How important are early church fathers, and teachings to non-Catholics?

[Teneas]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

 

[NHInsider]

Well you can always get in trouble generalizing about Protestants, since there are so many variations, but speaking from my own origins in evangelicalism, I knew NOTHING of the ECF (somehow there was nothing except Renaissance decadance between the death of John the Beloved and Martin Luther).

 

[Rightlydivide]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

Somewhat.
From what scripture says, Corinth had divisions with people following Cephas, Paul, Apollos. Rome had a severe immorality problem in some corners. The majority of churches in Revelation, Philadelphia being the exception, had major issues. So I have no reason to think they suddenly starting getting things right.

 

[SunnaB16]

Ellen G White, foundress of the Seventh Day Adventists, refers to the Church Fathers as “the so called Church Fathers”.

“Bible only” types would discount the Church Fathers: Fundamentalists. Plus Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphians etc etc etc, virtually all of the 30,000+ sects.

Calvinists take notice of the Fathers (St. Augustine is a favourite), but they distort their teachings where it suits them.

Low Church Anglicans: Calvinist. High Church: close to us.

As NHI says, it`s all over the place.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am beginning to go into more depths of my Catholic roots and also draw on its Jewish heritage through Hebrew Catholic’s studies on Israel and the Church…

Christianity spread throughout the world and the apostles left successors as bishops and teachers, called both Church Fathers depending on their contributions…they all worked from different regions to further define our faith in the endless work of inculturation.

Just learning one country or region of the world, their Church fathers, can be most time consuming but give a person an idea of how much different ones worked…unity in diversity…

 

[sonichuiscool]

They can guide our understanding of faith and doctrine, but they cannot arbitrate. That job is for the Bible alone.

 

[JonNC]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

Probably less so than traditional Anglicans, but perhaps more so than most western non-Catholic Christian communions, Lutheranism values the ECF’s and early councils. They are often referenced in the Confessions, and in fact it is the three creeds that are listed first in the Book of Concord. Martin Chemnitz, the second generation reformer wrote:

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… **We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. **Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

Of course, all of these things are subject to the final norm of scripture.

Jon

 

[yellowbird]

As an Evangelical for many years, I had never heard the term “Church Fathers.” I attended and taught Sunday School… small groups… the whole thing. I never gave a thought to the “Church” beyond the United States in the past 100 years or so…

 

[Teneas]

I just find it interesting how the earliest Christians believed and practiced, since they were the ones closest to Christ. The earliest of the earliest ones were taught by the apostles themselves.

Keep em coming folks.

 

[Mark77]

They can guide our understanding of faith and doctrine, but they cannot arbitrate. That job is for the Bible alone.

who arbitrates when two sincere, God loving Christians interpret the Bible in opposite & conflicting ways?

i agree with you on the fact that ECF’s “can guide our understanding of faith and doctrine”, but disagree when you say “they cannot arbitrate.”

Those who were chosen as successors to Peter & the Apostles, the Priests & Bishops, surely can arbitrate, depending on their level of authority & the Pope is the final arbiter here on earth. That is why they were chosen by Jesus Himself to be the shepherds & guide the flock until He returns.

The Bible tells us that the first thing the Apostles did after Jesus’ Ascension was pray & select Matthais as the successor to Judas Iscariot.

“And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (Acts 1:26 KJV) This was before Pentecost & before one Word of the New Testament had been written.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[KathleenGee]

The Church through the Holy Spirit worked for many, many years and with many, many people in assembling the books of the Bible for the edification of God in universal union with all peoples, all races, all times.

Start with learning early Scriptural history…it is vast considering the influence of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and the faith spreading rapidly throughout that time in the world, the isues of language and people’s history, etc.

 

[Teneas]

They can guide our understanding of faith and doctrine, but they cannot arbitrate. That job is for the Bible alone.

They had no Bible back then man, at least, not as we have it now. Some of the scriptures weren’t even written yet!

 

[Teneas]

Somewhat.
From what scripture says, Corinth had divisions with people following Cephas, Paul, Apollos. Rome had a severe immorality problem in some corners. The majority of churches in Revelation, Philadelphia being the exception, had major issues. So I have no reason to think they suddenly starting getting things right.

Then you must not believe in Christianity at all, at even given time, no matter what you state on your profile. If the Church, and Christians were as heavily divided as you seem to believe, Christianity can’t be right. Time to find something else to have faith in I suppose.

 

[yellowbird]

They had no Bible back then man, at least, not as we have it now. Some of the scriptures weren’t even written yet!

True… additionally…

For hundreds & hundreds of years, the literacy rate was low …even after Bibles existed it’s not like the average person could pick up one, read it and understand it.

Why would God choose a method of communicating to His people (reading the Bible) if it was impossible for the VAST majority? Poor planning on His part, don’t you think?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Then you must not believe in Christianity at all, at even given time, no matter what you state on your profile. If the Church, and Christians were as heavily divided as you seem to believe, Christianity can’t be right. Time to find something else to have faith in I suppose.

What is your intention with this statement? Your sarcasm does not deal with what the churches were like.

 

[jericho777]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

If you are trying to hold those teachings by men that are not in the bible. Then not very important. The NT answers perfectly what christians taught and practiced. There is no need to look any further.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Just as the title says. How important is it to those that are not Catholic, as to what the earliest Christians taught and practiced?

Should how they taught, practiced, and believed effect how you practice now?

It might be if I had confidence in the source of info about them.

 

[Teneas]

What is your intention with this statement? Your sarcasm does not deal with what the churches were like.

My intention is to state that if you honestly believe that the earliest Christians, those closest to Christ and the apostles themselves, were as divided as you think they were, then Christianity was doomed from the start. That Christ was wrong. That Christ did not intend to start any Church, whether physical or invisible. That if your belief is correct, we have nothing at all to base faith upon today.

Canon for the Bible was decided by those same men you think were so divided.

Was there disagreements? Sure, any family has them. Were they divided so much that it would mirror what we see today with the denominations? Heck no.

The topic, that I started by the way, wasn’t at all what the early churches were like. It was…well, you can read the title.

I was not sarcastic till the end of the post you quoted. Besides that, I meant all that I said. If the early fathers were divided, then it is clear that we are all wrong from the get go. If the apostles themselves could not teach what was right to those following them, we are doomed. It was a sham.

Peter and Paul did disagree from time to time, but…when Peter spoke, it was the end of the disagreement, and Paul listened.

Disagreements on simple things are one thing, disagreements such as those that exist today, is another.

Edit: Also, you speak of the community of believers, not the Fathers themselves.

 

[Teneas]

I would think that those that claim to want to be closer to Christ would actually care about how those that were closer to Christ, and those that gave us the Canon of scriptures practiced and believed. I find it appalling the amount of stubborness that exist among some of you. You will even ignore those that actually gave you those Bibles you cling to. Am not saying don’t cling to those Bibles btw. You will actually ignore those that learned FROM the apostles how to practice. Those that were TRAINED by the apostles.

You have amazed me…

I haven’t seen ONE post by a non-Catholic even hinting at taking the earliest Christians seriously!..just WOW

 

[SyCarl]

I take the early church fathers quite seriously. I have all 28 volumes of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture and read quite a bit or material on the internet. It must be remembered, however, that these men did not have the chrism of infallibility that the apostles had in their writings. Closeness to the apostles in time does not mean they could not err. The Bible clearly shows us that error had arisen within the churches founded by Paul even within his own lifetime. For example, the Corinthians and Galatians had both been taught directly by Paul but fell into error so that Paul had to write correcting them.

This being said, I find that the writings of the early church fathers show that different views were accepted on many matters. When teaching what was required, they stuck very close to the Apostle’s Creed. Many beliefs held by Protestants find support among the church fathers even if those views did not predominate. I think that modern Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have tried to define too much as being necessary for belief.