What do protestant scholars think of the church fathers?

[cooterhein]

I have never personally meet a Protestant I was able to honestly say had read and understood what the ECF wrote about who did not become eithier Catholic or EO.

I’ve met quite a few. One of them works at Notre Dame now. Most of them are profs at Evangelical schools though- but if you ever have the opportunity to sit in on one of their classes, one of the first things you’ll notice is the contrast between the average non-Catholic student and the guy who earned a doctorate for his studies on ancient Christianity. It does make a difference- but it doesn’t necessarily lead to conversion.

 

[Bluegoat]

Ignorant? Not at all.
I wasn’t making a historical statement. I was pointing out the fact that you can call yourself anything but it doesn’t change the meaning.

There is no other Church that can be called Catholic that is truly Catholic. There are many churches that CALL themselves “Catholic” but arent.

You can claim anything and take on any name but it still won’t matter. You are what you ARE**.**
**You can claim all day that rain *****isn’t *****wet but you’d ****still **be wrong . . .
Again - you dismiss Newman - and his quote - because it doesn’t bolster your position.
His ecclesiology was Anglican - Protestant - not Catholic.

Cardinal Newman was an Anglo-Catholic. That is an historical statement. Honestly do you think that because you don’t like the term it makes that less true?

And since you are determined that Anglicans must by definition be Protestanr: I know then many Protestants who are very conversant in the EFCs and remain Protestant. Many of them publish in the same journals that Catholic scholars do, and one of university profs even taught at the patristics institute in Rome.

 

[elvisman]

Cardinal Newman was an Anglo-Catholic. That is an historical statement. Honestly do you think that because you don’t like the term it makes that less true?

And since you are determined that Anglicans must by definition be Protestanr: I know then many Protestants who are very conversant in the EFCs and remain Protestant. Many of them publish in the same journals that Catholic scholars do, and one of university profs even taught at the patristics institute in Rome.

Are you telling me that there are Anglican that are NOT Protestant? Is that what you’re saying?
The Anglican church at its very foundation is Protestant.

 

[Bluegoat]

**Are you telling me that there are Anglican that are NOT **Protestant? Is that what you’re saying?
The Anglican church at its very foundation is Protestant.

Do you know what catholic means?

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the info!

Any time.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[elvisman]

Do you know what catholic means?

I absolutely do.
It means universal, as in the universal Church of Christ - and he only established ONE - not thousands.

The term “Anglo-Catholic” was born from the English Reformation.
**So was the non-existent title “Roman Catholic”. A rudimentary study of history will show you that those in the Church of England, in an effort to differentiate the Church of Rome and the Church of England, invented these titles. The only thing is that there is only ONE Catholic Church. **

---

That’s** the way Jesus established it (Matt. 16:16-19) and willed it to be (John 17:21-23).**

 

[GKC]

**Are you telling me that there are Anglican that are NOT **Protestant? Is that what you’re saying?
The Anglican church at its very foundation is Protestant.

Sure, that’s what he’s saying. Since Anglo-Catholics, and other Anglicans, and some Orthodox, define the Catholic Church slightly differently from the way in which the RCC defines it. And, sure, you should disagree with that position.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Post charitably please.

 

[Bluegoat]

I absolutely do.
It means universal, as in the universal Church of Christ - and he only established ONE - not thousands.

The term “Anglo-Catholic” was born from the English Reformation.
So was the non-existent title “Roman Catholic”. A rudimentary study of history will show you that those in the Church of England, in an effort to differentiate the Church of Rome and the Church of England, invented these titles. The only thing is that there is only ONE Catholic Church.

---

That’s** the way Jesus established it (Matt. 16:16-19**) and willed it to be (John 17:21-23).

Well, it means complete really, not universal.

But in any case, Protestant and catholic are not are not opposits. Many Protestant groups understand themselves to be catholic, and always have.

Yopu need to learn the difference between what you think is true, and understanding what other people think is true. Tha Catholic Church doesn’t think Protestants are even Churches in the proper sense. But surely you understand that Protestants do understand themselves to be, and don’t complain when you go by a building that says “First Baptist Church”.

Similarly, Anglicans, Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, just to name a few, all consider themselves to be catholic, and think that catholicity is an important part of the church. If you look at what they mean by the term, there are some differences but many similarities, and they can certainly understand each other’s language and intent.

Anglo-Catholics clearly have a position on this - they affirm themselves as catholic and there are many theological and political views they hold as a direct result. They are different from some Anglicans who are not Anglo–Catholic. And they might not call themselves Protestants, or if they did, it would be in the sense of standing against un-catholic, unorthodox practices, which is surly a catholic thing to do.

 

[Geremia]

I would assume they all do not agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, as Protestants were crucial for the progressive education movement that has destroyed modern education.

 

[Nicea325]

Well, it means complete really, not universal.

But in any case, Protestant and catholic are not are not opposits. Many Protestant groups understand themselves to be catholic, and always have.

Yopu need to learn the difference between what you think is true, and understanding what other people think is true. Tha Catholic Church doesn’t think Protestants are even Churches in the proper sense. But surely you understand that Protestants do understand themselves to be, and don’t complain when you go by a building that says “First Baptist Church”.

Similarly, Anglicans, Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, just to name a few, all consider themselves to be catholic, and think that catholicity is an important part of the church. If you look at what they mean by the term, there are some differences but many similarities, and they can certainly understand each other’s language and intent.

Anglo-Catholics clearly have a position on this - they affirm themselves as catholic and there are many theological and political views they hold as a direct result. They are different from some Anglicans who are not Anglo–Catholic. And they might not call themselves Protestants, or if they did, it would be in the sense of standing against un-catholic, unorthodox practices, which is surly a catholic thing to do.

So what you are stating is that the term universal has different meanings for different people? Well these are a few text definitions:

ADJECTIVE

1. relating to whole world: relating to, affecting, or accepted by the whole world
2. relating to universe: relating to the universe or everything
3. relating to those in particular group: relating to, affecting, or including everyone in a group or situation
4. used by everyone: used or understood by everyone
5. applicable to all: applicable to all situations or purposes
   “a universal solution”
6. present everywhere: present or prevalent everywhere
7. knowledgeable: knowledgeable about or encompassing extensive skills, interests, activities, or subjects
8. adaptable to different sizes: adaptable to many uses or sizes
9. logic affirming or denying every member: relating to a proposition that is true or false of every member of a class or group

NOUN
u·ni·ver·sals plural

1. common characteristic: a characteristic or behavior pattern common to everyone or all the people in a particular group or situation
2. logic proposition applying to all members: a proposition that is true or false for all members of a class or group
3. philosophy general term or concept: a general term or concept, or the thing that it denotes
4. philosophy unchanging metaphysical entity: a metaphysical entity that remains unchanged in character through a series of changing relations
5. philosophy Platonic idea or Aristotelian form: a Platonic idea or Aristotelian form
6. linguistics grammatical characteristic common to all languages: an actual or possible characteristic common to the grammatical description of all human languages
   u·ni·ver·sal·i·ty NOUN
   u·ni·ver·sal·ly ADVERB
   Word Key: Synonyms
   See widespread.
   Thesaurus
   ADJECTIVE
   Synonyms: worldwide, widespread, general, common, collective, total, entire, complete, unanimous, comprehensive
   ADJECTIVE
   Antonyms: local
   Translations
   Select a languageSpanishItalianGermanFrench
   adjective universal
   adjective universale
   [junɪ’vɜsl] adjective

Sprache, Gebrauch allgemein verbreitet
[junɪ’vɜrsl] adjective universel*
Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary[North American Edition] © & (P) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

 

[Bluegoat]

So what you are stating is that the term universal has different meanings for different people? Well these are a few text definitions:

ADJECTIVE

1. relating to whole world: relating to, affecting, or accepted by the whole world
2. relating to universe: relating to the universe or everything
3. relating to those in particular group: relating to, affecting, or including everyone in a group or situation
4. used by everyone: used or understood by everyone
5. applicable to all: applicable to all situations or purposes
   “a universal solution”
6. present everywhere: present or prevalent everywhere
7. knowledgeable: knowledgeable about or encompassing extensive skills, interests, activities, or subjects
8. adaptable to different sizes: adaptable to many uses or sizes
9. logic affirming or denying every member: relating to a proposition that is true or false of every member of a class or group

NOUN
u·ni·ver·sals plural

1. common characteristic: a characteristic or behavior pattern common to everyone or all the people in a particular group or situation
2. logic proposition applying to all members: a proposition that is true or false for all members of a class or group
3. philosophy general term or concept: a general term or concept, or the thing that it denotes
4. philosophy unchanging metaphysical entity: a metaphysical entity that remains unchanged in character through a series of changing relations
5. philosophy Platonic idea or Aristotelian form: a Platonic idea or Aristotelian form
6. linguistics grammatical characteristic common to all languages: an actual or possible characteristic common to the grammatical description of all human languages
   u·ni·ver·sal·i·ty NOUN
   u·ni·ver·sal·ly ADVERB
   Word Key: Synonyms
   See widespread.
   Thesaurus
   ADJECTIVE
   Synonyms: worldwide, widespread, general, common, collective, total, entire, complete, unanimous, comprehensive
   ADJECTIVE
   Antonyms: local
   Translations
   Select a languageSpanishItalianGermanFrench
   adjective universal
   adjective universale
   [junɪ’vɜsl] adjective

Sprache, Gebrauch allgemein verbreitet
[junɪ’vɜrsl] adjective universel*
Content above provided by
Encarta® World English Dictionary[North American Edition] © & (P) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Didn’t I say that it didn’t mean universal?

Dictionary definitions are not really very useful in a discussion like this I don’t find.

Yes, different people understand what the Church is differently, and they understand catholicity differently. The Catholic understanding of what constitutes the Church is different than that of Protestants who affirm themselves as catholic, and the Orthodox who also claim to be catholic.

 

[Nicea325]

Didn’t I say that it didn’t mean universal?

Dictionary definitions are not really very useful in a discussion like this I don’t find.

Yes, different people understand what the Church is differently, and they understand catholicity differently. The Catholic understanding of what constitutes the Church is different than that of Protestants who affirm themselves as catholic, and the Orthodox who also claim to be catholic.

Indeed you did:

Well, it means complete really, not universal.

I understand what you saying and I am not trying to attack your position,but only understand where you are coming from.

 

[Bluegoat]

Indeed you did:

Well, it means complete really, not universal.

I understand what you saying and I am not trying to attack your position,but only understand where you are coming from.

What I would say is this. Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Protestants all think being part of the complete, universal Church is important. All think that it is unified, though it also has parts, and that it has invisible and visible elements. All think certain things are requirements for practice and belief, and other things are not.

Differences come in all with regard to what is understood to be true doctrine required for belief. There are also differences in what is understood by unity. The Orthodox stress unity of belief; the Catholics visible political hierarchy and belief. Protestants typically say that the visible Church does not always appear unified, but it is unified in Christ, so that when we see the Church Triumphant it will be clearly unified. Protestants also requirements requirements in belief but they *may *be more broad than those of the other two groups.

In the end, these are all clearly an understanding of a catholic kind of Church.

 

[ignatius777]

I’ve not read the church fathers extensively, but I’ve seen dozens and dozens of quotes from them that seems to make it obvious that the Christian church of the first century was catholic. I’ve seen quote after quote of things like the papacy, eucharist, purgatory,etc. from the Christians of the first few centuries AD. What do protestant scholars think of this? A protestant friend of mine once told me that the church fathers are very confusing and often contradict each other, but I didn’t get a particular example.

Its “protestant scholar” an oxymoron? I thought for most protestants sola scriptura was the order of the day? The church fathers were CLEARLY catholic and believed all the things catholics believe today.

 

[Nicea325]

What I would say is this. Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Protestants all think being part of the complete, universal Church is important. All think that it is unified, though it also has parts, and that it has invisible and visible elements. All think certain things are requirements for practice and belief, and other things are not.

Differences come in all with regard to what is understood to be true doctrine required for belief. There are also differences in what is understood by unity. The Orthodox stress unity of belief; the Catholics visible political hierarchy and belief. Protestants typically say that the visible Church does not always appear unified, but it is unified in Christ, so that when we see the Church Triumphant it will be clearly unified. Protestants also requirements requirements in belief but they *may *be more broad than those of the other two groups.

In the end, these are all clearly an understanding of a catholic kind of Church.

Well noted and understood.

 

[elvisman]

Well, it means complete really, not universal.

But in any case, Protestant and catholic are not are not opposits. Many Protestant groups understand themselves to be catholic, and always have.

Yopu need to learn the difference between what you think is true, and understanding what other people think is true. Tha Catholic Church doesn’t think Protestants are even Churches in the proper sense. But surely you understand that Protestants do understand themselves to be, and don’t complain when you go by a building that says “First Baptist Church”.

Similarly, Anglicans, Catholics, the Orthodox, Lutherans, just to name a few, all consider themselves to be catholic, and think that catholicity is an important part of the church. If you look at what they mean by the term, there are some differences but many similarities, and they can certainly understand each other’s language and intent.

Anglo-Catholics clearly have a position on this - they affirm themselves as catholic and there are many theological and political views they hold as a direct result. They are different from some Anglicans who are not Anglo–Catholic. And they might not call themselves Protestants, or if they did, it would be in the sense of standing against un-catholic, unorthodox practices, which is surly a catholic thing to do.

The truth is the truth. It is not up for grabs. It is what it IS. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). It is the Fuflness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). There are not multiple versions of that truth - that fullness of Christ.
**To make up another “version” of the truth is simply relativism.

 

[JonNC]

I would assume they all do not agree with St. Thomas Aquinas, as Protestants were crucial for the progressive education movement that has destroyed modern education.

Were John Dewey and William Heard Kilpatrick Protestant? :bigyikes:
Please don’t say Lutheran. :nope: It could push me into the Tiber.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

Its “protestant scholar” an oxymoron? I thought for most protestants sola scriptura was the order of the day? The church fathers were CLEARLY catholic and believed all the things catholics believe today.

I am pretty sure, polemics aside, that you know of Protestant scholars. Being Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a scholar.
As far as your last statement, I believe a careful examination of early history will refute that. But I would prefer to delve into specifics.

 

[ignatius777]

I am pretty sure, polemics aside, that you know of Protestant scholars. Being Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a scholar.
As far as your last statement, I believe a careful examination of early history will refute that. But I would prefer to delve into specifics.

Protestants rely on the bibleas their source of knowledge of God, is that or is that not correct? No need for scholars to tell you what scirpture says then correct?

As you no doubt notuiced I said writings of the church fathers indicate the presence of the doctrines catholics hold to to this very day. Lets be specific and see