Confused about Early Church Fathers Role

[AttachedToSix]

I am in a perpetual debate (going on 3 years now) with a couple of anti-Catholic people and now we are discussing the Early Church Fathers. They are trying to get to the roots of the early Christian Church worship and are reading about the “Organic Church” from anti-Catholic sources and I told them to read the Early Church Fathers to learn about the true early Church. Here is a response I got today. How would YOU respond?

No person can be a “church father” - that would be polytheism. There are only people who spread Gods word truthfully or people who twisted God’s word; people who created buildings & hierarchies that are not biblical or people who maintain the fellowship, mentorship & 5 fold ministry as Jesus explained & his disciples exemplified.

 

[mark_a]

How would YOU respond?

No person can be a “church father” - that would be polytheism. There are only people who spread Gods word truthfully or people who twisted God’s word; people who created buildings & hierarchies that are not biblical or people who maintain the fellowship, mentorship & 5 fold ministry as Jesus explained & his disciples exemplified.

I would ask them why creating buildings and maintaing fellowship are mutually exclusive.

 

[JRKH]

I am in a perpetual debate (going on 3 years now) with a couple of anti-Catholic people and now we are discussing the Early Church Fathers. They are trying to get to the roots of the early Christian Church worship and are reading about the “Organic Church” from anti-Catholic sources and I told them to read the Early Church Fathers to learn about the true early Church. Here is a response I got today. How would YOU respond?

No person can be a “church father” - that would be polytheism. There are only people who spread Gods word truthfully or people who twisted God’s word; people who created buildings & hierarchies that are not biblical or people who maintain the fellowship, mentorship & 5 fold ministry as Jesus explained & his disciples exemplified.

I would tell them that these persons can be called by whatever title you like. How about just calling them by their names, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaus of Lyons, Justin Martyr etc. The fact remains that they ARE people who spread God’s word truthfully. These ARE people who can be shown to have been contemporaries of, or within a generation or two, of the Apostles. These ARE people who defended Christ’s Church from Heresies that, probably, even your “anti-catholic” friends would agree are wrong.

The short answer then is, don’t let them sidetrack you with “names”, if they are honest seekers of truth, then they should read the earliest church writngs available. If they will not then they are not seekers after truth and there is nothing to be done about it except pray for them.

Peace
James

 

[whizkid43]

Why not call them the “First Martyrs of the Church” that should make the point…

An while you’re at it you can show the the Catholicity of these people, Mass, Bishops, Real Presence, etc. If you can get them to read the ECF it would be hard to continue to deny their Catholicity (and yes the capitol C is intentional).

 

[Peter_J]

AttachedToSix,

No person can be a “church father” - that would be polytheism. There are only people who spread Gods word truthfully or people who twisted God’s word; people who created buildings & hierarchies that are not biblical or people who maintain the fellowship, mentorship & 5 fold ministry as Jesus explained & his disciples exemplified.

It’s important to consider what sort of Christians these people are.

I, like many Catholics, often employ the phrase “non-Catholic Christians”; but when you come down to it, that is largely a matter of convenience. A non-Catholic Christian who is, say, Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox, has little in common with a non-Catholic Christian who is Evangelical – and even a Lutheran and an Orthodox are only very loosely similar.

Thus, dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals is very dissimilar to dialogue between Catholics and other branches of historical/traditional Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans). I think dialogue with Evangelicals is, as they say, an “acquired taste”.

If this is a taste you wish to acquire, or have already, I might suggest Thomas Howard’s book Evangelical is not enough. (He was Anglican at the time he wrote it, but what he argues for is not Anglicanism specifically, but rather the “Apostolic Churches”, which he identifies as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion.)

 

[AttachedToSix]

AttachedToSix,

It’s important to consider what sort of Christians these people are.

I, like many Catholics, often employ the phrase “non-Catholic Christians”; but when you come down to it, that is largely a matter of convenience. A non-Catholic Christian who is, say, Lutheran or Eastern Orthodox, has little in common with a non-Catholic Christian who is Evangelical – and even a Lutheran and an Orthodox are only very loosely similar.

Thus, dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals is very dissimilar to dialogue between Catholics and other branches of historical/traditional Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans). I think dialogue with Evangelicals is, as they say, an “acquired taste”.

If this is a taste you wish to acquire, or have already, I might suggest Thomas Howard’s book Evangelical is not enough. (He was Anglican at the time he wrote it, but what he argues for is not Anglicanism specifically, but rather the “Apostolic Churches”, which he identifies as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion.)

Thank you for the book recommendation. I have noticed quite a barrior in use of words between myself and these people. Half the time neither of us know what the other is referring to. In this case, I am confused at the launguage she uses above … I don’t know what she means by

“people who maintain the fellowship, mentorship & 5 fold ministry as Jesus explained & his disciples exemplified.”

What is a Five Fold Ministry? I hate to ask her but I might have to.

 

[inJESUS]

I am in a perpetual debate (going on 3 years now) with a couple of anti-Catholic people and now we are discussing the Early Church Fathers. They are trying to get to the roots of the early Christian Church worship and are reading about the “Organic Church” from anti-Catholic sources and I told them to read the Early Church Fathers to learn about the true early Church. Here is a response I got today. How would YOU respond?

this might help:

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

 

[AttachedToSix]

this might help:

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

Excellent! Thank you!

 

[ibkc]

What is a Five Fold Ministry? I hate to ask her but I might have to.

The “five fold ministry” refers to a belief that Jesus meant his followers to take on certain roles according to charistmatic gifts: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher. Their Biblical justification is Ephesians 4:11. It is popular in some evangelical and charismatic groups who have restorationist beliefs but it is not a mainline Protestant belief. It definitely is opposed to Catholic teaching, which says that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. You can Google the phrase and get a lot of arguments both for and against the Five Fold Ministry.

 

[inJESUS]

Excellent! Thank you!

you welcome and welcome on CAF

 

[AttachedToSix]

The “five fold ministry” refers to a belief that Jesus meant his followers to take on certain roles according to charistmatic gifts: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher. Their Biblical justification is Ephesians 4:11. It is popular in some evangelical and charismatic groups who have restorationist beliefs but it is not a mainline Protestant belief. It definitely is opposed to Catholic teaching, which says that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. You can Google the phrase and get a lot of arguments both for and against the Five Fold Ministry.

Thank you for rhe explanation. I will google the term for more info!

 

[heisenburg]

The issue many of these people have isn’t actually with their titles…

They generally believe that they have no need for ECF writings because their writings aren’t part of scripture…

However…

It’s funny how these same people will then quote John Macarthur, or Tim LaHaye…

If it is OK to use these poeple to help you understand Christ… Why is it NOT OK to use people TAUGHT by the apostles to help you understand Christ…

In Christ

 

[Peter_J]

Thank you for the book recommendation.

Incidentally, starting on about page 4 of the “Pope, Orthodox Patriarch join in prayer” thread, I got into a discussion with an Evangelical poster, Dan Ugaro. Some of his points never got answered, however, either b/c I didn’t have time or wasn’t terribly interested in them. You might like to jump into that thread – among other things, you could see first-hand that there are some Evangelicals who aren’t Catholic-haters

 

[AttachedToSix]

Incidentally, starting on about page 4 of the “Pope, Orthodox Patriarch join in prayer” thread, I got into a discussion with an Evangelical poster, Dan Ugaro. Some of his points never got answered, however, either b/c I didn’t have time or wasn’t terribly interested in them. You might like to jump into that thread – among other things, you could see first-hand that there are some Evangelicals who aren’t Catholic-haters

Thanks Peter - I’ll head over there