What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?

[Light of the East]

Because the Holy Spirit is part of the unchanging Godhead.

If this is true, and the Second Person of the Godhead taught that one must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life (John 6), then how could it be that the Holy Spirit would contradict this some 1500 years later? The Godhead is unchanging in unity.

 

[Hmm]

I don't belong to a "denomination." Check your history. Denominations started after the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, there was one Church. Now that Church may have suffered a schism, but the basis of beliefs between Orthodox and Catholic is very close, unlike the extremes between various Protestant denominations. We understand one baptism for the remission of sins, for instance. Protestants can't agree on the methodology, whether it forgives sin or not, sprinkling or dunking, or dunking three times, etc.

You obviously have a huge issue with Protestantism but this thread is not a suitable place to discuss it. Please stay on topic.

 

[Tony B]

You entirely dodged my whole point. Not to mention that your description of the Church is way off base.

Jesus taught the disciples "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood" The Apostles taught the next generation of Christians, who faithfully passed that teaching down for hundreds of years until Protestants thought they knew better.

You cannot have unity in disagreement, especially over something so important, since Christ taught that eternal life is found in the eating of His Flesh and the drinking of His Blood. Who gave any Protestant the right to change that which was taught for 1500 years?

Jesus taught baptism for the forgiveness of sins, including the baptism of little ones. This is why the Apostles and the next generations of Christians also taught this, right up until the Anabaptists decided they knew better.

This is not about "listening to the Holy Spirit." It is about men who thought they knew better than the Holy Spirit and have started their own religions because they thought they "found something" in the Bible. But when what they found disagrees with the men who learned directly from Christ....then there is a real problem.

Well, I was brought up a Catholic, and in my opinion a lot of what you have just written is just plain rubbish.... from one Catholic to another!

In my opinion it would be in your best interest to question the integrity and understanding of the scholar that taught you....no personal criticism meant! I certainly have. I find it difficult to believe we were sucked in by religious rituals. I can say the same thing about some of the other theologies I sampled at other denominations too.

The best scholar there is, is The Holy Spirit. You must be born again to receive and understand His teaching.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It often does, even in English.

Give me one example.

We have a whole class of words, called heteronyms, which although spelled the same, are pronounced differently and have different meanings.

The Heteronym Homepage

I'm sure these are even more common in Hebrew, since the Hebrew alphabet has no vowels. This is the main reason for the the uncertainty as to how to pronounce YHWH.

 

[coffee4u]

What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?

The Bible.

 

[ralfyman]

Modern scholarship, as it involves such writings and what is recently uncovered and contemporaneous to them.

 

[Hmm]

I'm convinced there's a variation of Godwin's Law that we could name Godlose's Law which states:

"As a discussion on a Christian forum grows longer, the likelihood of it devolving into an argument about Protestantism vs the RCC increases."

I suppose one good thing that could be said about it is that at least it shows we're not lukewarm about our faith

 

[SANTOSO]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

All Scripture in the Bible is God-breathed that is words taught by the Holy Spirit expressing spiritual truth in spiritual words because they are spiritually discerned. ( 2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Corinthians 2:13).

So we and the early church fathers ( the apostles) gain understanding to the truth because the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth,
as the Lord Jesus Christ have spoken.

For this is what we have heard:
1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the ONE SPIRIT TO DRINK.

 

[Hmm]

So we and the early church fathers ( the apostles) gain understanding to the truth because the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth,
as the Lord Jesus Christ have spoken.

For this is what we have heard:
1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free–and we were all given the ONE SPIRIT TO DRINK.

I've bolded the parts of your reply I'm referring to.

I doubt there's a definitive list of the ECFs but they're not just the apostles. Wikipedia says this:

"The historical period during which they flourished is referred to by scholars as the Patristic Era ending approximately around AD 700 (Byzantine Iconoclasm began in AD 726,John of Damascus died in AD 749)."

If there is, as I believe too, one Spirit that guides us, how come there is so much diversity, not just among denominations but also between everyone within each church. Everyone has a different take, to varying degrees, on God but yet there still guided bu the same Spirit. Perhaps one way to reconcile this is to look at the word "guide". If a guide takes a group around somewhere, everyone follows him/her and ends up at the same destination but they still walk their own paths. They don't form a line and walk in each others footsteps.

Edited to push the analogy too far. Just as on a guided walk, we tend to team up and walk alongside like-minded folk.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Depends on what you mean by 'early'. Someone writing in the beginning of the second century is going have far more understanding of the culture and language in which the New Testament took place than anybody today, even when they are not based in Palestine.

Today's scholars can only achieve theory on that point.

But as time went by, the church centres and as a consequence the fathers started to be disassociated with the origins of Christianity. There would be no definitive date for this, but the death of those who knew the apostles (e.g. Polycarp) would be the start.

I'm not sure that one needs to put the two in opposition, they ought to be complementing one another. Theologian's views being backed up by the fathers writings.

Additionally you need to keep in mind the frailties of theologians of all ages. Some have their axe to grind, some have denominations to support. Sometimes theologians need tenure and will come up with ideas to help them, but not us.

If a theologian and an early church father disagree, then is it an important issue and if it is what is the reasoning of each?

 

[Hmm]

If a theologian and an early church father disagree, then is it an important issue and if it is what is the reasoning of each?

Good question. I suspect it is an important question and we'd have to look at the reasoning of each (with the corollary that we'd have to give up any idea of authorities whether that's the EVCFs or scholars)

 

[Tigger45]

The most thorough scholars often mined the EFC's writings to help pinpoint the clearest meaning of a specific text. If they didn't they'd pollute the text themselves by adding modern paradigms that didn't exist when the texts were written.

 

[pescador]

You entirely dodged my whole point. Not to mention that your description of the Church is way off base.

Jesus taught the disciples "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood" The Apostles taught the next generation of Christians, who faithfully passed that teaching down for hundreds of years until Protestants thought they knew better.

You cannot have unity in disagreement, especially over something so important, since Christ taught that eternal life is found in the eating of His Flesh and the drinking of His Blood. Who gave any Protestant the right to change that which was taught for 1500 years?

Jesus taught baptism for the forgiveness of sins, including the baptism of little ones. This is why the Apostles and the next generations of Christians also taught this, right up until the Anabaptists decided they knew better.

This is not about "listening to the Holy Spirit." It is about men who thought they knew better than the Holy Spirit and have started their own religions because they thought they "found something" in the Bible. But when what they found disagrees with the men who learned directly from Christ....then there is a real problem.

You wrote "Jesus taught the disciples "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood". That is present tense, i.e., it occurred about 2,000 years ago. The communion ritual as practiced by the RCC is just that -- a ritual -- just like the Passover meal (which is when Jesus said this to His disciples).

Now, shall we return to the OP topic?

 

[Anthony2019]

Proximity to an apostle in no way guarantees correctness of doctrine... otherwise the Bible would have no documentation of the apostles own flocks falling into apostasy as many of them did.

That's a very good point. But I also think that those who lived closest to the Apostles would have a better appreciation of how theological concepts were understood by the people and culture of the time. I agree, there were plenty who had fallen away into apostasy, but most of the early writings I have seen show a lot of consistency in thought and practice.

 

[pescador]

If this is true, and the Second Person of the Godhead taught that one must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life (John 6), then how could it be that the Holy Spirit would contradict this some 1500 years later? The Godhead is unchanging in unity.

I don't understand what you're saying. When/how did the Holy Spirit contradict Jesus some 1500 years later?

 

[Valletta]

I've bolded the parts of your reply I'm referring to.

I doubt there's a definitive list of the ECFs but they're not just the apostles. Wikipedia says this:

"The historical period during which they flourished is referred to by scholars as the Patristic Era ending approximately around AD 700 (Byzantine Iconoclasm began in AD 726,John of Damascus died in AD 749)."

If there is, as I believe too, one Spirit that guides us, how come there is so much diversity, not just among denominations but also between everyone within each church. Everyone has a different take, to varying degrees, on God but yet there still guided bu the same Spirit. Perhaps one way to reconcile this is to look at the word "guide". If a guide takes a group around somewhere, everyone follows him/her and ends up at the same destination but they still walk their own paths. They don't form a line and walk in each others footsteps.

Edited to push the analogy too far. Just as on a guided walk, we tend to team up and walk alongside like-minded folk.

Wikipedia is great for non-controversial subjects, but since anyone can post information and protect it Wiki should not be relied upon. If I may add, guiding is not the same as being given the immediate absolute truth. God gives us free will, thus we may have to be guided through a lot of falsehoods before we learn the truth.

 

[parousia70]

That's a very good point. But I also think that those who lived closest to the Apostles would have a better appreciation of how theological concepts were understood by the people and culture of the time. I agree, there were plenty who had fallen away into apostasy, but most of the early writings I have seen show a lot of consistency in thought and practice.

I would agree.
There were also vastly different opinion and Vigorous "in house debates" an a wide array of topics, but on matters essential to salvation, there is largely agreement.

For sure scholars today have much more difficulty ascertaining original audience relevance than the ECF's might have had... some today go so far as to claim certain scriptures/letters had ZERO application and relevance to the first receivers to whom they were directly addressed and first delivered to, and instead are only relevant and applicable today..

Amazing.

 

[hedrick]

Most of the Fathers were in a very different culture, speaking a different language, with a different religious background than Jesus. The only way to understand Jesus is to appreciate this difference, explore Jesus' culture, and try to separate understanding him as much as possible from your preconceptions and your own background. I see very little of this kind of critical enterprise in any early writer.

You can see signs of it in the better Reformation commentators. But the methodology really wasn't adopted consistently until the Enlightenment. For that reason I don't find early writers much use compared with modern critical scholars.

This is not to say that it's possible to be completely objective. Clearly it's not. But making the attempt is better than not making it.

 

[SANTOSO]

I've bolded the parts of your reply I'm referring to.

I doubt there's a definitive list of the ECFs but they're not just the apostles. Wikipedia says this:

"The historical period during which they flourished is referred to by scholars as the Patristic Era ending approximately around AD 700 (Byzantine Iconoclasm began in AD 726,John of Damascus died in AD 749)."

If there is, as I believe too, one Spirit that guides us, how come there is so much diversity, not just among denominations but also between everyone within each church. Everyone has a different take, to varying degrees, on God but yet there still guided bu the same Spirit. Perhaps one way to reconcile this is to look at the word "guide". If a guide takes a group around somewhere, everyone follows him/her and ends up at the same destination but they still walk their own paths. They don't form a line and walk in each others footsteps.

Edited to push the analogy too far. Just as on a guided walk, we tend to team up and walk alongside like-minded folk.

This is what we have heard :
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants THE THINGS THAT MUST SOON TAKE PLACE. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, -Revelation 1:1

I was IN THE SPIRIT on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet -Revelation 1:10
saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." -Revelation 1:11

What take place in the seven churches, take place in different period of time, beginning from Ephesus till Laodicea.

As we have been told to listen to the Spirit:

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. -Revelation 2:7

Though we are now living in the period of church of Laodicea, we together with the early church fathers must listen to what the Spirit have said to the churches, beginning from Ephesus to Laodicea.

The relevancy what has been spoken for us, is what is written and send for the church of Laodicea.

Our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit have spoken to all the churches.
It is true that many have ears but many have not heard what the Spirit have spoken to the churches. Why ?
These many people who have not heard what the Spirit have spoken to the churches because they have not received the Spirit who is from God.

As we have heard:
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.-1 Corinthians 2:14

Yes, indeed, the Spirit of truth guides us into all truth from the church period beginning from Ephesus to Laodicea. ( Revelation 2:7 till Revelation 3:22)

Listen to what has been said to the seven churches, then you will understand what our Lord is concerned about what happen in those times of church history.

 

[Light of the East]

I don't understand what you're saying. When/how did the Holy Spirit contradict Jesus some 1500 years later?

Led by the Holy Spirit, the first Christian leaders taught that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. 1500 years later, Protestants claim that they are led by the Holy Spirit in what they teach and they deny that this truth.

Do you get my point?