I would like to think that there is a line of solid theology from Christ to now and that the Early Church was the faithful guardian of that truth....at least right up until just prior to the Reformation and then the Reformers recovered the apostolic faith of the NT and the Church Fathers.....
BUT....
From the first 2 centuries it seems like (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) chiliasm became the norm in many places. And the Church Fathers are very untrustworthy on so many issues.
How can we quote the church Fathers and use them as support for the historicity of our beliefs when they were so wrong on so many things?
How can we talk about the historicity of our faith or about historical development, and especially about historical preservation of doctrine from the NT times on when even in the early church so much was wrong about Christianity?
....especially regarding baptismal regeneration and chiliasm which almost appear to be majority positions of the early church.
Any insights to console my troubled mind or restore my confidence in the Church Fathers?
BUT....
From the first 2 centuries it seems like (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) chiliasm became the norm in many places. And the Church Fathers are very untrustworthy on so many issues.
How can we quote the church Fathers and use them as support for the historicity of our beliefs when they were so wrong on so many things?
How can we talk about the historicity of our faith or about historical development, and especially about historical preservation of doctrine from the NT times on when even in the early church so much was wrong about Christianity?
....especially regarding baptismal regeneration and chiliasm which almost appear to be majority positions of the early church.
Any insights to console my troubled mind or restore my confidence in the Church Fathers?