Baptists and Church Fathers

[StAugustineeFanboy]

Hello,

My name is StAugustineFanboy3. I was raised in a nominally Hindu family but plan to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Looking at past threads, it seems like many Baptists, when asked to explain certain beliefs against objections, reject looking at the church fathers and church history, and even call the holy fathers heretics (how you determine what is a heresy or not without looking at what the ecumenical councils defined as heresies beats me). They claim to say they only look at scripture and that what the fathers or church history has to say is irrelevant.

This is disgusting and blasphemous. First of all, if scripture was straight forward, then everybody would agree with the Baptist interpretation, so it's not at all the case that scripture and what the fathers said are in such disagreement that scripture can debunk the fathers.

More importantly, for hundreds of years, men fought to preserve the teachings we know as Christianity today. Gnostics, Arians, and other heretics used scripture to defend ideas that Jesus was fully human or had no human nature, for example. The men who defined what Christianity was when scripture was not widely available or codified were the holy fathers. If you believe in the trinity, you already follow the fathers. If you affirm the Nicene Creed, thank the holy fathers. To reject the fathers is to reject Christianity itself-if not for the Holy Spirit working through them, the faith would not exist today.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches-all of the oldest ones-all affirm infant baptism, real precense, amillenialism, and baptismal regeneration. If these ideas were not true in scripture, then why did the first denominations to believe in memorialism and to reject infant baptism not exist until the 1600;s in the west?

 

[Salty]

You mentioned Baptism - so lets discus that - Scripture is clear that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism. Now, we may disagree with the Greek Orthodox on baptizing babies - but since they can speak Greek - they realize that immersion is the mode - even when they baptize babies.

 

[Alofa Atu]

Hello,

Malo.

My name is StAugustineFanboy3.

Says a lot.

I was raised in a nominally Hindu family

IN which country? Was it the united States?

but plan to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Why? Your moniker would contradict that 'plan'. For instance, "... the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa. His writings influenced the development of Western philosophy and Western Christianity, and he is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church in the Patristic Period. ..." - Augustine of Hippo - Wikipedia

Augustine wasn't in any way in a Greek manner, but was born and lived in a Western Roman one, "... Augustine was born in Tagaste, a modest Roman community in a river valley 40 miles (64 km) from the Mediterranean coast in Africa, near the point where the veneer of Roman civilization thinned out in the highlands of Numidia.Augustine's parents were of the respectable class of Roman society ..." - Saint Augustine | Biography, Philosophy, Major Works, & Facts

"... Aurelius Augustine was born in 354 at Tagaste, Algeria, in North Africa, the son of Patricius, a non-believer, and his devout Catholic wife, Monica. Though he was enrolled as a catechumen by his mother when he was a boy, ..." - Saint Augustine — The Augustinians

"... "They destroy everything and build up nothing"; then, the dreadful immorality in contrast with their affectation of virtue; the feebleness of their arguments in controversy with the Catholics, to whose Scriptural arguments their only reply was: "The Scriptures have been falsified." ..." - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Augustine of Hippo

Augustine himself, a "Roman" "catholic", even upheld the "Scriptures" as not being "falsified". He also speaks of them elsewhere as authority.

Looking at past threads, it seems like many Baptists, when asked to explain certain beliefs against objections, reject looking at the church fathers and church history

No, they, as myself (Seventh-day Adventist), reject that which among the 'ECF' (easily confused fellows) is in error, as compare to the standard of judgment, the word of God (Isaiah 8:20).

and even call the holy fathers heretics (how you determine what is a heresy or not without looking at what the ecumenical councils defined as heresies beats me).

In a sense many were heretics, some knowingly and others unknowingly. They carried many heresies, some knowingly and others unknowingly. The darkness, once settled, became all the more thicker over their materials.

They claim to say they only look at scripture and that what the fathers or church history has to say is irrelevant.

Again, that is a mischaracterization of the position, of both Baptists and even myself (Seventh-day Adventist), for the real matter, the actual position, rejects that which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 8:20), and accepts that which agrees with scripture.

This is disgusting and blasphemous.

You are in error, and over exaggerate, and merely display ignorance (not knowing) by making such an statement, which is actually the disgusting thing here. Blasphemy is defined by scripture (Mark 2:27; Luke 5:21, a man claiming to forgive sins in the place of God; John 10:33; a man claiming to be God, even in God's place; 1 Timothy 1:13, a persecutor of Christ, directly or indirectly, all of which directly apply to the 'catholic' faith/practice).

First of all, if scripture was straight forward

You sound like the serpent, "iffffff...." God' word is straight forward (Isaiah 28:10,13; Psalms 12:6-7; 1 Corinthians 14:33). It is only not 'straight forward' to the willingly ignorant. They choose to turn aside from the Rock, which is Truth, and cannot be moved.

, then everybody would agree with the Baptist interpretation

No. The Baptist "interpretation" is "private interpretation", even as the (so-called and self-styled) "orthodox" "interpretation". The only true interpretation is that which is God's (Genesis 40:8; 2 Peter 1:20; Daniel 2:28-30) Mankind is not to make an interpretation (Daniel 2:10-11,27), but to "understand" the "interpretation" (Proverbs 1:6) as given by God in scripture (Daniel 2:22-23), so that we may simply "shew" (that which is given by God) it to others (Daniel 2:16,24).

, so it's not at all the case that scripture and what the fathers said are in such disagreement that scripture can debunk the fathers.

Then you make 'the fathers' above God's word, and that which is the final judge. Isaiah 8:20 disagrees.

More importantly, for hundreds of years

Length of time does not ever sanctify error, even though it be hoary with age.

, men fought to preserve the teachings we know as Christianity today.

You erred again in your speech, for you speak of "catholicity", not "Christianity". Men died to preserve true Christianity, like the Vaudois, Waldenses, Hugenots, Paulicians, Albigensi, Passagini, Sabbatini, etc. The Reformers even met with these that already existed before the Reformation came to be (even existing before Wycliffe, etc).

Gnostics, Arians, and other heretics

Most of 'catholicity' since the time of Constantine were "arians". Read

The Two Republics by A.T. Jones: - https://archive.org/download/sda-a-t-jones-the-two-republics/SDA - A T Jones - The Two Republics.pdf

Ecclesiastical Empire by A.T.Jones: - https://archive.org/download/sda-a-t-jones-ecclesiastical-empire/SDA - A T Jones - Ecclesiastical Empire.pdf

Empires Of Prophecy by A.T.Jones - https://archive.org/download/sda-a-t-jones-the-great-empires-of-prophecy/SDA - A T Jones - The Great Empires Of Prophecy.pdf

Useful historical information is therein provided.

 

[Alofa Atu]

used scripture to defend ideas that Jesus was fully human or had no human nature, for example.

When you say "fully human", do you, like the antichrist system of Roman Catholicism deny that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh? For "likeness" see Philippians 2:7; Romans 6:5; Genesis 1:26, 5:1,3; etc.

To teach that Jesus came in the flesh of mankind, unfallen, is antichrist:

2Jn_1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The men who defined what Christianity was

That is an error. Men (mankind) do not define what "Christianity" is or "was". Jesus defined it by His Life and Doctrine; He being the Christ.

when scripture was not widely available

You mean during the dark ages, while the Papacy restricted it's use, and had altered it, even according to Jerome's own statements?

or codified were the holy fathers.

That's not what Scripture says:

Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Act 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

If you believe in the trinity

No, I do not believe in the heresy that is "trinity", but believe what scripture teaches about Godhead, in the Persons/Beings of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Heavenly trio who work together in harmony in love.

, you already follow the fathers.

Glad I do not follow the blind, otherwise I might end up in that Great Whore of Revelation 17 (Roman Catholicism, and her daughters):

Mat_15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Pro_23:27 For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit.

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

If you affirm the Nicene Creed

No, it is riddled with error.

thank the holy fathers.

Always stealing the glory that belongs to God, for the word of God says:

Eph_5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

To reject the fathers is to reject Christianity itself

No, it is to reject 'catholicity', not "Christianity".

-if not for the Holy Spirit working through them, the faith would not exist today.

There was indeed a 'spirit' (Ephesians 2:2) that was working in them, but it was not the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches-all of the oldest ones-

Actually they were the new-comers, the "new kids on the block" as it were, a bunch of "backstreet boys" that came up after the real Christians (Acts 20:27-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 1 Timothy 1:20).

all affirm infant baptism,

A grievous error, but the truth is:

Act_8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

real precense

Another grievous error, see:

Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated Substantially :P

, amillenialism,

Another plain error, as the scripture clearly speak of "one thousand years" (Revelation 20:2-7; even "many days" Isaiah 24:22).

and baptismal regeneration.

Another error. Baptism in water is simply water. The Holy Spirit baptism is needful for "regeneration", for it is the "spirit that giveth life" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

If these ideas were not true in scripture

They aren't see above.

then why did the first denominations to believe in memorialism and to reject infant baptism not exist until the 1600;s in the west?

Another error. The doctrines taught in scripture were around long before the 'ecf', even found in the book of Genesis alone (the book of seeds), and found again in the Sanctuary (Psalms 77:13). Doctrine was settled long before the NT was even written.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[37818]

Hello,

My name is StAugustineFanboy3. I was raised in a nominally Hindu family but plan to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Looking at past threads, it seems like many Baptists, when asked to explain certain beliefs against objections, reject looking at the church fathers and church history, and even call the holy fathers heretics (how you determine what is a heresy or not without looking at what the ecumenical councils defined as heresies beats me). They claim to say they only look at scripture and that what the fathers or church history has to say is irrelevant.

This is disgusting and blasphemous. First of all, if scripture was straight forward, then everybody would agree with the Baptist interpretation, so it's not at all the case that scripture and what the fathers said are in such disagreement that scripture can debunk the fathers.

More importantly, for hundreds of years, men fought to preserve the teachings we know as Christianity today. Gnostics, Arians, and other heretics used scripture to defend ideas that Jesus was fully human or had no human nature, for example. The men who defined what Christianity was when scripture was not widely available or codified were the holy fathers. If you believe in the trinity, you already follow the fathers. If you affirm the Nicene Creed, thank the holy fathers. To reject the fathers is to reject Christianity itself-if not for the Holy Spirit working through them, the faith would not exist today.

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian churches-all of the oldest ones-all affirm infant baptism, real precense, amillenialism, and baptismal regeneration. If these ideas were not true in scripture, then why did the first denominations to believe in memorialism and to reject infant baptism not exist until the 1600;s in the west?

The first century New Testament is the actual handed down Apostolic authotity given to God's chuches. Ephesians 2:20, ". . . And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; . . ."