Protestants and the early Fathers.

[Singinbeauty]

…almost anti-intellectual trend and would probably take Joel Osteen over Irenaeus of Lyons.

Could you explain this further. I don’t want to jump to conclusions about what you are getting at in this statement. Thank you.

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

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

That’s a non sequitur, Dennis. If there were disagreements among Catholics, how would there be clear understanding of the Fathers among Protestants? I believe Gottle discussed Augustine and Cyprian in his post.

Patristics was required reading in seminary. Moreover, Patristics was required reading for my advanced studies in liturgics and sacramental theology. You can have a clear understanding of the Fathers without agreeing with them… as some Catholics did (and do). Among the ante- and post-Nicene Fathers, there were even some disagreements between them.

O+

 

[Character_Zero]

Singinbeauty:

Could you explain this further. I don’t want to jump to conclusions about what you are getting at in this statement. Thank you.

I mean that there is a certain anti intellectual attitude among a lot of evangelicals, as if studying philosophy or ancient history is too “worldly” and one should stick with Rick Warren and Bruce Wilkinson. In fact, these modern types are preferred over the entirety of Christian testimony in the minds of many people. I’ve heard Protestants lament over this fact. Again remember I said “many” and not “all.”

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

That’s a non sequitur, Dennis. If there were disagreements among Catholics, how would there be clear understanding of the Fathers among Protestants? I believe Gottle discussed Augustine and Cyprian in his post.

Patristics was required reading in seminary. Moreover, Patristics was required reading for my advanced studies in liturgics and sacramental theology. You can have a clear understanding of the Fathers without agreeing with them… as some Catholics did (and do). Among the ante- and post-Nicene Fathers, there were even some disagreements between them.

O+

There is a difference between an in-house debate and what you are saying here.

How do you reconcile your disagreements with them?

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

There is a difference between an in-house debate and what you are saying here.

How do you reconcile your disagreements with them?

Peace

Some of my disagreements are the same disagreements that Catholics themselves had. Some of Clement’s writings hinted of post-death salvation, and Gregory of Nyssa’s writings sometimes embraced universalism. Epiphanius denied the assumption of Mary. Hippolytus referred to the dead being in a heavenly region of Hades (not Hell, since Hippolytus believe Hell was Greek mythology and not Christian) without the suffering associated with Purgatory. Ambrose embraced the belief of footwashing as a sacrament, and believed that original sin could be removed by such. The differences from Eastern Fathers and Western Fathers have to be taken into account; Easterners (such as Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, and Origen) were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Westerners (Tertullian, Gregory I, and Jerome) eschewed Greek thought.

If I’m not mistaken, neither the Council of Trent nor Vatican II ever claimed that the Church Fathers were without disagreement, either with themselves or with more recent statements of dogma given by the Church. I think their writings have to be examined in light of tradition, experience, reason, and indeed Scripture. But they must be examined with the balance of those things.

O+

 

[ComradeAndrei]

But there are points of doctrine on which the Fathers were in consensus-namely the “peculiar” Catholic doctrine of the Transubstatiation. Some points they definately didn’t teach would be “Sola Scriptura” or that baptism is a mere symbol, i.e. protestantism.

Yes, the Fathers of the Early Church are not infallible but they do give us a good idea of what the Church has been constantly teaching for the past 2000 yrs and in light of Sacred Tradition, what they teach lines up with Catholic doctrine.

 

[O.S.Luke]

ComradeAndrei:

But there are points of doctrine on which the Fathers were in consensus-namely the “peculiar” Catholic doctrine of the Transubstatiation. Some points they definately didn’t teach would be “Sola Scriptura” or that baptism is a mere symbol, i.e. protestantism.

Yes, the Fathers of the Early Church are not infallible but they do give us a good idea of what the Church has been constantly teaching for the past 2000 yrs and in light of Sacred Tradition, what they teach lines up with Catholic doctrine.

But you’ve just shown that there are misconceptions. Many Protestants do NOT see baptism as a mere symbol; in my tradition, it is a sacrament and a means of grace - our definition is the same as Augustine’s: an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. And as I shared earlier, Anglicans and Methodists do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. We also believe in the Real Presence.

The Early Church Fathers could not have said the word transubstantiation - that term/concept didn’t exist until the 11th-12th century; they believed in the Real Presence of Christ without a rationalistic Thomistic explanation (mainly, because Thomas wasn’t born yet!). It simply was the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed.

I’m not at the office, but I believe it was Justin Martyr that said by prayer the bread and wine were transmuted into flesh and blood. I believe that Church Fathers Marcion and Turtullian fought over this very issue (Marcion was an Early Church version of Ullrich Zwingli).

For the most part, we owe the Early Church Fathers a debt of gratitude for their transmitting the faith through tradition and word of mouth. They weren’t infallible, but they were certainly faithful.

O+

 

[ComradeAndrei]

But you’ve just shown that there are misconceptions. Many Protestants do NOT see baptism as a mere symbol; in my tradition, it is a sacrament and a means of grace - our definition is the same as Augustine’s: an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. And as I shared earlier, Anglicans and Methodists do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. We also believe in the Real Presence.

That’s good, we narrow it down to a few denominations.

The Early Church Fathers could not have said the word transubstantiation - that term/concept didn’t exist until the 11th-12th century; they believed in the Real Presence of Christ without a rationalistic Thomistic explanation (mainly, because Thomas wasn’t born yet!). It simply was the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed.

Good point. I just fired off “transubstantiation” as the same as Real Presence but that is true that it is the explaination of the Real Presence.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

But you’ve just shown that there are misconceptions. Many Protestants do NOT see baptism as a mere symbol; in my tradition, it is a sacrament and a means of grace - our definition is the same as Augustine’s: an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. And as I shared earlier, Anglicans and Methodists do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura. We also believe in the Real Presence.

The Early Church Fathers could not have said the word transubstantiation - that term/concept didn’t exist until the 11th-12th century; they believed in the Real Presence of Christ without a rationalistic Thomistic explanation (mainly, because Thomas wasn’t born yet!). It simply was the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed.

I’m not at the office, but I believe it was Justin Martyr that said by prayer the bread and wine were transmuted into flesh and blood. I believe that Church Fathers Marcion and Turtullian fought over this very issue (Marcion was an Early Church version of Ullrich Zwingli).

For the most part, we owe the Early Church Fathers a debt of gratitude for their transmitting the faith through tradition and word of mouth. They weren’t infallible, but they were certainly faithful.

O+

Did you just call Marcion a Church Father?

The issue here is not whether one can disagree with the ECF, but why one disagrees and who has the final say.

You said,

“If I’m not mistaken, neither the Council of Trent nor Vatican II ever claimed that the Church Fathers were without disagreement, either with themselves or with more recent statements of dogma given by the Church.** I think their writings have to be examined in light of tradition, experience, reason, and indeed Scripture. But they must be examined with the balance of those things.”**

I totally agree, but who has the last word about these things, you, me? One of the greatest obstacles to Truth to come out of the Protestant Reformation was the concept of personal interpretation.

You may add a few other criteria to your list, but it is still you who finally decides. As a Catholic, I submit myself to the Church in this matter. It is She who has the right to decide what is or is not proper dogma and doctrine.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

Did you just call Marcion a Church Father?

Marcion was the son of a bishop (married clergy in those days, I suppose!), and a bishop himself. He was also a heretic. And no, I don’t subscribe to his teachings.

The issue here is not whether one can disagree with the ECF, but why one disagrees and who has the final say.

You said,

“If I’m not mistaken, neither the Council of Trent nor Vatican II ever claimed that the Church Fathers were without disagreement, either with themselves or with more recent statements of dogma given by the Church.** I think their writings have to be examined in light of tradition, experience, reason, and indeed Scripture. But they must be examined with the balance of those things.”**

I totally agree, but who has the last word about these things, you, me? One of the greatest obstacles to Truth to come out of the Protestant Reformation was the concept of personal interpretation.

You may add a few other criteria to your list, but it is still you who finally decides. As a Catholic, I submit myself to the Church in this matter. It is She who has the right to decide what is or is not proper dogma and doctrine.

Peace

Dennis:

Since the E.O.'s and the Catholics disagree about some dogmas and doctrines, I’ll find comfort in knowing that my tradition isn’t the only one who disagrees with what is “proper.” And Catholics are in some sort of communion with E.O.'s, I believe.

Actually, there are very few variances between Anglicanism/Methodism and the Church Fathers. John Wesley quoted them ad nauseam, although he quoted more often the Eastern Fathers than the Western Fathers.

So it’s an academic argument at best. As stated earlier, there were disagreements among the church fathers; I’m not surprised that there are disagreements now.

Welcome to the Kingdom of God, Dennis.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Marcion was the son of a bishop (married clergy in those days, I suppose!), and a bishop himself. He was also a heretic. And no, I don’t subscribe to his teachings.

Dennis:

Since the E.O.'s and the Catholics disagree about some dogmas and doctrines, I’ll find comfort in knowing that my tradition isn’t the only one who disagrees with what is “proper.” And Catholics are in some sort of communion with E.O.'s, I believe.

Actually, there are very few variances between Anglicanism/Methodism and the Church Fathers. John Wesley quoted them ad nauseam, although he quoted more often the Eastern Fathers than the Western Fathers.

So it’s an academic argument at best. As stated earlier, there were disagreements among the church fathers; I’m not surprised that there are disagreements now.

Welcome to the Kingdom of God, Dennis.

So did Calvin and Luther. This does not mean they truly understood them. If one reads anything through the eyes of their own presupposition they will find what they are looking for. It is only those who set aside their presuppositions who can truly see what is being said and why.

I understand your point about disagreement. What you have not answered is who has the final say. Do you, do I? I say the Church has the final say. I think the Fathers would agree with me.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

So did Calvin and Luther. This does not mean they truly understood them. If one reads anything through the eyes of their own presupposition they will find what they are looking for.

I assume that would include the first people who heard/read them? And Councils who later adopted them long after their deaths?

I guess the Church Fathers can only speak to Catholics. We poor Protestants aren’t smart enough to understand, I suppose.

It is only those who set aside their presuppositions who can truly see what is being said and why.

I’ve never read anything pertaining to the faith except through the prayer and eyes of the Holy Spirit. Which often means it is often at odds with my presuppositions of the faith. So I don’t buy your argument.

The difference between you and me is that as a Catholic, you have to read such writings through what the Magisterium proclaims them to say. I’d say your presuppositions (if you’re not a cafeteria Catholic) far outweighs mine… or for that matter, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley.

I understand your point about disagreement. What you have not answered is who has the final say. Do you, do I? I say the Church has the final say. I think the Fathers would agree with me.

God has the final say, my friend.

There you are; you think they might agree with you. Problem was, in their day, there was no Magisterium as we know it today. There was no Reformation because the politcal problems in the Church and beyond didn’t exist as yet. The Church was in its infancy - no Ecumenical Councils until the time of Augustine. As someone else noted, the Fathers occasionally disagreed. Had there been a Magisterium in their day, they would not have been permitted the argument.

The Church has on occasion has been wrong. Of course, that would be a matter of opinion as well.

When it comes to matters theological, words and human language are at best inadequate - the theological term for that is nominalism. As long as that’s all we have, and as long as there are language/translation/idiomatic differences among the peoples - there will always be matters of opinion. We pray that the Holy Spirit might inspire and guide us.

I say that God has the final say, not the Church. But if you’re a good Catholic, you’ll say that those are the same. I’d disagree.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

I assume that would include the first people who heard/read them? And Councils who later adopted them long after their deaths?

I guess the Church Fathers can only speak to Catholics. We poor Protestants aren’t smart enough to understand, I suppose.

That is not what I said. I said Protestant view the Fathers through their Protestant eyes, therefore they see Protestant beliefs in the Fathers. I read the Fathers to prove the Catholic Church false, and it was by doing so that I came to an understanding of what they were truly saying.
O.S. Luke:

I’ve never read anything pertaining to the faith except through the prayer and eyes of the Holy Spirit. Which often means it is often at odds with my presuppositions of the faith. So I don’t buy your argument.

So, you have a direct line to the truth through the Holy Spirit? How does He inform you on matters of faith?
O.S. Luke:

The difference between you and me is that as a Catholic, you have to read such writings through what the Magisterium proclaims them to say. I’d say your presuppositions (if you’re not a cafeteria Catholic) far outweighs mine… or for that matter, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley.

This was not the case when I first read the Fathers, so your argument does not follow.
O.S. Luke:

God has the final say, my friend.

There you are; you think they might agree with you. Problem was, in their day, there was no Magisterium as we know it today. There was no Reformation because the politcal problems in the Church and beyond didn’t exist as yet. The Church was in its infancy - no Ecumenical Councils until the time of Augustine. As someone else noted, the Fathers occasionally disagreed. Had there been a Magisterium in their day, they would not have been permitted the argument.

The Church has on occasion has been wrong. Of course, that would be a matter of opinion as well.

When it comes to matters theological, words and human language are at best inadequate - the theological term for that is nominalism. As long as that’s all we have, and as long as there are language/translation/idiomatic differences among the peoples - there will always be matters of opinion. We pray that the Holy Spirit might inspire and guide us.

**I say that God has the final say, not the Church. But if you’re a good Catholic, you’ll say that those are the same. I’d disagree. **

Wherever there are bishops and the Pope there is the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit guides the Church through the bishops and the Pope. This is done through Councils and papal pronouncements.

I say God has the final word aswell, He just uses His Church to make it. You only rely on your own opinions, opinions which contradict historical Christian doctrine.

Peace

 

[Mickey]

dennisknapp:

I said Protestant view the Fathers through their Protestant eyes, therefore they see Protestant beliefs in the Fathers.

I am thinking that if the Church Fathers were allowed to return to this world for one day, and experience a protestant service, and hear protestants using their own writings against the Catholic Church, they would be perplexed! It would not resemble the Church they remembered–they were Catholic.

But remember they are saints. So they would gently correct our protestant brothers and sisters with love and charity.

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

I say God has the final word aswell, He just uses His Church to make it. You only rely on your own opinions, opinions which contradict historical Christian doctrine.

Peace

Which ones are those? And when the Fathers disagreed… which ones were right?

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Which ones are those? And when the Fathers disagreed… which ones were right?

Which of your beliefs are wrong? Is that what you are asking? Well, I would say those beliefs that differ from historical Christian doctrine.

The Church decides which ones are right.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

Which of your beliefs are wrong? Is that what you are asking? Well, I would say those beliefs that differ from historical Christian doctrine.

The Church decides which ones are right.

Peace

And thus, since I’m a schismatic in your eyes, I’m wrong. Fair enough.

Which always brings me back to this question, Dennis: if you believe the Church is right (and I certainly respect your faith), why in the world do you continually bring up these posts to Protestants? To rub our nose in it? Bait and switch? Strawman fallacy? Arrogance? You’re not going to be swayed (and again, I respect that)… but why continually go through this? Do you enjoy showing that you’re right and I’m wrong?

Is this a profitable discussion, Dennis?

You said you wanted to have a better undertstanding of each other? Given the rest of your responses on this thread, I’d say you want something other than that. The only understanding you want is for others to know that you’re right and they’re wrong.

Again, I respect your faith. But I think you approach debate from a dishonest point of view.

You may have the last word.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

And thus, since I’m a schismatic in your eyes, I’m wrong. Fair enough.

Which always brings me back to this question, Dennis: if you believe the Church is right (and I certainly respect your faith), why in the world do you continually bring up these posts to Protestants?** To rub our nose in it? Bait and switch? Strawman fallacy? Arrogance?** You’re not going to be swayed (and again, I respect that)… but why continually go through this? Do you enjoy showing that you’re right and I’m wrong?

Is this a profitable discussion, Dennis?

Would you not call this an ad hominem? Does it profit to personally attack someone? Have I ever attacked your character or person? Again, I can be swayed, I just need solid argumentation.

I desire to show all my Protestant brothers and sisters what I have learned in the hopes that they to can have the fullness of truth. Is this a bad thing?

It was through studying Church history that my eyes were open.
I started this thread to understand why this in not the case for other Protestants. I desire to know how Protestants who are familiar with the Fathers can still hold to thier beliefs given the overwhelming evidence against them. How do you reconcile this?
O.S. Luke:

You said you wanted to have a better undertstanding of each other? Given the rest of your responses on this thread, I’d say you want something other than that. The only understanding you want is for others to know that you’re right and they’re wrong.

Again, I respect your faith. But I think you approach debate from a dishonest point of view.

You may have the last word.

This is not an “I am right, you are wrong” thing. It a seeking understanding thing. In what way have I approach this or any debate I have been in dishonestly? You have continued to accuse my of commiting the strawman fallacy as well baiting and switching, where have I done this?

I seek truth. That is all.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

I seek truth. That is all.

Peace

If you’re a devout Catholic, Dennis… you HAVE the truth in the Church. Why are you seeking it?

Just curious.

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

If you’re a devout Catholic, Dennis… you HAVE the truth in the Church. Why are you seeking it?

Just curious.

O+

I do have the truth in the Catholic Church, but this does not mean I can now stop seeking it.

Do you think that the Church is some oppressive thought controlling institution, only desiring blind obedience from its members?

I am human and finite. It follows then that I can be wrong. I have to constantly seek the truth so as to not grow complacent.

Peace