Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[benhur]

This is simply false. Much of it was NOT put to writing. In fact the Bible explicitly says so. St. Paul tells them to hold to the traditions which were received by letter OR oral teaching. Notice something VERY IMPORTANT here. St. Paul does NOT bother to write down these VERY important teachings that MUST be held to.

Why?

Because the Church holds these Traditions, both the written and oral.

Sorry but I think you misread me. In an earlier post i noted not all things were put to writing, with the verse that says if it were so, the books of the world could not contain them (hyperbole). In the post you comment on, the point was that what was put to writing was to be authoritative, as if the apostles themselves orally gave it to us today. As to your point that not all important things were put to writing I of course disagree. That would make Paul wrong in suggesting the sufficiency of scripture to make us perfect unto every good work.

 

[benhur]

If your satisfied with a hamburger when you could have a full Banquet Meal, well that’s your choice. God Bless, Memaw

I understand. You are on the Mother ship while we are on dinghies. We use similar analogy when referring to being baptized in the Holy Ghost, like at Pentecost, and those not. Actually we say one uses the stairs the other the escalator.

 

[benhur]

This was equally true for the non reformers once a reformation took place. The early reformed churches did not believe in freedom of religion. They believed in freedom from the Catholic religion. They didn’t think a man could believe whatever he thought the Christian faith to be. The new churches suppressed other ideas whether that was the old Catholic faith or some other Protestant faith.

Good point,Even Zwingli and calvin,thru civil law martyred a few folk. Yes, am aware that our constitution really finally broke the mold.

Yes, having only one church on main street is better. Far better. One of the most difficult aspects of the Christian faith is learning to truly love your neighbor. If you can avoid your actual neighbor by going to a different church you miss out on an opportunity to be forced by circumstances to grow.

Actually I have used similar argument when saying denominationalism provides that "opportunity " to love those that are different while still maintaining one’s convictions. For instance it is easier for a southern baptist to love a fellow southern baptist as a brother but he is called to to love a Presbyterian or a Catholic or a Pentecostal brother also etc. I don’t think folks here go to their particular church because of problems loving “other” church folks but because of being in agreement with the church’s beliefs and mission statement etc…You will have varying churches for many reasons as you put forth one of them.

The older I get the less I am excited about the great freedom of choice I have. It seems more like a burden.

I heard that when the iron curtain came down, and "freedom " came to the old communist society, some people cried, because they were “lost” in their new freedom. Some desired the days when the government did all the choosing for you. The government gave you a job, housing, food, clothes, a car, one political party etc etc. I hate choices also and am a perfectionist . Once I bought three different VCR’s on sale and took em home till i could make the "right "choice on which one to keep and which two to return. In the end, if we faint not, these choices are opportunities to grow in the Lord and may provide a “mirror” to where our hearts are at.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

How do you suppose those early christians were able to copy and distribute and circulate the writings, when you factor in not many could read or write, there was no paper as you know today, papyrus was expensive…and the Romans were running after the Christians and burning anything Christian the romans could find?

They did so at great peril. I salute those ancient christians who preserved those writings.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

HH: It was in response to your question or maybe answer The sheep hear the shepherds voice John 10:27. I will rephrase the question. How did the early Christians know the NT when there was no NT written and also the Apostles and those who wrote that did become the NT they themselves did not know that what they wrote was sacred Scripture, so iows how did the first Christians know?

They did know that they were writing scripture. Peter lets us know that he knew that Paul was writing scripture.

 

[zz912]

As to your point that not all important things were put to writing I of course disagree. That would make Paul wrong in suggesting the sufficiency of scripture to make us perfect unto every good work.

Please give chapter and verse where St. Paul writes down these things he mentions that must be adhered to.

And don’t twist St. Paul’s exhortation to St. Timothy into something it doesn’t mean. You’re reading your opinion into the text. St. Paul only says that a Christian needs Scripture (he’s referring to the OT here, the NT wasn’t written yet) to be complete. That does NOT mean you ONLY need OT Scripture, or ONLY OT and NT Scripture. There is much more needed to make a Christian complete, and Scripture is one of those necessary things.

 

[zz912]

They did know that they were writing scripture. Peter lets us know that he knew that Paul was writing scripture.

For the first Christians, the words “New Testament” did not mean the 27 books we think of. It meant the Eucharist. Testament is another word for Covenant, so when a first century Christian was discussing the New Testament/Covenant, he was not referring to Scripture, but to the Eucharist.

You are correct though, Peter, through his office as Pope was declaring that Paul’s writings contained authoritative revelation. Could you cite where the other books of the NT were considered Scripture at first?

 

[KathleenGee]

GKC, thanks for the reference.

Likewise, Monsignor Kelly, ‘Blood Drenched Altars’, gives history of Spain, as well as how Spain constructed universities in Mexico, and had native Indian professors teaching there in the 1500’s.

Likewise Bishop Zumarraga of Mexico, who had jurisdiction over the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, gave women and girls the right to an education hundreds of years before North American were allowed the same right.

 

[pablope]

They did so at great peril. I salute those ancient christians who preserved those writings.

Good, you did not insult them this time.

Anyway, you have not answered the question…how could they disseminate those writings, and circulate them wide…with these going on…when you factor in not many could read or write, there was no paper as you know today, papyrus was expensive…and the Romans were running after the Christians and burning anything Christian the romans could find?

 

[Jack007]

…how could they disseminate those writings, and circulate them wide…with these going on…when you factor in not many could read or write, there was no paper as you know today, papyrus was expensive…and the Romans were running after the Christians and burning anything Christian the romans could find?

I am another poster,but let me reply: there was Tradition.

 

[spina1953]

They did know that they were writing scripture. Peter lets us know that he knew that Paul was writing scripture.

Hi HH: I believe I have mentioned the fact that the Apostles at first never thought of writing the NT. The Books of the NT were produced due to circumstances that arose, were written to meet certain demands and emergencies. Nothing was further from the minds of the writers than the idea od composing works which should be collected and formed into a one volume and so constitute the Holy Book of the Christians. I can imagine St. Paul staring in amazement if he had been told that his epistles, and Peter’s and John’s and the others would betide up together and elevated into a position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them.

         While on earth Jesus, Himself never wrote a line of Scripture. He never told the Apostles to write anything. he did not command them to commit to writing what he had delivered to them, but said," Go and teach all nations," Preach the Gospel to every creature," he that hears you hears Me." What he commanded and meant the Apostles to do was exactly what he had done Himself, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice, convince, persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face to living men and women; not entrust their message to a dead book which might perish and be destroyed, and be misunderstood and misinterpreted and corrupted, but adopt the more safe and natural way of presenting the truth to them by word of mouth and in training others to do the same after they themselves were gone and so, by a living tradition, preserving and handing down the Word of God, as they received it, to all generations.

This was, as a matter of fact, the method that the Apostles adopted. Only five out of the twelve wrote down anything at all that has been preserved to us; and of that, not a line was penned till at least ten years after the death of Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

They did know that they were writing scripture. Peter lets us know that he knew that Paul was writing scripture.

Never listed, my friend. Never listed.

 

[benhur]

Please give chapter and verse where St. Paul writes down these things he mentions that must be adhered to.

And don’t twist St. Paul’s exhortation to St. Timothy into something it doesn’t mean. You’re reading your opinion into the text. St. Paul only says that a Christian needs Scripture (he’s referring to the OT here, the NT wasn’t written yet) to be complete. That does NOT mean you ONLY need OT Scripture, or ONLY OT and NT Scripture. There is much more needed to make a Christian complete, and Scripture is one of those necessary things.

Sorry, but you tell me what this means , “That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” ? According to Paul how are we furnished, or what furnishes us per context of the text ? What is perfect ? Remember, Paul was trained, and studied scripture, and what others said of scripture, for the equipping of his Jewish ministry before Christ. Everything had to be rooted in the Law and their holy books, even their tradition. Paul’s admonition to Timothy, and even lay people for our ministries had no less of a foundation and does not negate a proper understanding of the temporary existence of oral tradition. Paul was not confined to the idea of a set canon, for the Jews always had “new” holy books as God so moved thru the ages, as that was continuing in NT. Another words, Paul was not ignorant of the possibility of future inspired writings besides from his pen that would “profitable…that we may be perfect and thoroughly furnished” .

 

[benhur]

I am another poster,but let me reply: there was Tradition.

Yes, the Tradition that nothing trumps scripture. This does negate oral transmission.

 

[benhur]

Can you name any one early protestant? Are you also insinuating that Joan of Arc was a protestant?

In a legalistic sense you are correct. The term was first coined by Catholics when German princes walked out of a council that was to prohibit them or to take away the previously allowed freedom to be “Lutheran” by another council (mid 1500 ?). They walked out in “protest”…Now, what many discuss apart from such legalism are the ideas put forth from the reformation, and whether they existed pre1500.

 

[JonNC]

In a legalistic sense you are correct. The term was first coined by Catholics when German princes walked out of a council that was to prohibit them or to take away the previously allowed freedom to be “Lutheran” by another council (mid 1500 ?). They walked out in “protest”…Now, what many discuss apart from such legalism are the ideas put forth from the reformation, and whether they existed pre1500.

Not councils, but diets. The 1st Diet of Speyer in 1526 permitted religious activity by the Evangelical churches. The 2nd Diet of Speyer of 1529 rescinded such, leading to a protest against the actions of the diet. Hence, protestants.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not councils, but diets. The 1st Diet of Speyer in 1526 permitted religious activity by the Evangelical churches. The 2nd Diet of Speyer of 1529 rescinded such, leading to a protest against the actions of the diet. Hence, protestants.

Jon

Aha! So Protestants are responsible for diets… I knew it!

 

[benhur]

Not councils, but diets. The 1st Diet of Speyer in 1526 permitted religious activity by the Evangelical churches. The 2nd Diet of Speyer of 1529 rescinded such, leading to a protest against the actions of the diet. Hence, protestants.

Jon

Thanks. A little voice told me “council” was not the right word but did not have time to re-research, but to get the ball rolling. Thanks again for the fine tuning.

 

[benhur]

From my reading , this question has been put forth since the beginning of reformation by Catholics, "The controversy over the spiritual and historical ancestry of the Reformation was particularly live in the later 16th century…Where was your church before the Reformation?.. " auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=431&journal=1&type=pdf. The article goes on to say early church fathers used the same argument against heretics. It further states in a Catholic sense that this is a “new” thing. Calvin would say it is new, but only to it’s times (light after darkness),and Luther claimed “independence” from staus quo. Both were not immediately concerned with historical forerunners. There seems to be some forerunning by the Waldenses, and they did send some representatives to German and Swiss synods in the early 1500’s . The only rebuttal put forth was that the CC had strayed, had changed. They also rebutted by saying the church is not defined by “heirarchy” nor puts it’s trust in institutions and is invisible in the sense that it is also spiritual kingdom by those who visibly do righteously-(apostolic is as apostolic does and God could operate in synods). (discussed at national synods, such as Gap in 1603.)…Again these are thoughts put forth in the article. So, nothing new for us here today, and it seems both sides have put forth their case as in centuries past.

 

[benhur]

Aha! So Protestants are responsible for diets… I knew it!

Right, they couldn’t handle all that sudden bratwurst and weiners on fridays.