Protestants are using church fathers in a weird way

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

DictatorCzar

Guest
So I talked to some random Protestant. He believes in the eh church fathers, but he believes that the Catholics church make forgeries of the church fathers, I’m like what??? He says sola scriptura Is biblical, but he keeps using church fathers to prove him point of Protestantism. I’m like what??? He said before 313 AD, the church had no name. It’s just called church. I tried to use letter to the smyrneans but he said they were forgeries. I used 20 other writings and he said they were forgeries. He claims the RCC is the harlot of Babylon.
 
Good for you that your tried.
At that level of… concept…as you indicate in your last sentence, you know …so inviting…:roll_eyes: I would not waste my time any more . If I were you…
 
Last edited:
Well I just want to practice and get some tips. It’s just that, I sometimes get confused. That’s all.
 
It is ok! Poor you … That is more what I meant.
I ‘ll leave it for those who know better and are more patient than me to give advice with such cases.
All the best!
 
Last edited:
Sola scriptura is not biblical, it’s nowhere in the bible. What’s their basis for claiming forgeries? Sometimes outrageous claims are made and there has to be some evidence put forward to discuss, whether or not their claim is more or less likely. Ask them how they know they are forgeries.
 
A bit surprised he didn’t give you the 'ol “call no man father” routine at the mention of ‘Church fathers’.
 
Some you can only pray for. And slowly shake your head as you walk away.

Some demons are driven out only by fasting and prayer.
 
It’s no different than George Bush and the Jews blowing up the World Trade Center. Some people are so wrapped up in their ideas and conspiracy theories that they will go to any length, no matter how absurd, to prove they are right. I personally would not waste time talking to someone like that. They refuse to believe written history, why would they believe you?
 
Based on your post, Dictator, I don’t think you’re the one who was confused in this situation.

It is sad when Protestants have to go through such contortions of self-justification.
 
DictatorCzar said:
…
Click to expand...
Haydock Commentary, Apocalypse 17:
… These interpreters conclude that by Babylon must necessarily be understood Rome, because it is said that seven heads, upon which the woman sitteth, are seven mountains; and it is well known that Rome is built upon seven hills; and secondly, because the woman is said to be the city, which hath dominion over the kings of the earth. But first, those seven mountains are also called seven kings; secondly, Constantinople is also built upon seven hills; thirdly, seven may be taken for many. And I cannot but take notice, that some expressions in this and in the next chapter, seem to agree better with that exposition, which takes Babylon for the multitude of all the wicked: as when we read (c. xviii. 3.) that all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; (v. 23.) that all nations were deceived by her sorceries; (v. 24.) that in her was formed the blood of the prophets, and of the saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. For though the Roman empire was of so large an extent, yet a greater part of the world was never subject to the Romans: many apostles and martyrs were not put to death at Rome, nor by the Romans, but by the Persians, and in India, &c. so these general expressions are more easily expounded, if by the great city of Babylon we understand the multitude of the wicked in all parts of the world: not but that these visions may also regard heathen Rome as the chief place where such persecutions were acted, and where all kind of vices were practices. — N.B. Some have taken notice, that the English Protestants print the 5th verse of this chapter in capital letters: Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots, and abominations of the earth. I will suppose that these words are only printed in this manner, because they contain an inscription; as when it is said, that he who was called the word of God, had written upon him, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, which words are also printed in great letters: but if our adversaries do this, to make the Church of Rome to be looked upon as the whore of Babylon, and the pope as antichrist, nothing can be more unfair, nothing more ridiculous, as I may shew on the following chapters. Wi.
Click to expand...
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment283.shtml
 
DictatorCzar said:
He claims the RCC is the harlot of Babylon.
Click to expand...
And with that I would have said to him or her, “adios amigo.” And would have thought to myself, this isn’t going to end well. Because anybody who speaks these words about my Church; Christ’s Church, is probably a total waste of my time!
 
Last edited:
’ See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church’. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans , Ch 8, St Ignatius of Antioch (AD 35-107)
 
Last edited:
I believe that trend was started by a certain Dr. Luther. Or at least he popularized the phrase.
 
I kept disproving him with multiple church fathers. But he keeps saying those are forgeries. He says Peter was not in Rome. I kept using church fathers, but he said they were forgeries. He said someone in 3rd century claimed to be Ignatius of antioch and wrote writings.
 
The allegation that the Fathers are forgeries smacks of desperation on his part, and an admission that the Fathers come up “Catholic”, and it’s undeniable.

Instead of arguing with him, however, I would ask him to show you resources which “prove” his point. The onus is on him to back up his statement with reliable facts. I too would be concerned if what I was reading in the Fathers wasn’t true. Tell him you will keep an open mind and look at scholarly material supporting his position. Then you can test that against material which buttresses the verity of the Fathers.
 
Don’t waste your time talking to him anymore,but good for you for trying! Sola Scriptura is not biblical. I know from my experience some protestants make crazy claims but give no evidence. I would ask how they know they are forgeries.
 
He would have to prove to you that these documents were forgeries.

It’s just a cop out on his part and should tell you that he has nothing of substance to refute your arguments except the dubious forgery accusation.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking, they could possibly be forgeries, but we just don’t have that much archeological evidence.
 
The essence of his comments to you comes under the heading of “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up!”

I am of the opinion that I do not get into discussions with Protestants who do not exhibit an openness to hearing something other than what they have been taught. To anyone who insists that a document is a forgery, I would simply use a phrase my mother taught me: “Oh”. It has to be said in the proper tone of voice, clearly indicating I don’t buy that at all; then we terminate the discussion. I think it was Christ who said something about shaking the dust off one’s sandals; it is a point we need to take seriously. People who are open to dialogue will signal that by their responses; those who ar not likewise send signals. The individual you spoke with is not the least interested at this point in hearing anything about the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top