How to Answer Catholic Apologists About Eary Church "Fathers' " Quotes

[Malachi]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
The Early Church Fathers quotes and writings have been kept mostly by the Catholic Church, and some are considered to be spurious. They are not equal anyway to the Scriptures that God Himself kept.

They could have easily have altered quotes in order to keep the people under their thumb. They came up with the Donation of Constantine and other forgeries before for this purpose:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html The Donation of Constantine
http://users.aol.com/rcchurch/donate.htm
http://historical.benabraham.com/html/donation_of_constantine.html Painting of DOC at Vatican
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.aspx Decretals of Isidore (forgery)
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.htm Catholic forgeries

http://users.aol.com/rcchurch/rcchurch.html False Catholic history
http://www.acts1711.com/forgery.htm Forgeries (Early Fathers, etc.)
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Forgery.html Forged Catholic papers (ECF)

They sold indulgences, and have always wanted to be a sort of exclusive franchise for salvation. That is ample reason for them to deceive their followers. And of course the simple reason is money. How do you think that they came up with all the money to build the Vatican and to collect it's treasures and art work?

Here are some web sites that refute baptismal regeneration:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=joh&chapter=003&verse=005&next=006&prev=004
www.evangelicaloutreach.org/baptism.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/FalseDoctrine/baptizmalregen.html “
http://www.dokimos.org/immersed.html?origin=main&c “
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm “
http://www.carm.org/questions/baptnec.htm “
http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcbaptr.htm “
http://users.htcomp.net/gatewaybc/on_line_articles/baptismal_regeneration.htm

I would say to your Catholic friend that you don't find their quotes to be reliable do to the RCC's long established history of forgeries. And even if some quotes are reliable, then they don't square up with the Word of God, and tell him why.

BTW, here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers that claim that Peter is not the Rock, that Jesus Christ is:

http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

You might want to ask him why the Catholic Church picks and chooses what to belive from their writings. It's always good to the ECF back in their faces. (which should look something like this:

)

Thank you for the thourough reply. I am alarmed at a few things I already uncovered which disturbs me. I.E. I have read "quotes" from Popes...then investigated to find out that they are "made up". Then, other works where "the info" provided cannot be validated. Claims of this that or another thing....all without substantiation. I like to refute with fact and proof. So I thank you for your liks, I shall review them in detail. Again thank you.

 

[Petrel]

You can't just say, "Since some people from this group in the past 2000 years have falsified some documents, I'm going to assume this one is falsified as well in the absence of any evidence." That's the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

Well, I guess you can say that, but I don't think it would impress your opponent.

 

[Scott J]

You also cannot discount the history of domination and control by the RCC. We know for a fact that they killed people for saying things opposed to the RCC... and you think it is unreasonable to suggest that they changed or purged writings of clear cut contradictions to their traditions/dogmas?

I don't suggest anyone "assume" that they're falsified but to suggest the possibility and reasons for such a suspicion cannot be considered out of bounds. The RCC controlled academia, libraries, debate, printing, copying, etc, etc, etc. IOW's, they held total dominion over what information was preserved, disseminated, and ultimately believed for about 1000 years... and had a very much vested interest in controlling everyone to assure their allegiance to the Church.

 

[Scott J]

FTR, even in our open and secular society, you have some that would like to regulate talk radio and the internet because they don't like the opinions being expressed. If these people had the power, they most certainly would suppress those dissenting voices and purge them from history if possible.

To suggest that an organization as corrupt as the RCC often was during the dark ages with complete supremacy would not purge history of "error" seems quite naive.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Scott J:
To suggest that an organization as corrupt as the RCC often was during the dark ages with complete supremacy would not purge history of "error" seems quite naive.

Not the point. They certainly did on occasion. Assuming they did 100% of the time when early Christians' writings disagree with your opinion is baseless, illogical, and naive. Would you be equally willing to discount their authenticity if they agreed with your positions? For consistency's sake we should discount the authenticity of any of these documents in their entirety.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
To suggest that an organization as corrupt as the RCC often was during the dark ages with complete supremacy would not purge history of "error" seems quite naive.

Not the point. They certainly did on occasion. Assuming they did 100% of the time when early Christians' writings disagree with your opinion is baseless, illogical, and naive.</font>[/QUOTE] Again I am not assuming they did. My opinion is that we don't have a fully rounded representation of the early beliefs on this matter based on two main circumstances: a) the fact that they did "purify" the "Church" of both heretics and heretical writings and b) because scripture certainly allows for and we obviously believe that baptism is not salvific.

It would not have been necessary to purge 100% of the writings... only those that disagreed with you. And 1000 years is a long time to get it done when you are in the business of controlling the beliefs of everyone.

But the only thing I need operationally is what scripture says.

Would you be equally willing to discount their authenticity if they agreed with your positions?

I don't necessarily question the authenticity of the writings that exist though some corruption is certainly not out of the question. I would be more inclined to believe that things were deleted rather than added.

For consistency's sake we should discount the authenticity of any of these documents in their entirety.

These documents should be taken for what they are worth. That's really all I am saying.

How do you answer Catholics who point to these quotes? For one thing, I would certainly bring up the subject that dissenting views and those who held them were attacked by the RCC. Honest Catholics know that this occurred. They should have no logical problem paralleling the purging of heretics with the purging of heretical writings.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Scott J:
How do you answer Catholics who point to these quotes? For one thing, I would certainly bring up the subject that dissenting views and those who held them were attacked by the RCC. Honest Catholics know that this occurred. They should have no logical problem paralleling the purging of heretics with the purging of heretical writings.

It would be best to examine the history of these writings and see what the oldest manuscripts are and what condition they are in. If the originals are lost and the source has not been much quoted from it would be impossible to say how much it had changed. If the oldest copies we have are from 50 years after the manuscript was written, they're probably entirely authentic.

I have no idea how many copies of the Church Fathers' manuscripts there are and what age they are, but before I made any decision about their authenticity I would go and look this information up.

 

[JackRUS]

Here is an example of some writing from one of the early church fathers, Ignatius:

The Generally accepted Epistles of Ignatius

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
The Epistle of Ingnatius to the Trallians
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp

Other Spurious Epistles in the name of Ignatius

The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Third Epistle of Ignatius
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
Another Version of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
Justin Martyr -- c.100-c.165

BTW, many believe that Ignatius was spoken of by Jesus in Rev. 2:2 since he wrote a letter to the believers at Ephesus trying to command then to fall under his leadership as a bishop and they refused saying that Jesus was their Head.

 

[Marcia]

I'm confused. I thought this discussion was in the Fundamental Baptist forum. Was it moved?

 

[JackRUS]

BTW...for a huge collection of writings from the ECF, check this out:

http://www.godrules.net/library/fathers/fathers.htm

 

[Pipedude]

Originally posted by Marcia:
I'm confused. I thought this discussion was in the Fundamental Baptist forum. Was it moved?

Lots of people are confused around here. No biggie.

Malachi, being new and over zealous, started the thread in both places. The rest is [church] history.

 

[Marcia]

Not supposed to start a thread in more than one place.

 

[mioque]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mioque:
JackRUS
"They could have easily have altered quotes in order to keep the people under their thumb. They came up with the Donation of Constantine and other forgeries before for this purpose:"
"
I'm always surprised about the contempt there is for our own scholars in some circles. By now we know pretty well where the forgeries are among the corpus of ancient Christian texts.

Good. Give me a list of them please. </font>[/QUOTE]I would rather avoid coming down with a case of RSI.

 

[mioque]

Originally posted by Scott J:

I don't suggest anyone "assume" that they're falsified but to suggest the possibility and reasons for such a suspicion cannot be considered out of bounds. The RCC controlled academia, libraries, debate, printing, copying, etc, etc, etc. IOW's, they held total dominion over what information was preserved, disseminated, and ultimately believed for about 1000 years... and had a very much vested interest in controlling everyone to assure their allegiance to the Church.

Cough..Eastern-Orthodoxy cough.
Cough..Oriental-Orthodoxy cough.
Than there are all those internal disputes that did not lead to churchsplits. There are enough examples of texts that survived while the groups that produced them did not.
The dominance of the RCC wasn't quite as monolythic and complete as folks often think.

The bigger issue however is that it is silly to point to the absence of evidence as evidence.

 

[Malachi]

Originally posted by Pipedude:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
I'm confused. I thought this discussion was in the Fundamental Baptist forum. Was it moved?

Lots of people are confused around here. No biggie.

Malachi, being new and over zealous, started the thread in both places. The rest is [church] history. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, my apologies. Pipedude, you are right on...my first post I was/am new and I was/am zealous..so I posted it on two forums. My mistake. Sorry about that.