What do Protestants think of the ancient Church's?

[JohnB445]

From my study of history (I could be wrong, this was a brief study), there were many Churches. The big 3 being Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.

From the claim that Orthodox broke off of Catholicism seems far off, since Eastern Orthodox never seemed to adhered to a Pope as authoritative. It doesn't seem like Orthodox adhered to the Pope all this time then finally decided to reject him as authoritative in 1054, I don't know where they get this idea from. Eastern Orthodox never seemed to submit themselves to a Pope as authority like Catholicism. (If I am wrong I am open to correction).

Do Protestants believe for roughly 1500 years the church's completely diluted Jesus teachings? And that they had to hide as monks in caves or secret areas until the reformation happened?

 

[EJ M]

From my study of history (I could be wrong, this was a brief study), there were many Churches. The big 3 being Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox.

From the claim that Orthodox broke off of Catholicism seems far off, since Eastern Orthodox never seemed to adhered to a Pope as authoritative. It doesn't seem like Orthodox adhered to the Pope all this time then finally decided to reject him as authoritative in 1054, I don't know where they get this idea from. Eastern Orthodox never seemed to submit themselves to a Pope as authority like Catholicism. (If I am wrong I am open to correction).

Do Protestants believe for roughly 1500 years the church's completely diluted Jesus teachings? And that they had to hide as monks in caves or secret areas until the reformation happened?

Cardinal Hosius wrote thus,
Let a catholic reply, the president of the famous council of Trent. "If you behold their cheerfulness in suffering persecutions, the Anabaptists run before all other heretics. If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all others, if they were not grievously plagued and cut off with the knife of persecution for these past 1,200 years. If you have an eye to the outward appearance of godliness, both the Lutherans and Zuinglians must needs grant that they far pass them.
"If you will be moved by the boasting of the word of God, these be no less bold than Calvin to preach, and their doctrine must stand aloft above all the glory of the world, must stand invincible above all power, because it is not their word, but the word of the living God. Neither do they cry with less boldness than Luther, that with their doctrine, which is the word of God, they shall judge the angels. And surely, how many soever have written against this heresy, whether they were Catholics or heretics [reformers], they were able to overthrow it, not so much by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authority of the church."
These quotations are all taken from Hosius' Latin work "Verae, christianae catholicaeque doctrinae solida propugnatio," first published in Cologne in 1558

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Do Protestants believe for roughly 1500 years the church's completely diluted Jesus teachings? And that they had to hide as monks in caves or secret areas until the reformation happened?

The Reformers had respect for the Patristic Church Fathers, especially Augustine.

 

[Radagast]

Do Protestants believe for roughly 1500 years the church's completely diluted Jesus teachings? And that they had to hide as monks in caves or secret areas until the reformation happened?

No.

Protestants believe that errors crept in gradually, and that by about 1500 a Reformation had become essential.

Protestants take early and medieval Christian writers seriously. In almost all cases, up to Augustine, and in many cases, up to Aquinas.

Protestants take the Creeds seriously, especially the Nicene Creed (which is the SoF for CF).

A key part of the Reformation was going to the Greek Orthodox church for the Greek text of the New Testament (and going to the Jews for the Hebrew text of the Old).

The idea that the church has been wrong for almost 2000 years was an Anabaptist idea, not a Reformed one. It has found its way into a few Baptist denominations.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not Protestant (any longer) but you'll like get different answers from different kinds of Protestants.

Most do not regard the early Church including the divisions you mention.

Many are familiar with Church history almost as something that began around 1500 and know the Catholics existed prior to that. There is widely taught understanding that the "early Church" became corrupt at some point and the corruption is often associated with the Roman Church.

Some do know the history including both Rome and Orthodoxy. Some also know of the Chalcedonian split. The ones who do know are most often mainline Protestants.

As far as how the three came to be - the OO separated by not accepting the council at Chalcedon. The theological differences were very minor and somewhat a matter of semantics - they disagreed with the idea that Christ had two natures (divine and human) in the way Chalcedon expressed it. That was the earliest major schism.

Rome had a primacy of honor from very early times. The bishop of Rome was "first among equals". All bishops had equal votes (including Rome) but Rome did preside over meetings (such as calling them to order, etc.). No bishop (including Rome) had rule outside his own jurisdiction.

Rome was also distant geographically, and had different political pressures and a different philosophy began to develop (based on the heavily legal Roman system). They drifted theologically from the other sees over several centuries, but schism was considered to be a very serious sin in the Body, so mostly the Church held together.

However the action of Rome to unilaterally change the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which had been the agreed-upon dogma of the early Church, and had essentially "defined" Christianity, by inserting the Filioque clause (which the rest of the Church rejected) as well as Rome's growing insistence that her bishop was "first without equal" and had authority beyond his own area to extend over the entire Church worldwide - eventually proved too much to continue to accommodate and sadly the Church was split once again in 1054. Rome has continued to develop teachings, which is why they believe in such things as the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary herself, papal infallibility, indulgences, purgatory, created grace, and other such things that Orthodoxy rejects.

Of course Catholics have another point of view, believing that the primacy of Rome always included more authority than the rest of the Church acknowledges, and that the seeds of all their teachings are present in the early Church. Orthodoxy on the other hand strongly resists innovation and believes that the faith was "once for all delivered to the saints" early on and nothing was needed to "develop".

There are particular points that are often discussed and refuted one by one with quotes from history, but I won't go into any of that here.

One thing that most interests me in all of this is the fact that, although the OO split is the earliest major schism, so you might expect the greatest differences due to both time and geographic separation, what you find instead is that OO and EO are extremely similar to one another in both practice and theology. This should demonstrate that everything the Orthodox Church does and believes was in place prior to Chalcedon and has not changed since that time (only minor variations in such things as style of singing which continue to vary according to the culture which becomes Christianized - the Greeks, Russians, and Africans sound a little different from each other despite all sharing the same Divine Liturgy).

Maybe more than you wanted to know. Most Protestants are never taught any of this unless they dig for themselves (as many on this site do, compared to those who are raised and stay within their own denomination).

Oh, but if you want to look to the desert hermits - the EO follows and includes them as part of our history and teaching. As do the OO and Rome, though Rome relies much more heavily on the scholastic thinkers who emerged much later and again, changed her basic way of thinking about theology. Most Protestants have really inherited this kind of scholastic thinking from Rome, along with a legalistic mindset, and don't reject those parts of Catholicism.

 

[Radagast]

what you find instead is that OO and EO are extremely similar to one another in both practice and theology

I wouldn't say that disagreeing with Chalcedon was "minor."

 

[~Anastasia~]

I wouldn't say that disagreeing with Chalcedon was "minor."

Yes thank you for that.

The schism itself was far from a minor thing. What I meant (and forgive me for expressing it poorly) is that the differences in our theologies overall are very minor compared to the entire body of theology. Others can explain it better, but it really boils down to exactly how we express the two natures of Christ and how they dynamically exist within Him.

We would also stand much more chance of healing that division (Between EO and OO) - reconciliation of Orthodoxy with Catholicism would be far, far more problematic.

If you stop 100 Protestants on the street and ask them, they would likely none of them have an opinion on the nature/s of Christ at all, as long as you state that Jesus was both God and Man. (Though a few will disagree even with that - theology among random folks can get very confused).

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Radagast]

What I meant (and forgive me for expressing it poorly) is that the differences in our theologies overall are very minor compared to the entire body of theology.

What I meant (and I expressed myself poorly too) was that this difference was huge compared to some of the things that Protestant denominations have split over.

In fact, Chalcedon is one of the pillars of Reformed Christology, and any Reformed systematic theology text will have a lengthy section on it.

If you stop 100 Protestants on the street and ask them, they would likely none of them have an opinion on the nature/s of Christ at all, as long as you state that Jesus was both God and Man.

If that is true (and it may well be), it is very sad.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What I meant (and I expressed myself poorly too) was that this difference was huge compared to some of the things that Protestant denominations have split over.

In fact, Chalcedon is one of the pillars of Reformed Christology, and any Reformed systematic theology text will have a lengthy section on it.

Thanks for explaining in more detail.

I agree that Chalcedon is huge. And though I certainly consider my OO brothers and sisters to BE my brothers and sisters (we actually have several who attend our Church, though there is a Coptic Church nearby) ... that's a bit of an irony. I'm not any expert on OO, but I think it's true that they agree with most of Chalcedon, at least. But the "definition" of Christ's nature/s was important enough to them ... There was of course also an issue of rejecting particular teachers.

If that is true (and it may well be), it is very sad.

Well, I'm basing it on my experience of a number of Protestant denominations. They don't tend (ime) to delve deeply into theological matters (though I think the mainline denominations do more so than the later denominations). Again, we may be talking past one another? Through most of my life, in any Christian denomination, I always heard that Jesus was both God and Man. That much was always affirmed.

Since coming on CF, I've met folks who don't agree even with that. So I'm just saying that out of a large enough sampling, you will tend to find such lack of agreement.

And almost none of them concern themselves with "two natures, distinct and unconfused, neither mixed nor subsumed" ... nor anything of that degree. Just simple "God and Man" is sufficient for most folks. And being we can easily slip into theological error if we aren't careful, maybe that's best for widespread public proclamation of the nature/s of Christ.

 

[Radagast]

Well, I'm basing it on my experience of a number of Protestant denominations. They don't tend (ime) to delve deeply into theological matters (though I think the mainline denominations do more so than the later denominations).

Mainline vs Evangelical is not the same as old denomination vs new denomination. I'm a Presbyterian (old denomination) but an Evangelical one. People like me take the great Reformed confessions seriously:

"We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct properties. As then the divine nature hath always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth: so also hath the human nature not lost its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though he hath by his resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless he hath not changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body. But these two natures are so closely united in one person, that they were not separated even by his death. Therefore that which he, when dying, commended into the hands of his Father, was a real human spirit, departing from his body. But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when he lay in the grave. And the Godhead did not cease to be in him, any more than it did when he was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while. Wherefore we confess, that he is very God, and very Man: very God by his power to conquer death; and very man that he might die for us according to the infirmity of his flesh." (Belgic Confession of 1561, #19)

Since coming on CF, I've met folks who don't agree even with that.

True.

I'm hoping that's not true in general.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Mainline vs Evangelical is not the same as old denomination vs new denomination. I'm a Presbyterian (old denomination) but an Evangelical one. People like me take the great Reformed confessions seriously:

"We believe that by this conception, the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person: yet, that each nature retains its own distinct properties. As then the divine nature hath always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth: so also hath the human nature not lost its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though he hath by his resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless he hath not changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body. But these two natures are so closely united in one person, that they were not separated even by his death. Therefore that which he, when dying, commended into the hands of his Father, was a real human spirit, departing from his body. But in the meantime the divine nature always remained united with the human, even when he lay in the grave. And the Godhead did not cease to be in him, any more than it did when he was an infant, though it did not so clearly manifest itself for a while. Wherefore we confess, that he is very God, and very Man: very God by his power to conquer death; and very man that he might die for us according to the infirmity of his flesh." (Belgic Confession of 1561, #19)

As to the denominations - I know. No matter how I try to divide them up to make my point - someone always objects. (I'm not saying you do so in a contentious way.) By "evangelical" I was referring to the groups that descended a bit ... broadly the Baptists that don't really hold to the old Confessions, and other denominations "descended from" older ones. It becomes difficult to speak of groups of denominations and divisions in them. Being Presbyterian, I would certainly consider you from a mainline denomination. But I know even within the mainlines, there are drifts. Some are becoming very liberal, some identify as evangelical, some enter streams of charismaticism - I confess that I don't in particular know what you mean by combining Presbyterian with evangelical. I know of Presbyterians who are modern and liberal and some who identify with Orthodoxy. Forgive me please, it's just the nature of Protestantism broadly. Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans also vary widely between themselves under their own umbrellas and even split. It's hard to use language everyone can agree on to explain how Protestants align themselves according to a particular doctrine or tendency of belief.

No insult intended. It's just hard to speak of. Maybe I'll quit using labels altogether so I don't inadvertently mislabel anyone. I can understand it would bother folks - I wouldn't want to be mislabeled either.

God be with you.

True.

I'm hoping that's not true in general.

I hope not also. I see a very great deal of confusion out there. I was part of a good bit of confusion at times during my life as some denominations taught on the fringes of things. But - always that Jesus was God AND Man.

 

[Radagast]

As to the denominations - I know. No matter how I try to divide them up to make my point - someone always objects. (I'm not saying you do so in a contentious way.) By "evangelical" I was referring to the groups that descended a bit ... broadly the Baptists that don't really hold to the old Confessions, and other denominations "descended from" older ones. It becomes difficult to speak of groups of denominations and divisions in them. Being Presbyterian, I would certainly consider you from a mainline denomination.

I know you don't mean it, but those are fighting words.

"Mainline" is basically used as a polite synonym for "liberal" (or, if that offends people, as the opposite of "conservative"). So, for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) or PCUSA is Mainline, and the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA is Evangelical. Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or ELCA is Mainline, and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod or LCMS is Evangelical. The classification of denominations as one or the other is fairly standard.

It's a little more complicated with Baptists, because a stream of Anabaptist theology is entangled with a stream of Reformed theology. A few decades ago, people were shouting "conservatives are taking over the Southern Baptist Convention." What that really meant was that the SBC was moving a few inches in the general direction of Evangelical Presbyterianism.

With Pentecostals, it's more complicated again, with three or four strands of theology intertwining. I can't quite get my head around things there.

I'm aware that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have their own theological differences, that can be quite substantial (like, do aerial toll houses exist?). Not having denominations, those theological differences seem to me to be associated with individuals more than with formal groups (but I freely confess that I can't quite get my head around theological issues within Orthodoxy either).

God be with you.

And also with you.

 

[PloverWing]

I don't have much to add to ~Anastasia~ and Radagast's excellent discussion, except perhaps this: I think an awareness of things like the Chalcedonian Definition and the patristic and medieval theologians may have more to do with level of (theological) education than denominational affiliation. My theology classes at Wheaton College (a conservative Evangelical school) talked quite extensively about the early creeds and councils, the 1500 years of pre-Reformation theology, and the gradual development of doctrine and practice through that time. On the other hand, ask a random person in my (mainline, historically rooted) denomination what Chalcedon is, and they'll look at you blankly.

I have found a lot of ignorance of church history among both Evangelical and mainline Christians. But I've also found a lot of solid knowledge of church history -- and respect for Catholic and Orthodox theologians -- in the colleges and universities.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know you don't mean it, but those are fighting words.

"Mainline" is basically used as a polite synonym for "liberal" (or, if that offends people, as the opposite of "conservative"). So, for example, the Presbyterian Church (USA) or PCUSA is Mainline, and the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA is Evangelical. Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or ELCA is Mainline, and the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod or LCMS is Evangelical. The classification of denominations as one or the other is fairly standard.

It's a little more complicated with Baptists, because a stream of Anabaptist theology is entangled with a stream of Reformed theology. A few decades ago, people were shouting "conservatives are taking over the Southern Baptist Convention." What that really meant was that the SBC was moving a few inches in the general direction of Evangelical Presbyterianism.

With Pentecostals, it's more complicated again, with three or four strands of theology intertwining. I can't quite get my head around things there.

I'm aware that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have their own theological differences, that can be quite substantial (like, do aerial toll houses exist?). Not having denominations, those theological differences seem to me to be associated with individuals more than with formal groups (but I freely confess that I can't quite get my head around theological issues within Orthodoxy either).



And also with you.

My apologies. I should stop using words to label groups at all lol. I actually meant somewhat the opposite of how you are taking it so I'm afraid I might have created a total misunderstanding. I don't think I can "fix" it at this point - except I will say that my understanding of "mainline" denominations was more conservative, more traditional, more credal. My understanding of "evangelical" has more to do with when in history they developed (later). If ever there is language that helps us all mean the same thing I will be glad for that. I have referred to denominations as divided by the stages of reformation, which is usually what I really mean (since I think that separates them on many things) but that language became problematic for some. And I don't usually like to mention specific denominations because it sometimes causes offense.

Please accept my apologies. I've had a good meal and a wonderful day with my daughter and her fiancée. I hope you've enjoyed Thanksgiving if you celebrated it today.

Pentecostals are a little more difficult to discuss in these terms at times, you're right. And with all the charismatic streams I think it won't become easier.

Toll houses isn't a Catholic/Orthodox issue IMO. Toll houses are simply something that need to be understood in context. NOT literally as some describe, but the idea of a final temptation for a soul that still loves the world and/or pleasures/passions or sin.

Catholic and Orthodox (IMO) need to deal with our basic approach to theology, the basic understanding of sin and how it affects our view of salvation, and then also those particular doctrines/dogmas that we disagree on - both ecclesiastical and theological as well as praxis. There is a lot we practice in common, but a lot we disagree on as well. I find that Catholics often don't really understand our differences - the degree of similarity combined with a way of thinking about Christianity that they have seems to mean they can't fully apprehend what Orthodoxy means in these discussions. It's not only Catholics - I think any western Christian has a built-in set of ways they have always thought and it takes effort and practice to see past that and begin to understand the East's very different approach. It took me a few years and I was working on it. Others probably wouldn't have the motivation to even try that hard, as they might see it as something that has nothing to do with them.

Imo toll houses (properly understood) aren't an issue. Obviously "properly understood" is the real qualifier there, because it seems many Orthodox easily misunderstand as well. (Not that I'm setting myself above and saying I do - I've just had the benefit of access to good teachers and many patient priests.)

So toll houses in particular may seem to be an issue more between individuals, but that's because it depends how much the individuals know. Most of the Catholic/Orthodox division is over what we as large groups disagree about.

I believe the topic of the whole thread might be something the average Protestant would see no reason to dig into though. So I think most wouldn't have much of an opinion, or would just repeat what they've been taught, and a good bit of what gets circulated is very anti-Catholic.

 

[The Gryphon]

You did not mention the Church in Jerusalem that was a major one overseen my many of the disciples before the City of Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70A.D..

 

[~Anastasia~]

You did not mention the Church in Jerusalem that was a major one overseen my many of the disciples before the City of Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70A.D..

That one is still part of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Willie T]

Wow! Well, I think you know, K, that I thought you had simply gone Catholic when you told me about becoming EO. (No need to answer here.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Wow! Well, I think you know, K, that I thought you had simply gone Catholic when you told me about becoming EO. (No need to answer here.)

I know you said no need to answer here, but with you I'm often left wondering just exactly what you mean (and it matters to me ).

No, I am not and could never be Catholic (though I have many Catholics I would prefer to speak gently with and not press that statement in an unkind way).

What we share are the things we have shared since the first couple of centuries. But we differ in many ways, and some of them are extremely fundamental ones. But unless there's a need to compare us, I don't usually focus on our differences.

 

[hedrick]

I will say that my understanding of "mainline" denominations was more conservative, more traditional, more credal.

The mainline denominations are the traditional Protestants ones, going back to the Reformation or major Reformers such as Wesley. They accept modern scholarship, and thus are by CF standards liberal. There are conservative versions of most of them. In most cases the mainline versions are the lineal descendants of the traditional churches, and the conservatives are offshoots. (That's not the case for Lutherans, as they have had multiple synods from the beginning.)

The mainline churches tend to be more sympathetic to Catholic and EO than the conservative versions. As you may know, Luther and Calvin thought the early church was OK, and problems slowly crept in. They considered the 16th Cent Catholic church unacceptable, possibly not even a true church. This judgement is still held by some conservative groups. The mainline groups are more positive to the current Catholic Church, at least in the US and Europe, in part because their Biblical scholarship and much of the theological scholarship is largely shared.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The mainline denominations are the traditional Protestants ones, going back to the Reformation or major Reformers such as Wesley. They accept modern scholarship, and thus are by CF standards liberal. There are conservative versions of most of them. In most cases the mainline versions are the lineal descendants of the traditional churches, and the conservatives are offshoots. (That's not the case for Lutherans, as they have had multiple synods from the beginning.)

The mainline churches tend to be more sympathetic to Catholic and EO than the conservative versions. As you may know, Luther and Calvin thought the early church was OK, and problems slowly crept in. They considered the 16th Cent Catholic church unacceptable, possibly not even a true church. This judgement is still held by some conservative groups. The mainline groups are more positive to the current Catholic Church, at least in the US and Europe, in part because their Biblical scholarship and much of the theological scholarship is largely shared.

Thank you, Hedrick. It has been largely through your explanations that I have become more precise than I was. I still think maybe I shouldn't speak too much about Protestants as groups if I risk upsetting folks.

One thing I don't understand though - you said that the mainline denominations are considered to be liberal by CF standards, because they accept modern scholarship. It seems to me that the largest group(s) who would be opposed to putting much weight there were be Orthodox. And CF is not an Orthodox site specifically so ... why is this so?

Is it a matter of a spectrum of acceptance of scholarship? Or a spectrum of modernness? Or something else?