Protestants and the early Fathers.

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dennisknapp

Guest
This is a poll to gauge the spectrum of opinion regarding the early Fathers among Protestants on this forum.

I hope this will give us a better understanding of each other.

Peace
 
A few of you have responded that the Fathers are helpful.

In what ways?

One of you responded that they are helpful, but you have never read them. How can you say this?

Peace
 
Man, I was hoping to dialog with some informed Protestants about the Fathers… Oh, well.

Do you ever get the impression most Protestants willfully choose to be ignorant in order to maintain their worldview? They have all they need, all they have to do is pick up and read. There are somethings I will never understand.

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Man, I was hoping to dialog with some informed Protestants about the Fathers… Oh, well.
Click to expand...
Well, technically I am still a Protestant but after discovering the Fathers I am being forced to reconsider my affiliation. Prior to reading Catholicism and Fundamentalism I had never heard of the Early Church Fathers. I think that if anyone examines the Fathers of the early Church is forced to be either Catholic, Orthodox, or a traditional High Church Protestant. I think the evidence is heavily tilted to Catholicism but I am sure there are some on this forum that will object.
 
I get that impression from another board I participate in. Lots of the evangelical/fundamentalist types claim to worship in the style of the “Early Church” but do they bother to read what the Fathers of the Early Church had to say? Nope. Why not? Because it doesn’t fit in with their erronous interpretation of the Bible, thus if in conflict with the “Word of God” (aka their wrong interpretations thereof) than it is irrelevant.

When you have all your chips on Sola Scriptura, you just can’t accept the authority of the Church Fathers. You have to continue to maintain that your interpretation of the Bible is what the “Early Church” taught, and the Fathers are just Catholic dupes-not the “real” protestant “early church”.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Man, I was hoping to dialog with some informed Protestants about the Fathers… Oh, well.

Do you ever get the impression most Protestants willfully choose to be ignorant in order to maintain their worldview? They have all they need, all they have to do is pick up and read. There are somethings I will never understand.

Peace
Click to expand...
This is where the miscommunication of catholics and protestants comes from. Where did y’all get the idea that we just ‘pick up and read’ and everything is made clear just by our own understanding of the bible? It is not by us alone that the message is made clear. With the Holy Spirit abiding within us we can read the Word of God and truly hear what He is saying.

Now, before anyone brings up the old and tired ‘If everyone has the Holy Spirit why are there so many different denominations?’ I am going to ask you kind of the same thing… From what I have seen and read I understand that the catholic church has one set of teachings… I get that. But, I have also seen where there are different priests and catholics who have different understandings of what they have learned. If the Holy Spirit is within the catholic church (which I have no doubt It does) why do you have so many different views as to what the catholic church teaches? This is basically where the different denoms come from. We take from ONE set of teachings and each denom has different understandings of what this means. But instead of those set of ONE teachings being what the church here on earth teaches it’s the bible that we have different understandings about.

I, for one, do not claim a denomination because I believe that we humans have screwed it up massively. I take in all that is being taught (whether by the catholic church or a denom) and pray, research, and pray some more and let the Holy Spirit guide me to what I need in my life to follow Christ. 🙂
 
40.png
Singinbeauty:
From what I have seen and read I understand that the catholic church has one set of teachings… I get that. But, I have also seen where there are different priests and catholics who have different understandings of what they have learned. If the Holy Spirit is within the catholic church (which I have no doubt It does) why do you have so many different views as to what the catholic church teaches?
Click to expand...
I think you take the gift of infallibility that the Church possesses way too far. Infallibility only extends to the teaching perrogotive of the Church (ex cathedra papal pronouncements and ecumenical councils). Infallibility does not mean that everyone will follow the magisterium of the Church.
 
There are no other views on dogmatically defined Church teachings, you are either orthodox or heterodox.

Other issues can have disagreement. Let us just say for example, I would like the Popes to use the papal tiara again. Someone else may say it is good that they don’t. Neither one of us denies any doctrine or dogma of the Church and thus such a disagreement is OK.

The Holy Spirit most certainly leads us (the Church, not the individual) into all Truth. Therefore, the teachings of the Church are all necessary for salvation and none are open to be questioned. It is now our choice to believe the Church and thus follow Christ, or ignore the Church and turn away from Christ. You cannot have different understandings of the Truth.

If the Catholic Church says that baptism is necessary for salvation and some protestant group says it isn’t-someone is wrong here. There has to be ONE Church, not a gaggle of conflicting opinions on doctrines that are NOT open to opinion.
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Man, I was hoping to dialog with some informed Protestants about the Fathers… Oh, well.

Do you ever get the impression most Protestants willfully choose to be ignorant in order to maintain their worldview? They have all they need, all they have to do is pick up and read. There are somethings I will never understand.

Peace
Click to expand...
I suppose it’s too bad you couldn’t converse with reformers like Calvin, Luther and Zwingli. Then you could get it straight from the horses mouth how these learned Catholic men (who read the ECF’s) and knew Catholic doctrine could decide to leave the church (or in Luther’s case be excommunicated).

I don’t believe prots willfully choose ignorance. They simply read the Bible and compare that with what comes out of the Pastor’s teaching to see if it adds up. That’s what the Bereans did in Paul’s day. They verified what Paul preached by reading Scriptures (OT). Prots look at the Bible more than anybody and come to different conclusions (from Catholics) based on what they read. Obviously, your way is the correct one, right? I mean your Church has reached certain conclusions and you naturally agree, right?

I knew next to nothing about the Catholic faith for the first 30 years of my life - not because I didn’t want to, but because I grew up in a part of the country that was predominantly protestant (Baptist specifically) with no interaction with Catholics. You may not believe it but there was only one Catholic Church in my hometown and I never knew a person who went there.

The issue is more complicated than what you seem to think.

Peace…
 
Singing, what you have described is a false construct that some non-catholics use to attack the Church, in saying it is divided, since not everyone subscribes to the official teachings.

What they are doing is misrepresenting the faith here, in that there is one faith, if I go to a Catholic Church I can find out what is the truth like this,

Is a Baptism valid in the Catholic Church, if I baptize in Jesus’s name?
Yes or no?

In the Catholic Church there is one answer, there is one faith, and one understanding of it.

There will always be people who don’t want to follow the Church’s teachings, yet that doesn’t mean that there is divisions in the Church, just dissenting opinions.

This is vastly different from a person starting their own church based on their interpretation of the Bible which stems from their faith tradition. I believe that a non-denominational church will have some people in the church who don’t believe exactly what the pastor says, yet they are part of that church. This is entirely different than being in a separate communion such as Unitarians and Presbyterians.

I do invite you to read and trace back your faith tradition. I believe it is loosely based on a Baptist faith tradition, see how it traces back to the early church and how similar it is to beliefs of early christians.

God Bless
Scylla
 
I am a Australian ‘megachurch’ pentecostal. I recognize the authority of the early fathers primarily with regards to the interpretation of scripture; if learned men, reading a text written in their mother tongue and in a familiar cultural context interpret the text in a particular way, we would have to have very, very good reasons for reinterpreting that text thousands of years later. This would be my first line of defence against the obscene fatalism of Luther and Calvin: is it really more likely that two sixteenth century theologians would understand the central doctrines of Pauline theology better than every single church father prior to Augustine?

Having said that, it’s important to remember that the fathers existed in their own cultural context, and that that context informed their theology. A consensus among the fathers may simply reflect popular prejudices of their time. I don’t believe any special wisdom was granted to people simply by virtue of the fact that they were alive in the second century.

By the way, how many of the early fathers believed in the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the Roman bishop? At a glance I would think that, were I to accept the writings of the fathers as absolutely authoritative, I’d attend an Orthodox church rather than a Roman one.
 
40.png
BenK:
I am a Australian ‘megachurch’ pentecostal. I recognize the authority of the early fathers primarily with regards to the interpretation of scripture; if learned men, reading a text written in their mother tongue and in a familiar cultural context interpret the text in a particular way, we would have to have very, very good reasons for reinterpreting that text thousands of years later. This would be my first line of defence against the obscene fatalism of Luther and Calvin: is it really more likely that two sixteenth century theologians would understand the central doctrines of Pauline theology better than every single church father prior to Augustine?

Having said that, it’s important to remember that the fathers existed in their own cultural context, and that that context informed their theology. A consensus among the fathers may simply reflect popular prejudices of their time. I don’t believe any special wisdom was granted to people simply by virtue of the fact that they were alive in the second century.

By the way, how many of the early fathers believed in the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the Roman bishop? At a glance I would think that, were I to accept the writings of the fathers as absolutely authoritative,** I’d attend an Orthodox church rather than a Roman one.**
Click to expand...
You could be right, but would the Fathers be Pentecostal? Culture should never be an excuse for bad theology.

Peace
 
40.png
BenK:
By the way, how many of the early fathers believed in the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the Roman bishop? At a glance I would think that, were I to accept the writings of the fathers as absolutely authoritative, I’d attend an Orthodox church rather than a Roman one.
Click to expand...
Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

“Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

“And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches” (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

There is more if you would like…*
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
There are no other views on dogmatically defined Church teachings, you are either orthodox or heterodox.

## [snipped] ##
Click to expand...

However, there is often more than one view on what a dogma, a doctrine, or a theological proposition may mean.​

For example:
  • there are (or were in the early 1960s) at least four different views on the scope and meaning of the mediation of Mary;
  • just as there are Thomist and Scotist views on the necessity of the Incarnation;
  • or different understandings of Predestination, among Catholics.
Examples could be multiplied.

AFAIK, none of the differing views in these matters have been judged heterodox. Some views have, of course:
  • such as one long-held interpretation of how far one could go in using mental reservation (there have been at least two doctrines among theologians on this point, a stricter and a laxer);
  • or certain views about the psychology of inspiration.
Which means that certain opinions which were at one time allowable, no longer are.

No one now believes in the doctrine, once common among some Fathers, that the Atonement was a ransom paid to the devil - that died out by itself, not because of any conciliar or episcopal condemnation. St. Augustine’s views did not all find acceptance - and the same could be said of St.Cyprian’s ideas. It would be very simple-minded to suppose that the CC (for example) agrees with all the teaching of every Father: since they themselves often disagreed, either with each other or with views formerly held by them individually, such a thing would be impossible. ##
 
However, if the Church specifically rules on something-that is it. I realize that there is some room for legitimate speculation.
 
The only way a Protestant can remain a Protestant after become famliar with the Fathers is to view their own interpretation of scripture as superior to the earliest Christians.

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
The only way a Protestant can remain a Protestant after become famliar with the Fathers is to view their own interpretation of scripture as superior to the earliest Christians.

Peace
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Gottle covered that adequately, I believe.

O+
 
O.S. Luke:
Rubbish. Gottle covered that adequately, I believe.

O+
Click to expand...
He covered that there are disagreements among Catholics as to what a certain dogma of the Church means, not that Protestants have a clear understanding of the Fathers. Again, how Protestants can remain so after becoming familiar with the Fathers is beyond me.

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
Do you ever get the impression most Protestants willfully choose to be ignorant in order to maintain their worldview? They have all they need, all they have to do is pick up and read. There are somethings I will never understand.

Peace
Click to expand...
Some do, some don’t. Many of the modern evangelicals have an almost anti-intellectual trend and would probably take Joel Osteen over Irenaeus of Lyons. :confused:

Others, usually the Reformed Protestants, do read a lot of the Fathers, but filter it through a Calvinistic lens. I can’t get over how so many can be so impressed by Augustine but completely ignore what he says about the sacraments or about Mary… ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top