Was the early Church 'Baptist'/Evangelical?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Your words "ravings" and "apostate" betray your bias.
How in the world you can claim that sola fide "was and always has been the doctrine of the Church Catholic" is beyond me. This is probably one of the silliest statements I've ever read on BB. 'Sola Fide' as defined by Luther appears in no Church teaching for the 1500 years prior to Luther. His 'teaching' was rightly condemned by Trent. </font>[/QUOTE]The Council of Trent condemns most of the early church fathers to hell for teaching 'Sola Fide'. For example, from the writings of St. Ambrose:

"What can we do worthy of heavenly rewards? By what labours, by what sufferings, can we wash away our sins? Not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God, the heavenly decrees concerning men are issued."Expos. ps. 118, 20:42; quoted in Dudden II, p. 631.

"Let us consider another similar passage: 'He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.' That which abideth has certainly had a commencement, and that from some offense, viz., that first he not believe. When, then, anyone believes, the wrath of God departs and life comes. To believe, then, in Christ is to gain life, for 'he that believeth in him is not judged' [John 3:18]."De Poenitentia I:53, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. X (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans reprint, 1983), p. 338

"I will glory not because I am righteous but because I am redeemed; I will glory not because I am free from sins but because my sins are forgiven me. I will glory not because I have done good nor because someone has done good to me but because Christ is my advocate with the Father and because the blood of Christ has been shed for me."
Liber de Jacob et Vita Beata, ch. 6; quoted in Chemnitz, Examination I, p. 507

"But, when the Lord Jesus came he forgave all men the sin they could not escape, and canceled the decree against us by shedding his blood [Colossians 2:14]. This is what he says: 'By the Law sin abounded, but grace abounded by Jesus' [Romans 5:20], since after the whole world became subject he took away the sins of the whole world, as John bears witness, saying: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” [John 1:29] Let no one glory, then, in his own works, since no one is justified by his deeds, but one who is just has received a gift, being justified by Baptism. It is faith, therefore, which sets us free by the blood of Christ, for he is blessed whose sin is forgiven and to whom pardon is granted [Psalm 32:1]."Epistle 73, in The Fathers of the Church 26, pp. 466-68.

 

The Anglican Church seems to be a hatchery for papists. Tell me, before Cardinal Newman joined the kingdom of the AntiChrist by kissing the pope's toe, did he also teach that man is justified before God by penance, indulgences, the treasury of the saints, the intercession of Mary, the sacrifice of the mass, purgatory, etc.?

It is true that, after Luther's death, certain Protestant sects began calling faith a work and adding prayers, decisions, feelings, reason, the "human work of baptism", etc. to faith alone after the fashion of the papists. But to blame Luther for these heretics would be as unfair as blaming the Anglican Church for Cardinal Newman.

 

Yes. And who can argue that scripture is not a primary resource as well? Not to sound too dogmatic or simplistic but, if the doctrine is from scripture, it cannot be argued - whether it happens to agree with baptist or early church doctrine or not.

Another thing about the early church is they believed a lot of things we would argue are aberrant doctrines such as baptism of the dead or belief that one is not saved unless baptised and can never be saved if sinning after having been baptized.

Sola Scriptura is rather difficult to argue for the early church when we have to admit that the canon was not settled and even some "scripture" was not even readily available or written during the early church times.

They had to rely on church leaders so the church leadership was indeed very important.

Whether or not the early church believed something is not the test of orthodoxy. They were human and prone to error as much as we are. Not just that but it would be hard to identify what early group was "the church" (implies an invisible church exists) and some sect that calls itself the true church.

I had a good friend who told me that since the early church used only one communion cup and everybody shared, we were mandated to do the same. We could then argue, I suppose, that the early church did not have automobiles so we should walk to church. Whether the early church believed something or not is somewhat irrelevant. It was a different historical/cultural context and I think every church takes on certain cultural distinctives if nothing else. Missionary organizations figured that out long ago. The only real test is what we think scipture teaches. We have the benefit of written scriptures which the early church did not have.

 

The problem is that people interpret Scripture in many different ways. There are verses in the Bible that seem to be rather plain that baptism is part of salvation, and the early church was unanimous in affirming this interpretation until about 500 or so years ago. In other words, Christendom for the first 1500 years would look at the Baptist interpretation as being the "aberrant" one. And while the early church did not have the complete canon of Scripture, it did have the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down in the Church which they were commanded to keep--whether written or oral (2 Thess 2:15).

 

Doubting Thomas,

Tradition does provide a record of how the Apostolic doctrine was preserved in past ages; however, the best defense against error is Sola Scriptura. The Baptist innovations are contrary to the plain words of scripture. The Baptists must rely on human reason to explain away dozens of clear passages of scripture.

The new doctrines of the papacy have been invented and defended in much the same way as the Baptist innovations, by human reason and an appeal to a pretended tradition.

 

The problem is, advocates of Sola Scriptura disagree among themselves. In many cases, what one group says is plain, others say is not plain and must be interpreted what they think is clear, and vice versa. The Calvinist/Arminian debate is a prime example of this.

I agree.

I agree on both counts. (I'm not a papist, in case you were wondering)

 

The problem is that people interpret Scripture in many different ways. There are verses in the Bible that seem to be rather plain that baptism is part of salvation, and the early church was unanimous in affirming this interpretation until about 500 or so years ago. In other words, Christendom for the first 1500 years would look at the Baptist interpretation as being the "aberrant" one. And while the early church did not have the complete canon of Scripture, it did have the Apostolic Tradition that was handed down in the Church which they were commanded to keep--whether written or oral (2 Thess 2:15). </font>[/QUOTE]I couldn't believe this post when I first read it. I had to read it over two or three times to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong, about water baptism being part of salvation, according to the early church....Apostolic Tradition!

MEE

 

You read it correctly.

 

Was the early Church 'Baptist'/Evangelical?

yes!!!

 

wrong
eph 2:8-10

 

Please cite early Church Fathers who held to 'Sola Scriptura'. Thank you.

BTW, the Roman Church's history does have things that need to be repented of, and, does hold doctrines/teachings that are not properly 'Catholic'. I am NOT RC! </font>[/QUOTE]Paul

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

You read it correctly. </font>[/QUOTE]I forgot to add that I agree with you 100%! It's just that it seems strange to see that someone agrees with the "Early Church." That is the one that started on the Day of Pentecost.

MEE

 

This is being used as a license to make any unbiblical doctrine authoritative without scriptural support. the Jews do the same thing with the Law of Moses, which is why they have all sorts of unbiblical restrictions (e.g. no meat and milk together, etc. That is not what the Law had commanded).
There are no secret teachings that were for some reason left out of the written Word. Whatever was handed down by word would be the same teachings as what was written. Paul's teachings were both written and spoken. (Just like I can write this now, and say the same thing to someone in person)Both would be passed around. Why assume what was spoken only was something different, (and for all purposes contradictiry to) what was written. The story of Christ was also such a "tradition" that was first handed down, and then eventually written down, and may even be what he was referring to.
Yes, there is so many different interpretations of the written Word. But if we are like that with what is written in black and white, then why do people think pople did so much better preserving unwritten traditions? There is disaggreements on that, with the RCC, saying one thing one century, then adding more things as the centuries go on. (all defended as "apostolic tradition"). You say you're not of them, so you disagree with them.
So no, the written word is the lasting authority. Though many interpret it all sorts of ways, we must each approach it and do the best we can to interpret it correctly. Asking God's giudance would help as well. But not throw it our or supersede it with tradition.

BTW, yes, the Bible says faith without works is dead, as well as by grace are we saved through faith, not works; so the early fathers would reflect that. We don't throw out one in favor of the other. They are not contradictory, so we must understand them together in light of each other.
While works are to accompany faith because through faith we have been saved and regenerated, giving us the power to do more good works, still, itis not the works that save. Else, where do you draw the line between one being saved and not, ust looking at works. If someone is not producing any works, then you can question him, but if he is not saved, the way to get saved is to truly have faith, NOT just to start doing works, which will still not save him when the problem is a lack of faith. Else, it should say, "by grace are we saved through works, not of faith, lest any man should slack off"

 

I agree on both counts. (I'm not a papist, in case you were wondering) </font>[/QUOTE]No, you seem incredibly Lutheran.

But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what, then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended. For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it.
Thus you see plainly that there is here no work done by us, but a treasure which He gives us, and which faith apprehends; just as the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross is not a work, but a treasure comprehended in the Word, and offered to us and received by faith.
Luther's Large Catechism

 

But where does it say in Scripture that everything the Apostles handed down orally was going to be eventually written in Scripture? That's a pretty big assumption. Where does Paul say that his oral teachings and his written letters have the exact identical content? Remember the Epistles weren't complete church manuals but were written for specific audiences with specific situations in mind. They were often meant to be corrective and were certainly not meant to be exhaustive of all Christian teaching in the confines of one letter. At the same time you are right--to the early church Scripture and unwritten Tradition were not considered "contradictory". (Nor was this unwritten Tradition "secret" but was made known in the church. The concept of "secret" tradition was more a belief of the Gnostics). In fact in was the "Rule of Faith" handed down in the Church from the Apostles which served as both an authoritative interpretive summary of Scripture and as a guide in determining the contents of the Canon. Unwritten Tradition and Scripture are complementary and not contradictory as both are manifestations of the same Apostolic Tradition given by the same Lord and same Holy Spirit.

 

It is true that faith is never alone. Good works always follow faith and supply the proof (justification) that faith is alive.

Faith clings to Jesus' cross alone
And rests in Him unceasing;
And by its fruits true faith is known,
With love and hope increasing.
Yet faith alone doth justify,
Works serve thy neighbor and supply
The proof that faith is living.
Salvation Unto Us Has Come, Paul Speratus

 

Neither is the word rapture found in the Bible. So, because it is not there, it is not true ?

Besides, James here was talking about loudmouths who shout on the rooftops that they are believers yet have no love for fellow believers, let alone others.

Their works give proof of the faith they say they have, not of their justification before God, but, before man.