IIRC resty, a while back when I added something to the original article you had a hissy fit and the mod had to edit what I had done. Tsk, tsk....why do the rules ESPECIALLY THIS WEEK not apply to you? Who gave you a pass and why?
Posted on 07/24/2010 7:48:22 AM PDT by restornu
Edited on 07/24/2010 8:44:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
[emphasis and formatting by restornu]
Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories:
1 apostolic fathers,
2 ante-Nicene church fathers,
3 and post-Nicene church fathers.
The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves.
Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus.
Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers.
However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived.
The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp.
The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.
The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.
The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea.
He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held.
Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for the Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity.
So, what did the early church fathers believe?
The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it.
They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them.
The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church.
The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.
The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry.
Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke.
The reason for these spurious documents was evident.
If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church.
So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.
The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form.
Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers.
This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth.
None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect.
Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect.
What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers.
While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers,
...ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, NOT in the writings of early Christian leaders.
Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.
Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke.
The reason for these spurious documents was evident.
If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church.
So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.
Gal 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
And it continues today with the spurious writings of a convicted swindler named joseph smith, who has deceived millions into receiving three other false documents full of false doctrines of devils that reach back to Genesis where Satan lied to Adam and Eve by promising them 'godhood'.
These very same ANF writers still denounce the false doctrines of mormonism even today.
I see that by following the link back that the article has been significantly reformatted by resty. IIRC this is not in conformance with posting rules and needs to either be corrected or the thread pulled and reposted with the ORIGINAL article’s formatting.
restornu should have commented that the emphasis and formatting was hers. I’ll add that to the article for her.
What is your problem people reformat all the time when they do excerpts needed or not!
I did it for clarification for those in a hurry to get the jest of the article.
there is a few in your crowd that excerpt and do snipeds often etc.
Thank you!
Sorry resty, I don't agree with your 'clarification' of the article. By posting the way you did these 'clarifications' get pulled out of context and were not designed by the original author to be stand alone.
Emphasizing one thing over another and cherry-picking are fair play in the town square style of “open” Religion Forum debate. It is also fair play to point that out in rebuttal.
Just a few of the lower points:
Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church
By whom? Catholics call him a church father, a Doctor of the Church ("doctor" is Latin for "teacher"), and the "Doctor of Grace".
The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form.
Okay, now let's think about that carefully. "Defending the Gospel" is going to make one "less interested in transmitting the gospel in a ... pure form"? In what universe?
In real life, steel sharpens steel, and nothing forces the church to clarify and think things through like opposition.
Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. ... What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers
LOL! Long before Nicaea, you have testimony to the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist (Ignatius of Antioch), to baptismal regeneration (many sources), to infant baptism (Justin Martyr and Origen, to name only two), to Apostolic succession in the office of bishop (Ignatius of Antioch is clearer on this than most contemporary Catholic theologians), to Mary as the New Eve and the See of Rome as the touchstone of orthodoxy (Irenaeus of Lyons, in both cases).
There are many, many other examples.
This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
Wrong again! The "angels dancing on the head of a pin" line is mocking the Scholastics of the 12th and 13th centuries, not the post-Nicene fathers. (The post-Nicene patristic period is generally considered to have ended with the II Nicene council in AD 787.)
And the argument was actually whether angels, being pure spirits, occupied space or not, which isn't quite as arcane or silly.
These essays which purport to tell people what the Fathers believed and how "non Catholic" they were, without ever quoting any of them, are just silly.
I'll leave you with a quotation from Ignatius of Antioch, who knew some of the Apostles personally and died for the Faith in the arena at Rome in AD 110:
But consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.-- Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, ca AD 110
This is so silly you don’t have to agree you are the opposing side LOL
I don’t agree with you either but unless you poke me by ping most of the time ignore your pings.
Believe what you want I don’t care why go out of my way to talk to the angry and those with grudge!
I bother you, you don’t bother me it is you who is always pinging me stalker man!
It is one thing to misrepresent an article. It is another to accuse me of being a stalker. I would recommend you retract that charge.
Since you are one of the more active lds posters, you should expect comments. Accordingly, when I comment on one of your posts, I leave you in the TO. That doesn't make me a stalker, that just means I'm responding to your common nonsense.
Thnak you for your input
Why are you here bored intrest in history etc?
IIRC resty, a while back when I added something to the original article you had a hissy fit and the mod had to edit what I had done. Tsk, tsk....why do the rules ESPECIALLY THIS WEEK not apply to you? Who gave you a pass and why?
the empress has no clothes
I suspect by your response that you are Catholic?
I can understand your contention with the material since it’s written from a predominately Protestant pov.
Thank you for posting a RC perspective on this.
I note for the OP, that this websites Statement of Faith is in conflict with her own religion.
http://www.gotquestions.org/faith.html
If you don’t want anyone here, then CAUCUS the thread.
Otherwise, expect comments from pro and con alike.
Many protestants are woefully unaware of the early church fathers. for example, the word “trinity” in its correct format is used at least 100 years before nicea. The trinitarian doctrine is clearly taught even earlier and is traceable to the NT foundations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.