Was the early Church 'Baptist'/Evangelical?

Yep...that's pretty much summed up 1 Peter 3:21. It's not the physical washing that "saves" (as if it was a human work), but an act of faith ("answer to God" or "appeal to God" depending on the translation) in the God who can save us in Baptism by the Resurrection of His Son.

 

But in the various letters we see pretty much the same issues and teachings, or at least principles over and over. Comments may have varied according to the audience and situation, but with all of the examples of others used, we would see pretty much everything that was considered authoritative. So there would be no doctrines or deeper interpretations of Mary or Communion or leadership, or anything else the later church would claim came from an oral tradition, that were left out of the written Word. If they were there, why would they not have been included in the letters? They would in effect be kept "secret" (esoteric), and that is not the way the apostles were trying to spread the truth, but was rather always the tactic of the false teachers.
As I said, a person can receive any teaching by either spoken word, or by written word (or both), and they would be the same teachings. However one received them, they were authoritative. Not some teachings were written, and others were oral only. That there is no proof for.

 

The term FAITH ALONE is misunderstood by so many. Historically no Protestants be they Lutheran, Calvinist, or Armianian have viewed works as unecessary. The term FAITH ALONE does not contradict the Church Fathers. True Saving Faith has works just as the roots of a oak tree produces a oak tree. It could be argued that both Ambrose and Augustine taught this long before Luther. The Reformers believed works were a necessary part of Salvation but not that Works merited salvation as Rome taught. Let the Reformers speak for themselves

 

Because, again, the letters were not meant to be all inclusive. Although teachings in the letters were overlapping (and consistent with each other), some letters contained information and instructions others did not. These were not worship manuals. Remember, the Church was worshipping Christ and celebrating Communion for about 18-20 years before even the first NT letter was written. Presumably, these local congregations knew apostolic doctrine and practice from the oral teaching. As there arose the need--usually in response to sin or errors, or for encouragement--the letters were written to some of the various local congregations and to some individuals. As these were written for specific purposes, there was no need to include every nuance of Christian doctrine or praxis in every letter. If the contents of these epistles varied (but were noncontradictory) from letter to letter, and were not in themselves exhaustive of all oral teaching individually, how can one assume that all apostolic teaching was included collectively in the Canon, especially when the NT itself wasn't finalized until the early 5th century and several of the final books were widely disputed?

Also it doesn't follow that if oral teachings weren't written down in letters that they must necessarily have been "secret". For as the same tradition was handed down for along time in churches which were not the original recipients of specific letters, so could it have been after the letters were gradually circulated and finally collected. Also, most of the Apostles didn't even pen Scripture--are we to suppose that they were only preaching the gospel "secretly" until Paul's (or Peter's or John's) letters arrived to the locales of their preaching? Was all of their teaching limited to and exactly identical to what was written down in the Canon?

The Tradition was available to all Christians because it came from the Apostles orally in the Church. Some of what was preached--indeed, the normative "core"--was written down in gospels and letters, was gradually collected and became the NT Canon by the late 300s/early 400s AD. There was no printing press in those days and so not all churches (let alone each individual Christian!) had complete copies of Scriptures for a long time, but they were able to abide in the Truth since the Apostolic Tradition was faithfully transmitted orally (with the exception of heretics who split off from the church) in the Church. That's why despite the disparity in the availiblity of the Scriptures in various parts of the world, (and despite variations due to local custom) there was a uniform practice and belief through out "Christendom"--from Spain, to Africa, to Italy, to Greece, to Asia Minor, to Egypt, to Syria, and Persia. All (except the heretics) worshipped and glorified Christ and the Holy Spirit with the Father; all believed (except the Docetists and Arians and variations thereof) that Christ was both Divine and human; all believed He died on the Cross and rose again for us; all acknowledged one baptism for the remission of sins, and all believed that they were truly having Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist; all believed that one had to endure to the end to be finally saved; and all believed Christ was coming again to judge the quick and the dead. This was the Apostolic and catholic (little "c") Tradition which was handed down and was the authoritative way of interpreting Scriptures as opposed to that of the Heretics who would appeal to the same Scriptures to "support" their false doctrines.

Enough rambling for now. If you want to read a good book from a Baptist, check out D.H.Williams Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. It's a step in the right direction.

 

No, the letters may not have been "all inclusive", but just about every issue the Church would face was covered; at least in principle. What else do you think was left out? This would leave it open for anyone to come and claim some practice was "oral apostolic tradition". As it was, some of these "traditions" were based on things that WERE written, such as baptism and communion, and even Mary as our "mother"(John 19:27) but "the unlearned" (2 Pet. 2) misunderstood and twisted it. If it were true that there were oral traditions never written that substantially differed from what was, then how much more would they distort these things. How could you even tell who were the "heretics", then?

You suggest the universality of a teaching ver a broad area was evidence of the "catholic" teaching, but that could also be a false teaching that took hold early, before the Church spread. False teachers were coming in right as the apostles wrote, and the biggest heresy of the time were the gnostic family of doctrines, which among other things, overspiritualized divine truths, and read secret meanings into everything. So when we see interpretations of baptism, communion, salvation and Mary that are essentially pagan and contradict the simplicity of the Gospel develop outside the apostles teaching, then we know that they id begin to take hold, as they had warned. (i.e. we make the same mistake as the carnal Jews who were offended at the metaphor or "eating Christ's flesh/blood", thinking it is literal, and not realizing it is spiritual; and likewise, we misunderstand baptism by the spirit into the body, with water immersion as an outward sign, and instead make the immersion itself as the whole means of salvation; the Bible says we are not saved by works, because we still have an imperfect nature and can't live up to God's perfect standard; but that means nothing, because this other passage contradicts it, and we fail to see how they harmonize, but instead defend works-righteousness because the "catholic" tradition said so; and then many go on and raise up "co-redeemers", whether we call it that or not, just because Christ told his disciples to take care of Mary as a mother)
All of this is why this "oral tradition" concept is wrong. And remember, the Jews claim the same thing regarding Moses, and their reading of scripture through this "tradition" leads them to reject Christ.

Still, if all of these teaching, as foreign to hat is written as they are, were all somehow left out, and understood and defendable only from "tradition", then they ARE sectret. It is called "esoteric". Once again, anything the true apostles taught would not contradict anything that was written, even if a particular combination of words may never had been written.
When you understand what the essentials of the Gospel are, then once again, what else could be "left out"? Perhaps a given situation. Like there are no direct statments saying "Jesus is God", or "You can now eat unclean meats". Thus heretics can try to argue against these things with the scriptures, and claim we cannot find a clear example of our position. But principles and indirect statments elsewhere that are written support it. (e.g. The Word was God...the Word was manifest in the flesh [Jesus], etc). So yes, perhaps there was some instance where apostles did make those more explicit statements that were never written. But they can still be backed up with the rest of scripture, rather than reading scripture in light of them/reading them into scripture, as is necessary with many of these "catholic" doctrines.
Some of these more radical teachings/interpretations that seem to go against the grain of everything else that had been revealed would have at least made it to print sometimes. But it seems they all categorically are left out. So they are "Secret", ad this is appealed to whenever there is absolutely no scriptural justification for it, and how can this possibly be challenged, if one accepts the idea of "oral tradition"? This supplements scripture, not compliments it, as your view would insist.

Just in doing a quick search of "scriture" in the concordance; I can see how great an emphasis is placed on it as our authority, more than tradition. Tradition, as authoritative, is just something that is well known, and goes along with the scriptures. It can also be contrary to the scriptures as well (Mark 7:7-9). It is just a "transmission" (paradosis) from generation to generation. It carries no authority in its own apart from the Written word, which is God's main vehicle of communication to us.

[ August 04, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

To understand then what all of these scriptures speaking "enduring to the end" and "perseverance" to be saved were addressing, we must remember that many people in the New Testament, beginning with the ministry of Jesus Himself while still here, were hastily accepting Christ, but they did not understand what the purpose of His mission was. So they "believed" (John 8:31), but eventually their true fruits surfaced (v.37ff). Most others of this class, while not disputing Jesus to His face would show their true colors when persecution would come and they quickly abandoned Him. It's in this context that we have all the scriptures on perseverance until the end. Like the others, these people "believed" and followed for the wrong reasons. Remember, Israel was looking for a Messiah for mostly political reasons, so many really did not understand His Gospel message—that they needed to be saved from sin; not the sin of the pagans, but their own sin. They still thought of themselves as the "good guys" waiting for God to put down the "bad guys", yet they were just as sinful as the ruthless pagans. There is no thought of them thinking they had "faith" in Christ. They had their agenda (which is what they had faith in), and Jesus showed that they were not really following Him, though they professed. As soon as He began speaking of dying, it knocked their whole agenda for a loop, and even the disciples were ready to deny Him and run and hide. Why believe in Him if He's only going to die and not rise up and crush the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel right now? Many gentiles had also fallen into a similar misunderstanding or misuse as well. (Such as those described who would rise up and apostasize, drawing away their own following, thus using the Church for control). Yet if people "persevered" in faith, then it would have shown that they truly understood Christ's purpose (i.e. the true Gospel). Today we have many cults, liberals, etc. who "believe" in Christ, but knowingly twist or reject parts of the Bible; in effect creating a whole different concept of Christ (as different as the political Messiah of Israel), and most do not even speak of thinking they are "saved", or if they do, they make up their own idea of how to be saved (being good, keeping certain works, being baptized into their group, etc.). All of these are the people who "believed in vain", not someone who really has faith, but falls into sin.

 

EricB,

I think it's incredible (and ahistorical) to suggest that everyone got it wrong about Baptism and the Eucharist immediately after the apostles died, especially when Christ said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Paul stated in 1 Timothty 3:15 that the Church was the "ground and pillar of the truth". What you're suggesting is that everybody in the Church misinterpreted Baptism and the Lord's supper until the time of the Reformation--ie, the Church had been in error on those two issues for 1500 years despite the fact they had straighforward Scriptures to back up their views.

Sure there were false teachers that did indeed come into the church, but the ones who fought (wrote and spoke against) the false teachers were the ones teaching the real presence in the Eucharist and that water baptism was in fact for new birth and the remission of sins. All you need to do is read the Apostolic Fathers to know this. Many of these same men--particularly Ignatius and Polycarp--were spiritual children of the apostles and were martyred for their faith and had views on these two "ordinances" that can hardly be considered "Baptistic". Are you saying they got it all wrong? Where is the documentation from that time period that any of those who were otherwise "orthodox" in their theology (and who wrote against heretics such as the Docetists and gnostics) held views on Baptism and Communion that would be considered symbolic-only? I know of none. I noticed that you made reference to Early Christian Doctrines (I presume the book by J.N.D. Kelley) in another thread. You might want to read again the section regarding the early views of Baptism and the Lord Supper. It's hard to ignore the consensus of early Christian belief when such existed, and doing so belies the notion of the adequacy of Scripture alone, especially when the intepretation of Scripture in question is out of phase with what the Church always taught. On the other hand, we can have confidence in early tradition to help complement (especially guide our Scriptural interptretation) Scripture since the same Holy Spirit that inspired Scripture and guided the Church to finalize the Canon, is the same Spirit who would guide the Church into all of Truth. Amen.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Even though the Reformers taught 'Sola Scriptura', they did not simply quote and expound upon scripture. They also quoted from the testimonies of the church fathers to show that 'Sola Fide' was nothing new.

The traditions of the church support 'Sola Scriptura' and 'Sola Scriptura' supports the traditions of the church as many bible verses teach. However, over time, many new teachings crept into the papist church that were contrary to scripture and the traditions of the church. The doctrine of 'Graced Works' was substituted for 'Sola Fide' so that the flow of money from penances, indulgences, masses, etc., would not be interrupted.

 

Hi Jude,

Thanks for the reply

[OUOTE] Problem is, "proved" is not what James says.
James 2.22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was BROUGHT TO COMPLETION by the works.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I think this is a battle over word semantics. I do not disagree with the fact that faith was active along with his works, and faith was BROUGHT TO COMPLETION by the works BUT those WORKS proceed From FAITH. Actually the text is saying that one's faith is proved by Works. Note what the more literal Translation of the Amplified Bible states,


James 2
22You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works. (Amplified Bible)



Your own Church agrees with me. The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XII
Of Good Works

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

James is referring to a Faith that gives lip service to Christ. Any study of the Protestant Reformers view of FAITH ALONE knows they believe that Works were absolutely necessary part of Salvation. Neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox believe a Christian can have Faith and not Works. Only extreme OSAS (once saved always saved) people hold that but that is not Reformation theology but is actually Antinominianism.

Those Works however are the Fruit of Justifying Faith and as James states one's faith was made completeby these Works.

Well, you should have Assurance of your Salvation if you are a Christian. Phil. 2.12 is not saying we should live fearful that God will take away our salvation but we should work out our salvation with awe and reverance. Sanctification MUST proceed Justification. Certaintly only those who stands firm to the end will be saved for those professers that do not endure are goats. This is the error of extreme OSAS theology. Only those who are saved will endure and those who fall away were mere professors. (1 John 2:19)

 

Well, there are all the scriptures on the "falling away" that would occur. The Spirit would guide us into all truth, but then mean would resist the spirit and teach falsehood, by which many would be deceived.

I remember seeing the references to the early Fathers in Kelley's book. As for Ignatius and Polycarp, I'll have to look again to see if they copletely agreed with the mystical "Catholic" concept of those ordinances. Remember, you may be reading them in light of the later interpretation, just like scripture. Even Ignatius' "...who confess not the Eucharist to be the body and blood". may not necessarily have been when the later Chrch took it to mean. Remember, there are spiritual metaphors. The difference between Ignatius and us is something like one of a simile and and metaphor. A simile is a comparison using "like" or "as". So our saying it is "symbolic" is more like the latter. Bt a metaphor simply calls something what it is being likened to. But that doesn;t mean it is really that thing. But uspiritual people would come into the Chrch, misubderstand these things, which are "spiritually discerned", as both Paul said in that case, and Jesus had said regarding the blind Jewish leaders who could not get his parables. They would then teach these things as the truth, and then also begin reading scripture in light of them.

Once again, you're supplementing, not complimenting. The Spirit would guide people into understanding questionable things, and properly understanding the metaphors in question. Not tell people things that are foreign to scripture, and then simply because "the Church" says it, it is true. Remember, even "spirit" must be judged by scripture, because "many false prophets (carrying false spirits) have gone out into the world (Isaiah 8:19, 20, 1 John 4:1); thereby subjecting our perception of "the Spirit" to the written Word. The Spirit would agree with thw Word that it inspired; not suplement it, or change its meaning.

No, the Church is "OF the Living God, who is "the pillar and ground of the truth. Just like what who "this Rock" is, (the statment of truth Peter had just affirmed; not Peter himself); such titles only refer to God and His Word.

There were always small groups who protested many of these doctrines.
Plus, as your church, nor the RCC, even holds what the Early Fathers held; the Church continued ADDING doctrines, and then trying to project them back into the apostolic tradition. So even appealing to the apostolic fathers is no excuse for your denominational traditions that developed later. Baptism, and Communion wer emisunderstood early on, but the Bible was always there,and always meant what it meant, regardless of whether all of man turns from it. Else, the agnostics are right that our faith is all man made, and therefore, we should continuously update it to be more relevant to the age (i.e. accept homosexuality and the rst of the sins).

 

Eric,

Again, it's ahistorical to suggest that everyone in the Early Church got baptism and the Eucharist wrong but somehow the Baptists, 1500 some years later, got it right. You say "It's in the Bible", but it's your novel, ahistorical interpretation of the Bible that's in question.

In regards to Ignatius, scholars agree that he believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. In his letter to the Smyrneans he's emphatic: "They [the Docetists] abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, Who suffered for our sins, whom the Father raised up by His goodness." To suggest he is speaking metaphorically is to read your Zwinglian view back into the first (or very early second) century and is to disagree with the consensus of scholarship. Lest there be any doubt, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both wrote about a half century later how the bread and wine, when consecrated, were changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. (I could go on..) Now, given that the Church was conservative, and usually only further defined doctrine and dogma in response to heresy, it is indeed incredible that no one condemned the belief of the Real Presense during the first millenium of the Church. On the contrary, this was the consistent view from the beginning and there is no evidence of there "always [being] small groups who protested many of these doctrines" until the Reformation. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that baptism and the Eucharist were universally misundertood when the consensus of the Church was that baptism was new birth in Christ (and for the remission of sins) and the Eucharist was truly the Communion of His Body and Blood according to rather straightforward readings of Scripture (If anyone one is trying to read back into the early fathers--and Scripture--their beliefs, its those who hold views like yours which are novel denominational traditions of men.)

Also, the "pillar and ground of truth" does refer back to the "church of the living God"--there is no "who" in the verse preceding the clause "pillar and ground of truth". You are predictably setting up a false dichotomy between God and His Church, when the Church is in fact "His Body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:22-23).

Yes, we are to test the "spirits", especially in this age when Christian denominations are multiplied with each claiming that the "Holy Spirit" guides them to the correct interpretation among the many mutually contradictory interpretations of Scripture.

 

The early fathers taught the "Real Presence" but they did not teach the "Sacrifice of the Mass" whereby priests offer up Christ to God the Father for the sins of the living and the dead. The Abomination of the Mass was a perversion of both scripture and the traditions of the church invented by the papists. The Reformers, again, appeal to the fathers:

And the Fathers, indeed, speak of a two-fold effect, of the comfort of consciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise. The former of these effects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the Sacrament; the latter pertains to the sacrifice. Of consolation Ambrose says: Go to Him and be absolved, because He is the remission of sins. Do you ask who He is? Hear Him when He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on He shall never thirst. This passage testifies that in the Sacrament the remission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this ought to be received by faith. Infinite testimonies to this effect are found in the Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the opus operatum, and to a work to be applied on behalf of others; although the Fathers clearly require faith, and speak of the consolation belonging to every one, and not of the application.
Besides these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving, such as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning those communing in a godly way. Piety, says he, in thanking the Bestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., piety regards both what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., it compares the greatness of God's blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin and death, with each other, and gives thanks, etc. And hence the term eucharist arose in the Church. Nor indeed is the ceremony itself, the giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf of others, in order to merit for them the remission of sins, etc., in order to liberate the souls of the dead. These things conflict with the righteousness of faith; as though, without faith, a ceremony can profit either the one performing it or others.
Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Of the Mass

 

I guess I have written all I am going to on the matter for a while. As a life-long baptist, reading what the early Christians believed on theses two "ordinances" has been a tough pill to swallow, especially when I could "explain away" difficult Bible passages (re:Baptism/Communion) with the best of them. However, on at least these two beliefs the early church was unanimous and their beliefs were not "baptistic". Perhaps, if I have time next week (when my wife and son are out of town) I'll provide further documentation on the matter in separate threads. In the mean time, if someone wants to prove me wrong and post historical documentation which demonstrates that some in the early Church believed as modern Baptists do on the Lord Supper and Baptism without: (1)begging the question with interpreting the Bible in accordance with Baptist tradition, or (2)falling into the usual, ahistorical "they all fell into heresy or apostasy" arguement, I'd be happy to entertain such possibly contrary evidence.

 

Once again, like I mentioned, Jesus spoke in parabolic language, inclusing in regard to his body and blood. The Jews did not understand, and he explains that they were blind. So they took it literal and got offended. Such spiritual realities are "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14). Without spiritual discernment, they become "foolishness"; and one can either reject it for that reason, or "accept" it, but then turn it into foolishness.
If this happened to them, then it is not hard to believe that it could happen to the later church leaders, especially as many brought pagan philosophy in with them. And it is not hard to believe that Ignatious likewise meant it parabolically. But they you mention fathers a half century later. But notice that little word changed. Jesus never said that, neither did any biblical writer, nor even Ignatius. But that word "changed" changes everything. Now it IS definitely being made into some mystic transubstantiation. Before it wasn't. I can accept a "spiritual presence" in the sense that "whererever two or three are gathered in His name, [He is] there", spiritually, and it did seem to center on the supper. This I believe would be how "spiritual presense" would have been understood. But now it is definitely being turned into something else we do not see anywhere in scripture. So we see how a metaphor can turn into a literal transmutation as people pass it down, and then add little words or other ways of trying to express it. This is why tradition alone is unstable.

God can restore, through the Spirit proper interpretation, after men in the Church fall away from the truth (which was prohesied). God can open people's minds after a period of blindness. You would claim God never allowed this darkness, and was always guiding the interpretation, but as I said, even you "catholic" tradition was constantly changing. Let's not forget that! How could all the changes be right too? So the Church added more and more corrupt doctrines, and THAT is when all these groups began breaking off, as people here complain. First the Waldensians, and some others, then later the Anabaptists and Reformation. So after all of this stuff is added, then where do you cut it off at? The third century? The second? No, people will want to go all the way back to the NT, and even the second century cannot be used to view the NT through, because it was already beginning to change.

Because as I showed, it was so subtle, it was hard to notice; and considering that the written NT was taking time to circulate, many were reliant on these "oral traditions", and many of them by that time were already corrupted, and still changing, and by the time the Bible was available, it was assumed that the traditions did come from it, so it then had to be read in light of them, rather than them being judged by it. Once again, this is why tradition is unstable. You're talking about "burden of proof", but you offer no proof that these things actually were practiced in the NT. You can only use what second century fathers said, but that is not proof. That us backward (retrospective) projection. Look at the differences between the Church now and a century ago.
Also forgot to mention; yes, these fathers may have led the fought against "heresy", but that does not mean their doctrine was pure. A JW would fight against many of those doctrines, but that does not mean that are right about everything else. There was subtle error, which crept in, and there was more blatant error, which they did challenge.

Let's do it like a quadratic equation.
[Church] of God[Ground and pillar of the truth]
or Church of [God][Ground and pillar of truth]. It is the latter, because JESUS (God the Son) is the only one said to be "The Way, the Truth and the Life", as well as "the Rock". Saying either is the Church is to diminish Christ, and then at that, a church that constantly changed doctrine, and brought in error. We are His body, but still do not share all of His attributes. We are not God the Son (unless you are in Armstrongism or Mormonism). The comparison is to a man and bride (who become one flesh), but the man still has more authority. Of course, if the Church really has usurped all of Christ's titles, then I guess it is all justified, and they can create "truth" by fiat.

 

The conservative Reformers acknowledged that the early Church was correct on Sola Fide, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper:

 

Of course you are assuming, without proving, that Christ was speaking in "parabolic" language in this passage. The consensus of Christendom believed otherwise. At least you should produce some documentation that there were some otherwise orthodox believers who taught that Jesus was only speaking metaphorically here. Otherwise, you have to deal with the situation that after the apostles died there was no whimper of protest against the "heresy" of the Real Presence. This is significant as innovation was regarded as heresy, and the church fathers stressed the importance of maintaining the Apostolic Deposit. If the "metaphor-only" view of the Eucharist was part of this deposit, certainly somebody among the orthodox fathers would have defended that view and protested the allegedly novel Real Presence view. Yet, the only record in the early church of anyone denying the Real Presence is among the Docetist heretics who denied that Christ became an actual physical human being.

The Jews indeed understood Jesus to be talking literally, but not in the sense they thought. During the discourse, Christ actually spoke more and more literally as he used a different Greek word in v.54 meaning to "crunch" or "chew" and not simply to "eat" ("trogo" vs. "phago") as he did earlier. If they would have stuck around like the faithful disciples, those perplexed souls would have learned what He meant at the Last Supper when He pointed to the bread and wine, and said "This is my body and blood". Christ was to give Himself in the bread and wine, not in repeated acts of cannibalism. They would have learned as Paul did that the Lord's Supper was the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Instead, those who left couldn't trust Christ despite the fact that He had just multiplied the bread to feed the five thousand.

(Speaking of metaphors, there are many today who would reduce the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ--and indeed all Biblical miracles--to mere metaphors. Afterall, we are wiser today, aren't we?)

This is an oft repeated charge made by those who seek to explain why the early church held beliefs that contradict their modern interpretations Scripture.

Again you assume Ignatius spoke parabolically, but the historical context suggests otherwise. Also, the word "changed" used by Irenaeus and Justin Martyr does not alter the doctrine, but rather clarifies it. In much the same way, the word "consubstantial" in regards to the Son's relationship to the Father doesn't appear in Scripture, yet it clarifies apostolic truth in face of heretics who were using the same Scripture to deny the deity of Christ. The Arians and Semi-Arians greatly protested the use of the word "consubstantial" since it was not a biblical word (although most of the latter came around at the Council of Constantinople in 381). For that reason, should the Nicene creed then be held to be deviation from Apostolic Doctrine rather than clarification? Groups such as the Mormons and the JWs would say "yes".

Sure, God can restore. The question is did He have to do so. Did everyone in the Church fall away from the apostolic doctrine of the Eucharist after the apostles died? Or did the Church itself completely go into apostasy teaching what was contrary to the true gospel of Christ only to be later restored by God? The Mormons would say "yes" particularly to the latter question.

Changing from a symbolic-only interpretation of the Eucharist to the Real Presence view is not a "subtle" change. If such as change was made surely we should have evidence (other than begging the question by asserting that any practice conflicting with your interpretation counts as such evidence). Yet we have no record that this caused any controversy in the church, despite the facts that we do have evidence of false teachers (ie, those prophesied to creep in) having their views condemned by early Christians.

Do you honestly think that it's preferable to read a 16th century (Zwinglian) interpretation back into Scripture than to consider that early 2nd century authors were in perhaps a better position to know what was the correct interpretation, some of whom being personally taught by the Apostles (Ignatius and Polycarp, for example)?

Again this is something you have not proved without begging the question that your interpretation of Scripture is the standard by which you determine truth verses error.

Obviously the church is not identical with Christ/God, but being Christ's Body, "the fullness of Him Who fills all in all", the Church is intimately connected to Him. While the advent of false teachers were prophesied by apostles, Christ also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. In other words, despite the arrival of these false teachers, the true apostolic doctrine was to remain in the Church rather than to disappear completely for almost 1500 years before being restored by the "Reformers" with their mutually conflicting doctrines (let alone by Joseph Smith in the 1800s). Christ also promised that He would send the Holy Spirit Who would guide the Church into all truth. The Church is the "ground and pillar of truth" because it is the Body of the One who is the Truth. Just as you can't separate the Logos from the written Word, you can't separate Christ (the Truth) from His Church (the ground and pillar of truth) built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20). Neither can you separate Scripture from the Church. (And this does not diminish Christ one bit)

It could also be argued that the Protestant churches have created "truth" (or rather "truths", as they have mutually conflicting views) with their novel interpretations of Scripture.

 

And you're assuming that that "consensus" was correct. There micht statistically be a "good chance" they were, but we're talking about he World of God, and what you're doing is basically throwing out reading it on your own, but instead, "whatever the early Church said".

Nobody thought in terms of "metaphorically". People understood these things spiritually, but over time, the Church became more carnal minded and made idols out of the physical tokens themselves. So now, the bread and wine literally "turn into" the human flesh of Christ; the water used in baptism is what saves itself; and the leaders of the Church become infallible authorities. Such focus on physical items as the ends in themselves for spiritual realities is totally contrary to the message of what Jesus and the rest of the Bible stood for. So this is how we know they were understood metephorically. No, nobody used the word. It wasn't necessary until after over a millenium of virtual idolatry and works-salvation for people to coin the word. But it wasn't needed in the beginning. The burden would be more on you to show a scripture that says this is to be understood "literally"; or that the elements "turned into" the flesh. That way, God-breathed Scripture interprets Scripture, and we are not dependant on fallible men.

Once again, it so slowly crept in, and was not completely understood, so who would oppose it. We're talking over 100 years of development, and things like that do creep in. When I entered the Air Force, there was some class on how word of mouth gradually changes. They told one person something, and told him to pass it dow. By the time it got all the way around, it was totally different. Each person changes it a bit; puts it in their own words; edits, tries to clarify what they think it means. And this is in a few minutes. Now over a century, with several generations, people can say "The bread and wine are the flesh and blood". They pass it down. People decades later who don't understand the spiritual reality then take it literally. But then whenthey bought oor made the bread and wine, it was no dofferent from any other. So to xplain it, it must have changed. Now we have this mystical transformation that Christ did not even hint at. Then it develops into a whole doctrine, and ritual. It was all so slow, and gradual, that no one would oppose it. It's like the common illustration of boiling a frog in a pot. You don't throw him in when it's boiling; you put him in when it's cool, then gradually heat it up.
And there is documentation on the drastic change from the last apostles to the early fathers, in a eriod over which a "curtain" of "obscurity" hangs, as they put it; in which we have little writing. There may have been outcries then, but as 3 John says, the false teachers were getting the upper hand and expelling the true Christians and the writings of this period were lost.

And another point on that, is that if He was handing them bread and wine, and saying "this is my body; eat", yet He was till there in the flesh, then right there, he is not saying it was his actual flesh, unless He had two fleshes. These are the types of ways we can know what the right interpretation is, regardless of what anyone 100 or 1500 years later says.

And it is historical and scriptural (prophesied by the NT)truth, that people would misunderstand scripture (2 Pet. 2) and bring in Greek Philosophy.