As Joe gives a brief introduction posing the question whether the early church looks more like modern Protestantism, or modern Roman Catholicism, I will briefly touch that with this response:

It actually doesn’t matter.

Modern Catholicism is largely based on Roman/ Byzantine culture. For example as Rome had an emperor, the Roman Catholic (RC) church has a pope. As the emperor had cardinal senators, the pope has cardinal bishops (in fact it is my understanding that the concept of Cardinals in the RC Church was literally taken directly from the concept of the Emperors cardinal Senators). Even the vestments (clothes worn) are culturally very Italian.

Similarly, Orthodox Christianity, which was historically more Greek has more cultural earmarks of Greece (in practice, icons & even (again) the clothes worn).

Should we pit the orthodox against the RC church, there are doctrinal and theological differences certainly, but also a lot of cultural differences.

Historically the growth and spread of Christianity came from the region of Rome, and Byzantium, so it certainly is to be expected that Christianity took this form culturally, however, it also doesn’t matter. Paul said that he became like the Jews to the Jews and like the Greeks to the Greeks (1 Cor. 9:20-22) – that is, the culture was irrelevant. What was relevant was communicating the Gospel, which could be done better to people of one culture if you understood and emulated their culture.

If you believe the words of Christ, you should believe that the Holy Ghost will teach you all things, and lead you into the Truth (John 14:26; 16:13); we ought to abide in Christ, keep His words and walk in the Spirit as He did whether we are from Byzantium, Greece, Africa, Japan or Kentucky.

So, for Joe’s intro, the premise is irrelevant, what matters is following Christ today regardless of your culture, nation or circumstance.

‘Early Controversy’ #1 – Gnostics and the Eucharist

First of all, this line of argument & reasoning is an exercise in Hegel’s dialectic, that dialectic is this (in summary): Thesis + Antithesis = hypothesis. To break it down, it means that a thesis is proposed, followed by the proposition of a counter-thesis (an opposite perspective to the first perspective posed) which automatically results in a synthesis of the two (finding essentially a middle ground between two theses).

The problem that I have with Hegel’s dialectic (this line of reasoning in general) is that it omits the possibility of perspectives which exist outside of the thesis, antithesis and hypothesis. In fact, it precludes that there can be no thinking outside of this box, and so Joe also does at the end of his first example, stating that modern evangelicals side with the church on Christhood, but with the heretics on the transubstantiation. The question then: “Where do we fit?” This argument excuses itself. Jesus, Himself avoided being railroaded into this dialectic type of argument, for example when asked whether they should pay taxes to Caesar, or no, Jesus neither sided with the zealots, nor with the politicians, but laid out an entirely different perspective, pointing out that the Emperor actually owned all the money they used. The result was that he ‘sided’ (sort of) with those in favor of taxes, but was neither partisaned to them.

In conclusion of this point, Joe’s argument here (& the way he goes about it) seeks to force us to partisan with either the Roman Catholic Church, or with the heretics. Ironically, he does admit that modern evangelicals don’t exactly fall into either category but even in doing so does not permit for a third category to exist without partisaning to one or the other side. I reject entirely his premise that there can be only two perspectives and I am either an heretic or a Roman Catholic.

Now for the substance of the first argument:

Joe lays down this first point with a degree of ‘mic drop’ confidence as he emphasizes (with bold & underline) the words: ‘…confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ‘ as if this phrase could only mean the modern RC perspective of transubstantiation.

This phrase exactly could be used by a modern evangelical who only believes that the host is figurative. A lot of Catholics (like most Calvinists) don’t seem to be able to see past their own perspective: this phrase is not a mic drop which proves that Ignatius believes transubstantiation (he may have, but thus quote doesn’t prove it, neither certainly does it prove that the whole Church generally believed it) because – as I said – a protestant who believes the host to be a prophetic illustration could very well use exactly the same words.

But let’s step back to the beginning of the quote from Ignatius: the problem is that the gnostics ABSTAIN from prayer and the Eucharist. After that, he gives the reason why. It is the fact that they abstain from the Eucharist (per Ignatius) that is the problem; the reason why he shows is evident in the doctrine of their heresy – that they believe Christ did not come in the flesh, and therefore do not recognize the body and blood of sacrifice in the Eucharist. Joe ignores that the premise is that they are ABSTAINING from worship in praying and receiving the Eucharist.

Joe does not sufficiently prove that ‘transubstantiation’ was perceived in the early church in the same way that the modern Catholic church perceives it, rather he takes for granted that the doctrine he himself believes today was held by the early church because of a quote about the Eucharist which even protestants who do not believe in transubstantiation agree with. That is, Joe holds the Catholic perspective on Ignatius’s words, and therefore interprets his words through that lens and treats it as a ‘this one’s in the bag’ argument.

Early Controversy #2 – The Pascal Controversy

Again, Joe’s premise is to stick a modern protestant in the middle of a dialectic argument and tell them that they have no place in either camp which premise I don’t submit to as stated above.

The controversy itself actually does go back to scripture, but it does so in a different way than Joe considers.

As according to historical tradition, one part of the church celebrated the pascal according to the Roman Calander presumably passed down by the other Apostles, whereas the Apostle John passed down the tradition of celebrating as according to a different Calander.

Here you are going to find a lot of protestants tuning out because of the teachings of Paul in scripture that point out that the observance of days is not a matter of importance, but the matter of importance is doing according to one’s conscience and honoring Christ in faith:

Rom 14:5-10
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
…
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

Col 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

This controversy goes back to a controversy which existed in Corinth during Paul’s day: in Joe’s historic example, one group followed the tradition of John, the other group followed the tradition of the presbyters of Rome (presumably handed down by other apostles); what does scripture say about this?

1 Cor 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Cor 3:3-5
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

Joe makes two points about the controversy; his first point is that both sides take for granted a ‘top-down liturgical Calander,’ second that it is all about tradition vs. uniformity in the Church.

While I do believe he is correct in this assessment, yet it is rather a moot point as it pertains to personal and individual worship. Those in the controversy want to hold the traditions of their particular faction, yet they understand that they ought to be in unity as Paul points out about making factions of even the Apostles (1 Cor. 1:10). In order to be in unity, about anything, we have to agree to some point of practice, for instance if we are to meet together, we have to choose a mutual meeting spot. Likewise with the church, if we are going to celebrate a holiday as an act of worship to the Lord, we have to pick a day to get together. Does this mean that the church rule is binding (as the pope had excommunicated the disciples of John over disagreeing)? No, it just means if we are to worship corporately someone needs to administrate WHEN and WHERE we gather, or there will be no corporate gathering and no unity.

But also, most protestants would point out that controversies like these are where the RC church began to really go wrong in that their church hierarchy is not merely resolving issues of unity, but lording it over the faith of others, which the Apostle Peter – whom Catholics claim to have been the first pope – expressly tells ministers of the Church not to do:

1 Peter 5:2-3
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

Rabbit trail at timeline 26:19 –

While we are on this section, I want to quickly grab a rabbit trail that Joe starts, but leaves off as it is – certainly – “a much larger topic for another day.” He asks in essence why do protestants arbitrarily pick and choose old testament practices to observe, or abstain from observing. This is actually very important to address in the light of the discussion.

The New Testament clearly lays out how the Old Testament applies to us today (the books of Hebrews and Galatians in particular have clear teachings about it). The law and priesthood of the Old Testament were put in place to keep transgressors in compliance with the Covenant which God made with humanity through Abraham. Throughout the Old Testament (and even to Abraham, himself) it was promised through prophecies that the Messiah would come and establish a New Covenant. This Jesus did that, dying on the cross as our sacrificial lamb. As the New Covenant is now in place, the old one is expired, having been superseded by the Covenant in the blood of the Son of God (Heb 8:13). As the mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the great High Priest of our faith – the priesthood has changed, and so has the law:

Heb 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Yet all of the Old Testament applies and is profitable scripture (2 Tim. 3:16), so what was changed of the law? We no longer live under the commandments and ordinances of the law:

Eph 2:15
[Jesus,]Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

I am going to start going long here for a written response, but I will bring this back to Joe’s introduction; Jesus declared:

John 15:1, 5
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

…
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Is the Church the vine? No, the Church is the branches; Jesus is the vine. Those who abide in Him are the Church. He does not say that those that abide in the Church are in Him. Jesus is the vine, those that abide in Him are the branches be it those of the Church of Rome, those of the Church of Greece, etc.

Abide in Christ, so shall ye bear much fruit.

John 15:4
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.