You’ve made quite a few assertions in this thread, but you haven’t been able to do much more than just that. Now please tell us just who among those we call early Chirch Fathers were “way out of line with the Bible in many areas.” Be specific. You made a charge, a charge against the genuine Christianity of some unnamed Church Fathers; either support that charge with facts or retract it.
You guys are the ones who keep trying to say that the ECFs all support the idea of praying to and for the dead. Therefore, in keeping with the topic of this thread; I can be specific to the concern of the OP.
There are three main positions on the Apocrypha, held by the various Christian Churches/Church Fathers (so called):
1/ The Roman Catholic Church has given 12 of these books full canonical status.
**2/ **The Church Of England, The Lutheran, and Zurich reformed Churches hold that these books are “useful;” but that they are not canonical.
3/ The Calvinistic and other reformed Churches have plainly set forth their position in The Westminister Confession of Faith; (1647), and it reads like this: “The books commonly called Apocrypha” not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than any other “human” writings.
Why don’t Protestants today accept the books of The Apocrypha; on the same basis as the other 66 books of the Bible?
There are three major reasons; in addition to many other ones.
**1/ **Although the Apocrypha was produced by Jews, they were not accepted by the Jewish people as a part of the official Hebrew Canon. The Jews Of The Intertestamental period seem, in fact, to have been aware of the absence of the spiritual gift which alone qualified men to write sacred Scripture.
**2/ **There has always, in history, been a great deal of uncertainty on the part of the Church, as to whether these books should be accepted as truly inspired. (Canonized). Throughout Church history, Church fathers and theologians have recognized a big difference between the Old Testament Scriptures, and the books of The Apocrypha.
3/ The books of The Apocrypha plainly teach doctrines that bluntly contradict the writings of The Old Testament Scriptures:
a) Prayers and offerings for the dead, (2 Macc 12:41-45, Baruch 3:4)
b) The book of Tobit presents an admixture of piety, folklore, and magic. The demon Asmodeus is represented as a jealous murderer of a young woman’s seven successive bridegrooms; but is finally “exorcised” by the burning entrails of a fish. (Tobit 6: 1-8, 8:1-9). Also, a potent medicine derived from the gall of this same fish, cures a father’s blindness which had been caused by bird droppings. (Tobit 2:9, 10:6-8, 11:7-15).
c) Judith’s language and conduct are characterized by double-dealing and falsehood being met with God’s approval, and with God’s assistance. (Judith 9:10, 13).
d) The Wisdom Of Solomon teaches the theories of Plato, saying that a person’s body is a mere hindrance to the soul. (WS 9:15). It also borrow’s Plato’s doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. (WS 8:19-20).
If what you call the ECFs support prayers to the dead, or for the dead; or for any of the other points mentioned above; they are indeed, far from the Bible.
