-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many different Anabaptist sects under one heading
- Thread starter ZiSunka
- Start date
- Status
menno said:Ah, are you thinking along the lines of the "Tradition" a la RCC regarding early church writings being authoritative?
Yup.
So many people think that the "early church fathers" (the only ones we know anything about are the ones who published written works--there may have been others who either never published their take on doctrine or whose works perished sometime during the last 2000 years) speak with the same authority as the Lord, but there's no basis for that.
The only writings we have would seem to indicate that most early Christians believed that the bread and wine become flesh and blood, yet we know there are Christian sects that can be traced back to the early days that never had that doctrine.
The only writings that survived are the western, largely European writers connected to the catholic church. We can thus only know what the catholic take on things was.
Upvote
0
MrJim
Legend 3/17/05
- Mar 17, 2005
- 16,491
- 1,369
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is there any validity then in those works? Are you suggesting maybe there was a "conspiracy" that destroyed other early works?
David Bercot at www.scrollpublishing.com uses all kinds of early church writings as a basis of teaching and he's a baptist-turned anabaptist-turned anglican-returned to anabaptist (plain) guy.
David Bercot at www.scrollpublishing.com uses all kinds of early church writings as a basis of teaching and he's a baptist-turned anabaptist-turned anglican-returned to anabaptist (plain) guy.
Upvote
0
I'm just saying that we take the few men whose writings have survived and make them out to be special, having special insight into the mind of Christ, when in reality, no such specialness can be inferred simply from the fact that their writings survived.
Even the argument that God preserved the good writings and all the writings that weren't preserved were bad, doesn't really wash. If God only allows the correct doctrine to survive, why do we have gnostic and essene writings from those times? Certainly their doctrine is utterly wrong, yet copies of the gnositc writings exist from the 1st century.
I just am questioning by what authority do these writings claim to be insight into the mind of Christ or even the early church?
Even the argument that God preserved the good writings and all the writings that weren't preserved were bad, doesn't really wash. If God only allows the correct doctrine to survive, why do we have gnostic and essene writings from those times? Certainly their doctrine is utterly wrong, yet copies of the gnositc writings exist from the 1st century.
I just am questioning by what authority do these writings claim to be insight into the mind of Christ or even the early church?
Upvote
0
MrJim
Legend 3/17/05
- Mar 17, 2005
- 16,491
- 1,369
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I would say that because some of these guys were disciples of the disciples would lend some creedence to their writing.
It doesn't make the writing divinely inspired, but should be examined closely and see if it is contrary to the scripture. If it is not, then perhaps some of our floundering about could be alleviated by checking the course the disciple's disciples took.
It doesn't make the writing divinely inspired, but should be examined closely and see if it is contrary to the scripture. If it is not, then perhaps some of our floundering about could be alleviated by checking the course the disciple's disciples took.
Upvote
0
menno said:
They'd really be disciples of disciples of disciples of disciples, at least. Tertullian lived more than 200 years after Christ, Justin Martyr lived 150 years after Christ, Augustine lived 350 years after Christ. Those guys weren't getting the info second or even third hand. They were already living with tradition by then.
It would be like us saying that we understand what Alexander Hamilton was thinking in his writings because we are so close in time to his life. Even if we were taught by the student of the student of the student of the student of the student...of his student, it is very unlikely we are going to be able to claim authority in interpretting his writings unless we have something to back up that claim. And we are only 200 years past his death.
Just being closer in time doesn't hold much weight when claiming authority.
Upvote
0
MrJim
Legend 3/17/05
- Mar 17, 2005
- 16,491
- 1,369
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
WalkInHisFootsteps said:
Dudes like Polycarp & Clement were disciples of the disciples.
I would say that to eliminate what they wrote would be cutting off yourself from your history. For all to do that would simply create a rather selfcentered religion that leaves everything for ME to decide how to understand the scripture--just me and my feelings (oh, and the holy spirit).
Oh wait, that already describes much of the church today, doesn't it? We don't need anything but me and a bible and the holy spirit, which most of us can't discern properly anyhow. It's not been going very well by what I've seen.
I don't hold the early church writings or the anabaptist writings as scripture. They are more like pastors than anything else. When I read them I read as though there is a pastor in pulpit speaking to me. I don't think the pastor is divine, nor a vicar of Christ (which one reformed Baptist preacher said as much one time-when he speaks it's as though Jesus was speaking to us), but rather as a servant of God preaching. That's all. It ain't scripture. But it ain't "Purpose Driven Life" drivel either.
Upvote
0
Polycarp lived from 70 AD to 155 AD. He was the disciple of a disciple of a disciple, unless people lived a lot longer back then than they do now (although the age of mortality was 39 back then).
If you mean Clement of Alexandria, which I assume you do since he is the one that did all the writings, he died in 215 AD, which unless he was over 100 years old, he didn't even meet any of the disciples.
As for either accepting their writings or having a me-centered religion, I think you've been dipping into the communion wine too much. It is possible to have a Christ-centered faith without the assistence of any of the early writers (I hesitate to call them fathers just because their writings have survived to this day). What they wrote should be considered commentary that answered questions within the context of their culture of that day, and even then, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The earth isn't flat and there is no bird that immolates itself through fire so it can be born anew from the ashes, although that is an illustration Clement used to show how a person is born again. I doubt God would find it necessary or desirable to use an African myth to illustrate His spiritual truth.
I think it is fine to use their writings as commentary, but they should not be elevated to the level of being a glimpse into the minds of the disciples, let alone Christ. And even when using them as commentary, one should make himself completely familiar with the context of the culture it was written in.
If you mean Clement of Alexandria, which I assume you do since he is the one that did all the writings, he died in 215 AD, which unless he was over 100 years old, he didn't even meet any of the disciples.
As for either accepting their writings or having a me-centered religion, I think you've been dipping into the communion wine too much. It is possible to have a Christ-centered faith without the assistence of any of the early writers (I hesitate to call them fathers just because their writings have survived to this day). What they wrote should be considered commentary that answered questions within the context of their culture of that day, and even then, it should be taken with a grain of salt. The earth isn't flat and there is no bird that immolates itself through fire so it can be born anew from the ashes, although that is an illustration Clement used to show how a person is born again. I doubt God would find it necessary or desirable to use an African myth to illustrate His spiritual truth.
I think it is fine to use their writings as commentary, but they should not be elevated to the level of being a glimpse into the minds of the disciples, let alone Christ. And even when using them as commentary, one should make himself completely familiar with the context of the culture it was written in.
Upvote
0
Danfrey
Warning -- Anabaptist views
Wow Menno,
Such strength in what you are saying. This is the one post that I can actually pick up on the body language.
Many people don't understand how we approach the early writings. Wether they are writings from the sectular sources or Christian sources, they help us see how Christians were reacting to Jesus' teachings. Another example is looking at how an Apostles student understood a give passage that was written by their teacher. Even if one does not believe we have writings that are a direct connection to the Apostles, it would make sense that the traditions and interpretations were better in a time when people were still reading the writings in a language that they spoke. It would be logical to believe that someone who had the benefit of two way conversation understood what they meant better than me 1900 years later having a one way conversation in a translated foreign language. Let's take the headcover for an example. We can look at historical writings and find the early christians discussing if it applies to married women only, or all women. We can see pictures on the walls of the catacombs of ladies wearing veils. These things are not canonical writings, but they still help us weed through the many interpretations of 1 Cor 11. I am not trying to start another headcover thread, only using it as an example I am familiar with.
People are quick to discount the early writings because often times they are different from we have decided is truth. We live in a world that believes Christianity skipped from Jesus to Martin Luther.
Such strength in what you are saying. This is the one post that I can actually pick up on the body language.
Many people don't understand how we approach the early writings. Wether they are writings from the sectular sources or Christian sources, they help us see how Christians were reacting to Jesus' teachings. Another example is looking at how an Apostles student understood a give passage that was written by their teacher. Even if one does not believe we have writings that are a direct connection to the Apostles, it would make sense that the traditions and interpretations were better in a time when people were still reading the writings in a language that they spoke. It would be logical to believe that someone who had the benefit of two way conversation understood what they meant better than me 1900 years later having a one way conversation in a translated foreign language. Let's take the headcover for an example. We can look at historical writings and find the early christians discussing if it applies to married women only, or all women. We can see pictures on the walls of the catacombs of ladies wearing veils. These things are not canonical writings, but they still help us weed through the many interpretations of 1 Cor 11. I am not trying to start another headcover thread, only using it as an example I am familiar with.
People are quick to discount the early writings because often times they are different from we have decided is truth. We live in a world that believes Christianity skipped from Jesus to Martin Luther.
Upvote
0
I'm not quick to discount them for the reason you state. I'm also not quick to discount them for any reason. I think they get too much authority placed on them by people who don't remember they were writing decades, sometimes centuries after Christ, when traditions were already entrenched in the church.
You also need to realize that the versions we find in bookstores today are usually sanitized editions with the unpopular and unscriptural things taken out. I have a copy of Augustine's writings from 1804, and a copy of the same writings from 1970, and they are very different. Entire passages are completely missing, and words are subtly changed to reflect modern attitudes. It's almost like reading two different books by two different authors. But as modern readers, we assume we know everything there is to know after reading one edition. Sad, to place so much responsibility on men who were merely human.
Upvote
0
Danfrey
Warning -- Anabaptist views
I guess you would have to look at a given situation to see how much weight is placed on their writings. They are simply another tool in helping us understand the meaning of scripture. Nobody here is trying to lift them up to infallible or inspired status, just consulting some guys who were closer to the source. Many people will use Matthew Henry or one of the many other Bible commentaries, why not use Clement, or Justin, or Ireaneus, or Tertullian?
Upvote
0
Danfrey said:
Using them as commentaries, I'm fine with that.
Using them as absolute authorities, I'm not fine with that.
If you are calling them Early Church Writers, great. If you are calling them Early Church Fathers, I got problems. The word Fathers implies that they gave birth to Christianity, created the foundations of the faith which must be respected and accepted based on their status as "fathers" like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are fathers of this country.
I've got copies of most of the more popular early writers and I do read them as use them as commentary. But I can't bring myself to say, "This is the way Justin Martyr saw things, therefore, it must be gospel truth, the only correct way of seeing things."
Upvote
0
Danfrey
Warning -- Anabaptist views
I don't think they would be comfortable with the term fathers. Occaisionally I will reference them that way because that is what it says on the book bindingsWalkInHisFootsteps said:
Not because I feel like they birthed christianity. Jesus was responsible for that.
Upvote
0
Danfrey said:I don't think they would be comfortable with the term fathers. Occaisionally I will reference them that way because that is what it says on the book bindings
Then we are cool.
Read and enjoy with my full blessings!
Upvote
0
Antje
Regular Member
- Jul 22, 2006
- 1,026
- 79
- Faith
- Anabaptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
I belong to Mennonite Church Canada. Some of my other church influences include spending 5 summers working at a Mennonite Brethren children's camp, and my grandparents and all their ancestors are of the Evangelical Mennonite Conference (Kleine Gemeinde) for as long as it has existed. I spent two years attending an Anglican church as well, which gave me greater appreciation for the sacrament of communion/the Lord's Supper.
I agree with the poster who said they considered early church writers to be like pastors preaching in the pulpit. I would also include early Anabaptist writers and many other great theologians. People preach God's Word in every age, and that is to be respected. The fact that some teachers have been remembered and valued by the church for thousands of years does give a little extra weight to their witness. However, preachers are still just people and are not God's Word in and of themselves.
I agree with the poster who said they considered early church writers to be like pastors preaching in the pulpit. I would also include early Anabaptist writers and many other great theologians. People preach God's Word in every age, and that is to be respected. The fact that some teachers have been remembered and valued by the church for thousands of years does give a little extra weight to their witness. However, preachers are still just people and are not God's Word in and of themselves.
Upvote
0
I think truth is truth all down through the ages, which is why some writers have outlasted others. Although I have heard of most of those mentioned here I've read none of them so cannot comment on their actual writings as such. However when the NT was put together one thing looked for was consistency of testimony & I have alarm bells go of if I read or hear something that I think is not consistent with scripture. So long as the authors are consistent with scripture there should be no problem
Upvote
0
Danfrey
Warning -- Anabaptist views
The problem that most of have with the early church writings is that their teachings don't always line up with how the modern church interprets their writings. A few of these teachings would include eternal security, and baptism. We have tens of thousands of denominations that claim sola scriptura yet come to opposing doctrines.Jehane said:
Something that is important when looking at the early writings is to see the big picture. Was the teaching on a given subject different from writer to writer, or did the majority of writings we have from the time support one another. It is not so much about looking at the witness of a given author, as it is looking at the witness of the church of the time. Imagine two senarios....
5 authors agree on what a certain passage means. They live within 200 years of the passage being written, have had the traditions passed down and speak the language the passage is written in.
5 authors agree on what a certain passage means. They live 1800 years after the passage was written, they live in a totally different culture from that which the passage was written in and have to rely on an interpreter to even read the passage.
Which group would be more reliable? Of course there are things to take into account such as did their lives bear spiritual fruit. This is were I see the benefit of the early writers.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
