Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[simonthezealot]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

 

[chestertonrules]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

I guess we should follow your interpretation of scripture then.

Are you infallible?

 

[simonthezealot]

I guess we should follow your interpretation of scripture then.

Are you infallible?

He whom dwells in me, IS!
Are they?

 

[Secundulus]

He whom dwells in me, IS!
Are they?

Which one had the Holy Spirit?

a. Martin Luther
b. John Calvin
c. Ulrich Zwingli

They all claimed to have him but didn't all teach the same thing?

Or is Christianity simply different for everyone? Is it all simply within your emotional response?

 

[simonthezealot]

Which one had the Holy Spirit?

a. Martin Luther
b. John Calvin
c. Ulrich Zwingli

They all claimed to have him but didn't all teach the same thing?

Or is Christianity simply different for everyone? Is it all simply within your emotional response?

?I can only take them at their word
Yeah neither did corinth galatia ephesus colosse well you get the pic.
Christ is was and always will be the same, our understanding will never be right or properly done.
NO.

 

[Secundulus]

?I can only take them at their word

Why do you take them at their word and not take the ECF at their word?

Christ is was and always will be the same, our understanding will never be right or properly done.

I agree with you here.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think we should learn what we can from the ECF. I do not think their writings are inerrant though.

I also think writers like Ignatius and Polycarp are special because they lived with the Apsotles. It is like how we have friends and people we deal with closely. We get to know these people and in our day to day sharing with them we learn things from them. If an Apostle were alive today we would not need to guess about what God wants us to know. We would have one of the guys that God taught personally. When we had a question about a teaching we could simply ask the Apostle eating lunch with us what the scripture means. We could say "Hey Apostle I was speaking to Simon and he does not think Jesus giving Peter the Keys was meant as a dynastic office like we have in Isaiah 22" and that Apostle would answer us on what Jesus meant by that passage and even give details that scripture leaves out like how stubborn Peter was or something like that.

Well we do not have an Apostle alive today and we cannot talk to one. The closest we can come is to read what someone that did have a personal relationship with an Apostle wrote. That to me is a reason I find their writings important, it is a way for me to get closer to God.

This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.

* Quoted from Irenaeus student of Polycarp

 

[simonthezealot]

Why do you take them at their word and not take the ECF at their word?
.

I was talking specifically about being born again...
I put equal weight into them as I do ecf's and my pastor...Always double checking how what they are saying to scripture, maybe thats why I can appreciate origen in his constant attaching of scripture to nearly everything he spoke of.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Personally, I think that the ECFs are a valuable resources for similar reasons that I think that Josephus is valuable. In any historic pursuit it is important to obtain as much historic context as possible.

As JackTheCatholic said, they are not inerrant
but they are the closest extrabiblical resources that we can get.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

That's like a scientist saying 'why should we read Galileo or Boyle? They came centuries before us...'

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, . . . . .

Why should we take the interpretation of someone who comes along 2000 years later over that of those who received the Faith directly from the Apostles that Jesus commissioned?

How can anyone have the arrogance to think that they know more than those who received the Faith directly from Christs Apostles? Absolutely unbelievable.

 

[E.C.]

The ECFs were there at Nicea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, Ephesus and Nicea again. Some survived the Roman persecutions and some even wrote to the emperor.

They are first-hand accounts of the early centuries of Christian history.

Quite frankly, I'd take their word over any man wearing a suit, sweating up a storm while shouting "AMEN!" every two seconds.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Quite frankly, I'd take their word over any man wearing a suit, sweating up a storm while shouting "AMEN!" every two seconds.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

The ECFs were there at Nicea, Chalcedon, Constantinople, Ephesus and Nicea again. Some survived the Roman persecutions and some even wrote to the emperor.

They are first-hand accounts of the early centuries of Christian history.

And thank you. Funny how a lot of people are obsessed with the Bible (hardly a bad thing) and yet refuse to get context at all.

 

[E.C.]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

And thank you. Funny how a lot of people are obsessed with the Bible (hardly a bad thing) and yet refuse to get context at all.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there was a Church before any thought of Bible was a zygote.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I've said this before and I'll say it again: there was a Church before any thought of Bible was a zygote.

Yeah, people don't get that.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

I care what the ECFs had to say. I certainly don't agree with what all ECFs have to say, but I certainly can strive to try and understand what they were trying to say. Believers have been indwelt by the same Holy Spirit since the days of Peter and Paul. It is my understanding that on this basis Christians ought to treat one another with respect. So I can learn from reading what an ECF has to say, similar to learning what present-day Christians are also attempting to communicate.


LDG

 

[zealot66]

This is an ignorant question really. Why do we study the constitution of the united states or the writings of those who composed it ?

We do it to understand the thinking upon which the church is organized and evolved. I suppose we should trash the ECF because they arent on the NYT bestseller lists. Get and education.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

Agreed. Did ya ever notice the multitude of errors the NKJV/RNKJV corrected?
That could have also led to some rather unbiblical teachings/doctrines in the Roman church.

LLOJ [Give me Scripture or give me Death!!!]

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

.....Rule of thumb : you should never, ever rely exclusively on one single translation.)...

..........As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Agreed. Did ya ever notice the multitude of errors the NKJV/RNKJV corrected?
That could have also led to some rather unbiblical teachings/doctrines in the Roman church.

LLOJ [Give me Scripture or give me Death!!!]

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

..........As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

Jesus is the Word.

Do not worship a book.

Scripture is only part of it. Would you choose only to have Jesus toe or his whole being? If you choose only the bible then you are not choosing all of Jesus.

 

[Basileus]

By ECF, I think you mean early church fathers, correct? Well most of the ECFs spoke Greek and since the Bible wasn't even recognised and put together until the 3rd/4th Cent, then who else can we rely on but them?

Most of what would become the Bible was originally in Greek. Most of them knew the Apostles or knew their immediate successors.

Also remember, when the apostles first preached they visited the synagogue of that city they were evangelizing, or the local philosphy spot ( Like St. Paul in his Unknown God Homily). They did not go up and down knocking on doors.

The Christian church only really obtained its' own identity after Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 71 A.D. After that it became more than an offshoot of Judaism.

Just as their are many meanings of the word "Love", especially in Greek, in English we only have on word for it. I believe that those ECFs were closest and got the correct nuiances that we cannot have 2000 years later. That and they also were just following the days of grace of the Holy Spirit. We are so far removed from that now. Have you ever wondered why those miracles do not take place now??

Sbd James.