Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

[Albion]

My thoughts exactly. Those in the second century and beyond are not "fathers" of the body of Christ. The father is Christ, and His siblings were the apostles. Those who did not personally experience Christ's ministry cannot be labeled a "church father" because they did not know Christ personally in the flesh. You may refer those in the fifth century who began the Catholic movement as fathers of that church, but they are not my father as a Southern Baptist. In that sense, the roots of the Baptist doctrine are actually closer to Christ than the Catholic Church, as the tenets of my faith are salvation by grace alone, believers' baptism as testimony of the inner change, and the Lord's Supper in which we remember the Lord Jesus' sacrifice and look forward to His return. These were the basic tenets taught by the apostles, but I would not dream of being so arrogant as to claim any of the apostles founded the Baptist movement. Yes, our denomination is younger than the Catholic church by some 1,000 years, but that does not make us a "derivative" of the Catholic Church. It makes us fellow believers with the Catholics, and that's all it does.

I appreciate all of what you've said, but my point is simply that as with any witness to history the closeness to the event matters. Someone in position to know, and who lived in, say, AD50, would have some importance, depending on other conditions. BUT when we come to those so-called Church Fathers who lived 400 years after Christ, and are often cited as authorities on the first churches, we are talking about people whose testimony is about what the church of their own times thought was the case with the original church. IOW, nothing very trustworthy.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, you see, there's a difference between the Apostolic Fathers (Fathers of the Church), and the Early Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers were sometimes wrong, and are not held in the same esteem as the Apostolic Fathers. When we 'listen to' the ECFs, we usually have many more than one source regarding a certain doctrine. There are some who fell into heresy, some of them who came back to see their errors, some who died as heretics. But when they mostly agree or are in harmony, there's where the strength of their arguments stand.

 

[Abrahamist]

I think the ECF understood some stuff better and others not as well. I didn't vote because there was no option for this.

 

[Nephi]

Let's replace all Christian references with Islam. Do you (anyone) believe that the followers, companions, and early successors understood Muhammad and his teachings better than modern Muslims (regardless of being fundamentalists or liberals)? I assert that anyone looking at it objectively would say yes. Christianity is no different.

 

[Albion]

Let's replace all Christian references with Islam. Do you (anyone) believe that the followers, companions, and early successors understood Muhammad and his teachings better than modern Muslims (regardless of being fundamentalists or liberals)? I assert that anyone looking at it objectively would say yes. Christianity is no different.

My inclination is to say "no." While those who are closer to the actual events are in a position to know better than those who are removed by generations or centuries from them, you have also to take into account the fact that seventh century (for example) commentators had much less ability to examine the facts accurately than later persons have. Even now, we are learning important details that might explain the sinking of the steamship Titanic--details that were not available to analysts even a half-century ago.

And one more problem that is rarely admitted to...even if your thinking is right, it applies only to those who really are primary or at least secondary witnesses.

Those so-called "Early Church Fathers" who lived in the 200s, 300s, or even 400s AD are NOT "Early!" They are as much witnesses of the early church as I am a witness of the framing of the US Constitution by the Founding Fathers.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

My inclination is to say "no." While those who are closer to the actual events are in a position to know better than those who are removed by generations or centuries from them, you have also to take into account the fact that seventh century (for example) commentators had much less ability to examine the facts accurately than later persons have. Even now, we are learning important details that might explain the sinking of the steamship Titanic--details that were not available to analysts even a half-century ago.

True, but the earliest generations of Muslim scholars probably would give us a better glance into what early Islam was like than modern scholars. We don't necessarily trust what the early Church fathers had to say about issues that we might have a clearer window into than they did (for example, we might disagree with a patristic writer on technical aspects of Biblical authorship or on who founded the Churches of India if given reason to), but they do offer us a good view of what the Church was like when they lived.

In the context of Islam, early scholars could probably give a closer view of what Muhammad actually believed, and in the context of Christianity, early writers would be closer to the teachings of the Apostles (and therefore Jesus) than modern writers.

 

[Albion]

True, but the earliest generations of Muslim scholars probably would give us a better glance into what early Islam was like than modern scholars.

I'm not sure that that's so..

We don't necessarily trust what the early Church fathers had to say about issues that we might have a clearer window into than they did (for example, we might disagree with a patristic writer on technical aspects of Biblical authorship or on who founded the Churches of India if given reason to), but they do offer us a good view of what the Church was like when they lived.

If what I noted before is taken into account, of course I place value on what eyewitnesses have to report. Is that superior to what later researchers have discovered? It's not an easy call. I'm happy to say that the truth does not lie with one or the other exclusively, as many who greatly exaggerate the importance of the ECFs do.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I'm not sure that that's so..


If what I noted before is taken into account, of course I place value on what eyewitnesses have to report. Is that superior to what later researchers have discovered? It's not an easy call. I'm happy to say that the truth does not lie with one or the other exclusively, as many who greatly exaggerate the importance of the ECFs do.

Yep. It's important to combine and synthesize information we gain from contemporary sources and information that we can gain through later research. Primary sources are always valuable, though, especially when you're trying to find out about beliefs that may not have left more tangible evidence.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think the ECF understood some stuff better and others not as well. I didn't vote because there was no option for this.

Thanks for responding tho.
Just more of a fact finding thread anyway

....

 

[brinny]

I don't see any reason to assume that they did.

Read their writings, by all means, but test them against Scripture...as with all teachings.

I agree.

 

[Albion]

Yep. It's important to combine and synthesize information we gain from contemporary sources and information that we can gain through later research. Primary sources are always valuable, though, especially when you're trying to find out about beliefs that may not have left more tangible evidence.

As a matter of research methodology, I agree. However, the problem with the fawning reliance upon the ECFs which many people exhibit is that they mistake several important considerations.

For one, only those who actually were there and saw what the Apostles did and said can be considered primary. The Tertulians, Origins, Augustines, etc. are NOT primary witnesses.

For another, these folks often mistake a witness speaking to what the church was like in his own day for testimony about what the church was like originally.

In both cases, the testimony is probably less meaningful than the research that modern authorities offer.

 

[Root of Jesse]

As a matter of research methodology, I agree. However, the problem with the fawning reliance upon the ECFs which many people exhibit is that they mistake several important considerations.

For one, only those who actually were there and saw what the Apostles did and said can be considered primary. The Tertulians, Origins, Augustines, etc. are NOT primary witnesses.

For another, these folks often mistake a witness speaking to what the church was like in his own day for testimony about what the church was like originally.

In both cases, the testimony is probably less meaningful than the research that modern authorities offer.

This is why many of us make a distinction between the Apostolic Fathers, and the Early Church Fathers...

 

[sunlover1]

As a matter of research methodology, I agree. However, the problem with the fawning reliance upon the ECFs which many people exhibit is that they mistake several important considerations.

For one, only those who actually were there and saw what the Apostles did and said can be considered primary. The Tertulians, Origins, Augustines, etc. are NOT primary witnesses.

For another, these folks often mistake a witness speaking to what the church was like in his own day for testimony about what the church was like originally.

In both cases, the testimony is probably less meaningful than the research that modern authorities offer.

Glad to see you've returned!
Amen, well said.
The only thing I wanted to add was that Jesus built His church on revelation (I know many will disagree with that and contend that Jesus built his church on a young man named Peter) and since just as God revealed the true identity of the Son of Man to the disciples... God will, has and does reveal to men of God still to this day as they SEEK Him , and that with all of their heart..
IMO.
So iow, you can be walking down the road with Him and not see Him, you can be standing listening to Him and not hear Him...
He did not reveal everything to everyone and God does not change.
Peace out.

This is why many of us make a distinction between the Apostolic Fathers, and the Early Church Fathers...

Good plan !

 

[Albion]

Glad to see you've returned!

Hiya, Sunlover! Thank you.

 

[brinny]

Lest we forget, the Holy Spirit knows the scriptures best, amen?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The early church fathers knew Koine Greek as their native language so that gave them a head start for understanding what the new testament means and they also shared the same basic culture as the apostles, with the exception of not normally being brought up as Jews with all that implies. On the whole their opinions about Christian teaching and the meaning of the scriptures of the new testament are remarkably informative.

Count this as a thread resurrection inspired by LittleLambofJesus

God bless.

 

[Albion]

One solid reason for not substituting the writings of the Early Church Fathers for the Word of God is simply this--

Most of the ECFs we are supposed to believe implicitly are not in any way "early.' Some, in fact, lived almost as long after Christ as we are removed today from the Protestant Reformation, yet they are treated by their devotees as if they were "eyewitnesses" to things Apostolic.

In most cases, there is no known continuity between the opinions of one ECF and the others, yet "Tradition" is supposed to be convincing because of some alleged continuity through time since the founding of the church.

There is no agreement among the "Tradition" churches as to who is an ECF and who is not. There are some ECFs held in common by them all, of course, but in many cases there are different lists.

While the ECFs are supposed to be authoritative as a group, they often disagreed--vehemently--with each other. Consequently, the church hierarchy simply chooses the POV it prefers.

Some of the ECFs changed their minds on some of the issues they are known for, and some of their views are defined heresies.

 

[brinny]

One solid reason for not substituting the writings of the Early Church Fathers for the Word of God is simply this--

Most of the ECFs we are supposed to believe implicitly are not in any way "early.' Some, in fact, lived almost as long after Christ as we are removed today from the Protestant Reformation, yet they are treated by their devotees as if they were "eyewitnesses" to things Apostolic.

In most cases, there is no known continuity between the opinions of one ECF and the others, yet "Tradition" is supposed to be convincing because of some alleged continuity through time since the founding of the church.

There is no agreement among the "Tradition" churches as to who is an ECF and who is not. There are some ECFs held in common by them all, of course, but in many cases there are different lists.

While the ECFs are supposed to be authoritative as a group, they often disagreed--vehemently--with each other. Consequently, the church hierarchy simply chooses the POV it prefers.

Some of the ECFs changed their minds on some of the issues they are known for, and some of their views are defined heresies.

pardon my ignorance, but who or what is the ECF's?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Albion]

pardon my ignorance, but who or what is the ECF's?

Thank you kindly.

Early Church Fathers (See the first line in my post). The shortened form--ECF--is often used.

These are a scattering of admired Christian writers, clergy, and declared saints who lived during the first 500 years AD. In Catholic theology, their opinions define a second (after Holy Scripture) steam or source of divine revelation. Many of the doctrines that are unique to the Roman Catholic Church and which have no basis in Scripture come from the writings of these ECFs.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The early church fathers knew Koine Greek as their native language so that gave them a head start for understanding what the new testament means and they also shared the same basic culture as the apostles, with the exception of not normally being brought up as Jews with all that implies. On the whole their opinions about Christian teaching and the meaning of the scriptures of the new testament are remarkably informative.

Count this as a thread resurrection inspired by LittleLambofJesus

God bless.

Whiner!