When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

[Thursday]

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.

You are ignoring the point. The fact that an early Father wrote something doesn't make it Catholic doctrine.

Doctrine comes from Christ and the apostles as interpreted by the Magisterium.

Which doctrine do you claim Irenaeus contradicted?

 

[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.

There can be zero doubt that the most widely accepted of all the ancient writings, other than those included in the Bible itself, was the five volume work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies." This is credited with having finally expelled Gnosticism from the early church.

But the last twelve volumes of the fifth volume of this work are a systematic presentation of futuristic premillennism. There is no way to even pretend that this was not a document universally accepted in the early church. And there is no way to even pretend that this is even approximately what the Catholic Church teaches today.

 

[Thursday]

There can be zero doubt that the most widely accepted of all the ancient writings, other than those included in the Bible itself, was the five volume work by Irenaeus, titled "Against Heresies." This is credited with having finally expelled Gnosticism from the early church.

But the last twelve volumes of the fifth volume of this work are a systematic presentation of futuristic premillennism. There is no way to even pretend that this was not a document universally accepted in the early church. And there is no way to even pretend that this is even approximately what the Catholic Church teaches today.

I don't have to pretend anything. Catholic doctrine is not determined by individual writers. Catholic doctrine comes from Christ and the apostles as conveyed by the Magisterium.

You can't change reality by ranting and raving.

The early Church members were Catholic. Their writings confirm this. That doesn't mean that everything they wrote was doctrine.

 

[JackRT]

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.

I agree completely.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are ignoring the point. The fact that an early Father wrote something doesn't make it Catholic doctrine.

Doctrine comes from Christ and the apostles as interpreted by the Magisterium.

Which doctrine do you claim Irenaeus contradicted?

Your original claim was about differences between what the early Church Fathers wrote and what the Catholic Church teaches today.

Now you want to change this to whatever qualifies as "official" Catholic Doctrine.

If you want to claim that what you teach today is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, that has already been conclusively disproved more times that anyone could even possibly count.

As to what Irenaeus said, I have already posted a link to full documentation, written by myself. You obviously did not even bother to read it. So why should I bother to post it again?

 

[Thursday]

If you want to claim that what you teach today is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, that has already been conclusively disproved more times that anyone could even possibly count.

100% False

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Thanks for these posts.

And Paul warned of the coming, doctrines of demons. I think they were extremities, burning heretics to death. Brutal discipline, strong mind control. Perhaps in response to Islam, and after Constantine's not so deep conversion and required rather than evangelist won conversion of Rome to what was left of Christian Italy.

What were they?

 

[OzSpen]

I don't have to pretend anything. Catholic doctrine is not determined by individual writers. Catholic doctrine comes from Christ and the apostles as conveyed by the Magisterium.

You can't change reality by ranting and raving.

The early Church members were Catholic. Their writings confirm this. That doesn't mean that everything they wrote was doctrine.

Thursday,

The early church members were catholic, which meant members of the universal Christian church. The early Christians were not Roman Catholics.

You say that Catholic doctrine comes from Christ, the apostles and is conveyed by the Magisterium. That's not what Paul taught in Acts 17:11 (NIRV):

"The Berean Jews were very glad to receive Paul’s message. They studied the Scriptures carefully every day. They wanted to see if what Paul said was true. So they were more noble than the Thessalonian Jews."​

It's not the responsibility of the Magisterium to convey the message to the people. Paul states that people and groups of people should study the Scriptures carefully and daily to examine the truth of what Paul said. Because they did that, they were more noble than the Thessalonian Jews.

The Magisterium conveying doctrine to Christians is not a biblical perspective. It is a doctrine invented by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

The RCC claims that is origin is in the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ in ca. AD 30. Its claim is that the RCC is the church that Jesus died for.

When we check RCC doctrines, we find a number that are not found in the Bible. These include:

• The papacy;
• worship or adoration of Mary;
• The immaculate conception of Mary,
• The perpetual virginity of Mary,
  
• The assumption of Mary,
  
• Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix,
  
• Petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers,
• Apostolic succession,
  
• The ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments,
  
• Infant baptism,
  
• Confession of sin to a priest,
  
• Purgatory,
  
• Prayers for the dead,
  
• Indulgences,
  
• The equal authority of church tradition and Scripture (source).

Therefore, if the RCC is supposed to have had its origin in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as found in the NT, many things have been added by the RCC to what Jesus and the apostles taught.

So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the NT, its origin is somewhere else.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

100% False

Your response is false. See my post #128 for a list of doctrines that are not in Scripture and have been added by the RCC.

 

[Thursday]

Thursday,

The early church members were catholic, which meant members of the universal Christian church. The early Christians were not Roman Catholics.



Oz

Please demonstrate the difference using writings from the early Church. Good luck!

 

[Thursday]

Your response is false. See my post #128 for a list of doctrines that are not in Scripture and have been added by the RCC.

That is propaganda and half truths. Pick one at a time and I'll show you your error. Half of those things are not even taught by the Church.

 

[OzSpen]

That is propaganda and half truths. Pick one at a time and I'll show you your error. Half of those things are not even taught by the Church.

Which ones are not taught by the RCC?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

From my perspective, they didn't go askew.

From a Pentecostal perspective, I suppose it would be almost immediately after the death of John if not during the life time of the Apostles and perhaps even by the Apostles themselves.

The first century/second century churches operated differently than most if not all protestant Churches today in that they insisted on visible universal communion, a common Eucharist and adherence to the authority of Presbyters/Bishops. Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century.

I for one cannot believe that the very body which Christ died for would crumble so easily. One could point to the politicisation of Christianity when it became the religion of the empire but that seems like a 21st century secular perspective which divides sharply between the civil life and religious life. I would argue that despite it's flaws and corruption the Christianisation of the empire was evidence of God's hand in the Church.

 

[Biblewriter]

From my perspective, they didn't go askew.

From a Pentecostal perspective, I suppose it would be almost immediately after the death of John if not during the life time of the Apostles and perhaps even by the Apostles themselves.

The first century/second century churches operated differently than most if not all protestant Churches today in that they insisted on visible universal communion, a common Eucharist and adherence to the authority of Presbyters/Bishops. Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century.

I for one cannot believe that the very body which Christ died for would crumble so easily. One could point to the politicisation of Christianity when it became the religion of the empire but that seems like a 21st century secular perspective which divides sharply between the civil life and religious life. I would argue that despite it's flaws and corruption the Christianisation of the empire was evidence of God's hand in the Church.

When you said the Apostles went astray, you completely discredited yourself.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The church was built on the blood of the martyrs, therefore, when the emperor Constantine made Christianity legal, and allowed pagan practices to infiltrate the church, that is when it became cold. You can't mix Satan into the mix and expect no fallout.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When you said the Apostles went astray, you completely discredited yourself.

I don't believe the apostles much wrong on a fundamental level. I could see how the argument could be made for that from a certain Protestant context. Consider that scripture is the final authority, to which nothing can or should be listened to before it. The Apostles acted as if they had authority within the early Church but they were merely men who should not be listened to more than anyone else.

Likewise a failure of the Apostles from those who view individual churches as having the ability to arrange themselves or create themselves out of nothing were wrong for exerting authority over the entire Church. Why did the Apostles lay hands or appoint deacons/presbyters and Bishops? Churches should remain autonomous and free, bound only to what their consciences and scripture and not any man. Communion of the visible body is not necessary.

Most Protestantism would not make the argument but the Apostles leadership and the type of Church governance they left for us (witnessed by the ante Nicene fathers) must count against them somewhat for the legacy it left. It did not inculcate a proper Christianity but instead to corruption which needed reform right? Where did the problems begin? From my perspective if Protestantism is true, then it began with the Apostles and their leadership and the disciples they left to us.

Of course this depends on the type belief the individual has. The Anglican might not think there is much wrong in the second century or first century Church (if they are conservative) but the Baptist or Pentecostal probably should. The Pentecostal especially for the Church's rejection Montanism (with it's specific emphasis on personal revelation and the rejection of the hierarchical nature of the Church).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The church was built on the blood of the martyrs, therefore, when the emperor Constantine made Christianity legal, and allowed pagan practices to infiltrate the church, that is when it became cold. You can't mix Satan into the mix and expect no fallout.

Examples?

Also, are you suggesting Constantine should have continued to outlaw Christianity?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Examples?

Also, are you suggesting Constantine should have continued to outlaw Christianity?

All I'm saying is that was the start of mixing paganism and Christianity. Before then the Church was pure.

Constantine was the beginning of the church age of Pergamos. They tried to mix Satan with Christianity. They started compromising.

12 “And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: 13 “I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. 14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't believe the apostles much wrong on a fundamental level. I could see how the argument could be made for that from a certain Protestant context. Consider that scripture is the final authority, to which nothing can or should be listened to before it. The Apostles acted as if they had authority within the early Church but they were merely men who should not be listened to more than anyone else.

Likewise a failure of the Apostles from those who view individual churches as having the ability to arrange themselves or create themselves out of nothing were wrong for exerting authority over the entire Church. Why did the Apostles lay hands or appoint deacons/presbyters and Bishops? Churches should remain autonomous and free, bound only to what their consciences and scripture and not any man. Communion of the visible body is not necessary.

Most Protestantism would not make the argument but the Apostles leadership and the type of Church governance they left for us (witnessed by the ante Nicene fathers) must count against them somewhat for the legacy it left. It did not inculcate a proper Christianity but instead to corruption which needed reform right? Where did the problems begin? From my perspective if Protestantism is true, then it began with the Apostles and their leadership and the disciples they left to us.

Of course this depends on the type belief the individual has. The Anglican might not think there is much wrong in the second century or first century Church (if they are conservative) but the Baptist or Pentecostal probably should. The Pentecostal especially for the Church's rejection Montanism (with it's specific emphasis on personal revelation and the rejection of the hierarchical nature of the Church).

In saying these things, you are elevating your own personal opinion of what constitutes right and wrong above the explicitly statements of scripture.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

From my perspective, they didn't go askew.

From a Pentecostal perspective, I suppose it would be almost immediately after the death of John if not during the life time of the Apostles and perhaps even by the Apostles themselves.

The first century/second century churches operated differently than most if not all protestant Churches today in that they insisted on visible universal communion, a common Eucharist and adherence to the authority of Presbyters/Bishops. Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century.

I for one cannot believe that the very body which Christ died for would crumble so easily. One could point to the politicisation of Christianity when it became the religion of the empire but that seems like a 21st century secular perspective which divides sharply between the civil life and religious life. I would argue that despite it's flaws and corruption the Christianisation of the empire was evidence of God's hand in the Church.

One reason I chose to be Pentecostal was to go into the ways of the early church, like it was in Corinth under the apostle Paul. Before there was a hierarchy, and when the gifts and charism were so strong.

Salvation must be sure, as Jesus gave them salvation, knowledge, revelation and power. They remained in the Spirit of grace and truth, and I am sure the apostles lived and died righteous. Not all Pentecostals and charismatics are in sola scriptura. The influence means scripture is held in high regards. Whereas the church leadership after is in question on matters like Montanism and on whether or not God is anthropomorphic... It means Peter and Paul, James and John are the headship.

I am sure successors like Polycarp and Clement gained the true faith and important points were made right up to the end of Sabelius errors, by Augustine and Tertullian. God having a form and likeness goes with the three persons one God idea for me.

What is askew and when it went wrong matters.