Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[Montalban]

It's incorrect to say "NO Eastern Orthodox"

John of Damascus, stating what is Orthodox faith would be one.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing any Protestants mentioned in the same time period

 

[HisKid1973]

Do you have any evidence at all?

I guess this old brain of mine is not understanding of what you want. They were just Christians following the teachings of Christ and the original apostles...What were they protesting?

 

[Montalban]

I guess this old brain of mine is not understanding of what you want. They were just Christians following the teachings of Christ and the original apostles...What were they protesting?

I believe Protestant dogma only goes back to c.1500.

I don't know of anyone prior to 1500 praticing things such as 'sola scriptura', 'faith alone', 'particular salvation' etc.

I have asked for concrete examples of people teaching these things.

None so far.

People have replied with general statements like "You know, the Apostles" or "People did"

CONVERSLEY it was stated that no one practiced EO teaching in the same period

I gave one concrete example - John of Damascus.

 

[Standing Up]

It's incorrect to say "NO Eastern Orthodox"

John of Damascus, stating what is Orthodox faith would be one.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing any Protestants mentioned in the same time period

What was he 700ad? More like RC's Catechism, a summary of things that came before. Or did he have anything original? In any event, I thought we were looking for someone in the first 2-300 years, before Tradition was near full in bloom to be picked and placed into a vase.

 

[Standing Up]

Some have picked Paul as an example.

We could also pick Augustine--let the reader decide about confession/Peter/rock and the meaning. (Some P agree.)

There's a variety of people that exhibit many traits that P reintroduced. Irenaeus has been mentioned as SS (Some P agree)

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

In the same paragraph Irenaeus also teaches against the "developed doctrine" theory. (Some P agree)

Clement of Alexandria taught that scripture self interprets (some P agree).

"But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures."

Cyprian/Stephen taught they were the Catholic Church against the group at Rome (some P agree).

Point is there's all sorts of traditions that get picked over. Rarely from the same person. And always over time. That's the nature of Tradition.

 

[HisKid1973]

I believe Protestant dogma only goes back to c.1500.

I don't know of anyone prior to 1500 praticing things such as 'sola scriptura', 'faith alone', 'particular salvation' etc.

I have asked for concrete examples of people teaching these things.

None so far.

People have replied with general statements like "You know, the Apostles" or "People did"

CONVERSLEY it was stated that no one practiced EO teaching in the same period

I gave one concrete example - John of Damascus.

What else would the NT believers follow..By the first millennium AD I would think any oral by the original apostles would have been in letter form with the rest to circulate to the churches.. Particular salvation ? Except a man be reborn he cannot enter the kingdom of God. They understood they were born by water once but needed a spiritual rebirth.. I had a powerful born anew experience Aug of 73 that radically transformed this old hippies life. I experienced what they preached about. That the message was preached by Peter. He preached Christ and 3000 came into the church that day with on evangelistic outreach. I read those scriptures many times over the years and never read anything like some of the doctrines and dogma that came along after the original apostles teachings..What else is out faith based on. Sure we earn rewards for being obedient to Christ in His will for us.. But the salvation is still there for those who only get ash.

 

[Montalban]

What was he 700ad?

There's a problem with that objection. Firstly it doesn't negate that it's one person within the 1,000 year time period the OP gives

The next objection that he sounds more like an RCC is even less logical as it sinks the theory that no one in that period practiced RCC teaching either.

And this against NO one practicing Protestantism

 

[Montalban]

What else would the NT believers follow..

What did they follow before the NT?

By the first millennium AD I would think any oral by the original apostles would have been in letter form with the rest to circulate to the churches..

That doesn't make them Protestants

Particular salvation ?

It's the belief that people are pre-ordained for heaven (as I understand Calvinism)

 

[Thekla]

I didn't want to comment to start a rabbit trail, but just comment on something that developed among those following the faith once delivered..I understand the background of Rachel's prayer. I also understand Paul's absent from the body present with the Lord along with the cloud of witnesses. I know Paul's admonition to the living church to pray for and encourage one another. I know the example prayer from this realm to an omnipresent God and if I read about one example of say Paul sending/addressing prayer to martyred Steven, I would be doing it in a heartbeat. God bless you dear Sis, I enjoy your commentary..

That's okay, and sorry if it was wrong to run down a trail you didn't intend to start ! I do understand that this is not an explicit statement in the NT, and that seems to be the standard for this thread and GT. But it is clear that some things continued, others were fulfilled, some left behind, and some forbidden. This was nowhere forbidden; not even a mention. The Jewish belief (not found in the OT afaik) in the repose of the righteous in the Bosom of Abraham was also not an "official" teaching, yet is used by Christ without correction.

I will say that Revelation does demonstrate our prayers being presented to God by those absent from the body; I for one am fine to have them do so.

 

[Keachian]

I believe Protestant dogma only goes back to c.1500.

I don't know of anyone prior to 1500 praticing things such as 'sola scriptura', 'faith alone', 'particular salvation' etc.

I have asked for concrete examples of people teaching these things.

None so far.

People have replied with general statements like "You know, the Apostles" or "People did"

CONVERSLEY it was stated that no one practiced EO teaching in the same period

I gave one concrete example - John of Damascus.

So to be protestant one must adhere to the five solas? That's just as silly as any other measuring stick, first of all the idea of solar scriptura is not that tradition is bad but that tradition is icing on the cake that is scripture, sola fide doesn't say that mental ascent gets us anywhere, but that faith that manifests itself in works is what God is looking for. Solar gratia is rather straightforward, I don't think there's much contention over the fact that it is the grace of God that in the end saves us. Solus Christus is the statement that it is Christ that intercedes on behalf of all the saints and that we may approach him with our requests. Soli Deo Gloria, is just that glory to God alone.

 

[Montalban]

So to be protestant one must adhere to the five solas?

No. You tell me what your version of Protestantism is, and who you think adhered to that in the first 1,000 years of Christianity.

We'll start with that.

 

[Rhamiel]

Now you're being realistic.

While what you say is true, and it has been noted many times before on CF, it doesn't prevent the militant debater from making the predicable reply, i.e. those (like Pelosi) are not "real" Catholics, even if they remain communicants in good standing...and the "one true church" remains impregnable to criticism that it's no more united than other churches.

I think that Protestants just have a defeatest mindset
they have torn apart the idea of Christendom, the idea that there can be any true unity
the Protestant Denominations have blasted modernism, liberalism, and secularism into every corner of the world, sowing seeds of disobedience and schism across the world, and then you go "yeah you can not talk about unity, you guys lack unity too"
because you have given up on the idea of any meaningful form of unity does not mean all others share your defeatest mindset

 

[HisKid1973]

That's okay, and sorry if it was wrong to run down a trail you didn't intend to start ! I do understand that this is not an explicit statement in the NT, and that seems to be the standard for this thread and GT. But it is clear that some things continued, others were fulfilled, some left behind, and some forbidden. This was nowhere forbidden; not even a mention. The Jewish belief (not found in the OT afaik) in the repose of the righteous in the Bosom of Abraham was also not an "official" teaching, yet is used by Christ without correction.

I will say that Revelation does demonstrate our prayers being presented to God by those absent from the body; I for one am fine to have them do so.

Sure there are bowls of prayers of the saints ascending to heaven. Couldn't the saints in heaven just go over and drop them in. Do they need to "pray" as we know it from one realm to another. Couldn't the cloud of overseers directly communicate to the Lord as shown by the souls that were under the altar like we communicate directly down here(touching on earth)...

 

[Thekla]

Sure there are bowls of prayers of the saints ascending to heaven ?
Do they need to "pray" as we know it from one realm to another. Couldn't the cloud of overseers directly communicate to the Lord as shown by the souls that were under the altar like we communicate directly down here(touching on earth)...

Yes, they can directly communicate it shows; also there is the offering of our prayers. We also pray directly to God, but also ask others to join our prayers - to "offer" them.

I also think there is a different understanding maybe of "realms" - there is not such a fast division, like Paul's statement in Hebrews.

 

[Keachian]

No. You tell me what your version of Protestantism is, and who you think adhered to that in the first 1,000 years of Christianity.

We'll start with that.

The only thing I like to think that makes me protestant is my belief that the Bishop of Rome is not the sole representative for Christ to the Church, we see Paul at least opposing Peter in the New Testament when Peter is wrong in his doctrine, I believe that the same should hold true of any leader if the Church.

 

[Rhamiel]

sorry if my post is less then charitable
today has been a rough day...
really the past 8 months have been a rough 8 months...

 

[Standing Up]

What was he 700ad?

There's a problem with that objection. Firstly it doesn't negate that it's one person within the 1,000 year time period the OP gives

The next objection that he sounds more like an RCC is even less logical as it sinks the theory that no one in that period practiced RCC teaching either.

And this against NO one practicing Protestantism

Okay. So John of Damascus is the pinnacle of EO belief. Nothing changed in their belief system since him, right?

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Firmillian, etc, etc, etc all practiced forms of Protestantism, but not of EOism. No EO until c700 with John of D.

 

[Eternally Optimistic]

Paul

. . .

While I (obviously) disagree, I have to say, well played!

 

[Standing Up]

Protestantism generally came out from Roman Catholicism. It is the reformed RC, if you will. It retained certain things, but it also set some things straight that she herself has also changed subsequently. For example, about 10 years ago, RC finally agreed that LDS baptism was invalid.

Scripture alone-every early Christian taught this. Yes they said watch tradition but only because they assumed tradition was the same exact thing taught in scripture. Which ECF taught Bishop Tradition on par with Scripture?

Salvation by faith alone-which ECF taught you are saved by your works?

Salvation by grace alone-which ECF taught you save yourself?

Christ alone-which ECF taught something besides Christ is necessary for salvation?

Glory to God alone-which ECF taught glory to man?

I know this scratches the surface of issues. But start here. Which ECFs in the first 2-300 years taught contrary to those things? They may taught contrary stuff by the year 700 or 1700, but which ones didn't teach those things?

 

[SolomonVII]

I think that Protestants just have a defeatest mindset
they have torn apart the idea of Christendom, the idea that there can be any true unity
the Protestant Denominations have blasted modernism, liberalism, and secularism into every corner of the world, sowing seeds of disobedience and schism across the world, and then you go "yeah you can not talk about unity, you guys lack unity too"
because you have given up on the idea of any meaningful form of unity does not mean all others share your defeatest mindset

The Catholic Church schismed in circa 150 for the first time over allegiance to an apostolic tradition, which they eventually dropped in the name of unity, then again circa 800 over one word, and yet again over bread, and then on again off again until 1453 or so when the eastern lung became the caliphs church. That is not to forget the OO getting kicked out of the club either, and severely persecuted especially by the Constantinople branch of the church over something that may or may not have been a wrong understanding of Christ-nobody is really sure anymore.
Remembering what had happened to John Hus, Luther refrained from sticking his own neck out on the block for the sake of unity, but no matter.

I think it would be well and good for the Catholic Church to serve as a model for Protestants and to show the unity that Sacred Tradition can bring into bringing the original three Schisms back into an integral whole.
As a start, maybe you can get two or three people from OBOB to agree to the same.—or to agree to anything at all really.

Until then , it seems more like that your response to having a bad day at the office is to come home at kick the dog. Protestantism is much more a fruit of the disunity of the Catholic world than it has ever been the cause.

Even Luther was an Augustine in a Church that had shifted to Thomist theology in the interim. All the fault lines pre-existed the Protestants. Rather than kicking at the effect then, perhaps it might be better to deal with the causes first.