# the tracing of Doctrine through history



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 29, 2008)

This is likely to take on a longer forum- so get ready! (course Im open to ideas about how better to post it all ) We all know the scriptures on each side of these issues that we could use. SO, Im dealing with the historical interpretations.

Im wanting to cover many areas- basically roman Catholicism, church history up to NICEA and or Augustine.

a) Mary
b) intercession of saints
c) primacy of Peter
d) apostolic succession
e) purgatory
f) Justification by faith and works, neither separated from the other.

Im sure ive still got plenty of reading to do, but I was told that reformed Christianity is historical Christianity of the early church.

please take no offense, but do consider something. I have read a few things against Rome, and to be honest it appears that the authors are looking at a particular sect or fringe group to condemn the whole yet the fringe groups beliefs are vastly different from the whole. (Like condemning all Christians because of Westboro baptist or disproving something because of westboro). Im only interested in contra works that cite the Nihil Obistat/Impirituir type deal- Catechism, Papal bulls, etc that way, we are not looking at a small sect, but the official whole.

Ive read a read one paper that asserted and attempted to prove that the Early church fahters beileved in Sola Fide. Id like to paste a different paper that attempts to prove the opposite.



> Salvation from the Perspective
> 
> of the Early Church Fathers
> 
> ...


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 29, 2008)

I guess, what im seeking to do is to prove that our interpretations are also consistent with the early churches interpretations..

Was it RC sproul who said that if your reading, come up with a interpretation that isnt found throughout history(that has conveniently skipped 2000 years) - you should probably reconsider.


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Aug 29, 2008)

(and yes, its been a while since i posted.. Needed to recover from Bob Jones)


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 6, 2008)

Jeff,

Can you identify the source of this article, and the particular background of its author? It sounds like he's writing against a "Reformed" point of view, but I can't tell whether he's coming from a Catholic, Orthodox, or possibly even some non-reformed branch of Protestantism. 

It appears from a bit of my own reading that the early church spoke of "salvation" as an entire process, beginning with rebirth (usually tied to baptism) and ending with complete holiness. Like this article said, they weren't hammering out precise definitions of particular terms or words. That being said, I don't see anything in any of his quotations that conflicts with Reformed soteriology--it may not be as precisely defined, but I do not see it conflicting. And, salvation _is_ a process, as it doesn't end with justification, but rather begins there. We are called to cooperate with God's grace, we are called to become holy, we are sanctified through the means of grace, and we do ultimately become holy and unable to sin (glorification). And many Reformed do believe the Bible teaches that there are real rewards for works done on earth, according to the grace given to us by God. What I don't see in these quotations is any indication that any work we do has any merit before God in terms of being able to stand in his presence and be counted righteous. 

So it bothers me a bit when he says "Or do we acknowledge a distinction present in the early Christian communities between our own works (works of the Law) that lead us to boast in ourselves, and the works of God in us built upon an interior conversion that can only lead to our boasting in God alone. To abandon that truth leads every early Christian writer to appear self-contradictory, it poses an apparent disharmony between Paul and James, and consequently leads to a Reformed view of justification."

This writer's understanding of the Reformed view of justification is sorely misguided--what he just described in the words leading up to what I underlined, and which he identifies as the position of the early church, _is_ the Reformed view of Justification. 

Thoughts?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 7, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> Im sure ive still got plenty of reading to do, but I was told that reformed Christianity is historical Christianity of the early church.



That's a bit like saying modern science is to be found in Aristotle. It just simply isn't true. The great problem was the obliteration of the Jewish Christians around AD70. Hence the church was predominantly Gentile from a Graeco-Roman background that didn't know Hebrew and thus wrestled to come to grips with how to understand Scripture. They brought their Graeo-Roman cultural presuppositions to Scripture, and little by little Scripture broke through. The last 2000 years of church history has seen the church hammer out it's beliefs little by little as she has come to grips with Scripture and put off alien cultural assumptions. We are the beneficiaries of 2000 years of thinking by some of the greatest minds God has given the church (Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Owen, etc.). Doctrine, whether we like it or not, has developed throughout church history.

Blessings MP.


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Hence the church was predominantly Gentile from a Graeco-Roman background that didn't know Hebrew and thus wrestled to come to grips with how to understand Scripture. They brought their Graeco-Roman cultural presuppositions to Scripture, and little by little Scripture broke through.



I think this is an excellent point, and one that must be kept in mind as we look at any doctrine historically. I think anyone who reads Scripture will bring their cultural presuppositions to the interpretation, and usually without ever realizing it. The loss of a Jewish-Christian influence on interpretation, and _very_ early in history, must have had enormous consequences--if nothing else, it was the loss of a viewpoint that may have reined in the Greek way of thinking, or balanced it. 

I read somewhere recently (an Orthodox website, I think) that when we look at a doctrine or an interpretation, we must ask ourselves, "Does this align with what the church has believed for 2,000 years?" I think we need to ask, "Does this align with what the church has believed for _5,000_ years?" The church, as God's people, began with Adam, not Clement of Rome. When we look at some of the doctrines that became accepted in Christian history that we as Reformed reject, like prayer to saints, Marian dogmas, etc., I think we see that they represent an enormous departure from the stream of Biblical doctrine that runs throughout the entire O.T. and is unchanged in the N.T. 

One of the reasons I've pitched my tent in the Reformed camp is the study of Biblical Theology. It finds the contours of belief that run throughout the entirety of Scripture--God's sovereignty over all things, man's responsibility to obey God with real reward and consequence, and of course the covenants. I have found nothing else, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Arminian, etc. that simply makes _so much sense_ and jives so well with what we read in Scripture. 

So I wonder how much of a unifying view the Fathers themselves had when they wrote epistles and books, and created theology in the early church? 

I'm looking forward to this whole subject being discussed more, probably as a collection of threads. Time to find the "subscribe" button!


----------



## CharlieJ (Sep 7, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> That's a bit like saying modern science is to be found in Aristotle. It just simply isn't true. The great problem was the obliteration of the Jewish Christians around AD70. Hence the church was predominantly Gentile from a Graeco-Roman background that didn't know Hebrew and thus wrestled to come to grips with how to understand Scripture. They brought their Graeo-Roman cultural presuppositions to Scripture, and little by little Scripture broke through.



That's interesting. This is the exact same line of logic I've heard used to support Dispensationalism. The idea being that, first, the Jews of the early church era were believers in a future millennial kingdom, and second, that Augustine messed everything up with his Greek philosophy.

This idea is pushed heavily by a lot of Jewish evangelism groups (Friends of Israel, Shalom Ministries) and by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, author of _Israelology_.

It's interesting how we can acknowledge the same statement and get to completely different conclusions. Is it also possible that the church needed to shed some Jewish baggage as well?


----------



## sotzo (Sep 7, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> That's interesting. This is the exact same line of logic I've heard used to support Dispensationalism. The idea being that, first, the Jews of the early church era were believers in a future millennial kingdom, and second, that Augustine messed everything up with his Greek philosophy.
> 
> This idea is pushed heavily by a lot of Jewish evangelism groups (Friends of Israel, Shalom Ministries) and by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, author of _Israelology_.
> 
> It's interesting how we can acknowledge the same statement and get to completely different conclusions. Is it also possible that the church needed to shed some Jewish baggage as well?



Hard to see how anyone can reasonably come away from that observation with dispensationalism. There is a worlds apart difference in saying God is working with the church on separate tracks (Jews / Gentiles) versus the simple observation that presuppositions influence scripture. To be fair, I haven't read him, but it seems all that Fruchtenbaum is doing is putting another presupposition onto scripture thus proving the point that we all have them. 

I think your point about shedding Jewish baggage is interesting. Paul certainly aimed to shed Jewish baggage in Galatia and elsewhere. The early church diaspora also caused this bit of Jewish "shedding". But I think that is different from the need to shed all other cultural points of view (such as Greco Roman) because the NT writings "grew up" doing this shedding and we can see the inspired writers doing so. It is much more difficult, in my opinion, to know where systems such as Platonism self-distruct as systems of biblical interpretation. The reason this is difficult is we have few biblical examples of how the inspired writers dealt with such presuppositions, whereas per above we have many for the Jewish presupps. This is not to say we are dead in the water, because we still have church history to glean from on how these non-Jewish presupps were handled...just not as good as having a biblical model. 

As a side note, I guess that's why some feel safety in Rome...because parts of church history are on par with scripture and therefore, we have more infallible sources to glean from.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 7, 2008)

Something along this line has been said already by JohnOwen007, but it seems to me that going into this study, one should possess a rational historiography.

And I really liked the statement by wturri78 that spoke of a "church history that goes back 5,000 years" as opposed to a mere 2,000.

We need to comprehend the biblical religion as it sits in the midst of history, understanding that the church being the historical "face" of that religion, it has got the weatherbeaten look to go with it. Once situated, and once one realizes that the DNA of the church is written in the Bible (and is not, indeed cannot be found in the historical process), one is then in a good position to start *evaluating* church history.

The study of our doctrine is like the study of one man's intellectual development. When he's 1.5 yrs old, he likely to think a great many true things, mixed with a lot of false ideas. He thinks much clearer when he's 15. And hopefully clearer still at 51. But the issues he's dealing with at 51 are not the same as that which was vital to his survival at age 15.

With those things in mind, why not take advantage of the efforts of many people who have made these studies in the past. Use a work like William Cunningham's _Historical Theology_ to read how the church in the NT age, in her moments of learning and crisis, gets to grips with what the Bible has to teach about vital religion. See then how she contended for the truth in the various ages. See her at her best and worst.

But don't be romantic about her past; be realistic.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Sep 7, 2008)

See also, Reinhold Seeberg, _Text-book of the History of Doctrines_, Transl. by C. E. Hay (Baker Book House, 2nd printing 1978) ISBN 0801081068.


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 8, 2008)

*But "where are the controversies?"*

First, thanks to all for the book recommendations. I've been grinding my way through J.N.D. Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrine" for about two years, on and off. Great book.

I was recently asked by a Greek Orthodox priest, "Where are the controversies in early church history?" His point was, if things like prayer to saints, Eucharist as a sacrifice, use of images in worship, etc. arose over time and were in conflict with what was taught by the apostles and earliest fathers, where were the dissenters? Where were the voices of reason who cried foul and raised the alarm that unbiblical, unorthodox ideas were being spread throughout the church? Heresies like Arianism, Donatism, etc. drew the attention of the universal church, but things that Protestants reject as "unbiblical" weren't objected to.

Kelly's book doesn't make mention of controversies over those kinds of matters...at least I don't recall any. Is this guy right? Or were there those who stood up to say "Hey, we can't pray to saints, where'd you get that idea?"


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 8, 2008)

wturri78 said:


> I was recently asked by a Greek Orthodox priest, "Where are the controversies in early church history?" His point was, if things like prayer to saints, Eucharist as a sacrifice, use of images in worship, etc. arose over time and were in conflict with what was taught by the apostles and earliest fathers, where were the dissenters? Where were the voices of reason who cried foul and raised the alarm that unbiblical, unorthodox ideas were being spread throughout the church? Heresies like Arianism, Donatism, etc. drew the attention of the universal church, but things that Protestants reject as "unbiblical" weren't objected to.
> 
> Kelly's book doesn't make mention of controversies over those kinds of matters...at least I don't recall any. Is this guy right? Or were there those who stood up to say "Hey, we can't pray to saints, where'd you get that idea?"



Several things need to be said about this. Firstly, it is an argument from silence: We don't hear of it, therefore it wasn't a problem. On that logic we could argue that the whole church was speaking in tongues because no-one made objections to it. (I've heard people actually say this!).

Secondly, when it comes to say the doctrine of the sacraments, we do see development (in a bad direction) in what is said. The first explicit mention of something akin to Eucharistic Sacrifice (and this is still inchoate) is in Cyprian (around the 250 mark). When we look at the early writings prior to 250AD we don't find any hint that Christ is being offered up again in the bread and the wine, which is strange, because if it was so important why was it not mentioned to catechumans etc.

Thirdly, as we trace say the doctrine of Chrismation (the Orthodox version of confirmation), we find a variety of interpretations; there is no uniformity. If Chrismation was so critical why was there such variety of opinion--something Kelly shows well.

Fourthly, there weren't debates about the Eucharist (for example) because the other debates were so large and consuming. However, the debates did begin to arise in the early medieval period. For example, in the 800s Ratramnus argued against Radbertus that the bread and the wine are not the body and blood of Christ essentially. Indeed, Ratramnus was personal friends with Charles the Bald, who had friends in high ecclesiastical places, and we find no condemnation of Ratramnus. The same debate occurred again in the 1000s with Berengar (who denied the real presence). However, by this time he got severely persecuted for this position (no doubt because of the rise of a new theology of the papacy and concomitant centralizing of the church). In other words, by the early middle ages when creation, Trinity, and Christology had been largely nailed down, these guys had the time and luxury to began to discuss issues that were generally left alone.

Every blessing brother.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 9, 2008)

DTK put this up once, and I reproduce it here:


> *Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): *Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ´s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. NPNF2: Vol. VI, The Letters of St. Jerome, Letter 51 - From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, In Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, Â§9.



The idea that the church had no controversy over this is also ridiculous. The powers had to convene an ecumenical council to overturn the results of a previous ecumenical council called by Constantine V in 754: Council of Hieria (which ecumenicity is denied by the idolaters so as to legitimize their own practice) that had ruled icons/idols out of conformity with Christian practice.

The idolaters won the day at Nicaea II (787), claiming (among other things) that since there were no "patriarchs" present or their deputies, that this council was just void. Don't even have to answer those arguments--just sweep the whole thing under a rug.

The iconoclast/iconodule controversy is a matter of historical record.


----------



## ww (Sep 9, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> (and yes, its been a while since i posted.. Needed to recover from Bob Jones)



People recover from Bob Jones?


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 13, 2008)

A more specific question...following on JohnOwen007's comment in earlier about the Jewish Christian influence waning quickly after 70 A.D...

I've read and heard in numerous places that many of the early church fathers didn't have any great love for Jews. I recently read that Chrysostom had "a streak of virulent anti-semitism." I've also heard things to the effect that some in the early church felt a need to basically liberate Christianity from its Jewish roots and to bring it to full expression through Graeco-Roman philosophy, language and culture. Is there an element of truth to that? Is it entirely true? 

One thing I've really enjoyed learning about is biblical theology. The themes and trends that flow throughout all of Scripture really present a coherent model that would seem to preclude any radical innovations. In that model, things like the sudden use of images in worship, or prayers to/for the dead, seem to stick out like sore thumbs. I can't see how anyone familiar with the themes from OT to NT could fail to see those with at least a certain degree of skepticism. A lack of OT knowledge, Jewish history, and certainly a disdain for those things would seem to be a good explanation.

Anyone care to shed some light on this aspect of history?


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

whitway said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > (and yes, its been a while since i posted.. Needed to recover from Bob Jones)
> ...



Only if you escape the mandatory lobotomy.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Sorry, I have met 3 very sharp people from Bob Jones. Bob Jones, does seem to have vigorous courses in some areas. Although 2 of these 3 people from Bob Jones werre a bit "stiff" and adhered too many rules on lifestyle issues. So, Bob JOnes seemslike a good place foracademics...It is just all that extra stuff that you didn't pay for that gets them a bad rep.


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 13, 2008)

Bob Jonesers might spell better than me too!


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 13, 2008)

whitway said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > (and yes, its been a while since i posted.. Needed to recover from Bob Jones)
> ...



yes, they do


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 13, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Sorry, I have met 3 very sharp people from Bob Jones. Bob Jones, does seem to have vigorous courses in some areas. Although 2 of these 3 people from Bob Jones werre a bit "stiff" and adhered too many rules on lifestyle issues. So, Bob JOnes seemslike a good place foracademics...It is just all that extra stuff that you didn't pay for that gets them a bad rep.



academics were fine.. no issues there- just everything else


----------



## ModernPuritan? (Sep 13, 2008)

wturri78 said:


> A more specific question...following on JohnOwen007's comment in earlier about the Jewish Christian influence waning quickly after 70 A.D...
> 
> I've read and heard in numerous places that many of the early church fathers didn't have any great love for Jews. I recently read that Chrysostom had "a streak of virulent anti-semitism." I've also heard things to the effect that some in the early church felt a need to basically liberate Christianity from its Jewish roots and to bring it to full expression through Graeco-Roman philosophy, language and culture. Is there an element of truth to that? Is it entirely true?
> 
> ...



while one can assert that the early church fathers were heavily influenced by their pre saved mindsets, or whatnot

my questions would be
1) WHAT FORMER SINFUL , PAGAN MINDSET ARE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS or the REFORMERS interpretations influenced by- WHAT were you before Christ saved you? (emphisis mine) maybe i should reject every Pbers interpretation because they were previous sinners before Christ saved them.
2) If i should reject the early churches interpretations on things- because of their previous lifes isnt that a double standard? CAN NOT GOD, change a person?? CAN NOT GOD, Guide the christian in to truth? (emphasis mine) God can change our lifes, and give us the correct illumination- but ohh no, dont ever think he can do the same for the Early Church Fathers
3) perhaps some ECFs did have a week OT knowledge- some appeared to have a very good Knowledge of it. Oriegen, Martyr maybe?
4) basically, i dont see discrediting their beliefs because of pre saved life as valid. I believe God can save a flagrant homosexual and turn them into a preacher in the free church of Scotland.
5) when Christ promised to build his church and that Hell would not over come it- is it a stretch to apply that yo doctrinal purity also? that God would protect the church from error? if its not a stretch- then why does the whole of history seem to point to God protecting catholic Dogma? If catholic Dogma is gross error- why has God protected it for atleast 1800 years?

--- no im not looking for an excuse to become RCC just sorting some mental quandrys out----


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 13, 2008)

ModernPuritan? said:


> while one can assert that the early church fathers were heavily influenced by their pre saved mindsets, or whatnot
> 
> my questions would be
> 1) WHAT FORMER SINFUL , PAGAN MINDSET ARE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS or the REFORMERS interpretations influenced by- WHAT were you before Christ saved you? (emphisis mine) maybe i should reject every Pbers interpretation because they were previous sinners before Christ saved them.
> ...



Whoa...back up the truck!  Nobody here is discrediting or attacking the early church fathers (ECF's for short now). I stated only what I've read, and some general themes I've picked up on in various readings (which I'll admit, have not often been of the ECFs themselves). Here's my take on the matter in light of your comments:

1) Some (usually Protestants who don't know what to make of church history, or liberals looking to trash the reputation of the church) immediately do discredit the ECFs, saying that "they used to be pagans so you can't trust their interpretations," or "they hated Jews," or "they hated women," or whatever. Some just seem to think that because they wrote thousands of years ago, they must be primitive and backward. Obviously that approach doesn't carry any credibility.

2) Others go to the opposite extreme and romanticize the ECFs, and take the view that if it was believed by someone that early, it must absolutely have been true. I know some Catholics and have read some eastern orthodox (EO) articles who take that approach, and it's usually coupled with a fairly firm belief that all the ECFs agreed on pretty much everything, and that their doctrines have been handed down for 2,000 years unchanged. This seems romantic and naieve...

3) Of course _every_ individual is going to interpret pretty much _everything_ in light of his or her own culture, background, proclivities, and so forth. Part of the reason I try to read various interpretations of Scripture, history or whatever is that I'm very aware that I tend to approach everything very analytically, and to treat everything like it's a math problem or science project. I have a 21st century American culture that's pretty well ingrained in me. 

4) I'm aware that just as we must carefully examine Scripture in light of its historical, etc. contexts, we must approach the writings of the ECFs in the same way. If I pull out a letter written by some 3rd century bishop from Antioch and try to read him like he's a 21st century American, I'm bound to miss the boat. 

The point of my last post was not to attack the ECFs but to understand the reasons why they didn't cry foul to doctrines that we Reformed would consider obviously unscriptural. For example, _if_ prayer to/through Mary and the saints is incompatible with the biblical witness, and _if_ that practice arose and spread very early in the church, then _why_ didn't someone flag it as unorthodox?

As to your last point, could you please more clearly define what you mean by "catholic dogma?" Do you mean Roman Catholic? History points to all sorts of dogmas being preserved through the ages. Heck, visit your local bookstore for shelves filled with Gnostic "gospels."


----------



## wturri78 (Sep 17, 2008)

This thread just went _bump_ in the night!


----------



## Davidius (Sep 17, 2008)

I think his last question is quite simple. Does Protestantism rely on the notion that the gates of hell _did_ prevail against the Church sometime during the Middle Ages? Is so, does that make Christ a liar? If not, do we avoid this conclusion by defining the Church as something other than a visible institution founded by Christ and, after him, the apostles and those to whom they bestowed their authority (in other words, is our Protestant formulation of the "invisible/mystical Church" something we needed to justify the validity of our break with Rome?), or do we assert that such a literal interpretation of Christ's words is invalid? If the latter, what did Christ mean when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church? If the former, how does that idea of the Church square with the rest of the teaching on what the Church _is_ throughout scripture and ecclesiastical history? The Roman Catholics argue that Christ founded a visible organization which continues via apostolic succession, and they therefore argue from this passage that they cannot have become corrupt in the way Protestants assert (i.e. they admit the reality of past abuses of authority and clerical immorality, but deny that it is possible for them to develop impure doctrine or sacraments, hence the doctrine of magisterial infallibility pertaining to the college of bishops gathered in ecumenical council, and from there papal infallibility when this is combined with supposed Petrine primacy), because such would imply that Christ was wrong when he said that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the Church.


----------



## kalawine (Sep 17, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> ModernPuritan? said:
> 
> 
> > Im sure ive still got plenty of reading to do, but I was told that reformed Christianity is historical Christianity of the early church.
> ...



 Yes... when I left the Charismatic movement I wanted to go back as far as possible to discover the true doctrine of the early Church so I could get "back on track." I've studied Church history for a few years (I'm by no means an expert) and I finally came to see that the early Church Fathers were (as someone has put it - I think it was Dr. Gerald Bray) the "early Church babies." They would have loved to know what we know now.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 17, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I think his last question is quite simple. Does Protestantism rely on the notion that the gates of hell _did_ prevail against the Church sometime during the Middle Ages? Is so, does that make Christ a liar? If not, do we avoid this conclusion by defining the Church as something other than a visible institution founded by Christ and, after him, the apostles and those to whom they bestowed their authority (in other words, is our Protestant formulation of the "invisible/mystical Church" something we needed to justify the validity of our break with Rome?), or do we assert that such a literal interpretation of Christ's words is invalid? If the latter, what did Christ mean when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church? If the former, how does that idea of the Church square with the rest of the teaching on what the Church _is_ throughout scripture and ecclesiastical history? The Roman Catholics argue that Christ founded a visible organization which continues via apostolic succession, and they therefore argue from this passage that they cannot have become corrupt in the way Protestants assert (i.e. they admit the reality of past abuses of authority and clerical immorality, but deny that it is possible for them to develop impure doctrine or sacraments, hence the doctrine of magisterial infallibility pertaining to the college of bishops gathered in ecumenical council, and from there papal infallibility when this is combined with supposed Petrine primacy), because such would imply that Christ was wrong when he said that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the Church.



Isn't there another question that's a necessary preliminary to this one? Did the gates of hell prevail against the Church when Christ spued the Laodiceans out of His mouth? (Or take any instance in church history of the destruction of a given congregation.)


----------

