The Early Church was it...

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting GoldDragon,
"The early church fathers had the advantage of cultural similarity to the apostles."

GE:
The early church fathers were light years apart from "cultural similarity to the apostles". Just to mention a few factors:
The Apostles 'knew Jesus according to the flesh' and witnessed His death and resurrection;
they were His chosen and begifted; they were as it were Jesus' children;

whereas the 'church fathers' were more often than not, plainly the children of their times - different times and different 'cultures' altogether - like the gnostic Justin Martyr.
The literary styles and philosophical approach of the different eras cannot be compared in the least.

On the other hand, the Reformers represent a RETURN, to, 1, solus Christus, 2, sola scriptura, 3, sola gratia, 4, soli deo gloria.

Therefore the Reformers much more and in every aspect, have the advantage in doctrinal similarity to the Apostles than the church fathers could dream of.

Said Luther of the church fathers, their writings and teaching were like milk filtered through a coal sack.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Pardon the intrusion of a not so smart as you guys person but wasn't the 1st church called "The Way". I think we should have stuck with that!:thumbs:

Even then, it wasn't the church that was called 'The Way' - it was the Message or Gospel that was so called. In the last analysis only Jesus Himself is 'The Way'!

To me the Church remains the greatest enigma; I believe it, love it, proclaim it, confess it, try to live it, but shall never understand it despite the truth it is the Body of Christ on earth despite its great divisions and dissentings. Where two or three assemble and worship in the Name of the Lord Jesus, there is the Christian Church though, DESPITE, because Jesus promised He will be present.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Quoting GoldDragon,
"The early church fathers had the advantage of cultural similarity to the apostles."

GE:
The early church fathers were light years apart from "cultural similarity to the apostles". Just to mention a few factors:
The Apostles 'knew Jesus according to the flesh' and witnessed His death and resurrection;
they were His chosen and begifted; they were as it were Jesus' children;

whereas the 'church fathers' were more often than not, plainly the children of their times - different times and different 'cultures' altogether - like the gnostic Justin Martyr.
The literary styles and philosophical approach of the different eras cannot be compared in the least.

That is an unusual claim that I must disagree with.

Yes, there are differences between the cultures within the Roman Empire in the region between Rome and Constantinople between the time of the apostles (30-60 AD) and the time of the later period commonly associated with the early church fathers (300-400AD). But to call that "light years" of cultural difference is just so far off that it discredits your perspective.

Justin Martyr (100-165AD) was alive only a few generations after the NT books were written. You are also the first person I've hear refer to Justin Martyr's theology as having gnostic tendencies. It may be true but I'm not aware of these tendencies, not having studied his works. Would you care to show this?

It is arguable that the Reformers were closer in theology to the apostles than the early church fathers. But it is not arguable that they were closer in culture than the early church fathers. Cultural similarity is always a factor in the hermeneutics of texts.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

All right then; then what's the importance in it?