Why did some early Church fathers held heretical beliefs

[Nick Moser]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved. Even if you're a communist, homosexual, Pagan, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, usurer, adulterer, pretenders(those who claim to be Christians but are not or those who only profess Christianity as a means of getting in the heaven and nothing more) murderer, or even the devil himself could be saved. This teaching is called Apocatastasis but today is commonly referred as universalism. Some church fathers agree with this while many other Church fathers outright rejected it. Same with various passages in the Scripture. I don't see why this doctorate would exist. Why have a church or sacrifice? It seems to be more of the case that God is merciful (Psalms 103:8) and hopes everyone will accept his help ( 1 Timothy 2:4) but will only help those who are willing to be healed (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1). of the plague of sin(Psalms 41:4). This can be accomplished by stumbling up the hill with your cross much like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, son of God. I hope I don't make anyone mad I don't mean to I'm just not a very intelligent person. I think I have like the IQ of 60.

 

[disciple Clint]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved. Even if you're a communist, homosexual, Pagan, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, usurer, adulterer, murderer, or even the devil himself could be saved. This teaching is called Apocatastasis but today is commonly referred as universalism. Some church fathers agree with this while many other Church fathers outright rejected it. Same with various passages in the Scripture. I don't see why this doctorate would exist. Why have a church or sacrifice? It seems to be more of the case that God is merciful but will only help those who are willing to be healed of the plague of sin. This can be accomplished by stumbling up the hill with your cross much like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, son of God. I hope I don't make anyone mad I don't mean to I'm just not a very intelligent person. I think I have like the IQ of 60.

I do not see anything which should make anyone angry. You have made a good point. If we expect to be saved we need to accept what Jesus has done for us.

 

[Nick Moser]

I do not see anything which should make anyone angry. You have made a good point. If we expect to be saved we need to accept what Jesus has done for us.

I think that humanity it's like the drug addicted son who's stolen and wrong to others while God that is the Holy Trinity is the father who will do anything to heal his son but only if the son in this case humanity affirms that they have a problem in that they need help and are willing to work to become wholesome and good like the Father (the process of becoming Christ-like also known as theosis)

 

[disciple Clint]

I do not see anything which should make anyone angry. You have made a good point. If we expect to be saved we need to accept what Jesus has done for us.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Luke 15:11-31

 

[Dave G.]

So this just says nothing is new ! Nothing has beset us that hasn't existed before.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I haven't read the church fathers for more than 30 years; it seems like you can just pick the ones you like and can ignore the rest.

As to the OP question: my working theory is that they were the university professors of their day - arrogant, elitists in love with their own ideas, and out of touch with both God and his people.

But that is only a theory.

 

[Andrewn]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved.

If you read Origen, you find that he described the Holy Trinity before his doctrine was approved 100 years later in the Council of Nicaea. He speculated that all people would come to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved, if not in this life then in the life to come. There is biblical evidence for this belief, especially in the writings of St Paul. And Irenaeus, who is generally considered the earliest orthodox theologian had already hinted at the same belief.

Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia

But we need to keep in mind that Origen never presented his theory as a fact. Perhaps we should all hope that he was right and pray that God may save the whole world. If we do this, instead of criticizing Origen, we would be praying that God's will be done.

1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved. Even if you're a communist, homosexual, Pagan, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, usurer, adulterer, pretenders(those who claim to be Christians but are not or those who only profess Christianity as a means of getting in the heaven and nothing more) murderer, or even the devil himself could be saved. This teaching is called Apocatastasis but today is commonly referred as universalism. Some church fathers agree with this while many other Church fathers outright rejected it. Same with various passages in the Scripture. I don't see why this doctorate would exist. Why have a church or sacrifice? It seems to be more of the case that God is merciful (Psalms 103:8) and hopes everyone will accept his help ( 1 Timothy 2:4) but will only help those who are willing to be healed (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1). of the plague of sin(Psalms 41:4). This can be accomplished by stumbling up the hill with your cross much like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, son of God. I hope I don't make anyone mad I don't mean to I'm just not a very intelligent person. I think I have like the IQ of 60.

The works of Origen and Tertullian are grouped with the Church Fathers but they themselves are not considered Church Fathers by most Catholic scholars. Nor are they considered or listed as Saints. They had some worthy things to say but they are NOT considered as good guides to the faith as a whole. So having the works of Origen or of Tertullian grouped with the Fathers IS NOT an endorsement of the things they got wrong. Patrologists know that. Sorry that it's not clearer to every one else.

 

[Vince53]

Many of the Church Fathers were unknowns whose writings survived--most Christians alive at the same time never heard of them.

Nowhere does Scripture authorize anyone to be a Church Father.

The Church Fathers often contradicted each other, as well as contradicting Scripture.

 

[IWalkAlone]

Many of the Church Fathers were unknowns whose writings survived--most Christians alive at the same time never heard of them.

Nowhere does Scripture authorize anyone to be a Church Father.

The Church Fathers often contradicted each other, as well as contradicting Scripture.

Exactly. Tradition is deeply flawed. They teach that they are arbiters of truth and you must follow them. That in itself is false.

 

[jamiec]

Many of the Church Fathers were unknowns whose writings survived--most Christians alive at the same time never heard of them.

Nowhere does Scripture authorize anyone to be a Church Father.

The Church Fathers often contradicted each other, as well as contradicting Scripture.

A bit like parts of the Bible, then.

"Nowhere does Scripture authorise" a 27-book collection of sacred, canonical, God-breathed, of Christian writings, to form a "New Testament" in addition to the Jewish Bible known to Jesus & His Apostles. Nor does Scripture name any of these 27 books, or say how long they are. Nor does it say who wrote them. Nor is there any hint that any of these new books, or any collection of them - even if joined with the Jewish Bible - is the only source of faith and morals. Nor are we told that the "NT" is to be read by the whole Church, throughout the world, during public worship, until the end of time.

Much less does Scripture teach all of these assertions, and assert that all of them apply to the "NT". Yet, despite the utter silence of the Bible, and its denial of any Scripture beyond that known to the Jews, Evangelicals accept & believe every single one of those assertions about the NT books.

The value of the Bible & the Fathers has nothing to do with any idea that either set of writings is totally inerrant or free of contradiction. The Fathers are valuable as witnesses to orthodox Christianity & to some of the errors opposed to it - but not because of any daft & false idea about their all being in all respects totally inerrant. One of St Augustine's books is devoted to his changes of mind.

Do earthly parents and other created authorities lose all authority, the instant they sin, or make a mistake ? Of course not. Neither do the errors in the Fathers make them any less worthy of respect and honour, nor their writings any less valuable. As for their contradicting the Bible - the Letter to the Hebrews is predicated on correcting the OT. The NT authors respected the OT, but they were quite prepared to differ from it. It is an authority, not a cage, nor a ball and chain.

 

[jamiec]

double post

 

[jamiec]

Many of the Church Fathers were unknowns whose writings survived--most Christians alive at the same time never heard of them.

Nowhere does Scripture authorize anyone to be a Church Father.

The Church Fathers often contradicted each other, as well as contradicting Scripture.

That people in parts of the world today have doubtless not heard of them, in no way means they were "unknowns" in their own times or later. Not having heard of them, does not make them unimportant.
It is a reflection on parts of modern Christianity, if they know little or nothing of the Fathers of the Church, & it is a loss for those modern Christians. The age of the Fathers lasted from about 100 AD (the traditional date of St John the Apostle) to about 750 (the death of St John of Damascus). 650 years is a lot of Christianity for Christians to be ignorant of - almost a third of the history of Christianity.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Exactly. Tradition is deeply flawed. They teach that they are arbiters of truth and you must follow them. That in itself is false.

On the other hand, we can live victorious Christian lives without knowing anything of the Church Fathers, but we can't do live victorious Christian lives without knowing anything of the Bible.

Also, Hebrews is not about correcting the OT, it is about explaining the New Covenant.

 

[BBAS 64]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved. Even if you're a communist, homosexual, Pagan, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, usurer, adulterer, pretenders(those who claim to be Christians but are not or those who only profess Christianity as a means of getting in the heaven and nothing more) murderer, or even the devil himself could be saved. This teaching is called Apocatastasis but today is commonly referred as universalism. Some church fathers agree with this while many other Church fathers outright rejected it. Same with various passages in the Scripture. I don't see why this doctorate would exist. Why have a church or sacrifice? It seems to be more of the case that God is merciful (Psalms 103:8) and hopes everyone will accept his help ( 1 Timothy 2:4) but will only help those who are willing to be healed (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1). of the plague of sin(Psalms 41:4). This can be accomplished by stumbling up the hill with your cross much like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, son of God. I hope I don't make anyone mad I don't mean to I'm just not a very intelligent person. I think I have like the IQ of 60.

Good Day, Nick

Why- Because they were human, never the less I enjoy reading them.

In Him,

Bill

 

[SavedByGrace3]

There is the thought that since ALL were lost due to the first Adam's sin, then ALL are saved by the second Adam's (Jesus) righteousness.
It would only be fair, say they, that if you are lost through no fault of your own, then you can also be saved through no virtue of your own.
Adam lost you, Jesus saved you.

 

[JM]

Origien believed that regardless of one's actions or beliefs, that everyone will be saved. Even if you're a communist, homosexual, Pagan, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, usurer, adulterer, pretenders(those who claim to be Christians but are not or those who only profess Christianity as a means of getting in the heaven and nothing more) murderer, or even the devil himself could be saved. This teaching is called Apocatastasis but today is commonly referred as universalism. Some church fathers agree with this while many other Church fathers outright rejected it. Same with various passages in the Scripture. I don't see why this doctorate would exist. Why have a church or sacrifice? It seems to be more of the case that God is merciful (Psalms 103:8) and hopes everyone will accept his help ( 1 Timothy 2:4) but will only help those who are willing to be healed (I Cor. 3:9; II Cor. 6:1). of the plague of sin(Psalms 41:4). This can be accomplished by stumbling up the hill with your cross much like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, son of God. I hope I don't make anyone mad I don't mean to I'm just not a very intelligent person. I think I have like the IQ of 60.

Tradition is full of false teaching that became dogma so tradition must be tested by scripture and the church needs to be willing to reform according to the scripture.

 

[disciple Clint]

Tradition is full of false teaching that became dogma so tradition must be tested by scripture and the church needs to be willing to reform according to the scripture.

Consider that there was a period of time that the church existed but N.T. Scripture did not. Also consider that nothing in Scripture validates what is or is not N.T. Scripture.