Posted on 01/27/2014 7:57:57 PM PST by matthewrobertolson
For Protestantism to make much sense, the Church must have, at some point, abandoned the truth and become apostate. Otherwise, Protestantism has no license to exist. But when was this "Great Apostasy"? Protestants offer varying opinions, but none of them hold up to scrutiny.
Was it right after the deaths of the Apostles?
A view most supported by Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses is that, after the Apostles, the Church quickly fell into apostasy. This would be a massive blow at both God's promise to guard His Church (Joshua 1:5; Matthew 16:18) and all of the doctrine mentioned hereafter. But if this were true, would not one of the disciples of the Apostles have spoken out? We have writings from many of them, including Pope St. Clement I, St. Barnabas, St. Polycarp, and St. Ignatius of Antioch. None of them mention a "Great Apostasy". But even if we indulge the other side and admit the possibility that even these men fell away, we still have early documents and creeds (like the Didache) that were probably formulated under the authority of the Apostles. Because Christians continued to be in accord with these extra-Biblical teachings, we know that they must have been in accord with the true Church.
Was it at the time of Constantine?
A semi-popular view is that Constantine corrupted Christianity by encouraging "pagan" elements and demanding a decision from the First Council of Nicaea. This is the view that I come into contact with most often, but it is also the most problematic. If the Church became apostate by 337 (the year of Constantine's death), then the Biblical canon – which only really started to be compiled by St. Athanasius in 367 – may be wrong: we would have no assurance of its infallibility. Also, on top of that, all later theology would be necessarily nulled.
Was it during the Middle Ages?
The possibility of an apostasy in Medieval times seems far-fetched, too. This theory revolves, primarily, around hatred for some "bad" popes. Rather than focusing on doctrinal issues, proponents of this theory typically resort to character defamation. Many attack the Crusades, which tamed a fanatic Islam, and such. But in this period, literacy rates increased, art flourished, the university system developed, laws were better-codified, and the Bible became more accessible to lay people [1, 2]. The only seemingly objectionable doctrinal development was Pope Boniface VIII's declaration, "Outside of the Church, there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins", but even this originates with St. Cyprian! The teaching relates to: 1) the fact that baptism (whether by water, blood, or desire) brings one into the Church (even if done within a Protestant community), because the sacrament was entrusted to Her and She allows anyone with the right intent to perform it, and 2) the importance of conscience and the dangers of apostasy. Nothing worthy of damnation here!
Was it just before the “Reformation”?
The idea of a “restoration” being needed just before the “Reformation” also seems improbable. This common idea is based on the "selling" of indulgences [1, 2, 3] (Martin Luther attacks the practice multiple times in his Ninety-Five Theses), but is mostly due to a misunderstanding. Again, the Protestant understanding usually relies on the assault of characters: people like Johann Tetzel are demonized -- perhaps rightfully -- for abusing the system. But this abuse was not a doctrinal problem of the Church; rather, it was a disciplinary problem of men. Indulgences simply remove the temporal punishment due for past sin -- they are not a "Get out of Hell free" card -- and even when they were "sold," they required some sort of penance. Indulgences only have a salvatory effectiveness (remittance of time in Purgatory) if the recipient is already destined for Heaven. So, it would seem that the fuss is all about nothing.
In conclusion, I see none of these options as likely.
---
Make sure to join me for a Live Chat with Shaun McAfee on Thursday, January 30 @ 8 PM Eastern time / 7 PM Central time. It should be interesting.
“Follow” me on Twitter, “Like” Answering Protestants on Facebook, Add Answering Protestants to your Circles on Google+, and “Subscribe” to my YouTube apologetic videos.
timing I dont have a clue’..
maybe it was the INDULGENCES deal?
That would have been a real deal breaker for me.
“From Clemens Romanus, the alleged “Pope” you mention, on Sola Fide, Predestination, and the immutability of God’s will:”
Nowhere in the passage did Clement say we are justified by faith alone.
In fact:
St. Clement of Rome:
“Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.”
First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.
http://taylormarshall.com/2009/09/did-clement-of-rome-teach-justification.html
You’re very kind!
Are you denying that every day some dolt on this forum claims the Catholic Church fell away from Bible Christianity at the time of Constantine or that Catholicism was invented out of whole cloth at that time?
2) Pederasty ignored with innocents violated, and protecting the perpetrators while abandoning the victims.
3) Call no man Father.
4) Only God can forgive sins.
That said, thank you for keeping literacy and the Word alive in the Dark Ages. And I am happy with being a Protestant. Now can we go back to beating up the devil while he tries to divide the faithful of various stripes? While this thread goes on for several thousand posts, Satan is busy stealing our children. Only a fool fights in a burning house. And, I'm done.
So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences? Approved or not, since it went on it was not banned by the Pope at the time it was going on. Priests are men, not God and therefore are inherently fallible regardless of whether they claim they are infallible. The doctrine exists in the Catholic Church, not in the Bible. Third, the Eastern Orthodox churches denied the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the churches leading to the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each other.
Catholics are free to be Catholic and Protestants and Orthodox are free to be what they are without other Christians criticizing. Concentrate on the threats of Islam and Communism rather than trying to question the legitimacy of other Christians.
And, I'm sorry, but did the Church outright move against the practice? When was there an encyclical against the practice and how were the priests who did it punished? I am genuinely asking, because I really know nothing about the way Rome pronounced them wrong, and immediately wiped them out.
You may not be bothered by the whole Mary worship thing... but you wanted to know what bothered protestants, so I told you. I am sure Mary was a nice lady, but point me to where in the scriptures it says that good Christians are imbued after death with magical God like powers to hear the prayers of literally billions of people. I am not buying it. Only God is Omnipotent.
Did you get off the subject or what? LOL!
oh, and please don’t think I am picking on the Catholic Church.
I have been going to a Baptist church for 20+ years and I don’t buy for one second that dancing or drinking in moderation is sinful.
The first assembly of the called out was the household of Abraham, who all left country, kindred and home to cross over at the call of the LORD. Apostasy from that community led Lot to turn his face toward Sodom.
The same turning away was evident within forty days of the children of Israel promising "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient." (Exodus 24:7) The Golden Calf incident nearly led to the total obliteration of this particular disobedient ekklesia or "son" which had been called out of Egypt. Only Moses and Joshua would have been spared.
Joshua's renewal of protection (Joshua 1:5) was as contingent upon his effort toward obedience as that of the children at Mt. Horeb:
"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:8,9)"
Skipping ahead to the contemporary assembly that Jesus called out, the apostatic process was evident to Jude who reminded his readers that if the wayward children in the wilderness were not spared, why should their fate following disobedience be different?
The process of turning away is not a singular event in history, rather it is a consequence of the human "sin nature".
The question is from what did those in ancient days turn?
This is a simple one.
February 27, 380 (OS), when all subjects of the Roman Empire were forced by imperial decree to follow the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria. The Church was no longer Jesus Christ’s but a tool of Rome.
It creeps protestants out that the RCC is so obsessed with us. Why are Roman Catholics always peeking in our window? They act like a dumped girlfriend that just won’t let go.
In fact, the negation of works in justification is in the chapter title even provided by Newadvent.org, followed up with the explicit statement in the text “And we... are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith”:
“Chapter 32. We are Justified Not by Our Own Works, But by Faith.”
“Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever.”
It is either a palpable contradiction, though doubtful, considering these two quotes take place from each other just 2 paragraphs apart. But, more than likely, he speaks of a faith shown forth in works, as James taught, as he places the distinction between “works” and “words”, but does not say “not by faith” or “not by faith only”: “being justified by our works, and not our words.” As living faith is that which produces works, and is dead without them, though we are justified by our faith, and not our works.
As Chrysostom observes, if we were justified by our works, “not even a spot” should be found:
“For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Second Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:21)
And again:
“By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” (Homily 7 on Romans III)
How would you like it if I altered your sentence to say: Why are Roman Catholics Protestants always peeking in our Catholic window? They act like a dumped girlfriend that just won’t let go.
See? Absolutely anybody can make broad-brushed, snide, snarky, and fantastically absurd comments that add nothing to the conversation whatsoever. And its equally foolish no matter where its coming from.
I’m curious as to how Catholics suppose there is a delineation of papal authority from Jesus. Jesus tells Peter he will found his church on peters confession. It’s the confession not peter that gives the church it’s power. Paul and Peter hardly agreed apart from this confession. The splintering was immediate and good.
“So are you denying that it was a practice of the Catholic Church at the time to sell indulgences?”
Absolutely.
“Approved or not, since it went on it was not banned by the Pope at the time it was going on.”
It was banned. It was, in fact, a violation of canon law to sell indulgences.
“Priests are men, not God and therefore are inherently fallible regardless of whether they claim they are infallible.”
Your statement is illogical. First, say the following words, “George Washington was the first president of the United States.” You just made an infallibly true statement. Thus, to say “men...are inherently fallible” is a logical fallacy. Second, papal infallibility is about the Holy Spirit more than the pope since it is the Holy Spirit who ensures the infallibility. The Holy Spirit is always infallible and has no difficulty sharing His infallibility with the pope when He wishes (and no pope has ever claimed it except in the most narrow of circumstances anyway).
“The doctrine exists in the Catholic Church, not in the Bible.”
False. Infallibility is clearly the underlying standing of all of scripture. It is were not, then no one would ever think that scripture is true. Protestants have always believed in the infallibility of scripture: http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols34-36/chs2013.pdf
“Third, the Eastern Orthodox churches denied the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the churches leading to the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each other.”
False. 1) To impute the actions of one patriarch to all the patriarchs is wrongheaded. 2) The Patriarchs had previously - many times - sought out the pope to solve their disputes - thereby showing they believed in the primacy of the papacy. Read Soloviev’s book for numerous examples of such: http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“Catholics are free to be Catholic and Protestants and Orthodox are free to be what they are without other Christians criticizing.”
Actually no. We’re all free, but not free from “other Christians criticizing.”
“Concentrate on the threats of Islam and Communism rather than trying to question the legitimacy of other Christians.”
No. Although I would rather have to deal with an eastern world filled with Protestants rather than Muslims, I see no reason not to simply oppose all those who are wrong.
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.