Evangelical view of Church History

  • Thread starter Thread starter FabiusMaximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FabiusMaximus

Guest
As an Evangelical considering to move to a more ancient Christianity, or at the very least an older Protestantism (like Lutheranism), I’m just curious to know how do Evangelicals, or Evangelical apologists look at Church history? It seems that a lot of what the Church Fathers say contradicts what modern Evangelicalism states.

What would you say? Is there a book on Evangelical apologetics or something?
 
The Early Church Fathers are just like the modern Evangelicals in that they have views and beliefs that are literally all over the map.

What is your view of the Scriptures?
 
As an Evangelical considering to move to a more ancient Christianity, or at the very least an older Protestantism (like Lutheranism), I’m just curious to know how do Evangelicals, or Evangelical apologists look at Church history? It seems that a lot of what the Church Fathers say contradicts what modern Evangelicalism states.

What would you say? Is there a book on Evangelical apologetics or something?
Go to www.thereasonforourhope.org and under the CD tab look for the CD (7 reasons why everyone should be Catholic ) by Peter Kreeft, Phd who is a professor at Boston College I believe. When he was a baptist, he also began a journey to discover more about the catholic faith. In one of his classes on Church History, a evangelical professor led him to read the Church Fathers, to verify that the early church was protestant and not catholic. That course of study proved to him that the early church was indeed catholic and that led him into converting.

You are right to recognize the divergence between the Church father and evangelical teaching. One is the roots of the faith, the other not.
 
Which evangelical system do you mean?
They are many and varied.
I would say Old Lutheran history would be very similar to the Catholic view but has changed over the years. The same would probably be said of the Church of England. And so on.

What I mean is there isn’t any definitive Evangelical view.
 
The Early Church Fathers are just like the modern Evangelicals in that they have views and beliefs that are literally all over the map.

What is your view of the Scriptures?
Some do,specifically Origen but I disgree with your mischaracterisation as most of the others follow the Catholic Party line.Many protestants including Kreeft, Hahn and Sugenis converted after discovering the Catholicism of the Fathers.I suggest you read "Rome Sweet Home’"by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.“The Faith of our Fathers” is an excellent book.“Evangelical is not Enough” by Thomas Howard is superb…“Born Fundamentalist,Born Again Catholic” by David Currie is wonderful.BY what Authority by Mark Shea is also good."The Biblical Basis of the Catholic Faith "will open closed eyes and is my favorite.Good luck!
 
I would suggest you read the fathers yourself rather than someone else’s cherry picking of them. Many can be found at the following site.

ccel.org/fathers.html

I would agree that there is great variety among the early fathers, indicating that various beliefs were permissible if not dominant. It was a gradual development as what once could be viewed as orthodox became unorthodox.
 
I would suggest you read the fathers yourself rather than someone else’s cherry picking of them. Many can be found at the following site.

ccel.org/fathers.html

I would agree that there is great variety among the early fathers, indicating that various beliefs were permissible if not dominant. It was a gradual development as what once could be viewed as orthodox became unorthodox.
It depends on what topic.

In terms of a real presence in Holy Communion, they seem almost unanimous. Confession and infant baptism were common practices of the early Church. The earliest liturgy, that of St James, speaks of prayer for the dead, which is indisputably common among early Christians.

I’ve never read an adequate response to these topics. I just read comments, like that of Jon Hus (please don’t take that offensively), that the Fathers are inconsistent, which is generally untrue. There is a consensus on a lot of issues.

With regards to the scriptures, a lot seems to support what they assert. And I do believe that Tradition, under some form, must be included in the process.

Who am I to dispute what Irenaeus wrote, for instance? If I previously understood John 6:63 as a verse to conclude a symbolic presence in Holy Communion, can I be correct with regards to Irenaeus, who clearly did not see that?

Am I wiser than he? Can I really claim to have the Holy Spirit helping me discern and not him? No. And no one has been able to give me an answer for this.
 
I reiterate that you should consuder reading some of the books that I have suggested .Hahn read the early church fathers in order to destroy Catholicism as did Sugenis they were shocked and frightened at wwhat they duscovered as it shook their Faith and resulted in their conversion.Cherrt-picking indeed!
 
It depends on what topic.

In terms of a real presence in Holy Communion, they seem almost unanimous. Confession and infant baptism were common practices of the early Church. The earliest liturgy, that of St James, speaks of prayer for the dead, which is indisputably common among early Christians.

I’ve never read an adequate response to these topics. I just read comments, like that of Jon Hus (please don’t take that offensively), that the Fathers are inconsistent, which is generally untrue. There is a consensus on a lot of issues.

With regards to the scriptures, a lot seems to support what they assert. And I do believe that Tradition, under some form, must be included in the process.

Who am I to dispute what Irenaeus wrote, for instance? If I previously understood John 6:63 as a verse to conclude a symbolic presence in Holy Communion, can I be correct with regards to Irenaeus, who clearly did not see that?

Am I wiser than he? Can I really claim to have the Holy Spirit helping me discern and not him? No. And no one has been able to give me an answer for this.
They did not necessarily believe in the Real Presence the way the Catholic Church defines it.

Augustine wrote:
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.
(On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Chapter 16, Paragraph 24)
newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm
Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm
  1. “But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When you shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.
(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 27, Paragraph 3)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701027.htm

Tertullian wrote:
He says, it is true, that “the flesh profits nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which comes down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.
(On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37)
newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top