Are the Early Church Fathers Important

Should we listen to the Early Church Fathers?

[truevineministries-rev.ron]

Thank you for this video. Probably one of the most difficult subjects in Seminary was Christian History and Theology. We covered the early Church Fathers. There is much to glean from their differences in doctrine but nothing should overrule scripture. After all, they had different opinions and we had to write essays stating our opinion on their opinion. I think what we can really get from study the early Church Fathers, is learning how they came to their various beliefs. If anything, the study of them will stimulate our minds to think critically and cause us to dive deeper into the study of God's Word.

[Preach]

Learning the writing of church father is important. Let no one tell you otherwise.

[bigjohnconnect]

1:50 early church father polycarp before he was bound and burned at the stake, he was given the chance to deny Christ Jesus, he said “86 years have I have served him, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?” Yeah, I think he was a believer.

[Corinthians--ekkt]

Read the Bible. The HOLY SPlRIT reveals All Truth. ❤

[GBL]

Early Church Fathers had to sacrifice a lot more than Protestant preachers thats for sure, their words do carry more weight than most current preachers without a doubt

[daneyraju]

You got it wrong... the early church fathers complied the bible

[Anglochog]

We get our Bible canon from the fathers so by default we rely on them. Also they were directly entrusted with the faith from the Apostles, so reading their works allows us to understand how the Apostolic faith is to be understood. Obviously they disagree on quite a bit, but there is large agreement on multiple issues such as baptismal regeneration, the Lordship of Christ, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and more. The reformers all accepted the fathers as authoritative, although not infallible. There is nothing wrong in relying on those who came before you and trusting that God has guided His Church throughout the ages and has worked through the fathers in explicating the Apostolic faith. This isn't contrary to Protestantism.

[therighteousrighthand]

You should listen and learn a lot from early church fathers. The scripture waa given by God, but the church assembled it, led by the Holy Spirit. All Scripture were written by men who are dead now.

Early Christians had to defend their faith against heretics and had no idea people in 21st century would be reading their work. Without going back to the roots you will never defend the existence of the tree.

[RJC-BrickCity]

Listening to our elders is important, but the final authority is scripture and if you are a gentile, The Apostle Paul is our main teacher…
💪🏽💪🏽💪🏽

[mikejames]

The Church gave us the scriptures. I trust the Church Fathers more than modern protestant heretics

[JERRYSHONDA]

AFTER reading the Epistles and then the socalled Church Fathers I felt Iike a man who after watching huge towering waterfalls endlessly beaming had to watch rusty leaky faucets continuously dripping..Only later I was reminded that there will always be that breathtaking difference because one is THE WORD OF GOD and the other the words of men. I believe two hours with ANY Epistle outweighs two years with ANY so called church father. But even in my metaphorical analogy I realize how faulty it is since it implies a difference in DEGREE as in a continuum when the difference is actually in KIND as in a dichotomy.

[jacobrickman]

Eastern Orthodox here. I don't agree with you at all. They should have more authority than us since they were so close with the apostles. They were the 1st or second generation after the apostles. Some were even students of the apostles. Their writings help to figure out which of the early writings where true and later the church organized the canon. We didn't get the canon magically and it was not revealed directly from God like Muslims believe the Quran to be. Their writings should be studied and we should appreciate and understand the interpretation which the apostles meant to convene. Their writing didn't write doctrine into scripture. Their writings come directly from the apostles. If your own personal doctrines are in conflict with them, who is right? You reading the scriptures after 2000 years or the guys who helped organize the bible?

This is why protestants have a hard time reading church history. Because their doctrines are so off base from the early church. That is why the Eastern Orthodox Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to continue the Traditions and interpretations passed down from the apostles themselves. The church doesn't go by one or two early church fathers. We take the consensus of all the church fathers to find the true. Sola Scriptura is false heresy because you are placing the writings above his Holy Spirit. And you say naw the early church went into heresy and because I read the bible 2000 years after them I think I am right.

[ashersian]

(Acts 20:29 KJV) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

[eclipsesonic]

One of the great things about studying church history is how the Church fathers and leaders fought strongly against heresy and how they responded to their adversaries by applying the scriptures. Whether it's the heresy of Arianism (espoused by the heretic Arius in the 4th century, saying that Jesus was a created being and NOT God from all eternity. The story of how the Council of Nicea and the church bishop Athanasius of Alexandria fought against this heresy is a very interesting read), Gnosticism (the belief that matter is evil, the God of the Old Testament is different to the God of the New Testament and that while Jesus was God, He wasn't truly human. Irenaeus fought hard against this heresy in the 2nd century in his 5 volume work, Against Heresies, where we can find out about the Gnostics, what they believed and how the church responded to them) or any other heresies, we can learn so much from the fathers, so because of that, I think it's wise to at least study the matter and how the church operated throughout its beginnings.

While they weren't perfect by any means and we should put more emphasis on the Apostles themselves and their writings that make up our New Testament (as the Apostles were inspired), the fathers can certainly illuminate the meaning of many passages of scripture, seeing that studying and memorising the scriptures was their life-long work.

There's an excellent resource called the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible, that has commentaries on the scriptures, biographies and articles from and about the early church fathers, as well as heresies that invaded the church in various forms.

[mattmungrin]

We shouldn't read the early church fathers because they were all Catholic and believed in Baptismal regeneration and christ true presence in the eucharist and a bunch of other things that they claim they were taught from the apostles. Obviously the apostles taught the early fathers wrong and 1500 years of wrong teachings were finally corrected by Martin Luther.

[CalvinCook]

All we need is the Word in the end! ❤️‍🔥🤗

[danmarley]

Jesus said, Call no man Father, you have one Father which is in Heaven.
Besides that, theirs is a legacy of errors that are with us today.
We have the Holy Spirit, just as they, in addition to the word of God.
Moreover, the Church has gone through periods of revival and restoration, which reflects upon a lack of knowledge of some things necessary for obtaining the knowledge of God and of Christ. That is to say, the will of God, and the grace of God were not rightly understood, and the so called church fathers only made matters worse.
Even the very fact of a mention of these men, implies that the church had lost its way, and these men in whom they gloried, were credited as beacons of light, and without them there would be no guiding influence.
I certainly don't believe that nor many of them.

[BrianGondo]

They differ on many things, but importantly they agree on many fundamental things which protestants today largely reject

[OutsiderJC]

I thank the Holy Spirit for always guiding me to real authentic teachers, such as yourself. I just came across your channel, and really enjoy what you have you say. Its right on. I am so thankful that the Holy Spirit always gives me the discernment for real and false teachers, because I have seen plenty of them on youtube. Im just thankful that the Holy Spirit reveals them to me, because I notice so many people that follow them, and are so defensive when I try and warn them about it. I am glad He has protected me from that, and revealed them as such. So I just want to tell you to keep doing what you do, its a real blessing.

[mis-tur-tay-bur]

I agree. Lately I've been corresponding with a very good Eastern Orthodox friend, whose reverence for these men is, I think, way out of proportion, and of course she's not on her own. The fact that I render "Church fathers" in quotation marks might be seen by her as a mark of disrespect. But I don't disrespect them. Neither do I have reason to respect them. The reverence in which they are held is because of a "holiness" conferred by men, when in fact God is the only one who was ever able to declare anything holy.

I base none of my faith on their words and the fact is that, once we get beyond the apostles and those who sat at their feet, it's open slather. As you rightly point out, these "fathers" began to diverge in their beliefs right from the start. Denominations and their adherents choose which of these "Church fathers" best confirms their credos, and call them "holy" or confer upon them the title of "saint". Right there, they depart from the inerrancy of Scripture. They elevate these men to sainthood (a term which has been corrupted) in order to justify their reverence for them, and their prideful building upon Scripture. The construction of these faiths is no less real, in a spiritual sense, than that of the physical tower of Babel. And no less disrespectful to God Himself. And what has it caused? Look at any of those charts tracing the development of denominations: endless bifurcations that won't cease until this world ceases. Satan is the father of "variety" (in a worldly sense) and he will slice and dice anything if it leads humanity through the wide gate to perdition.

This Eastern Orthodox friend of mine is also an academic, and has been trained to revere such figures. Humble though she is, she (gently) uses "Sola Scriptura" as a weapon phrase and levels it against anyone who believes in the sufficiency of Scripture. My point to her is that, if we believe all Scripture is God-breathed, we have no reason to build upon it or alter it. We are dealing with ultimate, fixed authority - as we should. Satan is also the father of relativism.

She actually does, in her curious, academic way, inevitably question interpretations of Scripture (she knows ancient languages), yet is not sceptical in the slightest of figures like Athanasius of Alexandria, or even Constantine, nor does she question her own church's iconography (otherwise known as idolatry). This lack of suspicion of her own religion, and these fathers, and the priests, might be seen as childlike innocence before God, but much of it is childish, not childlike.

It's all mere deception. It doesn't matter how long ago it was. Deception began in the Garden, and Satan's question - "Did God REALLY say that?" has been reiterated in different ways by mankind ever since. Unless we believe and live Scripture, we are all in danger of becoming the devil's useful idiots.