The Church fathers

Try Origen for size--known by many as the father of Arianism, he was excommunicated by the church for the heresies that he did hold.

 

I don't think this is a fair assessment of the thought of Origen. Yes, he was off in areas, but we must see that Arius himself was a student of Origens and his views were in opposition to Origen's. For a greater handeling of this than I can give, seach Christian History and Biography's latest issue for the article called"The Road To Nicaea"

As for me having a better understasnding of Scripture than the Church fathers, that would be an erogant statement. There is much to be learned from the fathers.

I also want to point out that Origin is technically not considered a Church father because of some of his "unorthodox" views.( See chapter 3 "Who is a Church Father" in the book by Christopher A. Hall titled " Reading Scripture With The Church Fathers" for an excellent look at who the fathers are.)

 

My Favorite of the Church Fathers

1. Athanasius
2. Augustine
3. Ambrose
4. John Chrysostom

Most modern Christians do not know how much the Church Fathers have both directly and indirectly influenced Church theology. The earliest Protestant Confession "The Augsburg Confession" quotes Ambrose (Not Luther) saying that we are justified by Faith Alone. So the Protestant battle cry "Faith Alone" is actually derived from Ambrose and not Luther. Luther and Calvin quote much from the Fathers and especially Augustine and I would also say Ambrose influence should not be over looked.

The Church Fathers are not infallible but neither should they be ignored. Their Christology, teachings on the Trinity influence all Christian churches be they Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox etc..

 

St. Ambrose, as well as Athanasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom affirmed the necessity of baptism for salvation.

You have me curious as to your source as their writings are sitting on my bookshelf and they conflict with your information.

 

Short list: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. Clement Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Alexander, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, and Jerome.

Favorites: Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp, Alexander, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom

 

You forgot Papias. The fragments of his commentary on Matthew's Gospel and in particular Matt 19:1-6 helped me to make up my mind to divorce my first wife for her adultery. Invaluable.

On a more general point, the ECFs' proximity not just to NT times but also, more importantly, to the writers of the NT and the fact that some eg: Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias were personally discipled by the authors, is absolutely vital, which is why in my book their opinions and interpretations of the Scriptures carries far more weight than those of today (or the 16th century for that matter...!).

Point to ponder: Ignatius refers to the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence as early as 110AD - that's within a decade of the death of the apostle John with his reference to the Bread of Life discourse in his Gospel, and written by his disciple....Hmmm...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Most of the fathers who seem to be held in high regard here are the ones from the Antiocian(sp) school of exegesis. This causes me to wonder why?

I to have higher regard for their work because of their approach to interpretation, but I still say there are things to learn from those fathers of Alexandria.

Is it the allagory thing that has some concerned?

 

<Pedant mode on> I think it's 'Antiochene'<pedant mode off>. I think anything coming out of Alexandria is viewed with extreme suspicion by some conservative/ fundamentalist evangelicals (a) because it was in the pre-Christian era the birthplace of the LXX with its horrid Catholic Apocrypha ("nassty cruel Catholicses; we hates 'em, we hates 'em forever!") and (b) because it was the centre of allegorical commentaries, interpretations etc in the Early Christian Era.

But it also produced that great champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy, Athanasius...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I had to set aside bias when I approached the Alexandrian writings. There is something to be gained from medatation on the Word that we "enlightened" ones have missed by approaching the Scripture as any other text. I am not a fan of Allagory, but once again there is a great deal to be learned from the fathers.

Also, I just got my "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" 1st series. I'm pretty excited.

 

Clement of Rome may be the only bonafide New Testament figure with the credentials that merit his writing as deserving of the Canon of scripture. Though personally I do not view his writing as inspired, therefore deserving to be omitted, yet it is very accurate with the period of the church at that time from a historical aspect. His Epistle appears to be authenic and probably even pre dates the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

On the other hand, Irenaeus has written some good accounts regarding various issues, yet there are several that are definetly far from accurate. For instance when he mentions his belief that Jesus was in His fifties when He was crucified. And since Irenaeus is from a fairly early period(he was a disciple of Polycarp and Polycarp was a disciple of John)you would expect him to have not been so far off base, so he gets my negative writer award! As you progress further away from the 1st and 2nd century, so does the accuracy of many of these writers regarding scripture, although fussed throughout these writtings there are nuggets of spectacular information.

 

I still like those brothers ... hehehe

 

Now can you imagine what some of those men would add to a discussion on this board ...

Poly? I think he could get to the point in a HURRY.

Basil - unfortunately, those eyebrows won't show through the bits of the datastream, but his words would thunder!

And John with that eloquence that earned him the moniker ...

 

How do we know how old Christ was at the crucifixion anyway? It seems to me that our theories come from piecing together _at least_ three years worth of ministry from the Gospels. If we don't have any ancient witnesses to Christ's age, then how do we know that He didn't minister for decades? I don't see anything in the New Testament that limits the number of years Christ ministered. Does it create a problem for all eschatological time charts? Is three and a half years necessary for all interpretations of Daniel. Not saying I believe Ireneaus on this but I wouldn't call him a heretic.

Imagine this, you minister faithfully as a missionary, teacher, fighting against heresies and preaching the Lord Jesus, and you repeat a wrong tradition or piece of historical information you think you got from a good source, which was wrong, and thousands of people decry you as a heretic for it? I don't think we should do that to Ireneaus. I haven't read about any _heresy_ associated with Ireneaus, though he may have repeated some bad history.

Btw, if you think that people in the CoC movement are all going to hell because of their beliefs in baptism, then you probably won't find anyone you consider to be a Christian among the writings of the so-called 'church fathers' if they wrote anything on Baptism. I don't think we should be so hard on them, since in Acts, Ananias tells Paul to be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. We have to look at the whole Bible, and accept those who believe the parts that may seem a little uncomfortable.

As far as Clement goes, if he is the one mentioned in scripture, then we can't say he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, not unless you believe God erases names from the book of life. When Paul wrote his letter, he said that Clement's name was in the book of life. I've looked over I Clement. It's a good message on humility and on other issues. It also refers to the plurality of elders in Corinth as 'bishops,' a good argument against the monarchical bishop system that would evolve.

 

Have you ever met a hardcore OSAS baptist who believed that people who didn't believe in OSAS were going to hell?

If Clement's name was in the book of life.
and
Clement wrote II Clement
then this quote is a good argument against the idea that those who do not believe in OSAS are going to hell because they don't trust Christ for their salvation:

From Lightfoot's translation of II Clement:

Now, if men so eminently righteous are not able by their righteousness to deliver their children, how can we hope to enter into the royal residence of God unless we keep our baptism holy and undefiled? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found possessed of works of holiness and righteousness?

 

I believe all the groups you mentioned could and indeed do fit the "wolf in sheep's clothing" label. But so far in my reading of the Church Father's (sill a lot to read!) I would have to say they were referring to the Gnostics. In particular about a man named Simon Magus who is credited with muddying the waters, so to speak, of early Christianity. He was well versed in Old Testamant Scripture and was considered a magician. He preached that the Apostles "got it wrong" about what Jesus really taught and twisted Scripture to make his points.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, wrote this man was the one Luke was referring to in Acts 8:9-11. Justin Martyr also addresses this Simon and his followeres in his First Apology. Justin goes on to provide the actual names of some of Simon's co-conspirators of an insidious "anti-church" in actual competition with Peter's work at Rome. They believed these people were truly sent by Satan to confuse the Truth. They refer to them as "devils."
Very interesting reading.