . what he stated elsewhere in the same “Against Heresies” would be non-sense.

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. . . . .

If St. Irenaeus, believed in sola Scriptura, he should have said:

NOT ST. IRENAEUS (Phantom imaginary Irenaeus quote) But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the Bible only. And only the Bible is the ground and pillar of our faith.

Also benhur, you said:
Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the word of God.
Click to expand...
You can see just from what you said, that faith is inseparable from works.

If faith comes through hearing the word preached (as St. Paul says in Romans 10:17), then that asserts the necessity of preaching (which is a “work”. And it is a “work” going on BEFORE the New Testament was even written).

ROMANS 10:15a, 17 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? . . . 17 So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.

There are “men” who are “sent” that “preach” Christ’s preaching.

Yet you seem to be assuming “the word of God” is reducible to the printed page (bold of your quote below mine).
Faith cometh by hearing, and that by the word of God.
Click to expand...
Again, you seem to be assuming “the word of God” is reducible to the printed page. Am I getting what you are saying correctly or are you trying to say something different?

Do you think “the word of God” is reducible to the printed page? Do you think St. Irenaeus thought that?

If St. Irenaeus thought this, WHY would he say Apostolic Tradition (“the tradition that originates from the Apostles”) is preserved by . . . . Apostolic Succession?

ST. IRENAEUS But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches . . .

Apostolic tradition is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches.

ROMANS 10:15a 15 And how can men preach unless they are sent?

Incidentally, I am not denying Apostolic Tradition is “preserved” by the Scriptures too. I am asserting Apostolic Tradition is not “preserved” by the Scriptures ALONE. St. Ireneaus seems to be asserting the exact same thing.
 
benhur said:
And ? Yes our churches have liturgy and liturgy came before NT.
Click to expand...
What keeps you a Protestant when the Catholic Church put the books of the Bible together. You talk about the superiority of Scriptures and Tradition, yet you fail to realize that the Christians during early Christian times had to rely on Tradition, instead of Scriptures.
 
Nanotwerp said:
What keeps you a Protestant when the Catholic Church put the books of the Bible together. You talk about the superiority of Scriptures and Tradition, yet you fail to realize that the Christians during early Christian times had to rely on Tradition, instead of Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Sort of. Christians knew what scripture was before any Pope or council told them what it was.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Which sacred tradition?
Click to expand...
I dunno. Are there more than 1? I thought that only Catholics (and Orthodox) proclaim the kerygma came through Sacred Tradition.

Which one do you believe transmitted these sacred texts to the early Christians?

IOW: what’s your answer for how the early Christians knew which texts were theopneustos and which ones weren’t? Was there some other Sacred Tradition that we Catholics don’t know about? :confused:

For, clearly, you have no other explanation except that they knew this through Sacred Tradition. I’m just wondering why you think there’s more than one?
 
PRmerger said:
I dunno. Are there more than 1? I thought that only Catholics (and Orthodox) proclaim the kerygma came through Sacred Tradition.

Which one do you believe transmitted these sacred texts to the early Christians?

IOW: what’s your answer for how the early Christians knew which texts were theopneustos and which ones weren’t? Was there some other Sacred Tradition that we Catholics don’t know about? :confused:

For, clearly, you have no other explanation except that they knew this through Sacred Tradition. I’m just wondering why you think there’s more than one?
Click to expand...
Dunno. My EO buddy states that his church is the only true church and the catholic church, and stated that the RC is teaching falsely and that the Pope is the antichrist. My RC buddy states that HER church is the only true church and the catholic church following TRUE a sacred tradition. My Assyrian friend states that HER church is following TRUE sacred tradition and all others the EO, RC, and OO are not. My RC trad friend states the same about the rest.

I can’t make heads or tails of who is teaching truth, and who is teaching falsely. Everyone claims that their church is the TRUE one.

Can you see that appealing to Sacred Tradition is a recipe for disunity and division?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Dunno. My EO buddy states that his church is the only true church and the catholic church, and stated that the RC is teaching falsely and that the Pope is the antichrist. My RC buddy states that HER church is the only true church and the catholic church following TRUE a sacred tradition. My Assyrian friend states that HER church is following TRUE sacred tradition and all others the EO, RC, and OO are not. My RC trad friend states the same about the rest.

I can’t make heads or tails of who is teaching truth, and who is teaching falsely. Everyone claims that their church is the TRUE one.

Can you see that appealing to Sacred Tradition is a recipe for disunity and division?
Click to expand...
Nope. It’s the people behind the Sacred Tradition. You just recognized this in another thread.

But yes, there’s more than one Sacred Tradition (Although there is a single deposit of faith) when you look closer into Church history. What I think you are looking at the cause of disunity and division is the development of doctrine. That is not Tradition but tradition.
 
House_Harkonnen said:
The sheep hear the shepherds voice. John 10:27.
Click to expand...
Since John the Apostle with the rest of the Apostles preached and taught, and since there was no NT to speak of that was written down as Sacred Scripture at that time, just how did the Christians know what sacred Scripture were the Apostles referring to? that was not yet the NT? Most of been tradition passed on to them by Jesus Himself with the Holy Spirit reminding them of all that Jesus taught them?
 
House_Harkonnen said:
Dunno. My EO buddy states that his church is the only true church and the catholic church, and stated that the RC is teaching falsely and that the Pope is the antichrist. My RC buddy states that HER church is the only true church and the catholic church following TRUE a sacred tradition. My Assyrian friend states that HER church is following TRUE sacred tradition and all others the EO, RC, and OO are not. My RC trad friend states the same about the rest.

I can’t make heads or tails of who is teaching truth, and who is teaching falsely. Everyone claims that their church is the TRUE one.

Can you see that appealing to Sacred Tradition is a recipe for disunity and division?
Click to expand...
This doesn’t actually address the point, HH.

What you have professed, when you state that the early Christians knew what the early Christian inspired texts were, is a belief in Sacred Tradition. As Catholics understand it.

Not as Lutherans understand it.

IOW: you believe that Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture are 2 channels of the Word of God.

That’s one step closer to being Catholic than being Lutheran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top