Early Church Fathers and the 21st Century Church

[MrJim]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?

[ZiSunka]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?

I think they are interesting to read in conjection with a study of the history of the church at that time, and about the times in general. I think they have some interesting catch-phrases sometimes and I can see where the catholic church gets some of the really weird ideas from, like it's not necessary to deal with sinning priests because the institution of the church is holy even if the priests are not (Augustine).

I believe, though, that being human, they are as prone to misinterpret scripture, misunderstand God and mislead the faithful as we are today. In reading them, I often have to go back to the Bible to check what they have said against what the Bible says and decide whether or not their interpretation makes sense. Sometimes it does, but so much of the time, they don't even reference Scripture, they just speak about what they understand, not about what God has said.

There is no reference like the Bible. Christianity would be completely trashed by now if we didn't have this immutable reference to guide all our understanding and interpretation of truth.

[BBAS 64]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?

Good Day, Menno

I am a big fan of readsing the ECF's not that I can agree with every thing they write. Nor do I completly understand all the particulars of their times, but they did face some stiff problems and in most cases with stood the challange. I do not hold them has infallible by any means, but they are use full in understanding the the historic nature of the whole Christian world view.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

I think they are interesting to read in conjection with a study of the history of the church at that time, and about the times in general. I think they have some interesting catch-phrases sometimes and I can see where the catholic church gets some of the really weird ideas from, like it's not necessary to deal with sinning priests because the institution of the church is holy even if the priests are not (Augustine).

I believe, though, that being human, they are as prone to misinterpret scripture, misunderstand God and mislead the faithful as we are today. In reading them, I often have to go back to the Bible to check what they have said against what the Bible says and decide whether or not their interpretation makes sense. Sometimes it does, but so much of the time, they don't even reference Scripture, they just speak about what they understand, not about what God has said.

There is no reference like the Bible. Christianity would be completely trashed by now if we didn't have this immutable reference to guide all our understanding and interpretation of truth.

Good Day, Lambslove

I do not believe that Augustine said any thing like you have attributed to him. The nature of that which you reference was not the same context as dealing with "sinning priests", as if the failure of the RCC to deal with this issue is to be placed at the feet of Augustine. Such a view lacks merit and is out side the understanding of the problem that Augustine faced.

Here is a better understanding posed as a question.

If A pastor baptises a fellow believer on Sunday the Dec 4th, 2005. Then it was later discovered that on the 2,3,4,5,6 this pastor was dealing with a sinfull condition in his own life and comitted sin during this time period, would the baptism of that beliver be "vaild"?

How about a Pastor who leaves the Faith and renounces Christ, are all his baptisms therefore voided?

Peace to u,

Bill

[MrJim]

There is no reference like the Bible. Christianity would be completely trashed by now if we didn't have this immutable reference to guide all our understanding and interpretation of truth.

16 different denom forums indicate that there might be something amiss in the bible as a guide...just wondering about something more to check interpretations against other that Rev. John down the road. Seems that maybe a disciple of an apostle might have some "fresh" insight...

[MrJim]

Good Day, Menno

I am a big fan of readsing the ECF's not that I can agree with every thing they write. Nor do I completly understand all the particulars of their times, but they did face some stiff problems and in most cases with stood the challange. I do not hold them has infallible by any means, but they are use full in understanding the the historic nature of the whole Christian world view.

Peace to u,

Bill

I wonder though that when I disagree with something they say why should I think my interpretation is better? Particularly when the scripture could go either way should there be any weight given to those that were closer to the source?

(Now "obviously" the story of the Phoenix is some legend the folks at the time thought was real--it's paralleled with some stuff Menno Simons wrote. He thought that women contributed nothing to birth-they were merely the womb and the man deposited everything needed to create life-not exactly a man of science:doh: ).

[mesue]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?
Some may say we are in a better position because we have the whole Bible. I mostly agree with this, however I think we are in a worse position because we are lukewarm in our walks. And God forbid anyone get Biblical with the Bible. Not in this PC/EC world. Once this happens one gets labeled a cold person of ignorance and lacks true understanding. (yes, I am speaking volumes of sarcasim here and yet, it's true)

[MrJim]

Some may say we are in a better position because we have the whole Bible. I mostly agree with this, however I think we are in a worse position because we are lukewarm in our walks. And God forbid anyone get Biblical with the Bible. Not in this PC/EC world. Once this happens one gets labeled a cold person of ignorance and lacks true understanding. (yes, I am speaking volumes of sarcasim here and yet, it's true)

Maybe we are lukewarm in our walks because we are going about it the wrong way...hate to think we'd have to find an evil dictator and get martyred to have a "hot" walk...

[Athanasian Creed]

I think they took their walk with the Lord very seriously...they had to, persecution, torture and horrific deaths followed after those who dared call themselves "Christians". Unlike today, it was not "cool" to be labelled such and Jesus was no "Superstar" They were ridiculed for their faith in a supposedly dead, poor carpenter crucified by the Romans for sedition. Yet marvelled at for such a faith they exhibited, even in the face of death! :bow:

It seems as if they were more doctrinal pure and held Christ in higher esteem that it seems many Christians do today. Seldom would they refer to Jesus without using the title of Lord or God in their writings of Him. :bow:


Ray :wave:

[MrJim]

I think they took their walk with the Lord very seriously...they had to, persecution, torture and horrific deaths followed after those who dared call themselves "Christians". Unlike today, it was not "cool" to be labelled such and Jesus was no "Superstar" They were ridiculed for their faith in a supposedly dead, poor carpenter crucified by the Romans for sedition. Yet marvelled at for such a faith they exhibited, even in the face of death! :bow:

It seems as if they were more doctrinal pure and held Christ in higher esteem that it seems many Christians do today. Seldom would they refer to Jesus without using the title of Lord or God in their writings of Him. :bow:


Ray :wave:

Now would I expect any different with somebody whose name references the great St. Athanasius:thumbsup:

[mesue]

Maybe we are lukewarm in our walks because we are going about it the wrong way...hate to think we'd have to find an evil dictator and get martyred to have a "hot" walk...
That truly would be a shame to have a dictator like that. That would be the other side of the going-about-it-the-wrong-way coin.
It would be nice just be on the same page as other Christians and not tip toe around sin in the mane of Political Correctness or Ecumenical Correctness. Can't we all just be GC Godly Correctness? Or BC Biblically Correctness?

[arunma]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?

You probably already knew I would say this, but I think the church fathers are an excellent source for commentary on Scripture. As the disciples of the Apostles, they were perhaps more advanced in Christianity than any of us could ever hope to be in our mortal lives. And as Athanasian Creed said, they held Christ in higher esteem than most of us do in this modern age.

I think that the message of the church fathers is certainly relevant in the 21st century. Every Baptist should read the patristic tradition. As I've said before, why should Catholics have a monopoly on this great source of Christian philosophy? We need not regard the church fathers as inspired Scripture in order to appreciate what they say. In fact, I don't think the fathers would ever want their writings to be regarded as Scripture. Everything they wrote points back to Christ and his Gospel, and we should use them as a means to better understand our Lord.

[InnerPhyre]

You probably already knew I would say this, but I think the church fathers are an excellent source for commentary on Scripture. As the disciples of the Apostles, they were perhaps more advanced in Christianity than any of us could ever hope to be in our mortal lives. And as Athanasian Creed said, they held Christ in higher esteem than most of us do in this modern age.

I think that the message of the church fathers is certainly relevant in the 21st century. Every Baptist should read the patristic tradition. As I've said before, why should Catholics have a monopoly on this great source of Christian philosophy? We need not regard the church fathers as inspired Scripture in order to appreciate what they say. In fact, I don't think the fathers would ever want their writings to be regarded as Scripture. Everything they wrote points back to Christ and his Gospel, and we should use them as a means to better understand our Lord.

Arunma, that is the most Orthodox thing I have ever heard a Baptist say :liturgy:


Btw, if you haven't read them, I suggest the letters of Polycarp. He was a contemporary of Ignatius of Antioch and a student of John the Gospel Writer and actually succeeded John as bishop of Smyrna after John went into exile during the reign of Emperor Domitian (during the time that John was writing Revelation, btw). He explains the gospel message in such simple and beautiful terms and the reverence with which he describes our Lord will bring tears to your eyes.

[arunma]

Arunma, that is the most Orthodox thing I have ever heard a Baptist say :liturgy:

Well based on everything I've read, Eastern Orthodoxy is my favorite form of Christianity after the Baptist denomination (I know, it's rather strange). So thanks!

Oh by the way, as long as InnerPhyre has provided his recommendations, I should also. I would strongly recommend Saint Justin Martyr, especially his Dialog with Trypho, a Jew. Although the modern Christian church has done well by repudiating anti-semitism, a few extremists (including some evangelicals, and the Roman Catholic Church) have gone so far as to claim that Judaism is a true and authentic religion, and they have espoused the heresy that Jews who reject Christ can have salvation.

Justin's debate with Trypho is especially relevant to the modern church, because he shows that we can fully respect Jews, and simultaneously believe that their religion is false. Through the course of his debate, Justin provided excellent defenses of Christianity, and refutations against the claims of Judaism. I was very impressed that although the two opponents disagreed on virtually every theological point, Trypho concluded by wishing Justin a safe journey, and Justin prayed for Trypho before departing. This is an excellent pattern for the Christian church to follow in its relationship with Jews, so I would definitely suggest that everyone here read it, if they ever have the time.

[DeaconDean]

So do you think these guys have anything to tell us? Particularly looking at the "ante-nicene" age fathers (90 a.d. to 300 a.d or so). Guys like Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, & Justin Martyr--are they in a better postition then that we are now in understanding scripture? Is being the first generation disciple of an apostle, or a disciple of that first generation disciples an advantage? Is living in that age an advantage to understanding? Are these guys---meaningless with no real message for us today?

menno, I think the situation is the same. Let me explain, they certainly faced problems like we do but they faced almost certain death for being a Christian during the 1st century. Although they didn't have the types of problems that we do. Certainly in the first few centuries, they would not have allowed homosexuals into the pulpit as we are now doing. Although I have to say that as far as understanding scriptures better than us, it could be a possibility. The level of education back then was higher than it is today. I like to study the ECF's as well as others from say the 1800's. We could learn a lot from them. But I also realize that they didn't have the tools that we do so they could learn a thing or two from us. I honestly don't think that none of the theologians we think are great are 100% right. But by the same token, they aren't 100% wrong either. I was told this while in seminary school when I was having problems with several of my teachers, I was really having trouble with what they wanted to teach and was having trouble in class. One of my deacons told me this: "You have to learn how to separate the meat from the bone." You see, I have trouble accepting liberal theology. And certain teachers wanted to teach this and my mouth wouldn't allow this, it kept getting me into trouble. I learned to just sit, listen, and take notes so I could pass their tests. After the classes were over I threw the notes away and forgot their teaching. The same thing applies with studying ECF. Some people dispise Charles Finney, but I have learned that although he is 95% of the time wrong, every once in a while, he gets it right. Keep studying and "Keep pressing on to the high calling we have in Christ Jesus."

[mesue]

...One of my deacons told me this: "You have to learn how to separate the meat from the bone." ...
I have heard this as well, only in terms of a fish. This is a good term to use with rigid KJVO, of which I am one. That when I look for Sunday School ideas, I used to think that it always had to be KJVO or I wouldn't even look at it. Now I can glean through most any material and use it in terms of the KJV. Same goes with looking at the teachings of our church leaders past and present. Nobody, but Jesus, is perfect. Therefore, only the teachings of Jesus are perfect. Some are blessed to see most areas clearly, but not all. If we coulf see all clearly, we would have no need for God.
I have to go to work ...

[ZiSunka]

Good Day, Lambslove

I do not believe that Augustine said any thing like you have attributed to him. The nature of that which you reference was not the same context as dealing with "sinning priests", as if the failure of the RCC to deal with this issue is to be placed at the feet of Augustine. Such a view lacks merit and is out side the understanding of the problem that Augustine faced.

Actually, Augustine was addressing those remarks to Christians whose priests were committing acts of homosexuality, then saying the mass and serving the Eucharist. The people complained and wanted the priests ejected from their parishes on the grounds that they were defiling the Eucharist, but Augustine said that the Eucharist wasn't defiled by sinning priests, that the Eucharist is holy no matter who prepares it and serves it because the institution of the Church is holy. So it was very much a similar problem he was addressing.


Here is a better understanding posed as a question.

If A pastor baptises a fellow believer on Sunday the Dec 4th, 2005. Then it was later discovered that on the 2,3,4,5,6 this pastor was dealing with a sinfull condition in his own life and comitted sin during this time period, would the baptism of that beliver be "vaild"?

Nonsequitor. Baptist baptism aren't rituals that confer grace or possess any element of God. For catholics who believe that the eucharist confers grace AND is the real presence of Christ, having a holy priest is a huge problem. How can a priest who just engaged in an abominable act that God's words says is a defilement of the people engaging in it ALSO then handle the eucharist, the real presence of Christ, the elements in which grace is confered? A baptist baptism is a symbol of a person's submission to God. A person can be baptized by anyone. The woman who baptized me was not a priest or ordained pastor, she was simply another Believer. A baptism is an event between a person and God, and it isn't confered or conveyed through the pastor that is present. The grace comes through faith in Christ, not through baptism, so the presence of the pastor is not germain to the act.


How about a Pastor who leaves the Faith and renounces Christ, are all his baptisms therefore voided?

Again, since a baptist baptism has nothing to do with salvation and is not administered by the pastor who is present, but is an act of submission between the person and God. The pastor is there more as a witness and an organizer of the baptism and if there were no pastor there at all, it wouldn't matter. Not so with the catholic eucharist, it can only be prepared and administered by a priest. The real question is, should a man who has just committed an act God says is detestable be the agent of grace and the handler of the body and blood of Christ? Does open rebellion against God's laws disqualify a man from delivering grace through the eucharist. Augustine said no, but I can't imagine God saying, "So he just committed a horrible sin, he can still be my representative and deliver my holy presence to the people."

[BBAS 64]

Actually, Augustine was addressing those remarks to Christians whose priests were committing acts of homosexuality, then saying the mass and serving the Eucharist. The people complained and wanted the priests ejected from their parishes on the grounds that they were defiling the Eucharist, but Augustine said that the Eucharist wasn't defiled by sinning priests, that the Eucharist is holy no matter who prepares it and serves it because the institution of the Church is holy. So it was very much a similar problem he was addressing.



Nonsequitor. Baptist baptism aren't rituals that confer grace or possess any element of God. For catholics who believe that the eucharist confers grace AND is the real presence of Christ, having a holy priest is a huge problem. How can a priest who just engaged in an abominable act that God's words says is a defilement of the people engaging in it ALSO then handle the eucharist, the real presence of Christ, the elements in which grace is confered? A baptist baptism is a symbol of a person's submission to God. A person can be baptized by anyone. The woman who baptized me was not a priest or ordained pastor, she was simply another Believer. A baptism is an event between a person and God, and it isn't confered or conveyed through the pastor that is present. The grace comes through faith in Christ, not through baptism, so the presence of the pastor is not germain to the act.



Again, since a baptist baptism has nothing to do with salvation and is not administered by the pastor who is present, but is an act of submission between the person and God. The pastor is there more as a witness and an organizer of the baptism and if there were no pastor there at all, it wouldn't matter. Not so with the catholic eucharist, it can only be prepared and administered by a priest. The real question is, should a man who has just committed an act God says is detestable be the agent of grace and the handler of the body and blood of Christ? Does open rebellion against God's laws disqualify a man from delivering grace through the eucharist. Augustine said no, but I can't imagine God saying, "So he just committed a horrible sin, he can still be my representative and deliver my holy presence to the people."

Good Day, Lambslove

I believe his remarks where to the Donatist? Where is the source of your take? See the bolded part of your post as I have never read anything like this in all the reading I have done from Augustine.

Peace to u,

Bill

[arunma]

Actually, Augustine was addressing those remarks to Christians whose priests were committing acts of homosexuality, then saying the mass and serving the Eucharist. The people complained and wanted the priests ejected from their parishes on the grounds that they were defiling the Eucharist, but Augustine said that the Eucharist wasn't defiled by sinning priests, that the Eucharist is holy no matter who prepares it and serves it because the institution of the Church is holy. So it was very much a similar problem he was addressing.

But I don't see what is wrong with this view. A practicing homosexual pastor ought not to be barred from serving the Eucharist. He should be ejected from the church regardless of what his function is. But if he serves the Eucharist to people who do not know about his behavior, then I would agree that this does not defile the ordinance. There is a multitude of reasons apart from the Eucharist as to why a homosexual pastor should be excommunicated.

By the way, can you tell me where Augustine wrote about this issue?

[JPPT1974]

They should ban a pastor that is indeed gay.
As that compromises God's plans for the church.
As well as the pastor or priest performing the service.