Talk:Church Fathers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Just curious, is it certain that Origen was heterodox?

I believe so. I have a book "The Teachings of the Church Fathers" and it writes St. (whomever) before most of the writers, but Origen, Tertullian and Aphraates are listed solely by their names. Carl.bunderson 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Must we use the term "montanist" when refering to tertullian. I thought he backed away from this later in life? I would have to verify this but I think that is correct. Could we check this out? JWPhil 12:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the book The Early Church by the scholar W.H.C Frend and yes Tertullian did form his own sect, leaving Montanism. User:AnadX, 11:38, 24 January 2007.

Perhaps the Tertullian site could be contacted for their opinion - the link at the bottom (they were friendly when I got in touch) Jackiespeel 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This article seems very short for such an important subject. Andries 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Citations Sought about Influence of Stoics

Someone had challenged the brief section in the article on the Stoics that mentioned their influence on the Church Fathers. Although the section referred to this article, that doesn't seem good enough. I am not familiar with enough with the literature to find such a cite (esp., with page reference). Any specific citation could probably do double duty both here and in that Stoics article. DCDuring 23:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church Fathers of other religions

Patristic redirect here. Since that word could be used to describe fathers of other religions as well, for example early Muslim figures, this article should not define a Church Father as belonging to Christianity only. --Sir48 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start at patristics article stub. DCDuring 16:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Patristic is Latin and is connected to the Early Church. Patrology means study of the Early Church Fathers. I have books going back several hundred years to attest to this. Christians have 'church,' other religions have different words and concepts behind those words. For example, church in the traditional sense means the body of believers connected to Christ. It makes little sense to speak of a Jewish Church or a Muslim Church, as by definition they are not connected to Christ (i.e. not Christians). I am certain that other religions have their own words for 'Church Fathers," in Hebrew for the Jews, Arabic for the Muslims, etc. I remember the Hebrew words being translated as something along Great Teachers of the Law. So while Patristic could be used to describe fathers of other religions, I should think it would be more helpful, respectful and scholarly to use the terms each religion uses internally. (71.221.190.153 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

I can find one reference in Wikipedia to the use of the word "patristic" outside of Christianity. If it were widely used there might be some need for discussion. The ONLY if found outside of Christianity is in the lead for the article on Salafism. It is not in the body of the article. I am not equiped to check the citation myself. DCDuring 06:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia search for '"Patristic period" Islam' yields 6 articles: the same Salafism article and 5 general articles on theology, which use "patristic" in a way that solely refers to the Fathers of the Christian churches. DCDuring 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected. I also did some google searches and my results are similar. BTW The posted that was not logged in was mine. (Dcllibrarian 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Protestants and Church Fathers

In the historic Protestant traditions, the Early Fathers are often looked to as the most important and exemplary interpreters of the Bible. The Reformers often quoted the Fathers in an attempt to demonstrate that they were in fact recovering an earlier and purer Christianity that had become obscured by medieval innovations

I suspect that the contrary is true since protestants relied more on Bible rather than on tradition (compared to say, the catholic church). Request citation. --Jacob.jose (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But their interpretation of the Bible often relied on early Christian tradition; for example most Protestant theologians accept the idea of the Trinity, even though it's not explicitly in the Bible - it was developed by early Christian theologians. I don't have a citation though. thx1138 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ahem. The trinity was proposed and described by Tullian as a way to understand Gods Triune nature. Augustine was in support of the trinity, even speaking of it in his "City of God" Thelordsavenger (talk)

Exactly my point. thx1138 (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, I feel these instances are not sufficient citations to support that the undue weightage the sentance holds in the article. --Jacob.jose (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The quote is believable, and I certainly don't think two sentences constitutes undue weight to something that doesn't sound like POV pushing. I wouldn't remove the cn tag though. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
How about something like "Though much Protestant religious thought is theoretically based on 'Sola Scriptura' (the principle that the Bible itself is the ultimate authority in doctrinal matters), the first Protestant reformers, like the Catholic and Orthodox churches, relied heavily on the theological interpetations of scripture set forth by the early Chruch Fathers."? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That would not only be better, but quite informative as well (for a reader like me). But do you have a citation for that? --Jacob.jose (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be ok with changing it to that. I think it's true, and it's not as though we're replacing cited text with uncited. If you're switching from one cn sentence to another, there's no net harm. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I have changed the text and have maintained the cn tag. --Jacob.jose (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, for taking care of it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] apostolic fathers

I did them. Someone else want to do the next section? Leadwind (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Greek fathers. Someone want to take Latin Fathers? Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)