Posted on 12/27/2009 1:40:54 PM PST by NYer
In Chapter 5 of Evangelicals, Catholics and Unity, Dr. Michael Scott Horton, Vice Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, admits that Protestants are not too much into history. He has proven the validity of this statement — in regard to his own knowledge.
Dr. Horton claims that Protestantism has been the true faith since the Church's inception. In chapter 2, Dr. Horton incredibly classifies himself and other Protestants as members of the "early Catholic Church". He defines the "early Catholic Church" by saying:
"Catholic means universal, and it refers to those truths that are, as St. Paul identified them, to be held "without controversy" (1 Tim 3:16 KJV). It also refers to that body of Christians who, distinct from the heretical and schismatic sects that have plagued Christian unity throughout the ages, submit to the doctrine and discipline of Christ as he mediates his prophetic, priestly, kingly ministry in the visible church throughout the Scriptures."
He also says, "It was the early Roman Catholic Church that successfully opposed the Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, and numerous other false movement, and we who count ourselves evangelical Protestants belong to this Catholic Church today."
Dr. Horton believes that if the Catholic Church had not taken a disastrous wrong turn in her doctrines, then all Christendom would be what Protestantism is today. He says the time of the disaster occurred around the Middle Ages:
"Unfortunately, during the Middle Ages especially, the western branch of this Catholic Church (which had already divided into an East-West schism) became increasingly corrupt."
He mentions the 11th century as a time which by then the church was rampant with "superstition, ignorance, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and an ambitious and self-indulgent papacy."
But let us focus on two of Dr. Horton's points concerning the early Catholic Church:
Since Dr. Horton acknowledges these two points about the "early Roman Catholic Church", then let us examine:
As Dr. Horton notes, there were many heresies throughout the first 11 centuries of the Church's existence. Whenever there was a major issue concerning matters of faith and morals in the church, it seems the Church followed the pattern given in Acts 15.
Even in the time of the apostles, the Church had to decide on matters of faith and morals. There was a great schism developing between the Christian Pharisees and other Christians. The Church had to come to agreement on the issue regarding whether Gentile Christians were obligated to keep the law of Moses as Jewish Christians had been doing. Here is how they decided the issue:
In this particular instance, St. Peter first gave the parameters of what was allowed in the discussion, and it was further fleshed out and discussed from there. But the pattern remains basically the same.
What is done today? The bishops convene to discuss an issue, they reach a consensus and if the Pope (as sitting in the chair of St. Peter) ratifies the consensus of the bishops, the issue is believed to have been properly guided by the Holy Spirit and decided. If the bishops hold a council and reach a decision, but St. Peter does not ratify it, then nothing comes of the council.
Also, as we have already seen in Acts 15, if needs be, St. Peter can also issue guidelines of allowable parameters of discussion by himself without a council. But normally, a council is held and the consensus is given to St. Peter for his review.
This model has been used successfully for 2,000 years as the mechanism the Church uses to squelch heresy.
I think anyone can see this is a reasonable and proper manner for deciding matters in the Church. It provides a reasonable venue to let all sides discuss the matter and a system of checks and balances. When this procedure is used and the outcome decided, it is to be believed that the Holy Spirit himself infallibly guided the outcome; therefore it cannot be revoked at a later time.
This also serves to aid the Church, because now they can treat this decision as infallibly given by God and can be used as a defense in further discussions on other matters. This decision becomes part of clarifying the deposit of faith once delivered to the Church by the apostles.
Anyone who would try to deny that this method works could only do so by eviscerating God's power to speak to His own Church. Secondly, this method has a proven track record of working for 2,000 years. Anyone who contends for another method will be hard pressed to come up with a better method or one that has a better track record.
Now, given that the Church adhered to this procedure to ascertain correct doctrine from heresies, what doctrines were derived and held without controversy prior to the schism in 1054?
The list below gives the doctrines "held without controversy" throughout the Church prior to the 11th century.
Historical Christian doctrines "held without controversy" prior to the schism of the 11th century.
These are not simply Catholic doctrines, but historical Christian doctrines. How do we know this? Because in the 11th century when the Eastern Orthodox Churches split from the Catholics, both sides kept these doctrines!
These doctrines were "held without controversy", to quote Dr. Horton (and St. Paul) earlier. Regardless of their other differences, both sides believed, and continue to believe to this day, that all of the above doctrines are part of the deposit of faith given by the apostles to the Church.
Therefore, anyone who claims to be connected with historical Christianity would certainly hold to these doctrines also. Protestants must answers the following questions before Protestantism can be taken seriously:
Let us also examine these points about Catholicism:
Where does that leave us?
Dr. Horton can choose to join or reject the Catholic Church, but he cannot claim Protestantism has any connection to historical Christianity. In fact, for Dr. Horton to feel the need to write to his fellow Protestants and assure them that they are connected to historic Christianity begs the point that Protestants today do not feel they are part of historic Christianity. It is absolutely clear that Luther broke with the historic doctrines of the faith and created his own doctrines.
Luther did have many debates with clerics and theologians. He certainly did not "overwhelm their opponents with citations from the Church Fathers as well as from scriptures." In fact, Luther tried to remove the Epistle of St. James, Revelation, and the Epistle to the Hebrews from the New Testament canon because he felt they were at odds with his interpretation of Scripture.
Cardinal John Henry Newman was a prominent 18th century Anglican bishop who also grappled with the problems between Protestantism and historical Christianity. Unlike Dr. Horton, he did not try to rewrite Church history. Instead he saw the fallacies Protestantism is built on, and converted to Catholicism. He wrote:
"And this one thing is certain…the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If there ever were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism has ever felt it so… This is shown in the determination…of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [historical Christianity] aside, unless they had despaired of it… To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Today, Protestants are continuing to come to the Catholic Church as they read the early Church fathers for themselves. We respectfully request Dr. Horton to do the same.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Marty Rothwell. "Catholics, Protestants, and History." Petersnet September 4, 2002.
Marty Rothwell became a Christian in 1973. As he began reading the early church fathers for a course he was teaching, it didn't take him long to realize the discrepancies between what the early church believed and what his Protestant denomination taught. He then began studying the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic positions and, in spite of his strong anti-Catholic bias was surprised to find that Catholicism had very well reasoned arguments for the positions it held. In addition it was the first time he had encountered a church that was intellectually vigorous and very pious spiritually. It also, as Marty says, could make a refreshing claim no Protestant church could, that it was there from the beginning. Marty and his family were received into the Catholic Church in Dec 1999. Marty Rothwell is now a member of St. Andrew the Apostle Catholic Church in Clifton, Virginia.
History ping!
So, Protestant is the new Catholic.
Why not? Fits with everything else that's going on these days. Fat is the new skinny. Crooked is the new honest. Etc.
Since when do Evangelicals believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist? (Having been both Evangelical and now Catholic).
“This is My Body. This is My Blood”. The Apostolic Priesthood today continues the ‘original Church’ in recognizing Him in the Breaking of the Bread. Nothing else meets this test.
Blessed Christmas to all.
Where in scripture is the role of priest one to be found in the new church?
NT Scripture didn’t exist but the Church did.
Christ Himself instituted the priesthood, as the Council of Trent explains, at the Last Supper when Christ elevated the bread saying "This is my Body" and the cup saying "This is the Blood of the new covenant" ... Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes" (1 Cor. 11:23-26).
“Dr. Horton claims that Protestantism has been the true faith since the Church’s inception.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I needed that. :)
You wrote:
“Where in scripture is the role of priest one to be found in the new church?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2025128/posts
How ironic that the statement "Historical Christian doctrines "held without controversy" prior to the schism of the 11th century." contains almost completely the dogmas created after the Roman Catholic Church declared itself the "only true faith" in the fourth century.
The Holy Scriptures accepted by the early Christians as revealed truth severely contradict the doctrines held by the traditions of men. Particularily the most important of all doctrines - the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith. To err on this most integral part and to preach any other gospel than that which was preached is accursed by God himself. To rely in any way upon the merits and good works of man is to negate the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us on the cross. Labels mean NOTHING. The true church of Jesus Christ is the body of believers in him.
First of all, the terms “Evangelical” and “Protestant” mean different things to different people. There is also a difference between Evangelical and Evangelicalism. For instance, Lutherans were the first to identify themselves as Evangelicals, but they totally repudiate Evangelicalism. Lutherans do not consider themselves to be Protestants as Protestantism is understood today. When I was a Navy chaplain, the Eastern Orthodox were placed in the Protestant category along with Mormons and Southern Baptists. If you were not Roman Catholic or Jewish, you were Protestant. We are are the point where the terms have become so broad and ambiguous that they are not only useless, but misleading. Seriously, who even knows what an Evangelical or a Protestant is today? What is more helpful for me is to discuss doctrine rather than denomination.
2Peter 3"14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter considered the letters from Paul scripture..in those letters,inspired by the Holy Spirit there is no priesthood role.
It is always interesting to me when Catholic tells me the church preceded scripture because that is where the Roman church claims its authority,sacraments etc..
A very good read. Thank you.
Of course he did; everyone did by the 2nd century—when 2 Peter was written. :)
Remember that event preceded the church . Jesus was taking on the role of the father in the passover meal...
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ": Ephesians 4:12
The role of "priest" was a type of Christ .he offered the bloody sacrifices that pointed to Christ.
Jesus fulfilled that type and there was no longer a need for sacrifices, He is the only Priest man needs.
the Ot role of priest was from the line of Levi, no one outside that line could be a priest..as if to put a final nail in the need for priests in 70 AD the genealogies of the tribe of Levi's was destroyed..
One can do word play all they want, but the role of the priest was to sacrifice animals for the sin of the nation of Israel..
The sacrifices were a type of Christ and as a priest, prophet and King..jesus offered the final sacrifice for sin..Himself..the lamb of God
So how old was Peter??
You wrote:
“You can have all the debate you like, the fact is there is NEVER a role for a priest in the NT.”
Actually there was and is - and early Christians knew it.
“One can do word play all they want, but the role of the priest was to sacrifice animals for the sin of the nation of Israel..”
Jewish priests. That was BEFORE Christ. With Christ, the High Priest, He is the only Victim. His priests only offer up Him.
“The sacrifices were a type of Christ and as a priest, prophet and King..jesus offered the final sacrifice for sin..Himself..the lamb of God”
And priests today offer up Christ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.