Replies

As I read about early church history, it is painfully obvious that many ‘church fathers’ would be better described as ‘barely converted pagan philosophers’.

So an American in the 21st century--a TOTALLY different culture than that represented in the New Testament--with no direct access to the original Scriptures, reading a bad English translation, without the requisite background in Latin, koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages, knows better than the early Church Fathers living in the first several centuries of the Church -- the guys who spoke the original language, lived in the same culture as Christ and the disciples, and were responsible for translating, teaching, and preserving the Scriptures? There is an element of hubris in your statement, Mr Rogers, that is beyond words. Frankly, I find it nearly impossible to integrate this statement with my experience of your posts as otherwise intelligent, to the extent that you formulate deductive arguments with logical rigor, granted on your own Sola Scriptura terms. But writing off the early Church Fathers, you seem to eskew the good reason you often otherwise demonstrate in your arguments. What gives?

I suspect you prematurely write off the Church Fathers because, just as I discovered myself in my journey to accepting Catholicism, is that their writing demonstrates without question that the early Church was thoroughly and undeniably CATHOLIC both in liturgical practice and in its theology. That would put you a difficult position, as someone who rejects Catholicism.

Of course I can't read your mind, but I am curious about what seems to be a very premature and ill-advised basis for rejecting authorities from the very early days of Christianity, which common sense would dictate, must have had a more intimate knowledge of the historical, cultural and linguistic context of the Scripture, far better than we could hope to develop on our own.

I’ll try to write later about the church fathers. I don’t have much heartburn with those in the first few centuries, but it helps to remember that those living as early as 250 were as remote from the Apostles as we are from the Mexican War. That isn’t as remote as some might think - my great grandfather fought in the Civil War - but it isn’t exactly concurrent. This is all the more true given the difficulty in travel and how difficult it could be to access writings from many sources.

I read a book about the Civil War recently, and was struck by how utterly different culture was then. I’m still limping a bit 6 months after taking a tumble from a horse. There were guys then who had horses roll over them, who within a week were riding 50 miles a day and more in winter weather.

One Lt General, in battle, cut the head off of one man with a sword just before the man could kill his aide. He had over two dozen horses shot out from under him. I’ve met a number of 3 & 4 star Generals...we’re pretty remote from that culture as well.

By 400 AD, they were debating and excommunicating each other over issues like the exact nature of Jesus within the Trinity. Now the Trinity is plainly taught in Scripture, but it isn’t explored the way a Greek philosopher would - and that is how they debated it.

I’ve accused Luther of being the ‘Ann Coulter of the Reformation’, and I sometimes fall into the same trap. And it may be that I will need to back down from my statement. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve apologized!

However, by 400+ AD, most of the ‘fathers’ were acting as though they cared more about their rhetorical reputation and intellectual standing than they were caring for the flock. And by this time, they were as remote from the Apostles as we are from the American Revolution.

You talk of my hubris - which is pretty great, I’ll agree - but what about the hubris of someone who thinks they can not only reason out the inner workings of the Trinity, but do it so well as to damn to hell anyone who disagrees? My hubris is limited to saying that what God has revealed about Himself, we can accept, but we cannot fully reason out and comprehend. I’m humble compared to the church fathers.

My hubris is enough that I will substitute teach in a Sunday School class, but not enough for me to set myself up as The Authority Over All American Churches (ref the Coptic Church, and others).

“So an American in the 21st century—a TOTALLY different culture than that represented in the New Testament—with no direct access to the original Scriptures, reading a bad English translation, without the requisite background in Latin, koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic languages, knows better than the early Church Fathers living in the first several centuries of the Church...”

You overstate the case here. It is not uncommon to bridge cultures. My Filipina wife does it daily, and I’ve traveled to many different countries. The Greek and Hebrew texts we can buy on the Internet today are probably as good as what most had access to in 400 AD. I have a number of EXCELLENT translations, and lexicons and access to books of word studies that are useful. I have commentaries and studies written by people who are expert in all those languages.

What did strike me as I read about the church fathers this week was how familiar it seemed in spite of the time gap...the arrogance, the pettiness, and the concern for power.

Oh well. Like I said, I’ll write more later. If I need to apologize, I will. I’ve had lots of practice...