Protestants and the early Fathers.

[Topher]

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+

Because every Catholic is required by God to continue to educate themselves in their faith throughout their entire lives.

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

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

Even in matters where the Magisterium speaks? Such as many of the teachings of the Church fathers?

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

Deviation from the teachings of the Magisterium and Church is heresy, is it not?

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.

No argument there… but can the Church be wrong?

One of your earlier posts (October 21, 2005 03:54 AM) on this thread:

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.

Is this truly apologetics and truth-seeking, Dennis? Or catechesis by bait-and-switch?

If you’re going to put up the guise of “truth seeking” - you’ve got to be truthful about it! As I’ve said before… I sometimes question your approach to apologetics, because you set the strawman up as you pose the “Question for Protestants” or “Calling All Protestants” topics.

O+

 

[Mickey]

O.S. Luke:

Deviation from the teachings of the Magisterium and Church is heresy, is it not?

Yes. Deviation from Christ’s teachings would be considered heresy.
O.S. Luke:

No argument there… but can the Church be wrong?

No. Christ is the head of the Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Even in matters where the Magisterium speaks? Such as many of the teachings of the Church fathers?

Deviation from the teachings of the Magisterium and Church is heresy, is it not?

No argument there… but can the Church be wrong?

One of your earlier posts (October 21, 2005 03:54 AM) on this thread:

Is this truly apologetics and truth-seeking, Dennis? Or catechesis by bait-and-switch?

If you’re going to put up the guise of “truth seeking” - you’ve got to be truthful about it! As I’ve said before… I sometimes question your approach to apologetics, because you set the strawman up as you pose the “Question for Protestants” or “Calling All Protestants” topics.

O+

Do you even know what a Strawman is? It is putting forth a weak argument of your opponent, then knocking down, thereby claiming a victory that really isn’t there. When have I done this?

Could the Church be wrong, sure. Anythings possible. Do I think the Church is wrong, no. The reason I don’t think this is because I have looked into Church history and see that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. Can you say the same thing about your church?

I have asked simple questions of Protestants in an attempt to get them thinking. In what way is that wrong or deceitful?

Let me state for the hundreth time: If you or any other Protestant can show me anything that looks like Protestantism in the early Church I will change my views.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

Do you even know what a Strawman is? It is putting forth a weak argument of your opponent, then knocking down, thereby claiming a victory that really isn’t there. When have I done this?

Yes, Dennis… I do know what a strawman is (they do require us ignorant Protestant preachers to have a few degrees and classes). That is why I stand by my assertion that you’re setting one up. You’ve done it several times.

In your eyes, the argument you put forth is already one that can be won by you - because you take the stand of the Catholic Church. I would expect no less of a devout Catholic… that is why I continue to be perplexed on why you put forth arguments that you are already know the answer to based on the teachings and catechism of the Catholic Church.

Could the Church be wrong, sure. Anythings possible. Do I think the Church is wrong, no. The reason I don’t think this is because I have looked into Church history and see that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. Can you say the same thing about your church?

If I believed that the Catholic Church was the one Church that Christ established, I’d be Catholic. I’m not - I believe the Catholic Church has strayed from the intent of the teachings of Christ and in a few places dangerously close to repeating the sins of the Pharisees. We’ll obviously disagree on that. From my read of Church history, I am part of a communion that takes the best part of Church tradition, the best part of the Canon, and the gifts of experience and reason to discern the Spirit and direction of the Church.

I have asked simple questions of Protestants in an attempt to get them thinking. In what way is that wrong or deceitful?

Let ME state for the 100th time… IMO your m.o. is suspect; in forensic terms, you’re engaging in a philsophical competition - the approaches of the Catholic Church are different from the Protestant Church. Yours is “right” because as a Catholic you have to ascribe to it in order to be in communion (and without sin) from your church; hence, the strawman - you’re setting up an argument that as a practicing Catholic you have to stand by.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

 

[jim1130]

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.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

 

[Celtic_Son]

I grew up Protestant and converted to Catholicism about 2 years ago. But in my childhood and teenage years and even into my late 20’s I never remember even hearing anything about the early church fathers. It was only “sola scriptura” that was taught to us. Then I met my wife , and the rest is history. I feel as though the protestant denomination I was brought up in denied some biblical truth. but that’s my opinion.

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Yes, Dennis… I do know what a strawman is (they do require us ignorant Protestant preachers to have a few degrees and classes). That is why I stand by my assertion that you’re setting one up. You’ve done it several times.

In your eyes, the argument you put forth is already one that can be won by you - because you take the stand of the Catholic Church. I would expect no less of a devout Catholic… that is why I continue to be perplexed on why you put forth arguments that you are already know the answer to based on the teachings and catechism of the Catholic Church.

If I believed that the Catholic Church was the one Church that Christ established, I’d be Catholic. I’m not - I believe the Catholic Church has strayed from the intent of the teachings of Christ and in a few places dangerously close to repeating the sins of the Pharisees. We’ll obviously disagree on that. From my read of Church history, I am part of a communion that takes the best part of Church tradition, the best part of the Canon, and the gifts of experience and reason to discern the Spirit and direction of the Church.

Let ME state for the 100th time… IMO your m.o. is suspect; in forensic terms, you’re engaging in a philsophical competition - the approaches of the Catholic Church are different from the Protestant Church. Yours is “right” because as a Catholic you have to ascribe to it in order to be in communion (and without sin) from your church; hence, the strawman - you’re setting up an argument that as a practicing Catholic you have to stand by.

Pax vobiscum,

O+

It is right if it is right, I just have to align myself to it.

This discussion seems to be just a red-herring. My motives have no bearing on whether something is true or not. If you can’t answer the challenges I have made, that’s fine, but please don’t resort to personal attacks.

Let me just say that when I started exploring the Catholic Church I did not think it true. I came to this conclusion as a Protestant, so your assessment of my motives for accepting the teachings of the Church is false.

Peace