When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[GoldenKingGaze]

Sorry, but this is a myth.
It is actually history re-written from what really happened.
Remember 'they' had control over most of what is and was written,
humongous volumes of ,
whole libraries full,
all meant to 'support' (as if possible)
their own practices and doctrines.

So you are saying Athanasius had a lot of support contrary to history?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

I'm late the the thread, bit I find it interesting that you feel that all of the heresies had been addressed in the first 500 years; yet many of those historic "heresies" keep resurfacing, often under a different front; some reoccur within the Church itself; and the ECFs were fallible people like you and I. Likewise, new heresies do come along from time to time. These things are as relevant today as they were in the first 500 years.

We need to always be mindful that the writings of the ECFs are writings of men; Scripture is the writing of God. Like all things, the ECF's, traditions, practices, dogmas theologies all are subject to Scripture, but likewise the writings of not only the ECFs, but others like Luther, and even modern day theologians continue to inspire us to seek and maintain right teaching and right practice.

 

[Thursday]

The evidence...is the fact that during their times they only preached the gospel...but did not act upon the messages given to the churches for His return. They were given two tasks, but only received one and not the other.

Feel free to provide such evidence. I've provided you conclusive proof in writing from the Church fathers. Of course there will always be people who don't follow Church teaching, but I don't think that is your point.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Conclusive proof" from those who are already proven centuries ago to be in error
is no proof at all.

conclusive proof in writing from the Church fathers.

 

[ScottA]

Feel free to provide such evidence. I've provided you conclusive proof in writing from the Church fathers. Of course there will always be people who don't follow Church teaching, but I don't think that is your point.

The evidence is history. Who has taught that Christ returned "soon" or "quickly", just as He said?

 

[prodromos]

Sorry, but this is a myth.
It is actually history re-written from what really happened.
Remember 'they' had control over most of what is and was written,
humongous volumes of ,
whole libraries full,
all meant to 'support' (as if possible)
their own practices and doctrines.

Alas it is you who resorts to fairy tales.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

The last heresy to be addressed was iconoclasm, in the eigth century. Modalism, or sabellianism, was addressed in the second.

Btw the title of your thread is in error, because heresiarchs are by definition not church fathers. The only prominent church fathers who can be regarded as having succumbed to error are Tertullian and Origen (and perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia). There is a caveat however in that Origen and Theodore died innthe peace of the church; the only major Patristic figure I can think of who died a schismatic was Tertullian, who fell into the Montanist trap.

 

[Thursday]

The evidence is history. Who has taught that Christ returned "soon" or "quickly", just as He said?

What is soon to God? Your question is irrelevant and evasive.

 

[Thursday]

"Conclusive proof" from those who are already proven centuries ago to be in error
is no proof at all.

What error? Who was in error? You have made no point.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Let's be respectful. Remember the flaming rule: address the post not the poster.

OK?

 

[ScottA]

What is soon to God? Your question is irrelevant and evasive.

If we take God at his word, he knows what "soon" means to us...and it was to us that he was speaking. So, no, it is "evasive" to sidestep the obvious, and not come to terms with just what Christ said to the churches: He said "soon"...and meant it.

 

[toLiJC]

Good day, I am interested in knowing about when the early church fathers, in apostolic succession, began to err, to miss the right and true? And also perhaps, grow cold?
I know the apostolic succession is heavily important, John the apostle's disciple Polycarp for example, a great passing on of the baton. If Polycarp went wrong, John failed as a father. Paul and Peter and all the apostles made converts and had inner circles. But over time, decade after decade, when did they lose speed?

By the eighth century the Roman church had become political. And they may have needed a revival of the healings and prophecies mentioned going into the fifth century?

By the fifth century end, the fathers had addressed each possible kind of heresy. I think last to go was modalism.

I think the concept of an anthropomorphic God was rubbished not counter explained, true? And pre-conception existence? I am interested in others' views?

the more one religion is human, the worse it is, i.e. when the religious doctrine is human, and not entirely of the true God:

Mark 7:6-9 "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.",

Revelation 13:18 "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man;",

Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

i.e. the spiritual servants/worshipers have to be careful that there are no misbeliefs/heresies in their faith, but many of them turned out to be superficial and gullible, and their religion had been human, and not entirely of the true God

Blessings

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

YHWH PERFECTLY KNOWS everything, yes.
I think that many people
have no idea
what "soon" means.
YHWH KNOWS. Obviously.

If we take God at his word, he knows what "soon" means to us

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, test everything.
There is little truth today.
YHWH'S WORD remains unchanged, always TRUE.

Jeff,

Did you see the announcement from a couple days ago that the Oxford dictionary word of the year is 'post-truth'? Here the objective facts are overcome by emotions.

Test everything is the biblical requirement. See 1 Thess 5:21, 'Test everything'. We need to know the Scriptures to be able to do this with some knowledge. The Holy Spirit can prompt us, but only the Scriptures are theopneustos (God breathed). See 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Oz

 

[JackRT]

Jeff,

Did you see the announcement from a couple days ago that the Oxford dictionary word of the year is 'post-truth'? Here the objective facts are overcome by emotions.

Test everything is the biblical requirement. See 1 Thess 5:21, 'Test everything'. We need to know the Scriptures to be able to do this with some knowledge. The Holy Spirit can prompt us, but only the Scriptures are theopneustos (God breathed). See 2 Tim 3:16-17.

Oz

"post-truth" seems to be the perfect word to describe the rhetoric of the recent USA election.

 

[OzSpen]

"post-truth" seems to be the perfect word to describe the rhetoric of the recent USA election.

I find it in university lectures, presentations, on mainstream media, social media, even Christian forums.

When facts are discarded for emotional response, no wonder our nations are in messes - including my own. I know you live in Canada and are closer to the action, but our Australian media were flooded with USA election stuff. I found it so boring and without substantive content that my wife and I zoomed past it on our PVR (set-top box). That's what we also do with the advt.

Oz

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I'm late the the thread, bit I find it interesting that you feel that all of the heresies had been addressed in the first 500 years; yet many of those historic "heresies" keep resurfacing, often under a different front; some reoccur within the Church itself; and the ECFs were fallible people like you and I. Likewise, new heresies do come along from time to time. These things are as relevant today as they were in the first 500 years.

We need to always be mindful that the writings of the ECFs are writings of men; Scripture is the writing of God. Like all things, the ECF's, traditions, practices, dogmas theologies all are subject to Scripture, but likewise the writings of not only the ECFs, but others like Luther, and even modern day theologians continue to inspire us to seek and maintain right teaching and right practice.

You might be interested to know the EOs regard Iconoclasm as the last original heresy, and all subsequent heresies as regurgitations or synthetic compositions of older heretical models. For an uncontroversial example, Soccinianism can be viewed as a regurgitation of the error of Paul of Samosata.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You might be interested to know the EOs regard Iconoclasm as the last original heresy, and all subsequent heresies as regurgitations or synthetic compositions of older heretical models. For an uncontroversial example, Soccinianism can be viewed as a regurgitation of the error of Paul of Samosata.

Pretty much; but then there are the Mormons...

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Pretty much; but then there are the Mormons...

Mormonism can hypothetically be reduced to a variant form of Gnosticism.

Now I personally think its easier to just deal with these new heresies on an individual basis, but the compositional EO approach does have one advantage, and that is it allows their theologians to put forward a litany of various heretical errors for all conceivable divergent sects.

By the way, the normative EO list, in St. John of Damascus, includes Islam as a specific item. So one could say Mormonism is conceptually similiar to Islam and certain Gnostic sects.

 

[OzSpen]

Pretty much; but then there are the Mormons...

AND the JWs, Christadelphians, Jesus Only, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarian Universalists, etc.