When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[Paul Yohannan]

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

JWs are Arian.
Oneness Pentecostals, Sabellian.
Unitarian Universalists, Samosatan (as in Paul of Samosata; there really is no way around that rather awkward word)

Christadelphians ... similiar to a cross between Manichaens and Montanists...

Jesus Words Only tends to resolve itself in the direction of Ebionitism...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Always curious as to why it seems that lacking love is not seen as herectical by so many when that was also a major issue for the Lord.

 

[Biblewriter]

My personal study of what ancient writers actually said began in approximately the year 1966, and has filled, not just many years, but many decades. I did not read ABOUT what these people wrote, but their actual words. (Of course, for the most part as translated into English.) A very significant amount of this study has been devoted to what the early Christian writers actually said.

My observation about what we find in these ancient writings is that in the beginning, most of them corresponded fairly closely to what the scriptures actually say. But even as early as the mid second century they were having trouble with people who were supposedly real Christians, (as opposed to heretics) but who were denying basic doctrines.

In the third century, these denials of basic doctrine began to become more "mainstream," until by the sixth century, the writings could scarcely be recognized as having come from the same group.

My personal study of "Patristics," as it is called, has concentrated mainly on their eschatological views. And much of what was written between the mid second and the early third centuries, sounds like it might have been written last week at any one of numerous Dispensational seminaries in the United States. As I have previously documented here:

Dispensational Doctrine before the year 200

And even as late as the fifth century, Jerome called futurism "the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

But it was not only the original views about eschatology that changed. As time progressed, even the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, was gradually replaced by a doctrine of salvation by good works.

And although there were a few standouts, by the end of the sixth century and for almost a millennium thereafter, there were almost no writers that followed the views of the early Christian writers. (At least, writers whose works have been preserved.)

 

[Thursday]

And although there were a few standouts, by the end of the sixth century and for almost a millennium thereafter, there were almost no writers that followed the views of the early Christian writers. (At least, writers whose works have been preserved.)

The Catholic Church still follows those views, as it always has. We can see that protestantism has drifted further and further away since the Reformation, even to the point of denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the regenerative power of Baptism.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Catholic Church still follows those views, as it always has. We can see that protestantism has drifted further and further away since the Reformation, even to the point of denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the regenerative power of Baptism.

Actually, if you bother to read the documentation I provided, which is a Christian Forums thread, you will see that what the early Christian writers actually said does not even resemble what the Catholic Church now teaches.

This is not a statement abut who interpreted the scriptures correctly. It is nothing but a statement about documented statements of historical writers. The different between these writings and what the Catholic Church teaches today is both stark and harsh.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why trust anything at all that rejects God's Word, contradicts God's Word, or is different from what God's Word Says, ever ?
Why even read it, or use it, or continue to use it for anything when it leads to so much activity directly opposed to God's Word ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Always curious as to why it seems that lacking love is not seen as herectical by so many when that was also a major issue for the Lord.

Because, in part,
even Jesus did not "show emotional love nor acceptance"
for those religious leaders or teachers who were hypocrites or who were heretical.

i.e. He did not "go easy" on them, at all, and exposed the errors of their lives, as well as their practices, doctrines, and teachings, without pulling any punches. He very directly accused them of being children of the devil, when that was what they were.

 

[JackRT]

Christianity started as a Jewish movement based on Jewish scripture and the Hebrew literary traditions. Within a century the Jewish character of Christianity had been all but lost. Scripture was now being read, not from a Jewish/Hebrew perspective, but through a Gentile perspective using the lens of Greek philosophy.

 

[Biblewriter]

Christianity started as a Jewish movement based on Jewish scripture and the Hebrew literary traditions. Within a century the Jewish character of Christianity had been all but lost. Scripture was now being read, not from a Jewish/Hebrew perspective, but through a Gentile perspective using the lens of Greek philosophy.

The key clause here is "using the lens of Greek philosophy." It is when this began to be used in interpreting scripture, that the departure began in earnest. Until finally the doctrine was no longer recognizible as even coming from the same perspective.

 

[Thursday]

Actually, if you bother to read the documentation I provided, which is a Christian Forums thread, you will see that what the early Christian writers actually said does not even resemble what the Catholic Church now teaches.

This is just plain false. However, it is a common view taught to some protestants.

Feel free to point out an early Christian writer who held views that are inconsistent with the Catholic Church.

 

[Erose]

But it was not only the original views about eschatology that changed. As time progressed, even the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, was gradually replaced by a doctrine of salvation by good works.

This statement makes me question your study, because the Catholic Church very early, i.e. 4-5th century condemned this idea that man can work his way into heaven. The heresy is called Pelagianism.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Whoever has access to Scripture and can read it through,
potentially can test the various teachings and claims ,
to see what is truth and what is not truth, God Willing.

Jesus gave a lot of warnings about the deception on earth,
to His disciples,
and gave them all, and those who came later,
hope in trusting the Father in heaven to guard the disciples by His Word,
and keep us/them free even from the power of the devil himself,
as well as to keep us from any false teachings of men.

 

[Albion]

Actually, if you bother to read the documentation I provided, which is a Christian Forums thread, you will see that what the early Christian writers actually said does not even resemble what the Catholic Church now teaches.

That's true, but the main thing to take away from it may be that the idea needs to be ditched that there is some coherent way of identifying who ought to be considered an Early Church Father, as opposed to bishops and others who are NOT. There certainly is nothing like an Apostolic Succession of ECFs involved.

 

[Biblewriter]

This is just plain false. However, it is a common view taught to some protestants.

Feel free to point out an early Christian writer who held views that are inconsistent with the Catholic Church.

I have personally documented Chilism in the writings of Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, and Lactantius, as well as a statement by Eusebius that Papias taught it, a statement by Jerome that Appolonarius "followed this view," and a long article by Dionysius written in opposition to the Chilism of Nepos. Chilism, which today is called Pre-millennism, is exactly the opposite of Amillennism, which the Catholic Church very clearly teaches today.

This is only one of many such changes in doctrine. Indeed some Catholic scholars have stated that the only thing the Church Fathers agreed on, was to agree on nothing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

When then did the false stories of Amillennism start ? (if known)

 

[Thursday]

I have personally documented Chilism in the writings of Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, and Lactantius, as well as a statement by Eusebius that Papias taught it, a statement by Jerome that Appolonarius "followed this view," and a long article by Dionysius written in opposition to the Chilism of Nepos. Chilism, which today is called Pre-millennism, is exactly the opposite of Amillennism, which the Catholic Church very clearly teaches today.

This is only one of many such changes in doctrine. Indeed some Catholic scholars have stated that the only thing the Church Fathers agreed on, was to agree on nothing.

Those are not matters of doctrine, but opinion.

Does any protestant church teach this?

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155. Justin Martyr

Or this,

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch

 

[Thursday]

Always curious as to why it seems that lacking love is not seen as herectical by so many when that was also a major issue for the Lord.

Heresy is a false teaching, not a personal failing. I don't know of any group teaching that love is not central to the Christian faith.

 

[Biblewriter]

Those are not matters of doctrine, but opinion.

Does any protestant church teach this?

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155. Justin Martyr

Or this,

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch

We obviously have very different ideas about what constitutes significant doctrine, and what only constitutes opinion.

To me, the stress on transubstantiation is concentrating on details. While the doctrine of how to obtain a pardon from God is essential. And the doctrine of whether or not God will actually do what He so clearly said He would do, is important doctrine, not mere opinion.

 

[Thursday]

We obviously have very different ideas about what constitutes significant doctrine, and what does not.

Just because an early Father writes opinion you can't claim that it is Church doctrine.


Who settles our disputes?

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

 

[Biblewriter]

Just because an early Father writes opinion you can't claim that it is Church doctrine.


Who settles our disputes?

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Can you present even one early Christian writer whose work was more universally accepted than Irenaeus, whose five volume work titled "Against Heresies" became the most widely circulated non-inspired document in ancient times? He is credited with having finally destroyed Gnosticism in the early church. But the last twelve chapters of the fifth volume of this work are all exactly the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches today.