Where can I find early Christian history?

[pointer]

I am not catholic.

I wonder who you think guides the apostles and strengthens them and feed Christ's sheep and tends them, today.

[Smalcald]

I think that for Protestants an understanding of early Church History will actually show why Luther did what he had to do, it will strengthen your faith and commitment to the ideals we hold.

Of course I know Pax would disagree! But regardless why deny that history? Are we that afraid as Protestants of what Luther did of understanding it?

I think we have an obligation to understand our own history, if we do not we could end up barking like dogs or praying for money on TBN.

Please expand on this smalcald. What would we learn from reading the early fathers epistles that would make us think that such a radical change was needed to reform the Church. You must admit Smalcald, Luthers teachings were a radical change from the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Some were more radical than others. But what Luther was saying was in the works for some time, in fact Luther sounds much like Augustine, which is why I encourage people to read both (which would make sense as Luther was an Augustinian Monk). I find much of what Luther has to say, in its core much more like what I read in the early Church Fathers and councils, than I do in reading what some of the pronouncements and actions coming out of the Church between 1100 and 1500 sound like. For me the radical change is looking at the difference between the opulence, worldliness and corruption of the hierarchy in 1500 and the Desert Fathers of 350, now that is a radical difference.

Now, what Luther unleashed was something that bothered him as much as the Roman Church bothered him. He honestly thought that he may convince the Church to change, he wanted to remain a part of the Roman Church but would not back down on what he believed, giving of course rise to his most famous comments about recanting.

There was and is a cost to the Reformation. That cost comes in the lack of Christian unity, splintering, and the bizarre idea of everyman being their own pope, a spiritual authority unto themselves. We can read this very board today and see that cost. However I maintain that the cost was worth it. But it does no good to pretend that there was not a cost and we must read the history of our Church to understand what has happened and where we are today.

You can't change the Church established by Christ. If Luther would of stopped at trying to clean up the corruption he very well could of been one of the greatest saints in the Church. However, Luther decided he would change the doctrines of the Church...this can't be done. I too would encourage people to read Augustine. St. Augustine talks of Transubstantiation, Luther decided to change this to Consubstantiation. Two very different things.

They are different, but the concept of exactly what the Lord's Supper is, was not so neatly developed in Augustine's time. I think consubstantiation is closer actually, but I would of course believe that. But Luther was excommunicated early on, and was lucky that he was not killed. But I believe Luther brought Christ's Church closer to Christ.

If we look at the state of the Catholic Church for good and for bad, I do think we can be thankful for the Reformation, that we do not have a hierarchical faith as the only option for all Christian believers. I still find however that the early Christian writings (indeed Catholic writings ) are very helpful for us today. Even the later writings. Outside of the bible the most helpful spiritual book I have ever read is "The Imitation of Christ". I also like some of Newman's sermons.

But really the RCC was helped by the Reformation as it drove the RCC to change, and this change has continued today. I remember when Priests used to actively discourage the reading of Holy Scripture by Catjp;ocs, but not today, and this is a good thing.

[pointer]

I remember when Priests used to actively discourage the reading of Holy Scripture by Catjp;ocs, but not today, and this is a good thing.

I don't doubt they would drop it like a hot coal if there were no Protestants to show them up. Quite a lot of Protestant 'pastors' would, too, but for the born again. It is that small minority that drives the whole monotheistic religious enterprise.

[Guest godgivesall4us]

I am not catholic.

I wonder who you think guides the apostles and strengthens them and feed Christ's sheep and tends them, today.

well for about 14 years, i thought it was the pastors in the tradition of the reformation, but the longer i remain in these bible churches, the more confusing it gets, and the more i quetion what/who the authority was in the first few centuries to clarify things again. I have stuck with the scriptures alone, or so i thought, untilk every single preacher was coming up with different answers about the same topic. Topics such as salvation, and baptism, and the way we worship, and contraception and divorce.

After seeing all of the differing answers from men claiming to have the holy spirit guiding them, it caused me to question how God could be misguiding so many on the same topic? Or if God was guiding them at all.

This is why I am searching the history to see what was being taught about scripture and the church teaching in the first centuries, and it is enlightening so far. I am only through a part of clements writings today, but am enjoying the reading, which is slow, and sometimes dificult to read because of the language barrier. But its like reading the KJV , you get used to it after awhile and it beomes much clearer once you understand the owrd usage more.

[pointer]

I am not catholic.

I wonder who you think guides the apostles and strengthens them and feed Christ's sheep and tends them, today.

well for about 14 years, i thought it was the pastors in the tradition of the reformation, but the longer i remain in these bible churches, the more confusing it gets, and the more i quetion what/who the authority was in the first few centuries to clarify things again.

You say that the apostles had successors, and Peter guided the apostles and strengthened them and fed Christ's sheep and tended them. Who do you think was thought to be the successor to Peter in the first few centuries? Surely the successors to the apostles knew who was their guide. If they were so dumb as to be unaware of that, God must have failed somewhere. If it is so hard to find out who is God's appointed successor to Peter, do you think it might be possible that you have got things badly wrong somewhere? Surely you don't think it is God who is the failure? It must be one of you.

This is why I am searching the history to see what was being taught about scripture and the church teaching in the first centuries, and it is enlightening so far. I am only through a part of clements writings today

You should be able to read that in an afternoon. Your problem will soon be solved.

but am enjoying the reading, which is slow, and sometimes dificult to read because of the language barrier.

Read an English translation, then, if your Greek is not so good.

[Pax]

I think that for Protestants an understanding of early Church History will actually show why Luther did what he had to do, it will strengthen your faith and commitment to the ideals we hold.

Of course I know Pax would disagree! But regardless why deny that history? Are we that afraid as Protestants of what Luther did of understanding it?

I think we have an obligation to understand our own history, if we do not we could end up barking like dogs or praying for money on TBN.

Please expand on this smalcald. What would we learn from reading the early fathers epistles that would make us think that such a radical change was needed to reform the Church. You must admit Smalcald, Luthers teachings were a radical change from the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Some were more radical than others. But what Luther was saying was in the works for some time, in fact Luther sounds much like Augustine, which is why I encourage people to read both (which would make sense as Luther was an Augustinian Monk). I find much of what Luther has to say, in its core much more like what I read in the early Church Fathers and councils, than I do in reading what some of the pronouncements and actions coming out of the Church between 1100 and 1500 sound like. For me the radical change is looking at the difference between the opulence, worldliness and corruption of the hierarchy in 1500 and the Desert Fathers of 350, now that is a radical difference.

Now, what Luther unleashed was something that bothered him as much as the Roman Church bothered him. He honestly thought that he may convince the Church to change, he wanted to remain a part of the Roman Church but would not back down on what he believed, giving of course rise to his most famous comments about recanting.

There was and is a cost to the Reformation. That cost comes in the lack of Christian unity, splintering, and the bizarre idea of everyman being their own pope, a spiritual authority unto themselves. We can read this very board today and see that cost. However I maintain that the cost was worth it. But it does no good to pretend that there was not a cost and we must read the history of our Church to understand what has happened and where we are today.

You can't change the Church established by Christ. If Luther would of stopped at trying to clean up the corruption he very well could of been one of the greatest saints in the Church. However, Luther decided he would change the doctrines of the Church...this can't be done. I too would encourage people to read Augustine. St. Augustine talks of Transubstantiation, Luther decided to change this to Consubstantiation. Two very different things.

They are different, but the concept of exactly what the Lord's Supper is, was not so neatly developed in Augustine's time. I think consubstantiation is closer actually, but I would of course believe that. But Luther was excommunicated early on, and was lucky that he was not killed. But I believe Luther brought Christ's Church closer to Christ.

If we look at the state of the Catholic Church for good and for bad, I do think we can be thankful for the Reformation, that we do not have a hierarchical faith as the only option for all Christian believers. I still find however that the early Christian writings (indeed Catholic writings ) are very helpful for us today. Even the later writings. Outside of the bible the most helpful spiritual book I have ever read is "The Imitation of Christ". I also like some of Newman's sermons.

But really the RCC was helped by the Reformation as it drove the RCC to change, and this change has continued today. I remember when Priests used to actively discourage the reading of Holy Scripture by Catjp;ocs, but not today, and this is a good thing.

Smalcald,

There is a difference between cleaning up corruption, and changing doctrine. I think Martin Luther and others could of cleaned up the corruption over time, without using their personl interpretation to change doctrine....and once again this can't ever be done. Smalcald I have alot of respect for you so don't take this in a negative way, I just respectfully disagree with you. I guess thats why you are a Lutheran and I'm a Catholic.

[Guest godgivesall4us]

i will look to see the successor of peter.

i will report back to you whence i find him.

peace, ggall4us

[Pax]

i will look to see the successor of peter.

i will report back to you whence i find him.

peace, ggall4us

St. Peter

St. Linus

St. Anacletus

St. Clement

These were the first four Popes. Benedict XVI is the 265th Pope

[Fiosh]

I think that for Protestants an understanding of early Church History will actually show why Luther did what he had to do, it will strengthen your faith and commitment to the ideals we hold.

Of course I know Pax would disagree! But regardless why deny that history? Are we that afraid as Protestants of what Luther did of understanding it?

I think we have an obligation to understand our own history, if we do not we could end up barking like dogs or praying for money on TBN.

Please expand on this smalcald. What would we learn from reading the early fathers epistles that would make us think that such a radical change was needed to reform the Church. You must admit Smalcald, Luthers teachings were a radical change from the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Some were more radical than others. But what Luther was saying was in the works for some time, in fact Luther sounds much like Augustine, which is why I encourage people to read both (which would make sense as Luther was an Augustinian Monk). I find much of what Luther has to say, in its core much more like what I read in the early Church Fathers and councils, than I do in reading what some of the pronouncements and actions coming out of the Church between 1100 and 1500 sound like. For me the radical change is looking at the difference between the opulence, worldliness and corruption of the hierarchy in 1500 and the Desert Fathers of 350, now that is a radical difference.

Now, what Luther unleashed was something that bothered him as much as the Roman Church bothered him. He honestly thought that he may convince the Church to change, he wanted to remain a part of the Roman Church but would not back down on what he believed, giving of course rise to his most famous comments about recanting.

There was and is a cost to the Reformation. That cost comes in the lack of Christian unity, splintering, and the bizarre idea of everyman being their own pope, a spiritual authority unto themselves. We can read this very board today and see that cost. However I maintain that the cost was worth it. But it does no good to pretend that there was not a cost and we must read the history of our Church to understand what has happened and where we are today.

You can't change the Church established by Christ. If Luther would of stopped at trying to clean up the corruption he very well could of been one of the greatest saints in the Church. However, Luther decided he would change the doctrines of the Church...this can't be done. I too would encourage people to read Augustine. St. Augustine talks of Transubstantiation, Luther decided to change this to Consubstantiation. Two very different things.

They are different, but the concept of exactly what the Lord's Supper is, was not so neatly developed in Augustine's time. I think consubstantiation is closer actually, but I would of course believe that. But Luther was excommunicated early on, and was lucky that he was not killed. But I believe Luther brought Christ's Church closer to Christ.

If we look at the state of the Catholic Church for good and for bad, I do think we can be thankful for the Reformation, that we do not have a hierarchical faith as the only option for all Christian believers. I still find however that the early Christian writings (indeed Catholic writings ) are very helpful for us today. Even the later writings. Outside of the bible the most helpful spiritual book I have ever read is "The Imitation of Christ". I also like some of Newman's sermons.

But really the RCC was helped by the Reformation as it drove the RCC to change, and this change has continued today. I remember when Priests used to actively discourage the reading of Holy Scripture by Catjp;ocs, but not today, and this is a good thing.

Hi smalcald,

You may want to check out "Life of Christ" by Fulton Sheen. It's an awesome read.

You are correct. The Catholic Church does have alot to thank Luther for. We have many horrendous abuses in our history. Agreed.

Thanks to Luther's passion, conviction and courage all of those abuses were wiped out in the early 1500's. The Church was blest with several great popes (Pius V, Gregory XII and Sixtus V) who, along with the Council of Trent helped put the Church back on track. But it was Luther who was the catalyst for that reform.

But----and here is where we part company---Luther went beyond reform of the abuses and was carried away by his emotional response to the doctrine of justification as experienced in "the tower". He let his personal interpretation of Scripture and his intense struggle with conscience influence his judgement.

Nevertheless, he continued to maintain a conviction to one holy, catholic and apostolic church. It was never his intent that the Church of Christ should be splintered . And also, to the end, he maintained a belief in Real Presence...Jesus present in the consecrated Host. In addition, Luther regularly went to Confession and professed devotion to the Blessed Mother. Two practices that continued till he died. Protestants did not do away with these two practices until approx. the 17th or 18th centuries.

So, yeah, Luther was a giant in bringing the Church closer to Christ. If only he would not have left his personal experience get the better of him. And for that, the Church must take at least a portion of the blame for its brutal treatment of this holy, passionate monk who acted out of love for Christ and His Church.

God bless,

Fiosh

[pointer]

i will look to see the successor of peter.

i will report back to you whence i find him.

peace, ggall4us

I remind you of the thread 'Remitting Sins' and the penultimate post therein (#185).