Church History And Authority

[Paladin D]

I mean this in a curious intention, many of you say that the Early Church was all good, but at some point in history... became corrupt. I have a few questions to ask.

1. By what you claim, when did the Early Church become corrupt?

2. Why do you claim it has become corrupt? On what information, facts, proofs, and/or etc... have you come to this conclusion?

3. When you read the Early Church Fathers, do you or do you not see very similar (if not, identical) beliefs to that of the Catholic Church today?

Thanks. :)

[Circle_Master]

1. By what you claim, when did the Early Church become corrupt?

I see it as a slow corruption personally. You have many many heresies going around from around 100 A.D. to 200 A.D. and it is bound that some of them may influence members in the church. Then you also have Constantine pushing all the pagans into the churches which brought much diversity - and false ideologies. Of course "total power corrupts totally" and you see Innocent III putting his edict on France so the king will divorce (may have gotten pope name wrong, sorry if I did!). Then you have intense corruption with the sale of indulgences to build a church and that corruption being responded to by Luther. I would say the church became corrupt slowly, and it wasn't until that final corruption that the gospel must be freed - and God raised up Luther.

2. Why do you claim it has become corrupt?  On what information, facts, proofs, and/or etc... have you come to this conclusion?

Some of that is in the first question there, some is on papers I've written I don't feel like dredging up

3. When you read the Early Church Fathers, do you or do you not see very similar (if not, identical) beliefs to that of the Catholic Church today?

No, actually I don't. I read Augustine and I see predestination and the sovereignty of Scripture. I read Polycarp and I see a man who loves the church more than anything - beyond any mention of a sacrament. I see Church fathers disagreeing with the primacy of Rome, and I see a split eventually signaling the final move as Rome attempted to pull it's primacy on the fillioque. I think Catholics really put a pseudo-syncretism on the Church Fathers and forget that many disagreed with each other on stuff.

Those are my personal opinions - I hope you find them helpful for how I argue sometimes.

Your Welcome :)

[Paladin D]

Thank you for your reply, may I respond to your post?

I see it as a slow corruption personally.  You have many many heresies going around from around 100 A.D. to 200 A.D. and it is bound that some of them may influence members in the church.  Then you also have Constantine pushing all the pagans into the churches which brought much diversity - and false ideologies.

Heresies were going back and forth indeed, that is why they held councils at the time. But it does not mean that the Catholic Church as a whole, taught heresy. Amongst the Catholic Church today (amongst it's members), there are some diverse ideologies, but it does not mean that A. they are accurate or B. they will be accepted as dogma.

Of course "total power corrupts totally" and you see Innocent III putting his edict on France so the king will divorce (may have gotten pope name wrong, sorry if I did!).

Don't know much about this, still new to the faith. lol

Then you have intense corruption with the sale of indulgences to build a church and that corruption being responded to by Luther.

Some individuals and leaders may become corrupt (Catholic Church admits that it wasn't doing too well), but the teachings were not changed nor corrupted. Luther did get that one right. However, he took the wrong turn from there. Not to overwhelm you with questions, but I have another (in relation to your statement above)...

Though many Protestants do not consider Luther an infallible interpreter, you do hold him up as a great holy Reformer. Though many Protestants do claim that they don't soley base their beliefs off of his, his influence has indeed affected (tempted to say "infected" lol) many Protestants one way or another. Many claim that he restored original Christianity. So my question is: Why and/or on what grounds do you put your faith in the claim that Martin Luther truely restored original Christianity?

...I don't understand, and I hope you can explain this to me. I hear many claims about Martin Luther being holy and such (from the Protestant community), but no reason as to why.

I would say the church became corrupt slowly, and it wasn't until that final corruption that the gospel must be freed - and God raised up Luther.

Read above. I have a question I would like to ask, but I would rather create another thread for it (since it's a whole nother subject itself).

Some of that is in the first question there, some is on papers I've written I don't feel like dredging up

That's cool.

No, actually I don't.  I read Augustine and I see predestination and the sovereignty of Scripture.  I read Polycarp and I see a man who loves the church more than anything - beyond any mention of a sacrament.  I see Church fathers disagreeing with the primacy of Rome, and I see a split eventually signaling the final move as Rome attempted to pull it's primacy on the fillioque.  I think Catholics really put a pseudo-syncretism on the Church Fathers and forget that many disagreed with each other on stuff.

Okiedoke. Actually, that would be a fantastic idea for a debate thread.

Those are my personal opinions - I hope you find them helpful for how I argue sometimes.

Yes, they were helpful, thank you. :cool:

[Circle_Master]

2 things for now

1) If you would, I would 'really, really' suggest getting "What on Earth is God Doing?' by Renald Showers. It is not an evangelistic book, or an apologetics book - but it will explain how I see history and much of why I put trust in Luther and stuff like that.

2) I'd debate on the Augustine and early church father disagreements and stuff, but my teacher for that class gave 0, yes 0 references. I have seen many of the things he taught in Calvins writings and other authors, but I don't have the resources handy. I would need to do a bunch more studying to be feeling able to debate persuasively on that

[Paladin D]

2 things for now

1) If you would, I would 'really, really' suggest getting "What on Earth is God Doing?' by Renald Showers. It is not an evangelistic book, or an apologetics book - but it will explain how I see history and much of why I put trust in Luther and stuff like that.

Okiedoke, though I'm picky with buying books . Maybe if you can find (no rush, whenever you can) find a decent online source that explains your position on the matter? You can PM me it if you want.

2) I'd debate on the Augustine and early church father disagreements and stuff, but my teacher for that class gave 0, yes 0 references.  I have seen many of the things he taught in Calvins writings and other authors, but I don't have the resources handy.  I would need to do a bunch more studying to be feeling able to debate persuasively on that

No problem, not sure how long that'll be though. But when you do more study on the issue, just let me (or us) know.

[Mary's Knight, La]

Paladin said you can PM him, but I too would like to see your sources at least as a matter of curiosity. so if you PM him could you at least post the sources here, please?

[M.SIGGA]

Do Protestants consider the Church as a whole became corrupt, meaning all it's bishops and members, or do you mean specific individuals? Are the first martyred Popes considered corrupt or non-Christian?

I have noticed that many Protestant teachers other than Anglicans/Episcopalians never mention any Christians as martyrs, teachers, or scholars in an honoring way (other than Augustine's conversion story and occasionally Francis of Assisi) b4 the Protestant Reformation. Is this because those saints are considered corrupt or possibly unsaved and in hell?

I think there could be a lot to learn because there were a lot of amesome Christian witnesses that have sort of been forgotten by Protestant Churches, or are they even recognized as Christian? Thanks.

[Circle_Master]

Do Protestants consider the Church as a whole became corrupt, meaning all it's bishops and members, or do you mean specific individuals? Are the first martyred Popes considered corrupt or non-Christian?

I consider the teachings of the Church to be corrupt today. Does this limit everyone from salvation in the Catholic Church? No, of course not, but it does make it difficult. (referring to sacraments as a means of grace in particular)

I have noticed that many Protestant teachers other than Anglicans/Episcopalians never mention any Christians as martyrs, teachers, or scholars in an honoring way (other than Augustine's conversion story and occasionally Francis of Assisi) b4 the Protestant Reformation. Is this because those saints are considered corrupt or possibly unsaved and in hell?

I love studying the martyrs of the past. My favorite is especially Polycarp. I believe most do not mention them because they know nothing of them. Catholics put a higher emphasis on sainthood and such for these men, so they would have a higher reputation.

I think there could be a lot to learn because there were a lot of amesome Christian witnesses that have sort of been forgotten by Protestant Churches, or are they even recognized as Christian? Thanks.

There is definately much to learn. That's why there are doctorates in Church History getting completed every year . I would think most are assumed as Christians - I can't speak for everyone though.

This is an interesting thread. You're actually asking me questions. Next Likos is going to come busting in and tell me I'm the next anti-Christ or something (lol)

-peace in Christ

[cmotherofpirl]

You don't qualify for the anti-christ, you aren't that good.

THe bottom line is Jesus only left ONE Church which St. Ignatius called catholic, so if you are not in the barque of Peter, you are swimming with the sharks. :D

If the church is corrupt, then we are in hell already.

Sigga: most prots don't mention saints or martyrs because they would have to admit the church didn't spring ffrom Luther's loins in the prot revolt. THey would have to admit to a consistant Church history going back 1500 years to Jesus.

To learn history is to cease to be protestant.

[Unshackled]

Sigga: most prots don't mention saints or martyrs because they would have to admit the church didn't spring ffrom Luther's loins in the prot revolt. THey would have to admit to a consistant Church history going back 1500 years to Jesus.

To learn history is to cease to be protestant.

See Phillipians Ch 1:1. Why was a book of the bible written for DEAD people to read? Perhaps the "SAINTS" are the true believers of the gospel of Jesus! No way! Only the pope can declare who are true saints! Any one who believes the truth of the gospel is a heretic. I know because I have been personally accused by the children that control this site of running from unconfessed sin. Tell me that that is a Christian attitude. Luther was a true believer in the "ORIGINAL" catholic church but was excommunicated because he saw the distortion from the original truth. He was not totally right but he was not allowed to express his opinion. Has anything changed? NO WAY. To learn true church history is to realise why Luther and those that followed refused to accept the distortion from the original truth and attempted to return to the original commands of Jesus. To learn history is to understand why Protestantism was necessary to restore the TRUTH. I await the attacks that this statement of fact will obviously attract by the insecure members of this site but have no intention of responding. I am UNSHACKLED and loved by God. If you do not agree with me then I suggest that you pray about it but be honestly open to hear God's response. :huh:

[Bruce S]

Welcome UNSHACKLED.

But you will quickly be "learned up" that you are a heretic and wrong!

You see, they have all the answers, the only answers, and they are always right, no matter what and that Protestants know nothing and they only need to read the CCC for correction.

Permeates every thread.

However, good to see you stating some obvious truths here, however unwelcome they will be to these ears here.

Best.

[jasJis]

Welcome UNSHACKLED.

But you will quickly be "learned up" that you are a heretic and wrong!

You see, they have all the answers, the only answers, and they are always right, no matter what and that Protestants know nothing and they only need to read the CCC for correction.

Permeates every thread.

However, good to see you stating some obvious truths here, however unwelcome they will be to these ears here.

Best.

Bruce,

Get off the whiney soapbox. It's not the fact that Catholics are right, it's that God is right and we will not deny it. Please. Give credit where credit is due.

Just because you want to take it personally and anti-protestant, doesn't make it so. We are defending the Truths of Christianity, whether it's held by Catholics or Southern Baptists, and call a spade, a spade.

Not only does it permeate every thread, it permeates the Church. :P

[Paladin D]

You see, they have all the answers, the only answers, and they are always right, no matter what and that Protestants know nothing and they only need to read the CCC for correction.

We aren't the ones distorting history or spurting forth misinterpretations or lies on certain Catholic teachings. You claim to be a former Catholic, yet you obviously know hardly anything on what the Catholic Church truely teaches.

However, good to see you stating some obvious truths here, however unwelcome they will be to these ears here.

Truth is not subject to personal opinion.

[Bruce S]

Bruce,

Get off the whiney soapbox. It's not the fact that Catholics are right, it's that God is right and we will not deny it. Please. Give credit where credit is due.

God=Jesus=Peter=Roman Catholic=Authority=Dogmas=Sacraments=Priests=Eucharist=Salvation

Right?

I have simplified this enough?

God is now contained within your denomination. Your right to believe it, just don't complain when outsiders mention that.

Let's just keep this to the point.

Best.

[Paladin D]

You know, Bruce, your complaints are pretty much identical to that of non-Christians.

Non-Christians would complain how "Christians believe they are right, and know all the truths". Of course, when you discuss with a non-Christian, you would have to do it differently, then when you discuss with another Christian (but with different beliefs).

So to complain that... "Catholics believe they know all the right answers" (in regards to Christian doctrine and such), yes... we do. Of course, individual Catholics may not know everything, that is why we're constantly learning and improving on our faith.