The early church fathers were important to us for four reasons:

[e v e]

i told God I would not join a church anymore..
and just stay with Him...
so the forum is the closest i will come
to such , while I am waiting for Him
to get us out.

 

[civic]

i was a bit shocked you took on a forum job...
as that is quite a lot , i can imagine , in so many ways...
on top of what's probably already a full plate...

that's good you have some help with it... : )

I was use to spending daily time on forums for the past 20 years so might as well start one up and focus my time here.

 

[e v e]

I've also pretty much stopped looking at news..
its all esau's nonsense anyway...
and mostly just look at Daily Mail headlines
to see the latest esau thinks is news...
I do look at twitter just to keep up with the
clovidian nonsense other than that..
and my own projects
i am so so off all internet

 

[e v e]

I was use to spending daily time on forums for the past 20 years so might as well start one up and focus my time here.

exactly... ; )

i only met God in 2015 so before that I only
read academic stuff.

I was agnostic really... and had no idea I was just about to meet him..
<3

 

[e v e]

correction: well I did meet Him before that, before I was born,
and as little child, etc..,
but there had been a decades long break... since...
i needed to get the RCC stuff out of my mind...

 

[e v e]

I do view the situation as Returning to Him,
and take literally that we Knew Him and He knew us
before this current concept of 'time'
in this *foreign* world.

 

[Matthias]

Last year I started re-reading the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. Some of their writings I was exposed to in college. Some are works that I read in full, some in part, and some not at all when I was a student. I’ve particularly enjoyed re-reading Tertullian.

I’m currently reading a work by Origen for the first time that wasn’t a required reading in college, Commentary On Matthew. Origen is the Ante-Nicene writer whom I least enjoy reading. He’s an important figure though in the post-biblical development of trinitarian doctrine and, for that reason alone if no other, is someone everyone should be or become familiar with.

I spent the last couple of weeks reading the works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, a student of Origen’s.

 

[Frank Russell]

For anyone interested in reading Early Christian Writings.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Keiw1]

Can you recommend a book to sumarize the work of the early church fathers?

The New Catholic encyclopedia- Vol XIV( 1967) page 299-- The apostolic Fathers knew nothing of God being a trinity.

 

[Matthias]

The New Catholic encyclopedia- Vol XIV( 1967) page 299-- The apostolic Fathers knew nothing of God being a trinity.

In my opinion, and generally speaking, Catholic scholarship tends to be better than Protestant scholarship.

Catholics aren’t constrained by sola scriptura. They don’t have to find the Trinity in scripture. They’re very good at tracing the post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Protestants, on the other hand, have to find the Trinity in scripture. They see the Trinity from the beginning in Genesis to the ending in Revelation, just as plain as the nose on your face.

 

[Keiw1]

In my opinion, and generally speaking, Catholic scholarship tends to be better than Protestant scholarship.

Catholics aren’t constrained by sola scriptura. They don’t have to find the Trinity in scripture. They’re very good at tracing the post-biblical development of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Protestants, on the other hand, have to find the Trinity in scripture. They see the Trinity from the beginning in Genesis to the ending in Revelation, just as plain as the nose on your face.

That same page in the new Catholic Enc-1967-Vol XIV-page 299--The formulation, one God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not assimilated into christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.
At the council of Constantinople 381 ce the trinity was created.
Protestants are just branches of Catholicism. They did try to correct some bad teachings but have failed, and are misleading all listening to them.

 

[Matthias]

That same page in the new Catholic Enc-1967-Vol XIV-page 299--The formulation, one God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not assimilated into christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.
At the council of Constantinople 381 ce the trinity was created.
Protestants are just branches of Catholicism. They did try to correct some bad teachings but have failed, and are misleading all listening to them.

Here’s the problem:

Provide these quotes to a Catholic and the response will almost invariably be agreement.

Provide these quotes to a Protestant and the response will almost invariably be a Protestant dressing down of Catholicism.

The Catholic doesn’t change his mind about the Trinity. The Protestant doesn’t change his mind about the Trinity.

Why provide either of them the quotes then?

Here’s the solution:

There are always exceptions in both the Catholic and Protestant camps.

Discontinue putting the historical facts in front of them: you’ve given them nothing to think about.

Continue putting the historical facts in front of them: you’ve given them something to think about. Some of them will, and some of those will become open to considering an alternative. For those who are open to considering an alternative, point them to Jesus. He‘ll point them to the one God.

What happens after that?

Some of them will change their minds about the Trinity.

How do I know this is true?

I was a trinitarian (Protestant). That’s how I changed my mind about the Trinity. That’s how I’ve seen others change their minds about the Trinity too (Protestant and Catholic).

 

[Matthias]

That same page in the new Catholic Enc-1967-Vol XIV-page 299--The formulation, one God in three persons was not solidly established, certainly not assimilated into christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.

The Protestant typically just rolls his eyes at that.

If you believe people living in OT times were trinitarians, you would too. But what if you’re a little more historical minded than that; you know people in the days of the OT weren’t trinitarians, but you believe people living in the days of the NT were. Progressive revelation. (That’s what I was taught when I was a Protestant.) More eye rolling.

I would say the majority of Protestants know little about the early Church Fathers. I don’t come across many who have read them or have any interest in reading them.

I was fortunate. My trinitarian pastor introduced me to Church history in a Bible Study. Since the days of my youth, I’ve always wanted to know what people believe and why they believe it. Church history is well preserved, and it met my desire to know what the early Christians believed and why they believed it. I also discovered that what the early Christians believed changed over time. The road from Jerusalem to Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon - with a few stops along the way. That’s the historical highway of Christian thought. I try to encourage everyone - Christian and non-Christian - to walk that highway. Few do.

How to get the Catholic thinking? He knows no one living in biblical times were trinitarians. The Catholics I’ve spoken with have told me that if a person isn’t a trinitarian then a person isn’t a Christian. Perfect segue. Ask the Catholic what Christians were before the formulation was solidly established, assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. They’ll have an answer, but it may start them thinking about it.

At the council of Constantinople 381 ce the trinity was created.

AD 381 is the most critical date in post-biblical Christian history. Prior to then, there was a lot of diversity in the Church. After then, the trinitarian train is rolling full speed down the track. It hit some bumps but it stayed on the rails.

AD 381. Circle that date.

 

[APAK]

The Protestant typically just rolls his eyes at that.

If you believe people living in OT times were trinitarians, you would too. But what if you’re a little more historical minded than that; you know people in the days of the OT weren’t trinitarians, but you believe people living in the days of the NT were. Progressive revelation. (That’s what I was taught when I was a Protestant.) More eye rolling.

I would say the majority of Protestants know little about the early Church Fathers. I don’t come across many who have read them or have any interest in reading them.

I was fortunate. My trinitarian pastor introduced me to Church history in a Bible Study. Since the days of my youth, I’ve always wanted to know what people believe and why they believe it. Church history is well preserved, and it met my desire to know what the early Christians believed and why they believed it. I also discovered that what the early Christians believed changed over time. The road from Jerusalem to Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon - with a few stops along the way. That’s the historical highway of Christian thought. I try to encourage everyone - Christian and non-Christian - to walk that highway. Few do.

How to get the Catholic thinking? He knows no one living in biblical times were trinitarians. The Catholics I’ve spoken with have told me that if a person isn’t a trinitarian then a person isn’t a Christian. Perfect segue. Ask the Catholic what Christians were before the formulation was solidly established, assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. They’ll have an answer, but it may start them thinking about it.




AD 381 is the most critical date in post-biblical Christian history. Prior to then, there was a lot of diversity in the Church. After then, the trinitarian train is rolling full speed down the track. It hit some bumps but it stayed on the rails.

AD 381. Circle that date.

Indeed, as the unreliable Wikipedia source states: "The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), issued on 27 February AD 380 by Theodosius I, made Nicene Christianity[note 1] the state church of the Roman Empire.[2][3][4] It condemned other Christian creeds such as Arianism as heresies of "foolish madmen," and authorized their punishment.[5]"

5. "The Edict of Thessalonica | History Today". www.historytoday.com. Retrieved 2021-02-27.

and..https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/theodosius-issued-an-edict-11629680.html

".....Theodosius ended the Arian dispute by the simple expedient of issuing an edict. On this day February 27, 380 (some historians say 381) this edict commanded everyone to be a Christian--but not just any kind of Christian. A Catholic Christian, it said, was one who held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Godhead and equal in majesty. This, of course, was the position of the Nicene Creed. Theodosius' decision was the result of his upbringing: he was reared in a Christian home, perhaps the first emperor to enjoy that distinction. (His behavior wasn't always Christian, however, as the premeditated massacre of thousands of civilians at Thessalonica showed in 390)...."

 

[Matthias]

So which writer in the Ante-Nicene Period should we recommend?

The writer furthest away from AD 325 the better? That’s a logical position; but I would suggest instead, Tertullian.

Why Tertullian?

If you’re speaking with a trinitarian who has some exposure to, or interest in, the Ante-Nicene period, he’s an excellent choice. He’s very intelligent. His character is impeccable. There are a large number of his writings extant. While he wasn’t martyred, he speaks about those who were with great reverence and respect. Best of all, he uses the word “Trinity” in his writing. That makes him a trinitarian, in the minds of those who haven’t read him but know the answer to the Jeopardy question.

Anyone who has read Tertullian for themselves knows that he isn’t a trinitarian at all. He says things which no trinitarian would ever say. Dead giveaways. Now the trinitarian who runs across this minefield for the first time is going to step on the mines. It won’t necessarily cause the trinitarian to change his mind about the Trinity, but it will get him thinking.

 

[Keiw1]

Here’s the problem:

Provide these quotes to a Catholic and the response will almost invariably be agreement.

Provide these quotes to a Protestant and the response will almost invariably be a Protestant dressing down of Catholicism.

The Catholic doesn’t change his mind about the Trinity. The Protestant doesn’t change his mind about the Trinity.

Why provide either of them the quotes then?

Here’s the solution:

There are always exceptions in both the Catholic and Protestant camps.

Discontinue putting the historical facts in front of them: you’ve given them nothing to think about.

Continue putting the historical facts in front of them: you’ve given them something to think about. Some of them will, and some of those will become open to considering an alternative. For those who are open to considering an alternative, point them to Jesus. He‘ll point them to the one God.

What happens after that?

Some of them will change their minds about the Trinity.

How do I know this is true?

I was a trinitarian (Protestant). That’s how I changed my mind about the Trinity. That’s how I’ve seen others change their minds about the Trinity too (Protestant and Catholic).

I just plant seeds and pray they get watered so God can make them grow. In fertile soil hopefully.

 

[Keiw1]

The Protestant typically just rolls his eyes at that.

If you believe people living in OT times were trinitarians, you would too. But what if you’re a little more historical minded than that; you know people in the days of the OT weren’t trinitarians, but you believe people living in the days of the NT were. Progressive revelation. (That’s what I was taught when I was a Protestant.) More eye rolling.

I would say the majority of Protestants know little about the early Church Fathers. I don’t come across many who have read them or have any interest in reading them.

I was fortunate. My trinitarian pastor introduced me to Church history in a Bible Study. Since the days of my youth, I’ve always wanted to know what people believe and why they believe it. Church history is well preserved, and it met my desire to know what the early Christians believed and why they believed it. I also discovered that what the early Christians believed changed over time. The road from Jerusalem to Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon - with a few stops along the way. That’s the historical highway of Christian thought. I try to encourage everyone - Christian and non-Christian - to walk that highway. Few do.

How to get the Catholic thinking? He knows no one living in biblical times were trinitarians. The Catholics I’ve spoken with have told me that if a person isn’t a trinitarian then a person isn’t a Christian. Perfect segue. Ask the Catholic what Christians were before the formulation was solidly established, assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. They’ll have an answer, but it may start them thinking about it.




AD 381 is the most critical date in post-biblical Christian history. Prior to then, there was a lot of diversity in the Church. After then, the trinitarian train is rolling full speed down the track. It hit some bumps but it stayed on the rails.

AD 381. Circle that date.

Yes the council of Constantinople 381 ce. A council headed by a pagan false god worshipping king who had the final say.

 

[e v e]

Tertullian quoted... i agree these three deities Father, His Spirit, and Son all are of the same substance (=nature). While God is the ultimate per 10 commandments... gods is correct here...

"These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is another, and the Spirit is another ("dico alium esse patrem et alium filium et alium spiritum" Adv. Praxeam, ix)), and (yet in defending the unity of God, he says the Son is not other ("alius a patre filius non est", (Adv. Prax. 18) as a result of receiving a portion of the Father's substance.[9] At times, speaking of the Father and the Son, Tertullian refers to "two gods".[9][c]

 

[e v e]

the term gods simply refers to nature, as in human, deity, a deer, foxes, etc. It was turned into an obsession by plato who proposed monotheism to hurt us.

yes in advance. The evil ones are capable to destroy in advance. That is what the classical education of the greeks was for... the destroy us in advance...

 

[Matthias]

Tertullian quoted... i agree these three deities Father, His Spirit, and Son all are of the same substance (=nature). While God is the ultimate per 10 commandments... gods is correct here...

"These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is another, and the Spirit is another ("dico alium esse patrem et alium filium et alium spiritum" Adv. Praxeam, ix)), and (yet in defending the unity of God, he says the Son is not other ("alius a patre filius non est", (Adv. Prax. 18) as a result of receiving a portion of the Father's substance.[9] At times, speaking of the Father and the Son, Tertullian refers to "two gods".[9][c]

Thanks for posting this. What is the source that you’re quoting from?