It's interesting that Schaff says earlier in the same volume this:
_____________________________
In the controversy on heretical baptism, Cyprian carried out the principle of exclusiveness even more consistently than the Roman church. For he entirely rejected such baptism, while Stephen held it valid, and thus had to concede, in strict consistency, the possibility of regeneration, and hence of salvation, outside the Catholic church. Here is a point where even the Roman system, generally so consistent, has a loophole of liberality, and practically gives up her theoretical principle of exclusiveness. But in carrying out this principle, even in persistent opposition to the pope, in whom he saw the successor of Peter and the visible centre of unity, Cyprian plainly denied the supremacy of Roman jurisdiction and the existence of an infallible tribunal for the settlement of doctrinal controversies and protested against identifying the church in general with the church of Rome. And if he had the right of such protest in favor of strict exclusiveness, should not the Greek church, and above all the Evangelical, much rather have the right of protest against the Roman exclusiveness, and in favor of a more free and comprehensive conception of the church?
We may freely acknowledge the profound and beautiful truth at the bottom of this old catholic doctrine of the church, and the historical importance of it for that period of persecution, as well as for the great missionary work among the barbarians of the middle ages; but we cannot ignore the fact that the doctrine rested in part on a fallacy, which, in course of time, after the union of the church with the state, or, in other words, with the world, became more and more glaring, and provoked an internal protest of ever-growing force. It blindly identified the spiritual unity of the church with unity of organization, insisted on outward uniformity at the expense of free development, and confounded the faulty empirical church, or a temporary phase of the development of Christianity, with the ideal and eternal kingdom of Christ, which will not be perfect in its manifestation until the glorious second coming of its Head. The Scriptural principle "Out of Christ there is no salvation," was contracted and restricted to the Cyprianic principle: "Out of the (visible) church there is no salvation;" and from this there was only one step to the fundamental error of Romanism: "Out of the Roman Church there is no salvation."
No effort after outward unity could prevent the distinction of all Oriental and Occidental church from showing itself at this early period, in language, customs, and theology; a distinction which afterwards led to a schism to this day unhealed.
_____________________________
-more-
-cont-
And it is odd: reformed Protestantism doesn't quite relegate the church to nothing at all, does it Dave? For example, in the LBCF -- which is far more non-conformist that its Presbyterian counterpart the WCF -- says this about the church:
_____________________________
1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
3. The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner [a section to which Dave would find offense has been elipsed for the sake of blogospheric peace].
5. In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.
_______________________________
We could dump more text in here, but the section is easily found here:
http://www.ebcfl.org/about_us/co...ssion/
lb_26.htm
-more-
-cont-
And better still is the WCF (if a Baptist can be allowed to say such a thing):
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/w...s/
wcf_lbcf.html
From Chapter XXV:
1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.
3. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.
4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.
[Article 5 has language Dave would find offensive, and since it's not the words of God but a confession, I have left it off]
So in these confessions, let's remember something: Protestantism is not something which is trying to shuck off the church or make it something negotiable or of secondary importance. It is trying to establish what even Cyprian believed to be the right of Christians to have: in Schaff's words, a "more free and comprehensive conception of the church".
-finis-
Schaff, typical of Protestant opponents of the Church, dealt in Straw Men, miscasting what the Church actually teaches about Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Also typically Protestant is the way he conventiently latched onto St. Cyprian when he says or does things that agree with, or can be made to agree with, Protestantism while ignoring or downplaying all that he said and did that was Catholic and irreconcilable with Protestantism. Thus, Schaff found himself in agreement with St. Stephen on baptism and in agreement with St. Cyprian on dissent from the teachings of the Pope, but in his polemics thinly disguised as history, Schaff used St. Stephen's teachings on baptism to try to punch a hole in the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation, and used St. Cyprian's opinions to try to punch a hole in the doctrines of Papal Primacy and the obligation of all Christians to maintain communion with the Holy See. In fact St. Cyprian could neither know nor care what Protestant opinions on ecclesiology might be more than 1,300 years later. But at least we see the irony of how the error of his strict and limited conception of baptismal validity, and the accompanying strict and limited conception of the Church that he had, resulted in his having to maintain a more free and comprehensive conception of the Church -- logical and doctrinal inconsistency, of course, goes hand in hand with doctrinal error.
Jordan:
Is it fair to say that you find the disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen as somewhat meaningless?
It would be nice to try and rewrite this page so that you editor might accept it. I think it is a huge issue that Sola Fide and Sola Scriptora were, in fact, new doctrines. These quotes basically concede that point without contemplating how significant that is. Not ony did St Augustine miss the pillars of the reformation but so did St Francis of Assisi, St Thomas Aquina, and the list goes on and on. You need to read some history and really understand who these people were. How passionately they studied the scriptures. How boldly they proclaimed their insights. A protestant can be left really confused at why the Holy Spirit never led any of them to these 'truth'. Instead He led these great christians to powerfully endorse doctrines which contradict Sola Scriptora and Sola Fide.
I can see how this does not fit easily into the "One Minute Aologist". It does take some research before people are really convinced. Still it is a big part of many conversion stories. It is hard to leave it out. For me, protestant-catholic debates on the ECF's were important. Often the scope of the debate was very revealing. They would argue over wether one father taught one point of protestantism. Even with such a modest goal they often failed. Chesterton's comments about the democracy of the dead were very helpful. The bible, faith, and the Holy Spirit don't produce protestants unless you also expose them to protestant tradition.
Randy:
Well, except for Tyndale, right? And Luther and Calvin and Zwingli? 
That is the point. That the early reformers were almost unique in their ability to find this in scripture on their own. I would grant that Luther did and was very convincing in presenting his argument to others. The point is that that is the pattern of a heresy. It starts with one charismatic leader and grows only as people are trained to read the scriptures as he read them. The pattern of a true, natural interpretation should see many people arriving at the same conclusions independently. In fact, with questions so central to the faith, you would expect them to be taught early and often if there were really clear from scripture.
Dave,
Your article here is a good example of what you accused me of many times, something like, “Ken, you bring up too many things in one post”, “so many things, too many things in one post”. It is a synthesis, a big picture of your position against Protestantism and seeking to bolster Newman’s famous saying, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. Whenever I tried to do the same thing, you objected. There are good protestant answers to each of your points. Evangelical Protestants can also be “deep in history” and Newman’s statement is wrong. I summarize them, though not in the same order that you gave. If you can do that, (summarize, synthesize,) why can’t I ??
1. The papacy had strong, binding authority (Kelly, 417-21; Pelikan, 352-354; Schaff, I: 155-162, II: 299-319).
Not in the early church, that was much later, slowly developed over time.
Centurion did a good job of citing Schaff and the real historical scoop on Cyprian.
Cyprian (circa 250 AD) was more biblical than bishop of Rome Stephen on that issue. Cyprian did not hold to a primacy of jurisdiction of Rome. He wrote, "no one sets himself up as bishop of bishops". He and Augustine and others also wrote that each bishop has the authority in their own areas, as long as they hold to “the faith of Peter”, which is what Protestants agree with, that it was Peter’s confession of faith, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God”, and all that is connected to that in the canonical scriptures, that is the truth which our unity is around. Biblical unity must only be around the truth, doctrine, not an organization or location or church building or person. The foundation was built on Peter, because of his faith and doctrine and confession, not on successors who will later add the other Roman Catholic distinctives in, thus corrupting the faith.
The Roman bishops slowly began claiming authority over time, so it is a misnomer to call the Early Church period until Leo I (440 AD) ‘the papacy”. That seems anachronistic. The east did not call the Bishop of Rome “the Pope”, and much of the division between the east and west comes from the arrogant claims of “universal bishop”, sometimes by both sides. Gregory the Great (around 601 AD) rebuked John of Constantinople for this.
In the early period all the bishops were called “papa” (father) and it was meant in the sense of a spiritual father in the biblical sense that Paul teaches us in I Cor. 4:14-17 and in his dealings with Timothy in I and 2 Timothy.
2. Organic connection of justification and sanctification, not Faith Alone (sola fide) (Geisler, 85, 89, 91-93, 99, 222, 502; McGrath, 108-109, 115; Schaff, II: 588-589).
First, you misunderstand the Protestant definition of Sola Fide, as we also believe in a “connection” of justification and sanctification. The one who is justified by faith alone in Christ alone, is also sanctified, cleansed, and changed, and will necessarily and immediately begin to manifest new attitudes, godliness, purity, good works, and fruit. Sola Fide says that faith is the only instrumental method by which a sinner is justified and can stand before God. Faith alone is what imputes Christ’s righteousness to us and covers us. But we are changed and sanctified also. So there is connection, but our sanctification is not what commends us or is not the basis or ground by which we able to stand before God.
Second, the doctrine of justification and faith and the relevant verses in the Scriptures that feed the doctrine of Sola Fide was neglected, true. But since it was already taught there in Paul, in Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, and in John, and the book of Acts, all written before 70 AD, then the teaching was already there. (John may have written later, but that is another discussion.) The early church later seems to have neglected it for externalistic and ritualistic emphasis, beginning with baptismal regeneration and later then adding in infant baptism, because of the good conviction over original sin, based on Psalm 51, Romans 5:12, Genesis 6:5, 8:21, and other verses.
But notice that Clement of Rome, the earliest of all the extra-canonical writings, taught an equivalent of Sola Fide. So did Mathetes or “The Epistle to Diognetes”.
Furthermore, the enigmatic writer, Ambrosiaster, used the term “sola Fide” 4 times in his commentary on Romans and I Cor. The teaching was clearly there in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, John, Acts, and even James, since God cannot lie and has no contradiction, James is exegetically talking about the works that vindicate or prove that our faith is real.
3. The veneration and intercession of the saints (Cross, 1227-28; Kelly, 490-91; Schaff, III: 428-42)
The earliest indication of any kind of veneration of saints and relics, etc. is usually claimed to go all the way back to Polycarp, who was martyred around 155 AD. But this happens after Polycarp died, and they preserved his bones and brought them out on the 1 year anniversary of his martyrdom. I seriously doubt Polycarp would have approved of this; and there is no historical evidence that the early generations prayed to him or bowed down in front of his bones or kissing them. You cannot prove that he or the apostles would have approved of such a thing. Since John discipled Polycarp, he left us with clear warnings not to bow down or worship or kiss anything in a worship context, except God alone. Revelation 19:10, 22:8-9. That un-biblical practice was slowly introduced by popular simple folk, similar to the numerous Marian apparitions and sightings and subsequent setting up of shrines and violations of John 4:23-24 and Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9; and when the “pious” go over-board, no serious rebuke comes from the teachers in authority, in the RCC. These scriptures and warnings are older and therefore deeper in history than the much later developed veneration and intercession of the saints.
4. Bible, Church, and Tradition, not Bible Alone (sola Scriptura) as the rule of faith (Oberman, 366-367; Pelikan, 115-119, 303-304; Schaff, II: 169-72, 525-2
.
Until the collection of the canon was finalized, the rule of faith was very clearly laid out by Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Athanasius and every bit of the content of the rule of faith in their writings were creedal or doctrinal statements that followed the structure of the doctrine of the Trinity. They may have mentioned other doctrines or practices elsewhere in their writings, for example, Athanasius supposedly wrote about the perpetual virginity of Mary, but that is not there in his doctrinal statements when he calls the rule of faith, “the tradition”, “the preaching”, “the faith”. There is nothing in these early writers when they enumerated what the rule of faith is, that is in conflict with Protestant teaching. It was all a belief in one God, the Father, the creator (against Gnosticism and doceticsm and Marcionism), and in Jesus Christ, His Deity, His Messiah-ship, His virgin birth from Mary, his suffering, death on the cross and burial, and His resurrection from the dead. There was also affirmation of the Holy Spirit and the universal church and the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the flesh and judgment day. The Scriptures were the only infallible rule of faith, not the only thing any one is supposed to study or read or use to help understand history and interpret the Scriptures.
Jerome is older and therefore deeper in history than the council of Trent on the Apocrypha. Melito of Sardis and Athanasius; they are also older and deeper in history on the Apocrypha, than the Council of Trent. Gregory the Great (601 AD) and Cardinal Cajetan (against Luther, 1517-1520s) are older and deeper also than Trent on the Apocrypha.
5, Mary was a perpetual virgin, the Second Eve, and Mother of God (Theotokos) (Cross, 882-83; Kelly, 491-99; Schaff, III: 409-425, 716-22)
These would not be a problem, if they were left in their early church form, in their early church understanding, and in their true historical context. The problem is that they are extra-biblical and later doctrines build upon them, corrupting the faith. The second Eve parallel depends on the assumption that Eve was a virgin before sin entered. That is an assumption that Ireneaus and Justin Martyr seem to make, but it does not make sense. In Genesis 2:24-25,the implications are that Adam and Eve were created fully mature, were immediately married and had godly and beautiful sexual “one flesh” relations before sin entered into the picture.
Proper exegesis of Matthew 1:18-25 speaks against the Perpetural virgin traditions that began to be added in around 300 with Athanasius (? – there is some scholarly debate over whether he even wrote the work “on Virginity” and it is not even in the standard Early Church fathers collections. The earliest “seeds” of this doctrine are in Gnostic and other non-canonical and spurious writings, “The Odes of Solomon” and the Ascension of Isaiah, and implied in the Proto-evangelion of James. Tertullian, who agrees that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that after His birth, Joseph and Mary had a normal married life and Mary had other children through the normal process, is older and therefore deeper in history than Jerome.
There is only one time in all the other writings of Athanasius that “ever-Virgin” is written, and that is doubted as original by some scholars. Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine., and I think ( ?) Origen also promoted this. On that issue, they just got it wrong. There asceticism tendencies clouded their judgment, as Origen’s clearly did when he castrated himself, and as Simon Stilytus did in the Syrian desert. They were over zealous and sincere, but sincerely mis-guided, on that issue.
The “Mother of God” is a Latin translation of the Greek, “Theotokos”, the original term, which is literally, “the God-bearing one”, which was only meant to talk about Jesus as God from conception and it protected the virgin birth of Christ. It was used later in history to promote Mary, and not Jesus, and then other Mary doctrines and dogmas that were added, thus corrupting the original deposit.
6. Real presence (not mere symbolism) in the Eucharist (Cross, 475-76; Kelly, 447; Pelikan, 166-67, 236-37; Schaff, III: 492, 500).
Real presence is fine, but not transubstantiation. There were many ways to understand “real presence”. “mere symbolism” is not the only Protestant view of the Lord’s supper. Jesus could not have meant what the RCC tries to make Him mean, when He is in His physical body right there when He says about the bread, “This is My body”. There cannot be two incarnations. Christ communicates His Spiritual presence with us in a special way when there is repentance and confession of sin and faith in remembering His death by partaking of the Lord’s supper. And Spiritual presence is still “real”. Christ is omni-present, but has only one physical, now glorified body, one incarnation.
7. The sacrifice of the mass (Cross, 476, 1221; Pelikan, 146-47, 170; Schaff, III: 500).
The language of “sacrifice” comes from the quotes from the OT, especially used by the Early Church was Malachi 1:11. The words, “incense”, “offering”, etc. are using OT temple worship contexts and sometimes described in the NT referring to the general idea of the need to reconcile before one seeks to pray and worship God. Matthew 5:23-24 is an example of this. Just because the early writers used the word “sacrifice” and “offering” in the context of the Eucharist, does not mean that is means what Rome wants to read back into it from the 8th Century to the 11 and 12 Centuries.
So, rightly understood with the OT background of using the word sacrifice and offering to describe worship in the NT contexts, does not mean that the Christ’s once for all sacrifice is repeated or re-presented. Hebrews chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, and the repeated phrase “once for all”, show that it was a mistake for the medieval church to take the words “sacrifice”, “altar”, and “offering” and make them into the hideous doctrines of transubstantiation.
8. Episcopacy, or the rule of bishops (Cross, 176; Pelikan, 159-160; Schaff, II: 133-39).
See discussion under #1 about Cyprian. Also, Clement of Rome, the earliest extra-canonical writer, clearly taught that presbyters and episcopos (bishop or overseer) were the same teaching and ruling office in the local church. The earliest form of church government in history is plurality-elder-rule, in harmony with the congregation (not “lording it over” them, but being accountable to them and confirmed by them). This is clearly taught in Acts 13:1-4, 14:21-23, I Timothy 3, and Titus 1, I Peter 5. This is one of the strongest cases against the RCC claim to be deep in history. If they were deep in history in Clement of Rome and deeper in I Timothy, Titus and the book of Acts, they would repent of these later developments that corrupted good church government. Ignatius begins to take the elder-rule into the mono-episcopacy, but even he does not say or teach what the RCC reads back into him.
9. Purgatory and prayers for the dead (Cross, 1144-45; Schaff, II: 603-606).
These are later developed traditions that are corruptions. Only because of time and space and lack of “off the time of my head” content do I lightly deal with this one.
10. Baptismal regeneration (forgiveness of sins) (Kelly, 207-211; Pelikan, 290-92; Schaff, II: 253-54).
“Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed (justified) from all things, from you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38-39)
Acts was written in AD 61, therefore deeper in history and closer to the apostolic deposit. This is one of the many verses that teach "Sola Fide", justification by faith alone.
Protestants are deeper in history, as we have the first century, which is “deeper in history”, and when the canonical Scriptures were written, between 49 AD-70 AD (mostly) and Jude (80 AD ?) and maybe John and John’s letters and Revelation (traditionally, 90-96 AD), but there is strong evidence that they also were also written before 70 AD.
Clement of Rome, Mathetes, and Ambrosiaster are deeper in history (On justification by faith alone); than the Council of Trent's statements on justification.
Clement of Rome on the plurality of elders and equality with overseers is deeper in history than Ignatius and Stepehn Leo and Gregory and 1870.
Tertullian is older and deeper than the Perpetual Virginity doctrine. Cyprian is deeper in history than Boniface in 1302 and Vatican I in 1870. Origen, Tertullian, and Chrysosotom are deeper in history on Mary’s sins than 1854.
So, if the canon existed ontologically; in real time and space at that time, but only some of the churches had some or most, but all the books and letters together, were not put under one cover yet, the RCC attack on Sola Scriptura falls flat. As in Athanasius’ famous festal letter 39 in 367 AD; in that context he said, “In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness”. He even uses the word,”alone” here. (Greek, “mono”)
And we also believe in church, and teachers and pastors, and even good traditions, as long as they do not contradict Scripture. The “alone” of sola Scriptura only means that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith, not the only source to which we can look to or the only rule of faith. It is the only infallible rule of faith. History, traditions, archeology, creeds, councils, pastors, and teachers in the church, are secondary “rules” or “standards” by which we can humbly interpret the Scriptures. These all together help us interpret the Scriptures when it is still difficult after grammatical and historical exegesis has been followed.
Hi Ken,
>Your article here is a good example of what you accused me of many times, something like, “Ken, you bring up too many things in one post”, “so many things, too many things in one post”. It is a synthesis, a big picture of your position against Protestantism and seeking to bolster Newman’s famous saying, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. Whenever I tried to do the same thing, you objected."
Nice try. Of course the difference is that my paper is a mere summary on one subject (albeit multi-faceted by nature), whereas what I objected to in your posts was extensive forays into quite distinct subject matter. So the comparison doesn't fly.
Presently, you have stayed on the subject matter and given long replies, so I have no objection to that, but I doubt that I will try to answer this myself, as it just goes round and round, and nothing is ever achieved. You won't be convinced, and I've written about all of this stuff elsewhere.
But I might change my mind; you never know. 
You certainly provide (as always when you get motivated to reply) much material that could be addressed in further dialogue.
"Is it fair to say that you find the disagreement between Cyprian and Stephen as somewhat meaningless?"
Certainly not. What's fair to say is that St. Cyprian was not a Protestant, but was a Catholic who had a falling out with the successor of St. Peter, and the successor of St. Peter was right and St. Cyprian was wrong. What's fair to say is that I am amused to find Protestants latch onto someone with whom they seriously disagree merely because he once said a few things with which they agree.
Dave,
Glad to know you think I stayed on the subject.
It seems this is the root issue of all the recent (last 20 years or so) former evangelical movement to Roman Catholicism. (Scott Hahn, Jerry Matatics, Surprized by Truth volumes 1-3, etc.)
Ken,
I believe Dave has no power to convince you, in fact, not even the present Pope, without God's grace, and you and Dave will just go on over and over again and yet not attaining agreement. I've read Dave's materials about all of this stuff and he makes sense in a lot of things. I think, bottom line here is, just try to compare the Catholic system with the Protestant system and let's see which system achieves more, flourishes more,makes Christendom more intact and united and which system stays consistent and has a Christ-like characteristics. There is a great practical reason why we have the pope and the Catholic system in its fulness in Christendom and I totally submit to that practical purpose (not to mention the supernatural and the divine). I believe that this same reasoning, might in fact, primarily persuaded the Church Fathers in consensus to do the same.
I understand that doctrine developed over a period time during the faith's infancy. As a high school history teacher, I can attest that the history of the faith is very much a history of the Catholic Church.
However, when did the Bishop of Rome actually become the "pope"? How long did it take for the "papacy" to develop and become solidified? When did the Pope actually start to exercise real authority?
I teach in a very conservative, mostly Protestant school district and most of my students have a difficult time grasping this point whenever I cover the rise of Christianity during the Roman Empire. They seem to understand that an early Church existed but cannot make that connection to the Catholic Church as the early Church. Ironically, my textbook talks about bishops, the Church Fathers, and even mentions the sacraments. However, my students have a difficult time relating the current Catholic Church to that of the early Church. One questions that is often asked is "When did the early church become "Catholic" in nature?"
Brian,
You ask a lot of questions. I believe the answers are too long to be answered in this space. I would reccomend reading "The Faith of the Early Fathers" volume 1 by William Jurgens. for the more detailed answer. I also reccomend "Why is That in Tradition" by Patrick Madrid for a quicker reference answser.
The reason your students don't find an answer is that the Church didn't become Catholic, it was born Catholic and has continued to flower ever since.
The reason your students cannot find the answer is that the early "catholic church" is much different than the Roman Catholic Church.
It would be interesting for the Roman Catholics to actually answer when did the Bishop of Rome actually begin to be called "The Pope", as universal bishop over all the other bishops. The reason for the difficulty is that in the early church until Leo I (440 AD) or Gregory(601 AD), no one made that claim of universal jurisdiction. Or if they did, as Stephen seems to come close to it, they were rebuked by Cyprian in N. Africa and Firmillian in the east.
And Tertullian rebukes one of the bishops of Rome and and Ireneaus rebukes one of them also.
Furthermore, Honorius (625-638 AD) is rebuked and called a heretic for 400+ years for the Monothelete doctrine. "He was also condemned by Pope Leo II, as well as by evey pope until the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office." (Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, p. 67.)
Infalliblity crumbles on that historical fact alone.
Other popes had some problems,
Liberius, 352-366 AD) succumed to Arianism for a time, exiling Athanasius.
Zosimus (417-418 AD) supported Pelagius (heresy) and rebuked Augustine and the North African Council for their condemnation of Pelagius and his teachings.
Pope Vigilius (537-555 AD) and the "Three Chapters" controversy also shows the Bishop of Rome is not infallible.
These are all doctrinal issues. God is infallible because He is perfect and impeccable. Since popes are not impeccable, they cannot be infallible either, because you cannot separate the two qualities.
God's word is infallible because it is inspired and impeccable. One cannot separate them. God did not inspire the writers, but rather the words of Scripture, the writings. All Scripture is God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16 It does not say, "the writers of Scritpure are God-breathed." They were 'carried along" by the Holy Spirit, to write the words, but their whole lives were not inspired; therefore, they as men are not infallible, only the Scriptures are infallible. 2 Peter 1:20-21
God is infallible because He is the source of all Truth. What does impeccability have to due with papal infallibility? Your logic implies that no truth can come from the lips of man because we all have sinned. That's absurd. Why is it any less feasible for the Pope to be carried along by the Holy Spirit when he speaks or writes "ex cathedra" than the scripture writers were? I think it's silly to say that the scripture writers were not inspired, but that their writings were. No one ever said their whole lives were inspired and neither are the Popes.
Ken said: "The reason your students cannot find the answer is that the early "catholic church" is much different than the Roman Catholic Church."
Tell me, Ken can Brian's students make that connection to the Protestant Churches as the early church? In what way? For one, it would be difficult for them to relate the sacramental life of the early Christians wih that of the present evangelical protestants' style of worship and, in fact, lifestyle in general.
The infallibility of scripture is only meaningful insofar as it resides in the minds and hearts of man. That's where the twisting begins. Words on a piece of paper have no meaning by themselves. The devil can quote scripture if is suits his purposes.
Thaddeus,
I showed in 9 out of 10 of the issues that Dave made, that there are more ancient and "closer to Protestantism" Early church doctrines and practices. That does not mean the EC was full blown protestant. They were catholic with a little c; meaning Universal and all the later branches are found there - RC, EO, Evangelical Protestant. The seeds of these 3 branches are there -- which one kept closest to the original deposit is Evangelical Protestant, Sola Scriptura.
Every generation must be tested by Scripture.
The Early Church was heavily persecuted. In the USA and west, Christians are not, as in those days, even though we are spoken ill of in the media. If we had all out persecution, then maybe his students will see the connection and difference.
Otherwise, it is impossible to judge history and contexts this way, each era, generation is different. The key is to keep testing all things by Scripture to see if things are true, resorting back to the once for all delivered to the saints faith, which is only found in the Canonical Scriptures.
You make a tremendous assumption that the "once for all delivered to the saints faith" somehow ended up whole and entire in the Canonical Scriptures. You ignore the fact that the Church also taught with authority given by Christ to preserve the integrity of those things captured in scripture and otherwise handed to the apostles. You further imply that you have a lock on what's canonical and what's not, and that the Catholic Church does not, yet the Catholic Church generated, taught and preserved scriptures 1500 years before the first Protestant (much less evangelical Protestant). Try again.
"The key is to keep testing all things by Scripture to see if things are true"
You refer back to the Bereans yet, but fail to grasp the real implications of the Bereans. What did they find when they searched the scriptures with regard to Jesus and what He specifically taught or did? Nothing, since all they had was the Old Testament! All they could do verify was that Paul's teaching did not conflict with Old Testament prophesy. It was the power and authority of Paul's verbally teaching about what Jesus said and did that convinced them that He was indeed the fullfillment of the prophesy. This is a glaring affirmation of the Church's authoritative teaching in combination with scripture. If the Bereans went by scripture alone, they would have given Paul the boot, just as the Pharisees dismissed Jesus.
Ken,
Do you really want me to believe that the early church's deposit of faith is closest to that of the evangelical protestants'? That the early church fathers (originally) taught the evangelical's notion of Sola Scriptura, etc.? If so, then why is it that all, and I mean ALL, of the evangelical protestants that I know of and watch (TBN's evangelical pastors, for instance), or in fact, even the greater population of evangelicals hardly ever use the early church fathers as reference to their preachings, evangelizations or programs by and large. It seems to me that they are not comfortable relating to the early church fathers and the apostolic fathers at all. I usually hear them once or twice quote from protestants of the 16th century such as Wesley or modern protestants but seldom from the Church Fathers or Apostolic Fathers. Why is that?
I, for one, wouldn't have second thought using a weapon that belongs to my own arsenal and I'm familiar with in times of war. If I'm an American in WWII, I'll prefer using an M1 Carbine rather than a German Luger.
Your website has been very helpfull to me heimbs kaffee angst vorm fliegen grundlagen des rechts
Commenting by HaloScan
