Why the church fathers?

[yay123456]

The church uses the church fathers to define a lot beliefs/tradition.
But how do you know the church fathers had their theology correct. Why choose them just because they’re earlier, why not follow an arian or a gnostic? The standard answer is because they were followers of the apostles, but is there 1)the documents with which to prove this. Why couldn’t the gnostics be their followers? and 2) evidence that their teaching matched exactly with those before them and didn’t change over time (the obvious example that comes to mind is that of plato) and evidence of the changed theology is what survives?
And if you pick them because they fall in line with church teaching, how is this not a circular argument/ an argument from authority?

 

[Kathleen18]

Are you kidding? Have you ever read any gnostic documents?

 

[RKS89]

It’s pretty well agreed on, and any cursory look at the first 400 centuries of Christianity will corroborate, that there was a lot of confusion and differing opinion. The unity was found more in a way of life befitting a Christian and the teachings of Christ than explicit doctrinal statements or sacramental theology.

The Gnostics probably disagreed more than the Christians did, as they grew out of a collection of philosophies and had no real figurehead, leader or authority to gather around. This lack of authority, in the form of ordained Bishops and their faithful transmission of Christ’s teachings, is the benchmark (along with Scripture) the Fathers use to put heretics in check. We have the benefit of hindsight when reviewing the documents from that period, but our position is no different than theirs in the respect that we can either choose to believe that these men learned the faith from the Apostles or they did not. Unless I actually saw Polycarp with St. John how could I truly know, with all certainty, he actually learned Christianity from him?

In spite of outward appearances the Apostolic Fathers are clear on quite a few things, one of which is the episcopate. If we trust the Fathers we trust that movements lacking ordained Bishops are spurious at best. But, that’s the crux of the entire argument- authority. We trust, and believe, the initial claim to authority these men make. We have no choice, really. That is to say, eventually you have to conclude they are who they say and therefore have the authority, or they aren’t. But the implications of each choice…

It’s not much different than asking someone of any other faith how they know they’re correct. Since we can’t travel back in time we have to draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence.

Another point is to place yourself in a first century Christian community and play out that scenario. If you wanted to convert you’re instructed to find the Bishop because he’s got the teaching. You undergo instruction in the faith. Do you know with 100% certainty he is who he claims, even if he can show you his personal line of succession back to Christ? There’s a point where circumspection shifts from prudence to scrupulosity. If these men weren’t who they said, and they gave us the Canon of Scripture, than our entire system is an elephant with clay legs. If we can’t trust them we can’t be certain of the Bible. In which case being a Christian, much less a Catholic, is really as silly as some make it out to be.

 

[Kei]

There’s a lot more history here than I think you know…

 

[adf417]

The church uses the church fathers to define a lot beliefs/tradition.

Not really. The church uses the church fathers to show how the church was living its faith during that time.

But how do you know the church fathers had their theology correct. Why choose them just because they’re earlier, why not follow an arian or a gnostic?

Apostolic succession.

The arians or gnostic certainly had their chance to prevail. But as Gamaliel said in Acts ch5, “…For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.” an so it did.

The earliest Christian faith must be the correct Christian faith otherwise you would be asking, “why is there a gap in the orthodox Christian faith?”

but is there 1)the documents with which to prove this.

Nothing PROVES this that why they call it faith. If the bible and the writings of the church fathers is not enough for you than nothing else will be. What would be proof for you would be superfluos for another. Our Christian faith is not something to be proven, its to be believed or not believed.

Peace!!!