Protestants, How Do You View The Early Church Fathers?

[JonNC]

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.

What makes you think this? Do you have references?

Jon

 

[TristanCross]

I’d appreciate if you’d all stop hijacking my thread. Thanks…

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I’d appreciate if you’d all stop hijacking my thread. Thanks…

Be a little more courteous! I know you have questions but that’s no way to treat others…Protestant or otherwise.

 

[JonNC]

I’d appreciate if you’d all stop hijacking my thread. Thanks…

TristanCross,
I am sorry if you think I was highkacking. JacktheCatholic asserted a view about how Protestants view the ECF’s. I was just inquiring how he came to that view. It seemed on topic, but I’m happy to back off.

Jon

 

[TristanCross]

Jon, the problem wasn’t you. It was primarily Publisher.

Now, I’d love to hear someone give me a good answer to my initial question.

 

[Magnus1981]

I know this is off topic, but a really good online resource for teachings of the early Church fathers can be found here: staycatholic.com/early_church_fathers.htm

Peace be to all.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, the problem wasn’t you. It was primarily Publisher.

Now, I’d love to hear someone give me a good answer to my initial question.

Thanks, Tristan.
I think my view of the Fathers reflects my Lutheran background. That is, we depend greatly on their writings to understand the message of the gospel. Martin Chemnitz said:

We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

J

Now, I’d love to hear someone give me a good answer to my initial question.

I answered it and you dodged the answer by saying that you weren’t just talking about the five Fathers you had chosen to name. That makes the original question too vague to discuss. If we can’t talk about the positions of specific Fathers on specific issues, then what are we to talk about? We will just sling generalizations at each other.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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.

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.

 

[NotTooSmart]

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?

Tristan:
I have read all of the Catholic Apologetic material on this site and on Dave Armstrongs site that quotes the ECF. I have read some of their letters completely. However I am not an expert on this topic. So I will give you my impressions.

I am of the belief that apostolic Christianity should be the “true north” of all of us. I am interested in what the ECF say, because they give another view into what apostolic Christianity may have been like. I do consider it possible and likely that during the 300-400 years of the ECFs that Christianity drifted somewhat as practiced by the apostles. However, I consider it very unlikely that the church drifted into apostasy during the same time Christians were dying for their faith.

I am also of the belief that Christian beliefs should be well grounded in the historical context of the church. I do not believe in “Solo Scriptura”. See the thread I started concerning the historical record of gay marriage (or lack thereof) in the church. We will be in error if all of a sudden 2000 years after the fact we start seeing things in the Bible (like gay marriage) that nobody for 2000 years prior to us have seen. It is arrogant to presume that the church has been wrong for 2000 years and all of a sudden God is using us and/or our little clique and pet teaching to restore some element to the church that has been missing for 2000 years.

The earlier the church father is, the more weight I give to their writings.

Now concerning your specifics.

I do not get the impression that the ECF were either Catholic or Protestant. If anything, they most likely resemble a more primitive church in a 3rd world country.

I do not believe that asking the saints and angels for intercession is a part of apostolic Christianity. I do think that traditional Protestant objections to this practice (specifically using a verse in Deuteronomy to equate it to occult practices) is over the top.

Belief in the primacy of Peter might be apostolic, I would have to study more. But even if this is true, I think it proves less than the Catholics here want it to prove.

At some point in time there might have developed some type of primacy in Rome. But again, I do not think it was from the beginning and I think this proves less than the Catholics want it to prove. Same thing for Peter as the rock.

I do not believe the Marian dogmas were a part of apostolic Christianity. The first quotes I read to substantiate the Marian dogmas were in the 300s somewhere. This is not convincing to me.

I believe “calling the church Catholic” proves far less than the Catholics here want it to prove.

I also believe that they recognized some type of authority of tradition. But again, I think this proves less than the Catholics here want it to.

To sum, I think an honest, objective reading of the fathers is persuasive to counter the notion of Catholicism as the evil, counterfeit Christian religion of the antiChrist. I do not believe from reading the fathers that if we were to somehow translate them into 21st century America, that they would necessarily choose your neighborhood Catholic church over you neighborhood Protestant church.

If anything, my humble opinion is that they would eschew both for your inner-city ethnic church. I say that because if anything, the ECF were passionately in love with Jesus Christ and they would seek the congregation where this passionate love is most apparant to them.

Warning…I probably will not be interested in debating this since it is just my non-expert impression at this point in time.

 

[twb1621]

I’ll repeat my post again for those who claim the ECFs where not guided by the Holy Spirit in their excercise of faith.

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.

“The Church of God, which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth… If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” *Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345). *

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” *Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372). *

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” *Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392). *

“Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth.” *Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400). *
Continued at:
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III

continued…

 

[twb1621]

Continued from previous post…

Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“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).

Continued at;
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

Jesus proclaimed they would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
We accept they were guided by the Holy Spirit when we accept the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. The majority of the ECF writings presented were written during the period spanning between the apostles and the final selection of writings were taking place and some of these ECFs were direct successors to the apostles. Where is the credibility for any doubts that the authority of the Church was anything other than guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contarini]

Not all of the ECF’s discussed every doctrine of the Church.

But in a thread specifically mentioning certain doctrines and certain Fathers, it is rather telling when those Fathers didn’t in many cases talk about those doctrines. It goes against the overly triumphalist claim of the OP.

However, it is easy to develop an overwhelming case for their Catholic beliefs

Depending on how we define “Catholic.”

and we can see multiple quotes directly contradicting modern protestantism.

Why anyone would want to defend something as vague and abstract and generally unsatisfactory as “modern protestantism” I don’t know. Nor do I see what you are gaining, substantively speaking, by attacking such a phantom. Nor is the use of “quotes,” single or multiple, a substitute for reading the Fathers at length in their historical context.

The Catholic Church accepts both descriptions, so this is a moot point. It has no impact on Peter’s primacy, his sole possession of the keys, or his successors.

That wasn’t what I was trying to have an impact on. I was trying to have an impact on the claim made by the OP.

Edwin