Why trust the "Early Fathers?"

[PinSeeker]

Hello PinSeeker,

As I stated in that post that you quoted: I consider the "early fathers" as the Apostolic Fathers or fathers that lived close to their lifetime.


Mary

Ah, so I take it that your answer to the question I asked is no... although that's still unclear, really, because "close" is rather subjective. Certainly, Augustine lived much, much closer to Jesus's and the Apostles' lifetimes than any of us today. But okay, I was just a little curious on that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are incorrect sir/mam.

You think so; that's very clear.

The Protestant Reformers did in FACT teach different than the early fathers.

Well, now that would depend upon who those early fathers actually are, wouldn't it, Mary? Certainly, they taught at least some different things than

Calvin taught there was no free will.

He absolutely, unequivocally did not.

Calvin and Zwingili did not teach/believe in the Real Presence. Martin Luther rejected......

Hmmm... I may be mistaken, but I think you're speaking of transubstantiation ~ the bread and wine actually becoming Christ's body and blood in communion ~ which is an exclusively Catholic doctrine, and ~ we'll disagree on this, of course ~ not Biblical. So, maybe I'm getting a better idea about who you think were these "early fathers..." But yes, none of them taught or believed in transubstantiation.

I'm not going to go on and on and on to destroy your theory PinSeeker...

LOL! Good idea. <smile>

It is up to you to learn your own Christian history.

We're all our own person, right. <smile>

Not for me to teach it to you.

Well, you're not; what you're trying to do is propagate the Catholic version of Christian history. And there's no need for anyone to so so, as I'm quite familiar with it.

It is NOT true that the "whole impetus of the Reformation was to return Christianity to it's apostolic roots."

It was.

Your theory makes zero sense when you consider that all the Reformers disagreed with The Church...

Ah, "The Church." <smile>

If the Reformers were trying to return Christianity to its Apostolic roots then they all should have been in agreement with each other and the Apostolic Fathers at a minimum.

Again, "Apostolic Fathers..." So who would you attribute "Apostolic Fatherhood" to?

If you already know that the teachings of Luther and Calvins teachings are different than the early fathers then how can you suggest that their teachings were getting back to the roots of the Apostles?

I'm... pretty sure the problem here is who you versus I recognize as the early fathers. In view of that, maybe we should only talk about, in comparing, oh, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Yes, you did.

We are.

No, its close prompts Jesus's return.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Not true. In the early Church, before Constantine, there were some men (Docetism, Montanism, Adoptism, Gnostism etc etc) who broke away from The Church because they disagreed with the teachings of The Church. So those "divergent voices in teh {sic} church" that you speak of were on in the church. They were heretical teachings of men outside The Church. The Church has had 1 doctrine under 1 united Church with 1 teaching since the time of the Apostles. If you do not believe that then you believe that Christ and the Apostles failed. I do not believe they did. You apparently do.



Please answer my question from the original post: Who was God leading and guiding during the Reformation? Martin Luther? Zwingili? The Catholic Church? Calvin?

Mary

You do not know early church history obviously. thew early church was wracked with divisions. Even Paul commented on that.

And God always leads His followers. People not an organization.

But He was leading and guiding all those names you cited.

The very fact that the RCC taught one can lose their salvation, purgatory and Mary as co-redemptrix was a sign that teh Spirit was not leading that behemoth who ordered untold thousands put to death duirng the Inquisition and reformation.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"YOu obviously do not know Church history." The Muslims attacked Christian countries and subjected Christians to their will by taking their property, slaughtering them and they had to convert or pay a tax if they didn't convert. Thank God The Church (the Popes) RESPONDED TO THEIR ATTACKS and called for the Glorious Crusades (there were 8 of them over 200 years) to stop the killing of Christians and to retake our Holy Land. If you think the Muslims could have been converted by evangelizing to them then put your words into practice. Go to a Muslim country TODAY and do that. Please make sure your life insurance is up to date so your family can cash in.

So Jesus told turn the other cheek, but Rome says butcher them? HMMM I choose Jesus. where were these armed forces duirng the first three centuries of the church when Rome butchered Christians with glee? they were too busy being christians!

And where did you get your education in Church history to call yourself a church historian?

Now to answer your questions: It doesn't matter what the personal opinions are of any Pope. It only matters what The Church teaches.

So you agreed with Limbo, then the removal of Limbo?

The church is infallible only when it rightly divides and teaches SCripture. The word of God is the only infallible.

Also you then do not accept the ex-cathedra authority of a Pope?

Do you accept the teachings ensconced in the bull Unum Sanctum approved by the RCC?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That is exactly what 1 Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17 mean: The Church is infallible. If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette is the pillar and foundation of truth, wouldn't YOU be infallible? If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette has the final decision on if a person should be kicked out of The Church or not, wouldn't that make YOU infallible?

You and @ScottA, who "liked" your unfortunate post, crack me up!

WOW you do know how to twist verses don't you?

Matt. 18 has to do with church discipline and not all matters.

1 Tim.3 is correct it is the ground of truth and a pillar of truth, but not that truth! Scripture is that truth!

Any teaching, no matter if brought by a synod of Bishops or the college of Cardinals or Pope, if it is in conflict with Scripture as written, must be resisted atr all costs as Heresy!

 

[PinSeeker]

View attachment 56230





View attachment 56231View attachment 56232View attachment 56233View attachment 56234





View attachment 56235

 

[RedFan]

Any teaching, no matter if brought by a synod of Bishops or the college of Cardinals or Pope, if it is in conflict with Scripture as written, must be resisted atr all costs as Heresy!

I'm guessing even Catholics (I am not one) would agree with this. The RCC's interpretation of Scripture may not match yours, however.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm guessing even Catholics (I am not one) would agree with this. The RCC's interpretation of Scripture may not match yours, however.

Well that is where a huge problem lies! No one is allowed to "interpret" the Scriptures. But this disease of interpretation has become pandemic in Christendom.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Well that is where a huge problem lies! No one is allowed to "interpret" the Scriptures. But this disease of interpretation has become pandemic in Christendom.

Disease or ease?

 

[MatthewG]

I don't think its taboo to look at secular writers, or the early fathers. But when it comes to you, yourself. You need to think and choose for yourself, and search and research and discover things for yourself. That is my encouragement for people is to think for themselves. Just because mom or dad believes a certain way or grandma or grandpa. Look to Jesus/Yeshua, and find out what he has had to say, even the other writers in the new testament, and the writers of the old testament.

A great book I recommend for anyone wanting to study the bible:

Thompson Chain Reference Bibles - Christianbook.com

Save on Thompson Chain Reference Bibles

www.christianbook.com

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Disease or ease?

private interpretation is a disease in the church that is inflicting massive casualties.

 

[MonoBiblical]

private interpretation is a disease in the church that is inflicting massive casualties.

And Roman Catholic interpretations can be just as diseased then.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

 

[chandlere880]

Hello friends

Have we ever noticed that for the first 1,000 years after Jesus Christ there is absolutely nothing in the Vatican preserved for a complete Hebrew Manuscript bible !

it is as though the Vatican just threw out or lost everything that existed 1000 years ago

and not only the Hebrew Manuscripts but there is not even a handful of dust and crumbled paper or vellum parchment skin that exists in even a decayed form - ↩ to show that the Vatican even had possession of any Greek Scriptures in any realistic completion of the Bible before 1000 years ago

Why would the Vatican not preserve the very Hebrew Manuscripts that Jerome used in Translating his Vulgate ? ✒ AND why would not the Vatican not make copies of these Hebrew manuscripts ?

one would think that the Vatican would have some preservation of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in their Original today..... Codex Vaticanus Graecus of 1209, this is the oldest known nearly complete manuscript of the Bible ..... and it is not even a completed form from its era

✒ not even a handful of dust and crumbled paper or vellum parchment skin exists in even a decayed form -✣- to show that the Vatican even had possession of any Hebrew Scriptures whatsoever before 1000 years ago ✣


the Vatican just threw everything into the trash and saved ONLY the drawings, scratchings, etchings , doodlings, scrawlings and paintings of the Church Fathers ☞ ☞ going back to the 3th century !

but not even just a small handful of dust exists regarding the bible for the first 1000 years are preserved in the Vatican Roman Catholic Church we do not even have crumblings or dust mites of what Jerome used as Hebrew text in his translation

but the Vatican has many pages of early Church Fathers - even as early as 90 AD

 

[chandlere880]

Click here ----/-- Spiritus Paraclitus (September 15, 1920) | BENEDICT XV


Here - We see the Catholic Church says that “ Jerome “ - he corrected { fixed / repaired } the Latin version of the Old Testament he translated afresh nearly all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin;

But …. why would Jerome need to correct { fix and repair } any previous Latin bible translation and why was the Latin Bible CORRUPTED and inconsistent ?

This original Latin Bible and THE VERY FIRST - the very FIRST Latin bible - this previous translation had previously been produced and translated before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate


This was the “ Vetus Italia Translation “ produced sometime between 150 - to 250 AD - - this is the previous Latin Bible Translation that existed before Jerome. This means EITHER the Roman Catholic Church / VATICAN did not translate any Latin Version of The Bible Translated into Latin for the first 400 years after Christ

405 - Jerome Completed his Latin Vulgate - because the previous Latin was corrupted.

Or - This means that the previous { PRE JEROME } Latin Bible - the first Latin Bible, IN THE VATICAN - had been so badly damaged and misplaced and so mistreated and abandoned / un – kept and had not been maintained,

and - no new copies were made in the Vatican for 500 years - that nothing was preserved - nothing had been transmitted and handed out from the Vatican, for 500 years

Or - This means that the previous { PRE JEROME } Latin Bible - the first Latin Bible, WAS NEVER IN THE VATICAN

That Jerome had to completely, entirely totally abandon and reject the previous Latin version { IN THE VATICAN } All Latin Bible Copies in the Vatican had been completely abandoned, trashed and totally discarded and disintegrated - and were filled with errors, mistakes and corruption and mistranslation -

or they just somehow suddenly vanished into thin air or they had decayed and had become rotten and unreadable - Jerome’s only option was to go back to the original Hebrew, from 400 years ago and spend over 25 years trying learn, study and an enormous amount of time working to translate from the Hebrew.


Jerome even had help from a Hebrew Rabbi to assist him figuring out how to translate ancient Hebrew manuscripts - the Vatican elaborately and in great detail explains that Jerome spent so much time and work in studying the Hebrew manuscripts.

As if - absolutely none of this work had ever been previously done by the Roman Catholic Church. !

And Jerome is here - 300 to 500 years later with next to nothing in Greek - and entire previous Latin Translation is so corrupted and filled with error and here Jerome - he is so overwhelmed and burdened and working at such lengths and the enormous task of translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew.

In other words, because there was no accurate and truthful consistent Latin Bible to translate from - he had to use the only available manuscripts from HEBREW in correcting the previous Latin version of the Old Testament, by using the Hebrew manuscripts and the very, very small amount of available codex of Greek.

Why / How - was the previous Latin Translation corrupted in the Vatican ?

OR - was there absolutely no accurate and truthful Latin translation in the Vatican for 500 years ?

The question is why did the previous Latin Translation become corrupted in the Vatican ?

Or did the Catholic Church not produce and maintain the previous Latin Bible and did not have an Old testament Translation - for 500 years after Christ ?

 

[Jack]

Why would you put trust in the "Early Fathers?"

Do they dictate the life of the spiritual? Could an Early Father ever be wrong about something? I get people study and go to college and everything concerning these things, but does trusting in the "Early Fathers" really make a difference in someones life who actively seeks for the Father in heaven, and live by the spirit of Christ?

Define "Early Fathers".

 

[MatthewG]

Define "Early Fathers".

My Father was early to the party but late to the game. He disqualified me as his son.

 

[Jack]

Define "Early Fathers".

My Father was early to the party but late to the game. He disqualified me as his son.

You're referring to YOUR Father as one of the "Early Fathers"?

 

[MatthewG]

He was early in my childhood, but alas he said “you aren’t mine kid.”