Do Modern Christians undervalue Christian History?

[Not David]

As early as the 2nd century fathers like Irenaeus had a clear understanding of which texts derived from the Apostles. That was their theological litmus test.

As Christians loving Christ they could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd clearly and consistently in the Gospel of John but only echoes in the Gospel attributed to Thomas.

The Law, Prophets and Writings did not have a table of contents but souls who knew the love and Holiness of God knew the words to be of Divine origin.

My argument was against the idea that Christian History is unimportant. Even you mentioned men of the 2 and 3 Century.

 

[Not David]

I have actually seen very old King James Bibles that have at the title page of Hebrews "The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews".

I don't think Paul wrote Hebrews; the author mentions near the end that "Timothy has been released from prison". At no time of Paul's life do we ever see anything of Timothy being in prison, and Paul was quite close to Timothy.

At one time, I hoped Priscilla might be the author - til some other poster pointed out a masculine first person pronoun used - and that was that; I had hoped there might have been one female author in New Testament.

Titus was more contemporary with Timothy, maybe they were close in age, Titus is a possible author, but we really don't know for sure who wrote Hebrews.

As far as reading Early Church Fathers, the Orthodox Study Bible's commentary notes are chockfull of quotes by ECF. My son has been Greek Orthodox for two years, and I got one of their Bibles. It's Old Testament is based on Septuagint, it's NT is NKJV.

A two-volume church history by Lutheran J. L. Neve was quite helpful to me; even though it was done circa WW2.

I saw Schaff's 8-volume history of the church in a Mardel's store, but didn't have a hunnerd bucks to spare.

We can never get too much history.

I mean, the King James Bible used to have the Deuterocanon too.

 

[Anto9us]

I think it got too expensive to print KJV with Deuterocanonicals included.

 

[redleghunter]

Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Unauthorized manmade denominational churches didn't appear until 1,000 or more years later.

Would the above be in the annals of assertions with Catholics virtually have no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures since 100AD?

 

[redleghunter]

You are being kind by saying only 1,000 years when in reality it is more like 1,500.

I guess the poster you quoted considers the Eastern Orthodox Protestants.

 

[Anto9us]

"Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church."

This Protestant knows enough history of early Christianity to say that the Orthodox Church was around just as long as the Catholic Church.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't deny that the Bible is inspired but it can be twisted to mean whatever you want.

Usually due to eisegesis.

 

[redleghunter]

The problem is that both Baptism and Communion have been changed to support man-made ideas.

That's true. Baptismal regeneration about the 8th century and Transubstantiation around the 13th century.

 

[redleghunter]

Those of the reformation, their offspring, their descendants. It's all the same.

No it's not the same. Using such a broad ruler you end up including your very own church as "Protestant."

 

[HTacianas]

No it's not the same. Using such a broad ruler you end up including your very own church as "Protestant."

My Church was never part of the reformation. The Eastern Churches never had any truly significant theological differences with the Roman Church until after the schism. Even after the schism the Eastern Churches maintained the same faith and teachings they have always had.

 

[RDKirk]

I think it got too expensive to print KJV with Deuterocanonicals included.

As far as we can tell, that's the only reason.

 

[redleghunter]

I saw Schaff's 8-volume history of the church in a Mardel's store, but didn't have a hunnerd bucks to spare.

Send me 50 bucks and I'll send a free link.

Nah here it is:

https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm

TOC links helpful

 

[Anto9us]

wow - thx, rlh!!

 

[redleghunter]

Florence 1431

It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel -- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Florence was cited at Trent.

If Florence settled the matter then a vote would not be necessary at Trent .

 

[redleghunter]

My Church was never part of the reformation. The Eastern Churches never had any truly significant theological differences with the Roman Church until after the schism. Even after the schism the Eastern Churches maintained the same faith and teachings they have always had.

But you broke off from Roman papal primacy. I think Pope Leo IX had a much different view than you do.

 

[HTacianas]

But you broke off from Roman papal primacy. I think Pope Leo IX had a much different view than you do.

The Eastern Churches did not break away from Papal primacy, which I think you mean to say Papal supremacy. There was never any such thing as Papal supremacy. That's one of the reasons for the schism.

 

[redleghunter]

I mean, the King James Bible used to have the Deuterocanon too.

It did and the important distinction is that those books remained the deuterocanon or apocrypha, and not part of the protocanon. Trent made the deuterocanon books part of the protocanon.

There's a rich history of the various views of the deuterocanon going all the way into Trent. I opined on the debate leading into Trent and at Trent in another thread:

The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin, waded into the dispute leading up to and during Trent. He noted one respected theologian stanchly loyal to the Pope, Cardinal Seripando. Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.

Jedin elaborates:

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

Jedin continues:

“For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

Catholic historian Hubert Jedin also adds later:

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

 

[redleghunter]

"Protestants have virtually no knowledge of early Christianity since such history pertained only to the one Church Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church."

This Protestant knows enough history of early Christianity to say that the Orthodox Church was around just as long as the Catholic Church.

Yeah you're pretty solid on church history. Loved that thread where you gave some good background going into the Reformation.

 

[redleghunter]

wow - thx, rlh!!

New Advent site which is Roman Catholic is an excellent site to reference early church father writings.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[redleghunter]

The Eastern Churches did not break away from Papal primacy, which I think you mean to say Papal supremacy. There was never any such thing as Papal supremacy. That's one of the reasons for the schism.

Depends on the perspective no?

Don't worry the Western Church a few hundred years later had their own papal schism confusing many. At one point there were three validly elected popes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

Then Cardinal Ratzinger later Pope Benedict XVI opined that the Western pope schism set the stage for the later Protestant Reformation.

The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees.

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries,


Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). ​