Protestants, How Do You View The Early Church Fathers?

[TristanCross]

After reading the writings of the early church, I’m being convinced that Catholicism was first and is true. From the Didache to Justyn Martyr to Ignatius to Clement of Rome to Ireneus to Augustine, Catholic teaching is spread through their epistles. They asked saints and angel for intercession, believed in the primacy of Peter, believe the bishop of Rome was superior in authority, believed Mary remained a sinless virgin, called the Church “Catholic”, believed that Peter was the rock the church was built on, believed in the authority of sacred tradition, etc. What do Protestants have to say about this?

 

[Publisher]

The ECF’s form those group of Christians who sought to consolidate the various groups of the people called Christians into a single group. The ECF’s developed their own myths and faith traditons which bolstered their claims such as “apostolic sucession”. Eventually very early the developed the basic church government of “deacon, priest, bishop”. Through their influences they and writings they presented a mythical form of Christianity that actually formed the seed of it’s continuance into it’s belief systems. There were “Johhanine”, “Markan”, “Pauline”, “Petrine”, “Ebionite”,“Thomas”, various “Gnostic” traditions, “Manichee”, “Marcion” groups thoughout the Roman Empire, each having their own version and beliefs of who this man Jesus was seen to have become “theologically”. As the “Petrine” group gained dominance the ECF’s began to incorporate their own personal myths into their writings…such as Polycarp being John’s disciple at least according to Irenaeus…as I understand Irenaeus didn’t think much of Valentinias or Marcion…so “glorified” Polycarp as being a “hearer of John”…no proof of this exists other an from Irenaeus’ writings…just as some of the New Testament letters “attributed to Paul” and bear his name were “poius forgeries” of those who held “Pauline beliefs” so to the writing of the ECF’s gathered together the “pious myths” and stories and sought to paint a picture of a “unified Christianity” that simply did not exist.

Along with the “heretics” writings that have survived the “purgings” of the proto-catholic/orthodox groups, a much more diverse history emerges.

The writings of Eilene Pagels, Bart Erhman, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Spong to name the more popular authors paint a totally different history of Christianity as a whole, while the ECF’s paint a very limited view of church history…only those who agree with the ECF’s in their writings are “Christian”…everyone else is “heretic.”

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The ECF’s form those group of Christians who sought to consolidate the various groups of the people called Christians into a single group. The ECF’s developed their own myths and faith traditons which bolstered their claims such as “apostolic sucession”. Eventually very early the developed the basic church government of “deacon, priest, bishop”. Through their influences they and writings they presented a mythical form of Christianity that actually formed the seed of it’s continuance into it’s belief systems. There were “Johhanine”, “Markan”, “Pauline”, “Petrine”, “Ebionite”,“Thomas”, various “Gnostic” traditions, “Manichee”, “Marcion” groups thoughout the Roman Empire, each having their own version and beliefs of who this man Jesus was seen to have become “theologically”. As the “Petrine” group gained dominance the ECF’s began to incorporate their own personal myths into their writings…such as Polycarp being John’s disciple at least according to Irenaeus…as I understand Irenaeus didn’t think much of Valentinias or Marcion…so “glorified” Polycarp as being a “hearer of John”…no proof of this exists other an from Irenaeus’ writings…just as some of the New Testament letters “attributed to Paul” and bear his name were “poius forgeries” of those who held “Pauline beliefs” so to the writing of the ECF’s gathered together the “pious myths” and stories and sought to paint a picture of a “unified Christianity” that simply did not exist.

Along with the “heretics” writings that have survived the “purgings” of the proto-catholic/orthodox groups, a much more diverse history emerges.

The writings of Eilene Pagels, Bart Erhman, John Domminic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Spong to name the more popular authors paint a totally different history of Christianity as a whole, while the ECF’s paint a very limited view of church history…only those who agree with the ECF’s in their writings are “Christian”…everyone else is “heretic.”

Can you name an early Christian writer who you think is a legitimate Christian yet was rejected by the ECFs?

 

[Publisher]

Can you name an early Christian writer who you think is a legitimate Christian yet was rejected by the ECFs?

All early Christian writers are “legitimate” and paint a small picture of the early Christian movement…each tells a “story” of how Christian belief developed…none are entirely accurate in portraying their beliefs.

There are Gnostic writings which indicate that some fo the Gnostic leaders learned what they learned directly from Paul and John and Thomas…the ECF’s made the same claims…they learned their beliefs from the hands of the apostles.

Christianity became a religion about Jesus instead of the religion of Jesus.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

All early Christian writers are “legitimate” and paint a small picture of the early Christian movement…each tells a “story” of how Christian belief developed…none are entirely accurate in portraying their beliefs.

There are Gnostic writings which indicate that some fo the Gnostic leaders learned what they learned directly from Paul and John and Thomas…the ECF’s made the same claims…they learned their beliefs from the hands of the apostles.

Christianity became the religious about Jesus instead of the religion of Jesus.

Many early writers distorted Christianity with unusual doctrines.

For example, some denied the divinity of Christ.

Do you think this is legitimate Christianity?

 

[TristanCross]

Don’t bother with Publisher. I don’t even know what he’s saying…I just hear “blah blah blah”. I’m looking for a real Protestant.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The ECF’s were… the ECF’s. Historical fact, and certainly seminal and formational in our faith and tradition. How do I view them? I guess that’s like asking me how do I view the Civil War; it happened.

I guess I’m not sure what the question is.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The ECF’s were… the ECF’s. Historical fact, and certainly seminal and formational in our faith and tradition. How do I view them? I guess that’s like asking me how do I view the Civil War; it happened.

I guess I’m not sure what the question is.

If I may jump in…

I think his question is:

How do you feel about the historical reality that the ECFs believed as modern Catholics believe, and not as modern protestants believe?

 

[Contarini]

After reading the writings of the early church, I’m being convinced that Catholicism was first and is true. From the Didache to Justyn Martyr to Ignatius to Clement of Rome to Ireneus to Augustine, Catholic teaching is spread through their epistles. They asked saints and angel for intercession,

I cannot think of an example of *any *of the people you mention doing this. Augustine laid the theological groundwork with his doctrine of dula vs. latria, and since we know the practice already existed I’m willing to count him as a defender of it. But I can’t think of an example of him actually *doing *it.

believed in the primacy of Peter,

Neither the Didache nor Justin Martyr mention Roman primacy that I can think of. The other three can be cited in favor of it in some sense. Whether they support it in the sense uniquely maintained by the Roman Communion today is a matter of debate.

believed Mary remained a sinless virgin,

Again, not all the people you mention addressed this issue. And some early Christians spoke of Mary sinning–Clement of Alexandria for one, I believe. But by and large I agree with you on this one.

called the Church “Catholic”,

Why is that supposed to be significant regarding the issues dividing the Roman Communion from other Christians?

believed that Peter was the rock the church was built on,

Actually the Fathers often said that Peter’s faith or confession was the rock. I myself have no problem saying that Peter was the rock–I don’t think that these options are mutually exclusive and I don’t think the Fathers did either. But if you have been told that the Fathers are unanimous on this point, you have been misled.

believed in the authority of sacred tradition, etc. What do Protestants have to say about this?

I as an Anglican put at least as much weight on the Fathers as do members of the Roman Communion. In practice I often find that I take them considerably *more *seriously–at least more so than many of the Roman Catholics (sorry, but given the nature of this thread and of your remarks above I simply *can’t *say “Catholics” without qualification because it would be misleading, so I’ll have to offend those who want to be offended) on this forum. This because the Roman Communion has an “infallible magisterium” which in the eyes of many RCs seems to supplant the Fathers as a guide to faith and practice and interpretation of Scripture. The Fathers are used (often out of context) *apologetically. *But quote them in any way that seems to go against what contemporary RCs want to maintain (even if a question of infallible dogma is not under discussion) and you will be reminded that they are not infallible individually and that ultimately it’s the Magisterium that counts.

Precisely because we lack an infallible Magisterium, we Anglicans are driven back on the Fathers. We have largely moved from a Reformed position to a much more Catholic one precisely because the Fathers (to whom the early Reformed appealed) turned out to support Catholic positions on many issues. But that being the case, we aren’t going to abandon the Fathers (who have brought us so far) in favor of a Magisterium that renders the Fathers irrelevant except as sources for selective proof-texting.

I’m not directly attacking the official teaching or even the dominant theology of the Roman Communion here. I find the current Pope to take the Fathers very seriously. I’m attacking what passes for conservative Catholic apologetics in North America. But this frivolous treatment of the Fathers is made possible and even encouraged by aspects of RC teaching. The movement of ressourcement (return to the Bible and the Fathers) still has a ways to go in the Roman Communion, just as it has even more formidable obstacles (such as our incessant pull toward liberalism and cultural accommodation) in my own Communion.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

Many early writers distorted Christianity with unusual doctrines.

For example, some denied the divinity of Christ.

Do you think this is legitimate Christianity?

I believe you are asking two separate questions…do I believe this is an accurate portrayal of the developement of Christianity? Yes. Do I believe this is an accurate portrayal of Christian doctrine? That the divinity of Christ was a “hot topic” in those formative years…Yes…of course the topic was. Did this one group that denied the divinity of Christ teach the “TRUTH”…as they saw it and within the formation of events that contributed to the high christology that eventually became…“normative Christianity”…yes, they were an authentic part of the debate which occured.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

After reading the writings of the early church, I’m being convinced that Catholicism was first and is true. From the Didache to Justyn Martyr to Ignatius to Clement of Rome to Ireneus to Augustine, Catholic teaching is spread through their epistles. They asked saints and angel for intercession, believed in the primacy of Peter, believe the bishop of Rome was superior in authority, believed Mary remained a sinless virgin, called the Church “Catholic”, believed that Peter was the rock the church was built on, believed in the authority of sacred tradition, etc. What do Protestants have to say about this?

So long as it conforms to their individual ascertion as to what they believe a Christian is then it is fine and fun reading. If it contradicts their self made church then it is from the devil. I think that encompasses all Non Catholics.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I believe you are asking two separate questions…do I believe this is an accurate portrayal of the developement of Christianity? Yes. Do I believe this is an accurate portrayal of Christian doctrine? That the divinity of Christ was a “hot topic” in those formative years…Yes…of course the topic was. Did this one group that denied the divinity of Christ teach the “TRUTH”…as they saw it and within the formation of events that contributed to the high christology that eventually became…“normative Christianity”…yes, they were an authentic part of the debate which occured.

Based on your standards, all sincere teaching by self proclaimed Christians is authentic Christianity.

In other words, there is no such thing as authentic Christianity.

 

[Cluny]

<< Eventually very early the developed the basic church government of “deacon, priest, bishop”. >>

You’re right. It was so early, it was the New Testament that did so.

 

[Publisher]

Don’t bother with Publisher. I don’t even know what he’s saying…I just hear “blah blah blah”. I’m looking for a real Protestant.

LOL, Friends have been portrayed as the “culmination of Protestantism”…Quakerism dispensed with any ordained clergy, any sacramental rituals, any nice religious style buildings, alters, choirs, stained glass, vestments or robes. On one end of the religious spectrum we may have Catholic/Orthodox/High Church Anglican…and on the other end of the specturm…Friends…VERRRY “low church”…in the extreme.

 

[Publisher]

Based on your standards, all sincere teaching by self proclaimed Christians is authentic Christianity.

In other words, there is no such thing as authentic Christianity.

You mischaracterize what I stated. There would have been no need to formulate the doctrines eventually held by the proto/orthodox-catholic groups without the debate which ensued between the competing factions of early Christianity. Each early group was “authenticly Christian” in that each group sought to be the “authentic voice” of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. The group which became dominant by the 4th century gained prominence by proclaiming themselves “authentic Christianity” and had the Roman governments authority to back up that claim.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You mischaracterize what I stated. There would have been no need to formulate the doctrines eventually held by the proto/orthodox-catholic groups without the debate which ensued between the competing factions of early Christianity. Each early group was “authenticly Christian” in that each group sought to be the “authentic voice” of the message of Jesus of Nazareth. The group which became dominant by the 4th century gained prominence by proclaiming themselves “authentic Christianity” and had the Roman governments authority to back up that claim.

You are kidding right?

Read the New Testament which is full of “False Teachers” and you cannot seriously say that “Each early group was “authenticly Christian””.

 

[Justy90]

After reading the writings of the early church, I’m being convinced that Catholicism was first and is true. From the Didache to Justyn Martyr to Ignatius to Clement of Rome to Ireneus to Augustine, Catholic teaching is spread through their epistles. They asked saints and angel for intercession, believed in the primacy of Peter, believe the bishop of Rome was superior in authority, believed Mary remained a sinless virgin, called the Church “Catholic”, believed that Peter was the rock the church was built on, believed in the authority of sacred tradition, etc. What do Protestants have to say about this?

I’m ACNA, need I say more?

 

[TristanCross]

Contorini, I’m not just talking about the ECF I mentioned. I’m talking about all of them…

 

[twb1621]

After reading the writings of the early church, I’m being convinced that Catholicism was first and is true. From the Didache to Justyn Martyr to Ignatius to Clement of Rome to Ireneus to Augustine, Catholic teaching is spread through their epistles. They asked saints and angel for intercession, believed in the primacy of Peter, believe the bishop of Rome was superior in authority, believed Mary remained a sinless virgin, called the Church “Catholic”, believed that Peter was the rock the church was built on, believed in the authority of sacred tradition, etc. What do Protestants have to say about this?

I wont get into verses at this time but the Christian men you speak of were certainly guided by the Holy Spirit to determine which books out of many were the Inspired Word of God and which were not. And the Holy Spirit guided them just as Jesus declared until His return. Jesus also proclaimed He would NEVER abandon them. Some of these men were later recognized as the ECFs, and some their successors in addition to the office of the Church authority in Rome (chair of Peter or Papacy) who ordered the compilation translation and interpretation of what we refer to today as the Holy Bible. Even the non-Catholic Christian Bible’s contents came from the writings these men determined inspired. Now one can say what one wants and believe what one chooses but unless that person can provide credible Biblical support (against the word of God) that the Holy Spirit abandoned these men and the Church at some point after performing in the services of God, the debate is mute. All must also recognize these are the same men DURING THE SAME ERA IN TIME between the succession of the apostles and the first commissioned Bible who wrote much in defense of the teachings AND Sacred Traditions of the Catholic Faith. First known as Christians, then the Universal or Catholic Church, which historically maintained that identity. If anyone needs additional scriptural support or writings of these same ECFs I will provide it. Otherwise no one can have it both ways claiming the Holy Spirit guided them as Jesus declared to determine the Inspired Word of God yet without the guidance of Holy Spirit against the word of God for their writings in the teachings of the Faith.

 

[Contarini]

Contorini, I’m not just talking about the ECF I mentioned. I’m talking about all of them…

I understand that. But talking about “all the Fathers” is vague. I took the ones you chose to mention. Do you disagree with the statements I made? If you don’t, then don’t you think that your original generalization about the Fathers was inaccurate?

I know where you are coming from. Reading the Fathers had the same effect on me as I was coming from a very low-church, non-sacramental, anti-tradition background. But I think you jump too hastily to the conclusion that because the Fathers sound more Catholic than, say, Baptist, therefore they agree in all matters with modern Roman Catholicism. They can be taken in a number of different directions. I think there are good arguments for seeking communion with Rome, and some of them are rooted in the Fathers. But it’s not as simple as you are claiming. I am not objecting to your seeking communion with Rome, even if I think you are making things too simple. I frequently over-nuance things. But the truth is the truth, and I’m telling it like I see it. Become Catholic, but don’t misrepresent the historical record.

Edwin