Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

[Thekla]

My daughter is reading this on forgiveness book now. It's been a decade since I read it, but thought it quite good:

Why Forgive? a free ebook to download by Johann Christoph Arnold

(free for download)

 

[Lady Bug]

I don't see why I would want to interpret anything in isolation, but in context

OK then tell me your interpretation of it, in context. I want to see another way of looking at this, besides the Catholic and Orthodox approaches. thanks

 

[patricius79]

The obvious answer is all the OOs and EOs (assuming they disagree with your interpretation).

the OO? do you mean the Monophysites, who denied Christ's humanity?

why do you not respond to my request for your best example of one person in the first millenium who is a Protestant interpreter of the N.T.?

since Irenaeus testifies that all the Churches must agree with the Succession of Rome, and numerous other Catholic doctrines, I don't think he will work

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" ([Irenaeus Against Heresies], 5:2).
The Real Presence | Catholic Answers

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up
The obvious answer is all the OOs and EOs (assuming they disagree with your interpretation).

the OO? do you mean the Monophysites, who denied Christ's humanity?

I believe he is referring to this Denomination if I am not mistaken

http://www.christianforums.com/f449/
The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox The new forum for Coptic and Oriental Orthodox Christians.

A few things to know about Oriental Orthodox Christians:

1. The Oriental Orthodox Church is made up of the Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Indian (two churches), Ethiopian, and Eritrean churches.
   
2. The Orthodox confess the same faith as the ancient Church - the faith as was later formulated in the fourth century in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. We do not, however, accept the Council of Chalcedon or any subsequent one.

 

[SolomonVII]

the OO? do you mean the Monophysites, who denied Christ's humanity?

The OO have always denied that they were Monophyites. It was one of things that had more to do with politics and the Constantinople patriarchy making a power grab than it did with theology.

It is not as if EO in general had not been influenced by the same gnostic texts.

 

[Standing Up]

The OO have always denied that they were Monophyites. It was one of things that had more to do with politics and the Constantinople patriarchy making a power grab than it did with theology.

It is not as if EO in general had not been influenced by the same gnostic texts.

I agree. They didn't like being moved down the ladder of authority from #2 to #??, when Constantinople became #2 after #1 Rome. Theology? Who cares about truth

 

[Thekla]

The claim of "gnosticism" has thus far been based on the repeated misreading of texts, and a decided unfamiliarity with the EO.

If one can make what is written say whatever one wants it to, what even is the point of anyone writing a post ?

 

[Standing Up]

the OO? do you mean the Monophysites, who denied Christ's humanity?

why do you not respond to my request for your best example of one person in the first millenium who is a Protestant interpreter of the N.T.?

since Irenaeus testifies that all the Churches must agree with the Succession of Rome, and numerous other Catholic doctrines, I don't think he will work

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" ([Irenaeus Against Heresies], 5:2).
The Real Presence | Catholic Answers

Irenaeus says more than what you give him credit for. Besides, no one, at least around GT, agrees with your interpretation about submitting to Rome.

As to your question, many answers have been given by a wide swath of responders. From Polycarp to someone in the 800s to all of them, like Augustine (let the reader decide).

At this stage of the thread, I and others haven't a clue anymore what you're trying to find out. Probably time to shut 'er down.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Irenaeus says more than what you give him credit for. Besides, no one, at least around GT, agrees with your interpretation about submitting to Rome.

As to your question, many answers have been given by a wide swath of responders. From Polycarp to someone in the 800s to all of them, like Augustine (let the reader decide).

At this stage of the thread, I and others haven't a clue anymore what you're trying to find out. Probably time to shut 'er down.

I am beginning to believe that may not be a bad idea.

I am still wrapping my head around the term "first Millenium"

Is there One Protestant in the First Millenium?

.

 

[Albion]

The claim of "gnosticism" has thus far been based on the repeated misreading of texts, and a decided unfamiliarity with the EO.

If one can make what is written say whatever one wants it to, what even is the point of anyone writing a post ?

You have a good point there, but such is the entire purpose of this thread, so how could it be otherwise?

 

[Standing Up]

You have a good point there, but such is the entire purpose of this thread, so how could it be otherwise?

Hmmm, I'm not sure to what she's referring. The OP claiming Irenaeus says all should submit to Rome?

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

So how do Protestants agree with Irenaeus?

 

[SolomonVII]

..wrong thread

 

[Standing Up]

bump

Same way as EO and OO and Old Catholics, etc.

 

[Montalban]

What way is that?

Try d-e-t-a-i-l

Your answer in no way demonstrates that it addresses the question

 

[patricius79]

Irenaeus says more than what you give him credit for. Besides, no one, at least around GT, agrees with your interpretation about submitting to Rome.

As to your question, many answers have been given by a wide swath of responders. From Polycarp to someone in the 800s to all of them, like Augustine (let the reader decide).

At this stage of the thread, I and others haven't a clue anymore what you're trying to find out. Probably time to shut 'er down.

I'm looking for your best example from the first millenium of a Protestant interpreter of the N.T.

If you would like to look at Augustine I would be very glad to. please start citing his Protestant interpretations if you like

you also might want to explain these quotations where Augustine is testifying to the very doctrines rejected by Protestants:

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

you gave the example of Irenaeus, who said that the Gospel was handed on in the Scriptures to be the Pillar and Ground of our faith, and explicitly said that all the other Churches must agree with the Succession of Rome, and numerous other Catholic distinctives as I've quoted

here is another:

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
Mary: "Full of Grace" | Catholic Answers

 

[Standing Up]

I'm looking for your best example from the first millenium of a Protestant interpreter of the N.T.

If you would like to look at Augustine I would be very glad to. please start citing his Protestant interpretations if you like

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

you also might want to explain these quotations where Augustine is testifying to the very doctrines rejected by Protestants:

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

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

you gave the example of Irenaeus, who said that the Gospel was handed on in the Scriptures to be the Pillar and Ground of our faith, and explicitly said that all the other Churches must agree with the Succession of Rome, and numerous other Catholic distinctives as I've quoted

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.

here is another:

"Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’

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

Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband—for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply—having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith" (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Mary: "Full of Grace" | Catholic Answers

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.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Jewish Temple Virgins?

..wrong thread

Is there a thread on that

 

[patricius79]

The OO have always denied that they were Monophyites. It was one of things that had more to do with politics and the Constantinople patriarchy making a power grab than it did with theology..

my apologies if I inadventently misrepresented the OO.

also, I'm not sure what the OO have to do with finding a person in the first millenium to roughly represent the Protestant oral traditions or interpretation of the N.T.

so far the best example I've seen is Polycarp, and he seems like a very poor one

As I understand it, all we have from him is that he agreed to disagree with Anacletus about the date of Easter, said there were heretics in Rome, and--like every other Christian--agreed with Eph 2:8,9

 

[SolomonVII]

my apologies if I inadventently misrepresented the OO.

also, I'm not sure what the OO have to do with finding a person in the first millenium to roughly represent the Protestant oral traditions or interpretation of the N.T.

so far the best example I've seen is Polycarp, and he seems like a very poor one

As I understand it, all we have from him is that he agreed to disagree with Anacletus about the date of Easter, said there were heretics in Rome, and--like every other Christian--agreed with Eph 2:8,9

You have long since lost me on what you are even talking about anymore, or what an argument either for against the proposition would even look like.