Why don't Protestants hold up Hippolytus as a hero?

[HTacianas]

If you don't know, Hippolytus once challenged the authority of the bishop of Rome -the Pope if you will- for claiming for himself an authority that contradicted the bible.

But no one talks much about him.

 

[Chesterton]

If you don't know...

That's the key, they probably don't know. Protestants like me who dig deep into Christian history tend not to remain Protestants.

 

[dzheremi]

Yep. It was apparently not as uncommon as some would think for people to challenge the bishop of Rome.

HH Pope Dinoysius of Alexandria (d. 264) likewise intervened in the conflict between Popes Xystus and Stephen and St. Cyprian of Carthage regarding the lapsi and rebaptism, which may also (depending on how you read the letters and their circumstances) undermine some later claims about how the early Church more generally viewed Rome -- e.g., that all other sees looked to Rome as some kind of final court of appeals whose views, decisions, and proclamations went unchallenged, while Rome herself never looked to or would accept anything from any other see. Similar examples could be made of the circumstances by which HH Pope Heraclas (d. 248) came to be the earliest recognized 'Pope' anywhere (his Roman counterpart having written after his death that he received some rule from Heraclas, who he recognized by the term of affection), or the rejection of Leo I's 445 letter suggesting that Alexandria adopt a few uniquely Roman practices so that Rome and Alexandria may "be one in all things" (spoiler: it was written to HH Pope Dioscorus, and it didn't work out that way).

 

[ViaCrucis]

If you don't know, Hippolytus once challenged the authority of the bishop of Rome -the Pope if you will- for claiming for himself an authority that contradicted the bible.

But no one talks much about him.

St. Hippolytus' challenge of Zephyrinus' views, which he regarded as Modalist is noble. But Hippolytus allowed himself to be elected as a rival bishop of Rome, which was quite problematic.

I can't speak for all Protestants, but from a Lutheran perspective Hippolytus' championing of orthodoxy is certainly commendable, but the illicit way he attempted to secure St. Peter's seat shouldn't necessarily earn him any brownie points.

Lutherans don't despise the institutions and historic structures of Christ's Holy Church, as that's our Church, and the fathers are our fathers. The Lutheran POV isn't that we started a new church, but that we are continuing within the same Church that's always been. The Church Christ founded is our Church, the fathers are our fathers, the 1500 years of history before Luther is our history.

For the record, for Lutherans we don't deny the validity of the bishop of Rome, we don't deny that the bishop of Rome sits in St. Peter's chair. It's specifically the papacy and the innovations surrounding the papacy as an institution we reject, namely its claims of special privileges and powers outside of what the Church has ever historically afforded St. Peter's successor. Especially if those supposed powers are being used to abuse the Church herself, and all the Faithful.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

That's the key, they probably don't know. Protestants like me who dig deep into Christian history tend not to remain Protestants.

Yep, We usually become Eastern Orthodox after researching the first thousand years of Church History / Church Doctrine / Church Tradition / Church Councils.


.

 

[HTacianas]

St. Hippolytus' challenge of Zephyrinus' views, which he regarded as Modalist is noble. But Hippolytus allowed himself to be elected as a rival bishop of Rome, which was quite problematic.

I can't speak for all Protestants, but from a Lutheran perspective Hippolytus' championing of orthodoxy is certainly commendable, but the illicit way he attempted to secure St. Peter's seat shouldn't necessarily earn him any brownie points.

Lutherans don't despise the institutions and historic structures of Christ's Holy Church, as that's our Church, and the fathers are our fathers. The Lutheran POV isn't that we started a new church, but that we are continuing within the same Church that's always been. The Church Christ founded is our Church, the fathers are our fathers, the 1500 years of history before Luther is our history.

-CryptoLutheran

Calixtus is the only reason we have a chance at salvation. Calixtus granted absolution for mortal sin committed after baptism, something the new testament forbids. From the end of the apostolic age until Calixtus the sub apostolic fathers concerned themselves with it until Calixtus resolved it. See Hermas, Tertullian, et al.

 

[Monksailor]

St. Hippolytus' challenge of Zephyrinus' views, which he regarded as Modalist is noble. But Hippolytus allowed himself to be elected as a rival bishop of Rome, which was quite problematic.

I can't speak for all Protestants, but from a Lutheran perspective Hippolytus' championing of orthodoxy is certainly commendable, but the illicit way he attempted to secure St. Peter's seat shouldn't necessarily earn him any brownie points.

Lutherans don't despise the institutions and historic structures of Christ's Holy Church, as that's our Church, and the fathers are our fathers. The Lutheran POV isn't that we started a new church, but that we are continuing within the same Church that's always been. The Church Christ founded is our Church, the fathers are our fathers, the 1500 years of history before Luther is our history.

For the record, for Lutherans we don't deny the validity of the bishop of Rome, we don't deny that the bishop of Rome sits in St. Peter's chair. It's specifically the papacy and the innovations surrounding the papacy as an institution we reject, namely its claims of special privileges and powers outside of what the Church has ever historically afforded St. Peter's successor. Especially if those supposed powers are being used to abuse the Church herself, and all the Faithful.

-CryptoLutheran

I am a Protestant, Non-Lutheran, and I agree with your position, as long as there is evidential and certifiable proof of the person's blood-right to be in "St. Peter's Seat" and also such to validate their life's testimony for being in and maintaining such a position. Any falsification or even attempt at a falsification such high criteria MUST receive IMMEDIATE decapitation of ALL involved.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Calixtus is the only reason we have a chance at salvation. Calixtus granted absolution for mortal sin committed after baptism, something the new testament forbids. From the end of the apostolic age until Calixtus the sub apostolic fathers concerned themselves with it until Calixtus resolved it. See Hermas, Tertullian, et al.

What a truly dangerous sentiment. To suggest that Calixtus was able to, and had the authority to, abrogate God's word, and the holy teaching of Christ and His apostles, is simply unacceptable.

I reject the idea that the New Testament forbids post-baptismal forgiveness. The apostolic word is the bounty and riches of God's forgiveness, not just as a one time moment, but as an everflowing spring without end. And so St. John writes that if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, it is why the St. Paul calls the Faithful to repentance, it is why in the Apocalypse Jesus says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock", He invites the churches to remember their first love. Time and against we have this.

So no, the New Testament does not forbid forgiveness of post-baptismal sins.

It seems strange that one would appeal to Tertullian, who abandoned the orthodox faith for heresy, to further support such a position.

That there is forgiveness from God, in Christ, for all our sins is apostolic and catholic teaching. If it is an innovation from Calixtus, such would utterly undermine the preaching of the Gospel, and the Church herself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gordon Wright]

Challenging the one currently in power is not at all the same thing as challenging authority.

Luther wasn't trying to become Pope. He was trying to make no one Pope.

 

[Albion]

If you don't know, Hippolytus once challenged the authority of the bishop of Rome -the Pope if you will- for claiming for himself an authority that contradicted the bible.

But no one talks much about him.

Probably this is because so much about him is uncertain, shrouded in legend and conflicting claims concerning just about everything in his life.

Besides, I don't "get" why Protestants would think of Hippolytus as a "hero" simply because he might have been an anti-Pope. It's not as though Protestantism opposed the Papacy in favor of pretenders to the same throne!

 

[HTacianas]

What a truly dangerous sentiment. To suggest that Calixtus was able to, and had the authority to, abrogate God's word, and the holy teaching of Christ and His apostles, is simply unacceptable.

I reject the idea that the New Testament forbids post-baptismal forgiveness. The apostolic word is the bounty and riches of God's forgiveness, not just as a one time moment, but as an everflowing spring without end. And so St. John writes that if we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, it is why the St. Paul calls the Faithful to repentance, it is why in the Apocalypse Jesus says, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock", He invites the churches to remember their first love. Time and against we have this.

So no, the New Testament does not forbid forgiveness of post-baptismal sins.

It seems strange that one would appeal to Tertullian, who abandoned the orthodox faith for heresy, to further support such a position.

That there is forgiveness from God, in Christ, for all our sins is apostolic and catholic teaching. If it is an innovation from Calixtus, such would utterly undermine the preaching of the Gospel, and the Church herself.

-CryptoLutheran

Rom 3:25 - ...because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

1Jo 5:16 - ... There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

Heb 10:26 - For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

The new testament teaches that all sins committed prior to baptism are forgiven by baptism. After baptism there is no longer a sacrifice for "sin leading to death".

Calixtus changed that. Hippolytus opposed it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Rom 3:25 - ...because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

1Jo 5:16 - ... There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.

Heb 10:26 - For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

The new testament teaches that all sins committed prior to baptism are forgiven by baptism. After baptism there is no longer a sacrifice for "sin leading to death".

Calixtus changed that. Hippolytus opposed it.

So your argument boils down to a couple proof-texts and the claim that a bishop introduced novel and innovative dogmas contrary to Christ and the Apostles--and that this was a good thing?

How do you not see how problematic this is?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HTacianas]

So your argument boils down to a couple proof-texts and the claim that a bishop introduced novel and innovative dogmas contrary to Christ and the Apostles--and that this was a good thing?

How do you not see how problematic this is?

-CryptoLutheran

Does that mean Hippolytus is the hero for opposing it or is Calixtus the hero for delivering it to us?

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, It came down to either Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox for me.

I could be wrong but I still think that 1 Enoch from The Ethiopian Orthodox Church is a legit book of the Bible.

.

Could be. I can't say, as it not part of the Coptic Orthodox Church's canon, and I've never read it.

From my limited understanding, the Tewahedo biblical canon is as it is because they preserved a number of works that today only exist in Ge'ez, the classical language of the Church in the Axumite empire. So I'm not sure that these other books would've been really all that accessible to others prior to the modern era, as their Greek (or Coptic, or Syriac, or Arabic) originals are not available to study, and the field of Ethiopian Church studies is perhaps understandably rather small and obscure.

 

[Monksailor]

Challenging the one currently in power is not at all the same thing as challenging authority.

Luther wasn't trying to become Pope. He was trying to make no one Pope.

As I understand it, the Reformation was not a Protest against the Pope but rather the SYSTEM which incorporated the position and used it for personal/corporate gain of power and wealth and control in, for example, established self-serving doctrine.

By the way, Luther is ONLY one of MANY (men and women) and NOT the first (see link below for Jan Hus who was burned at the stake 100 yrs earlier) who held this position but were afraid to risk the fatal consequences of contesting with such a powerful regime. Once Jan Hus, John Wycliffe, and he did, hundreds came out of their closets, so to speak, and joined him in trying to advert back to the original Scripture and its context and doctrine. Here is an inexhaustible list: People of the Protestant Reformation |

Don't get too bent out of shape that Luther wasn't the first. Darwin wasn't either. A French botanist over 200 yrs BEFORE Darwin's 1849, "Origin of the Species" cataloged into Encyclopedia form most, if not all, of Darwin's "findings" and conclusions.

 

[JAL]

That's the key, they probably don't know. Protestants like me who dig deep into Christian history tend not to remain Protestants.

I'll happily lead the pack in charging Protestants with incorrect epistemology. For example I propose a corrective on this thread.

Nonetheless Protestant epistemology is a bit more cogent than Tradition because Protestants admit that private interpretation is a necessity. I MUST rely on my current opinions, for otherwise I shall neither become nor remain a member of ANY denomination.

Unfortunately Sola Scriptura falls short here, by trying to limit the maxim to those opinions demonstrated from Scripture. Again, see my thread for a rebuttal of Sola Scriptura.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does that mean Hippolytus is the hero for opposing it or is Calixtus the hero for delivering it to us?

Considering the condemnation of the rigorists, Novatian, Tertullian, Donatus; I fail to see how Hippolytus as a rigorist could be regarded as the "hero" here. In fact I'm pretty sure I've already stated that while Hippolytus' opposition to Modalism is praiseworthy, his illicit occupation of the Roman episcopal chair is not. As such his views as well as his opposition to Calixtus on the matter of absolution is something no Lutheran could support.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If you don't know, Hippolytus once challenged the authority of the bishop of Rome -the Pope if you will- for claiming for himself an authority that contradicted the bible.

But no one talks much about him.

... about who ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Calixtus is the only reason we have a chance at salvation. Calixtus granted absolution for mortal sin committed after baptism, something the new testament forbids.

Or, not.

 

[DamianWarS]

If you don't know, Hippolytus once challenged the authority of the bishop of Rome -the Pope if you will- for claiming for himself an authority that contradicted the bible.

But no one talks much about him.

let's be honest, the real question is why aren't Protestants Orthodox.