See other Religion Articles
Title: The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 1, 2009
Author: Various -- Bible
Post Date: 2009-03-01 19:54:02 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 97
Comments: 2
The Church Fathers—Advocates of Bible Truth? Whether you profess to be a Christian or not, your perception of the God of the Bible, of Jesus, and of Christianity may well have been influenced by them. One of them was called Golden-Mouthed; another, Great. Collectively, they have been described as “the supreme embodiments of the life of Christ.” Who are they? They are the ancient religious thinkers, writers, theologians, and philosophers who have shaped much of today’s “Christian” thinking—the Church Fathers. “THE Bible is not the totality of God’s word,” claims Greek Orthodox professor of religious studies Demetrios J. Constantelos. “The Holy Spirit that reveals the word of God cannot be confined to the pages of a book.” What could possibly be another reliable source of divine revelation? Constantelos asserts in his book Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church: “Holy Tradition and Holy Scriptures [are] viewed as two sides of the same coin.” The core of that “Holy Tradition” includes the teachings and writings of the Church Fathers. They were prominent theologians and “Christian” philosophers who lived between the second and fifth centuries C.E. How much have they influenced modern “Christian” thought? Did they hold fast to the Bible in their teaching? What should be the solid basis of Christian truth for a follower of Jesus Christ? Historical Background In the middle of the second century C.E., professed Christians were defending their faith against Roman persecutors and heretics alike. However, this was an era of too many theological voices. Religious debates regarding the “divinity” of Jesus and the nature and workings of the holy spirit caused more than just intellectual rifts. Bitter disagreements and irreparable divisions over “Christian” doctrine spilled over into the political and cultural spheres, at times causing riots, rebellion, civil strife, even war. Writes historian Paul Johnson: “[Apostate] Christianity began in confusion, controversy and schism and so it continued. . . . The central and eastern Mediterranean in the first and second centuries AD swarmed with an infinite multitude of religious ideas, struggling to propagate themselves. . . . From the start, then, there were numerous varieties of Christianity which had little in common.” During that era, writers and thinkers who felt that it was imperative to interpret “Christian” teachings using philosophical terms began to flourish. To satisfy educated pagans who were new converts to “Christianity,” such religious writers relied heavily on earlier Greek and Jewish literature. Beginning with Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 C.E.), who wrote in Greek, professed Christians became increasingly sophisticated in their assimilation of the philosophical heritage of the Greek culture. This trend came to fruition in the writings of Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.), a Greek author from Alexandria. Origen’s treatise On First Principles was the first systematic effort to explain the main doctrines of “Christian” theology in terms of Greek philosophy. The Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), with its attempt to explain and establish the “divinity” of Christ, was the milestone that gave new impetus to interpretation of “Christian” dogma. That council marked the beginning of an era during which general church councils sought to define dogma ever more precisely. Writers and Orators Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote at the time of the first Council of Nicaea, associated himself with Emperor Constantine. For slightly more than 100 years after Nicaea, theologians, most of them writing in Greek, worked out in a long and bitter debate what was to be the distinguishing doctrine of Christendom, the Trinity. Chief among them were Athanasius, the assertive bishop of Alexandria, and three church leaders from Cappadocia, Asia Minor—Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus. Writers and preachers during that age achieved high standards of eloquence. Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom (meaning “Golden-Mouthed”) in Greek as well as Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo in Latin were consummate orators, masters of the most respected and popular art form of their time. The most influential writer of that period was Augustine. His theological treatises have pervasively shaped the “Christian” thinking of today. Jerome, the period’s most distinguished man of letters, was chiefly responsible for the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible from the original languages. However, important questions are: Did those Church Fathers adhere closely to the Bible? In their teaching, did they hold fast to the inspired Scriptures? Are their writings a safe guide to an accurate knowledge of God? Teachings of God or Teachings of Men? Recently, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Methodius of Pisidia wrote the book The Hellenic Pedestal of Christianity in order to show that Greek culture and philosophy provided the infrastructure of modern “Christian” thought. In that book, he unhesitantly admits: “Almost all the prominent Church Fathers considered the Greek elements most useful, and they borrowed them from the Greek classical antiquity, using them as a means to understand and correctly express the Christian truths.” Take, for example, the idea that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit make up the Trinity. Many Church Fathers after the Council of Nicaea became staunch Trinitarians. Their writings and expositions were crucial to making the Trinity a landmark doctrine of Christendom. However, is the Trinity found in the Bible? No. So where did the Church Fathers get it? A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity “is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith.” And The Paganism in Our Christianity affirms: “The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan.”—John 3:16; 14:28. Or consider the teaching of the immortality of the soul, a belief that some part of man lives on after the body dies. Again, the Church Fathers were instrumental in introducing this notion to a religion that had no teaching about a soul surviving death. The Bible clearly shows that the soul can die: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) What was the basis for the Church Fathers’ belief in an immortal soul? “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen in the East and St. Augustine in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . [Augustine’s doctrine] . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism,” says the New Catholic Encyclopedia. And the magazine Presbyterian Life says: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.” The Solid Basis of Christian Truth After even this brief examination of the historical backdrop of the Church Fathers, as well as the origins of their teachings, it is appropriate to ask, Should a sincere Christian base his or her beliefs on the teachings of the Church Fathers? Let the Bible answer. For one thing, Jesus Christ himself ruled out the use of the religious title “Father” when he said: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.” (Matthew 23:9) The use of the term “Father” to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural. The written Word of God was completed about 98 C.E. with the writings of the apostle John. Thus, true Christians do not need to look to any human as the source of inspired revelation. They are careful not to ‘make the word of God invalid’ because of human tradition. Letting human tradition take the place of God’s Word is spiritually lethal. Jesus warned: “If . . . a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:6, 14. Does a Christian need any revelation besides the word of God as contained in the Bible? No. The book of Revelation cautions against adding anything to the inspired record: “If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.”—Revelation 22:18. Christian truth is embodied in the written Word of God, the Bible. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 John 1-4) The correct understanding of it does not hinge on secular philosophy. Regarding men who tried to use human wisdom to explain divine revelation, it is fitting to repeat the apostle Paul’s questions: “Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish?”—1 Corinthians 1:20. Moreover, the true Christian congregation is “a pillar and support of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Its overseers safeguard the purity of their teaching within the congregation, preventing any doctrinal pollutant from creeping in. (2 Timothy 2:15-18, 25) They keep out of the congregation ‘false prophets, false teachers, and destructive sects.’ (2 Peter 2:1) After the death of the apostles, the Church Fathers allowed “misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons” to take root in the Christian congregation.—1 Timothy 4:1. The consequences of this apostasy are evident in Christendom today. Its beliefs and practices are a far cry from Bible truth. [Footnotes] An in-depth discussion of the Trinity doctrine can be found in the brochure Should You Believe in the Trinity?, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. For a detailed discussion of the Bible’s teaching on the soul, see pages 98-104 and 375-80 of Reasoning From the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. CAPPADOCIAN FATHERS “The Orthodox Church . . . has a particular reverence for the writers of the fourth century, and especially for those whom it terms ‘the three Great Hierarchs,’ Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom,” states the writer Kallistos, who is a monk. Did these Church Fathers base their teachings on the inspired Scriptures? Regarding Basil the Great, the book The Fathers of the Greek Church states: “His writings show that he retained a lifelong intimacy with Plato, Homer, and the historians and rhetors, and they certainly influenced his style. . . . Basil remained a ‘Greek.’” The same was true of Gregory of Nazianzus. “In his view the victory and the superiority of the Church would best be shown in its complete adoption of the traditions of classical culture.” Regarding all three of them, Professor Panagiotis K. Christou writes: “While they occasionally caution against ‘philosophy and empty deception’ [Colossians 2:8]—in order to be in harmony with the commandment of the New Testament—they, at the same time, eagerly study philosophy and the relevant disciplines and even recommend the study of them to others.” Obviously, such church teachers thought that the Bible was not enough to support their ideas. Could their seeking other pillars of authority mean that their teachings were foreign to the Bible? The apostle Paul warned Hebrew Christians: “Do not be carried away with various and strange teachings.”—Hebrews 13:9. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA—A CONTROVERSIAL CHURCH FATHER One of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.). Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the dignity of his office,” and adds that “he never considered anything as right unless it was useful to him in the furtherance of his power and authority . . . The brutality and unscrupulousness of his methods never depressed him.” While he was bishop of Alexandria, Cyril used bribery, libel, and slander in order to depose the bishop of Constantinople. He is considered responsible for the brutal murder in 415 C.E. of a renowned philosopher named Hypatia. Regarding Cyril’s theological writings, Campenhausen says: “He initiated the practice of deciding questions of belief not solely on the basis of the Bible but with the aid of appropriate quotations and collections of quotations from acknowledged authorities.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151 (#0)
for people out of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking a balanced Bible perspective Jehovah's Witnesses and Shunning One of the characteristics of a destructive religion is an enforced policy that requires the members to shun anyone who leaves or gets expelled from the religion. It is a common trait among esoteric movements that claim to be "the Truth." Members are required to sever association with even their own family members and relatives who leave. The consequences of this harsh doctrinal policy are extreme, shattering family relationships and leaving the victims emotionally and spiritually devastated. Suicides or attempted suicides are not uncommon. Jehovah's Witnesses are among the religious groups that practice extreme shunning of former members. Of all the Watchtower Society's legalistic doctrines, this one is perhaps the most responsible for uprising among former members against the Organization that has resulted in exhaustive examination and exposés of their flawed teachings and history. Former members who disavow faith in the Watchtower organization's doctrines are branded "apostates." Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that they must hate such ones. An article titled "Search Through Me, O God" appeared in the October 1, 1993 Watchtower. Speaking about "apostates" on page 19, beginning with paragraph 15, we read: 15 Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.--Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9, 10. An article in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, on page 29 under the heading "DISFELLOWSHIPED RELATIVES NOT LIVING AT HOME" has this to say (beginning at paragraph 18): 18 The second situation that we need to consider is that involving a disfellowshiped or disassociated relative who is not in the immediate family circle or living at one's home. Such a person is still related by blood or marriage, and so there may be some limited need to care for necessary family matters. Nonetheless, it is not as if he were living in the same home where contact and conversation could not be avoided. We should keep clearly in mind the Bible's inspired direction: "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person . . . , not even eating with such a man."--1 Cor. 5:11. See also the reference to this article on page 20 of The Watchtower, November 15, 1988. Disfellowshipping versus SHUNNING The point of this commentary will be to show that the Watchtower Society's shunning doctrine does not adhere to the Bible. Further, an understanding of congregational practices of first-century Christians in the Jewish culture is necessary for a proper understanding of the scriptures on this matter. The primary scripture for consideration is: But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.--1.Cor. 5:11 (NWT) The text is clear that a person with whom the congregation should not mix company is one who is: 1) "called a brother" (that is, one who professes to be a member of the congregation); and 2) practicing fornication, greed, idolotry, reviling (insulting), habitual drunkeness, and/or extortion (theft). * Jehovah's Witnesses do not disfellowship greedy persons. * They often do not disfellowship people who regularly get drunk unless their conduct becomes so outrageous and publicly-known as to bring reproach upon Jehovah's Witnesses. * They do not disfellowship people for many of the things which they themselves class as "idolatry" (for example: materialism, worshipping an organization, etc.). * On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses do disfellowship and shun people for: o no longer claiming to be called a brother/sister. o independent study and discussion of the Bible that brings Watchtower doctrine into question. o possession of literature written by former members. o having lunch with a former member, even if the former member professes to be a Christian and was not disfellowshipped for fornication, greed, idolotry, reviling, drunkeness, or extortion. o attending a service of any other church or religious organization. o authorizing a blood transfusion, even to save the life of a child. o numerous other actions not mentioned in scripture, but deemed by the congregation elders to be "unclean conduct," or "conduct unbecoming" of a Jehovah's Witness. "Conduct" in this case covers a broad range of actions not clearly defined by the Society, leaving discernment about what is not acceptable to the discretion of the congregation's elders. As a result, standards by which people may be disfellowshiped are inconsistent throughout this religion which claims "unity" to be one of their identifying characteristics. "Not to be mixing in company with" . . . "not even eating with . . ." Here it is important to learn the customs of association for worship practiced by first-century Jews and Christians, bearing in mind that Jesus and the apostles were Jews. They lived according to the Jewish lifestyle and customs of their day. Jesus taught in the synogogues; hence, he was called "Rabbi." Matt.26:25; 26:49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:25; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25; 9:2; 11:8 There were two kinds of association for religious worship: 1) public meetings, such as at the temple and in synogogues, which anyone was allowed to attend; and 2) private gatherings of the different sects. Christians and Jews participated in both. Christians, met in private homes, usually over a special meal with prayer. A presiding minister hosted the meal using either fellowship funds or personal funds. (Acts 20:20; see the footnote in older editions of the NWT) Christians were instructed to "greet" one another with a kiss. (Rom.16:16; 1.Cor.16:20; 2Cor.13:12; Ti.3:15; 1Pet.5:14) When Paul sent his "greetings" in a letter to the Christians in Thessalonica, he requested that the "brothers" be greeted by a "holy kiss" on his behalf. (1Thess.5:26) It was by this sign that Judas betrayed Jesus. (Luke 22:47,48) Clearly, Paul did instruct Christians to expel from the congregation's fellowship any person who was purposely practicing willful sin. The disassociation would quite naturally exclude them from being greeted by the identifying "holy kiss," as well as not being allowed to share in meetings and the meals for Christian worship and prayer. However, Paul's instruction did not prohibit normal conversation or witnessing to former members. Nor were they barred from attending worship in the temple or the synagogues. Jesus, the apostles and Paul, along with the rest of the Jews, worshipped God both publicly in the temple and synagogues, and privately with small groups in various homes. (Acts 5:42) It was from the private Christian fellowship for worship that sinners were excluded. What of 2 John 10,11? If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.--2 John 11 (NWT) The above scripture is not about people who have been expelled from the Christian congregation. When read in context, it is about anyone who "does not bring this teaching" [of the Christ]. Because they held congregation meetings in their homes (which might be little more than a dug-out or tent outside the city walls of Jerusalem), in their culture their neighbors might view inviting a non-Christian into the home as the Christian sharing worship with non-Christians. * Jehovah's Witnesses, while shunning disfellowshipped or disassociated persons, do not prohibit them from attending the congregation meetings at their Kingdom Halls. Yet the congregation was specifically where Paul instructed Christians not be be "mixing in company with" disfellowshipped sinners. * If the scripture at 2 John 10 were observed literally by Jehovah's Witnesses, they would be obliged to never invite anyone other than a Jehovah's Witness in good standing into their home, or ever speak a greeting to anyone other than a Jehovah's Witness. How did Jesus say one expelled from congregation should be treated? Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations ['Gentile' in some translations] and as a tax collector.--Matt.18:15-17 (NWT) * The instruction was to bring up the matter of sin first between the two individuals alone. Then, if the sinner would repent, there was no need to carry the matter further. If the sinner was not repentant, then one or two others should be sought for witnesses. If the sinner remained unrepentant, only then, as a last resort, should it be brought before the entire congregation (not privately with the "elders"). * If, after all that, the person was still would not listen, he should then be treated the same as Gentiles and tax collectors. In other words, Christians were to treat former members just like anyone else who was not a member of the congregation. To be treated like a "man of the nations" (which is to say, a Gentile or foreigner) was far from being shunned. Jewish people worked with, associated with, transacted business with, and preached to Gentiles. As for "tax collectors," Jesus ate and associated with them. Matthew was a tax collector. Tax collectors were not popular, but they were not shunned. Next, while passing along from there, Jesus caught sight of a man named Matthew seated at the tax office, and he said to him: "Be my follower." Thereupon he did rise up and follow him. Later, while he was reclining at the table in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began reclining with Jesus and his disciples. But on seeing this the Pharisees began to say to his disciples: "Why is it that your teacher eats with tax collectors and sinners?" Hearing [them], he said: "Persons in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do. Go, then, and learn what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners." --Matt.9:9-13 NWT Conclusion There is no scripture basis for mandating that Christians must totally shun former members (that is, have no communication or conversation with them). The instruction is to expel them from the congregation and treat them like anyone else who is not a member. Especially, there is no scripture to support shunning of one's own relatives--parents, children and siblings. If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."--1 Tim.5:8 (NIV) Even for the rest, Paul counseled against abandoning those separated from the congregation: For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. --2Thes.3:13-15 NWT Instruction in the undistributed elders' guide When a Jehovah's Witness male qualifies to be an elder in the congregation, he is assigned an uncirculated proprietary book that gives instruction for counseling and disciplinary actions according to the Society's rules. The title of this book is Pay Attention To Yourselves and to All the Flock. Interestingly, on the bottom of page 103 in that book, it is stated that Jehovah's Witnesses need not be disfellowshipped for associating with disfellowshipped relatives except if the association involves "spiritual association" or if there is an attempt to excuse the former member's objectional behavior. It says: "Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to excuse the wrongful course."--"Flock book", page 103, last paragraph. Despite this documented exclusion, Jehovah's Witnesses the world over are taught that to please Jehovah God they must shun their siblings, their children, and even their parents who either choose to leave or are disfellowshipped--especially if the crime is variance with Watchtower doctrine for which they are branded "apostates." And it is a fact that many Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for refusing to shun their disfellowshipped relatives. The law of love If the law of Christianity can be summed up in one word, it is "LOVE." Does not love rescue and recover the sinner? Would Jesus shun the sheep who strayed from the flock? Now all the tax collectors and the sinners kept drawing near to him to hear him. Consequently both the Pharisees and the scribes kept muttering saying: "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." Then he spoke this illustration to them, saying: "What man of you with a hundred sheep, on losing one of them, will not leave the ninety-nine behind in the wilderness and go for the lost one until he finds it? And when he has found it he puts it upon his shoulders and rejoices. And when he gets home he calls his friends and his neighbors together, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.' I tell you that thus there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than over ninety-nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance.--Luke 15:1-7 (NWT) Note that the sheep did not have to come back and find the shepherd, the shepherd went after the lost sheep. Let us pray that the Watchtower Society will soon be blessed with "new light" on their policy of extremist shunning of former members, thereby liberating thousands--both within and out of the organization--from the heart-strickening anguish imposed by this cruel, unjust, and unscriptural dogma. Paradise On Earth--When? And as it is appointed for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment--Hebrews 9:27 NWT Introduction In spite of Jehovah's Witnesses' aggressive door-to-door preaching and distribution of Watchtower literature, most people know surprisingly little about their beliefs. If asked, people generally recall the controversial stance Jehovah's Witnesses take on such issues as not saluting the flag, banning holiday celebrations and birthdays, not going to war, or their prohibition of blood transfusions. Yet the most incredible of their beliefs--the nucleus around which all other of these peripheral tenets revolve--is their "last-generation" doctrine which includes an unwavering conviction that most faithful Jehovah's Witnesses presently alive will never die. This has been a significant feature of their message to the world for well over a century. In the Watch Tower Society's book, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1989) we read: The fact is that not all who receive everlasting life will need to be resurrected. Many servants of God now living in these "last days" of this system of things will live through Armageddon. And then, as part of the righteous "new earth," they will never need to die. What Jesus said to Martha can in a literal way be true of them: "And everyone that is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all."--John 11:26; 2 Timothy 3:1. (Live Forever book, page 172, par.17) Jehovah's Witnesses are taught, and fervently believe, that the biblical end of the world is "very near" and that they alone will be preserved into a "new world" system. Then throughout a thousand years (the "Millennium") the worthy ones who have died ever since Adam and Eve will be resurrected and, under divine direction of Christ and 144,000 saints, they will cultivate the earth back to the paradise conditions of the garden of Eden and live forever in eternal human bliss--all to the glory of Jehovah. That is the message they preach.
Does a Christian need any revelation besides the word of God as contained in the Bible? No. The book of Revelation cautions against adding anything to the inspired record: “If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll.”—Revelation 22:18. Guess that leave JW out.
#2. To: All (#1)
From original:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest