Replies

The Catholics will not regard scripture because they are pushing so hard on the point of traditions that they attempt to prove traditions by traditions, or extrabiblical writings, rather than with scripture.

Cute that this author writes off the most crucial era of Christian history with the dismissive term "extrabiblical writings"....as if that nullified what they had to say.

Let's state plainly what exactly these "writings" are. They refer to the earliest generations of Christians after the Apostles, some of whom actually knew the Apostles personally. Clement, appointed by St. Peter. Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John.

They are the only historical record we have of a newly formed Christian Church and its defining controversies, interests, and practices.

They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward.

They are *irreplaceable* historically, doctrinally, and theologically.

But of course we know the answer as to why they are ignored, don't we? They are ignored because they prove quite clearly that the early Church was not Protestant.

Cute that this author writes off the most crucial era of Christian history with the dismissive term "extrabiblical writings"....as if that nullified what they had to say. Let's state plainly what exactly these "writings" are. They refer to the earliest generations of Christians after the Apostles, some of whom actually knew the Apostles personally. Clement, appointed by St. Peter. Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John. They are the only historical record we have of a newly formed Christian Church and its defining controversies, interests, and practices. They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward. They are *irreplaceable* historically, doctrinally, and theologically. But of course we know the answer as to why they are ignored, don't we? They are ignored because they prove quite clearly that the early Church was not Protestant.

No, I don't think you DO know the answer. They aren't "ignored" just seen in their proper light. If even the Apostle Peter erred in his teaching and behavior with the problems it caused requiring Paul's Holy Spirit filled correction, then proximity or acquaintance with the Apostles is no SURE guarantee that everything they spoke was the God's honest truth. And if you go back and read the writings of the early church fathers, you will notice that many disagreed with each other on many things, they were not Divinely-inspired to write down the truths God revealed to them - else we would have more books in the canon, many went on to preach heresy and were rejected, and last but not least, the doctrines that were brought forth by the Reformers WERE Biblical and they can be traced back to show their acceptance from the start because, after all, they were based on Scripture.

What you will find quite clearly is that the early Church was not Roman Catholic - at least not what goes by that name today.

They are the writings closest in place, time, and culture to the New Testament and show us how the New Testament was interpreted and lived out while it was written, and for several centuries afterward.

So what?

‘The early church was not protestant’ ... a nonsensical assertion if ever we’ve had one at FR! But the unspoken inference is also absurd, that the early church was the Catholic Org.