Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[Montalban]

Many very easy statements are made such as

there is no one ECF who taught the same as RC or EO teaches today

Finding evidence would be far more difficult

 

[BentBiscuit]

So what do Protestants preach today, that was not preached in the first millenium?

 

[Standing Up]

So what do Protestants preach today, that was not preached in the first millenium?

Right. We've talked about the 5 solas and we've yet to see the RC or EO say, for example,

Glory to man.

 

[Standing Up]

bump

Augustine wrote in his retractions, let the reader decide the meaning of Peter/rock (confession).




As you're now aware, there is no one ECF who taught the same as RC or EO teaches today.



Irenaeus never taught Churches must agree with the succession of Rome. But feel free to quote him again, along with his mention of Polycarp and Ephesus. Please note that not a single OO or EO or P agrees with your interpretation.



When Mary spoke those words, she was a virgin. This has zero to do with whether she remained a virgin.




Do you think Irenaeus is accurate when he says, Eve having become disobedient was made the cause of death for herself and the whole human race? And so, Mary was the cause of salvation. Do you think it is true or not?

PS. Please also note Irenaeus says the virgin Eve, even though he knows she had at least 3 children. So, the fact that he says virgin Mary means zero about what he thinks about her subsequent state to the Nativity of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

So what do Protestants preach today, that was not preached in the first millenium?

That's for another thread; but here's a start:

1. Sola scriptura
   
2. Sola fide

 

[Montalban]

Glory to man? In the context of the post it's a non-sequitur

 

[BentBiscuit]

That's for another thread; but here's a start:

1. Sola scriptura
2. Sola fide

Well for a sizable chunk of the first millennium "Sola scriptura" would have been irrelevant for the new testament.

Had the idea existed, it would have been called "Sola not-finished-yet".

By the latter part of the first millennium, the truth was in the hands of the powerful, to do with as they saw fit.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Right. We've talked about the 5 solas and we've yet to see the RC or EO say, for example,

Glory to man.

What does that even mean?

...man is called to glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12)...
...man is called to obtain the glory of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14)...
...man may obtain salvation with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10)...
...man can receive a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)...
...man is called to glory (2 Peter 1:3)...

It doesn't seem that 'man' and 'glory' are entirely foreign to each other. I'm just not too sure what you're getting at.

 

[Montalban]

Well for a sizable chunk of the first millennium "Sola scriptura" would have been irrelevant for the new testament.

The canon existed before then

Anyway, start a thread.

 

[Montalban]

What does that even mean?

...man is called to glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12)...
...man is called to obtain the glory of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14)...
...man may obtain salvation with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10)...
...man can receive a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)...
...man is called to glory (2 Peter 1:3)...

It doesn't seem that 'man' and 'glory' are entirely foreign to each other. I'm just not too sure what you're getting at.

It's probably we and the 'man-made traditions' as opposed to the Bible

 

[Standing Up]

What does that even mean?

...man is called to glory (1 Thessalonians 2:12)...
...man is called to obtain the glory of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:14)...
...man may obtain salvation with eternal glory (2 Timothy 2:10)...
...man can receive a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)...
...man is called to glory (2 Peter 1:3)...

It doesn't seem that 'man' and 'glory' are entirely foreign to each other. I'm just not too sure what you're getting at.

Glory to man is man saving himself, receiving the glory due God. Do you know of an ECF who said, glory to man? If not, then one of P's teachings is present. Perhaps others are too.

 

[cupid dave]

Protestant here would be defined as someone who teaches the distinctive Protestant interpretations of the N.T. on a significant range of issues.

Protestants and Catholics basically agree. Both believe in salvation purely by the grace of Jesus Christ (CCC 2011) and the doctrine of the Trinity.

this is not intended to irritate anyone or to frustrate ecumenism or foster arrogance. it is intended to look at the historical facts.

faithful Protestants are Christians and have the full dignity of Christians, and are often much more faithful to Catholic teaching than Catholics in my view. And perhaps that puts it too mildly.

Just as scripture had promised, the Holy Comforter came in 54AD, (i.e., the first of the Gospels, Matthew, appeared). once
The true followers of Jesus formed the real Christian body which gradually swellled like the parable of the mustard seed said, and by 380AD, the mandate of Theo I, the secular Emperor of the whole world had outlawed any other church except Christianity.

That Universal Church survived exactly 1000 years as had been prophesied, ending with the first and Great Schism of Greek Orthodoxy in 1054AD.





[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones (of Universal Christian authority) and they, (the 144,000 monks of Catholic monasticism: [Rev14:4]), sat upon them, (Christianity mandated as the ONLY legal religion in the Empire, in 380AD), and (theocratic) judgment was given unto them (in the days of Catholic Monasticism): and I saw the souls, (the spirit-like psyches or thinking) of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the (one) word of God, (Truth), and which had not worshipped (by participation in the paganistic practices and sexual excesses fueling) the beast (of the revival of that Roman Culture including the economic system which had been based upon selfish self-interest), neither his image (on his coinage), neither had received his mark (of ledgered accounts recorded) upon their foreheads, or in (wages in) their hands; and they, (the saints or apostles), lived (as angels in the minds of the Christians who have followed since 32AD, those beheaded saints, in the memories of the congregations who worshipped in churches built upon the bones of their remain)...[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'].... and (they) reigned (in Monasticism) with Christ a thousand years, (from 54 AD upon the appearance of the Holy Comforter, until 1054 AD with the first Schism of Greek Orthodoxy).[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/FONT]

 

[ivebeenshown]

Glory to man is man saving himself, receiving the glory due God. Do you know of an ECF who said, glory to man?

I don't know of an ECF saying man can save himself or that he should receive latria, but then, I don't know of any Christian organization or institution that says these things either.

 

[Standing Up]

I don't know of an ECF saying man can save himself or that he should receive latria, but then, I don't know of any Christian organization or institution that says these things either.

That's the point. The OP asked for P doctrine that existed prior to the 1500s. That's one of them. It's one of the 5 solas. Now try this:

Which early Christian said we are not saved by grace?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't know of an ECF saying man can save himself or that he should receive latria, but then, I don't know of any Christian organization or institution that says these things either.

Well, they may not say it, but there are lots of "legalistic" protestant traditions which "imply it".

 

[Montalban]

I don't know of an ECF saying man can save himself or that he should receive latria, but then, I don't know of any Christian organization or institution that says these things either.

It makes no sense to me either.

 

[patricius79]

Augustine wrote in his retractions, let the reader decide the meaning of Peter/rock (confession).

You are saying that your example of one Protestant interpreter of the N.T. is St. Augustine, because he said let the reader decide about whether the rock is Simon Rock or His confession of Christ?

I would say that either of these supports Augustine's teaching about Rome, which he calls "the See of the Apostle Rock"

[FONT=arial, helvetica, geneva, sans-serif]Augustine[/FONT]

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers



likewise Augustine testifies to the most flagrant Catholic doctrines includning Purgatory, salvation though the Sacrifice of the Eucharist , Transubstantiation, forgiveness of sins through Penance and Catholic priestly absolution, Mary as our Mother, and many others:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: St. Augustine Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant

and the idea that "not by works" is referring to natural works, not works done through faith

E]ven those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . the apostle himself, after saying, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;" saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them . . . "Not of works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. . . . grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according to his works." (A Treatise on Grace and Free Will; Chapter 20; NPNF 1, Vol. V)
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: St. Augustine Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown I don't know of an ECF saying man can save himself or that he should receive latria, but then, I don't know of any Christian organization or institution that says these things either.

Well, they may not say it, but there are lots of "legalistic" protestant traditions which "imply it".

There are 3 that come to mind....Catholicism, SDAism and MJism....can anyone here add to those?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7575128-32/#post57954441
legalism

anyone care to define it for me... it get's used a lot on the forum, but I have never seen anyone give it a concrete definition.
Steve

 

[Standing Up]

You are saying that your example of one Protestant interpreter of the N.T. is St. Augustine, because he said let the reader decide about whether the rock is Simon Rock or His confession of Christ?-snip-

I'm saying there is no one person who ascibes to either EO or RC doctrine as it's outlined now. There's no one P person either, but the closest is Polycarp.

However, if we want to pick and choose, then yes, all of the P doctrines (specifically, the 5 solas) are there from the get go shown in various people.

This is how Tradition is formed. It's not from one person. It's pick from person X, reject something else from person X. Pick from person Y, reject somethinig else from person Y. Scripture, however, is one.

 

[Albion]

I'm saying there is no one person who ascibes to either EO or RC doctrine as it's outlined now.

IMO that's an important point that's been sidestepped previously.