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

[Anglian]

Perhaps we have established two things in this discussion?

1. That since Scripture nowhere defines itself, it was defined by the early Church; Protestants accept the book as inspired, but not the inspired body which canonised it. That is their tradition, and they keep to it.

2. That the answer to the OP is that every Christian cares about what the ECFs said, because so much of that is now inherent in the way most Christians understand their Faith: our understanding the Trinity; of the Incarnation; of the two natures of Christ.

We are all pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants; some of acknowledge the role of the Saints in helping our spiritual formation; some do it all themselves, and, like all self-made people, they are satisfied with the product of their own labour.

I would like to ask how many of those who have decried the contribution of the ECFs have actually read them. Our good friend LLOJ (gotta love that squashed Satan!) readily admits he has not. I am assuming that the others arguing here have at least read them and therefore know they have been of no use to them.

My own spiritual life would be immeasurably the poorer without the contributions made to it by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Ephrem the Syrian and my beloved St. Isaac of Nineveh. Through their written legacy, they have helped deepen and broaden my understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Those who have no need of such help, still owe them a great debt, for their work has passed into our understanding of the Faith in so many ways.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

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?

we can see the trinity all over the scriptures in both the OT and the NT. The word trinity may not be there but the concept is.


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?

It works for us just as it did for those written about. Jesus opens the understanding of our hearts.. Here is some scripture. He also opens our minds to understand.
Mat 13:15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'

Luk 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,


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.
Well we have the mighty counselor.. He is Christ. We can councel with Him. We can also counsel with our brothers and sisters by reading scripture together and reasoning together..

Peace,

Anglian

...

 

[MamaZ]

I'd like Protestants to show how they think the Bible came into being.

Did the books all just rise up and bind themselves?

When we look at the "Gospel of John" how do we know it's from John? Why not include the "Gospel of Thomas". Thomas was also an Apostle.

It does not matter who bound the letters up. It does matter though what is God breathed and not God breathed. For you underestimate the Power of the Holy Spirit within every believer who is the Spirit of truth and bears witness with only truth that is God breathed. Kind of like this scripture

2Ti 3:5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

 

[MamaZ]

So, the Gospel of Thomas is not canon material, because it's not in the canon?

Is that the answer?

You tell us why this is not in the cannon of the 66. Do you really believe that if this was Gods will that it be in His book that He and not man would have made sure it was there? Do you really believe that God is so Helpless that He has to depend upon man?

 

[MamaZ]

What's the point in you posting?

Maybe God is testing you to find out if you indeed have the fruit of the Spirit for all to see. And the Love your neighbor as yourself. Maybe because He is the Op or maybe because He just wants to add a little humor to the thread.. He does have quite a sense of humor if you would just get to know him..

 

[MamaZ]

"The church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse."

How can we be sure your tradtion is truth and not the LDS tradtion or the Jw tradtion?

 

[MamaZ]

For Catholics you are heretics. We're considered schismatics.

 

[Anglian]

Dear MamaZ,

Just to re-emphasise, no one here is stating that the Fathers are a substitute for or equal to the Scriptures, simply that they are a great aid to the development of the understanding of them.

You and I owe the development of the concept of the Trinity to the fathers. The Bible mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it was the Fathers who, inspired by God, guided us to a proper understanding of the Trinity in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one essence. The fact your Church accepts this simply means it owes this to the ECFs - not to any insight of its own. One can, in humility, acknowledge those through whom the Spirit has worked, or not.

That is what this thread has been about. There is no dichotomy between Holy Tradition and being led by the Spirit; it is that Spirit who inspired the early Church to recognise Scripture who inspired the Fathers to read it aright. So the answer to the OP remains that we all care what the ECFs said - it is just that those who have never read them fail to realise this.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

Dear MamaZ,

Just to re-emphasise, no one here is stating that the Fathers are a substitute for or equal to the Scriptures, simply that they are a great aid to the development of the understanding of them.

You and I owe the development of the concept of the Trinity to the fathers.

I owe the nothing really for the scriptures themselves speak of the Father Son and Holy Spirit.

The Bible mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it was the Fathers who, inspired by God, guided us to a proper understanding of the Trinity in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one essence.

You may want to explain the essence part to me. For we can see in the scripture that they are indeed one making up the Godhead. We can see this in Gen.

The fact your Church accepts this simply means it owes this to the ECFs - not to any insight of its own.

The fact being is that my church is everyone that is indeed born again and part of the body of Christ. I do not believe in denominations nor sects.. Just that there is one body.

One can, in humility, acknowledge those through whom the Spirit has worked, or not.

That is what this thread has been about. There is no dichotomy between Holy Tradition and being led by the Spirit; it is that Spirit who inspired the early Church to recognise Scripture who inspired the Fathers to read it aright. So the answer to the OP remains that we all care what the ECFs said - it is just that those who have never read them fail to realise this.

Peace,

Anglian

Well I can't say I care what they say. For I can find the very truth inside the scripture without having men having to explain to me what they believe it means.. For Gods body is not stagnet.. It is alive and lives now just as the Head of the Church is alive and active in each of His sheeps lives.. The scriptures to a born again believer are also active and alive as scripture says they are.

 

[simonthezealot]

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?

Montalban,
I speak in the only language you guys are allowed to interpret...

I nearly vomit at the ends to which a degradation of the sufficiency of scripture is promoted by tradition based RELIGIONS.

 

[simonthezealot]

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?

Your churches! NOT the "Church"

 

[simonthezealot]

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

The HS within especially the church of Rome gave them over to themselves...

Romans 1:28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 

[simonthezealot]

SIMPLE QUESTION

If the fathers differ from each other and from scripture, HOW do you guys decide which writings to accept and which to deny?

 

[Trento]

How can we be sure your tradtion is truth and not the LDS tradtion or the Jw tradtion?

Joseph Smith, Jr. was founder of the movement of the LDS Church in the. beginning in the early 19th century.

Jehovah's Witnesses trace their origins to the nineteenth century Adventist movement in America. That movement began with William Miller, a Baptist lay preacher who, in the year 1816, began proclaiming that Christ would return in 1843.

Orthodox - Catholic Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles.


Your tradition of holding to the bible alone is not new its have been around for a long time. This is first recorded in the divided Church at Corinth. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:12 "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Which shows us a picture of the party spirit that was evident among them. Notice that there were no accolades of praise for those who were called exclusively "Christians. The very fact that they adopted this name as their exclusive property might indicate that they were the most narrow and intolerant of the factions in Corinth. There is an assumption and arrogance in the appropriation of the title which speaks ill for their breadth of spirit or sympathy. They boasted that they did not take their theology from any human teacher, like Cephas or Paul or Apollos, but only from the Lord...There was no orthodoxy like unto their unorthodox they were harder to get along with than any of the others.
The most frustrating thing about denominationism is that it is conditioned to discard any sound advice that comes from outside of their fellowships. Because they are "Spirit filled" the Wesleys, Luthers, and Calvins ect. who have enriched and shaped our thoughts throughout history were not, (this is their claim and not mine), anything that disagrees with them must be They turn their noses up at the thought of reading a book other than the Bible itself for fear of being tainted by "man's doctrine and not God's". man's theology. The only reason I can rationalize this dread of wisdom is that their pastors want them to only read the scriptures with the biases that their pastors have given them. By doing this the congregation member can see the scriptures through the theology of their pastor or themselves, while they go on believing that they are understanding the scriptures for themselves. As this deceptive and dangerous hatred of theology festers within the modern Church,it is leading people astray and continue to create more division and disunity.

 

[Anglian]

SIMPLE QUESTION

If the fathers differ from each other and from scripture, HOW do you guys decide which writings to accept and which to deny?

Dear Simon,

As I, and others, have constantly tried to tell you, no one is arguing that the Fathers are infallible, therefore there is no need to make decisions about which writings to deny or accept. They are not a canon, they are elucidators of the canon, and as we receive them within the teaching of the Church, we accept their insights as the Church does.

I am still unsure whether you read them.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[calluna]

Orthodox - Catholic Tradition can be traced back to the Apostles.

Not so.

 

[Anglian]

Dear MamaZ,

How can you know whether you owe anything to works you have not read?

The very word 'Trinity' and the very idea that the Holy Spirit is of one essence with the Father and the Son (and not, as some who sought to interpret Scripture for themselves held, a creature) is something you owe to the Cappadocian Fathers. That you do not know this and will not admit it does not mean it is not true.

If each protestant is his or her own infallible mini-pope, I see why there is such animosity towards the actual Pope - and why there are so many protestant assemblies.

Our own tradition continues to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, the same one who inspired it to canonise Scripture and to teach us its true meaning. It continues to be inspired by the written word of God in the Holy Scriptures; in the words of the Liturgy; in the words of the Fathers.

As has been said so many times, no one is claiming that the Fathers are part of the canon, simply that they can be read with profit by all Christians. If you have not read them, how can you have an opinion on them?

There seems to be a misperception that we do not read the Bible, so let me correct it now. If you take our Divine Liturgy, a service which lasts for two and a half hours, we hear four Psalms in their totality; we hear one of the Catholic epistles in its entirety; we hear one of the Pauline epistles in its entirety; we hear a chapter from the Acts of the Apostles in its entirety; we hear a whole chapter from one of the Gospels. The homily always expounds one of the Gospel texts. Every word of the Liturgy, which goes back to the fourth century model of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, expresses what the Bible teaches about the Faith. That is just one service on Sunday.

We also read and study the Bible every day. We find the ECFs a great aid. You don't, you say, but as you have not read them, I can't quite see how that works.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

As I, and others, have constantly tried to tell you, no one is arguing that the Fathers are infallible, therefore there is no need to make decisions about which writings to deny or accept. They are not a canon, they are elucidators of the canon, and as we receive them within the teaching of the Church, we accept their insights as the Church does.

I am still unsure whether you read them.

Peace,

Anglian

SIMPLE question...
If councils make decisions that contradict each other how do you decide which to accept and which to deny?

 

[simonthezealot]

Joseph Smith, Jr. was founder of the movement of the LDS Church in the. beginning in the early 19th century.

A fellow member on the forums is promoting a meeting of the minds a comparing of notes between the LDS and the RCC, because these 2 sects have so much in common its thought each could learn much from the other....

 

[Anglian]

If councils make decisions that contradict each other how do you decide which to accept and which to deny?

Dear Simon,
Having failed to show where, in Scripture, it defines itself, I can quite understand your wishing to shift the focus of this discussion, but it really is about the ECFs, not about the Councils.

Each of the Apostolic Churches recognises those Councils to which it was invited as Ecumenical; each of them recognizes that much edification is to be had from the ones to which they were excluded; none of them claims personal infallibility.

Peace,

Anglian