The reason I'm posting from the now-closed comments section is that I've observed a trend lately which I think needs exploring, and I think this captures the phenomenon well.
A commenter named Christopher Lake confesses that the Early Church Fathers are making him question Calvinism, and trend towards Catholicism:
To this, another Protestant, , RonP reassures him:
I am a Reformed Baptist who has been studying the writings of the early Church Fathers for a few months. In the last five years, I have known few people who have been more convinced of the Biblical truth of Reformed theology than I am– but that *may* be changing. This is potentially earthshaking for my life and more than a little frightening.
My studies are leading me to the impression that at least certain beliefs of the early Christians (100-300 A.D.) appear to be much more “Catholic” than “Protestant” (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification being initially based on faith but *continued* through faith and works). Now, I could be wrong in these impressions. For many reasons, part of me hopes that I am. I’m still reading and researching from both sides of the Tiber. However, if many people in my church knew that I were even wrestling with these questions, I have no doubt that they would see me as being in a place of potentially “abandoning the Gospel”– and I would understand their concern, having emphatically shared that point of view myself for years. I haven’t made any decisions yet though– there is much more reading, thinking, and praying to be done. I may still “stay Reformed”– we shall see!
Christopher, I have also been doing a lot of studying on the church fathers and early church history over the past few months — not so much to make a choice between Catholic or Reformed theology, but rather to try to figure out and account for many of the stark differences and contradictions I see between both the Catholic and Protestant traditions and what I read in the gospels and the writings of the apostles. Basically, I’ve been looking for the origins and the hows and whys of the changes that took place during those first few centuries of the church. And, though I hate to say it, I’ve found some of the most unbiased, eye-opening information from secular scholars in this field of study.On face, this is a pretty good answer. Obviously, the last paragraph is classically creedal Protestant (we have Scripture and the Holy Spirit, and tradition is only so good as it comports with how we understand those two). But at first brush, the meat of the comment (paragraphs 2 and 3) are just obviously right. There is a tendency to imagine that the early Church was utopian, and yet the writings from the period suggest that while there were some great saints, there were also a lot of heretics, and a lot of confused Christians in the middle trying to figure out which camp was right.
One thing I’ve discovered is that, even in those first centuries, there was some seriously absurd religious nonsense going on in mainstream Christianity — stuff that rivals a lot of the junk you’ll find on Christian TV these days. Another thing that has made itself clear to me, is that the early church was in a state of constant argument with itself, and many of those arguments were over things Christianity is still arguing about to this day.
I guess I’m cautioning against too romantic a view of the early church and the early church fathers. Just like us, they were struggling to work out how the gospel and the teachings of Christ and the apostles should be applied in everyday life and in the continuing life of the church. And in that mix, one can find situational adjustments, cults of personality, influences from the prevailing culture, the influence of government and economic realities, strange religious tangents, the gradual evolution of institutional structures and theological contructs, and that age-old tendency to move from invention to popular practice to sacred tradition — basically the same dynamics that are still taking place in Christendom today.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not promoting a purely cynical view of church history. I just think that what we’ve been given in the NT writings and in the gift of the Holy Spirit really are sufficient guides when it comes to following Christ, both individually and collectively as the church. When it comes to everything else in church history and tradition, I think those things should be examined closely through the lens of Christ’s teachings, His example, and His character.
But then I go back and read what Christopher actually wrote: "My studies are leading me to the impression that at least certain beliefs of the early Christians (100-300 A.D.) appear to be much more “Catholic” than “Protestant” (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification being initially based on faith but *continued* through faith and works)." Frank Beckwith, in his book Return to Rome, roughly the same list (although he looks at a slightly longer time-period) for his own reversion to Catholicism.
In other words, Christopher has laid down something of a challenge: on these three issues (the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, justification being initially based on faith but *continued* through faith and works), are there any Fathers who disagree with the Catholic position in the first three centuries? RonP's response sounds like the answer is "yes, there are - a lot of things were up in the air." But he doesn't say that. And I think that there's a reason he doesn't. In response to a hyper-specific question (these three areas, this time period of Church Fathers), he responds with vague platitudes about how the early Church wasn't a utopia.
And he can't do better than vague platitudes, either. For had he said, "Oh, the Early Church disagreed on the Eucharist," he would have immediately opened himself up to the unanswerable question, "Who and when?" I don't imagine that this was ill-intentioned: I just think he had no real response, but based on the heresies he'd seen being combated in the early Church, simply stopped putting much weight on the authority of the men who defeated those same heretics.
Because despite all of the internal conflict within the early Church, while the Fathers are fighting heretics who deny either the Divinity or Humanity of Christ, or who argue that the Gods of the Old and New Testament are clashing, on these three issues - the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration, and justification - there's seemingly no dissent. Or more precisely, the only people who disbelieve in the Real Presence are those who deny it because they don't believe Christ had Human Flesh. And Ignatius of Antioch points to this denial of the Eucharist as evidence of their root heresy. Ignatius isn't concerned with proving the Eucharist: he uses it as a fruit to test the goodness of the seed.
This puts Protestants in a weird position. Do they affirm what the Catholic side keeps saying: namely, that the early Church was thoroughly Catholic, and demonstrably so on the areas which separate us? Or do they side with the heretics in the early Church, try and say the Gnostics were right on the Eucharist and wrong on literally every other area of dispute? Neither of those positions are amiable for defending the Protestant position. So instead, you get non-answers like RonP's which conflate the early Church with the Early Church Fathers, the heretics with the defenders of orthodoxy, and which never addresses the substance of Christopher's question at all.
I've seen the above in other areas, as well, but this was the one I could recall that didn't involve myself. Anyways, it's just a trend I've noticed, something to be aware of, I guess.