Why do some protestants say the Church was establish in the 4th or 5th century?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Micael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Micael

Guest
I just don’t get it. The lineage of popes is well documented right down to Peter as the 1st Bishop of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch the bishop that replaced Peter at Antioch when Peter left to Rome even mentions the Catholic Church and that he is “bound to Rome”. Its clearly stated in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans
which I provide here from a Calvin College -(Protestant) - Online library ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.html and ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.xxii.html .

Yet why is it that they spread falsehood ?

Do they not understand that the New Testament which they accept what organized as Canon by the Church. By a congregation of bishops, Synods, during the late 4th century.

Do they think these bishops were Anglicans or some other Protestant Church? No it makes no historical sense. They were Catholic Bishops in union with Rome.

How can I confront this evident historically error to prove to them that it makes no sense to state that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ onto Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome.
Additionally, how can they possibly deny the Church’s historical presence well before the 4th century as it is undenably the Catholic Church which is described by Early Church Fathers begining with Ignatateus, Irenaeus, Clement, Justyn Martyr and severa other Church Fathers.

Thanks
 
40.png
Micael:
I just don’t get it. The lineage of popes is well documented right down to Peter as the 1st Bishop of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch the bishop that replaced Peter at Antioch when Peter left to Rome even mentions the Catholic Church and that he is “bound to Rome”. Its clearly stated in his Epistle to the Smyrnæans
which I provide here from a Calvin College -(Protestant) - Online library ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.vii.html and ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.xxii.html .

Yet why is it that they spread falsehood ?

Do they not understand that the New Testament which they accept what organized as Canon by the Church. By a congregation of bishops, Synods, during the late 4th century.

Do they think these bishops were Anglicans or some other Protestant Church? No it makes no historical sense. They were Catholic Bishops in union with Rome.

How can I confront this evident historically error to prove to them that it makes no sense to state that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ onto Peter, the 1st bishop of Rome.
Additionally, how can they possibly deny the Church’s historical presence well before the 4th century as it is undenably the Catholic Church which is described by Early Church Fathers begining with Ignatateus, Irenaeus, Clement, Justyn Martyr and severa other Church Fathers.

Thanks
Click to expand...
People sometimes confuse Constantine’s Edict of Milan, which de-criminalized Christianity, with the establishment of the Church. Some foggier views even claim that Constantine was the head of the Church. The Edict of Toleration did not create an organized Church out of a loose confederation of underground, independent house-churches as some would claim.

Of course, such a view serves well those who need to deny that the Church is One, Catholic, and Apostolic because their ecclesiology demands that the Church be defined as anything, anything, anything BUT the Catholic Church whose chief bishop sits on the Chair of Peter in Rome.
 
Ever seen “The Trail of Blood”? They want to prove how a religion that appeared during the reformation was “really” the true and original church. So around 1900, a guy made a list of the “signs” of the “true church” and then “traced” the various churches through history and found that his Baptist church was the one and only “true” church–and it had been there all along. Of course, this is ridiculous! But when you are arguing with someone who resorts to such a source, you really are tilting at windmills.

As you can see on this page, they specifically reject any “secular” histories which tell them otherwise.
Editor: If there was ever a time that Baptists needed to know their history, or where they came from, it’s today. Secular history would have us believe we came out of the reformation. Sad to say the average Baptist is ignarant concerning our heritage, therefore we are printing in it’s entirety a small booklet, written in the early 1900’s by J.M. Carrol called “The Trail of Blood”.
Click to expand...
 
Well I have always felt that they couldnt recognize the catholic church as the church that Christ created because therefore the protestants would be “protesting” against the true church of Jesus Christ. I dont know maybe there is more to it, I have never really looked into about why protestants believe or dont believe what they do but I have been confronted by a protestant who claimed that emperor constantine created catholicism during the 6th century even though he didnt live in the 6th century. :confused:
 
Baptist being the true church? Still doesn’t make any sense to me. Where in their church do they celebrate the Eucharist and ordained priests as representatives of Christ, as the early Church did??
 
They make that claim because it’s easier to make that claim and be a heretic than it is to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church established on Pentecost in 33 AD. Some, on the other hand, just parrot what they have been taught by fundamentalist pastors/parents.

My friend used to believe that, until we went over some very basic history.

If you can knock the claim of who founded the Church, then you knock all the other doctrines of the Church as well.

Constantine was an Arian, which is someone who doesn’t believe in the Divinity of Jesus, yet the Church has always believed in the Divinity of Jesus. If Constantine founded the Church, Catholics wouldn’t believe in His Divinity today. Also, Constantine wasn’t even baptized till on his deathbed, and to be a Christian you would have to be baptized. Now, if you weren’t even a Christian, how well do you think the “founding” of a Christian church is going to go over with the other Christians?
 
Many people have been taught this by their pastors and never looked into it. If you have come into a better relationship with Jesus in a new Church why would you start looking into other Churches or the history of the Catholic Church, you would just listen to the story and believe it. This is very common and you will find it often said on Baptist\ Evangelical forums.

Ask for a specific date and they will always conflict or change the subject. Asserting that they might be protesting against the Church Jesus Christ established when they love Jesus is an emotional subject to be bringing up. Most of the time people do not want to investigate that subject or confront it.

So the myth gets perpetuated and mis-information continues.

God Bless
Scylla
 
It’s been my personal experience with most of the protestants that I know that they believe Constantine “founded” the catholic church.
They don’t seem to be aware that Constantine’s mother was a member of the church long before he was baptized.
They don’t seem to be aware there was a well established hierarchy long before he became involved.
I don’t know if he was even a christian when he ordered the decriminalization of christianity.
So…Constantine was finally baptized into a church that already existed and already had its own leaders, but somehow he gets credit for “founding” it…hmmmm.
 
There is a great deal of pride that prevents non-Catholic Christians to open themselves to any possibility that they may not have discovered the fullness of truth that Catholicism claims, let alone ignorance of the facts. I’ve been there myself prior to my conversion and I would have taken offense and did if anyone wanted to tell me that I did not belong to ‘the Church’ that Jesus Christ established.

“And you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart” Open minds and hearts allows the Holy Spirit to do His work.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary,

Rita
 
They simply have no sense of history. In their view, if Christ didn’t establish a Church in the first century which conformed to 20th century ideas of what it should look like, then He did it all wrong, and so it couldn’t possibly be the true Church.

Because the Church which has existed continuously for 20 centuries didn’t ever look Baptist, or Adventist, or whatever, then it obviously must have been a fake, with the true one hidden.

Again, they simply have no sense of history.
 
**
Why do some protestants say the Church was establish in the 4th or 5th century?
Click to expand...
Because if they admit the truth, they admit heresy.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top