Churches founding fathers

When seeing this term does it typically stand for modern church? Denominational? Biblical? Is there a set use or is it a general term people use to fit into their narrative?
It's nothing I ever really gave thought about until I saw an article referring to the churches founding fathers, as also the founders of Pentecostalism (John Wesley and Charles Finney). That didn't sit right with me and made me ask.

Jesus founded 'His Church'. He didn't found Wesley's church, Finney's church, or other churches. He only founded one Church and promised to be with it til the end of time.

denominational fathers

I get that. I was specifically talking about the word usage among Christians now and if the term had a specific meaning when being said, or not.

The term is used arbitrarily
It doesn’t sit right with me either

I have seen it church fathers used a couple X with the apostles …But primarily (and if you are catholic) it refers to those of extrabiblical writings anywhere from the 1st century through the 10th …and beyond

Protestant …. I guess could refer to those around the reformation… but I have never seen that used in regard to church fathers.

When I consider the early church fathers I think of those like Barnabas, Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, ect in the 2nd century

That's an interesting question... one that I can't say that I've been able to define well in my own thinking.

To me, it seems that many people, throughout many denominations use the term "founding fathers" as if we all know who they're referring to. While I think that for the first few centuries of Christian history, the names are fairly uniform among different denominations today, the list grows increasingly diverse as the years add up. In other words, I believe that it really depends on who you're talking to at the moment.

With the formation of the RCC, circa 350ish AD - Constantine's era and shortly thereafter, things get wildly chaotic. Mainly because, IMHO, the RCC kinda hi-jacked history by insisting that the RCC in-fact existed before it actually existed. They seem to have altered the record, so to speak.

Anyway, because of that, many protestant/reformist denominations (circa 1500's AD), especially those that vehemently opposed the RCC, dismiss "founding fathers" that are associated with the RCC mantle. We tend to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

For me, the idea that there is a "modern church" is really not definable... not for humans. Only God knows who His children are. Therefore, the term "founding fathers", while idiomatic and widely used, is wholly dependent on who you're talking to at the moment - ergo, denominational and a term that people use to fit their narrative.

arthurfleminger: when speaking to catholics, i tell them men created Catholicism, God created Christianity! Jesus said, "upon this rock I will build MY church"! not the catholic church. right on a.f.!

I think "founding father" is broadly used so the context has to be how we define the term as it is used.
So my local congregation may refer to the fplks who established the church in 1972, or they may be refering to Walther and his contemporaries who established the LCMS, or they could be refering to Luther and Melancthon, or they could be talking about the apostles or the martyrs of antiquity. It really is a matter of context.

This is usually used to fit one’s narrative and it’s especially popular among Protestants but what is not sitting right with you exactly?
Jesus was here and left His apostles to start The Church. Then the apostles put other people in charge to continue the mission and then the other people put other people in charge and so on and so forth.

I agree, it is "broadly used". It can be used to decimate the person who founded a denomination.

Biblically, it refers to the men who had personally been taught by Jesus or taught by those men, and founded churches based on what Jesus taught. They were to settle any questions concerning the church.

That changed when Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea to settle questions by means of a council. For this reason, church history before Constantine is called the age of the apostles.

There were no "founding fathers" for "modern" churches, unless you wish to connect specific Reformers with specific denominations. For example Calvin was connected to the Presbyterian Church, Luther to the Lutheran Church, Menno to the Mennonite Church, etc. As to the Anglican Church, it was Henry VIII who rejected the papacy. But "It was the clergyman Thomas Cranmer and the king’s influential adviser Thomas Cromwell—both Protestants—who built a convincing case that England’s king should not be subject to the pope’s jurisdiction." There were many controversies among the Reformers, and eventually people grouped themselves around specific leading figures. According to the Bible there should have been no such divisions, and there should have been simply one "Reformed Church" vs the Catholic Church.

Jesus Yeshua is the Head and we compose parts of His Body, that is, of the true members of the assembly of God.

Denominations have been formed by mankind. The true Body of the Messiah is scattered among them all and among all who believe independent of theses daughters of the Great Harlot on Seven Hills.

You believe Jesus Yeshua, you are just fine as a child of "Abraham., that is saying a son of the Father of the Peoples (nations.)

When you turn to the New Testament the overseers (elder/bishops) of each church were the elders, and they were in charge as a group -- " a presbytery".

But very shortly after the demise of the apostles things changed. One man began calling himself "THE bishop" and made himself overseer over the elders. That was definitely not what Christ had in mind. Pretty soon a hierarchy of clergy began to take charge of the churches and eventually led to a totally different structure than the NT pattern. But the NT pattern began with Moses, and Israel always has a group of elders, not one "boss". Even during the Reformation the true format of the presbytery was abandoned, and instead of a presbytery in each church, it was the denomination which took control.

I believe a long meditation upon what exactly apostasy is may be in order for many.

In this case the article seemed to imply the start of Pentecostalism was founded by the two named men. And those referred to as the church fathers, yet no specific denomination or church was mentioned. It came across as these two are the Original church founders.

In its purest form, there is nothing wrong with this but the reality as @Nehemiah6, mentioned above is that sometimes this isn’t about being inspired or to follow Christ but it’s about ego and making your head big.

For example, the Orthodox Church which I’m a part of, prides itself in being The direct followers of the Apostles since the time of Christ in an unbroken chain with no schisms.
The reality though is that within the church there are many politicians instead of leaders leading spiritual lives.

This is why a lot of people use this ”church fathers” phrase to fit their narrative because they disregard the history and the original intent which is still pure for many to this day, and that is to lead a life like Christ and be humble in that mission.

The only 'church fathers' I've ever heard of are the early church fathers of the 3rd & 4th centuries, with most of them being RCC.

See...?
The RCC wasn't in play until after Constantine. j/s

I've never used the term because only the 3-in-1 God is the Founding Father of his church.