And this explains how heresy enters into the church. Justin Martyr was not exactly a paragon of Christian orthodoxy. He had his theological problems and thus when later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture, one can be left with a tradition of false doctrine in the works of those who rely on him.
Just because Justin says it's so doesn't make it so. His writings were not scripture and were not always scripturally sound -- as was true of so many of the church fathers even when the apostles were still alive.
When a statement by Justin Martyr is at odds with the Apostles Creed which quotes essentially from scripture, then which one should you believe??
The issue isn't whether or not the Church Fathers have the charsm of infallibility. Infallibility is only enjoyed by the papal office in teaching faith and morals. The issue is whether the universal acceptance of doctrine - in union with the Holy Father at Rome - is guarded by infallibility - and that answer is "yes". Theology is a science. A scientist may publish his findings in one research paper, do additional research, and then discover a different result, prompting a new paper which corrects his earlier findings. Since a theologian is not personally infallible, it's absurd to place an expectation of veracity upon every word consigned to print in the library of patristics. The test of veracity is not consistency of statements over the lifetime of a Church Father. The test of veracity is the universal acceptance of the doctrine as promulgated by Rome. And Rome, herself, does not simply, unilaterally decide doctrine. It takes years of consultation with theologians and bishops and reflection and prayer to determine wherein the Truth lies.
Whereas Justin Martyr may not, by himself, constitute authority, his writings are an important part of the body of evidence that this is what the Church traditionally believed from the beginning.
>> And this explains how heresy enters into the church. Justin Martyr was not exactly a paragon of Christian orthodoxy. He had his theological problems and thus when later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture, one can be left with a tradition of false doctrine in the works of those who rely on him. <<
YOu see how YOPIOS (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture) works? You consider everyone who disagrees with YOPIOS to be a heretic, so you can dismiss their viewpoint as abberational. So, when you will dismiss Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanus, Jerome and the bunch as all heretics, why do you bother discussing the positions of the Church Fathers? Admit that you regard the study of the Church Fathers to be pointless and be done with it! But, instead, you dismiss them on the one hand, but try to cite them as consistent with your views on the other.
And what prompts this in this instance? Because Justin understood the Apostle’s Creed in a way different from your wholly uneducated, knee-jerk interpretation? (Whatever education you may have has no bearing on the fact your interpretation is uneducated.) You draw a distinction between body and spirit. So what? Do you even know that your distinction makes suspect your understanding of what the Greeks meant by ‘body’? Why is your distinction better than Justin’s? Do you even know whether he HAS a distinction? Do you care, or is this a convenient “gotcha” to disregard Justin?
So, let’s say you’re right, and Justin, Tatian, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Ephanus, and the entire lot are all heretics. Why would the Council of Constantinople reassert that bit about “and is seated at the right hand of the Father”? See, behind your declarations of heresy is the presumption that all those you proclaim heretics are a bunch of idiots.
Quit pretending you have any regard for the Church Fathers, if you’ll declare Justin a heretic on your own base presumption of the meaning of the Apostle’s Creed. How DARE you declare, out of your pure ignorance, that men such as St. Jerome merely took on good faith Justin’s theology, rather than checking it against scripture? You’re like a school child who has barely mastered his times table attempting to correct Einstein’s theory of relativity.
You don’t speak Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. St. Jerome was brilliant in all three. He devoted his life to translating the bible, and earnestly studied Justin Martyr as well... and you have the naked audacity to declare that “later writers cite him as an authority, instead of checking his work against scripture.”
When a statement by Justin Martyr APPEARS TO YOU to be at odds with the Apostles Creed which quotes essentially from scripture, you SHOULD presume you don’t know what you are talking about.