Early Christians Appear to be Catholic, Not Protestant

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,455
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,775.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Shall we start a new thread and actually DISCUSS the points?

It doesn't do a lot of good to just toss things out and not discuss them with us. Most of us have already done the research. Believe me, I wouldn't have had anything to do with anything that looked like "Catholicism" otherwise - I was raised mostly Evangelical.

And ultimately, I decided not to become Catholic, for a number of reasons. (Which it would be ok to discuss in this forum, as long as I do so respectfully, and I have in the past discussed them.) But they are not the ones being put forth in the article.

So I'm not defending the Catholic Church, as I have differences with them as well. But I am willing to say that there are many historical and logical inaccuracies in the article.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Got another friend involved who said if people are looking for evidence then to post this link that shows catholicsm practices taht the bible is against, with verses:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Roman-Catholicism.html
Tell me, do you or your ftiends do any basic research to confirm the claims of these articles or do you just accept them at face value? I didn't get very far into the article before a simple search showed one of their 'facts' to be fabrication, and the quality of the article didn't improve from that point on. You do remember God's commandment to not bear false witness, don't you?
He also said to post these. All the links have good articles. I hope they will be read fully instead of just part way:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-questions.html
Good grief! Do you seriously expect us to read all of those links. I think I am pretty safe in assuming you haven't read a fraction of them yourself, if at all, so no, I'm not going to waste my time responding to something which you have not invested any effort. Judging from the quality of the information in the first link you posted, I don't expect it will any better in the other articles.
 
Upvote 0

pat34lee

Messianic
Sep 13, 2011
11,293
2,637
59
Florida, USA
✟89,330.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
They referred to them as "Deuterocanonical" in exactly the same manner in which the 5th book of the Bible is called "Deuteronomy.

All the Churches written to in the New Testament accepted these books as part of the Old Testament canon and continue to do so today.

]"Deuterocanonical books (literally meaning a second principal, rule, or criterion)"
Also second string or second class. Inferior texts.

Most apocryphal books we have today are not the originals.
They were created either from scraps of the originals or out
of whole cloth; totally fictional.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There is no argument. What anyone considers scripture does
not matter if it goes against Torah.
Torah is the first 5 books. What in the Deuterocanonicals do you consider goes against those books?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
]"Deuterocanonical books (literally meaning a second principal, rule, or criterion)"
Also second string or second class. Inferior texts.
So you consider Deuteronomy to be second class, inferior laws?
Most apocryphal books we have today are not the originals.
They were created either from scraps of the originals or out
of whole cloth; totally fictional.
We are not talking about tha Apocrypha but the Deuterocanonicals. The Apocrypha are a different bunch of books altogether.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When you say Catholic, are you implying the Roman Church and its current beliefs or past beliefs? The RCC of today has invented and changed many things not found in the early church.

You are mistaken. Catholic doctrine does not change.

Disciplines can change, but doctrine cannot.

The early Church was Catholic and their beliefs are completely in line with Catholic beliefs today. They are not in line with protestantism.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You are mistaken. Catholic doctrine does not change.

Disciplines can change, but doctrine cannot.
So we can dismiss that erroneous concept known as "development of doctrine"? That is good to hear.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So we can dismiss that erroneous concept known as "development of doctrine"? That is good to hear.

Development is not change, it is adding detail and understanding.

For example, the seeds of the Trinity are in scripture, but explicit doctrine developed over time as understanding increased.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Development is not change, it is adding detail and understanding.

For example, the seeds of the Trinity are in scripture, but explicit doctrine developed over time as understanding increased.
For centuries, the death of the Theotokos was celebrated in the Church with clarity of understanding, but with the Latin development of doctrine regarding the so called "immaculate conception", Catholics are now unsure as to whether Mary died or whether she was bodily assumed while still alive.
How is that "clarity of understanding"?
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
For centuries, the death of the Theotokos was celebrated in the Church with clarity of understanding, but with the Latin development of doctrine regarding the so called "immaculate conception", Catholics are now unsure as to whether Mary died or whether she was bodily assumed while still alive.
How is that "clarity of understanding"?

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are two different doctrines.

The Church has not been given revelation as to how Mary was assumed. Do you claim to know?
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are two different doctrines.
That changes nothing of what I said. The development of one doctrine has clouded the other.
The Church has not been given revelation as to how Mary was assumed. Do you claim to know?
The Church in Jerusalem treasured this knowledge and passed it on to the rest of the Church when the time was right. Haven't you read the response of the Patriarch of Jerusalem when the Emperor requested her relics be transferred to a Church built to honour Panagia in Constantinople?
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes, but the quotes would also be affirmed by Catholics(and Orthodox).

I've provided multiple quotes, and I could get hundreds more, which are consistent with Catholic teaching but contradict protestant ones.

Only if you interpret them in a Catholic manner. Many quotes, including the ones you opened with, Protestants would agree with in a Protestant interpretation. This proves nothing.
I can post Sola Fide quotes from Clement I, Augustine etc. that the Catholic would just re-interpret from Catholic eyes as we re-interpret your quotes from Protestant ones.

Besides, you started a whole other thread to argue that Orthodoxy is a Schism from Catholicism using quotes that 'prove' it, which they also just interpret differently. They would also say the early Church was not Roman Catholic.

You will get nowhere with the Church Fathers with people that derive doctrine Sola Scriptura anyway. Adding to that the different interpretations possible, I don't understand what you thought you would accomplish with this thread.

It is clear that the early Christians believed differently than modern protestants.
It is also clear that early Christians believe different from Catholics as many cherished Catholic doctrines are a much later development.
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Church in Jerusalem treasured this knowledge and passed it on to the rest of the Church when the time was right. Haven't you read the response of the Patriarch of Jerusalem when the Emperor requested her relics be transferred to a Church built to honour Panagia in Constantinople?

When the time was right? Is that development of doctrine?
No, I haven't read this response.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Only if you interpret them in a Catholic manner. Many quotes, including the ones you opened with, Protestants would agree with in a Protestant interpretation. This proves nothing.
I can post Sola Fide quotes from Clement I, Augustine etc. that the Catholic would just re-interpret from Catholic eyes as we re-interpret your quotes from Protestant ones.

Besides, you started a whole other thread to argue that Orthodoxy is a Schism from Catholicism using quotes that 'prove' it, which they also just interpret differently. They would also say the early Church was not Roman Catholic.

You will get nowhere with the Church Fathers with people that derive doctrine Sola Scriptura anyway. Adding to that the different interpretations possible, I don't understand what you thought you would accomplish with this thread.

.


My argument is not with Orthodox Christians. We are in agreement on 95% of Christian doctrine.

My argument is with protestants who disregard 1500 years of Christian tradition and biblical interpretation and instead follow various modern interpretations.

You can't make the case that Clement, Augustine, etc. were anything but Catholic(or Orthodox). I don't care how you try to twist their words.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
My argument is not with Orthodox Christians. We are in agreement on 95% of Christian doctrine.

My argument is with protestants who disregard 1500 years of Christian tradition and biblical interpretation and instead follow various modern interpretations.

You can't make the case that Clement, Augustine, etc. were anything but Catholic(or Orthodox). I don't care how you try to twist their words.
Thats because you read it from a Catholic standpoint. To Protestants it is YOU who are twisting their words, especially seeing that salvation by Grace and Works is a Counter-Reformation doctrine. So Protestantism would argue that it is more in line with the early Church and it is Catholicism that is ignoring the first 500 years of Church history.

This is why your argument is moot. We can discuss and discuss, but if the disagreement goes down to the letter, as it does in this case, it would make no difference.

Anyway, you have a long discussion with Orthodoxy trying the same trick, which doesn't work at all, regardless if you think you agree on 95% of doctrine. Many Orthodox in this thread and an earlier one which contrasted Orthodoxy and Protestantism, said that they agree with certain strands of Protestantism on certain issues. The world isn't as clear cut as you would believe, especialy when it comes to textual interpretation.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...catholic-church.7946245/page-17#post-69641987
 
Upvote 0

Thursday

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
6,034
1,562
59
Texas
✟49,429.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thats because you read it from a Catholic standpoint. To Protestants it is YOU who are twisting their words, especially seeing that salvation by Grace and Works is a Counter-Reformation doctrine. So Protestantism would argue that it is more in line with the early Church and it is Catholicism that is ignoring the first 500 years of Church history.

This is why your argument is moot. We can discuss and discuss, but if the disagreement goes down to the letter, as it does in this case, it would make no difference.

Anyway, you have a long discussion with Orthodoxy trying the same trick, which doesn't work at all, regardless if you think you agree on 95% of doctrine. Many Orthodox in this thread and an earlier one which contrasted Orthodoxy and Protestantism, said that they agree with certain strands of Protestantism on certain issues. The world isn't as clear cut as you would believe, especialy when it comes to textual interpretation.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...catholic-church.7946245/page-17#post-69641987

You aren't making any specific points, and there is a reason for that.

I can and have provided multiple quotes from early Christians that explicitly contradict protestant teachings. If you think you can do the same with Catholic teachings please do so.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You aren't making any specific points, and there is a reason for that.

I can and have provided multiple quotes from early Christians that explicitly contradict protestant teachings. If you think you can do the same with Catholic teachings please do so.
I will, but it will make no difference as you will just interpret them from Catholicism.

However, for Sola Fide:

Clement I
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”

Didymus the Blind
“…a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”

Hilary of Poitiers on Matthew 20:7
“Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”

Basil of Caesarea
“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”

Ambrose of Milan
“Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”

Jerome
“God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat).

John Chrysostom
For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.

Augustine of Hippo
If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? … Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love.

“When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.”

Ambrosiaster
“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”

Cyril of Alexandria
For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ?

Thomas Aquinas
Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the Law"


It really doesn't matter though, as you will twist their words to mean something else, at least to the Protestant worldview.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,589
12,122
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,180,780.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
When the time was right?
God's timing.
Is that development of doctrine?
No. It is holding onto truth.
No, I haven't read this response.
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Emperor Marcian and his wife, Pulcheria requested that the Patriarch of Jerusalem bring the relics of Panagia so they could be enshrined at the capital. Patriarch Juvenal replied that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that while she had died in the presence of the Apostles, when they openened her tomb 3 days later it was found to be empty.
There are other accounts which link back to the apostles as well.
 
Upvote 0