Posted on 08/30/2009 2:03:16 PM PDT by NYer
Updated August 18, 2008 (first published June 4, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
Many people have walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the broad door of the “church fathers,” and this is a loud warning today when there is a widespread attraction to the “church fathers” within evangelicalism.
The Catholic apologetic ministries use the “church fathers” to prove that Rome’s doctrines go back to the earliest centuries. In the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, David Currie continually uses the church fathers to support his position. He says, “The other group of authors whom Evangelicals should read ... is the early Fathers of the Church” (p. 4).
The contemplative prayer movement is built on this same weak foundation. The late Robert Webber, a Wheaton College professor who was one of the chief proponents of this back to the “church fathers” movement, said:
“The early Fathers can bring us back to what is common and help us get behind our various traditions ... Here is where our unity lies. ... evangelicals need to go beyond talk about the unity of the church to experience it through an attitude of acceptance of the whole church and an entrance into dialogue with the Orthodox, Catholic, and other Protestant bodies” (Ancient-Future Faith, 1999, p. 89).
The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics!
This term refers to various church leaders of the first few centuries after the apostles whose writings have been preserved.
The only genuine “church fathers” are the apostles and prophets their writings that were given by divine inspiration and recorded in the Holy Scripture. They gave us the “faith ONCE delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The faith they delivered is able to make us “perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We don’t need anything beyond the Bible. The teaching of the “church fathers” does not contain one jot or tittle of divine revelation.
The term “church fathers” is a misnomer that was derived from the Catholic Church’s false doctrine of hierarchical church polity. These men were not “fathers” of the church in any scriptural sense and did not have any divine authority. They were merely church leaders from various places who have left a record of their faith in writing. But the Roman Catholic Church exalted men to authority beyond the bounds designated by Scripture, making them “fathers” over the churches located within entire regions and over the churches of the whole world.
The “church fathers” are grouped into four divisions: Apostolic Fathers (second century), Ante-Nicene Fathers (second and third centuries), Nicene Fathers (fourth century), and Post-Nicene Fathers (fifth century). Nicene refers to the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 that dealt with the issue of Arianism and affirmed the doctrine of Christ’s deity. Thus, the Ante-Nicene Fathers are so named because they lived in the century before this council, and the Post-Nicene, because they lived in the century following the council.
All of the “church fathers” were infected with some false doctrine, and most of them were seriously infected. Even the so-called Apostolic Fathers of the second century were teaching the false gospel that baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom provided forgiveness of sin (Howard Vos, Exploring Church History, p. 12). And of the later “fathers”--Clement, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Theodore, and John Chrysostom--the same historian admits: “In their lives and teachings we find the seed plot of almost all that arose later. In germ form appear the dogmas of purgatory, transubstantiation, priestly mediation, baptismal regeneration, and the whole sacramental system” (Vos, p. 25).
In fact, one of the Post-Nicene “fathers” is Leo the Great, the first Roman Catholic Pope!
Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy.
The New Testament Scriptures warns frequently that there would be an apostasy, a turning from the faith among professing Christians. The apostles and prophets warned said this apostasy had already begun in their day and warned that it would increase as the time of Christ’s return draws nearer.
Paul testified of this in many places, giving us a glimpse into the vicious assault that was already plaguing the work of God. Consider his last message to the pastors at Ephesus (Acts 20:29-30). Paul warned them that false teachers would come from without and would also arise from within their own ranks. Consider his second epistle to Corinth (2 Cor. 11:1-4, 12-15). The false teachers who were active at Corinth were corrupting three of the cardinal doctrines of the New Testament faith, the doctrine of Christ, Salvation, and the Holy Spirit; and the churches were in danger of being overthrown by these errors. Consider Paul’s warnings to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:1-6 and 2 Timothy 3:1-13 and 4:3-4.
Peter devoted the entire second chapter of his second epistle to this theme. He warned in verse one that there would be false teachers who hold “damnable heresies,” referring to heresies that damn the soul to eternal hell. If someone denies, for example, the Virgin Birth, Deity, Humanity, Sinlessness, Eternality, Atonement, or Resurrection of Jesus Christ he cannot be saved. Heresies pertaining to such matters are damnable heresies. The corruption of the “doctrine of Christ” results in a “false christ.”
John gave similar warnings in his epistles (1 John 2:18, 19, 22; 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11).
In addressing the seven churches in Revelation 2-3, the Lord Jesus Christ warned that many of the apostolic churches were already weak and were under severe stress from heretical attacks (Rev. 2:6, 14-15, 20-24; 3:2, 15-17).
Thus the New Testament faith was being attacked on every hand in the days of the apostles by Gnosticism, Judaism, Nicolaitanism, and other heresies.
And the apostles and prophets warned that this apostasy would increase.
Paul said, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). This describes the course of the church age in terms of the spread of heresy!
Therefore it is not surprising to find doctrinal error rampant among the churches even in the early centuries.
Further, we only have a very partial record of the early centuries and the surviving writings have been heavily filtered by Rome. The Roman Catholic Church was in power for a full millennium and its Inquisition reached to the farthest corners of Europe and beyond. Rome did everything in its power to destroy the writings of those who differed with her. Consider the Waldenses. These were Bible-believing Christians who lived in northern Italy and southern France and elsewhere during the Dark Ages and were viciously persecuted by Rome for centuries. Though we know that the Waldenses have a history that begins in the 11th century if not before, their historical record was almost completely destroyed by Rome. Only a handful of Waldensian writings were preserved from all of those centuries.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the extant writings from the early centuries are ones that are sympathetic to Rome’s doctrines. This does not prove that most of the churches then held to Roman Catholic doctrine. It proves only that those writings sympathetic to Rome were allowed to survive. We know that there were many churches in existence in those early centuries that did not agree with Roman doctrine, because they were persecuted by the Romanists and are mentioned in the writings of the “church fathers.”
A LOOK AT SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS
Ignatius (c. 50-110)
Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early second century. He was arrested in about A.D. 110 and sent to Rome for trial and martyrdom.
1. He taught that churches should have elders and a ruling bishop; in other words, he was exalting one bishop over another, whereas in scripture the terms “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same humble office in the assembly (Titus 1:5-7).
2. He taught that all churches are a part of one universal church.
3. He claimed that a church does not have authority to baptize or conduct the Lord’s Supper unless it has a bishop.
These relatively innocent errors helped prepare the way for more error in the next century.
Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165)
When Justin embraced Christianity, he held on to some of his pagan philosophy.
1. He interpreted the Scriptures allegorically and mystically.
2. He helped develop the idea of a “middle state” after death that was neither heaven nor hell. Eventually this doctrine became Rome’s purgatory.
Irenaeus (c. 125-202)
Irenaeus was a pastor in Lyons, France, who wrote a polemic titled Against Heresies in about A.D. 185.
1. He supported the authority of the bishop as a ruler over many churches.
2. He defended church tradition beyond what the Scripture allows. For this reason he is claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as one of their own.
3. He taught the Catholic heresy of “real presence,” saying, “The Eucharist becomes the body of Christ.”
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 230)
1. Clement headed the allegorizing school of Alexandria from 190 to 202. This school was founded by Pantaenus.
2. Clement intermingled the philosophy of Plato with Christianity.
3. He helped develop the doctrine of purgatory and believed that most men would eventually be saved.
Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 255)
Tertullian lived in Carthage in North Africa (located on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in modern Tunisia, between Libya and Algeria).
1. Though he fought against Gnosticism, he also exalted the authority of the church beyond that allowed by Scripture. He taught that the church’s authority comes through apostolic succession.
2. He believed that the bread of the Lord’s Supper was Christ and worried about dropping crumbs of it on the ground.
3. He adopted Montanism, believing that Montanus spoke prophecies by inspiration of God.
4. He taught that widows who remarried committed fornication.
5. He taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.
6. He classified sins into three categories and believed in confession of sins to a bishop.
7. He said that the human soul was seen in a vision as “tender, light, and of the colour of air.” He claimed that all human souls were in Adam and are transmitted to us with the taint of original sin upon them.
8. He taught that there was a time when the Son of God did not exist and when God was not a Father.
9. He taught that Mary was the second Eve who by her obedience remedied the disobedience of the first Eve.
Cyprian (? – 258)
Cyprian was the “bishop of Carthage” in Africa.
1. He was tyrannical and wealthy and he wrote against the Novatian churches for their efforts to maintain a pure church membership.
2. Cyprian defended the unscriptural doctrine that certain bishops had authority over many churches and that all pastors must submit to them.
3. He supported the heresy of infant baptism.
No wonder Cyprian was made one of the “saints” of the Catholic Church.
Origen (185-254)
Though he endured persecution and torture for the cause of Christ under the emperor Decius in 250, Origen was loaded with false teachings. Origen’s character is described by the Lutheran historian Mosheim as “a compound of contraries, wise and unwise, acute and stupid, judicious and injudicious; the enemy of superstition, and its patron; a strenuous defender of Christianity, and its corrupter; energetic and irresolute; one to whom the Bible owes much, and from whom it has suffered much.”
We do not agree that the Bible owes Origen much, but there is no doubt that it suffered much at his hands.
Following are some of the strange heresies of Origen:
1. He denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture.
2. He rejected the literal history of the early chapters in Genesis and of Satan taking the Lord Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Vol. III, p. 614). Durant quotes Origen: “Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life ... so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?”
3. He accepted infant baptism.
4. He taught baptismal regeneration and salvation by works. “After these points, it is taught also that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, shall, after its departure from this world, be rewarded according to its merits. It is destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishment, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
5. He believed the Holy Spirit was possibly a created being of some sort. “In His case [that of the Holy Spirit], however, it is not clearly distinguished whether or not He was born or even whether He is or is not to be regarded as a Son of God” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
6. He believed in a form of purgatory and universalism, denying the literal fire of hell and believing that even Satan would be saved eventually. “Now let us see what is meant by the threatening with eternal fire. ... It seems to be indicated by these words that every sinner kindles for himself the flame of his own fire and is not plunged into some fire which was kindled beforehand by someone else or which already existed before him. ... And when this dissolution and tearing asunder of the soul shall have been accomplished by means of the application of fire, no doubt it will afterwards be solidified into a firmer structure and into a restoration of itself” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
7. He believed that men’s souls are preexistent and that stars and planets possibly have souls. “In regard to the sun, however, and the moon and the stars, as to whether they are living beings or are without life, there is not clear tradition” (Origen, cited by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
8. He believed that Jesus was a created being and not eternal. “He held an aberrant view on the nature of Christ, which gave rise to the later Arian heresy” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). That Origen believed Jesus Christ had an origin is evident from this statement: “Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after He had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things,--for through Him were all things made” (Origen, quoted by W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).
9. He denied the bodily resurrection, claiming that the resurrection body is spherical, non-material, and does not have members. “He denied the tangible, physical nature of the resurrection body in clear contrast to the teaching of Scripture” (Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, “Origen”). He was condemned by the Council of Constantinople on this count.
10. Origen allegorized the Bible saying, “The Scriptures have little use to those who understand them literally.” In this he was one of the fathers of the heretical amillennial method of prophetic interpretation, which was given further development by Augustine and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. This destroyed the apostolic doctrine of the imminency of the return of Christ (Mt. 24:42, 44; 25:13; Mk. 13:33) and the literal Tribulation and Millennial Kingdom. It also did away with a literal fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel and set the stage for the persecution of the Jews by the Roman Catholic Church.
Eusebius of Caesarea (270-340)
1. Eusebius collected the writings of Origen and promoted his erroneous teachings. “Whatever proof exists that Origen and his school deteriorated the correctness of the text, it is to the same extent clear that Eusebius accepted and perpetuated that injury” (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, I, p. 387).
2. Constantine the Great, who had joined church and state in the Roman Empire and had thereby laid the foundation for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, hired Eusebius to produce some Greek New Testaments. Frederick Nolan and other authorities have charged Eusebius with making many changes in the text of Scripture. “As it is thus apparent that Eusebius wanted not the power, so it may be shewn that he wanted not the will, to make those alterations in the sacred text, with which I have ventured to accuse him” (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 35).
3. Many of the noted omissions in the modern versions can be traced to this period, including Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11. After intensive investigation, Frederick Nolan concluded that Eusebius “suppressed those passages in his edition” (Nolan, p. 240). In fact, many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. These manuscripts also contained the spurious apocryphal writings, Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Origen had considered these two uninspired and fanciful books as canonical Scripture (Goodspeed, The Formation of the New Testament, p. 103).
Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) (340-420)
Jerome was called upon by Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, to produce a standard Latin Bible. This was completed between A.D. 383 and 405 and became the Bible adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It is commonly called the Latin vulgate (meaning common).
Modern textual critic Bruce Metzger says that the Greek manuscripts used by Jerome “apparently belonged to the Alexandrian type of text” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 76). This means they were in the same family as those underlying the modern versions. Kenyon and Robinson also affirm this (Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 88; Robinson, Ancient Versions of the English Bible, p. 113).
This means that the Jerome Latin vulgate adopted by Rome represents the same type of text as the critical Greek text underlying the modern versions. These commonly remove “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16 and contain many other corruptions.
Jerome was deeply infected with false teaching:
1. Jerome followed the false teaching of asceticism, believing the state of celibacy to be spiritually superior to that of marriage, and demanding that church leaders be unmarried. James Heron, author of The Evolution of Latin Christianity, observed that “no single individual did so much to make monasticism popular in the higher ranks of society” (Heron, 1919, p. 58).
2. Jerome believed in the veneration of “holy relics” and the bones of dead Christians (Heron, pp. 276, 77).
3. Jerome “took a leading and influential part in ‘opening the floodgates’ for the invocation of saints,” teaching “distinctly and emphatically that the saints in heaven hear the prayers of men on earth, intercede on their behalf and send them help from above (Heron, pp. 287, 88).
4. Jerome taught that Mary was the counterpart of Eve, as Christ was the counterpart of Adam, and that through her obedience Mary became instrumental in helping to redeem the human race (Heron, p. 294). He also taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin (Heron, pp. 294, 95).
5. Jerome believed in the blessing of water (Heron, p. 306).
6. Jerome justified the death penalty for “heretics” (Heron, The Evolution of Latin Christianity, p. 323).
As for his spirit and character, Jerome is described, even by a historian who had high respect for him, with these words: “such irritability and bitterness of temper, such vehemence of uncontrolled passion, such an intolerant and persecuting spirit, and such inconstancy of conduct” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III, p. 206).
It is obvious that Jerome had imbibed many of the false teachings and attitudes that eventually became the entrenched dogmas and practices of the Roman Catholic Church.
Ambrose (339-397)
Ambrose was bishop of Milan, in Italy, from 374-397. Because of his commitment to many early doctrinal heresies, his writings have been appealed to by popes and Catholic councils. Ambrose had a strong influence upon Augustine. The Catholic Church made him a saint and a doctor of the church.
1. Ambrose used the allegorical-mystical method of Bible interpretation, having been influenced by Origen and Philo.
2. He taught that Christians should be devoted to Mary, encouraged monasticism, and believed in prayers to the saints.
3. He believed the church has the power to forgive sins.
4. He believed the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Christ.
5. He taught that virginity is holier than marriage and whenever possible he encouraged young women not to marry. His teaching in this helped pave the way for the Catholic monastic system.
6. He offered prayers for the dead.
Augustine (354-430)
Augustine was polluted with many false doctrines and helped lay the foundation for the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. For this reason Rome has honored Augustine as one of the “doctors of the church.”
1. He was a persecutor and the father of the doctrine of persecution in the Catholic Church.
The historian Neander observed that Augustine’s teaching “contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition.” Augustine instigated persecutions against the Bible-believing Donatists who were striving to maintain pure churches after the apostolic faith. He interpreted Luke 14:23 (“compel them to come in”) to mean that Christ required the churches to use force against heretics.
2. He was the father of a-millennialism, allegorizing Bible prophecy and teaching that the Catholic Church is the kingdom of God.
3. He taught that the sacraments are the means of saving grace.
4. He was one of the fathers of infant baptism. The ‘council’ of Mela, in Numidia, A.D. 416, composed of merely fifteen persons and presided over by Augustine, decreed: “Also, it is the pleasure of the bishops in order that whoever denies that infants newly born of their mothers, are to be baptized or says that baptism is administered for the remission of their own sins, but not on account of original sin, delivered from Adam, and to be expiated by the laver of regeneration, BE ACCURSED” (Wall, The History of Infant Baptism, I, 265). Augustine thus taught that infants should be baptized and that the baptism took away their sin. He called all who rejected infant baptism “infidels” and “cursed.”
5. He taught that Mary did not commit sin and promoted her worship. He believed Mary played a vital role in salvation (Augustine, Sermon 289, cited in Durant, The Story of Civilization, 1950, IV, p. 69).
6. He believed in purgatory.
7. He accepted the doctrine of “celibacy” for “priests,” supporting the decree of “Pope” Siricius of 387 that ordered that any priest that married or refused to separate from his wife should be disciplined.
8. He exalted the authority of the church over that of the Bible, declaring, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church” (quoted by John Paul II, Augustineum Hyponensem, Apostolic Letter, Aug. 28, 1986, www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html).
9. He believed that the true interpretation of Scripture was derived from the declaration of church councils (Augustine, De Vera Religione, xxiv, p. 45).
10. He interpreted the early chapters of Genesis figuratively (Dave Hunt, “Calvin and Augustine: Two Jonahs Who Sink the Ship,” Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White, 2004, p. 230).
11. He taught that God has pre-ordained some for salvation and others for damnation and that the grace of God is irresistible for the true elect. By his own admission, John Calvin in the 16th century derived his TULIP theology on the “sovereignty of God” from Augustine. Calvin said: “If I were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily show my readers, that I need no words but his” (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, chap. 22).
12. He taught the heresy of apostolic succession from Peter (Hunt, ibid., p. 230).
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Chrysostom was a leader in Antioch, in the Greek part of the Catholic church of that day, and became “patriarch” of Constantinople in 398.
1. He believed in the “real presence” of the mass, that the bread literally becomes Jesus Christ.
2. He taught that church tradition can be equal in authority to the Scriptures.
Cyril (376-444)
Cyril was the “patriarch” of Alexandria and supported many of the errors that led to the formation of the Catholic Church.
1. He promoted the veneration of Mary and called her the Theotokos, or bearer of God.
2. In 412, Cyril instigated persecution against the Donatist Christians.
A WARNING OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH FATHERS TO LEAD TO ROME
Having seen some of the heresies that leavened the “church fathers,” it is not surprising that a non-critical study of their writings can lead to Rome. That is where they were all headed! And for the most part we have only looked at the more doctrinally sound “church fathers”!
In the late nineteenth century JOHN HENRY NEWMAN (1801-90) walked into the Roman Catholic Church through the door of the church fathers. Newman, an Anglican priest and one of the leaders of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, is one of the most famous of the Protestant converts to Rome. He said that two of the factors in his conversion were his fascination with the church fathers and his study of the lives of the “English saints,” referring to Catholic mystics such as Joan of Norwich. He converted to Rome in 1845 and was made a Cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879.
In more recent days many are following Newman’s lead.
SCOTT AND KIMBERLY HAHN, Presbyterians who joined the Roman Catholic Church, were influenced by the church fathers. In their influential autobiography, Rome Sweet Rome, Kimberly recalls how that Scott studied the “church fathers” when he was still a Presbyterian minister.
“Scott gained many insights from the early Church Fathers, some of which he shared in his sermons. This was rather unexpected for both of us, because we had hardly ever read the early Church Fathers when we were in seminary. In fact, in our senior year we had complained loudly to friends about possible creeping Romanism when a course was offered by an Anglican priest on the early Church Fathers. Yet here was Scott quoting them in sermons! One night Scott came out of his study and said, ‘Kimberly, I have to be honest. I don’t know how long we are going to be Presbyterians. We may become Episcopalians’” (Rome Sweet Rome, p. 56).
In fact, they became Roman Catholics, and the influence of the “church fathers” on that decision is obvious.
In 1985 THOMAS HOWARD became another famous Protestant convert to Rome. In his 1984 book Evangelical Is Not Enough Howard had called upon evangelicals to study the church fathers. Howard was a professor at Gordon College for 15 years and is from a family of prominent evangelicals. His father, Philip, was editor of the Sunday School Times; his brother David Howard was head of the World Evangelical Fellowship; and his sister Elizabeth married the famous missionary Jim Elliot, who was martyred by the Auca Indians in Ecuador.
The church fathers were also instrumental in the conversion of PETER KREEFT to Rome from the Dutch Reformed denomination. Kreeft, a very influential Catholic apologist, studied the church fathers as a student at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He writes:
“My adventurous half rejoiced when I discovered in the early Church such Catholic elements as the centrality of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, prayers to saints, devotion to Mary, an insistence on visible unity, and apostolic succession. Furthermore, THE CHURCH FATHERS JUST ‘SMELLED’ MORE CATHOLIC THAN PROTESTANT, especially St. Augustine, my personal favorite and a hero to most Protestants too. It seemed very obvious that if Augustine or Jerome or Ignatius of Antioch or Anthony of the Desert, or Justin Martyr, or Clement of Alexandria, or Athanasius were alive today they would be Catholics, not Protestants” (“Hauled Aboard the Ark,” http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm).
Kreeft is absolutely right. Many of the “church fathers” do smell more Catholic than Protestant!
The books Surprised by Truth edited by Patrick Madrid and The Road to Rome edited by Dwight Longenecker and Journeys Home edited by Marcus Grodi contain many examples of this phenomenon. One of the testimonies is by SHARON MANN, who says,
“I started reading the early Church Fathers and realized that whatever they believed, they surely were not Protestant. Catholic themes peppered the landscape of Church history. I couldn’t deny it...” (Journeys Home, 1997, p. 88).
This is true, of course. Catholic themes do pepper the landscape of the “church fathers.” What she should have understood is that they were not doctrinally sound and they have absolutely no authority. Whatever they were, they are not our examples and guides. She should have compared them to the infallible truth in the Bible and rejected them as heretics.
Instead, she allowed the “church fathers” to stir up her curiosity about Roman Catholicism and she ended up at a Mass. There she had a powerful emotional experience when the crowd knelt to idolatrously “adore” the blessed host as it passed by in its “monstrance.” She began weeping and her throat tightened and she couldn’t swallow. She said:
“If the Lord was truly passing by, then I wanted to adore and worship Him, but if He wasn’t, I was afraid to be idolatrous. That weekend left a very powerful imprint on my heart, and I found myself running out of good arguments to stay Protestant. My heart was longing to be Catholic and be restored to the unity with all Christendom” (Journeys Home, p. 89).
When she speaks of the Lord passing by, she is referring to the Catholic doctrine that the wafer or host of the Mass becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus when it is blessed by the priest and thereafter it is worshipped as Jesus Himself. Following the Mass the host is placed in a box called the tabernacle and Catholics pray to it. The host is the Catholic Jesus.
Roger Oakland describes an experience he had in Rome at the feast of Corpus Christi when Pope Benedict XVI worshipped at the Major Mary basilica:
“Finally, after almost three hours of standing and waiting, the pope and his entourage arrived. The pope was carrying the Eucharistic Jesus in a monstrance. Earlier that day during a mass at St. Peter’s, this Eucharistic Jesus had been created from a wafer that had been consecrated. Later in the say, the same Jesus was transported to St. John’s for another ceremony. Finally, for a finale, the pope transported Jesus to the Major Church of Mary. The pope took the monstrance, ascended the stairs of the church, and held Jesus up for the masses to see. Then this Jesus was placed on an altar temporarily erected at the top of the steps. A cardinal then opened the glass window of the monstrance, removed the consecrated wafer (Jesus), and hustled him inside the church where he placed Jesus in a tabernacle. This experience gave me a sobering reminder of this terrible apostasy” (Faith Undone, p. 126).
Mother Teresa exemplified this. She stated plainly that her Christ was the wafer of the Mass. Consider the following quotes from her speech to the Worldwide Retreat for Priests, October 1984, in Vatican City:
“I remember the time a few years back, when the president of Yeman asked us to send some of our sisters to his country. I told him that this was difficult because for so many years no chapel was allowed in Yemen for saying a public mass, and no one was allowed to function there publicly as a priest. I explained that I wanted to give them sisters, but the trouble was that, without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn’t go anywhere. It seems that the president of Yemen had some kind of a consultation, and the answer that came back to us was, ‘Yes, you can send a priest with the sisters!’ I was so struck with the thought that ONLY WHEN THE PRIEST IS THERE CAN WE HAVE OUR ALTAR AND OUR TABERNACLE AND OUR JESUS. ONLY THE PRIEST CAN PUT JESUS THERE FOR US” (Mother Teresa, cited in Be Holy: God’s First Call to Priests Today, edited by Tom Forrest, C.Ss.R., 1987, p. 109).
“One day she [a girl working in Calcutta] came, putting her arms around me, and saying, ‘I have found Jesus.’ ... ‘And just what were you doing when you found him?’ I asked. She answered that after 15 years she had finally gone to confession, and received Holy Communion from the hands of a priest. Her face was changed, and she was smiling. She was a different person because THAT PRIEST HAD GIVEN HER JESUS” (Mother Teresa, Be Holy, p. 74).
It is a great spiritual blindness to think that the Lord Jesus Christ can be worshipped legitimately in the form of a piece of bread!
A more recent convert to Rome is FRANCIS BECKWITH, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In May 2007 he tendered his resignation from this organization after converting to Rome. His journey to Rome was sparked by reading the church fathers. He said, “In January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant...” (“Evangelical Theological Society President Converts,” The Berean Call, May 7, 2007).
Again, he is correct in observing that the church fathers were very Catholic-like, but that proves nothing. The truth is not found in the church fathers but in the Bible itself.
This is a loud warning to those who have an ear to hear the truth. We don’t need to study the “church fathers.” We need to make certain that we are born again and have the indwelling Spirit as our Teacher (1 John 2:27), then we need to study the Bible diligently and walk closely with Christ and become so thoroughly grounded in the truth that we will not be led astray by the wiles of the devil and by all of the fierce winds of error that are blowing in our day.
“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:14).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.
Sez who?
It's actually not bad, but it's not a dead cert. Yet the section you quote presents it as a "duh!" or as somehow self-evident.
I can see a certain, to me artificial, internal consistency: "If we assume Scripture to be this way, we will find it is indeed this way." But then the proposition itself is removed from debate and instead the entire "system" and the proposition's place in the system is what needs to be examines.
Anyway, it now seems that the suggestion that with or without his contemplating that later Christians would consider those very words to be "Scripture", by the term γραφη in the phrase πασα γραφη Paul is saying this is a characteristic (a definition?) of Scripture.
So his advice to Timothy comes down to, "We don't know what actual books are Scripture, but if we ever figure that out, and you run across one of 'em, you can bet it's real good." I'm finding the interpretation of diminishing persuasiveness.
But stipulate it. Of course, the next question in this ancient dance is: who gets to say what's Scripture and what ain't, and by what authority, AND is that determintation God-breathed?
So the fundamental dispute about the Spirit's activity in the Church is just kicked back a step, I'm guessing.
BTW, I read a little Koine Greek. I know the adjective πας.
And so we come full circle. You entered this conversation with me posing as someone who rejected modern compromises with Biblical criticism, and hear you parrot the whole line.
Evidently you refuse to understand my whole point. If you "allegorize" the "creation stories" then you must allegorize every event related by the Torah as a non-historical didactic parable, or else be a hypocrite. And that's just what you are.
The Bible tells us again and again that it is about the relationship between God and man. Darwinism denies the meaningfulness of that relation. A theory of evolution does not require this, only one that incorporates a mechanistic philosophy.
It does? Wow. Where does it say that?
Darwinism denies the meaningfulness of that relation. A theory of evolution does not require this, only one that incorporates a mechanistic philosophy.
That may be why you're against Darwinism, but it isn't why I'm against it. I'm against it because it denies the literal historical sense of the early chapters of Genesis. I'm equally against every other theory that does the same--even if it is "anti-Darwinist."
I hope you enjoyed that atheist maniac piercing a consecrated host with a nail last year, because Catholic hypocrisy invites it. If it doesn't matter whether or not the beginning of Genesis is literally true, then it certainly doesn't matter whether John 6 is literally true.
No wonder Ted Kennedy was a member in good standing of the Catholic Church. He was just a little ahead of the rest of you. But you'll catch up eventually.
The problem with transubstantiation is quite a bit more than a late date for the word, or even the concept - it is the Catholic Encyclopedia that says “Regarding tradition, the earliest witnesses, as Tertullian and Cyprian, could hardly have given any particular consideration to the genetic relation of the natural elements of bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ, or to the manner in which the former were converted into the latter; for even Augustine was deprived of a clear conception of Transubstantiation, so long as he was held in the bonds of Platonism.”
First, the idea that Jesus is continually being sacrificed in some sort of out of time experience is contrary to scripture. According to John 6, which Catholics apply to Eucharist, “54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Taken literally, then once the priest has done whatever it is he is supposed to do, and the wine and bread literally (substantially) become the flesh and blood of Jesus, then a non-believer who partakes “has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day”. Perhaps Teddy Kennedy is saved after all...
It also contradicts the one time nature of Christ’s sacrifice. “27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” - Hebrews 7
Notice, it doesn’t say he continually offers himself in sacrifice, but that “he did this once for all”.
“24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” - Hebrews 9
Again, once for all. Not one time that exists forever as an ongoing sacrifice, but once for all. As He said on the cross, “It is FINISHED!”
” 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” - Hebrews 10
Again, the writer COULD have said the sacrifice continues forever since God is outside time, but that is contrary to what the text reads.
“Had offered” - past tense. He then “sat down” - a subsequent act still in the past. “Waiting until his enemies” - future tense, which doesn’t make sense if God is outside time, and both Christ’s sacrifice and future victory are continuous events to God.
“by a single offering he has perfected for all time” - past tense. Has perfected. How long? “for all time”. The NIV translates it “has made perfect forever”.
When you have been born again, you have been (past tense) made (past tense) perfect (as good as it is possible to be) forever (ongoing with no end).
And why is all this true? Jesus said, “18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” - John 3
Whoever believes (’eats his flesh’ in John 6) IS NOT CONDEMNED. The one who does NOT believe “is condemned already”.
As a matter of sanctification, “9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
As a matter of justification, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned”, having been “perfected for all time”.
The real problem with the Catholic approach to the Eucharist (thanksgiving) isn’t transubstantiation, it is the belief that the one sacrifice is offered repeatedly...
“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”190”
You can say re-presents, but the Catechism says, “the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner”. Christ is offered again, only in an unbloody manner.
There are words the writers of scripture could have used to convey what the Catholic Church teaches...but they did not. Instead, they made it extremely clear “once of all”! And we are justified forever. Truly, “It is finished!”
I didn't equate anything. You're creating strawmen and then having a ball knocking them down.
“So his advice to Timothy comes down to, “We don’t know what actual books are Scripture, but if we ever figure that out, and you run across one of ‘em, you can bet it’s real good.”
No, that is not what he wrote. ALL (every, the whole thing) scripture is God-breathed. The Pentateuch is God-breathed. The Psalms. The Prophets. By the time 2 Timothy was written, at least a couple of the Gospels, and probably some of Paul’s Epistles were already accepted as scripture.
As for the extent of the canon, feel free to review and participate on this thread:
How We Got the New Testament - 2 1/2 Views (LONG!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts
It includes a pretty good summation of the Protestant approach to the canon (and Orthodox, and Catholic).
Well, the Church fathers allegorized the Creation stories, but they did not deny they are history. Which brings me to the point that in the 18th century, history took on a new meaning. The, the Bible, the gospels are history but not as von Ranke understood history. The quest for the historical Jesus fails because they are trying to force the information the New Testament gives into the forms developed by modern historians. Even so, I do not see how the gospels are any less reliable than, say, Bill Herndon’s “Life of Lincoln.” which depended so much on eyewitnesses for Lincoln’s early life. Now as far as Genesis is concerned, so much of this is, in form, prologue to the story of Abraham, which is the real beginning of the story. I see many ellipses,the Creation stories being not allegories but sketches. The Bible as a history of the world narrowing eventually to the history of a people and finally of a widening as the Church begins to grow. No, I will take that back a bit. The Catholic Bible brings to story almost up to the time of Jesus. When the people begin to return from the exile, only some return. The exile has dispersed the people of Israel, and when in good time, our Lord comes, he sends his Church into the world,, following paths laid down by the Jews, to preach the Gospel. It is history, as much as-no, more than anything by Wells,
Your equating a legal prescription (the stoning of homosexuals) with a statement of historical fact (the universe was created in six days, Adam died at the age of 930), is most unfortunate.
I didn't equate anything. You're creating strawmen and then having a ball knocking them down.
You most certainly did. You likened the details in the Bible's account of creation to the stoning of homosexuals and even accused it of saying that bats are birds. You are the one knocking down straw men, not I.
I am very bitter right now. I have just learned that Catholic "anti-Darwinists" posit no more historical truth to Genesis than Catholic evolutionists. No wonder Catholics have never been any use--even when they attack Darwin, they still believe the Bible is mythology!
No wonder Ted Kennedy got such a huge Catholic funeral.
BTW - I do not. I studied French for 2 years, German for 4, lived in the Philippines for 4 (and married a Filipina) and lived in Korea a year - and if God required me to learn languages to save my soul, I'd be lost for certain. Nein is about my limit.
I sometimes use Strong's and a lexicon for insight, but prefer to find passages written by genuine scholars. From what I've read, Greek has many layers of meaning that aren't obvious to a word/word approach - one needs to thoroughly understand the grammar as well.
So you're saying that the events related in the gospels didn't necessarily happen either? You're consistent, got to give you that. Makes me wonder why you criticized modern Biblical scholarship in your first post to me though, since you seem to swallow it whole cloth.
Now as far as Genesis is concerned, so much of this is, in form, prologue to the story of Abraham, which is the real beginning of the story. I see many ellipses,the Creation stories being not allegories but sketches. The Bible as a history of the world narrowing eventually to the history of a people and finally of a widening as the Church begins to grow. No, I will take that back a bit. The Catholic Bible brings to story almost up to the time of Jesus. When the people begin to return from the exile, only some return. The exile has dispersed the people of Israel, and when in good time, our Lord comes, he sends his Church into the world,, following paths laid down by the Jews, to preach the Gospel. It is history, as much as-no, more than anything by Wells,
Now you're confusing me. The fact that the contents of the Torah are sketches (which they are) doesn't negate in the slightest that those sketches are literally true. Why you think that they do so is beyond me, other than that the Catholic Church since the Reformation has developed an animus against the Bible as a "Protestant" book.
Tell you what. Let me know when you're as literal as Robert Bellarmine. Till then, good night.
Well, if not about the relationship between man and God, what is it? It is a record of sin and redemption.God creates man in his own image. Man strays and soils that image, and suffers. God leave the Garden, gos into the desert to fetch him and pays the supreme price,cleansing man with blood and water.
And you seem to misrepresent the contents of the Torah. The part that deals with events before Abraham is very episodic and often is hardly more than a list of names. When we get to Abraham, all of a sudden the narrative becomes very focused. As to thinking like the good Cardinal, I am afraid I have the advantage of him. Like Pascal, I know more than this great scholar did about the Cosmos.
So? How does that de-historicize what little information is recorded there? What makes you think that the people listed could not have been real and could not have lived exactly the life-spans assigned to them?
As to thinking like the good Cardinal, I am afraid I have the advantage of him. Like Pascal, I know more than this great scholar did about the Cosmos.
You have just confirmed that your initial post to me on this thread was totally dishonest, as you represented yourself as one who rejects this type of thinking.
Since "we now know" that the universe "could not have" been created in six days 5770 years ago, I hope you have also rejected the virgin birth, the resurrection, the real presence, and all that other supernatural nonsense that simply couldn't have happened. The fact that the church fathers believed in them is of no consequence, as the great "gxd" science has the right to sit in judgment on all alleged supernatural phenomena.
Good night and good riddance.
Evidently you cannot find a single place where the Bible "over and over and over" claims to be about "the relationship between man and G-d."
You have not the slightest idea of what the Torah is and never will.
Since Zionist Conspirator has centered on the inerrancy of Scripture – to which I hold – I offer here my own testimony:
The Scriptures are the inerrant words of God. Period. But the words of God must be Spiritually discerned.
I see no conflict at all in the revelations of God the Father in (a) Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, (b) the indwelling Holy Spirit (c) Scriptures and (d) Creation, both spiritual and physical.
In sum, I aver that seven equivalent earth days from the inception space/time coordinates (big bang) is equal to roughly fifteen billion years from our space/time coordinates on earth. For more on this point, Scriptures vis-à-vis Inflationary Theory and Relativity see Age of the Universe by Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder.
IMHO, at the root of the theological differences over Creation Week we often find Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48 - one side saying that Adam was the first mortal man (YEC) and the other saying that Adam was the first ensouled man (OEC.)
But I also have no “dog” in that dispute because I see Adam as created in the spiritual realm, the first man to become a “living soul” (Genesis 2) and I do not see him becoming earth bound until he was banished to mortality at the end of Genesis 3.
In other words, I assert that the first three chapters of Scripture deal with the creation not only of the physical realm but the spiritual as well (emphasis mine:)
These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. – Genesis 2:4-5
God created the plants and herbs before they were in the earth (Gen 2:4-5)
The intersection or “types” in the physical realm and spiritual realm: Temple, Ark, Tabernacle, Eden/Paradise.
My understanding of the time appointed to Adamic men is very similar to the Jewish understanding and that of the early Christians - namely, that Adamic man (after he was banished to mortality in Genesis 3) - is appointed 7,000 years (corresponding to Creation week) the last 1,000 years being the Sabbath reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20.)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Pet 3:8
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. – Genesis 5:5
It was also the early Christian understanding. This, from the Epistle of Barnabas 15:3-5:
Returning to Scripture and evolution, God specifically mentions things He specially created – and He also leaves the door open to evolution theory here:
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is appealing to me and credible on the face. It simply states that “certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.” And because animals are known to choose their mates, it is obvious that “certain features” are best explained by those choices.
I find most of the ID disputes to be theological, ideological or political – rarely on the merits on the hypothesis which I consider to be more of an observation.
My main dispute with evolution theory is the improper use of the word and concept of “random” when the correct word and concept is “unpredictable.” Stochastic methods apply to either. But a person cannot say something is random in the system when he does not know what the system “is” – and science does not know – and can never know – the full dimensionality of space/time.
So the use of the word “random” overstates what is known and knowable by the scientific method.
I do however have a very strong objection to those scientists like Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin who misappropriate the theory of evolution to proliferate anti-Christ and anti-God sentiment under the color of science.
The Christian or Jew looks at the depth and height of the physical creation – and sees a revelation of the Creator whereas others see a different context (e.g. Buddhism) or no context at all (atheism/agnosticism.)
Nevertheless, no matter what a Christian may see when he looks at Scriptures and the physical Creation, the bottom line is: to God be the glory!
Man is not the measure of God.
I am neither an Old Earth Creationist nor a Young Earth Creationist. Nor do I lean to the Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that the universe only looks old, it could have been created last Thursday.
I'm sorry, but I have no patience for such an argument. What does "looks old" mean? When Adam was created with an adult body did he "look old?" When a fully formed universe was created 5770 years ago did it "look old?" It could not, because there was nothing "old" for anything to look like! Things only began "looking old" once the universe had been in existence long enough for things to age. Furthermore, the remark about "last thrsday" is completely uncalled for. It assumes the existence of "false memories," which is something anti-literalists have created whole cloth out of their imaginations in order to insist that Adam could not have been created as an adult (because he would allegedly have "remembered being a child").
The main thrust of your argument (that nothing matters except J*sus) is the cause of the whole problem, and it is why chr*stianity is a collapsing house of cards. But don't worry . . . the real Messiah will be here soon!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You have not the slightest idea
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I don't have to "read" anyone's mind to know that no chr*stian has the slightest idea what the Torah is and never will so long as they remain chr*stian.
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.