Protestant Interpretation in First Millenium?

No one, because Protestantism didn't exist in the first millennium. Protestantism picks bits and pieces of the ECFs though. It depends on the movement. For examples, Calvinism inherits a lot of stuff from Augustine (but not all of it of course).

Which Protestantism? As a Lutheran my Protestantism looks a lot different than that, say, of a Southern Baptist or that of a Quaker.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe that there were seven church ages that would unfold in time...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7552716/

Ephesus - The Apostolic church
Smyrna - Martyrs (Note ten days = ten general Roman persecutions)
Pergamos - The Orthodox Church (Which brings us to the end of the first millennial)
Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and dominate.
Sardis - Elegant like a gem... Dead as a doornail. Protestant church.
Philadelphia - Wesleyan type revivals
Laodicea - Materialistic / Charismatic age

So to answer your question I believe that the Orthodox church comes closest to representing the church of the first millennial.

patricius79 said:

that is the example that is usually brought up

but I think that Augustine would have thought Calvin a great heretic. and Calvin would have through Augustine a great heretic

Augustine taught the Lord's Supper is a Sacrifice, Free will, No Double Predestination, salvation through the Sacraments, Apostolic Successsion of the Catholic Bishops, etc

Click to expand...

Doubtless Augustine was affected by his historical position in time as was Calvin.

Calvin didn't consider Augustine a great heretic, though. Calvin thought of the ECFs in terms of their growth in understanding all the things that had been given to them. Calvin actually quoted Augustine's position on free will favorably in Eternal Predestination and the Institutes.

The identification of Augustine's view of reprobation as not being predestination -- that may be a bit of a stretch. Augustine like many Calvinists (including me) saw that the predetermination of the reprobate was so fundamentally different a process than the predestination of the elect, that he didn't think "predestination" was actually a very reasonable name for it.

But none of that changes the content of what Augustine saw to be the predetermination of the reprobate. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Finally, a number of people have noticed that Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper is positioned between Luther & Zwingli, and actually very near the position of a 9th century theologian, Ratramnus. Rosenthal makes something of a high-level pass at this, though perplexedly he actually asserts Calvin wouldn't say things he actually did say. Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper can be something of a surprise to modernists.

"Calvin would never describe the sacrament as "spiritual flesh" or "spiritual blood."' -- Rosenthal

"Our Lord, therefore, instituted the Supper, first, in order to sign and seal in our consciences the promises contained in his gospel concerning our being made partakers of his body and blood, and to give us certainty and assurance that therein lies our true spiritual nourishment" Little Treatise, sec. 6

"he himself, with his own lips, declares that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed. (John vi. 55.) If these words are not to go for nothing, it follows that in order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his body and blood as their proper food. This, then, is expressly attested in the Supper, when of the bread it is said to us that we are to take it and eat it, and that it is his body, and of the cup that we are to drink it, and that it is his blood. This is expressly spoken of the body and blood, in order that we may learn to seek there the substance of our spiritual life." Little Treatise on the Lord's Supper, sec. 13

"We must then truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion of both." Little Treatise, sec. 16

So while there's certainly a difference between Ratramnus and Calvin, it's far more subtle and less distinctive than it seems people give it credit.

rockytopva said:

I believe that there were seven church ages that would unfold in time...



Ephesus - The Apostolic church
Smyrna - Martyrs (Note ten days = ten general Roman persecutions)
Pergamos - The Orthodox Church (Which brings us to the end of the first millennial)
Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and dominate.
Sardis - Elegant like a gem... Dead as a doornail. Protestant church.
Philadelphia - Wesleyan type revivals
Laodicea - Materialistic / Charismatic age

So to answer your question I believe that the Orthodox church comes closest to representing the church of the first millennial.

Click to expand...

They are still only a type of the Assemblies that we see in Revelation 2 & 3.

patricius79 said:

I think that Calvin would have regarded Augustine as a great heretic if he had lived during the "Reformation", since Augustine was flagrantly Catholic in principle and doctrine

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

in regard to the Sacramental principle of salvation:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: St. Augustine's Acceptance of the Seven Catholic Sacraments

Click to expand...

Hm, at that second link, are you saying there are eight sacraments? Because Augustine puts together "baptisms, prayer, and penance." Ultimately, Calvin's guiding principle in calling the sacraments evangelical or "gospel" was to exclude other items that might more conventionally be called sacraments, but were not sacraments of the Gospel of Christ.

I suspect rather that Calvin thought his explanation of this distinction would convince Augustine of this distinction.

Of other interest to me when it comes to Augustine: free will. "Man, using free will badly, has lost both himself and his will".