What do we do with the early church fathers?

What do we do with the early church fathers?
Watch and listen to full episodes of Wretched Radio & TV for FREE: wretched.org
Follow Wretched:
Facebook: / wretchednetwork
Twitter: / wretchednetwork
Instagram: / wretched.network
Follow Todd Friel:
Twitter: / toddfriel
Help support quality Christian media!
wretched.org/d...
We cannot promise that your ongoing, tax-deductible monthly support will save polar bears and stop global warming (if there were such a thing). But we can promise that we will wisely use every penny you entrust to us to preach the Gospel to as many people as possible. Thank you for trusting us.

[@petros-petra]

If you disagree with the Church, you disagree with Jesus. Listen to the Apostles and their successors. Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@petros-petra]

@@theguyver4934 Hey, look, your prophet is in the Bible But even if we, or an *angel* from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed! Galatians 1:8-9 LSB‬

[@augustine.c8204]

the church is fallible, Jesus is not. None of the 12 apostles prayed to Mary, claimed she ascended, taught on indulgences or purgatory, etc etc

[@petros-petra]

@@augustine.c8204 Why should the Apostles pray to Mary? I am very certain that Mary prayed for the Apostles though and interceded for them, as Jesus commanded as to do so. Also, you don't know if they didn't, as not everything was written down.

[@jasons5904]

@@theguyver4934didn’t Mohammed try to off himself because he thought the angel that told him he was Gabriel might be a demon?

[@marincusman9303]

You don’t believe in baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, real presence, relics, liturgy… all those guys do

[@i2sharr]

It is very useful to read the Ante Nicene Fathers as a resource for inspiration and commentary when they are confirming the teachings of Jesus and His apostels. Since they were the fathers of the early church and closest to the culture, language and understandings of the traditions of the church.

[@kiwihans100]

Sadly most of the 'church fathers' did NOT 'confirm the teachings of Jesus & his apostles'! If you read their views they were influenced MORE by the Greek philosophy they were taught & the attempted to rationalise with Christianity. A good example is LOGOS. Aristotle centuries before Jesus taught us the the logos was 'divine reason' which was then accepted as correct by most of th4 church fathers'! (This led to the notion that God's Son was not a seperate Spirit person who dwelt with his Father in heaven before being sent to the earth (John 3:16,17) but just 'God's reason & mind' e.t.c. However it clear from Jesus apostle John that the Word' is a REAL PERSON, not 'divine reason' John 1 uses 'him', 'he' as PERSONAL pronouns when speaking of the 'Word' ( Rev 19:13 speaks of the 'Word' as 'he' again). Thus 'Logos' is just ONE of many examples of the way the 'church fathers' deviated considerably from the true gospel! ( Consider for another time HADES & PHYKE!)

[@i2sharr]

@@kiwihans100 I totally agree with you that they were in many disagreements with each other on topics. But the point that I am making is when Jesus teaches something and the apostles are teaching the same thing and the early church fathers also confirm that. It can be very supportive in understanding the teachings of Jesus.

[@kiwihans100]

@@i2sharr Thats a fine comment! Look, I have indeed found many statements of the church fathers in my view are correct ( ie; IRENAEUS (130-200) sated in his ''Adversus Haereses' about God; God the Creator, the Only God,Lord, only creator only father,only Sovereign. It is he who bestows existance on all things. CHRIST; The Son was produced from the Father.". This I agree with! There are other correct statements like this which conflict with the 'trinity' concept! One of my main points of dissagreement is the take of most of the 'faithers' on the LOGOS. ( The Word. Who do believe the'Word is at John 1:1 please?

[@bhughes9518]

I truly enjoy your ministry and consider you a wise, Godly, man… but, I respectfully disagree and you are not correct. The closer you get, generationally, to Jesus and the Apostles, the more pure the message.

[@Ladybug099]

Amen

[@rebeccamatteson9643]

Read Apostolic Fathers like Calvin, Wesley, C.S. Lewis, or anyone else who is non canonical. They provide some interesting insights about the beliefs and practices of the early church. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies is a pretty interesting read. Gnostic heresies haven’t really gone away, just rebranded over the years. Polycarp is pretty solid. Shepherd of Hermas is just weird!

[@jonyoung6405]

Would rather read about the Early Church Fathers than purchase book from a modern multi millionaire.

[@elishabrowns9472]

Thank you, I randomly searched to see if there were any lectures on the Ante-Nicene Church leaders hoping to use some of that information to strengthen my base of knowledge on doctrinal issues. I think you're right though. We have so many more resources today then they had and we can read about all the teachings of all the different fathers during their time and make our objective conclusion. Something which has already been done today. Unfortunately, some still persist to this day to believe many of their perspectives. I guess there may or may not be a balance between trusting the motivations/knowledge of the past with the radical reformed understandings of today.

[@bl00zjammer]

This video seems a little glib about a serious subject - The foundational theologians of Christianity. And no, you can't ignore their contributions to the Early Church. We have 'more' resources 'today' exactly because of the road paved by the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. And insinuating that they are good only "during their time" smacks of arrogance. Most annoying, though, is your assessing your own conclusions as "objective". Having your "own" conclusions is the very Definition of Subjective! The distinction is of key importance. As any and every Protestant denomination (thousands of them) are as subjective as can be. They have no way to say which one is accurate... If any! They All claim the same Bible as "proof" that their interpretation is correct. You think "believing the perspectives" of the Church Fathers is "unfortunate"? Wow. That is what is unfortunate.

[@elishabrowns9472]

@@bl00zjammer I appreciate your perspective on the importance of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. While I respect your viewpoint, I'd like to clarify that my intention wasn't to dismiss their contributions. Rather, my emphasis was on encouraging critical thinking and acknowledging the evolving nature of knowledge. It's clear there's a misunderstanding in your comment about 'objective' and 'subjective.' Objectivity doesn't negate personal perspectives; rather, it aims for impartiality based on evidence. Labeling my conclusions as 'subjective' for having an individual standpoint overlooks this nuance. Let's engage in a discussion grounded in accurate definitions and a shared commitment to understanding each other's viewpoints.

[@showmeanedge]

The Truth doesn't change; why would His Church? Is the one He founded not good enough for us these days? When we question the fathers we question the Holy Spirit who guided them. We question our Lord Himself - was He incapable of choosing holy disciples to carry the gospels forth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? There's a heaping mountain of pride in these modernist approaches to the scriptures. By the time we get done whittling away that which _we_ deem unacceptable in _our_ great wisdom we've left much of the Truth on the cutting-room floor.

[@bl00zjammer]

@@elishabrowns9472 I am all about the growth of knowledge. But knowledge gained from opinion is not the same as knowledge gained from evidence. So, the more objectively you evaluate the evidence, the more objective we can be. But aside from keeping an eye out for anachronisms from almost two thousand years of cultural change, try to draw out the information that is not effected by the passage of time. These core truths keep the Fathers and Doctors of the Church relevant today and do not lose any validity with the passage of time. Don't measure them against cultural change. Sure, I find some of the statements of the first Catholics (Christians) hard to accept because compared to modern sensibilities, they seem a bit barbaric, sort of. They are devoid of humanism and are only related to sin, a relationship with an all-powerful being, and the reality of hell. Justice and fairness meant something radically different back then. Today's believers don't like how "harsh" some of the early thinkers were. So, just be careful with what type of knowledge is being evaluated. But God Bless, and enjoy pursing Truth!

[@bl00zjammer]

@@showmeanedge Yes, the past is not the present, but Truth never changes. Opinions on truth do, though. And humility seems so far away these days.

[@kiwihans100]

What do we do with the 'church fathers'? WE IGNORE THEM! Why? Because despite the fact that Jesus apostles ( who gave us the Nt!) were "unlettere & ordinary men" Acts 4:13, most of the 'churuch fathers' were from priviledged, wealthy families who had recieved higher education in Greek philosophy e.t.c. Their writings with the 'take' on LOGOS, PHYKE, HADES where the ideas of 3rd century BCE Aristotle & Plato & NOT the gospels or epistles! Paul stated that "God chose the FOOLISH things of the world to put the wise to shame" 1 Coor 1:27) Yes "Men will arise and speak 'twisted' things to draw the disciples away to themsleves" (Acts 20:28-30)

[@WanderingThief]

If the Apostles were unlettered men, how could they read the Old Testament and write the New Testament? Clearly they had to be educated by someone in order to do this! Also, even if the Church Fathers were from priviledged and wealthy families, how does that make their message false? For instance, if a rich man approaches me and tells me that Christ is God, and that the Trinity is true, is what he's saying false because he is rich? Of course not. Furthermore, all of the Greek words you mentioned can be found in the Gospel of John, which according to both of us, was certainly written by an Apostle. On the other hand, one of the the apostolic fathers (Clement of Rome) is mentioned by Paul in Philippians as one "whose name is written in the book of life" (Philippians 4:3). Are we truly to believe that Paul was wrong, and that Clement taught a contrary gospel, even as Paul states that Clement is saved? Surely not.

[@kiwihans100]

@@WanderingThief Sorry but you dont get my point! The fact that the apostles were 'unlettered & ordinary' was a slight made by the Pharasees who HAD been educated at rabinical schools & taught the 'traditions of men'. The Disciples of Jesus were no fools, they, as Jews would have had a standard education in many life skills. But they were taught the truth about Jesus directly from him!. This contrasts with the majority of the church 'fathers' who were from priviledged classes and who had received their education within the Helenist culture of the day. They were educated in mainly Greek philosophy which is so evident when you read ( as I have done) their views and ideas about Christ. I have studied in detail three aspects of their teachings. LOGOS, HADES, PHYSKE, There is a stark difference between there teachings on these three entitiies and the teachings of the NT. Would you like some examples? I do feel that we should heed the warnings of the apostles that " From YOU YOURSELVES en will arise and speak twisted things to draw the disciples away for themselves" (Acts 20:30). Paul said this word occur "After my going away" ( verse 29). Also Jesus in his parable of the wheat & tares said "while men were sleeping, the enemy sowed the tares in amoung the wheat". This would have been after the last of the apostles "fell asleep in death" ( See 1 Cor 15:6) Thus from the 2nd century onwards the development of the corruption of early Christianity began leading to the total capitulation of Christianity to the influence and power of Rome!.

[@WanderingThief]

@@kiwihans100 So you read into references to apostasy in the Bible that they refer to the Apostolic Fathers? That is ridiculous. As I mentioned before, (as you still haven't addressed) Paul says in Philippians 4:3 that Clement's name is in the book of life. If Paul wrote that infallibly by the Holy Spirit, then Paul was deluded and that part of Scripture is false. You just created a contradiction. Once again, it doesn't matter where anyone was educated. Paul uses hellenic concepts and ideas from Greek philosophy all the time. That doesn't matter because he's using those concepts to support Christianity, not prop up Paganism. For all the "studying" you did, you didn't learn this? Furthermore, Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by John, and Clement was taught by Peter and Paul. Am I really to believe on your account that as soon as the Apostles died, these Fathers suddenly decided to introduce heresy into the Church? I thought that the Church is "the pillar and ground of all truth," and that the Holy Spirit would "lead [us] into all truth?" The position you are advocating is beyond ridiculous, as it is predicated on you knowing true theology better than those who conversed with the Apostles themselves.

[@kiwihans100]

@@WanderingThief Several points, Thanks|! I did say 'most' of the 'church fathers'! 'Apostolic' suggests a line of men choses by the cardinals to be called such! There is no biblical precedence for this!. secondly, I dont include Polycarp, a true humble Christian in my comment! As for Igantius, He had a severe 'martyr' complex giving harsh instructions to thecongregations as to 'complete obedience to the 'bishop' ( even asking his permission to hold a 'love feast' which was a private social gathering! Very dictatorial to my mind! As for Clement. The evidence is strong he was never the same person as Paul mentioned in around 60Ad. So its unlikely that since he would have been a grown man in 60AD by the start of the 2nd century he would have been 100 years old! So itisconjecture that this 'Clement' was the SAME person in Phil 4. No evidence! By the way dont believe me but rad this from 'google; As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular, by Plato and the Stoics.[5] His secret works, which exist only in fragments, suggest that he was familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism as well. In one of his works he argued that Greek philosophy had its origin among non-Greeks, claiming that both Plato and Pythagoras were taught by Egyptian scholars.[6] I rest my case!

[@kiwihans100]

Please read the google page on CLEMENT;As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular, by Plato and the Stoics.[5] His secret works, which exist only in fragments, suggest that he was familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism as well. In one of his works he argued that Greek philosophy had its origin among non-Greeks, claiming that both Plato and Pythagoras were taught by Egyptian scholars.[6] PS; threre is NO evidence he was the same person who was an adult at least 4o years before the 2nd century!).

[@kiwihans100]

Paul spoke of exactly these so called 'church fathers'. Acts 20:28-30 "I know that after I go away, oppressive wolves will enter in amoung you and not treat the flock with tenderness. AND FROM AMOUNG YOU YOURSELVES men will arrise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves". So who were these so called 'chuch Fathers'? Excluding Polycarp a humble Christian who knew John and died for his faith, and Ignatious? Mmm, iyt is claimed he knew John but we have no emperical evidence! He travelled round, on his way to Rome actually seeking and begging to be martyred! He preached that 'strict obedience to the bishop was vital! and that the bishop only can give permission for attending a 'love feast' ( a private social gathering'. Seems very harsh & over the top! (Would Jesus have approved, who often wined & dined with the pharasees!). Ofe interest is that nothing was said about Ignatious re the 'trinity'!

[@hi2cole]

This is the problem with Protestantism. You think yourself a judge over the fathers of the church. We know which ones were wolves and which are true saints. There's been battles and fights for 2 milenia now over important doctrinal and practical issues.

[@kiwihans100]

@@hi2cole The argueing, bickering, hatred and pesicutions started way BEFORE the reformation my friend! There even rival popes! You must know this! thousands died by torture & execution instigated by the catholic church for centuries BEFORE Luther! The theprotesstants did exactly the same! Its a shameful sad history my frien that cant be denied!

[@ScottPalmer-mp1we]

I find your silliness and clowning around to be annoying. Just get to the point without the other stuff thrown in.