What are the best sources for learning about early church doctrine, and how they viewed the scriptures? Any free grace material on the early church?
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Best sources for early Christian teachings (contemporary to NT texts?)
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Former Member Amorphous, Sep 12, 2016.
-
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Collectively the saints were led of the Spirit to properly understand and teach the true biblical accounts. God would not allow his churches to be without the Truth.
What is true is not new, and what is new is not true. -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Islam and Roman Catholicism are famous for their destruction of the writings of those who disagree with them. -
If you want to read the earliest extant writings, check out the sub-Apostolic fathers, that is, those who were disciples of the Apostles or of their disciples, roughly A.D. 100 to 200. What you will not find is a good deal of systematic theology, but rather very practical exhortations for churches undergoing persecution and growing and dealing with how to live a Christian life. (This is especially true of Ignatius of Antioch, whose writings are short and breathless exhortations to various churches to endure persecution and reject heresies.)
One thing that you notice immediately is that the sub-Apostolic fathers ground everything upon Scripture. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, for example, repeats vast amounts of the Old Testament, sometimes whole sections. Polycarp obviously is familiar with Paul, and in his Epistle to the Philippians he quotes large segments of Paul's writings, as well as the Gospels.
All of this, or course, gives the lie to contentions that the early Christians didn't know which writings were inspired. If you are familiar with the Scriptures, you will find that the vast majority of their writings are either quotations or paraphrases of what we know are Scripture.
In addition, they are mute testimony to the belief that Christ was God. How? They rarely address it because they take it for granted. If there really was disagreement in the early church, they would have mentioned it. They wrote their letters is response to the problems they saw firsthand, not to theoretical heresies yet to arise. (As an example, Ignatius takes on the Gnostics who said Christ did not have a body after the resurrection, quoting the Gospels as proof.) -
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
For the same reason adherents to false religions have been martyrs to their causes of the centuries.
-
Of course, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John so my assumption is he was doctrinally correct. Any supposed departure from strict orthodoxy is probably attributable to the RCC "adjusting" his writings to make it appear he was one of them. :)
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Also, just because Polycarp was a disciple of John does not mean that he was doctrinally correct in what he taught. Again...everything must be tested with the scriptures...even Polycarp. -
-
Was he KJVO?
HankD -
If the KJV was good enough for Paul, I am sure it was good enough for Polycarp. :)
-
HankD -
Now that I think about it he might have been an Original Manuscript man.
Why not?
:)
HankD -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Both of these are from the pre-Catholic era, putting Gregory the Great (540-604) as the inventor of the Catholic religion. Heretical influence is minimal, especially among the Apostolic Fathers. Though Eusebius was wishy-washy, he was still a good historian, and chronicled the early heresies well. The main heresy of the first couple of centuries was Montanism, similar to the modern Charismatic movement, and of course the Apostolic Fathers came even before Montanus and his movement. -
An online resource is J.S. Lightfoot's translation which, though dated, is free. (Holmes, whose book appears to be very interesting, based his original edition on Lightfoot, although the new edition incorporates extensive textual criticism and retranslation.)
http://www.katapi.org.uk/ApostolicFathers/ApFathers-Contents.html#contents
BTW: Apostolic and subApostolic are the same thing; subApostolic is the term used by H.B. Swete to distinguish the later writings from those of the Apostles themselves. -
-
I happen to have that book. Kelly's work essentially traces the development of what we would consider to be core doctrines, like the Trinity, but my recollection (it may be faulty) is that he primarily deals with the later fathers who were more interested in doctrinal niceties than were the subapostolic fathers.