Baptist attack on Tradition

[FightingFat]

Can someone help me answer this attack on tradition please?

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifIt is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles. They were not infallible.

 

[Psalm45_9]

FightingFat:

Can someone help me answer this attack on tradition please?

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifIt is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles. They were not infallible.

However, the Holy Spirit is. The Holy Spirit works within the councils, just like it did at the council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles. Look at the outcome of the Church’s councils and you will see the 95% of the time what the Fathers generally agreed on was declared dogma.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

FightingFat:

Can someone help me answer this attack on tradition please?

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifIt is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles. They were not infallible.

But the Catholic Church is infallible. Only when the Catholic Church approves the writings and teachings of a Fathers should they be understood as having a practical authority. Something a Church Father says is not true because a Father said it. It is true because it agrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The truth already existed before the Fathers attempted to discover and present it to us through their own human abilities of writing and oration.

 

[FightingFat]

Br. Rich SFO:

But the Catholic Church is infallible. Only when the Catholic Church approves the writings and teachings of a Fathers should they be understood as having a practical authority. Something a Church Father says is not true because a Father said it. It is true because it agrees with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The truth already existed before the Fathers attempted to discover and present it to us through their own human abilities of writing and oration.

I agree, but would that convince a Baptist fundamentalist though Br. Rich?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

FightingFat:

I agree, but would that convince a Baptist fundamentalist though Br. Rich?

Of course not because they more than likely do not accept the authority of the Caholic Church to begin with. All of this is dependent on other things. If a person does not accept the authority given to the Church, to the Apostles, to Peter. Then they will not be able to accept the authority of Scripture, the authority of the magisterium, etc. What is the basis of their understanding of authority? The answer is usually “God or Christ” or the “Bible”. Then the question must be how does God, or Christ, exercise that authority in the world today. In other words who speaks for God? If it’s the Bible then you must ask which Bible and why that one? Who interprets the Bible? A-The “Holy Spirit.” How does the Holy Spirit interpret the Bible? A-“Through individual or private interpretation.” Do they really believe that the Holy Spirit guides a thousand individuals to interpret the Bible in a thousand different ways, many times conflicting with each other? “Um” Time for lunch!

 

[johnshelby]

FightingFat:

Can someone help me answer this attack on tradition please?

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifIt is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles. They were not infallible.

were Mark and Luke infallible?
were they apostles??

 

[AussieCatholic]

johnshelby:

were Mark and Luke infallible?
were they apostles??

Good point, they weren’t. I think the only difference between them and other church fathers is that they had direct contact with the apostles.

 

[forthright]

AussieCatholic:

Good point, they weren’t. I think the only difference between them and other church fathers is that they had direct contact with the apostles.

So did many of the earliest fathers, too.

 

[jimmy]

AussieCatholic:

Good point, they weren’t. I think the only difference between them and other church fathers is that they had direct contact with the apostles.

So did Ignatius and Polycarp who were both disciples of John the apostle.

 

[forthright]

FightingFat:

Can someone help me answer this attack on tradition please?

It is obvious from the New Testament that doctrinal confusion, legalism, sacerdotalism, and gnostic error were beginning to find their way into the church even before the canon was closed. The writings of the Church Fathers are not free from such influences. Moreover, the next three centuries were a long chronicle of doctrinal conflict, and these men whom we call Church Fathers did not always agree with one another.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/images/indent.gifIt is therefore a mistake to view the Church Fathers’ writings as if they had some sort of canonical authority. These men were not apostles. They were not infallible.

Yes, there were some disagreements, but in large most early church fathers agreed with each other on most points. The purpose of early church fathers is not to have some other alternative infallible source. The purpose is to see how they interpretted the same scriptures we use today.

Look closely at the arguments of the early church: the divinity of Christ, “works alone”, secret teachings, etc. These are things that nobody argues about today. Practically all Christians agree on these points.

Now look closely at what we argue about today: once saved always saved, “faith alone”, real presence, etc. These are things that the early church fathers were 100% Catholic on.

From these two investigations, it becomes clear. . . all the disagreements among the early fathers were settled and (practically) all modern Christians accept the Catholic outcome of these disagreements. (Often, the only things some churches share in common with Catholicism are these very items which the Catholic Church had to settle.) This person is trying to discount the early fathers by pointing out their differences, when, if fact, (1) he probably accepts the Catholic decisions on these disagreements, and (2) they were already completely unanimous regarding the teachings he most likely has problems with.

 

[mercygate]

The Church does not hold the Fathers to be infallible either of themselves or in any other way. “Infallibility” applies exclusively to the Apostolic faith and to authentic development of that faith (as in the definition of the Trinity). So if a Father teaches according to defined doctrine, it is the doctrine which is infallible, not Irenaeus, Augustine, or Athanasius.

The fact that the early Fathers sometimes disagree with one another simply underscores the process of doctrinal development in the face of challenge – a process that continues to this day – and does not in the least affect the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Do you get the impression that these people are deliberately obtuse?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

forthright:

Yes, there were some disagreements, but in large most early church fathers agreed with each other on most points.

The purpose of early church fathers is not to have some other alternative infallible source. The purpose is to see how they interpretted the same scriptures we use today.

Look closely at the arguments of the early church: the divinity of Christ, “works alone”, secret teachings, etc. These are things that nobody argues about today. Practically all Christians agree on these points.

Now look closely at what we argue about today: once saved always saved, “faith alone”, real presence, etc. These are things that the early church fathers were 100% Catholic on.

From these two investigations, it becomes clear. . . all the disagreements among the early fathers were settled and (practically) all modern Christians accept the Catholic outcome of these disagreements. (Often, the only things some churches share in common with Catholicism are these very items which the Catholic Church had to settle.) This person is trying to discount the early fathers by pointing out their differences, when, if fact, (1) he probably accepts the Catholic decisions on these disagreements, and (2) they were already completely unanimous regarding the teachings he most likely has problems with.

Good post, I agree with this.

Even if the person doesnt like the theology of the ECF’s the fact remains they are historical documents in that we can see what those who called themselves “Christians” in the early centuries believed. That doesnt mean its correct, its simply collecting information. Now if they were to read them on any major teaching they will see the ECF’s backed up their words with Scripture.