Who were the Early Church Fathers after the Apostles?

[marks]

Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were all bishops of the Church (Rome,Smyrna, Antioch). All martyred for the Faith by Roman persecution..
They learned these things directly from the apostles...

Peace be with you!

Do you mean to say that the Apostles taught these men things that were meant to be taken at the same level as Scritpure? That their writings are like that?

Much love!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is that what you think? Based on what? Because I reach different conclusions than you?
Is it your assumption then that If I don't agree lockstep with you I'm ignorant?

I recognize that history is written by the winners, and lots of people have burned lots of books that they didn't agree with. I think it would be naive to assume this didn't happen with early Christian commentaries. Even if they were all in agreement with each other, and I know they are not, because I have in fact read, well, I'm reluctant to say a lot, because there is a lot of material, just the same, enough to see what I was looking at.

And even still, commentaries are just that, commentary, and opinion, and a man's teaching. They are not Scripture, should not be regarded like Scripture.
Much love!

First of all - nobody called you "ignorant" - so calm down.

Secondly - history is history - warts and all. The writings of the Early church Fathers exist - even the ones that DON'T agree with Catholic doctrine. Nobody "burned" them - so your charge is patently false..
There were debates and discussions in the Early Church - which is how many doctrines developed. The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union - even the Canon of Scripture - ALL had to be ironed out. The writings of men like Tertullian and Origen who were BOTH Catholic at one time, then each went into various heresies exist - Catholic AND post-Catholic.

Finally - while they are not Scripture - YOU adhere to the things THEY debated and developed as doctrine.
Where do you think your Bible came from??

Man began to lord over others.

"Lord" over others??
This is a Scripturally-bankrupt statement.

The Church has had a hierarchy from the beginning. That's the way Jesus built His Church (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18).
Paul speaks directly to this fact SEVERAL times:

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are OVER YOU in the Lord and who admonish you,

1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders that RULE WELL be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

1 Cor. 12:28
Some people God has designated in the church to be, FIRST, apostles; SECOND, prophets; THIRD, teachers; then, mighty deeds; then, gifts of healing, assistance, administration, and varieties of tongues.

This false idea of a "leaderless" Church is a man-made invention from the 16th century and the cause of confusion for the tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines based on their own private interpretation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's nonsense!
You assume I have a cavalier attitude towards the early church? That's nothing like what I've said.
Who is your Father?

God is my Father.

My earthly Father is buried at a local cemetery.

The Priests of Christ's Church, including the Pope ar also spiritual Fathers - just as Paul was a spiritual Father to his congregations:
1 Cor. 4:14–15
For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel"

I'm sure you were trying to pervert the meaning of Matt. 23:9 - but you don't understand what Jesus was saying . . .

 

[marks]

I'm sure you were trying to pervert the meaning of Matt. 23:9 - but you don't understand what Jesus was saying . . .

So then what was it that you are thinking that Jesus meant when He told them to not call anyone their father? You DO understand, right? Those who would put themselves over others? Those who would garner for themselves the respect reserved for your Heavenly Father?

Much love!

 

[marks]

I'm sure you were trying to pervert the

I'm equally sure you are not a proper judge of my motivations.

 

[marks]

First of all - nobody called you "ignorant" - so calm down.

Calm down . . . calm down . . . yes, calm down!

I'm not getting into a snit here . . . I am putting your words to the test.

You avoided my question.

Is it your assumption then that If I don't agree lockstep with you I'm ignorant?

 

[marks]

Nobody "burned" them - so your charge is patently false..

Interesting comment . . . I'd love to see you try to prove that sort of a statement!

 

[Candidus]

Do you mean to say that the Apostles taught these men things that were meant to be taken at the same level as Scritpure? That their writings are like that?

Much love!

No, they are not the same as Scripture, and they were men that were not perfect... just like the writers of the Bible!

Keep in mind, many were taught by an Apostle, and many were taught by someone who was taught by an Apostle. They lived in the present, the history and culture of that era. They spoke the language and understood all the nuances. It is arrogance and audacity to believe that we can look back at the New testament, after 2000 years of baggage and cultural change... and actually believe that we can perfectly reconstruct the New Testament Church without looking at the Church in the First century as it matured and developed. No Church that starts out today, will be exactly the same in 20 years as it was in the beginning.

These leaders had an opportunity to ask a Biblical writer... "What did you mean by that?" Or, ask someone who did know an Apostle, "Did they ever explain what they meant by that"? Most of these men lived in constant danger and persecution. Most of them went to a martyrs death. Based upon how I think and believe, I am not willing to die for for something I know to be a lie. I do not believe that they would have done so either! Several writings that we do not accept as Scripture were cherished by many in the Churches of the first few centuries. When it became a death penalty to possess Scripture, this helped to define our Bible, our current day cannon of Scripture; for one would ask themselves... which books are worth dying for?

Because they were closer to the source, culture, and experience... I would place their understanding higher than my opinion from 2000 years later! No, it is not Scripture, yet I think that at least the First and Second generation of Early Church Fathers should be next in line in human authority when we consider what the early Church taught and believed, and how they saw certain Scriptures. As with time, and the easing of persecution, the cost of pet theories and the intersecting of heathen errors with Christian thought became more "acceptable."

We come to the table with a certain advantage too! We have the completed Scriptures before us. We have the historical writings of the Early Church available to us to examine. I would look at it like a jigsaw puzzle, where we have have most of the pieces, or at least enough to see what the picture is going to be.

The Early Church Fathers are a valuable resource. Not Scripture, but a more trustworthy source than people who exist in a different time, place and language... thousands of years past the writing of Scripture.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So then what was it that you are thinking that Jesus meant when He told them to not call anyone their father? You DO understand, right? Those who would put themselves over others? Those who would garner for themselves the respect reserved for your Heavenly Father?

Much love!

I'm equally sure you are not a proper judge of my motivations.

WRONG.

Matt. 23:9 is NOT about not calling anybody “Father”. If that were the case – then God is a hypocrite because He commanded us to “Honor you FATHER and mother” (Exod. 20:12).

Jesus was simply making the point that the people were not to consider any man a Father – ABOVE our Father in Heaven. He made this statement because the Pharisees exalted themselves before the people. In the verse that precedes this (Matt. 23:8) – He tells them not to call any man a “Teacher” above our Teacher in Heaven.

In your blind hatred for the Catholic Church, you have completely taken the words of Christ OUT of context. Seems YOU have forgotten that:

- Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).

Don’t just read your Bible – STUDY it . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Calm down . . . calm down . . . yes, calm down!

I'm not getting into a snit here . . . I am putting your words to the test.

You avoided my question.

Is it your assumption then that If I don't agree lockstep with you I'm ignorant?

Interesting comment . . . I'd love to see you try to prove that sort of a statement!

That’s NOT what I said at all.

I simply stated that YOUR assumption that the Catholic Church “burned” those writings from the Early Church because they didn’t agree with Catholic doctrine is ludicrous – and completely unsubstantiated.

I even gave you examples of men like Tertullian and Origen, who are considered to be Early Church Fathers – yet BOTH eventually went into heresy. We have those writings as well. Tertullian, for example, wrote a scathing document against Pope Callixtus called “Di Pudicitia” that can be easily found online.

Your claims aren’t asinine and ignorant because you disagree with ME. They are asinine and ignorant because they have NO basis in historical fact.

 

[marks]

Jesus was simply making the point that the people were not to consider any man a Father – ABOVE our Father in Heaven. He made this statement because the Pharisees exalted themselves before the people. In the verse that precedes this (Matt. 23:8) – He tells them not to call any man a “Teacher” above our Teacher in Heaven.

Exactly!

 

[Enoch111]

Who were the early Church fathers after the original apostles and after all the books of the Bible had been written?

This should help from Got Questions:

Question: "Who were the Apostolic Fathers?"

Answer: The Apostolic Fathers were a group of early Christian leaders and authors who lived shortly after the apostles. Their writings are typically dated between AD 80–180. Most of the Apostolic Fathers are believed to have known the apostles personally or were connected to them in some way. Polycarp is traditionally seen as a disciple of the apostle John. Clement was likely the second, third, or fourth bishop of Rome, and he may have known some of the apostles. Hermas possibly knew Clement and thus was acquainted with the church of Rome.

At the time of the Apostolic Fathers, the main heresies plaguing the church were Gnosticism and Docetism, so presenting truth to counter those theological aberrations is a major theme of the Apostolic Fathers. The Apostolic Fathers’ writings comprise First and Second Clement, the Ignatian Epistles, Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the Letter of Barnabas (anonymous, despite the title), the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Letter (or Epistle) to Diognetus, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Some scholars also include fragments of Papias’s writing and fragments from the Apology of Quadratus, an early example of apologetics. From the beginning, all of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers were esteemed by the church as important. A few books were even included in early Bibles: 1 and 2 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas.

The Apostolic Fathers wrote in Greek and used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Included within the writing of the Apostolic Fathers are wisdom literature, hymns, apocalyptic prophecies, teachings of Jesus, instructions for early Christian leadership, parables, reflections on biblical passages, etc. Some of the epistles of the Apostolic Fathers address the same churches and areas that the apostles themselves addressed. First Clement is a letter to the church of Corinth, written to show them their errors and persuade them to change their ways. The seven letters of Ignatius are written to churches in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna; four of these places and churches also received direct communication in the New Testament.

The Apostolic Fathers’ writings contain the same genres as the New Testament. First Clement, Ignatius’ Letters, and Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians are epistles, or letters, to churches or individuals. The Epistle of Barnabas is an example of a general epistle. The Shepherd of Hermas is written in an apocalyptic style and also includes parables. The Letter to Diognetus is apologetic in nature. Second Clement is much like Hebrews and is the earliest example of a Christian homily outside of the New Testament. The Martyrdom of Polycarp is a martyrology and has no New Testament parallel. The Didache is typically seen as an early manual or guide for believers; it instructs them in the basics of the faith and prepares them for baptism.

The term Apostolic Fathers dates only from the latter part of the seventeenth century. Originally, the Apostolic Fathers were called “apostolic men.” Their writings show the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the first and second centuries, the respect that the early church had for the apostles, and the fervent love the leaders of the church had for their congregations.

 

[marks]

I simply stated that YOUR assumption that the Catholic Church “burned” those writings from the Early Church because they didn’t agree with Catholic doctrine is ludicrous – and completely unsubstantiated.

This was apparently what you read . . . but what I wrote was . . .

I recognize that history is written by the winners, and lots of people have burned lots of books that they didn't agree with. I think it would be naive to assume this didn't happen with early Christian commentaries. Even if they were all in agreement with each other, and I know they are not, because I have in fact read, well, I'm reluctant to say a lot, because there is a lot of material, just the same, enough to see what I was looking at.

And even still, commentaries are just that, commentary, and opinion, and a man's teaching. They are not Scripture, should not be regarded like Scripture.

I'm not assuming anyone has or has not destroyed history, books, whatever, and in fact I know many have over the years. You are assuming no one has. So there's the assumption.

My point is purely this.

We cannot be certain that we have a complete record of the early church. We cannot be certain we have all commentaries written in those early centuries. To assume we do is, in my opinion, naive.

And given the wide variation in presented views, I think that speaks for itself. Commentaries are always and only just that. A man's opinion.

The whole 'calling someone father', I don't expect that you will see the meaning that Jesus was speaking of, applying to your "bishop" (not a Biblical term), who would put himself over other . . . Let Nothing Be Done Without . . . ME! I get to say! Me!

There is One Who is your Father . . . don't let a man get in between you and Him!

Much love!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Exactly!

“Exactly” – what??

As I already showed you - having a Church hierarchy is prescribed by SCRIPTURE (1 Thess. 5:12, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Cor. 12:28). It’s not a case of people “lording” anything over anybody.

Your leaderless model for Christ’s Church is both illogical and unscriptural.

 

[marks]

Your leaderless model for Christ’s Church is both illogical and unscriptural.

More assumptions! It's difficult to discuss with you.

 

[marks]

As I already showed you - having a Church hierarchy is prescribed by SCRIPTURE (1 Thess. 5:12, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Tim. 5:17, 1 Cor. 12:28). It’s not a case of people “lording” anything over anybody.

Which of these passages support your heirarchal claims? Which of these tell us that no one is to do anything in the church apart from what a "bishop" says? Or all the rest? Which tell us that the "bishop", again, not a Scriptural term, much "bless the bread" for it to be the Lord's Supper?

I could go on by why? But seriously?

 

[BreadOfLife]

This was apparently what you read . . . but what I wrote was . . .

I recognize that history is written by the winners, and lots of people have burned lots of books that they didn't agree with. I think it would be naive to assume this didn't happen with early Christian commentaries. Even if they were all in agreement with each other, and I know they are not, because I have in fact read, well, I'm reluctant to say a lot, because there is a lot of material, just the same, enough to see what I was looking at.

And even still, commentaries are just that, commentary, and opinion, and a man's teaching. They are not Scripture, should not be regarded like Scripture.

I'm not assuming anyone has or has not destroyed history, books, whatever, and in fact I know many have over the years. You are assuming no one has. So there's the assumption.

My point is purely this.

We cannot be certain that we have a complete record of the early church. We cannot be certain we have all commentaries written in those early centuries. To assume we do is, in my opinion, naive.

And given the wide variation in presented views, I think that speaks for itself. Commentaries are always and only just that. A man's opinion.

The whole 'calling someone father', I don't expect that you will see the meaning that Jesus was speaking of, applying to your "bishop" (not a Biblical term), who would put himself over other . . . Let Nothing Be Done Without . . . ME! I get to say! Me!

There is One Who is your Father . . . don't let a man get in between you and Him!

Much love!

I think it’s even MORE naïve to assume that some documents were “burned” because they didn’t agree with Catholic doctrine.

As I pointed out – we have MANY documents with conflicting opinions – but NO evidence of “burned” documents..

As to your ongoing problem with Bishops and Fathers – everything I’ve presented is purely BIBLICAL.
I gave you several verses of Scripture where Paul tells his readers to:
1 Tim. 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

1 Thess. 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,

Your issues are unfounded and Scripturally unsound.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Which of these passages support your heirarchal claims? Which of these tell us that no one is to do anything in the church apart from what a "bishop" says? Or all the rest? Which tell us that the "bishop", again, not a Scriptural term, much "bless the bread" for it to be the Lord's Supper?

I could go on by why? But seriously?

You keep ignorantly saying that “Bishop” is not a Scriptural term because you don’t understand languages and etymology.

I HATE to be the one to break this to you but the Bible wasn’t written in English. The word we see over and over in the NT is “Episkopos”, which is the root word from which we get the Latin word, “biscopus”, which, when translated into English is “BISHOP”.

I really can’t believe that I just had to explain that to you.

As for the Bishop (overseer) blessing the bread – this role was given to the Apostles at the Last supper. The Apostles were the FIRST Bishops. We read this fact in Acts 1:20, where it says about Judas’s successor:
“Let another take his office.”

The Greek word used here for “office” is “EPISKOAY”.
Do your HOMEWORK . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

More assumptions! It's difficult to discuss with you.

Then explain the problem you seem to have with Christ-ordained Church hierarchy.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Many early writings were destroyed, banned.

Early Church writings?
Can you give some examples?