Question for Protestants : ancient Christianity

Quo Vadis?

8:18p, 6/6/25

I understand Protestants consider themselves to be a reformation or renewal of authentic Christian teaching that was lost due to the unbiblical practices of the Catholic/Orthodox church.

My question is: what of the ancient Christian Churches: (Church of the Holy Sepulchre, St. John Lateran, Church of the Nativity, St Catherine's monastery, etc etc.

All of these churches have been founded hundreds of years before the reformation and most before the end of the 4th century.

All of these Churches began as Catholic/Orthodox and have been continuously worshipping as Catholic/Orthodox since then. How can it be said that these churches don't authentically represent ancient Christianity?

birddog7000

9:34p, 6/6/25

What purpose does this question serve? Is it rhetorical, or are you sincerely seeking an answer that might change your viewpoint of those whom you are asking?

I have a question for you. Would you rather everyone have waited for the RCC to come and evangelize the early frontier before the people there were saved, or even better do you think we should have waited another 200 years before the EO made its way here? Many churches that you consider schismatic were just groups of believers who want to gather to worship their savior Jesus Christ and nobody else was there to lead them when they started, so they relied on a Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think that is what many evangelicals think when they make claims about the early church. Yes I understand the church fathers and apostolic succession, I am not arguing any of it, just making my observation of the belief that the early church was started in much the same way. When you have no other way you make do with what you have, and it was the only way in a large part of the U.S. for much of the early history of this country.

Can Protestants do better, yes there are many ways we can become more orthodox in our doctrine. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox can do better in some aspects as well. Thank God for men like John Wesley who didn't wait for the church to show up before they shared the good news of Jesus Christ to a lost generation. He layed hands on people and they all made tracks, spreading the Gospel.

We should have an ecumenical council to bring everyone into communion instead of divisive internet threads and podcasts about how your church isn't the real church, mine is.

Quo Vadis?

9:48p, 6/6/25

In reply to birddog7000

birddog7000 said:
What purpose does this question serve? Is it rhetorical, or are you sincerely seeking an answer that might change your viewpoint of those whom you are asking?

I have a question for you. Would you rather everyone have waited for the RCC to come and evangelize the early frontier before the people there were saved, or even better do you think we should have waited another 200 years before the EO made its way here? Many churches that you consider schismatic were just groups of believers who want to gather to worship their savior Jesus Christ and nobody else was there to lead them when they started, so they relied on a Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think that is what many evangelicals think when they make claims about the early church. Yes I understand the church fathers and apostolic succession, I am not arguing any of it, just making my observation of the belief that the early church was started in much the same way. When you have no other way you make do with what you have, and it was the only way in a large part of the U.S. for much of the early history of this country.

Can Protestants do better, yes there are many ways we can become more orthodox in our doctrine. The RCC and Eastern Orthodox can do better in some aspects as well. Thank God for men like John Wesley who didn't wait for the church to show up before they shared the good news of Jesus Christ to a lost generation. He layed hands on people and they all made tracks, spreading the Gospel.

We should have an ecumenical council to bring everyone into communion instead of divisive internet threads and podcasts about how your church isn't the real church, mine is.

I think of things that I don't have an answer for, so I ask.

Catholics are probably the single most attacked denomination in all of Christianity, so it's important for me to steelman arguments to defend the church with.

Is that okay with you?

I would rather the Protestant reformation never happened, it was the most grievous blow to ever afflict the body of Christ. The fact that some good came out of its proof that God can bring good out of literally anything.

It's impossible for me to answer your question. It's like asking me "would you rather a kid in an orphanage be adopted by a single mother, or wait for the chance to be adopted by a mother and father?" I'd rather them be adopted by a mother and father because that's the absolute best for them. If that's not an option, I'd have to consider the circumstances.

BonfireNerd04

11:03p, 6/6/25

Perhaps it's different from your POV, but IME 99% of Protestants aren't "attacking" Catholics. Coming from a Southern Baptist background, I don't think I ever heard a "why the Catholics are wrong" sermon. For analogy, how much thought does your church give to "why Muhammad was wrong" or "why Joseph Smith was wrong"?

Howdy, it is me!

11:34p, 6/6/25

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was an interesting choice to use as an example…

BonfireNerd04

12:25a, 6/7/25

Anyhow, in an attempt to actually answer your question, let's make an analogy to the "secular ecumenical council" of the US Supreme Court.

Catholicism is like a judge that emphases "precedent" or "stare decisis". He deeply respects, and often cites, the rulings of past courts (Church fathers, Church councils, Papal decrees), believing that these rulings form a cumulative, living body of law (Sacred Tradition).

Protestantism (generally speaking) is like a "textualist" judge. He believes that the written text of the Constitution (Bible) is the ultimate authority (sola scriptura), and is more willing to overturn precedent if it appears to be in conflict with the text. In the purest form of this philosophy, previous rulings have absolutely no relevance at all.

Of course, the Supreme Court has overturned long-held precedents. For example, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson after 58 years. And Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade after 49 years.

Should we rely on precedent? Well, on one had, it does have the advantage of maintaining consistency in the legal environment. On the other hand, it carries the risk that a court may accidentally commit long-term to a bad decision.

Anyhow, the Protestant POV (again generalizing, because there are tons of denominations) is that true Christianity is what's described in the New Testament (of course, there's the issue of who decided which books would be included in the first place...), and as Christianity became more institutionalized, it gradually incorporated "un-Biblical traditions" (e.g., indulgences or purgatory) that required reform. A church having a long history is laudable, but this in itself doesn't validate its teachings.

I hope that makes sense.

Faithful Ag

6:57a, 6/7/25

In reply to BonfireNerd04

Jesus made a promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the CHURCH, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. We call this protection from committing "long-term errors" in her teachings on the faith the charism of infallibility.

Where your Supreme Court analogy falls short is in the interpretation of the text, and the individual/judge's ability to rightly interpret and derive the true and correct meaning of the text and its proper application to the faith, and the Sacraments.

The two most clear examples of this difficulty would beBaptismal (regenerative or just an outward sign) and The Holy Eucharist (literal flesh vs. symbolic). The Apostolic Churches, East & West, are very closely aligned and always have been, whereas the Protestants are all over the map and disagree with each other on a wide variety of important doctrinal matters.

Faithful Ag

7:29a, 6/7/25

In reply to BonfireNerd04

…another way to look at your analogy would be to compare philosophies of judicial interpretation. On one side you have the originalist who seeks to be faithful to the framers original intent VS. those who believe the text of the constitution is a living framework that can be evolved and interpreted for the current times.

Today, the church is the "living and breathing" lung enabling us to apply the faith to our modern lives. The church can help us with new moral questions we are faced with that are unique to our time like contraception and IVF and AI, etc.

Jesus chose his apostles and instituted his visible CHURCH working through these appointed men. These men continued to appoint successors charged with guarding, protecting and passing on the faith. A part of this process was their writings and some of these writings were collected by these men and became what we now call the New Testament. These men did not replace themselves or their important function with the NT scriptures, it rather they support and serve each other even to this day.

The RCC/EO view is one where we have both/and meaning we have the unchanging Scriptural texts and remain faithful to their original intent; AND we have the Apostolic Bishops and the ChurchTraditions serving as our living and breathing guide and interpreter.

Hope this makes some sense….

Quo Vadis?

7:35a, 6/7/25

In reply to Howdy, it is me!

Howdy, it is me! said:
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher was an interesting choice to use as an example…

Why?

KingofHazor

9:28a, 6/7/25

In reply to Quo Vadis?

FTACo88-FDT24dad

2:51p, 6/7/25

No sacred tradition, no canon of the Bible.

Know Sacred Tradition, know the canon of the Bible.

KingofHazor

2:55p, 6/7/25

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

Faithful Ag

6:42p, 6/7/25

In reply to KingofHazor

KingofHazor said:
No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

The New Testament Scriptures, the Bible, are by definition Sacred Tradition.

KingofHazor

8:02p, 6/7/25

In reply to Faithful Ag

Faithful Ag said:
KingofHazor said:
No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

The New Testament Scriptures, the Bible, are by definition Sacred Tradition.

No, they're not. Plus, your Catholic buddy above separated the two.

FTACo88-FDT24dad

8:11p, 6/7/25

In reply to KingofHazor

KingofHazor said:
Faithful Ag said:
KingofHazor said:
No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

The New Testament Scriptures, the Bible, are by definition Sacred Tradition.
No, they're not. Plus, your Catholic buddy above separated the two.

Yes they are and ST predates the canon.

Faithful Ag

8:12p, 6/7/25

In reply to KingofHazor

KingofHazor said:
Faithful Ag said:
KingofHazor said:
No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

The New Testament Scriptures, the Bible, are by definition Sacred Tradition.
No, they're not. Plus, your Catholic buddy above separated the two.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in that the canon of what we call the New Testament (the Bible) today is Sacred Tradition. The collection of books and their discernment to be recognized as the canon was only possible through the visible church and the witness of her Sacred Tradition.

That is the precise point my Catholic buddy was making…he was not separating the two. Without the visible Church complete with her active and functioning Sacred Traditions as witness to the truth, arriving at the Scriptural Canon and having it accepted by the faithful would not have been possible.

FTACo88-FDT24dad

8:15p, 6/7/25

In reply to Faithful Ag

Faithful Ag said:
KingofHazor said:
Faithful Ag said:
KingofHazor said:
No canon of the Bible, no tradition that is sacred.

The New Testament Scriptures, the Bible, are by definition Sacred Tradition.
No, they're not. Plus, your Catholic buddy above separated the two.

Perhaps I should have been more clear in that the canon of what we call the New Testament (the Bible) today is Sacred Tradition. The collection of books and their discernment to be recognized as the canon was only possible through the visible church and the witness of her Sacred Tradition.

That is the precise point my Catholic buddy was making…he was not separating the two. Without the visible Church complete with her active and functioning Sacred Traditions as witness to the truth, arriving at the Scriptural Canon and having it accepted by the faithful would not have been possible.

Exactly. Thank you.

KingofHazor

8:14a, 6/8/25

Do you have any actual evidence to support your claims, other than simply repeating the claims ad infinitum?

TSJ

9:46a, 6/8/25

From the Orthodox Study Bible

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ , that you with draw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us."

The notes on the verses

KingofHazor

11:07a, 6/8/25

In reply to TSJ

I don't know of many Protestants who would quibble with that, with the possible exception of labeling traditions "Holy" and capitalizing both words. (Caveat: I'm not a scholar or an expert on all things Protestantism so that comment may be wrong.)

I also note that that quote limits traditions to the words of Jesus and of the original apostles. The historical context of the use of the word "traditions", as used by the early Fathers, were the oral accounts of the Apostles followed by their written accounts. The earliest Fathers did not regard anything as infallible and authoritative beyond those.

Protestants rely upon church traditions as well. We just don't elevate them to the same level as the spoken or written words of Christ.

Quo Vadis?

12:22p, 6/8/25

So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.

KingofHazor

1:04p, 6/8/25

I believe that the response might be that:

1. The oldest churches did not start out as Catholic/Orthodox, at least as those terms are defined today. A modern Protestant could be very happy in the earliest churches, and in fact the Reformers looked to the practices of the earliest churches as a model in contrast to the RCC of their day.

2. An extraordinary amount of accretion of doctrines, traditions, liturgy, etc. has occurred to the earliest churches over the centuries since.

Zobel

1:15p, 6/8/25

The two points above are offered without evidence, and basically only work as long as you're comfortable with a complete lack of knowledge about the history of the church. The Reformers had access to only a tiny fraction of the information we have today.

KingofHazor

1:29p, 6/8/25

In reply to Zobel

Zobel said:
The two points above are offered without evidence, and basically only work as long as you're comfortable with a complete lack of knowledge about the history of the church. The Reformers had access to only a tiny fraction of the information we have today.

That response is offered without knowledge or evidence and demonstrates a bias that prevents the poster from acknowledging any evidence that conflicts with his theological views and assumptions. And like many poorly-informed today, he assumes without any support that people of the past, like the Reformers, were less intelligent and informed than he is.

Quo Vadis?

1:40p, 6/8/25

In reply to KingofHazor

KingofHazor said:
I believe that the response might be that:

1. The oldest churches did not start out as Catholic/Orthodox, at least as those terms are defined today. A modern Protestant could be very happy in the earliest churches, and in fact the Reformers looked to the practices of the earliest churches as a model in contrast to the RCC of their day.

2. An extraordinary amount of accretion of doctrines, traditions, liturgy, etc. has occurred to the earliest churches over the centuries since.

I appreciate your answer but it appears very vague. It references changes without explaining what the changes are or when they occurred. It also doesn't explain what the early church had that Protestants would be happy with, and how that differs from today.

KingofHazor

1:59p, 6/8/25

In reply to Quo Vadis?

Quo Vadis? said:

I appreciate your answer but it appears very vague. It references changes without explaining what the changes are or when they occurred. It also doesn't explain what the early church had that Protestants would be happy with, and how that differs from today.

You initially asked for the Protestant position. You're now asking a much more detailed question which, although legitimate, would require a significant amount of work to answer. Although I have read quite a bit and researched this in the past, I do not have all of the facts and details readily available. A young scholar named Gavin Ortlund has done quite a bit of work on this general topic, fyi.

Zobel

8:31p, 6/8/25

In reply to KingofHazor

im sorry, that's not how it works. you made a statement, and i correctly pointed out you didn't offer any evidence to support the two things you put forward. i don't need to offer any evidence because it is observation of a fact. the evidence is your post.

i never said the reformers were less intelligent.

that the reformers had access to a fraction of the information we have is fact, not opinion. they were limited by their resources - working with late medieval manuscripts, extremely limited access to greek manuscripts. for example erasmus didn't even have a complete new testament in greek and had to complete his by translating latin into greek from a differnet manuscript. the reformers were working with what had been preserved in european monasteries and libraries, which is a small portion of what we have now.

they had roughly a dozen or so greek new testament manuscripts from the late byzantine period, many from lectionaries. we have nearly 6,000 today, plus tens of thousands in latin as well as eastern languages like coptic and syriac which make up the ~24,000 we have plus over 2,000 lectionaries. much less things we didn't even have until the 19th/20th century - dead sea scrolls, codex sinaiticus, early papyri, the didache, nag hammadi library, etc.

that doesn't get into other things "around" the scriptures, like contextual evidence from the ancient near east, e.g., the baal cycle and ugaritic texts which weren't discovered until 1928, and clay tablets like this are still being translated. these give huge insights into the ancient world the hebrew scriptures were written in and to. or other archaeological finds like the capernaeum synagogue or the pool of bethesda.

on top of all of that there is a mountain of patristic evidence they didn't have - the church fathers have over 1 million citations of scripture that could be used to reconstruct the entire new testament at a minimum, and possibly the entire canon of scripture. most of what they had were limited to the latin fathers (augustine, ambrose, jerome, some of the early councils) with some of the more major eastern figures like limited citations from john chrysostom.

like their scriptural manuscripts most of what they had were late medieval, limited to latin with a small amount of greek, and almost completely excluded syriac, coptic, or other languages. most of what they had were from secondary compilations rather than direct documents, or they had fragments of texts. things that are "basic" patristic docs for us like the didache, the writings of st clement of alexandria, or even st irenaeus against heresies were either wholly or partially unknown in the reformation.

they worked from something like a few hundred texts at most, whereas today we have writings from over 100 church fathers, with dozens from many. even what they had of augustine was extremely limited - today we have over 1,000 sermons, writings, and letters, most of them unavailable to the reformers. on the whole its probably something like 5-10% of what we have, and what they had were often corrupted copies with textual discrepancies.

we have more volumes of greek and latin patristic writings than they had documents.

because of that there was a strong regional bias to the latin fathers, with a narrow view of early christianity that was skewed hard toward medieval western theology.

they didn't have access to the majority that you and i have today, and certainly not with the ease we have.

Zobel

8:41p, 6/8/25

and i offer the entirety of this exchange from beginning to end as support for the second half of my statement - that this approach basically only works coming from a lack of knowledge about the history of the church

10andBOUNCE

12:49p, 6/9/25

I have the same kind of question as the OP, but for my protestant friends who condemn reformed theology. Roughly 90% of the "new world" was Calvinistic until the shift from the 2nd Great Awakening.

10andBOUNCE

1:10p, 6/9/25

In reply to Quo Vadis?

Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.

Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?

Quo Vadis?

1:34p, 6/9/25

In reply to 10andBOUNCE

10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.
Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?

Absolutely

FTACo88-FDT24dad

1:57p, 6/9/25

In reply to Quo Vadis?

Quo Vadis? said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.
Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?
Absolutely

They always fail to account for the divine protection of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that divinely guided the OHCA church to define the canon of scripture.

Quo Vadis?

2:17p, 6/9/25

In reply to FTACo88-FDT24dad

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Quo Vadis? said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.
Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?
Absolutely

They always fail to account for the divine protection of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that divinely guided the OHCA church to define the canon of scripture.

That's what's so amazing. All it would take is for one Pope to say "gay marriage is sacramental start performing them" or "God is actually three distinct Gods" or something to that extent and the entire house of cards comes crashing down; but it hasn't.

It's because the church qua the church cannot err. It is the body of Christ. Much as the eucharist cannot transmit germs or disease, the church cannot err.

10andBOUNCE

2:50p, 6/9/25

In reply to Quo Vadis?

Quo Vadis? said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Quo Vadis? said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.
Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?
Absolutely

They always fail to account for the divine protection of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that divinely guided the OHCA church to define the canon of scripture.
That's what's so amazing. All it would take is for one Pope to say "gay marriage is sacramental start performing them" or "God is actually three distinct Gods" or something to that extent and the entire house of cards comes crashing down; but it hasn't.

It's because the church qua the church cannot err. It is the body of Christ. Much as the eucharist cannot transmit germs or disease, the church cannot err.

What do you mean the church cannot err? Like every RCC sanctioned church is perfect? Assume not...

FTACo88-FDT24dad

2:51p, 6/9/25

In reply to 10andBOUNCE

10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Quo Vadis? said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Quo Vadis? said:
So this honestly wasn't a post to spike the football on Protestants, I just really wanted to hear a rebuttal to the question about the continuity of worship in the oldest churches in Christendom, to see if I can use this as a point in my apologetics moving forward.
Just a random observation from my learning about early church history. One of the biggest themes I have seen is the overall quest for power in the early centuries. Bishops and presbyters would argue who should be in charge; cities would debate which is best. It is only natural that pure doctrine is polluted by skewed motives, even by the most famous church fathers and bishops.

Is the Catholic view that the RCC has just hit it outta the park for the first two millennia since Christ?
Absolutely

They always fail to account for the divine protection of the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that divinely guided the OHCA church to define the canon of scripture.
That's what's so amazing. All it would take is for one Pope to say "gay marriage is sacramental start performing them" or "God is actually three distinct Gods" or something to that extent and the entire house of cards comes crashing down; but it hasn't.

It's because the church qua the church cannot err. It is the body of Christ. Much as the eucharist cannot transmit germs or disease, the church cannot err.
What do you mean the church cannot err? Like every RCC sanctioned church is perfect? Assume not...

I won't answer for QV, but I will say that is definitely not what he means.