Who are the 'Early Fathers' for the Adventists?

[Philothea]

Hello! A brief background for my question: I was raised in a Nazarene/Baptist environment, but I attended an SDA church for a few years, and this prompted me to look more closely at the history of Sunday vs. Saturday worship. I began to read the writings of the Early Fathers from the first centuries of Christianity; it was important to me to know what the ancient Christians believed and practised. Through studying the early Christians, I eventually became convinced of Catholicism and have entered the Catholic Church.

From an SDA friend, I received a booklet titled "The Immaculate Conception" by A.T. Jones, first printed in 1894. In it, Jones refers to early writers such as Cyprian and John Chrysostom as 'the Catholic fathers'. For me, this was a new accusation; other denominations that I have encountered have refered to the Early Fathers simply as 'Christian' (and have tried to dismiss their Catholicism). I have never heard a Protestant accuse the Fathers of being Catholic before.

I have always assumed that the church of today *must* be formed by the beliefs of the ancient church (although I was not taught what those beliefs were, and had to dig them up for myself). I do not understand how else a denomination could claim to teach true Christianity unless it could trace its doctrines back to ancient sources.

I asked this question on Catholic Answers Forums (which is also frequented by non-Catholics, including some Adventists), and an SDA mentioned the Waldensians, but that was about it. Please, can someone tell me if there are any Christian Fathers who are claimed by Adventists? I am interested mostly in the first few centuries of Christianity, although a reference to Waldensian material would also be appreciated (to my knowledge, little is known of what the Waldensians actually believed, though of course I could be wrong).

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum; I tried to post in "What Adventists Believe", but was unable to start a new thread.

Thank you!

[Gordon1]

I have always assumed that the church of today *must* be formed by the beliefs of the ancient church (although I was not taught what those beliefs were, and had to dig them up for myself). I do not understand how else a denomination could claim to teach true Christianity unless it could trace its doctrines back to ancient sources.

Welcome Philothea,

The only beliefs worth considering are those of the Bible, not later commentators. Paul warned that the mystery of iniquity was already at work to leaven the early church (2 Thessalonians 2:7) Jesus was raised on the Scriptures (OT), not tradition.

Roman Catholicism deviated from Scripture in that she was, and remains, a merger of paganism and Christian lore. (Rome had many gods - Catholic means 'Universal') Rome was the empire of the day and though she fell, her religion is still universal. (Thus, RC = Universal Romanism, complete with pagan idols, astrology and human doctrine)

(Note that purgatory, indulgences, a celibate priethood are not Biblical themes but rather the source of great deception and suffering - to name three myths among many.)

Thus the only place to 'dig up' real beliefs is the Bible, not ancient sources which purport to be Christian.

After joining with the state (Constantine), Catholic doctrine became the rule of law, and Bible believers raised their voice in protest against Catholic superstitions. The Waldenses were one of these groups and were hunted down for possessing the scriptures unadulterated.

We are still coming out of the Dark Ages (when superstition ruled in Christianity) and these last days will see a final and glorious Protestant Reformation. But small in numbers.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is a v. helpful study tool for comparing Bible texts.

[phkrause]

Welcome Philothea, I have to agree with Gordon. And to go a little further, I would say that the Apostoles are the fathers of our church. And to go even further the Hebrew nation would be our foundation.

[teresaq]

I certainly hope that the only "fathers" we might claim would be Jesus, or more accurately, the Father.

Researching various authors from various time periods to see how they believed/understood can be a valuable resource but certainly no authority as to the bible or God, except where they might be in agreement with the same as we understand the bible and God to say and be.

Here's hoping you might consider the bible only for instruction. :)

[phkrause]

I certainly hope that the only "fathers" we might claim would be Jesus, or more accurately, the Father.

Researching various authors from various time periods to see how they believed/understood can be a valuable resource but certainly no authority as to the bible or God, except where they might be in agreement with the same as we understand the bible and God to say and be.

Here's hoping you might consider the bible only for instruction.

Excellent points teresa

[Philothea]

Hello Gordon1,

Thank you for your response!

My intent is not to argue or proselytize, and I'll more than understand if a moderator issues a 'cease and desist'; but you have raised several issues that I would like to address, although it seems off-topic for the thread (and I'm not sure how strict this forum's rules are for staying on-topic)...

Universal Church: The ancient term 'Catholic' refered to the fact that although there were many Christian communities spread across the known world, there was only one faith, which was professed by one church (thus the Universal Church); I am not sure why you have compared 'Universal' with the acceptance of many faiths. "Universalism" is a completely seperate ideology which Catholics view as heretical.

Purgatory, although the term itself is not used in scripture, does not contradict scripture. As one example, David and other Old Testament heroes had probably not acheived perfection by the time that they died; yet according to Hebrews 12:22-24, “...you are come to mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel”. Purgatory is a temporary state of purification; the 'how' is open to speculation, but one must be pure to stand in the presence of God.

Also, the canon of scripture first declared inerrant by church councils included, among other books that were later removed from most Protestant canons, the books of the Maccabees, which made obvious reference to the concept of what later became known among Christians as Purgatory.

Indulgences: Probably the simplest way to describe an Indulgence is that it is a blessing, and it can only be received by someone who is truly repentant and obedient to God. Thus an Indulgence can never be 'bought' with money; it is a gift of God's grace, regardless of how the practise might be abused by greedy people. However, giving to charity is, of itself, a good thing, and it could be a sign that the giver is sincerely seeking to 'make things right' between him, God, and other people (as in the case of Zacchaeus, who proved his change of heart by giving away a large portion of his wealth after Jesus met with him); giving alms and receiving God's blessing are not opposed to scripture at all.

Celibate Priests: There are several "rites" within Catholicism, though they are all in full communion with the church in Rome. The Latin or Roman Rite, which is the largest (and the one many people think of when they hear the term 'Catholic'), requires celibacy for the priesthood. Other lesser-known rites, such as the Byzantine, allow married priests; so this is not a church-wide mandate. A priest must become a spiritual 'father' for hundreds or thousands of people; how could he devote himself to his flock and raise a family without great strain, and probably neglect? The New Testament contains many verses which support the practise of giving up 'civilian pursuits' such as marriage for the sake of the kingdom; Jesus, Paul, and many of the apostles were celibate.

Constantine: Before the Edict of Milan, Christianity was considered an illegal religion in Rome and was horribly persecuted. Constantine declared it to be legal and commanded that toleration and restitution of stolen property be given to 'the Catholic church of the Christians'. He did not, however, make it the religion of the empire (this happened under a later emporer).

[Philothea]

Thanks, pkrause.

I agree with you, the Apostles (after Christ, of course!) are the founders of the Christian faith.

What I am trying to find out is (and I hope I can explain myself, I'm not always good at that), how do Adventists trace their distinct beliefs and practises to the apostles? For Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, this is of major importance. They actually have 'apostolic geneologies', where the lineage of ecclesial authority (the laying-on of hands) can be traced back to the twelve apostles. The Lutherans abide by several of the early Christian councils. The Calvinists refer to authorities such as Augustine.

I wanted to see if Adventism made similar historical claims, because, until I read the booklet mentioned in my opening post, I was not aware that this might not be so.

I appreciate the time that everyone has taken to answer me.

[Philothea]

Thank you, teresa.

My concern is that the Bible must be taken in the context of the time that it was written in (though of course it, being inspired by God, can apply to all times), and the testimony of the nearest witnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp, for example; both disciples of the Apostle John).

If I am reading scripture without taking these things into account, I could very easily misinterpret what the bible actually taught/teaches, and simply go by the interpretation of a favorite scholar; and why would I choose to accept the commentary of a 21st century Christian, while rejecting the commentaries of Christians who were there when scripture was still being first preached, written and compiled?

[Woody]

Thank you, teresa.

My concern is that the Bible must be taken in the context of the time that it was written in (though of course it, being inspired by God, can apply to all times), and the testimony of the nearest witnesses (Ignatius and Polycarp, for example; both disciples of the Apostle John).

If I am reading scripture without taking these things into account, I could very easily misinterpret what the bible actually taught/teaches, and simply go by the interpretation of a favorite scholar; and why would I choose to accept the commentary of a 21st century Christian, while rejecting the commentaries of Christians who were there when scripture was still being first preached, written and compiled?

Next what happens is a long drawn out debate over historical context. It never ends.

[teresaq]

I'm not really sure how your answer to me was much different from what I said...

Thanks, pkrause.

I agree with you, the Apostles (after Christ, of course!) are the founders of the Christian faith.

What I am trying to find out is (and I hope I can explain myself, I'm not always good at that), how do Adventists trace their distinct beliefs and practises to the apostles? For Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, this is of major importance. They actually have 'apostolic geneologies', where the lineage of ecclesial authority (the laying-on of hands) can be traced back to the twelve apostles. The Lutherans abide by several of the early Christian councils. The Calvinists refer to authorities such as Augustine.

I wanted to see if Adventism made similar historical claims, because, until I read the booklet mentioned in my opening post, I was not aware that this might not be so.

I appreciate the time that everyone has taken to answer me.

I'm not PK, but I don't believe we are that interested in proving any "genealogy", at least not in that regard.

Our founders tried to "rightly divide" the word as much as possible and people have either accepted that was so and joined or rejected it and don't.

[Philothea]

Next what happens is a long drawn out debate over historical context. It never ends.

Hello Woody (I finally figured out how to use the 'quote' function!), lol! No, I don't want to get into a never-ending debate about historical context. I was just trying to point out why I have difficulties with going to scripture alone to determine Christian truth (one difficulty being the whole "why do we believe that scripture is inspired by God, and why believe that it has any, much less final, authority?", which is also a never-ending debate that I don't want to get into).

[Philothea]

I'm not PK, but I don't believe we are that interested in proving any "genealogy", at least not in that regard.

Our founders tried to "rightly divide" the word as much as possible and people have either accepted that was so and joined or rejected it and don't.

Thank you, teresa.

Can you (or anyone else, of course) tell me what kind of criteria is involved in rightly dividing scripture? Do Adventists accept the decision-making authority of the early Christian councils, and do they use this as a foundation when studying scripture? I know that Adventism upholds many of the teachings of early councils, such as the Trinity and Unity of God, the canon of the New Testament, etc., but I am not sure to what extent they accept that these councils had authority to decide what was, and wasn't, Christian truth. (Authority received from God as an aid to discern and teach truth, of course; not a man-made authority to enforce the personal opinions of the majority.)

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

I'm not PK, but I don't believe we are that interested in proving any "genealogy", at least not in that regard.

Our founders tried to "rightly divide" the word as much as possible and people have either accepted that was so and joined or rejected it and don't.

Thank you, teresa.

Can you (or anyone else, of course) tell me what kind of criteria is involved in rightly dividing scripture? Do Adventists accept the decision-making authority of the early Christian councils, and do they use this as a foundation when studying scripture? I know that Adventism upholds many of the teachings of early councils, such as the Trinity and Unity of God, the canon of the New Testament, etc., but I am not sure to what extent they accept that these councils had authority to decide what was, and wasn't, Christian truth. (Authority received from God as an aid to discern and teach truth, of course; not a man-made authority to enforce the personal opinions of the majority.)

I don't accept the authority of any of the councils, can't speak for any other SDAs tho.

If you read the history of those councils, how they treated each other before, during and after, do you believe they matched the spirit of the Jerusalem councils in the days of the apostles?

Does anyone have the right to force their view and attempt to wipe out all else that would oppose that view, even if it is 'right'?

[Philothea]

If you read the history of those councils, how they treated each other before, during and after, do you believe they matched the spirit of the Jerusalem councils in the days of the apostles?

Does anyone have the right to force their view and attempt to wipe out all else that would oppose that view, even if it is 'right'?

I dunno, the Jerusalem council seemed pretty heated... To answer your question, I do think that it is important to establish doctrinal boundaries, to say "This is Christian, that is not." The Jerusalem council had the last word on whether or not Gentile Christians were required to be circumcised; to disagree with that Council's decision was to disagree with Christianity. Was it wrong of them to 'force their view'?

Thanks to all who have taken the time to help me better understand Adventism; unless someone else has more to add, I think that my question was answered.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

If you read the history of those councils, how they treated each other before, during and after, do you believe they matched the spirit of the Jerusalem councils in the days of the apostles?

Does anyone have the right to force their view and attempt to wipe out all else that would oppose that view, even if it is 'right'?

I dunno, the Jerusalem council seemed pretty heated... To answer your question, I do think that it is important to establish doctrinal boundaries, to say "This is Christian, that is not." The Jerusalem council had the last word on whether or not Gentile Christians were required to be circumcised; to disagree with that Council's decision was to disagree with Christianity. Was it wrong of them to 'force their view'?

How did they 'force' their view? Do you have scriptural backing for either that the council was heated, or that the decision was forced on anyone?

[Philothea]

How did they 'force' their view? Do you have scriptural backing for either that the council was heated, or that the decision was forced on anyone?

The story of the Jerusalem Council is in Acts chapter 15.

The drama starts before the Council; Acts 15:2, "...there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them [those instructing circumcision]..." It was not enough for this group that big names like Paul and Barnabas argued against them; the matter could not be resolved without calling in the 'big shots', the apostles and presbyters who were stationed in Jerusalem at the time.

In Jerusalem, after an initial welcome, they met the same resistance, which lead to more drama. Acts 15:5, "But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law."

vs. 6-7, "The apostles and presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them..." When Peter stood up, the rest shut up; vs. 12, after Peter's speech, "The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them."

After this, the assembly falls silent again, and James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, backs up Peter's decision (vs. 14-18) and determines to send an official statement of this decision to the churches who had been troubled by this doctrinal controversy (vs. 19-20). With this letter, they sent special representatives of this Council along with Peter and Barnabas to make things absolutely clear (vs. 22)

The letter sent out by the authorities in Jerusalem includes (vs. 24) a condemnation against the 'circumcisers', "Since we have heard that some of our number, who went out without any mandate from us [this reminds me of 1 John 2:19] have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind..." and an appeal to the highest authority "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities..." (vs. 28).

Did they eliminate disagreement? No. Did they enforce a decision about Christian doctrine? Yes. You will probably remember that Paul, throughout his letters, often had something scathing to say about persons who still insisted on troubling Christian communities with circumcision. Just because a Council is held, and a decision is reached, does not mean that everyone complies; but they are non-compliant at the risk of offending both God and the church (see Acts 15:28, quoted above).

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

How did they 'force' their view? Do you have scriptural backing for either that the council was heated, or that the decision was forced on anyone?

Acts 15 vs. 6-7, "The apostles and presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them..." ... "The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them."

[Philothea]

The original word translated 'debate' means

Quote:

mutual questioning, disputation, discussion

hardly heated given the original meaning, seems more like giving viewpoints.

[Philothea]

BTW,