Reading this brought back so many memories from when my husband and I began seriously exploring Catholicism. When we eventually told friends we were converting, the responses were almost always the same: “But what about Mary? Confession? Sacraments? It’s a false gospel!”
What struck me most was the assumption underneath those reactions that Catholic theology must be some kind of later divergence from the “real” Christianity represented by Protestantism. But historically speaking, the timeline runs the other direction. Once we started reading church history, it became impossible to maintain the idea that a movement that began in the 1500s represents the original form of Christianity while the Church that preceded it for fifteen centuries must explain itself.
This is great. I've heard a similar argument made for the papacy: "who was the first pope?" (Protestants either have to say Peter or someone else later, at which point you have the dog problem). But often they wriggle out by saying something something "accretion." And that's not crazy to me. How does your dog argument (setting aside other apostolic churches) deal with that counter? How you prove that the heresy introduction had to be "zero to one" and not a development over time?
https://danthedanite.substack.com/p/a-reply-to-eric-anderson-and-a-thousand
The footnotes on this were fascinating. What a great way to look at the data; I didn’t even know about the history of some of these ancient churches!
Reading this brought back so many memories from when my husband and I began seriously exploring Catholicism. When we eventually told friends we were converting, the responses were almost always the same: “But what about Mary? Confession? Sacraments? It’s a false gospel!”
What struck me most was the assumption underneath those reactions that Catholic theology must be some kind of later divergence from the “real” Christianity represented by Protestantism. But historically speaking, the timeline runs the other direction. Once we started reading church history, it became impossible to maintain the idea that a movement that began in the 1500s represents the original form of Christianity while the Church that preceded it for fifteen centuries must explain itself.
Also the dog picture is very cute
This is great. I've heard a similar argument made for the papacy: "who was the first pope?" (Protestants either have to say Peter or someone else later, at which point you have the dog problem). But often they wriggle out by saying something something "accretion." And that's not crazy to me. How does your dog argument (setting aside other apostolic churches) deal with that counter? How you prove that the heresy introduction had to be "zero to one" and not a development over time?