How can the early church be wrong?

Posted on 11/29/2008 at 11:40:21  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

I am hoping both Protestant and Roman (or other) Catholics can respond to the following. I was told Protestants also frequent this forum.

Over the past 18 months I've been studying church history. As a Christian raised in Protestantism, I am both shocked and fascinated at some of the things I've learned.

What the early church believed and practiced is different form what many or most Protestant groups believe and practice today. The following was firmly established as early as 150 AD or as late as 450 AD in the univeral church.
* The authority of the written scriptures, but also in the oral teachings passed down by the apostles
* Succession of bishops who can trace their origin to an apostle, and a church leadership heirarchy composed of bishops, priests, and deacons
* Supernatural presence of Christ in the bread and wine offered at the communion meal
* Practice of confession with a priest, or publicly, followed by some form of penance.
* Doctrinal statments from general councils are divinely inspired.
* Veneration of deceased Christians, and prayers offered to them, and for them
* Special authority of the bishop of Rome in doctrinal matters

After a great deal of soul-searching, I have some pointed questions regarding the protestant ethos.
* If the seven points I list above are doctrinally wrong, does this not indicate that God let the universal church fall into gross error almost immediately, and persist in that error until the dawn of the reformation? What does this say about Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not overcome the church (Matt 16:18)?
* Did Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers reinvent Christianity with the principles of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Neither principle was believed for the first 1500 years of Christian history, and yet they are the foundation of Protestantism.

Posted on 11/29/2008 at 12:41:46  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

Well, that is a very interesting question, but you may have some trouble getting non-Catholics to answer it right away.

I am Catholic and I have been told by many non-Catholics that the church went off the rails immediately after the death of the last Apostle and that the true church went underground until the Reformation.

I have also been told that the Catholic Church (which it has been called since the first century) persecuted the true Christians at every opportunity and that the some heresies that were put down were truths taught by early Christians that the Church rejected - of course each heresy that has re-appeared in the modern Christian church belongs to a different denomination. And not all Protestants believe all the heresies that have been resurrected. So there still can only be one true church, and the others must still be wrong.

Not all ancient heresies have been revived, thank goodness, and the ones that do tend to pop up in the fringes. For example, Arianism taught that Jesus was not of the same substance as God the Father and was in reality the highest of created beings. This has been resurrected in a way by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, this heresy did not start until the fourth century so it is hardly evidence of Catholic error.

Oneness Pentecostals take it one step further and insist that the human Jesus was merely a created being intended to serve as a suit of flesh for God to wear while on earth. They hold that other Christians are polytheists for believing in the Trinity.

Fortunately, there are still lots of good sensible non-Catholic Christians out there. And we do hold a lot more in common than many think. We just need to look at what we have in common and build on that.

Sometimes studying the scriptures can take you in circles. Many who study the scriptures in their proper historical context find their way back to the Catholic Church - or at least to some very similar ways of thinking. I had some Asian missionaries come to my door with a different brand of Christian theology that I had not seen before in Protestantism.

From the scriptures alone, the church that these missionaries belonged to decided that the Passover was the key and that Christians are still required to celebrate the Passover each year at the same time as the Jews, but the new Christian Passover involves bread and wine in the format used at the Lord's Supper, and that this bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, though remaining in the appearance of bread and wine.

They understood the connection between the Passover and saving the Hebrews from the slavery of the Eqyptions and Christ, our Passover sacrifice, that saves us from the slavery of sin. They understood that in both cases, those that wished to be saved had to eat the sacrifice once it had been made.

But I could not get them to see that we could do this more than once per year. Or how close this was to Catholic teaching. They use the Protestant canon of scripture.

I am glad to see that you are studying the early Church. It does make for fascinating reading and helps to put a lot of scripture passages into perspective. Today we have too many people trying to interpret the scriptures from modern perspectives and producing too many different denominations. Jesus wanted us to all be One Body in Christ. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (Ephesians 4:5).

Edited by Faith_at_Large on 11/29/2008 13:11:42

Posted on 11/29/2008 at 14:10:44  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

tstand, I can relate to what you are saying. I grew up as a "Protestant" and never even knew what the term meant. My fascination w/ History led me to the discovery of the RCC's sovereignty and perpetual existence Strangely, this occurred simultaneously w/ my decision to attend RCIA and possibly convert.

Posted on 11/30/2008 at 05:35:20  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

kudos tstand... i too was a protestant/evangelical for several years and found through my study of history the same things you mention above... except that many i knew didn't mind using your argument against the mormons or jw's, yet they would never consider using the fact that they too started hundreds of years later against themselves.... that's just silly.

Posted on 12/01/2008 at 09:10:27  |  Reply  |  Report Abuse |  0

tstand

quote:

---

If the seven points I list above are doctrinally wrong, does this not indicate that God let the universal church fall into gross error almost immediately, and persist in that error until the dawn of the reformation? What does this say about Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not overcome the church (Matt 16:18)?

---

Good point - If the Church got it wrong, then what proof do we have that it compiled the Bible correctly? Many claim that the earliest church was already using a form of the KJV. Of course they are unable to prove it. If the Church was in error, then what proof do we have that the Bible is the word of God;(anybody can write a book and make the same claim just by inserting "This is the Word of God") that Jesus, was born, suffered, died, buried and rose from the dead; that Jesus worked many miracles and healed. If the Church was wrong then the Bible could be wrong and all is for naught. We have no proof of Matthew 16:18, We have no proof that God is God, that good is good, bad is bad and we might just as well climb into a hole, hold on to our you-know-whats, and hope the bottom doesn't cave in on us. All we see is just an illusion. When we die, thats it; poof - all gone. The universe is just some unexplainable accident and all will be gone is a few trillion years. The Bible will be in the same category as Mother Goose Fairy Tales. The Bible can then be considered worthless so will sola scriptura (which if course it is but thats for another topic).

quote:

---

Neither principle was believed for the first 1500 years of Christian history, and yet they are the foundation of Protestantism.

---

Personally IMO the foundation of Protestantism is denial that God gave HIS CHURCH authority. Without this authority anybody can make anything the foundation they most feel comfortable with.

Edited by at1ment on 12/01/2008 09:16:09