I have a copy of the writings of the early "Church Fathers", as they are called, in a computer program called Logos Bible Software, which I have used for researching various topics, but because I can only run it on one old Windows computer (it won't run on Linux) it is not very comfortable to sit and read. It is not like having an actual book.
But I have quoted them in Christreich and several other writings. I have read portions of Origen and Irenaeus from them, but not enough to make any valid assessment in this regard.
Except for Bede, Eusebius, and a copy of Tertullian's
Apology and
Against Spectacles I had no access to any of the early Christian writings during my studies, and was only interested in concentrating on earlier histories anyway. I have, however, read those.
Tertullian alluded to a few things that we profess in CI, and so did Justin Martyr, and I have quoted them, but I have not read all of their writings. However Michael is right, that much of what Tertullian says is found in the doctrines of modern churches.
But I think Eusebius is far worse. When I read his Ecclesiastical History, I got the impression that he could probably be a Catholic priest today and not have to change much from the things he had written so many years ago.
Of course, Bede was every bit an early Catholic. From his simplistic accounts one may get the impression that the only major contention he had with the Celtic Church was the calculation of the day for Easter (not Passover).
MichaelAllen wrote:I believe that by the end of the first century, something alarming had happened....
Something did, no doubt, happen by the 3rd century. And that is where we see writers such as Tertullian and Origen, who are among the more popular of the "Church Fathers". Irenaeus wrote in the mid-2nd century. Polycarp and Justin Martyr were earlier. But even if we studied them, we have no amount of certainty that we are studying exactly what they had actually written.
If what remains of their writings does not continue the tradition of the
Gospel of Reconciliation carried forth by the apostles, then we can be certain that something is missing.
However in my first post here I did want to stress that terms such as "world" used by early writers did not mean what they are believed to mean today. For that reason, I can imagine that early Christians may have taken some things for granted which we do not understand today.
It is also evident to me, that early Christians understood the letters of Paul. The Romans and Greeks, all of whom could read Greek, could read Romans 4, Galatians 3&4 or 1 Corinthians chapter 10 and know exactly what Paul was saying. So they did not have to repeat it. The meanings of those epistles may well have also been taken for granted, until they were forgotten or purposely obfuscated.
MichaelAllen wrote:One other source for the self-conscious assertion of the election must be mentioned, for here strangely enough the Jews were the cause of their own embarrassment. The effectiveness of Jewish missionary activity, it is well known immeasurably facilitated Christian preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles. What is often glossed over is the claim of the Christian preachers to represent the true Israel, their contention that the new sect was the rightful heir to God's revelation to the Patriarchs, Moses, and the Prophets. The Talmudic community, beginning with the second century often found itself forced to defend its claim to the title of Israel. One of the deep sources of tension between Judaism and Christianity - one that never appeared in Jewish-Muslim relations - was the debate of two pretenders to the same title. For reasons of prudence, the Christian Church later chose not to emphasize the question of the Israelite name; but the claim to succession is one which the Church never has given up. The Jew, in turn, all the more aggressively affirmed his lineage and his election against all pretenders. Jacob was again at war with Esau over the primal birthright.
Any well-grounded Identity Christian who has a basic understanding of Daniel, Paul, and the Revelation from our historicist viewpoint can see that the Jew who wrote this is right, merely by comparing the surviving epistles of Peter and Paul to the clueless Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Except that we won't agree with "for reasons of prudence". Prudence my ass!
There is a greater dynamic here that we cannot forget, and that is the hand of God.
Isaiah 42 wrote:16 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. 17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods. 18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. 19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD'S servant? 20 Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not. 21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Yahshua Christ Himself prophesied universalism, for instance in the Parable of the Net.
But He is the same God who gave us these words through Obadiah: "15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. 16 For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down, and they shall be as though they had not been." Ezekiel chapters 37 through 39 are a parallel prophecy.
How could these things happen, how could the words of the prophets be fulfilled, if we had not suffered a universalist church? If the ancient sins of Israel can be boiled down to one word, I would say "idolatry", and Identity Christians should know all that encompasses, but the world would not. So for the world, I will call it "egalitarianism". All the heathens are eating upon the mountains of Israel, and in the end Yahweh will cure us of our egalitarianism once and for all.
The blindness was imposed on Israel for her sins, and it is necessary in order that the Word of God to be fulfilled. The persecution of Christians to the point where the Apostles themselves are ignored in favor of a universal church accomplishes several things:
1) It ensures that Israel would be blind and therefore these prophecies would be fulfilled.
2) The truth of the Word of God was nevertheless preserved in His apostles, and in spite of their epistles that blindness for most of us has not yet been lifted.
3) That God is true, only He can save us, and only He can rule over us. These are the lessons we must learn in our period of blindness, wherein every scheme of government by man has failed.
Therefore, if one does not find Identity Christianity in the early Church writers, it matters not. What matters are the Gospels, the law, the prophets and the apostles. Identity Christians must represent themselves as the awakening from blindness portrayed by the Elijah ministry of Malachi chapter 4, because that is what we are.