The Church fathers

I don't think Irenaeus was a sheep in wolfs clothing! I believe he was a christian and we know how effective he was debating the Gnostics. I just wanted people to realize that he had many inaccuracies.

Clement of Rome, according to most of the experts, did NOT write 2 Clement! The only extant writings of his to survive was his epistle.

There is much debate about the Epistle of Barnabas as to whether it is authentic or not. I seem to lean more towards it actually having been written by the Barnabas of the Bible, sometime soon after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

"For every one Protestant that leaves their church (an example would be Cardinal Newman) hundreds upon hundreds of former Catholics fill Baptist Churches. Are they just ignorant?"

Yes, actually, the vast majority of them are. Shared Christian Praxis. 1970's. Thomas Groome. Look it up. It is changing though. Slowly but surely.

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
Considering their "close proximity" to the apostles and the fact that they agree with each other most of the time and they all claim "real presence" in the euchrist, then are you and I fools for remaining Baptist Bible believers?

Click to expand...

Possibly...that's a theological work in progress for me

Yours in Christ

Matt

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Try Origen for size--known by many as the father of Arianism

Click to expand...

Though not an Arian per se, the particularly way he viewed the Trinity certainly could have led to the development of Arianism.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, Athanasius was just as much influenced by Origen. What Arianism and the later Nicene "orthodoxy" had in common was the emphasis on the separate "hypostases". The debate between them then was whether the 2nd and 3rd were eternal or created.
But earlier fathers did not express the Godhead quite this way. Even right before the Nicene Council, the Bishop of Rome himself, Dionysius, "was clearly shocked at the Origen-inspired doctrine of the three hypostases", as suggested by Dionysius of Alexandria, "which seemed to him to undermine the divine monarchy", and he implied they were "virtual tritheists, splitting the indivisible oneness of the Deity into 'three powers, three absolutely separate hypostases, three divinities'" (Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 134).

It also seems that there was a great change in the church between the apostles and the earliest fathers. This has been called "the lost century".

Jesse Lyman Hurlbut The Story of the Christian Church p.41

We would like to read of the later work of such helpers of St. Paul as Timothy, Apollos, and Titus., but all these...drop out of record at his death. For 50 years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it arises, about AD 120, with the writings of the earliest church fathers [Justin], we find a church in many aspects different from that in the days of Peter and Paul

Click to expand...

William J. McGothlin The Course Of Christian History

But Christianity itself had been in [the] process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity -

Click to expand...

Samuel G. Green A Handbook of Christian History:

The 30 years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth, the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century, we are, to a great extent, in a changed world

Click to expand...

William Fitzgerald Lectures on Ecclesiastical History:

over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs... -

Click to expand...

Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church

The remaining 30 years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. [assuming John wrote in the 90's, which is also denied by preterists to fit in with their AD70 theory] This is a period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most.

Click to expand...

This has always been of interest, but recently, it came to light again as I debated the preterists, who say that the Kingdom began in AD70; a teaching we do not really see immediately afteward; as the early fathers continued to wait for a return of Christ. The destruction of Jerusalem, I have learned has a lot more significance than we have realized. This probably does figure into what happened to the writings, doctrine and practice of the Church. It was after this that the Church began its ascent to the later "Catholicism", with bishops becoming exalted, and baptism and communion taking on mystical significance.

So while we can look to the fathers to get an idea of what the original teaching was, still, we must realize that even by their time, a lot had already changed. Actually; we have the original teachings in the New Testament; but it all boils down to the correct interpretation of them. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but no cigar; more a case of 'mind the gap'! Revelation , probably the letters of John and the prologue to John's Gospel, and possibly the rest of the Gospel too, were written in the 90sAD ( Rev refers to the Domitian persecution for example). Clement, as someone else has pointed out, was at least contemporary (95AD according to some) and probably earlier than this (pre-70AD according to the others). Church history says that John then dies about 100AD or shortly thereafter. Then we have Ignatius writing in 110AD as referred to in my post on the first page of this thread. So we have a 'gap' of at most a decade or two (less if you start the clock from John's death) in Christian writings; if you want non-Christian sources about the early Christians in that same period, check out Flavius Josephus and some of Pliny the Younger's letters.

Yours in Christ

Matt

Matt,
Good points. Plus the Didache and even Epistle of Barnabus have been dated by some to as early as AD 7O or shortly thereafter. When you include Clement's epistle to the Corinthians and the seven letters of Ignatius (plus the fact that perhaps all of John's writings were written in the last decade of the first century), there doesn't seem to be as much "obscurity" as some may suggest.

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.

Click to expand...

I never said they were Baptists nor that they were Protestants or even Roman Catholics. It is a fact that Augustine and Ambrose as well as other Fathers influenced Luther and Calvin.

Here are some quotations and I should note I am not putting these quotations up to bash Roman Catholics. Personally I weary of both Catholic bashing on the part of Protestants and Protestant bashing on the part of Catholics. I put these quotations only to show that the Reformers were influenced by the Fathers.


Augsburg Confession of Faith 1530
"For Augustine, in many volumes, defends grace and the righteousness of faith, over against the merits of works. And Ambrose, in his De Vocatione Gentium, and elsewhere, teaches to like effect. For in his De Vocatione Gentium he says as follows: Redemption by the blood of Christ would become of little value, neither would the preeminence of man's works be superseded by the mercy of God, if justification, which is wrought through grace, were due to the merits going before, so as to be, not the free gift of a donor, but the reward due to the laborer....For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. For man's powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God's sight. "

Augsburg Confession of Faith 1530
"St. Ambrose: "Believers in Christ shall be saved. . .have forgiveness of sins ... not through works, but through faith alone"

John Calvin
"Augustine is so completely of our persuasion, that if I should have to make written profession, it would be quite enough to present a composition made up entirely of excerpts from his writings"

John Gill, Baptist Theologian in 1700's, Works of Divity
"Athanasius was made bishop of Alexandria A.D. 336, and died A.D. 371.....Thus did this brave champion for truth at once both honor the Father and the Son, by asserting the special and early provision of grace, life, and salvation, made in Christ by the Father before the world began; and by proving and maintaining the eternity and proper deity of the Son, his undertaking, from eternity, to suffer for us, and the satisfaction he has made in time for sin, to the justice of God."

Sorry, but no cigar; more a case of 'mind the gap'! Revelation , probably the letters of John and the prologue to John's Gospel, and possibly the rest of the Gospel too, were written in the 90sAD ( Rev refers to the Domitian persecution for example). Clement, as someone else has pointed out, was at least contemporary (95AD according to some) and probably earlier than this (pre-70AD according to the others). Church history says that John then dies about 100AD or shortly thereafter. Then we have Ignatius writing in 110AD as referred to in my post on the first page of this thread. So we have a 'gap' of at most a decade or two (less if you start the clock from John's death) in Christian writings; if you want non-Christian sources about the early Christians in that same period, check out Flavius Josephus and some of Pliny the Younger's letters.

Click to expand...

Good points. Plus the Didache and even Epistle of Barnabus have been dated by some to as early as AD 7O or shortly thereafter. When you include Clement's epistle to the Corinthians and the seven letters of Ignatius (plus the fact that perhaps all of John's writings were written in the last decade of the first century), there doesn't seem to be as much "obscurity" as some may suggest.

Click to expand...

Well, one of the quotes did say that this obscurity was "illuminated by the writings of John". This was assuming John wrote in the 90's, and I guess I am so used to granting certain things to preterism for arguments' sake; that I had gotten into assuming Rev. being written before AD70 (that does seem more realistic, as people did not live as long as we do today; and how many people already grown in 1933 are still alive and active today?). Also, I have reconsidered one of preterism's points; that the Temple referred to in ch.11 was the Temple still standing; which would place it before AD70. It does look like it referring to the literal temple). Placing other writings; such as the Didache and Barnabas (and as is often claimed by preterists; Clement, as well) around AD70 also goes along with this theory. This theory allows that John may have lived beyond his writings to the time of Domitian; and I don't see any deviation from clear NT teaching in the epistle of his disciple, Polycarp.
In either case, what John's letters do describe is false leaders coming in, and even expelling true Christians. Thus the Church would begin to change in doctrine and practice.

The early Church evolved directly into what is now called the Orthodox Church. Was the RCC expelled from the Church in 1054 for teaching heresy?

Click to expand...

That would in fact be the more accurate view. The Church before then consisted of five patriarchates, and Rome was only one of them. Rome, was constantly adding new doctrines and practices, until it got to the point where it was too much for the rest of the bishops, and then the split occurred. The other patriarchates: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria became the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church, and Rome became the Roman Catholic Church. Of course; from our Western perspective, it is always made out to be the Eastern Church that was expelled from the Mother Church. But it was actually both Rome and Constantinople that excommunicated each other. But according to size; the other 3 bishops remained in communion with Constantinople; so it was really Rome (which was constantly changing) that broke off.

Originally posted by Eric B:
....and I don't see any deviation from clear NT teaching in the epistle of his disciple, Polycarp.

Click to expand...

Cool...me neither. I don't see any significant devation from "clear NT teaching" in Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, and Justin for that matter.

In either case, what John's letters do describe is false leaders coming in, and even expelling true Christians. Thus the Church would begin to change in doctrine and practice.

Click to expand...

But that's the point of the whole thread--were these "false leaders" the Judaizers and Gnostics (etc) or were they the church fathers who fought against them?

Originally posted by Eric B:
The other patriarchates: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria became the Eastern (Greek) Orthodox Church, and Rome became the Roman Catholic Church. Of course; from our Western perspective, it is always made out to be the Eastern Church that was expelled from the Mother Church. But it was actually both Rome and Constantinople that excommunicated each other. But according to size; the other 3 bishops remained in communion with Constantinople; so it was really Rome (which was constantly changing) that broke off.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that assessment as well.

Cool...me neither. I don't see any significant devation from "clear NT teaching" in Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, and Justin for that matter.

Click to expand...

That's debatable. Ignatius, for one, is the one who put a great emphasis on the bishop as the focus of Christians in the face of persecution. Catholics can use him to justify the papacy. I like the way the 7th Day Church of God leaders C.O.Dodd/A.N.Dugger in A History of the True Religion put it: "after the death of the Apostles Paul; Peter and John, history of the early Church is confined to the writings of the Church Fathers,so called, who penned their religious epistles perhaps in sincerity, but not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit". This is precisely what I sensed when I bought "the Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgiotten Books of Eden" and read Ignatius and the others. Their epistles read like NT epistles; but they begin introducing some concepts that you don't see in the NT (but are projected backwards into it from them by Catholics). These concepts become the germs of later complete error; but like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, it creeps in unnoticed, and then gradially increases unnoticed, as little spins are put on it by each generation that still look like what was passed down to them by the previous generation.
Clement is basically good; except for using the pagan Fable of the Phoenix as an illustration of the resurrection; which it does not match at all (except to those who insist on some sort of "spirit" resurrection--like today's preterists). 2 Clement seems to go overboard in its allegory of "male and female". But then someone said that might not have been by Clement.
Sunday I never see as being officially changed from the sabbath in the NT either; but people take passing mentions of the first day of the week, and then assume a "resurrection celebration" from it. That then becomes reality, as is evidenced in Justin, Barnabas and others. Barnabas gives a good .Another position I have debated elsewhere you see from Justin is that the New Testament shunned musical instruments as being associated with "fleshy Israel". He should have said that that was the practice in his time; not speak for the NT where it is completely silent. The same goes for the mystical concepts of baptism, communion and Mary coming in at the time. These are then said to be, in effect, hidden NT teachings. But the NT is interpreted in light of them, rather than it really teaching them. then the interpretations are said to be "oral apostolic tradition". We then cannot read anything in the Bible at face value, then. the Jews say the same thing about the Torah, and this justifies their rejection of Christ.

But that's the point of the whole thread--were these "false leaders" the Judaizers and Gnostics (etc) or were they the church fathers who fought against them?

Click to expand...

It was both the judaizers AND the gnostics, but after the destruction of Jerusalem, the Judaizers lost a lot of their influence, and basically fizzled out in groups like the Ebionites. It was the gnostics who then became prominent; and while the Fathers did defend truth against them; they were unaware of how they had already been influenced a bit. All of those little deviations in the writings I mentioned were characteristic of gnosticism.

The Jewish Christians really began to stray into Ebionism from the 130s; it was Bar Kochba's revolt more so than the destruction of the Temple that marked the watershed there

Yours in Christ

Matt

This is precisely what I sensed when I bought "the Lost Books of the Bible, and the Forgiotten Books of Eden" and read Ignatius and the others. Their epistles read like NT epistles; but they begin introducing some concepts that you don't see in the NT (but are projected backwards into it from them by Catholics). These concepts become the germs of later complete error; but like the proverbial frog in the pot of water, it creeps in unnoticed, and then gradially increases unnoticed, as little spins are put on it by each generation that still look like what was passed down to them by the previous generation.

Click to expand...

It is, at the very least, just as likely that many here in the 21st century are guilty of projecting 16th century concepts--such as sola fide, sola scriptura, and the Zwinglian view of the sacraments--backwards into the New Testament. That is why when the church fathers are noted to deviate from this anachronistic interpretation of the NT, they are unjustly accused of gradually (or wholesale, depending on who's doing the accusing) introducing error into the Church. (Perhaps the fathers would return the favor.)

Seems to me that the apostolic fathers, given their temporal (and personal) proximity to the apostles and the apostles' world, would be in a better position to correctly interpret the apostolic teaching than men living 15 centuries later and influenced more by western medieval philosophy.

The mystical concepts of the sacraments; plus works salvation, and extrabiblical authority are more associated with "western medieval philosophy" than
sola fide, sola scriptura, or our view of the sacraments. These things were common in pagan religion; and don't forget, this is what we are warned was creeping into the Church then. Sometimes; you have to get far outside (in time) from seeing scripture through the baggage of tradition to see it more clearly.
"sola fide"? does't Paul teach this clearly? You turn to another scripture like James that says not just faith; but one is warning those who understood that salvation was by faith of "turning grace into license" (as Jude puts it); while the other is pointing out to those still trying to be justified by the Law that they cannot be justified by their works; because Law is what Got us into the problem in the first place. All the postapostolic Church did was to rehash the OT Law; throwing out the Jewish aspect of it in favor of gentile; often pagan elements. (Sabbath to Sunday; Passover to Easter; animal sacrifice to transubstantiation ritual; baptism replaces circumcision and takes on salvific power in itself). That's all that distinguished it from the OT; but clearly that is not what the apostles were teaching. It is not merely switching cultures; but otherwise keeping all the trappings of the Law in gentile disguise.

Still; the truth is; those fathers did state things that the NT writers did not, or at least stated them in ways they did not. If the NT writers did not state it that way; then they probably didn't mean it that way. But it is as I said; each generation puts its own little spin on something; and then in a few centuries; it is completely different. Still; somehow the AD70 events figured into a change afterward; and I'm trying to learn more about this; but a lot of the records from this era were lost, once again.

Originally posted by Eric B:
The mystical concepts of the sacraments; plus works salvation, and extrabiblical authority are more associated with "western medieval philosophy" than
sola fide, sola scriptura, or our view of the sacraments.

Click to expand...

Ummm...no. The latter three that you mentioned weren't on the radar screen until the 16th century.

These things were common in pagan religion; and don't forget, this is what we are warned was creeping into the Church then.

Click to expand...

We are indeed warned of heresy, but the efficacy of the sacraments; the importance of tradition (oral and written); and the importance of maintaining good works are all New Testament teachings. You are still interpreting scripture through a 16th century ideological grid.

Sometimes; you have to get far outside (in time) from seeing scripture through the baggage of tradition to see it more clearly.

Click to expand...

The problem is the farther away one gets in time, the less one has in common with the thought forms of the writers of the Scripture and their immediate hearers.

"sola fide"? does't Paul teach this clearly?

Click to expand...

Uh...no. Only if one takes certain passages out of context can one make this claim.

All the postapostolic Church did was to rehash the OT Law; throwing out the Jewish aspect of it in favor of gentile; often pagan elements. (Sabbath to Sunday; Passover to Easter; animal sacrifice to transubstantiation ritual; baptism replaces circumcision and takes on salvific power in itself).

Click to expand...

No, that's not what they did. They were following the apostle's lead.

That's all that distinguished it from the OT; but clearly that is not what the apostles were teaching. It is not merely switching cultures; but otherwise keeping all the trappings of the Law in gentile disguise.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are the one who misunderstands the apostles and the fathers. Neither group of men considered their doctrines or praxis to be "trappings of the Law in gentile disguise". Rather the faith and praxis of the Church is the fulfillment of the Law, as the Church is considered to be life in Christ--the one who fulfilled the law and the prophets.

Still; the truth is; those fathers did state things that the NT writers did not, or at least stated them in ways they did not. If the NT writers did not state it that way; then they probably didn't mean it that way.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the apostles make some pretty clear statements which are consistent with many of the things you and other Baptists object to. The "restatements" of the fathers seem to be much more in keeping with these apostolic teachings than do those of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their disciples.

For years I'd read some of these passages as a good Baptist and would consider them to be the "hard sayings" of Scripture given the lengths my Baptist teachers would go to explain them away. However, after reading the fathers many of these statements don't seem so "hard" anymore. I've found the round Patritic peg fits into the round Scriptural hole much easier than does the square Protestant peg.

Kiffen,

When you were asked why you believed certain things were held by Church Fathers, you provided quotes from third parties ...

Any first party quotes?

Kiffen,

When you were asked why you believed certain things were held by Church Fathers, you provided quotes from third parties ...

Any first party quotes?

Click to expand...

Uhh... Where did I say anything about what I believed the Church Fathers believed? That is not part of either of my posts. That is why I did not quote them.

What I did say is the Protestant Reformers quoted from them and were influenced by them. That is why I quoted the Augsburg, Gill, and Calvin. Read Luther, Calvin, Augsburg or Gill. Many may disagree with Luther, Calvin, Augsburg or Gill's intepretation of the Fathers but that is another subject. The fact is most Church historians will tell you that especially Augustine had influences on both Luther and Calvin.

Originally posted by Eric B:
Still; somehow the AD70 events figured into a change afterward; and I'm trying to learn more about this; but a lot of the records from this era were lost, once again.

Click to expand...

I'll just address this part of your post as DT has done a very good job on the rest. I have already pointed out on a previous page that the 'gap' we are talking about is no more than about 10 years between the Apostle John's parts of the NT and the first writings of Ignatius and the &delta;&iota;&delta;&alpha;&chi;&eta; ...so, no 'lost records' but a lot of continuity

Yours in Christ

Matt

sola fide, sola scriptura, or our view of the sacraments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ummm...no. The latter three that you mentioned weren't on the radar screen until the 16th century

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point. The point was that your three were "western", "medieval" and "philosophy". The latter 3 weren't on the radar until then as systematic theologies, but then the reason they became systematic theologies was because of all the centuries of error before that. It's just like the Trinity and other doctrines. They weren't systematic in the early father, but you had isolated statements. It was the development of errors based on interpretations of them and scriptural revelation that led to the systematization of the theology in creed...

We are indeed warned of heresy, but the efficacy of the sacraments; the importance of tradition (oral and written); and the importance of maintaining good works are all New Testament teachings. You are still interpreting scripture through a 16th century ideological grid.

Click to expand...

...Likewise; your practices were also systematized based on men's interpretations of what are really isolated statements in scripture (based on an increasingly gnostic ideological/philosophical grid). Tradition was used to justify it when scripture alone was seen as not really proving it by themselves. The Jews make the same appeal to "oral tradition which is just as authoritative". But theirs leads them to reject Christ and continue to try to justify themselves by works, as well.
Even your statements above are prone to interpretation. Baptists speak of "tradition" and the importance of baptism and communion and good works all the time. Still; it's the application of them that is where the debate lies. Do these concepts give us the license add any practice we can think of? Are we to add mysticism to worship? Do we then measure all our good works, and either hope or presume we must be "making it"? (Also like the Jews). Where do we draw the line?

The problem is the farther away one gets in time, the less one has in common with the thought forms of the writers of the Scripture and their immediate hearers.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If there is ever any error that arises at any time; it is always possible for someone later to come and correct it. The initial error was "closer in time" to the original revelation; but time sequence, while sometimes giving us a clue in the direction of dictrinal shift; is still not decisive in determining truth.

Uh...no. Only if one takes certain passages out of context can one make this claim.

Click to expand...

So then what is the context? God saves us as we save ourselves by being good enough; or something?

No, that's not what they did. They were following the apostle's lead.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are the one who misunderstands the apostles and the fathers. Neither group of men considered their doctrines or praxis to be "trappings of the Law in gentile disguise". Rather the faith and praxis of the Church is the fulfillment of the Law, as the Church is considered to be life in Christ--the one who fulfilled the law and the prophets.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they believed it was. It's in practice that it is. Allt hey did was change days and forms and terms. ("times and laws" as Dan.7 says) Otherwise; it was basically the same as the OT. The later Church practice didn't really fulfill the law and prophets; but just rehashed them with a gentile flavor. The OT was characterized by visible forms that were shadows of spiritual realities. The later Church just introduced more visible forms; with the only thing "spiritual" being a mystical element added to them.. That is not a spiritual fulfillment.
Even the communion; I have seen suggested in a Bible history magazine may have been a common meal.
Even the communion; I have seen suggested in a Bible history magazine may have been a common meal. It was instituted by Christ during a Passover seder, and thus the bread and wine were used as examples. There is evidence that this was only an example of Christians' "love feasts", which was reiterated by Paul. He describes in 1st Corinthians people being gluttonous, and this sounds like a meal (which includes "bread", meaning solid food, and a "cup" of something to drink), not small wafers or crackers and little vials of wine or grape juice.
While I'm not being dogmatic on this; still; it is fellowshipping together (which includes eating a meal by which we "partake of Christ". Not some new "sacrifice" with only the elements changed (bread and wine instead of a lamb or Christ). It is easy to see how this could be mistaken for a mystical ritual; though.

Originally posted by Eric B:
The latter 3 weren't on the radar until then as systematic theologies, but then the reason they became systematic theologies was because of all the centuries of error before that. It's just like the Trinity and other doctrines. They weren't systematic in the early father, but you had isolated statements. It was the development of errors based on interpretations of them and scriptural revelation that led to the systematization of the theology in creed...

Click to expand...

No that is the point. The problem is that there weren't any beliefs among the fathers regarding sola Scriptura, sola fide, and symbolic-only sacraments to "systematize". That's the difference. At least before the Creed and Christological settlements one can find testimony in the fathers which supported the both true deity and full humanity of Christ and the triune nature of God. Not so with the beliefs you're trying to defend. In fact, the opposite was what the orthodox fathers taught. The burden of proof is on the ones advocating the doctrinal novelties (particularly ones not advanced until 1500 years after the Church was established) to demonstrate that the consensus of Christian teaching up to that point had been in error without begging the question.

Likewise; your practices were also systematized based on men's interpretations of what are really isolated statements in scripture (based on an increasingly gnostic ideological/philosophical grid).

Click to expand...

On the contrary, one can easily make the case that the spirit of Protestantism is more akin to gnosticism (see below).

Tradition was used to justify it when scripture alone was seen as not really proving it by themselves. The Jews make the same appeal to "oral tradition which is just as authoritative". But theirs leads them to reject Christ and continue to try to justify themselves by works, as well.

Click to expand...

But Christians are actually commanded by Paul to keep the Apostolic tradition whether oral or written. (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) No where in Scripture does it say that we're only to keep the oral tradition until the canon is "closed". (In fact, the "canon" is not even mentioned in Scripture.) That's a 16th century Protestant assumption and doctrinal novelty. The fathers taught otherwise.

Do we then measure all our good works, and either hope or presume we must be "making it"? (Also like the Jews). Where do we draw the line?

Click to expand...

No, and who says we need to? We are commanded in several places in Scripture to maintain good works, that good works are necessary for eternal life, that faith without works is useless, and even to add things to faith in order to have an entrance into the kingdom.(2 Peter 1:5-11). It's not about legalistically drawing a line or measuring good works--it's about being faithful.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The problem is the farther away one gets in time, the less one has in common with the thought forms of the writers of the Scripture and their immediate hearers.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If there is ever any error that arises at any time; it is always possible for someone later to come and correct it. The initial error was "closer in time" to the original revelation; but time sequence, while sometimes giving us a clue in the direction of dictrinal shift; is still not decisive in determining truth.</font>[/QUOTE]Though possible in theory, the problem is that none of the Protestant distinctives are endorsed in the history of the church until the Reformation. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Reformers' novel beliefs arose in a cultural (and philosophical) setting 15 centuries removed from that of the apostles and early fathers. You are still assuming those beliefs and reading them back into Scripture and accusing the fathers of increasing heresy when they deviate from certain 16th century novel interpretations of Scripture. Such thinking is very ahistorical and only ends up begging the question.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Uh...no. Only if one takes certain passages out of context can one make this claim.

Click to expand...

So then what is the context? God saves us as we save ourselves by being good enough; or something?</font>[/QUOTE]No the context is that Paul (not to mention Christ and the other apostles!) in other places teaches the importance of good works in determining our final outcome (Romans 2:5-10); the importance of continuing in the faith and that falling away is possible (Romans 11:19-22); that what avails is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6); and that we must be careful to maintain good works (they don't happen automatically from just being "saved") (Titus 3:8). It's also interesting to note that in the same book (2 Peter) where the Apostle Peter warns his audience against twisting some of the difficult teachings of Paul to their own destruction, he also commands the believers to be diligent (which requires effort) to add things to their faith so that their election may be sure and that they'll have an entrance supplied into Christ's kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11). So much for "sola fide". (Of course there are numerous other Scriptures which could cited but that might be another thread in and of itself)

I didn't say they believed it was. It's in practice that it is. Allt hey did was change days and forms and terms. ("times and laws" as Dan.7 says) Otherwise; it was basically the same as the OT. The later Church practice didn't really fulfill the law and prophets; but just rehashed them with a gentile flavor.

Click to expand...

No they did fulfill the law and recast OT worship forms revolving around Christ, the one who fulfilled the law and prophets. Both the NT and the fathers confirm this over and over again. It's not a "pagan" or "gentile" flavor; it's a Christian fulfilment since the new forms were instituted by Christ and His apostles.

The OT was characterized by visible forms that were shadows of spiritual realities. The later Church just introduced more visible forms; with the only thing "spiritual" being a mystical element added to them.. That is not a spiritual fulfillment.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is thinking that it was in simply being visible that OT forms were shadows of heavenly realities. That's more of a gnostic belief and not historically Christian. Christ came in visible form, was visibly baptized, was visibly transfigured, was visibly crucified, visibly resurrected, and visibly ascended into Heaven. The Church, with it's visible sacraments, is our participation in the reality of the Incarnation--the invisible God becoming visible man for us men and our salvation. That's why the authors of the NT and the fathers never separated the invisible reality from the visible sacraments that Christ instituted. To do so would be gnostic, or at the very least Nestorian. The OT form were shadows because they were the types; The Incarnate Christ (and His visible sacrements) is the fulfilment.

While I'm not being dogmatic on this; still; it is fellowshipping together (which includes eating a meal by which we "partake of Christ". Not some new "sacrifice" with only the elements changed (bread and wine instead of a lamb or Christ). It is easy to see how this could be mistaken for a mystical ritual; though.

Click to expand...

It's not a new sacrifice but a re-presentation of and participation in Christ's one sacrifice. The fathers were unified on this as what was taking place, and the writers of the NT also give every indication that this was a real communion with the Body and Blood of Christ and not just a simple memorial (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). It's then easy to see why they thought it was a real communion because this is what they were taught.

No that is the point. The problem is that there weren't any beliefs among the fathers regarding sola Scriptura, sola fide, and symbolic-only sacraments to "systematize". That's the difference. At least before the Creed and Christological settlements one can find testimony in the fathers which supported the both true deity and full humanity of Christ and the triune nature of God. Not so with the beliefs you're trying to defend. In fact, the opposite was what the orthodox fathers taught. The burden of proof is on the ones advocating the doctrinal novelties (particularly ones not advanced until 1500 years after the Church was established) to demonstrate that the consensus of Christian teaching up to that point had been in error without begging the question.

Click to expand...

But I'm not trying to prove that the doctrines werre systematized from the fathers' teaching like Christology. They began to put their own spin on the sacraments and works (as well as Christology); that led in the direction of the later formulas, which were finally systematized in the Catholic councils. This still does not prove that the spins the fathers were putting on the NT teaching were correct in the first place.

But Christians are actually commanded by Paul to keep the Apostolic tradition whether oral or written. (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15, 3:6) No where in Scripture does it say that we're only to keep the oral tradition until the canon is "closed". (In fact, the "canon" is not even mentioned in Scripture.) That's a 16th century Protestant assumption and doctrinal novelty. The fathers taught otherwise.

Click to expand...

The Canon was established in around the fourth century; not by Protestants. If there was to be an ever expanding body of revelation; then why did the Catholic Church even speak of a "canon"?
Once again, the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures; not just following what their "traditions" just because they said so. The traditions are subject to the written revelation. Else; anyone can come and say anything. I even look at the cross-reference in 1 Cor.11:2; and while they were not inspired; still they give an idea of what these "traditions" (KJV "ordinances"; Gk.lit. "transmission") were--things you could find elsewhere in scripture! The reference points to 1 Cor.7:17: "But as God has distributed to every man; as the Lord has called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches". Here is one of your "ordinances", "transmissions", or "traditions". Nothing about "the bread and wine actually turn into the literal flesh of Christ". When the "ordinance" was from Paul himself, and not the Lord; he admitted it. (v.12).
So proper "apostolic tradition" is no license to add anything we want to the faith.
It's funny that you turn to the scriptures to try to prove your doctrines. If it's oral tradition; then there should be no need to find them in the scriptures. If it's scriptural; there would be no need to appeal to tradition. But once again; this shows that tradition is a last minute attempt to fill in the holes these doctrines encounter in either a scripture or tradition argument.

No, and who says we need to? We are commanded in several places in Scripture to maintain good works, that good works are necessary for eternal life, that faith without works is useless, and even to add things to faith in order to have an entrance into the kingdom.(2 Peter 1:5-11). It's not about legalistically drawing a line or measuring good works--it's about being faithful.

Click to expand...

No the context is that Paul (not to mention Christ and the other apostles!) in other places teaches the importance of good works in determining our final outcome (Romans 2:5-10); the importance of continuing in the faith and that falling away is possible (Romans 11:19-22); that what avails is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6); and that we must be careful to maintain good works (they don't happen automatically from just being "saved") (Titus 3:8). It's also interesting to note that in the same book (2 Peter) where the Apostle Peter warns his audience against twisting some of the difficult teachings of Paul to their own destruction, he also commands the believers to be diligent (which requires effort) to add things to their faith so that their election may be sure and that they'll have an entrance supplied into Christ's kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11). So much for "sola fide". (Of course there are numerous other Scriptures which could cited but that might be another thread in and of itself)

Click to expand...

Still; if salvation ("entrance into the Kingdom") is tied to this; then it IS about a "line" no matter how you slice it. How do you define "faithful"? How much work is necessary, and how do we know if it is enough? The only choices are to imagine that [whatever we are doing] we are doing enough (thus bring God's standard of perfection down to a level reachable to humans. Or we justlive in fear of not making it. Most often, it is a combination of both. We think we're "making it" upfront; but deep down inside there is still this nagging fear.

Though possible in theory, the problem is that none of the Protestant distinctives are endorsed in the history of the church until the Reformation. The problem is compounded by the fact that the Reformers' novel beliefs arose in a cultural (and philosophical) setting 15 centuries removed from that of the apostles and early fathers. You are still assuming those beliefs and reading them back into Scripture and accusing the fathers of increasing heresy when they deviate from certain 16th century novel interpretations of Scripture. Such thinking is very ahistorical and only ends up begging the question.

Click to expand...

that was something I planned to ask after the last post. Just what is this "cultural/philosophical setting" that shaped sola-fide and symbolic sacraments? Certain correlations can be made with the mystical and legalistic concepts of the the fathers with the gnostics. But what outside ideological development suggested sola fide and symbolism? If you say it was gnostics; what gnostics were left in the 15th century?
And even a lot of the fathers' teachings could have been misunderstood by later interpreters. You earlier spoke of "Only if one takes certain passages out of context can one make this claim" regarding sola-faith. The same can be said regarding the fathers' teachings on works; plus the scriptures used to support them (e.g. "baptism doth now save"; which I have explained elsewhere; Ignatius "confess the Communion to be the body of our Lord"; etc). These are isolated statements that are snatched up as proving the later Catholic practices; but even they in themselves do not necessarily prove the whole deal.

On the contrary, one can easily make the case that the spirit of Protestantism is more akin to gnosticism (see below).

Click to expand...

No they did fulfill the law and recast OT worship forms revolving around Christ, the one who fulfilled the law and prophets. Both the NT and the fathers confirm this over and over again. It's not a "pagan" or "gentile" flavor; it's a Christian fulfilment since the new forms were instituted by Christ and His apostles.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is thinking that it was in simply being visible that OT forms were shadows of heavenly realities. That's more of a gnostic belief and not historically Christian. Christ came in visible form, was visibly baptized, was visibly transfigured, was visibly crucified, visibly resurrected, and visibly ascended into Heaven. The Church, with it's visible sacraments, is our participation in the reality of the Incarnation--the invisible God becoming visible man for us men and our salvation. That's why the authors of the NT and the fathers never separated the invisible reality from the visible sacraments that Christ instituted. To do so would be gnostic, or at the very least Nestorian. The OT form were shadows because they were the types; The Incarnate Christ (and His visible sacrements) is the fulfilment.

Click to expand...

I was aware after I posted that I seemed to be totally dismissing any visible elements. (in the way gnosticism puts down physical existence). But still; in the true spiritual fulfillments; they would not be the center of the worship experience. They would not have some divine powers in themselves. This is what Church practice had done. God is a spirit, and does not reside in temples or anything else made by hands. To miss this point IS to rehash the OT and paganism and gnosticism in a new flavor; and is no "fulfillment" of anything (except prophecies of "falling away"). Christ was physical; but when He left; it was the Spirit that took His place and continued His presence on earth until His return. Not new physical manifestations. No other "mediators" either! To have such is to have partners besides God; which is precisely what Jews and Muslims; reacting to these "traditions" accuse Christianity of; even though in reality it is not.
So the "new forms instituted by Christ and His apostles" were symbols by which we do show spiritual truths; not actually recreate them.

It's not a new sacrifice but a re-presentation of and participation in Christ's one sacrifice. The fathers were unified on this as what was taking place, and the writers of the NT also give every indication that this was a real communion with the Body and Blood of Christ and not just a simple memorial (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). It's then easy to see why they thought it was a real communion because this is what they were taught.

Click to expand...

"give every indication" can become a fallacy that is a substitute for real proof. Basically; you're reading it into the NT (just as much as you accuse the later dosctrines), basically with the fathers as the ultimate proof that this is what they believed; and then saying "this proves that the apostles taught it the fathers". That is a cyclical argument.