|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 10, 2008 13:07:28 GMT -5
Why aren't you allowed to study The Church Fathers?
If God trusted them to reveal The Word of God to the world (The Holy Bible), why can't you trust them or why are you not allowed to trust them or even study them?
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 10, 2008 17:23:28 GMT -5
Why aren't you allowed to study The Church Fathers? If God trusted them to reveal The Word of God to the world (The Holy Bible), why can't you trust them or why are you not allowed to trust them or even study them? I don't think most protestants are even aware that there were Church Fathers. I didn't know. I don't ever remember hearing about them in the Methodist church. I heard about John Wesley and Martin Luther but not the ECFS. That's for sure! Not until I was on the Catholic Answers forum. The main focus in protestant churches is on Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 10, 2008 18:36:39 GMT -5
The main focus of a Catholic Mass, is Jesus. We just think outside the box and except historys truth and what it holds instead of ignoring it.  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 10, 2008 20:48:10 GMT -5
We're allowed to study whatever we want...at least I'm allowed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 10, 2008 21:12:57 GMT -5
Why aren't you allowed to study The Church Fathers? If God trusted them to reveal The Word of God to the world (The Holy Bible), why can't you trust them or why are you not allowed to trust them or even study them? I don't think most protestants are even aware that there were Church Fathers. I didn't know. I don't ever remember hearing about them in the Methodist church. I heard about John Wesley and Martin Luther but not the ECFS. That's for sure! Not until I was on the Catholic Answers forum. The main focus in protestant churches is on Jesus. The main focus up until a point. It's like they focus so hard on Jesus that they don't see the forest for the trees. They totally ignore that He commissioned men to teach us and that these men passed on the authority that Jesus passed on to them. For them, it's like we're only supposed to listen to Jesus and Paul and Peter is obsolete (even though Paul never walked with Jesus one day in his life). So the men who actually walked with Jesus are not worthy of following, but a man who doesn't appear in scripture until after the Gospels is? Clear case of picking and choosing instead of just eating the whole buffet. If one really "did" follow Jesus completely, then they wouldn't ignore that Jesus gave The Apostles the authority to run His Church and that what they bind and loose on earth is bound and loosed in heaven literally. The Church Fathers are the students of The Apostles themselves. Who would know better what Jesus taught than The Apostles? No one. And they passed on this knowledge to The Fathers and The Fathers passed this on to us and so on and so on and so on for 2,000 years. For some there seems to be this period between 70 AD and 1535 AD that doesn't count in Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 10, 2008 21:23:21 GMT -5
We're allowed to study whatever we want...at least I'm allowed to. Do you want to learn about The Church Fathers? And doesn't your church teach that only the Bible is to be used to study and "not" other sources like historical Christian documents? |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 11, 2008 9:38:00 GMT -5
We're allowed to study whatever we want...at least I'm allowed to. Do you want to learn about The Church Fathers? And doesn't your church teach that only the Bible is to be used to study and "not" other sources like historical Christian documents? For me the Bible is the final authority. I have read some of the ECFS. The problem with the ECFS is that they contradict almost everything that is taught in the Bible. I know you guys make a convincing argument for Catholicism using them but that is because you guys add to scripture. The Jehovah witnesses do the same thing and they are equally convincing. I think I read somewhere that there are over one million writings by the ECFS. You can't tell me that all of their writings agree with each other. For example... If you check them out only a minority of them believed that Peter was pope. The Orthodox can find just as many ECFS to back up their claim that they are the real church. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 11, 2008 9:59:29 GMT -5
I don't think most protestants are even aware that there were Church Fathers. I didn't know. I don't ever remember hearing about them in the Methodist church. I heard about John Wesley and Martin Luther but not the ECFS. That's for sure! Not until I was on the Catholic Answers forum. The main focus in protestant churches is on Jesus. Not for me! This comment really shocks me! I gotta tell you that the salvation message is very clear in the Bible. You will find out from my posts that I'm not that intellectual or smart but the salvation message is so simple that even someone like myself was able to understand it. Do I understand the entire Bible on my own...Nope! It would be nice if I did but when it comes down to the nitty gritty the goal for every Christian is to conform oneself into the image of Jesus so what else do we really need? In all honesty I really don't care. There is enough in the Bible to show me how I should live. The "Word of God" is what I choose not imperfect men. I feel as a believer I also have the right to bind and loose. |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 12:30:34 GMT -5
I don't think most protestants are even aware that there were Church Fathers. I didn't know. I don't ever remember hearing about them in the Methodist church. I heard about John Wesley and Martin Luther but not the ECFS. That's for sure! Not until I was on the Catholic Answers forum. The main focus in protestant churches is on Jesus. I agree with all you say (though I was never in a Methodist church, lol) except that Protestants focus more on the Bible than Jesus (sure, I'll accept if you refute me by saying that Jesus is the Word of God, and the Bible is the Word of God..  ). They indeed focus much in Jesus, but many times they talk more about the Bible than Jesus, or try to "prove" the Catholic Church wrong from the Bible, etc. But don't worry, in the Catholic Church, unless you've done your homework and done your apologetics, you don't hear much of the Church Fathers (Fact is that we do hear about them, we just don't pay attention and fail to see their importance) |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 12:45:28 GMT -5
For me the Bible is the final authority. I have read some of the ECFS. The problem with the ECFS is that they contradict almost everything that is taught in the Bible. I know you guys make a convincing argument for Catholicism using them but that is because you guys add to scripture. The Jehovah witnesses do the same thing and they are equally convincing. I think I read somewhere that there are over one million writings by the ECFS. You can't tell me that all of their writings agree with each other. For example... If you check them out only a minority of them believed that Peter was pope. The Orthodox can find just as many ECFS to back up their claim that they are the real church. You make good points, but also fail to go further in some: 1. The Bible cannot be our only authority unless it points to itself. It would be contradictory for me to say that I can only use a PC and not a Mac because my PC tells me so - when my PC never tells me not to use a Mac! 2. The Bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the Truth. We look the earliest traces of the Church through the Book of Acts and the other letters in the NT. But that's not enough, we look at the early Church and trace where it leads. 3. Granted, point #2 can be used to point to the Roman Catholic Church, to the Eastern Orthodox Church, even Anglicanism and Lutheranism (newers and modern Protestant churches may claim apostolicity, but they cannot be traced back to the Apostles) 4. Yes, Catholicism makes much more sense when viewed in light of the Church Fathers, but Protestantism looks very different. The question is not whether the Church Fathers were wrong, but if Protestantism is wrong, then where is the truth? 5. The Church Fathers do not contradict Scripture, as Tradition cannot contradict Scripture. If there are conflicts, one must only remember that there are apparent contradictions within the Bible itself (just ask any atheist). 6. The Church Fathers came way before the NT canon was settled, thus the Holy Spirit indeed use the Church (and not the Bible) as the pillar and foundation of the Truth (cf. 1 tim 3:15) 7. Yes, just as the Reformers contradicted themselves (even though they all claimed to be going by the Bible-alone: yet another proof of the fallacy of Sola Scriptura), the Church Fathers now and then had opposing views. However, through Councils and time the orthodox (not EOC) faith prevails. 8. The Church never takes everything every Church Father says as truth. We put it in line with Scriptures (or we see Scriptures through them and test them through Scriptures), but most of all, we have the living Magisterium, which the Holy Spirit uses to guide Christ's Church. 9. The EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) do use the Church Fathers to seemingly disprove the Papacy. In fact, even Protestant church historians do accept that the early Church was mostly under the authority of the Pope (Bishop of Rome), perhaps not as today (which is one of their basis to reject the Papacy). However, many Church Fathers did follow the authority of the Bishop of Rome and of the Church of Rome, while few were dissenters or have apparent diagreements. Yet notice that most of the time, if not all, the Church Fathers are silent in condaming the authority of Rome. 10. The EOC is Apostolic, nonetheless, so either we are right and they are wrong, or we are wrong and we are right. There is no way Protestantism can be true: not even Anglicanism or Lutheranism or other orthodox form of Protestantism. 11. Last point, I hope!!! Sorry! LOL. The Jehovah's Witness also go "by the Bible-alone", or at least they reject the Church Fathers and any other form of Tradition... It is exactly because of this that they also reject the divinity of Christ (which is based on the Arian heresy) and the Trinity. They cannot look at the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and say "yes, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is worshipped equally: Trinity!" Their idea and form of Sola Scriptura limits them greatly. Ok, sorry this turned out to be so long! Pax Christi, Juan J. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 14:13:20 GMT -5
You mean this as "individuals" right? Not as finalized doctrine? Right? Of course, because at that time the doctrines of Christianity were still being revealed by God to them and they were in the midst of discussing them and debating them, they didn't all agree with what is finally revealed by The Church as doctrine. No one man is responsible to create or reveal the doctrines, but collectively, forming the magistarium (ala' Apostolic Councils), they (being led by The Holy Spirit) come the the conclusions that go on to be authorized as doctrine. If one is to take the teaching of one CF that disagrees with Christianity, then disregard the decisions he made that were led by The Holy Spirit, then it is The Holy Spirit that one is calling wrong. The decisions the man makes outside of The Holy Spirit's guidance can be called in question, but not those made under it's guidance. Of course, it "that" was the standard of trust, then Martin Luther. Urlich Zwingli & John Calvin (Protestantism's church fathers) couldn't be trusted. They disagreed with each other and with Christians today so much so that they went to war with each other. Martin Luther even tried to have his once friend Zwingli burned at the stake. Perhaps you should offer this false accusation in The Holy Bible thread, but I suggest you read it first...it will save you the embarressment when the facts are made known and you just might repent of that slanderous accusation you just made (that God was wrong in the 4th century when He chose The Church to reveal the canon of The Scriptures). And if we were wrong, why did you take our New Testament and leave it intact? But hey, that's for the Holy Bible thread. There, you can tell us God would give us the wisdom and guidance to correctly reveal the NT, but leave us faulty in revealing the OT. ;D You mean like Luther, Calvin & Zwingli don't agree with each other?  Actually, The Orthodox consider themselves not just to be the real Church, but to be the original Catholics (though they removed the name Catholic from their Church and inserted "Orthodox" into it...a title the CF's never used...they only called it The Catholic Church, never The Othodox Church). The Orthodox Church broke away "from" us, not the other way around. Even they admit this. In fact, they'll go as far as to say that we kicked them out. One of the reasons they used is that they didn't want to follow a "pope". So what'd they do? They ended up fighting amongst themselves to the point that they broke up into 9 seperate sub-groups who are still fighting amongst themselves. They didn't want to follow one "pope".Know how many "popes" they have now? 9. Reminds me what Martin Luther said (roughly quoted): "In an effort to rid myself of 1 Pope, I now have to deal with a hundred new popes!" But at least the Orthodox have rightful claim to being an Apostolic Church as they were founded by The Apostle Saint Andrew (Saint Peter's "little" brother) and we respect and honor that. As for only the minority believing that Jesus chose Peter to lead The Church in John 21, since when has the minority ever ruled? That belief had to be voted on (under the guidance of The Holy Spirit) and had to be ratified by the overwhelming majority (not the minority). Who told you that it was only a minority of them that believed in Peter being chosen by Jesus to "tend" His sheep? Could you cite a referance? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 11, 2008 14:18:31 GMT -5
Cepha- not really...but I am allowed to study whatever I want, I just have to hold everything anyone says up to Scripture. I do that by choice too....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 14:27:42 GMT -5
It's true. They talk so much about Jesus The Son, but very little about God The Father. They focus on the vessel to God and the trip, while almost ignoring the destination. Salvation is "just" 1 of the things we need to know about in The Bible. It is not all we need to know. To focus on just that is being selfish; a person is just thinking about how it benefits them. I guess you miss that part "in the Bible" where Jesus said that whoever rejects The Apostles and their teachings, reject Him and God too. Right? You should care. You shouldn't reject Jesus and God. I guess Jesus was wrong then for choosing imperfect men to use to spread The Gospel and to create The Bible then (according to you) right? To each his/her own. But that's not a Biblical belief. Jesus only gave this authority to The Apostles (not to any common person. Unless you can provide me a scripture to prove me wrong of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 14:29:03 GMT -5
Yes, they should know what Martin Luther and Calvin believed! I agree! (I love dropping this on Protestants!) ______________________________________________________________ When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith. Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of GodThroughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1 Perpetual VirginityAgain throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2 The Immaculate ConceptionYet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning: "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3 AssumptionAlthough he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4
Honor to MaryDespite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days. "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5 "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin". "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7 "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives. "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9 "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10 Ulrich Zwingli:"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11 "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13 "Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14 "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15 "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16 We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith. Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This "cover-up" can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that "Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers' almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner". He then asks if it is "a favourable providence" that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being "transmitted to the Protestant churches"!17 www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.html |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 14:30:49 GMT -5
Oh, I see. So you don't care about the men Jesus Himself chose to preach His Word, but you accept the "imperfect" men at "your" church to preach His Word? Or is it that God's chosen aren't good enough for you, but Alfie's chosen are? Ok. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 14:32:46 GMT -5
Great point IMA...it is The Church that is that which upholds The Truth...not The Bible.
The Bible is just a book that can be tampered with by men because it is mere printing on paper.
But traditions are living. And we are to hold fast to the traditions of The Church (as The Bible teaches us).
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 11, 2008 15:04:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 15:07:04 GMT -5
Excellent points, Cephas!
It is very true, the Church was referred to as Catholic, and the faith was referred to as both Catholic and orthodox... Orthodox meaning the true faith.
I do believe and hold to our late Pope's words that the Eastern Churches are the left lung of Christ's body.
I guess now that he meant the Eastern Rite, not so much the Eastern Orthodox Church... But I'm not sure.
Nonetheless, there is nothing wrong with the Eastern Rites, as they have their own liturgy and ancestry, but yet hold on to Rome.
I hope and know that this will one day occur with all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, which, as you say (another excellent point I hadn't noticed), each have their own "pope", though they deny it.
Pax Christi.
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 11, 2008 15:09:17 GMT -5
Before the NT canon was settled, the Bible was just random manuscripts, and even before this, it was merely oral traditions! ;) |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 11, 2008 15:45:11 GMT -5
Juan- It is still the Word of God...
|
|
).
