To Evangelicals:


#1

Evangelicals, why is there no record of you in the early Church?

Why is there no evidence for what you believe (aside from what you agree with the historical Church on) in the early Church?

The closest historical record I can find are the Puritans and the Anabaptist in the 17th and 18th century. Why is that?

An Evangelical poster stated this:

[quote=Ric]No, Jesus started His Church, not the Roman Catholic church (which started in the 4th century). :tiphat:
[/quote]

Where is the proof that we (Catholics) started in the 4th century and you (Evangelicals) existed before then?

Peace


#2

What we need is a Jason Engwer to lay out his “case for protestant evangelicalism from the Fathers” (or better known as “Catholic but not Roman Catholic”). He did last here a few months at the beginning of this board. Not that I want him back or anything. :whacky:

Phil P


#3

[quote=PhilVaz]What we need is a Jason Engwer to lay out his “case for protestant evangelicalism from the Fathers” (or better known as “Catholic but not Roman Catholic”). He did last here a few months at the beginning of this board. Not that I want him back or anything. :whacky:

Phil P
[/quote]

Those are some STRONG words! And all without references…

How would you respond?

Peace


#4

I would respond by saying some of what he says is indeed true, but it doesn’t go anywhere demonstrating Protestant “evangelicalism” is true, or that “evangelicalism” has anything to do with the Fathers or faith of the early Church. But I at least appreciate some of the (somewhat) interesting information he brings up from this or that scholar. He tends to use the same quotes over and over again (I do the same, only in the pro-Catholic sense). He definitely has his “collection” of “anti-Catholic” quotations saved in a good place on his hard drive, and knows how to copy/paste. :smiley: And I also appreciate he was once big in the video game industry (as a gamer, and writer) and switched to anti-Catholic evangelical apologetics in the mid 1990s while I am moving in the opposite direction. :dancing:

I responded in a humorous way to the introduction of his series.

Jason’s introduction to his series here

My take down of his introduction here

I started on this, but Jason Engwer is too much work, and generally I think is just a nuisance, a waste of time, and not being honest with himself, since he does seem to read the Fathers, but only looks at what he can to discredit Catholic (or Orthodox) teaching. That is not an honest way to approach the Fathers. William Webster, who can be called his “mentor” (see Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 1995) is the same way.

Phil P


#5

[quote=PhilVaz]I would respond by saying some of what he says is indeed true, but it doesn’t go anywhere demonstrating Protestant “evangelicalism” is true, or that “evangelicalism” has anything to do with the Fathers or faith of the early Church. But I at least appreciate some of the (somewhat) interesting information he brings up from this or that scholar. He tends to use the same quotes over and over again (I do the same, only in the pro-Catholic sense). He definitely has his “collection” of “anti-Catholic” quotations saved in a good place on his hard drive, and knows how to copy/paste. :smiley: And I also appreciate he was once big in the video game industry (as a gamer, and writer) and switched to anti-Catholic evangelical apologetics in the mid 1990s while I am moving in the opposite direction. :dancing:

I responded in a humorous way to the introduction of his series.

Jason’s introduction to his series here

My take down of his introduction here

I started on this, but Jason Engwer is too much work, and generally I think is just a nuisance, a waste of time, and not being honest with himself, since he does seem to read the Fathers, but only looks at what he can to discredit Catholic (or Orthodox) teaching. That is not an honest way to approach the Fathers. William Webster, who can be called his “mentor” (see Church of Rome at the Bar of History, 1995) is the same way.

Phil P
[/quote]

Great response! You’ve done your homework. Where did you get all those quotes? What books do you recommend? I have a few good ones, but they are mostly translations of early writers, not theologians commenting on early writers.

Peace


#6

Well my story is I almost went “fundamentalist” 15 years ago, or I was moving in that direction, believe it or not, based on writings/debates by Dave Hunt, John Ankerberg, Walter Martin, etc. I was fairly ignorant in my early-mid 20s. Then in January 1992 I received Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. That book definitely opened my eyes and turned me around.

My small library is now pretty well stocked with all the books that Keating mentioned in his original bibliography in C & F. Yep, chalk up another “reversion” story due to that book. :thumbsup:

Phil P


#7

Dennis:

You need to define what you mean by evangelical.

Euangelion (more accurately, in context, ?? ???) means “Gospel” or “good news.” If you’re in Europe, it usually is the catch-all for “Protestant” (in the U.S., the mainline Lutheran communion is the ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). While the ELCA has the word “Evangelical” in it, I don’t think you could lump them in the context that I think you are speaking about.

Evangelicalism, at least in America, basically means anything that isn’t mainline Protestant. It centers on one-on-one faith sharing and witnessing, conversion, and a very conservative bent on scripture/canon.

The very first disciples must have been evangelical… in the first 50 years of Christendom, it’s estimated that the church grew from 12 to 500,000. That’s pretty evangelical, if you ask me - in the purest definition of the word, that is.

Words/labels are often misleading. Let’s be sure we know what we’re talking about, and not discredit others because of generalization.

O+


#8

Sorry… the Greek didn’t come through, only as “?? ???”

O+


#9

the early church was full of evangelicals…catholic evangelicals which the church desperately needs more of today.


#10

[quote=O.S. Luke]Dennis:

You need to define what you mean by evangelical.

Euangelion (more accurately, in context, ?? ???) means “Gospel” or “good news.” If you’re in Europe, it usually is the catch-all for “Protestant” (in the U.S., the mainline Lutheran communion is the ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). While the ELCA has the word “Evangelical” in it, I don’t think you could lump them in the context that I think you are speaking about.

Evangelicalism, at least in America, basically means anything that isn’t mainline Protestant. It centers on one-on-one faith sharing and witnessing, conversion, and a very conservative bent on scripture/canon.

The very first disciples must have been evangelical… in the first 50 years of Christendom, it’s estimated that the church grew from 12 to 500,000. That’s pretty evangelical, if you ask me - in the purest definition of the word, that is.

Words/labels are often misleading. Let’s be sure we know what we’re talking about, and not discredit others because of generalization.

[/quote]

Good point O. S.
When I hear reference to a denomination that calls themselves evangelical, I usually think baptist. But even here, there can be a wide range of differing teachings and interptretations from one baptist church to another. It’s a difficult thing to isolate.


#11

[quote=O.S. Luke]Dennis:

You need to define what you mean by evangelical.

Euangelion (more accurately, in context, ?? ???) means “Gospel” or “good news.” If you’re in Europe, it usually is the catch-all for “Protestant” (in the U.S., the mainline Lutheran communion is the ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church of America). While the ELCA has the word “Evangelical” in it, I don’t think you could lump them in the context that I think you are speaking about.

Evangelicalism, at least in America, basically means anything that isn’t mainline Protestant. It centers on one-on-one faith sharing and witnessing, conversion, and a very conservative bent on scripture/canon.

The very first disciples must have been evangelical… in the first 50 years of Christendom, it’s estimated that the church grew from 12 to 500,000. That’s pretty evangelical, if you ask me - in the purest definition of the word, that is.

Words/labels are often misleading. Let’s be sure we know what we’re talking about, and not discredit others because of generalization.

O+
[/quote]

What I mean by Evangelical are those who hold to evangelical Protestant beliefs.

They would include members of the Southern Baptist Church, some other Baptists, non-denominational churches, bible churches, etc. The majoriity believe in believers baptism, symbolic baptism and communion, sola fide and sola scripture.

Most believe the Catholic Church to be an apostate Church that chose not to repent during the Reformation. (They also think this of other Protestant church. One of my coworkers think Lutherans are not even Christians.)

Peace


#12

[quote=dennisknapp]Evangelicals, why is there no record of you in the early Church?

Why is there no evidence for what you believe (aside from what you agree with the historical Church on) in the early Church?

The closest historical record I can find are the Puritans and the Anabaptist in the 17th and 18th century. Why is that?

An Evangelical poster stated this:

Where is the proof that we (Catholics) started in the 4th century and you (Evangelicals) existed before then?

Peace
[/quote]

What period of the “early church” are you concerned with?

If you are speaking of the church (believers) that existed at the time of Christ living on earth, then there is the Bible itself as a historical record. Paul and others started churches all over asia minor and instituted bishops and deacons in those churches.

There is no record of a unified, concerted effort from one bishop in the Scripture record.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that the Catholic Church existed during the time of Christ and was led by one bishop who governed all the other Christian churches.

Peace…


#13

[quote=dennisknapp]Evangelicals, why is there no record of you in the early Church?

Why is there no evidence for what you believe (aside from what you agree with the historical Church on) in the early Church?

The closest historical record I can find are the Puritans and the Anabaptist in the 17th and 18th century. Why is that?

An Evangelical poster stated this:

Where is the proof that we (Catholics) started in the 4th century and you (Evangelicals) existed before then?

Peace
[/quote]

What period of the “early church” are you concerned with?

If you are speaking of the church (believers) that existed at the time of Christ living on earth, then there is the Bible itself as a historical record. Paul and others started churches all over asia minor and instituted bishops and deacons in those churches.

There is no record of a unified, concerted effort from one bishop in the Scripture record.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that the Catholic Church existed during the time of Christ and was led by one bishop (in Rome) who governed all the other Christian churches throughout asia minor.

Peace…


#14

[quote=ahimsaman72]What period of the “early church” are you concerned with?

If you are speaking of the church (believers) that existed at the time of Christ living on earth, then there is the Bible itself as a historical record. Paul and others started churches all over asia minor and instituted bishops and deacons in those churches.

There is no record of a unified, concerted effort from one bishop in the Scripture record.

The onus is on you to provide evidence that the Catholic Church existed during the time of Christ and was led by one bishop (in Rome) who governed all the other Christian churches throughout asia minor.

Peace…
[/quote]

During the time of Christ, He was the Bishop of the Church, if you like that word. He led His own Church and made His " unified, concerted effort". Later, He, Himself, appointed Peter as head of the Church, one man, Peter, one Bishop Peter. You are sola scriptura. Read it.


#15

[quote=Imconfused]During the time of Christ, He was the Bishop of the Church, if you like that word. He led His own Church and made His " unified, concerted effort". Later, He, Himself, appointed Peter as head of the Church, one man, Peter, one Bishop Peter. You are sola scriptura. Read it.
[/quote]

The Matt 16:18 passage is debateable and the rest of the New Testament (if you will read it) paints a broad picture of Paul, Silas, Barnabas and other starting other churches in Antioch and elsewhere with no direction from Rome. They did not ask permission nor seek doctrine advice from Rome.

Peace…


#16

[quote=ahimsaman72]The Matt 16:18 passage is debateable and the rest of the New Testament (if you will read it) paints a broad picture of Paul, Silas, Barnabas and other starting other churches in Antioch and elsewhere with no direction from Rome. They did not ask permission nor seek doctrine advice from Rome.

Peace…
[/quote]

but paul, before ever really beginning a public ministry, went to see the apostles (and he specifically mentions peter) to seek permission and approval of the gospel he was going to preach. yes, he didn’t specifically seek rome’s permission, but he did seek peter’s. i agree that matthew 16 can be debateable,. but when you then look outside of the passage at other passages and at the early church’s interpretation we see that the catholic interpretation is correct.


#17

[quote=dennisknapp]Evangelicals, why is there no record of you in the early Church?

Why is there no evidence for what you believe (aside from what you agree with the historical Church on) in the early Church?

The closest historical record I can find are the Puritans and the Anabaptist in the 17th and 18th century. Why is that?

An Evangelical poster stated this:

Where is the proof that we (Catholics) started in the 4th century and you (Evangelicals) existed before then?

Peace
[/quote]

Here is one Catholic site that addresses the Evangelical view of their origins vs. the legitimacy of the Catholic assertion that we are the Church founded by Christ:

davidmacd.com/catholic/early_church_fathers.htm

Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups. (i.e., the Rapture) Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think its better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what** has** been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving. More about the Church’s interpretation of Scripture here.

**The Church Fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, honoured Mary, had elaborate ceremonies, believed in Purgatory, respected the Church hierarchy, baptized babies, recognized Peter as the Rock, built the Church upon him with successors and followed a rich tradition of Christianity. That was the Christianity of the early days of Christianity and that is the Catholic Church of today. ****A timeline of the Catholic Church from 1-500 A.D. is here **

So in short Catholics feel the Early Church Fathers were kicking Christians who were plugged into the teachings of Christ and knew what the apostles were saying about the faith. The Church Fathers propagated the Church and helped bring it to the world. Catholics feel it is very useful to study what they taught and wrote about the interpretation of Scripture. It is also noteworthy that the Early Church Fathers practiced a very Catholic theology.

Apostolic Fathers are those before 200A.D. and who were directly influenced or taught by the apostles. They include: Clement (d. 97) Bishop of Rome and Catholics believe third successor to Peter as Pope, Ignatius, (50-107), and Polycarp (69-155), Justin Martyr (100-165), St. Irenaeus (130-202), Cyprian (210-258) The Early Chruch Fathers lived between 200 and 800 A.D.


#18

[quote=bengal_fan]but paul, before ever really beginning a public ministry, went to see the apostles (and he specifically mentions peter) to seek permission and approval of the gospel he was going to preach. yes, he didn’t specifically seek rome’s permission, but he did seek peter’s. i agree that matthew 16 can be debateable,. but when you then look outside of the passage at other passages and at the early church’s interpretation we see that the catholic interpretation is correct.
[/quote]

The below passage states clearly that Paul did not confer with any man, apostle or otherwise in his ministry at the beginning.

Galatians 1:15-18

*** 15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.***

And here it is stated:

Galatians 2:9

*** 9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.***

And on top of that - in Peter’s epistles he nowhere states his supremacy but labels himself as a fellow apostle and elder along with the other apostles.

Peace…


#19

[quote=dennisknapp]Evangelicals, why is there no record of you in the early Church?
[/quote]

I wasn’t born yet.

Why is there no evidence for what you believe (aside from what you agree with the historical Church on) in the early Church?

You mean thing like that I believe black holes exist? I don’t know why they didn’t right about them

The closest historical record I can find are the Puritans and the Anabaptist in the 17th and 18th century. Why is that?

Well because the Puritans made their first major label record under the name Farcial Aquatic Ceremony. In the 13th century their drummer died in a horrible porridge accident and when they acquired a new drummer from the recently broken up band, Romans Go Home, they renamed their band the Puritans. Their first record under the Historical Label was released in 1655 to mixed reviews.


#20

[quote=Imconfused]During the time of Christ, He was the Bishop of the Church, if you like that word. He led His own Church and made His " unified, concerted effort". Later, He, Himself, appointed Peter as head of the Church, one man, Peter, one Bishop Peter. You are sola scriptura. Read it.
[/quote]

I don’t particularly like the title for Christ as “Bishop of the Church”. He is the Great Shepherd and has many other titles, but this one doesn’t seem right at all.

Plus, I don’t think it’s accurate. He never referred to himself as this and neither is the idea of bishops implied till later in the Scriptures as spoken of by Paul.

Why then, in Matthew 18:18 does Christ give the same authority to all the apostles to bind and loose?

If you read the entire New Testament and do not pick and choose verses for doctrine, you can see the progression and truth of the structure of the church (as spoken of by Paul) and realize that 3 or 4 verses which might support your view are trumped by the whole rest of the Scriptures.

Peace…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.