JesusforMadrid, first of all why would you believe only some of the things that the early fathers taught and not other things?
Do you feel that the Holy Spirit guided them in only the doctrines in which you believe in?
You ask some good questions. I would be willing to accept a historical fact such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary if it were supported historically, even if that support came from sources not part of the cannon. However, that support is non existent in the Early Church.
I think the ECFs were fallible and capable of error, just as I am, my pastor is, my church is, etc. I think the Holy Spirit was guiding them and lead them generally to the truth.
This question is more difficult for a RC than for me, since you have several dogmas and doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary that are refuted by some Fathers (e.g. Origen, John Chrysostom, Basil) but accepted the the RC church.
And why is it important that these doctrines should have been written about in the first two centuries,?
Do you feel that the Church went apostate at some point?
With the Marian doctrines, we are talking about historical points of fact. Was Mary born sinless? The Bible does not claim this, or at least, not clearly and the Early Church Fathers did not interpret the Bible as claiming this. So, as with any history, the reliability of the proof is directly proportional to the witnesses at the time that provide that testimony. Historical truth is the confluence of independent streams of good evidence. We have Early Church Fathers who were alive at the time of Mary. Clement was Paul’s disciple and mentioned in Philippians. Polycarp was John´s disciple and Irenaeus was his disciple. That these great men had absolutely nothing to say about this supposed historical fact is telling. Their silence absolutely does not support a belief that appears about 3 centuries later. If it were true, how could they be silent about it? They would clearly know of its importance. In the thousands of pages of their writings, would they not mention something of great importance?
And so, what we have is a testimony that begins in the 3rd century and picks up steam as the centuries pass, only accepted in the 12 century at a council. What historian would base his argument on data that appears 300 years later, when there are thousands and thousands of pages of witnesses who were alive at or near the time? The argument from tradition is very weak for the immaculate conception of Mary.
Others on this thread have said, basically, the written tradition is only part of the story. There is an Oral Tradition. I wish somebody would send me the MP3 of the Oral Tradition: it must be great.
Seriously, it is a complete false dichotomy to think that there is an Oral Tradition distinct doctrinally from the Written Tradition and that these two do not intersect. There are thousands of pages written by the fathers in the first 2 centuries. Some of these are written to counter heresies. Others are sermons (e.g. the 9 letters of Ignatius to the Churches). Others instruct in Church practice (The Didache). Others are almost quasi revelations (e.g. The Shepard of Hermas). And others are histories. It is completely beyond reason to think that in these diverse documents, the Fathers would maintain secret certain doctrines and beliefs contained in the Oral Tradition. This sounds more like the Davinci Code than a solid argument from tradition,
Tradition from the first two century ECFs tells us many things, some of which make Evangelicals nervous but were nonetheless part of the Early Church: the importance of baptism for salvation, the inextricable relationship between faith and works, no military service, no capital punishment, no prosperity gospel, separation from culture and society in many ways.
However, no immaculate conception.,
Is there a certain cutoff date of doctrine in which if it isn’t written about before that date, then it isn’t true?
No, but there is a “principle of time”, as Tertullian called it, which suggests that those doctrines of the early church were purer, than those of later fathers. Error, when it comes, came after purity of doctrine, not before. So, 1st century, very good historical support, later centuries, progressively weaker.
Uh…yeah…I know…