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

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

So where in Scripture does it say there is a Trinity and that the Father is of one essence with the Son and with the Holy Spirit?

Another question. This knowledge of how to understand Scripture, does the voice speak directly to you? How does it work for you chaps? If I heard voices, I'd seek help. Or do you just know that the way you read Scripture is right in some other way?

I understand how Papal Infallibility works, he takes counsel from the bishops in Council; how's it work with you? Do you have a Council, talk with Rick, or just know you're right all along? It's always puzzled me.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

So where in Scripture does it say there is a Trinity and that the Father is of one essence with the Son and with the Holy Spirit?

Another question. This knowledge of how to understand Scripture, does the voice speak directly to you? How does it work for you chaps? If I heard voices, I'd seek help. Or do you just know that the way you read Scripture is right in some other way?

I understand how Papal Infallibility works, he takes counsel from the bishops in Council; how's it work with you? Do you have a Council, talk with Rick, or just know you're right all along? It's always puzzled me.

Peace,

Anglian

Anglian the doctrine of the trinity is all over throughout scripture, you speak as though understanding Gods word unto salvation requires some high level of genius...It doesn't friend, it requires that we; seek, knock, and embrace...Sorry if you've never tried it, it is a very liberating and integral part of having a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior once I knocked down the orgaization that was clouding my way unto the Lord, His words of His truth have become abundantly clear.

 

[simonthezealot]

Hey Anglian,
Whats your rule? scripture, tradition,fathers
and when these fly in your face you jump over to the 7 councils. When the councils seem to condemn a teaching you look to your pope or leader... It's a big game of musical chairs.
You condemn Sola camps for inconsistencies in
interpretation yet you and the catholics have these floating chairs of infalliblity with piles of theologians constantly striving to reconcile one to another...Hence NO settled foundation upon which to set your weary SOULS.

We have Gods word as our rule...His unchanging infallible perfect word.

 

[Yarddog]

Edified reading sure...Creating doctrine from them and their practices NO WAY, thats the way of the pagan...and the true purpose of this thread...I look at the early writings as a less complete commentary than someone like Dr. John Macarthur.

Hello Simon,
Not speaking of all the ECFs, but of the ones that spoke, personally, with and those that immediately followed these men, would you these in the same category.

In other words, if you knew that there was a man who had actually spoken to the Apostles and helped them in their work and whom Paul said was written in the Book of Life, such as Clement, would your answer be the same?

I can begin to understand how you may say that as the centuries passed and seeing how doctrine developed, but not about those that knew the Apostles.

Yarddog

 

[Yarddog]

Hey Anglian,
Whats your rule? scripture, tradition,fathers
and when these fly in your face you jump over to the 7 councils. When the councils seem to condemn a teaching you look to your pope or leader... It's a big game of musical chairs.
You condemn Sola camps for inconsistencies in
interpretation yet you and the catholics have these floating chairs of infalliblity with piles of theologians constantly striving to reconcile one to another...Hence NO settled foundation upon which to set your weary SOULS.

We have Gods word as our rule...His unchanging infallible perfect word.

There is no difference between the God's word that you possess and what we possess. It is infallible in both hands. The difference is what is used to understand the Word.

We also both have the same Holy Spirit, to guide us into the truth. The difference would then be that our own spirit causes these differences in our belief. You believe that you are correct using only your own spirit to understand the Holy Spirit. We do the same but make great use of those that learned from the Apostles.

To ignore Clement, that walked and talked with Paul, or Polycarp that did the same with John, or Ignatius who learned directly from the man that Peter and Paul taught, is to ignore a very large part of God's word.

Yarddog

 

[simonthezealot]

There is no difference between the God's word that you possess and what we possess. It is infallible in both hands. The difference is what is used to understand the Word.

We also both have the same Holy Spirit, to guide us into the truth. The difference would then be that our own spirit causes these differences in our belief. You believe that you are correct using only your own spirit to understand the Holy Spirit. We do the same but make great use of those that learned from the Apostles.

To ignore Clement, that walked and talked with Paul, or Polycarp that did the same with John, or Ignatius who learned directly from the man that Peter and Paul taught, is to ignore a very large part of God's word.

Yarddog

Yarddog,
There is much in scripture that clearly could have been omitted because it is of NO effect on our salvation, are you suggesting the divinely inspired writers may have included non necessities in their writings and left necessities out ONLY to be passed on to those later generations to be revealed?? That to me seems like a mockery of the word of God and the revelation of the New covenant.
Simon

 

[simonthezealot]

Hello Simon,
Not speaking of all the ECFs, but of the ones that spoke, personally, with and those that immediately followed these men, would you these in the same category.

In other words, if you knew that there was a man who had actually spoken to the Apostles and helped them in their work and whom Paul said was written in the Book of Life, such as Clement, would your answer be the same?

I can begin to understand how you may say that as the centuries passed and seeing how doctrine developed, but not about those that knew the Apostles.

Yarddog

While there is much to appreciate in the didache polycarp clement and hermas because for the most part these were that crossover generation...
Agreeably i do hold these at a higher view of truth than the ones to follow...I think that with each following generation you see less reliance on the apostles teachings in scripture and more on a blend of paganistic practices of the time...blending over the centuries to a highly unscriptural and very ritualistic pattern of practiced religion forged from human tradition and pagan rituals with a shake of scripture.

 

[Montalban]

Anglian,

It needn't be directly pointed out in scripture for many early Christians yet they understood the total sufficiency of scripture...

In the latter days it is (T)raditions causing the falling away of the faith...NOT scripture.

For example when believers can NOT seperate justification and sanctification and the two are compounded, ONE will never understand in their heart and mind the COMPLETENESS of what Christ did for us, scripture is clear that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Yet tradition places a list of "what to do's" in order to receive the grace of justification.

It's this very sense that a person can and should say "who cares what the ecf's said"...Because you guys take their words and turn it into something equal to scripture, when they should NOT be...

What is the difference between God inspiring the letter of Clement and God inspiring a letter of Paul?

 

[Montalban]

Ang,

The comment refers ONLY to those scriptures written with a beyond human genius to them, those obviously inspired words given to those whom walked with Jesus and/or His apostles.

But how do you know that the Gospel of John is inspired, and a letter by Ignatius of Antioch is not?

Circular reasoning, that's how

 

[Montalban]

Their are multiple dozens who point to scripture for its ultimate sufficiency in matters of faith....Here are a few of the MANY i can offer.

Do you realise the silliness of appealing to the authority of Church Fathers to show that they have no authority?

Where does Ambrose say "Let us only enquire of the Scriptures"?

So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)

Again you missed the point. AT THE COUNCILE OF NICEA they declared.

It wasn't apparent of itself from the Bible

 

[Yarddog]

Yarddog,
There is much in scripture that clearly could have been omitted because it is of NO effect on our salvation, are you suggesting the divinely inspired writers may have included non necessities in their writings and left necessities out ONLY to be passed on to those later generations to be revealed?? That to me seems like a mockery of the word of God and the revelation of the New covenant.
Simon

Hello Simon,
Does your ability to discern scripture resemble the ability to discern my writing? Maybe you can show me where I said anything of the sort.

Are you suggesting, since you failed to answer what I wrote, that what
Paul taught Clement is false? Are you suggesting that what John taught Polycarp is false? Is what Peter and Paul taught the 1st Bishops of Antioch false? Is what any of the Apostles taught those first fruits false?

If you believe that the Apostles taught the truth to these faithful men, then you should read what they wrote and maybe God will also show you the truths that they wrote about just as he revealed his Son to you.

I am not saying that items may not have been added over the centuries, by men, but you should respect those men that faced the torture and death that Jesus said would come.

Yarddog

 

[Ramon96]

Anglian the doctrine of the trinity is all over throughout scripture, you speak as though understanding Gods word unto salvation requires some high level of genius...It doesn't friend, it requires that we; seek, knock, and embrace...Sorry if you've never tried it, it is a very liberating and integral part of having a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior once I knocked down the orgaization that was clouding my way unto the Lord, His words of His truth have become abundantly clear.

While the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is supported throughout Scriptures, the definition that you accept was raffled by the 1st Ecumenical Council (The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea) in 325AD. Where in Scriptures does it state that Jesus Christ was one Person with two Natures (Divine and Human) (I am assuming you believe this)? Where in Scriptures does it give a clear definition to what the Holy Trinity is? Mormons believe in a Trinity but there definition of it is not accord with Historical Christianity. You use the words "Trinity" or "Holy Trinity" not because Scriptures tell you so but because it was the language of the ECF that became common after the 1st Ecumenical Council. You probably accept the Orthodox definition of the Holy Trinity, but if you do, it is only because the ECF said so in the 1st Ecumenical Council and thus that definition became common through the generation following the Council. Believe it or not, you appeal to the ECF more than you know. Where in Scriptures does it give you Canon List of books that belong in the Holy Bible? You accept that there are 27 Books in the NT because the Early Church said so. Without the Church, you would have no Bible to be "Sola" with. The Church had the final and ultimate authority in this matter not some "Book". The Bible did not fell out of Heaven all wrap up and prepare to go with a little note saying "These books constructs the Holy Bible. With Love: God". Sola-Scriptura is not in accord with 2 Thes 2:15, where Saint Paul told the Early Christians to follow both what was "written" and what the Holy Apostles told them orally [thus far from your "Sola-Scriptura" cry] You may accept the Bible as the only rule of Faith [something not taught by the Early Christians] but you follow your own interpretation. In reality, each Protestant follow his or her interpretation as the "authority" not Scriptures.

I have yet to see a Protestant give a rock Solid Scripture to prove that the Holy Bible is only rule of Faith.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ......

 

[Montalban]

The primitive Christians read scripture and exercised their own judgement as to what was inspired.

Yes, and Paul demanded that they have unity, because their own judgment was divisive.

Paul said,""If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37)

Which contradicts your 'personal interpretation' stance!

Scripture is the rule to form a perfect faith as far as man is capable.

No. You've ignored where Paul also says to obey what he's taught, by word. We're to obey what Paul has TAUGHT (that's the key) not what Paul has WRITTEN - or we're to ignore what was orally passed on.

You've not addressed an earlier post (#303) of mine where I demonstrated how Paul himself taught what was taught to him by word of mouth

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. Scripture itself was not sufficient for Pau!

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

By Protestant 'logic' Paul had no right to do so, however once it's written down in the Bible it's now okay!

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2). He doesn't use Scripture as authority.

Paul himself handed on faith...
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle”
(II Thessalonians 2:15)

The Ethiopian gives a clue to being 'taught' the Word...
Acts 8
30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
In other words, he called upon a minister (deacon) to guide him in his readings of the word.
Also, the Ethiopian finds faith, but needs to be baptised (a sacrament).
Acts 10
Cornelius the Roman soldier, finds faith in God, but needs Peter to come to his house before he receives the Holy Spirit. Faith alone was not enough.
In fact, the very name “Acts of the Apostles” not “Faith of the Apostles” tells you something. If faith were alone, then the Bible would have finished at the time Christ rose into heaven; instead it goes on to show what the Apostles did; they taught, they organised, they conferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people.

It is clear that the Ethiopian's desire to learn was not enough. He had to be taught.

 

[Montalban]

LLOJ......

What's the point in you posting?

 

[Montalban]

While there is much to appreciate in the didache polycarp clement and hermas because for the most part these were that crossover generation...
Agreeably i do hold these at a higher view of truth than the ones to follow...I think that with each following generation you see less reliance on the apostles teachings in scripture and more on a blend of paganistic practices of the time...blending over the centuries to a highly unscriptural and very ritualistic pattern of practiced religion forged from human tradition and pagan rituals with a shake of scripture.

So the power of the Holy Spirit diminished with each generation? Martin Luther was how far more removed?

 

[Ramon96]

While there is much to appreciate in the didache polycarp clement and hermas because for the most part these were that crossover generation...
Agreeably i do hold these at a higher view of truth than the ones to follow...I think that with each following generation you see less reliance on the apostles teachings in scripture and more on a blend of paganistic practices of the time...blending over the centuries to a highly unscriptural and very ritualistic pattern of practiced religion forged from human tradition and pagan rituals with a shake of scripture.

So in other words, The Church fell into Corruption over the centuries following the Apostles' death, something that contradicts what Jesus taught and Saint Paul?

 

[Montalban]

Anglian the doctrine of the trinity is all over throughout scripture, you speak as though understanding Gods word unto salvation requires some high level of genius...It doesn't friend, it requires that we; seek, knock, and embrace...Sorry if you've never tried it, it is a very liberating and integral part of having a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior once I knocked down the orgaization that was clouding my way unto the Lord, His words of His truth have become abundantly clear.

That's not entirely true. The doctrine of the Trinity as we understand the Trinity was defined in Council. There were competitive theories ALL based on the Bible. Arianism was also based on the Bible.

However the Council ruled on what was always taught.

 

[Montalban]

So in order words, The Church fell into Corruption over the centuries following the Apostles' death, something that contradicts what Jesus taught and Saint Paul?

Somehow the Holy Spirit zoomed back into the church 1,500 years later and inspired Martin Luther.

I wonder if the Lutheran church has been 'diminishing' since Martin Luther's day, or this time the Holy Spirit has stayed with that church?

 

[Montalban]

I have yet to see a Protestant give a rock Solid Scripture to prove that the Holy Bible is only rule of Faith.

Blessings,
Ramon

Indeed. Weirdly SimontheZealot, unable to do this tried to appeal to the ECF's to show that they believed in only the Bible - so in order to prove that we should have sola scriptura, unable to prove this from the Bible, he wanted ECF's authority to prove that they had no authority

Who's the architect of this confusion?