Why dont protestants...

  • Thread starter Thread starter cradlecathlic26
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cradlecathlic26

Guest
Why dont protestants study the early church fathers?
 
Where did you get the idea they don’t?

Protestant ministers certainly study the early church fathers in the seminary. The seminaries for the more established denominations like the Presbyterians and Lutherans are very well informed on the matter. That may not hold true in some of your small bible colleges, but your sweeping generalization is incorrect.
 
I regularly read the church fathers. I do wonder though how many people in the pew, ordinary Catholic, Protestants or Orthodox, do.
 
Im sorry, i cant exactly put my finger on which denomination, they dont like to say which “religon” they belong to. I have run into so many protestants that refuse to read about the early church fathers, they think they will be subjected to catholisism.
 
I don’t think many lay people of any stripe read the early church fathers, including Catholics.
 
As a former protestant, it is hard to believe that any protestant reads the early church fathers and stays protestant. I mean no insult here at all. I don’t understand though combined with the Mass that the early Church followed and John 6 how anyone would miss Jesus being really present in communion. The only thing I have seen explaining why the early Church Fathers are not taken seriously was that the Church was believe to be in error within the first century. I’d love the hear if that’s true or if anyone has a better understanding about the whys here.

Thanks!
 
I understand that is can be a generalized statement but I have not heard many protestant preachers speak of the early Church fathers. The times I have it was just a small quote.

I asked and ex-Catholic this exact same quetion today and this is what she said : " Christian churches don’t believe in having Crucifixes and statues of Saints in the their churches".

I decided to end the conversation there.😊

She is really angry at the Church because…well,who really knows. It started out because she got remarried without an annulment and ever since she has slowly grown to hate the Church.
 
I concur that the average Christian does not study early Christian history. I would add that I do not think that most Christians even bother to study the Bible.
But absolutely all reputable schools(RA, ATS, TRACS etc) contain early Christian history which includes the writings of many men.
I would obviously point out that I have studied them and could post links of others who have…but last time I did that…I got in trouble for anti-Catholic links…
 
envchemist said:
As a former protestant, it is hard to believe that any protestant reads the early church fathers and stays protestant. I mean no insult here at all. I don’t understand though combined with the Mass that the early Church followed and John 6 how anyone would miss Jesus being really present in communion. The only thing I have seen explaining why the early Church Fathers are not taken seriously was that the Church was believe to be in error within the first century. I’d love the hear if that’s true or if anyone has a better understanding about the whys here.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
You know someone had to respond to you with this…

By a former Protestant:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
  • Cardinal Newman
 
In sola fe,sola scriptura, one doesn’t need to go back to the early church fathers. When they find they all believed and taught Catholicism then, I have found they mix secular history with christian history.

For example, it is believed that Constantine started the Catholic Church in Protestant circles. So the early church was Pagan and no need to study the church fathers, when the word of God (bible) teaches all they need to know and believe.
 
Was it Chesterton who said to be steeped in history is to be Catholic?
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
In sola fe,sola scriptura, one doesn’t need to go back to the early church fathers. When they find they all believed and taught Catholicism then, I have found they mix secular history with christian history.

For example, it is believed that Constantine started the Catholic Church in Protestant circles. So the early church was Pagan and no need to study the church fathers, when the word of God (bible) teaches all they need to know and believe.
Click to expand...
The dangers of “not” being allowed to study history for oneself.

Whatever happened to personal interpretation?

Does it only apply to The Bible?

Can’t they apply that to secular history?

Read for yourself, then make up your own mind?
 
2ndGen said:
The dangers of “not” being allowed to study history for oneself.

Whatever happened to personal interpretation?

Does it only apply to The Bible?

Can’t they apply that to secular history?

Read for yourself, then make up your own mind?
Click to expand...
Where the problem here is that most Protestants( as well as most Catholics) just haven’t studied the ECF, and probably ain’t going to. Being allowed to do something, and actually doing it are 2 separate events.

That goes even among many (although not all) of the posters here. If someone posts something from the ECF, it can only be convincing to someone who has studied them. For the others, they know nothing about Tertullian or Clement or any of the rest, they know nothing about who they were addressing, or the purpose of the speech or homily or writing being posted. Under those circumstances, what would you expect as a response to them from the less informed?
 
Kielbasi said:
Where the problem here is that most Protestants( as well as most Catholics) just haven’t studied the ECF, and probably ain’t going to. Being allowed to do something, and actually doing it are 2 separate events.

That goes even among many (although not all) of the posters here. If someone posts something from the ECF, it can only be convincing to someone who has studied them. For the others, they know nothing about Tertullian or Clement or any of the rest, they know nothing about who they were addressing, or the purpose of the speech or homily or writing being posted. Under those circumstances, what would you expect as a response to them from the less informed?
Click to expand...
One could say that Catholics “know” The Church Fathers by default…

If all we did was believe in our faith and knew it relatively well, we then are being educated in what The Church Fathers taught.

🙂
 
2ndGen said:
One could say that Catholics “know” The Church Fathers by default…

If all we did was believe in our faith and knew it relatively well, we then are being educated in what The Church Fathers taught.

🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s too easy for us to be lazy. It’s interesting to read them if we have time and to see that they believed what we believe. But more important for us to believe and live it now.
 
Rightlydivide said:
I concur that the average Christian does not study early Christian history. I would add that I do not think that most Christians even bother to study the Bible.
But absolutely all reputable schools(RA, ATS, TRACS etc) contain early Christian history which includes the writings of many men.
I would obviously point out that I have studied them and could post links of others who have…but last time I did that…I got in trouble for anti-Catholic links…
Click to expand...
I still read the ECF’s - required reading in seminary, and still informative and inspiring for me today.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
Yeah, it’s too easy for us to be lazy. It’s interesting to read them if we have time and to see that they believed what we believe. But more important for us to believe and live it now.
Click to expand...
LOL!

The first thing I though when I read your post was “it’s like reading the Department of Motor Vehicles Driver’s License Manual after having gotten their license.”

It makes all the sense in the world that we brush up on the rules of driving, but how many of us do it?

Well said.

👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top