# How did the (catholic) church go so wrong so fast?



## Aaron637 (Mar 22, 2015)

Hi all,

Ive been debating with a Catholic over the past few weeks and ive learnt some more things about Catholicism. What has stood out to me though is the lack of doctrinal clarity of the church Fathers. How did they go so wrong so quickly - 300-400 years of truth then darkness. It seems though that even the first fathers believed things that seem strange to protestants like me. 

Im far from informed on the subject. Ive read some of the fathers and also am reading R A Wylie on catholicism and the history of protestantism. I know catholic theology well enough to argue against it. But the best rebuttal my friend gave is the appeal to the fathers. Saying the disciples of the disciples should know and teach what the apostles taught. I realize this has been discussed before - but i raise it again so that i can ask questions. 

I don't know - you would think the primitive church would last at least a few generations. Is there a place to go that sums up systematically what the fathers taught with quotes (in context). I prefer to read original source documents but a guide would help. I do think it sucks that sola fide was developed clearly only in the reformation. Pre that it seems only Paul taught it in Romans. 

I just think it sucks the truth has been maligned so much (especially during the dark ages). That anyone comes to true faith in this medley of confusion is a miraculous work of grace. 

Its like there is no point in arguing with catholics - but for gods grace they are swallowed up in catholic dogma. To me from a secular mindset catholicism makes sense (due to claims of the fathers). While my experience of God and his Spirit gives me confidence in the protestant understanding of the gospel. Its just a hard situation.

Most protestants dont even know what the RCC teaches nor cares. But i do wonder. I do ask. "What if i was born a Catholic?...how would i know truth?". Would i be damned? I conclude yes due to the distortion of the gospel in the RCC. Others refuse to make the distinction. At this point my head starts spinning and i feel like descending into full blown skepticism (but for my experiences with God i probably would). The path is truley hard and narrow. So many truth claims by various sects in Christianity. "What is truth?" As pilot said. Considering your doctrine will save or damn you it kind of matters. Jesus is that truth but there are so many versions. But for my relationship with him how can anyone be sure? So many truth claims seem to be so weak and poorly founded. Both catholics and protestantism can use really bad logic and references when arguing. That said where is the best resource for information on catholics (that catholics would read and readily agree that it doesn't misrepresent their position).

I guess my main inquiry is an impartial summary of the fathers. Also why are they wrong (when they deviate from protestant belief)? 

On my phone - please excuse spelling or typos


----------



## joebonni63 (Mar 22, 2015)

I have been on this topic as well like how do justify being free will and amill at the same time it does not work. it's funny that so many christian denoms are so far away from the truth but catholics are the closest to being reformed out of all the denoms. yet they need a total revamp and a new look at the actual gospel. they are changing due to the fact that they have bible studies now and after all these years now catholics are asking questions why?????? and the priest have to change. good news there have been more changes in our life time then ever before.......


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 22, 2015)

Part of the problem with the implementation of "Free will" is that much of society accepted Fatalism, so it's not surprising to see that the Fathers preached free will when they were trying to uphold moral agency.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2015)

It all depends on what we mean. I'm not sure I accept the thesis that the whole church from 450-1517 went wrong fast. Sure there was a lot of confusion over a lot of things (as in our day) and the solidification of pastoral practices into conscience-binding doctrines (as in our day) and a lot of syncretism (as in our day) but none of that means that the Gospel was lost, by any means.

What we have to remember is that when the Western Roman Empire fell, the church became the only stable institution in many areas. Further, the so-called "dark ages" became one of the great missionary ages of the church. Men like Patrick, Columba, Cyril and Methodius, and Augustine of Canterbury evangelized the unreached "barbarians" of the time with the Gospel. Naturally, there were a lot of problems, but I see a lot of the same problems in current missionary efforts. There really is nothing new under the sun.

Theologically, scholars are beginning to realize that much of reformational theology had a radical continuity with medieval theology. Carl Trueman's historical work is largely about showing how the later reformers looked back to Scholasticism and pulled themes from it into their own theological reflection. Where would the reformation have been without Anselm's satisfaction theory? Where would Calvin be without Thomas Aquinas' defence of election? Yes, a lot of stuff got muddled during the Middle Ages, but it's not as if the Reformation came suddenly from nowhere with something that had been completely lost.


----------



## Miss Marple (Mar 22, 2015)

Improper church government?


----------



## lynnie (Mar 22, 2015)

Things were bad in Corinth and Antioch when Paul wrote to them. Jesus wrote to seven churches and five had major problems. It started early...false apostles, false prophets, legalism, immorality, etc. Whatever you label as the cause, it was happening when the NT was written.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2015)

Aaron637 said:


> That said where is the best resource for information on catholics (that catholics would read and readily agree that it doesn't misrepresent their position).



_The Catechism of the Catholic Church._


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 22, 2015)

Read this for free. It may answer a great many of your questions.
Historical Theology by William Cunningham | Monergism


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 22, 2015)

Aaron637 said:


> I don't know - you would think the primitive church would last at least a few generations. Is there a place to go that sums up systematically what the fathers taught with quotes (in context).



Suggestions:

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Vols. 1-3: William Webster, David T. King - Christianbook.com

Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism: R.C. Sproul: 9781567692822: Amazon.com: Books

https://archive.org/details/papalismtreatise00dennrich


----------



## py3ak (Mar 22, 2015)

The Reformers and Puritans would point you to 2 Thessalonians 2, I think. Already in Paul's day the mystery of iniquity was at work, and a great apostasy was predicted. It is very clear in the New Testament that there were false teachers in the churches from very early on (there are clear references for instance in Galatians, Romans, 2 Peter, 1 & 2 John & Acts).

Thomas Manton's 18 Sermons on 2 Thessalonians 2 would be a good place to consult, perhaps especially sermons 3 and 5.

That said, it is also true that light and truth were not so wholly obscured as some would maintain. Of course the church was full of dangerous and destructive errors, but that is still true.


----------



## joebonni63 (Mar 24, 2015)

The first church was close to reformed theology as Paul has written to testify. As was said then came opinion and change and then Jesus has to write too them. Rome trying to save its backside converts it's government to Christianity and declares Peter there first pope. That's the second wrong first was accepting the sun god to make people happy. So bad starts make the ball roll wrong. Now today they are changing slowly and it could still go the wrong way but let's pray that it goes right. Change is good but in our faith it has to line up with scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcus417 (Mar 24, 2015)

Philip said:


> It all depends on what we mean. I'm not sure I accept the thesis that the whole church from 450-1517 went wrong fast. Sure there was a lot of confusion over a lot of things (as in our day) and the solidification of pastoral practices into conscience-binding doctrines (as in our day) and a lot of syncretism (as in our day) but none of that means that the Gospel was lost, by any means.
> 
> What we have to remember is that when the Western Roman Empire fell, the church became the only stable institution in many areas. Further, the so-called "dark ages" became one of the great missionary ages of the church. Men like Patrick, Columba, Cyril and Methodius, and Augustine of Canterbury evangelized the unreached "barbarians" of the time with the Gospel. Naturally, there were a lot of problems, but I see a lot of the same problems in current missionary efforts. There really is nothing new under the sun.
> 
> Theologically, scholars are beginning to realize that much of reformational theology had a radical continuity with medieval theology. Carl Trueman's historical work is largely about showing how the later reformers looked back to Scholasticism and pulled themes from it into their own theological reflection. Where would the reformation have been without Anselm's satisfaction theory? Where would Calvin be without Thomas Aquinas' defence of election? Yes, a lot of stuff got muddled during the Middle Ages, but it's not as if the Reformation came suddenly from nowhere with something that had been completely lost.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 24, 2015)

Philip said:


> It all depends on what we mean. I'm not sure I accept the thesis that the whole church from 450-1517 went wrong fast. Sure there was a lot of confusion over a lot of things (as in our day) and the solidification of pastoral practices into conscience-binding doctrines (as in our day) and a lot of syncretism (as in our day) but none of that means that the Gospel was lost, by any means.
> 
> What we have to remember is that when the Western Roman Empire fell, the church became the only stable institution in many areas. Further, the so-called "dark ages" became one of the great missionary ages of the church. Men like Patrick, Columba, Cyril and Methodius, and Augustine of Canterbury evangelized the unreached "barbarians" of the time with the Gospel. Naturally, there were a lot of problems, but I see a lot of the same problems in current missionary efforts. There really is nothing new under the sun.
> 
> Theologically, scholars are beginning to realize that much of reformational theology had a radical continuity with medieval theology. Carl Trueman's historical work is largely about showing how the later reformers looked back to Scholasticism and pulled themes from it into their own theological reflection. Where would the reformation have been without Anselm's satisfaction theory? Where would Calvin be without Thomas Aquinas' defence of election? Yes, a lot of stuff got muddled during the Middle Ages, but it's not as if the Reformation came suddenly from nowhere with something that had been completely lost.



I also wouldn't agree with the "going so wrong so fast" idea either. The issues are more complex then that, and there were quite a few Medieval theologians who proclaimed the gospel.


----------



## MichaelNZ (Mar 25, 2015)

Matt Slick has a list of Early Church Fathers quotes on his website: https://carm.org/intro-ecf . Philip Schaff published a lot of writings by the Early Church Fathers. You can read online at ccel.org (just look under Authors, S for Schaff.

There is no "unanimous consent of the Fathers" as the papists will try and tell you. The Fathers opposed each other on various points and also opposed certain doctrines that Romanism now teaches. Augustine, for example, taught that the bread and wine in Communion were a resemblance of the body and blood of Christ.

I personally suspect that the Roman church started to go off the rails after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Because it was politically advantageous to be a Christian, many false converts probably entered the church and brought their pagan practices with them. For instance, pagans had gods of various areas of life. It's possible that these "gods" were transformed into "patron saints", of whom there are for various areas of life. But this is all just speculation - I'm not a church historian.


----------



## aadebayo (Mar 25, 2015)

MichaelNZ said:


> Matt Slick has a list of Early Church Fathers quotes on his website: https://carm.org/intro-ecf . Philip Schaff published a lot of writings by the Early Church Fathers. You can read online at ccel.org (just look under Authors, S for Schaff.
> 
> There is no "unanimous consent of the Fathers" as the papists will try and tell you. The Fathers opposed each other on various points and also opposed certain doctrines that Romanism now teaches. Augustine, for example, taught that the bread and wine in Communion were a resemblance of the body and blood of Christ.
> 
> I personally suspect that the Roman church started to go off the rails after Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. Because it was politically advantageous to be a Christian, many false converts probably entered the church and brought their pagan practices with them. For instance, pagans had gods of various areas of life. It's possible that these "gods" were transformed into "patron saints", of whom there are for various areas of life. But this is all just speculation - I'm not a church historian.



I agree with this view. Africa is w very good example of mixing paganism with Christianity. Majority of Christianity in Africa is a combination of African traditional religion with a thin layer of Evangelical Christianity.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 25, 2015)

MichaelNZ said:


> For instance, pagans had gods of various areas of life. It's possible that these "gods" were transformed into "patron saints", of whom there are for various areas of life. But this is all just speculation - I'm not a church historian.



I suggest reading the church historian Socrates on the Donatist controversy. After the greatest persecution (via Diocletian) there were a group of people who were pretty much worshiped called the "confessors". Also, there was martyr worship after this persecution. Socrates talks about a wealthy, influential woman who was (in his opinion) one of the co-conspirators who started the Donatist controversy. He tells us that during this time martyr worship was a big deal in North Africa, and in one instance refers to this woman kissing the bone of a martyr before she partook of the Lord's Supper. Well, she was rebuked by one of the deacons at the time and she didn't like that very much.

Anyway, this martyr worship carried on and made a different "classification" for Christians in the early church. This idea might have also contributed to the "sainthood" of these specific people.


----------



## Aaron637 (Mar 27, 2015)

Thanks guys i'll read further.


----------

