Methodology (competing sources)

praise_yeshua

Well-known member
Relative to church history, what methodology do you use to try and identify a reputable source?

If you've ever spent much time trying to study church history, you know that there are many competing sources for the narrative. I don't know the times I've been absolutely frustrated to learn that something I believed was actually nothing more than a "choice" made between competing narratives. I could give many different examples but I will use just one here.

Many "Church Fathers" wrote in Latin. Old Latin is a very difficult language to translate and carried over in various editions among the early church. Latin changed from around 100 BC to 300 AD to the point that Jerome began his quest to reproduce the Scriptures from Greek to Latin. I don't know the times that I've reviewed competing sources that just badly translated these Latin sources into to English. There are literally men out that do not mind lying about the words they chose to use in the translation process. They will literally fabricate an alternate English translation of the source in an attempt to establish their desired position. This not only happened in early church writings among "fathers"..... it also happened in various extant manuscript evidence relative to the Scriptures.

There was great falling away that took place after the death of the apostles. This is why we have so little information originating in the first century and even the second century. There are sources that claim connections to apostles but it is nothing more than a claim. No evidence exists to establish such.

So I must ask, how do we identify the proper source? Many of these original writings have not survived to compare.
 
It takes much research, an open mind, discernment to dig through the controversies. I'm now convinced it was augustine that was the real heretic and not pelagius for example. augustine brought many more heresies into the church than pelagius. In fact pelagius I would say was the orthodox position moreso than augistine. Just my 2 cents fwiw and an example that comes to the top of my head with my studies over the past 2 years. augustine with his authority made pelagius his scapegoat.

And on another note the many calvinists we have known over the years both online and from the pulpit have made the error of calling arminians , pelagians. When you read Arminius and I have quoted him many times without saying its him and have had dozens of calvinists affirm his teachings. Many have no idea what they are talking about on these and other areas and only regurgitate what they have been taught and or told.
 
If your keen on ferreting out early heresies, try Origen, lol.

He wrote things that comparatively make Augustine look pale.

And he was one of the first real defenders of the modern Trinity, too.
 
If your keen on ferreting out early heresies, try Origen, lol.

He wrote things that comparatively make Augustine look pale.

And he was one of the first real defenders of the modern Trinity, too.
So that is where the real danger lies in church history. Deception is always when truth is mixed with error. That is how deception works, how leaven operates , how a wolf can be made to look like a sheep or an angel of light. They were right about the deity of Christ as we can trace that right back to the Apostles, their disciples right down throughout church history. There is no gap or time period where the deity of Christ was not proclaimed from the time of the Apostles until the formation of the many Creeds. But there are other doctrines we can see that were added that were not taught in scripture that you are alluding to I believe and you would be right.
 
But there are other doctrines we can see that were added that were not taught in scripture that you are alluding to I believe and you would be right.

You know I hate Calvinism.

But some people are just really motivated to make Calvinism look bad, and that is their primary directive.

Augustine said some stupid and wacky stuff, but he was also solid on a lot of things.

That's just the way it was for a lot of ECFs.

I wouldn't use some blanket demonization as a tactic, personally.
 
You know I hate Calvinism.

But some people are just really motivated to make Calvinism look bad, and that is their primary directive.

Augustine said some stupid and wacky stuff, but he was also solid on a lot of things.

That's just the way it was for a lot of ECFs.

I wouldn't use some blanket demonization as a tactic, personally.
You are right and my focus is one what I believe to be his real errors or heretical teachings. The same with Calvin, Luther and others during the reformation. The reformation needs to be reformed lol. I'n so many areas these catholic priests did not fall to far away from the mother church and held onto many of its false teachings besides creating new heresies.
 
It takes much research, an open mind, discernment to dig through the controversies. I'm now convinced it was augustine that was the real heretic and not pelagius for example. augustine brought many more heresies into the church than pelagius. In fact pelagius I would say was the orthodox position moreso than augistine. Just my 2 cents fwiw and an example that comes to the top of my head with my studies over the past 2 years. augustine with his authority made pelagius his scapegoat.

And on another note the many calvinists we have known over the years both online and from the pulpit have made the error of calling arminians , pelagians. When you read Arminius and I have quoted him many times without saying its him and have had dozens of calvinists affirm his teachings. Many have no idea what they are talking about on these and other areas and only regurgitate what they have been taught and or told.

I will say that Augustine is often mistranslated. I do agree with Augustine's arguments to Jerome about the LXX. Jerome was on a mission to have his way. There is no way I believe that Jerome actually believed the ancient Hebrew manuscripts he had were superior. He didn't even have enough to complete the Vulgate. Evidence contradicts Jerome.
 
Back
Top Bottom