The Early Church vs The Reformation

[Danfrey]

Something has puzzled me since I started studying the Early Church (Pre-Nicene). Why is it that people are more willing to accept the view of the Reformation than they are that of the men who were closest to the Apostles. We have writings from people who actually spoke to the apostles. Many say, we only use scripture, but many of their views they get from reformation sources.

It was great to reform the Church from the mess it had become in by the 1500's, but the reformation ran into the same difficulty that Augustine did. They had to reconcile the fact the Church and the State were one. This meant that in order to keep order, doctrines that had been created by the Catholic Church had to be held on to. And, like the Church they left, they were willing to spill the blood of those who did not agree with them.

We have writings available from some of these Reformers that would turn our stomachs. I am not talking about some off the wall reformer, I am speaking of Men held up as heros of the faith.

[Andyman_1970]

I agree, Luther was a frothing anti-Semite, not to mention that he totally misunderstood 2nd Temple Judaism and has thus created a false framework of what people "think" Judaism was in Jesus day......like it was a works based salvation religion, which is false.

Anyway, I agree with you brother I try to focus on teachings and traditions that are pre 325 AD.

[arunma]

Something has puzzled me since I started studying the Early Church (Pre-Nicene). Why is it that people are more willing to accept the view of the Reformation than they are that of the men who were closest to the Apostles. We have writings from people who actually spoke to the apostles. Many say, we only use scripture, but many of their views they get from reformation sources.

It was great to reform the Church from the mess it had become in by the 1500's, but the reformation ran into the same difficulty that Augustine did. They had to reconcile the fact the Church and the State were one. This meant that in order to keep order, doctrines that had been created by the Catholic Church had to be held on to. And, like the Church they left, they were willing to spill the blood of those who did not agree with them.

We have writings available from some of these Reformers that would turn our stomachs. I am not talking about some off the wall reformer, I am speaking of Men held up as heros of the faith.

I think that some hyper-fundamentalists see the church fathers as "Roman Catholic," when in fact this isn't true. Unfortunately, people equate the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the first 1,000 years of Christianity with the papal institution which developed afterwards.

I agree that the church fathers taught more sound doctrine than the reformers. Not that I don't believe in Reformed theology (most of Luther's and Calvin's writings are excellent doctrine), but as you said, the reformers made many un-Christian statements as well, and you will find far less of this in the church fathers.

I wish that all Christians would read the church fathers. They teach some great Biblical truths. And these were men who lived in an age when Christianity was illegal, so they are far greater saints than anyone who has come afterwards.

[Andyman_1970]

I wish that all Christians would read the church fathers.

And I wish that all Christian would read about the faith and way of thinking of the authors of the Sciptures and our Messiah........there are some great truths there as well.

[mlqurgw]

Early doesn't by necessity equate with better. There were heresies that abounded even during the time of the Apostles. Certainly we ought to read the writings of those who lived in the times close to the Apostles but we need to realize that it was a time of growth. Growth doesn't equate with truth either but we must take those things with a grain of salt as much as we do with those who write even now. To say they were right because they were closer to the Apostles is the same, at least to me, as saying that a child knows better than an adult. We have the same writings of the Apostles as they did, at least what is considered as inspired, and we should look to them as our rule of faith. They were as much influenced by the times in which they lived as we are. The Reformers had to deal with a much different world than we do. Their battles were different. They focused on what was the error of the time and their writings reflect that. So too the early Fathers. I believe, with everything that is within me, that the Spirit of God has always been with His people and has continually lead them into truth. Not perfect truth but yet truth. Because of this we have not come to the full measure of truth but do have that which is needful for our time. The question is what is the battle for today?

[Proeliator]

IMHO, we need to go back to the same kind of times as the reformers. Too much freedom has been given to heresy in our time, all you need to do is watch most of these televangelists to know this. But when people are vocal about this, they are regarding as intolerant, and told they are not acting very Christian. It seems to me as though people have taken the intestianl fortitude out of Christianity, and replaced it with too much gentleness. Most are so afraid of offending someone, they dilute the Gospel so as not to ruffle anyones feathers, and that just further propigates the problem.

[arunma]

IMHO, we need to go back to the same kind of times as the reformers. Too much freedom has been given to heresy in our time, all you need to do is watch most of these televangelists to know this.

I most certainly agree. Televangelist theology ranges from no theology to bad theology. This isn't a good choice no matter how you examine the issue.

But when people are vocal about this, they are regarding as intolerant, and told they are not acting very Christian. It seems to me as though people have taken the intestianl fortitude out of Christianity, and replaced it with too much gentleness. Most are so afraid of offending someone, they dilute the Gospel so as not to ruffle anyones feathers, and that just further propigates the problem.

If you read the church fathers (assuming you have not done so already), I think you will be quite pleased. These men, like the reformers after them, stood against the heresies which were emerging in the early church. Just as Luther and Calvin dealt with the corrupt Roman papal system which had developed in Europe, such men as Bishop Saint Athanasius protected the church from heresies which denied even the doctrine that Jesus is God.

[constance]

People cling to errors of the 19th century rather than revert back to reformation ideas or original early church ideas... Why? Perhaps it's our modern "superiority complex" - surely we are smarter than our Victorian ancestors, and they than their enlightenment brothers...and they than their renaissance cousins...

Constance

[Andyman_1970]

People cling to errors of the 19th century rather than revert back to reformation ideas or original early church ideas... Why? Perhaps it's our modern "superiority complex" - surely we are smarter than our Victorian ancestors, and they than their enlightenment brothers...and they than their renaissance cousins...

Constance

I agree, Modernity and it's charateristic way of trying to boil everything down and define it, has tried in large part to give us the "we have God figured out" kind of attitude towards theology.............which I fundamentally reject........LOL

[JPPT1974]

I agree, Modernity and it's charateristic way of trying to boil everything down and define it, has tried in large part to give us the "we have God figured out" kind of attitude towards theology.............which I fundamentally reject........LOL

Yeah I can see where you are coming
You have to define it
In character and in what you read