Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[patricius79]

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Why don't you list 3 or 5 more of those interpretations you're looking for?

Saved by grace--which same person does RC say taught that?
Trinity--which same person does RC say taught that?

What other doctrines from the same person would you like?

 

[ebia]

Paul

 

[patricius79]

Why don't you list 3 or 5 more of those interpretations you're looking for?

it would be any of the supposed differences between Protestants and Catholics (keep in mind that I don't believe in some of these differences. e.g. I think that all Protestants teach Sacramentalism.)


for example, if we could start by finding the best example of single person who believed in a few of the following as against all the documentation of the fathers in favor of the corresponding Catholic doctrines:

--that salvation purely by grace means that we are not justified by works done through faith in Christ

--that we need not submit our interpretations to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

--that we need not adhere to the Catholic Bishops

--that the Bishop of Rome is not succeeded from Simon Rock

--that there is no hierarchy in the Church

--that there is no ministerial priesthood in the N.T.

--that Simon Rock did not have any authoritative primacy

--that contraception is licit

--that Christian suffering is not redemptive for other souls

--that there is no purgation from sin after this life

--that our sins are not forgiven through Catholic priests

--that we are not saved through the sacraments

--that Mary is not the New Eve

--that the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrifice but merely a memorial

--that the Eucharist is not Christ's Body and Blood

--that we should not venerate relics

--that we should not ask the saints to intercede for us

 

[Standing Up]

it would be any of the supposed differences between Protestants and Catholics (keep in mind that I don't believe in some of these differences. e.g. I think that all Protestants teach Sacramentalism.)


for example, if we could start by finding the best example of single person who believed in a few of the following as against all the documentation of the fathers in favor of the corresponding Catholic doctrines:

--that salvation purely by grace means that we are not justified by works done through faith in Christ

Patricius79: "Protestants and Catholics basically agree. Both believe in salvation purely by the grace of Jesus Christ (CCC 2011)"

Are you contradicting yourself or clarifying or confusing?

IOW, you don't think we're saved by grace, but rather by some combination of grace and works?

 

[Standing Up]

it would be any of the supposed differences between Protestants and Catholics (keep in mind that I don't believe in some of these differences. e.g. I think that all Protestants teach Sacramentalism.)


for example, if we could start by finding the best example of single person who believed in a few of the following as against all the documentation of the fathers in favor of the corresponding Catholic doctrines:

--that salvation purely by grace means that we are not justified by works done through faith in Christ

--that we need not submit our interpretations to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church

--that we need not adhere to the Catholic Bishops

--that the Bishop of Rome is not succeeded from Simon Rock

--that there is no hierarchy in the Church

--that there is no ministerial priesthood in the N.T.

--that Simon Rock did not have any authoritative primacy

--that contraception is licit

--that Christian suffering is not redemptive for other souls

--that there is no purgation from sin after this life

--that our sins are not forgiven through Catholic priests

--that we are not saved through the sacraments

--that Mary is not the New Eve

--that the Lord's Supper is not a Sacrifice but merely a memorial

--that the Eucharist is not Christ's Body and Blood

--that we should not venerate relics

--that we should not ask the saints to intercede for us

Which single person does the RC use for those things? Augustine?

 

[HisKid1973]

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.

What do you mean by "catholic" teaching..All the original apostles words ? Which I would think by 100 AD all the "oral" teachings of the original apostles with the faith that was once delivered would have been recorded by that time..The word "catholic" only showed up after 100 AD..At that point all the see's were together and there was no separate "catholic" or "orthodox" churches.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

I bet I can find a person in the Scriptures that carried the name, "Disciple of Christ" or "Christians" before I can find someone who carried the name "Protestant" or "Catholic..."

 

[SanFrank]

It would be hard to pin those beliefs on any one individual living in the first millenium. I thought protestant comes from 'protest' against the establishment, which in the reformation (~1600) was RC,

 

[eachallberg]

Martin Luther had the right idea protesting, just not the right ideas to veer with.
Division is good when it has to do with the separation of evil.

Peace.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

By definition the term "Protestant" was a term given to those who protested the imperial ban against Luther and the spread of the evangelical faith.

Protestant, at the very least, indicates some connection whether direct or indirect with the Reformation and the evangelical reforms of Martin Luther. This includes both the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical Reformers; it also includes descendent churches such as Methodists, Baptists, Adventists, and Pentecostals.

It would be impossible to be a Protestant prior to 1529 (or at the very earliest 1517), since the evangelical movement had not yet begun within Western Christianity.

The Lollards and Hussites, while in many ways forerunners of the evangelical movement, are still too early. Same with the Waldenses. Though in the case of the Hussites and Waldenses, these were largely absorbed into the Protestant movement, thereby the modern Waldensian Evangelical Church and the Moravians. Though the modern Hussite Church is not Protestant, but distinct as it did not fully absorb itself with Protestantism in the 16th century but maintains its distinction as an ecclesiastical body rooted in the Hussite (Ultraquist) tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rhamiel]

By definition the term "Protestant" was a term given to those who protested the imperial ban against Luther and the spread of the evangelical faith.

Protestant, at the very least, indicates some connection whether direct or indirect with the Reformation and the evangelical reforms of Martin Luther. This includes both the Magisterial Reformers and the Radical Reformers; it also includes descendent churches such as Methodists, Baptists, Adventists, and Pentecostals.

It would be impossible to be a Protestant prior to 1529 (or at the very earliest 1517), since the evangelical movement had not yet begun within Western Christianity.

The Lollards and Hussites, while in many ways forerunners of the evangelical movement, are still too early. Same with the Waldenses. Though in the case of the Hussites and Waldenses, these were largely absorbed into the Protestant movement, thereby the modern Waldensian Evangelical Church and the Moravians. Though the modern Hussite Church is not Protestant, but distinct as it did not fully absorb itself with Protestantism in the 16th century but maintains its distinction as an ecclesiastical body rooted in the Hussite (Ultraquist) tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

but the idea of the Reformation is that Christianity was getting rid of all those bad superstitious ideas that the Pope in Rome added to the original christianity
it was ment to be a "re-formation" not the creation of a new and seperate religion with no attachment to Jesus Christ

 

[Montalban]

I think the OP meant to ask if there's anyone in the first 1,000 years practicing/teaching what would become Protestant dogma

 

[ebia]

I think the OP meant to ask if there's anyone in the first 1,000 years practicing/teaching what would become Protestant dogma

Presumably everyone thinks the NT writers are teaching their doctrine, at least in a less developed form.

 

[Montalban]

Presumably everyone thinks the NT writers are teaching their doctrine, at least in a less developed form.

Hence the challenge to prove that Protestant dogma was being taught in the first 1,000 years of the church

 

[ebia]

Hence the challenge to prove that Protestant dogma was being taught in the first 1,000 years of the church

Last time I checked the NT was written in the first 1,000 years of the church

 

[Montalban]

Last time I checked the NT was written in the first 1,000 years of the church

And?





waiting for the penny to fall

 

[New_Wineskin]

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

There are none who fit that description . There *are no* "distinctive Protestant interpretations of the N.T. on a significant range of issues" . "Protestant" is a name that Catholics like to use for all groups not *them* . That is like a Baptist saying all nonbaptists are alike and lumping Catholics in with Methodists and Assemblies of God and assorted nondenominationalists and then defining a nonbaptist as one that has all of the distinctive doctrines that they have in common but are not a part of the Baptist doctrines .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

According to CF, RCs are put in the same category of Christianity as are non-RCs [including the EOs], so get off yer high horse there buster!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7230052-22/#post46816576
Apparently --Catholics are now a "Denomination"

At least here in the friendly land of CF2.....dang I wish we had a rolls eyes smiley...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7368885-21/
CF Statement of Faith

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

.

 

[SolomonVII]

Protestants by and large understand their beliefs to be based directly in the bible. Protestants believe that their doctrines therefore are completely the same as those of Paul and the apostles and the first Christians.

What is rejected therefore are those beliefs of Catholics( and Orthodox) that are based more in the history of the emerging church than in actual biblical and apostolic teaching.

The Bible, which is the documented testimony of the Apostles legacy, lends much more support the Protestant belief that salvation comes from believing in the atoning sacrifice of Christ than salvation coming through the good works of a sacramental, sacerdotal church legitimized through the pedigree of the bishops.

Salvation through Christ alone, or salvation through the good works of mediating priests is what defines the divide between Protestants and the system of the Orthodox Catholicism.
If there is one person that expresses this Protestant idea most fully in the first millennium, it would be Paul himself.

Protestants therefore do not see themselves as developing new doctrines and a new religion, but only reforming the Christian faith to conform more fully with the faith of Paul and the Apostles.
On many of the issues of the list, the Greek and Latin wings of the Church have never fully seen eye to eye, so legitimacy of any of the post-biblical views on church hierarchy is debatable and unsettled long before the first Protestant came on the scene.

Pertaining to the sacramental issues on the list such as the nature of the eucharist, Bruce Chilton makes the argument that there were six forms of eucharist emerging out of the NT. The reality is never as simple as it might appear