What to believe?

[beameup]

It was bigger than that. They all abandoned him doctrinally. So within 100 years of his death, the so-called "early church fathers" were all judaized, works-driven sacramentalist wolves, which resulted in what you described above.

I don't believe that that can be proven from the writings of the "Early Church Fathers" through the 2nd Century. Other than the (Egyptian) heresies of Gnosticism, which can be documented, the disciples of the original disciples (and their disciples) were very much doctrinally correct.

The merging of State and Church under Constantine, however, has had very lasting effects upon the "church", giving rise to Supralapsarianism, "Covenant (Replacement) Theology" and the "Emerging Church", etc.

 

[musterion]

I don't believe that that can be proven from the writings of the "Early Church Fathers" through the 2nd Century.

Yes it can. It's been posted at TOL before. I and others did so.

Other than the (Egyptian) heresies of Gnosticism, which can be documented, the disciples of the original disciples (and their disciples) were very much doctrinally correct.

No they weren't.

The merging of State and Church under Constantine, however, has had very lasting effects upon the "church", giving rise to Supralapsarianism, "Covenant (Replacement) Theology" and the "Emerging Church", etc.

It goes back before that. Don't take my word for it -- do some quick research on the earliest of the "ECF" and the beginnings of ecclesiarchy, sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, particularly with regard to the rite of water baptism.