When did the Early Church 'Lose' the Gospel?

carlgobelman · #1 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 04:48 PM

I was in a recent discussion with a former Protestant now Roman Catholic friend of mine. The topic of the gospel came up in conversation. My point was that Luther and the Reformers essentially recovered the true gospel (Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone). At that point, my Catholic friend asks when in the preceding 1,500 years did the church 'lose' the gospel? Who in the early church fathers espoused the Reformation gospel.

This is essentially the typical fall back position of the RCC apologist; i.e., why would God hide the gospel from the church only to be 'rediscovered' by a German monk? The church has believed such-and-such for centuries, why would Luther all of a sudden be right?

Of course, I chose to go back to the Scriptures (which was Luther's point) to say "here is the Biblical gospel." My only problem is that I don't have a firm grasp on church history. Is there a period or event in church history when the church strayed from apostolic doctrine and began teaching the false gospel of the RCC?

Zenas · #2 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 04:53 PM

It didn't "lose" the Gospel, it just stopped "teaching" the Gospel as the official doctrine of the church. Obviously, there were those who taught and believed the Gospel while within the Catholic and subsequently Roman Catholic church, otherwise, Luther wouldn't have come about. I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church finally "lost" the Gospel altogether when it was confronted with the true Gospel in the Protestant Reformation. Before that time, there were obviously believers and teachers of the true Gospel in the Roman church.

It was at some time before that the Roman Church changed its official doctrine toward wordly, anti-Christian theology. The slide obviously didn't happen over night, but you could point to its possible beginning when they started elevating the Pontiff of Rome up to or over Christ Himself. That's only one point in a departure that took a very long, long time. More practically speaking though, you can say that the Gospel truly departed from the Roman church the moment it was confronted with the true Gospel in the Protestant Reformation, rejected it, and started burning its proponents.

Your friend's question was unfair and characteristic of contemporary Roman apologists, where I suspect he derived it from.

jambo · #3 (**permalink**) 09-04-2009, 06:34 PM

God has always had his remnant. Even in the dark days prior to the Reformation there were always little groups that were different to the RC church such as the Waldensians. Earlier groups such as Montanists, Novationists, Donatists etc were groups that splintered from the mainstream church mainly due to a lack of church discipline, either with accepting back those who denied the faith during times of persecution or moral laxity amongst bishops.

Constantine was a mixed back bringing both benefits and problems to the church. Calling his empire Christian meant that pagans were effectively "Christianised pagans" and although it also took the first steps down a path that would mix the church/state relationship.

Any RC aware of doctrine or history would have some idea of Augustine (iindeed even if they are not most RCs know a little about St Monica, a devout mother praying for her wayward son, Augustine). I have found in talkling with RCs Augustine is a good character. Augustine figures high in the RC mind due to what he wrote about the church whilst to the Reformed he is known as the theologian of grace.

The gospel is hidden, like treasure in a field waiting to be discovered, but like the pearl of great price it can also be found. This was true in the days of Christ, the apostles, the early church, the medieval church, during the time of the reformation and up to and including the present day.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #4 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 01:23 AM

Check out many of the posts of "DTK" here on the PB. Many are just quotes from the Fathers of the church that are redolent of the gospel, of Justification by Faith, etc.

There are also some books by Rev. David T King, (and William Webster), 3vols available I know through aomin.org (since I got them there). They are loaded with data.

The early church was young, prone to error, but also closer to the apostles' own teachings, and preserved a great deal, while making some blunders. Typical of people, right?

The church took a long time to really cover over the gospel glories. Which is why the Reformation was so necessary. We needed a cleanup, and praise God he gave us a bath. Got rid of a lot of gunk that was covering up the beauties of Christ.

Rome anathematized the (true) gospel of free grace at the Council of Trent (ended 1563). She "got rid of the gospel" then and there.

Otherwise, we should say the gospel was here, and there--sometimes outside the church, but even within it also. Everywhere, but (as Stuart says) hidden much of the time. What were people supposed to do? Where could they go? The faith of many must have been much better than the church's rotten practice of semi-Pelagianism (when it was doing well!); even though her official theology was Augustinian.

Rich Koster · #5 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 01:29 AM

IMO, under Constantine the persecution was halted by the state, but the perversion started.

Kevin · #6 (**permalink**) 09-05-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambo

God has always had his remnant. Even in the dark days prior to the Reformation there were always little groups that were different to the RC church such as the Waldensians. Earlier groups such as Montanists, Novationists, Donatists etc were groups that splintered from the mainstream church mainly due to a lack of church discipline, either with accepting back those who denied the faith during times of persecution or moral laxity amongst bishops.

Constantine was a mixed back bringing both benefits and problems to the church. Calling his empire Christian meant that pagans were effectively "Christianised pagans" and although it also took the first steps down a path that would mix the church/state relationship.

Any RC aware of doctrine or history would have some idea of Augustine (iindeed even if they are not most RCs know a little about St Monica, a devout mother praying for her wayward son, Augustine). I have found in talkling with RCs Augustine is a good character. Augustine figures high in the RC mind due to what he wrote about the church whilst to the Reformed he is known as the theologian of grace.

The gospel is hidden, like treasure in a field waiting to be discovered, but like the pearl of great price it can also be found. This was true in the days of Christ, the apostles, the early church, the medieval church, during the time of the reformation and up to and including the present day.

With all due respect Stuart, listing heretics is not a very convincing case for the preservation of the gospel.

The gospel was never "lost". It was always in Gods word & taught by faithful preachers. We do not need to go outside of the church to wicked men & seducers such as the Donatists that opposed the faith & the faithful to "find" the gospel.

steadfast7 · #7 (**permalink**) 09-20-2009, 04:13 PM

I'm in a similar debate with a former evangelical, now considering orthodoxy. We just finished reading a book by Baptist pastor, DH Williams, called Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. In it, he does a pretty good job (IMO) of refuting the Reformed claim that the apostolic fathers and the early church were sola scriptura adherents. The most objective historical accounts seem to suggest that the church at large held to scripture and tradition and that justification by faith alone was either not emphasized or had a non reformed understanding of justification. if history reveals that the most ancient forms of Christian thought were very RC/EO in inclination, that's fine - it doesn't denounce its development in the Reformation and beyond.

for me, i personally do not need to see reformed theology in the patristics to recognize its fidelity to scripture and its helpfulness to the human heart. it would be nice to have the same arguments from history and tradition to fall back on, but not entirely necessary.