How trustworthy is early Church literature?

[MariaG]

I know this topic has slipped it’s rails, but I’m going to ask him another question next week: If, as he says, the early Church was made up of autonomous communities of believers with no central authority, and if there were divisions among them, that WHAT, pray tell, is his problem with me? He already agreed that we agree on “the essentials,” after all. So, aren’t we, by his definition, just members of different Christian communities with divisions?

Here may be some of his objections.

He may deny the Christianity of Catholic wholesale, but thinks you somehow got the point. You are following a false teacher that the Bible tells us to beware of. (That one always seems ironic to me. Which came first Catholic Church or Protestant? Which one then would it be more logical that the Bible was refering to?)

Catholics worship Mary, you don’t, but they teach it. Idol worship, etc. All of these things will eventually strip away your salvation.

At least that is what similar conversations I have had with my fundamental friends went.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

montanaman:

Perhaps this is a question for another thread, but do any of you find it difficult to do fruitful apologetics work from the Bible alone, leaving early Church fathers out of it?

Scott Hahn’s work is pretty good at that.

. . . I find that even if I get a fundy’s back to the wall, he just changes definitions or quotes verses with no bearing on the discussion at hand. So, is it even possible, using 99% Bible, to get anywhere?

I try not to back 'em up against a wall. It only hardens their hearts and closes their eyes to the possibility that the Church might actually be THE Church.

I try to keep it personal rather than polemical. E.g., last night, I was talking with an ex-Catholic fundamentalist, and I shared with him that I was a Convert to the Church because I was compelled by the full integrity of Scripture to accept the fact that the Catholic Church is both the historical and spiritual repository of the promises of Christ to the Apostles.

He brought up clerical celibacy – you know, Peter’s mother-in-law – and I mentioned to him that I had just the previous week been struck by Paul’s admonition in I Corinthians 7:29: “From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none.” I backed it up with Mt. 19:12 but didn’t drill the point home. He, of course, mentioned “forbidding to marry” which have me the opportunity to explain that nobody is forbiddent to marry, and gave a short (SHORT) description of the difference between discipline and doctrine . . .

Montanaman may have a heavier apologetic burden, but generally, I find that little one-liners work better just to soften the soil, so to speak.

 

[PaulDupre]

clmowry:

PaulDupre:

You don’t just marry the girl, you marry the whole family.
Think about it,
Paul

May I ask you a few questions, Chuck?

1. How old are you?
2. Are you currently married to a woman of a different faith?
3. Do you have children?
4. Does your wife’s father hate you?

I have been there, and believe me it ain’t pretty.
Paul

 

[mercygate]

clmowry:

PaulDupre:

You don’t just marry the girl, you marry the whole family.
Think about it,
Paul

Chuck, you’re right about the centrality of the relationship between the married couple. ** But you DO marry the family.** Sometimes it requires a “divorce” (my spouse had to take VERY strong stand to stop familial meddling in our relationship – to the point that the “offenders” stayed away from our home for years. It had to be done)

 

[clmowry]

PaulDupre:

May I ask you a few questions, Chuck?

1. How old are you?
2. Are you currently married to a woman of a different faith?
3. Do you have children?
4. Does your wife’s father hate you?

I have been there, and believe me it ain’t pretty.
Paul

1. 38
2. Not any more. She’s converted.
3. 4 3 Boys 16-15-14 and a Girl 3.
4. Nope. Thank you God.

I didn’t say it would be pretty or easy, or mean to imply that it would be.

Heck, I’ve read Romeo and Juliet, not a pretty sight, alot of people end up dead and/or heart broken. But…

Perhaps I didn’t make my point plainly enough.

It was simply this.

The proposed marriage can work, if, the prospective wife is prepared to honor her husband first among men. If the father-in-law demands a choice between him and her husband than he needs to know in advance that he will be forcing his daughter to choose her husband.

Once that is understood, then perhaps, the choice will never have to be made.

If on the other hand the father-in-law is always going to have a say in the relationship, then it doesn’t matter if the father-in-law hates or likes the man.

If their relationship is going to be subject to his approval on a day to day basis then the relationship is doomed from the start.

My point is that the decision is hers to make and not the father-in-law’s.

Chuck

 

[mercygate]

1) 38
2) Not any more. She’s converted.
3) 4 3 Boys 16-15-14 and a Girl 3.
4) Nope. Thank you God.

I didn’t say it would be pretty or easy, or mean to imply that it would be.

Heck, I’ve read Romeo and Juliet, not a pretty sight, alot of people end up dead and/or heart broken. But…

Perhaps I didn’t make my point plainly enough.

It was simply this.

The proposed marriage can work, if, the prospective wife is prepared to honor her husband first among men. If the father-in-law demands a choice between him and her husband than he needs to know in advance that he will be forcing his daughter to choose her husband.

Once that is understood, then perhaps, the choice will never have to be made.

If on the other hand the father-in-law is always going to have a say in the relationship, then it doesn’t matter if the father-in-law hates or likes the man.

If their relationship is going to be subject to his approval on a day to day basis then the relationship is doomed from the start.

My point is that the decision is hers to make and not the father-in-law’s.

Chuck

Well said. God bless you (as he clearly has!) and your wife!