Protestants and the ECFs?

[JustaServant]

John Henry Newman was one of the more famous converts to Catholicism. After studying the Early Fathers he wrote: “The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

 

[diggerdomer]

What did you mean when you said you don’t know any Protestant who denies that ECFs were “Catholic”?

At the time of the ECFs, what other choice was there except to be Catholic or Christian (depending on one’s preferred terms)?

 

[Alvarillo]

I have the writings of all the ECF’s (rather copies thereof) and give me time and I will tell exactly where to look

Thank you.

 

[JustaServant]

As long as one just leaps over history and goes back to the Bible Alone, you can read into it several belief systems that appear to be ‘Biblical’ and logically consistent.
A Baptist can read the NT and see Baptist, a Charismatic/Pentecostal can read the NT and get charismatic, the Reformed can read the Bible and get Reformed. The ONLY one that could square the Bible/NT with Church History (even very early, Pre-Nicene history) is the Catholic view.

 

[diggerdomer]

What did you mean when you said you don’t know any Protestant who denies that ECFs were “Catholic”?

My previous response was not the best way to reply. This is better: I mean what all Christians mean who pray the Nicene Creed: the Church is catholic (and one, holy, and apostolic).

So, all ECFs that I know of were catholics, and all Protestants that I personally know would agree.

 

[WASP]

Let’s say that I state a belief here that is not in line with official Church teaching. Then I am considered wrong.

Now let’s say that we’re back in the Early Church and I am St. Ignatius. I teach a certain belief. Who is to say that I am correct in my doctrine?

Now then, why do we now pronounce Ignatius to be right?

 

[WASP]

I would say that your observation is correct. Protestants, in general, do not care what the ECF’s say. Their view of church history is this: Jesus died, rose again, and went to heaven. 1500 years later we had the Reformation and some guy named Martin Luther. (If they are really smart, they’ll know about John Calvin.) Another 500 years later, they became a Christian and started to attend their church.

I would say, though, that those who ascribe to Historic Reformed theology are more familiar with the ECF’s.

But the main difference is this: a Protestant views the ECF’s as informative whereas the Catholic views them as authoritative.

 

[WASP]

This question hits at one of the crucial issues that Martin Luther faced. At his trial, he said:

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

He rejected the authority of the Church when it was not in agreement with Scripture. This principle resulted in the phrase sola Scriptura.

This same principle explains why Protestants do not hold the ECF’s as inherently authoritative.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would say that your observation is correct. Protestants, in general, do not care what the ECF’s say. Their view of church history is this: Jesus died, rose again, and went to heaven. 1500 years later we had the Reformation and some guy named Martin Luther. (If they are really smart, they’ll know about John Calvin.) Another 500 years later, they became a Christian and started to attend their church.

I would say, though, that those who ascribe to Historic Reformed theology are more familiar with the ECF’s.

But the main difference is this: a Protestant views the ECF’s as informative whereas the Catholic views them as authoritative.

Personally, all Protestants I know would accept, value, and hold in honor and authority what the ECFs teach.

Sorry, I am completely unable, therefore, to understand your views I guess.

 

[JamesRottnek]

In my personal experience (there are three churches that I have spent significant time in - they all were non-denominational but moderately to very evangelical), Protestants really don’t care much about the Church Fathers. Hardly any of them can tell you the names of more than one or two (usually it is just St. Augustine, surprisingly called St. usually) of the Fathers. I think the reason might be because Protestant Pastors/Ministers/etc. tend not to quote them. Occasionally during a sermon, I would hear the Pastor mention something that St. Augustine or another Father wrote. Generally it would be no more than a paragraph’s quote though.

In short, I think the main reason most Protestants really don’t know much about the Fathers is due to them not being mentioned often by Pastors. Ultimately, I believe it is due to the belief that you need nothing but the Bible to understand the fullness of God’s truth.

 

[JustaServant]

In my personal experience (there are three churches that I have spent significant time in - they all were non-denominational but moderately to very evangelical), Protestants really don’t care much about the Church Fathers. Hardly any of them can tell you the names of more than one or two (usually it is just St. Augustine, surprisingly called St. usually) of the Fathers. I think the reason might be because Protestant Pastors/Ministers/etc. tend not to quote them. Occasionally during a sermon, I would hear the Pastor mention something that St. Augustine or another Father wrote. Generally it would be no more than a paragraph’s quote though.

In short, I think the main reason most Protestants really don’t know much about the Fathers is due to them not being mentioned often by Pastors. Ultimately, I believe it is due to the belief that you need nothing but the Bible to understand the fullness of God’s truth.

Yes. And because the those who were in history closest to our Savior, as opposed to 2000 years, were without a doubt, Catholic. They have no explaination as to why within 100 years of our Lord’s ascension. Christians believed in the Real Presense. It’s so much easier to ignore it and quote the ‘reformers’ who are far removed in both time and space from the early church.

 

[WASP]

So, someone studying it now comes to a different conclusion than the debaters of the day, therefore it is valid? Based on what authority?

Protestants cannot get past the other fact regarding the ECF. Whenever a question or dispute arose, Rome had the final decision. Roma locuta est. Causa finita est - Rome has spoken. The cause is finished. It’s not so much the defense of the practice they should be looking for. It’s the fact that the practice was used, period.

It was the successor to Peter who held the “Keys to the Kingdom”. Those keys didn’t disappear with the death of Peter. It is not the location of Rome that is supreme. The Pope has had to leave the Vatican on occasion over the centuries to minister from elsewhere due to different threats. That’s not much of a worry nowadays.

Protestants should asked themselves why disputes were referred to Rome, and why Rome’s decision was accepted afterward. Those who did not accept it were those who believed Rome reached the wrong decision, but they were perfectly fine with deferring to Rome when they thought something would be decided in their favor. How ironic. This is happening today with liberals rejecting Humane Vitae, and conservatives rejecting Vatican II. As you can see, you do even need to leave the Church to reject Rome, but why would you want to?

Right now, I’m asking myself why you haven’t mentioned Constantinople. Ecclesiastical authority also resided there. If Protestants are guilty of ignoring the ECF’s, perhaps Roman Catholics are ignoring the Eastern Church.

 

[WASP]

Yes. And because the those who were in history closest to our Savior, as opposed to 2000 years, were without a doubt, Catholic. They have no explaination as to why within 100 years of our Lord’s ascension. Christians believed in the Real Presense. It’s so much easier to ignore it and quote the ‘reformers’ who are far removed in both time and space from the early church.

And so Tertullian (c. AD200) was right in his involvement in the Montanist heresy, just because he was nearer to the time of Christ?

 

[SyCarl]

My reading of the Church Fathers is that a wider spectrum of belief was orthodox than is the case today. While they may not predominate, many Protestant positions are referred to by the Fathers without any indication that such views were unacceptable. It appears to me that it was only later that the views of one group were adopted to the exclusion of other views.

 

[ahollars]

Right now, I’m asking myself why you haven’t mentioned Constantinople. Ecclesiastical authority also resided there. If Protestants are guilty of ignoring the ECF’s, perhaps Roman Catholics are ignoring the Eastern Church.

The exercise of Ecclesiastical authority is not the same thing as the ex Cathedra dogmas. Rome’s purpose was to resolve disputes, and correct errors, but that did not mean that there was not dissension. That occurred throughout all its history and is happening in the Church even today. Every apostolic bishop has the authority of the Apostles, as long as there is nothing taught in error. Their exercise in Ecclesiastical authority is valid. When Constantinople was called upon, it did not mean that Rome was not the final authority. Again, Rome was deferred to only when needed. All this does not mean that the bishops will not make mistakes. Just look at the leadership in this country.

BTW, what did Constantinople do that Rome ignored? Are you talking about something specific?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Just curious: What is it that early Church fathers say that some Protestants ignore?

 

[WASP]

Personally, all Protestants I know would accept, value, and hold in honor and authority what the ECFs teach.

Sorry, I am completely unable, therefore, to understand your views I guess.

Perhaps geography plays a big part in our experience. I live in the Bible belt and if you asked the average Protestant here, they could not tell you anything about the ECF’s.

Hold on… OK, now i’m back. I did a little experiment. I’m sitting here with 2 Protestants. I asked each of them to name 3 of the ECF’s. One could not name a single ECF; he just shook his head no. The other answered, “Calvin, Martin Luther, and Augustine.”

We had a short discussion and the latter one said that the Bible alone is authoritative and don’t really need the others.

I hope this provides a little background on my perspective.

 

[LionHeart777]

this (former) Protestant took a look at some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I’m all set for RCIA this fall

 

[diggerdomer]

Perhaps geography plays a big part in our experience. I live in the Bible belt and if you asked the average Protestant here, they could not tell you anything about the ECF’s.

Hold on… OK, now i’m back. I did a little experiment. I’m sitting here with 2 Protestants. I asked each of them to name 3 of the ECF’s. One could not name a single ECF; he just shook his head no. The other answered, “Calvin, Martin Luther, and Augustine.”

We had a short discussion and the latter one said that the Bible alone is authoritative and don’t really need the others.

I hope this provides a little background on my perspective.

Ahhh. Thanks. I’m not in the Bible belt…that could very well be indicative of our different experiences.

 

[jlhargus]

this (former) Protestant took a look at some of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I’m all set for RCIA this fall

JL: Great:thumbsup: I am a former Protestant, non-denominational bible faith group, thirity some years Catholic now. I have never looked back, I will be praying for you.