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

[Anglian]

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....

Dear Simon,
And the positive contribution this makes to our discussion would be precisely what?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by simonthezealot 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....

So? Islam and Christianity [which includes Catholics, Orthodox and "protestants"]also both believe in a 2nd coming of Jesus. I saw this interesting post on the News and Current events board since CF has shut down 4 debate boards already it is hard finding a place to debate non-Christians except maybe in the C&E board. Thoughs?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7266042&page=2
29 convicts executed in Iran

Originally Posted by platzapS I really don't think execution for public nuisance is comparable to execution for murder. I'm against both, but the US is pretty far above Iran in human rights (despite us having a long way to go still...).

LLOJ: Isn't Iran mainly a Muslim country? The goal of Islam is world rule thru Allah and the Koran. That religion also believes in a 2nd coming of Jesus just as Christianity does.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=48268
Posted: January 10, 2006

Iran leader: Islam to 'rule the world'
[SIZE=+1]Urges Muslims to get ready [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]for coming of 'messiah'[/SIZE]

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn global attention recently for his contention the Holocaust was a "myth," said: "We don't shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world."

 

[simonthezealot]

Psalm 19
The word of God, His grace
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

 

[Anglian]

Psalm 19
The word of God, His grace
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

Dear Simon,

Always good to see you quoting the book canonised by the Church founded by Christ.

If, as you maintain, you are guided by the Holy Spirit, why should the ECFs not also have been guided by Him? Or are we in the presence of an even more astounding claim - that He only talks to you?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Ramon96]

Your churches! NOT the "Church"

Proof?

There was only one Church during the Apostles era and after. You believe that the Church fell into corruption after the Apostles' Death, but this contradicts Matthews 16:18 and Saint Pauls' words in 1 Tim 3:15. So I guess this belief is part of your Protestant tradition? Again, you have not answer none of my questions nor comment on them. Again, where in Scriptures does it give you a clear definition of the Holy Trinity? Where in Scriptures does it give you a Canon List of Scriptures? Why do you accept only 27 Books in the NT? You follow what the Early Church said in the 4th Century that's how. The Church had the final and ultimate authority on this matter. You still have not address the Canonization of Holy Bible.

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.

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

No Ecumenical cannot and will never contradict each other. I tell you what, I am sure you have study all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and I am sure you have read and have there official documents, so please tell us where did the Seven Ecumenical Councils contradicted themselves? But first will you answer my questions?

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.

But you can't prove that Scriptures is the only rule of faith using only Scriptures, right? Where in Scriptures does it state that only the Bible is the rule of Faith?

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?

As we have said, the Holy Fathers were not infallible, but we accept the things that was accepted universally by the Early Church Fathers. We all know that some of the Holy Fathers held to personal opinions not shared by the whole Church.

Psalm 19
The word of God, His grace
7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

And what does this prove? It proves nothing. It does not support your theory of Sola-Scriptura. You see you confusing two things:

A) That Scriptures is the perfect word of God and are inspired
B) That Scriptures is the ONLY perfect word of God and the ONLY inspired work of God, and thus the ONLY rule of faith.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[simonthezealot]

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

What if one apostolic church believes what was decreed at the 754 council and another what was decreed at the 787 council...Essentially you 2 have different faction practicing 2 different beliefs both decreed by 2 different councils...
How NOW is that different from 2 faith only churches having differing views on tongues for example?

 

[Ramon96]

What if one apostolic church believes what was decreed at the 754 council and another what was decreed at the 787 council...Essentially you 2 have different faction practicing 2 different beliefs both decreed by 2 different councils...
How NOW is that different from 2 faith only churches having differing views on tongues for example?

Again, you are just giving pure speculations, but you have not answer the questions at hand. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church accept the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, as do many [the majority] Protestants [at least the first 3 or so].

Yes, I can see that since you cannot answer the questions I have ask and have failed to prove where in Scriptures does it give you a canon list of Books to accept, you have to resort to give these speculative questions.

But I am sure you have study all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and I am sure you have read and have there official documents, so please tell us where did the Seven Ecumenical Councils contradicted themselves? But first will you answer my questions?


Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Anglian]

What if one apostolic church believes what was decreed at the 754 council and another what was decreed at the 787 council...Essentially you 2 have different faction practicing 2 different beliefs both decreed by 2 different councils...
How NOW is that different from 2 faith only churches having differing views on tongues for example?

Dear Simon,

I can see why, having failed to establish where, in Scripture, it defines itself, you are anxious to move to other territory.

There have been many councils in the history of the Church, as you have been informed, those Churches invited to them recognise them as binding on them. If you have evidence that there are two different beliefs deriving from two different Ecumenical Councils, we can start another thread on that theme.

Which part of 'no one is claiming the Fathers are infallible' are you failing to grasp? MamaZ has started a useful thread on the origin of Holy Scripture; do have a read of what is being said there about tradition.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

Always good to see you quoting the book canonised by the Church founded by Christ.

If, as you maintain, you are guided by the Holy Spirit, why should the ECFs not also have been guided by Him? Or are we in the presence of an even more astounding claim - that He only talks to you?

Peace,

Anglian

Canonised by council yes, but written UNDER and by the inspiration of the HS.
Seriously do think that there was no scripture for the first 300+ years for these people to follow? that's ridiculous
It sad really you put more weight into error filled councils than writings that are obviously inspired by the HS...Do you think if these writings that happen to be canonised are inspired that anything in this world would have kept them from existence? if you think things may have then you seriously doubt that they are the "living words" of our creator.

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes, I can see that since you cannot answer the questions I have ask and have failed to prove where in Scriptures does it give you a canon list of Books to accept, you have to resort to give these speculative questions.

It doesn't give a list of canons, and it is NOT necessary you guys are being ridiculous. Christ did NOT require a canon to know which books to refer to...Neither did Paul or any of the authors...

 

[Ramon96]

Canonised by council yes, but written UNDER and by the inspiration of the HS.

But you believe that these councils have errors, correct? The fact that you believe there are 27 Books in the NT is because the Early Church said so. The Church had the ultimate and final authority in this matter, not a book. These councils must have been inspired by God or else we have to say that we can not know for sure if the Books we have in the Holy Bible is the right Scriptures!

Seriously do think that there was no scripture for the first 300+ years for these people to follow? that's ridiculous

For the first 300 years of Church History, different books were regarded as Scriptures. Books such as Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed and many rejected them. Some Christians accepted the Didace, Hermas, and others as Scriptures. There was no set Canon for Christians to follow for the first 300 years of Church History.

It sad really you put more weight into error filled councils than writings that are obviously inspired by the HS...Do you think if these writings that happen to be canonised are inspired that anything in this world would have kept them from existence? if you think things may have then you seriously doubt that they are the "living words" of our creator.

Like I said, I am sure you have study all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and I am sure you have read and have there official documents, so please tell us where did the Seven Ecumenical Councils contradicted themselves? But first will you answer my questions? We never said we put more weight in Councils. Perhaps this reasoning is part of your Protestant tradition.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Ramon96]

It doesn't give a list of canons, and it is NOT necessary you guys are being ridiculous. Christ did NOT require a canon to know which books to refer to...Neither did Paul or any of the authors...

What does that have to do with anything? Jesus and the Holy Apostles did not quote or alluded to several books in the OT!

I am still waiting for you to answer my questions on page 41, #392. I am still waiting. Or will you ignore them again?

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Canonised by council yes, but written UNDER and by the inspiration of the HS.

I've forgotten how many times I have made the point that the Councils were God-Inspired; but thanks for making it again. The puzzle would be why, if He inspired His Church then, you think he only inspires you now?

Seriously do think that there was no scripture for the first 300+ years for these people to follow? that's ridiculous

Had anyone put that forward as an argument, I would agree. You obviously like those straw men, as I see two more coming along.

It sad really you put more weight into error filled councils than writings that are obviously inspired by the HS...

So, when they recognised Scripture, they were inspired, but when they don't agree with you they were not?

2nd straw man. No one has said we put 'more weight' on the Councils - except you.

Do you think if these writings that happen to be canonised are inspired that anything in this world would have kept them from existence? if you think things may have then you seriously doubt that they are the "living words" of our creator.

And a third straw man. No one has argued this one, either.

The answer to the OP remains that the ECFs can be read with edification by all Christians. I still have no idea whether you've actually read any of them.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

But you believe that these councils have errors, correct? The fact that you believe there are 27 Books in the NT is because the Early Church said so. The Church had the ultimate and final authority in this matter, not a book.

Yes ERRORS, 27 books of the NT are because of Gods providence not because of anything else...the HS has the ultimate and final authority in this matter...Church councils errored and contradicted...

For the first 300 years of Church History, different books were regarded as Scriptures. Books such as Hebrews,, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed and many rejected them. Some Christians accepted the Didace, Hermas, and others as Scriptures. There no set Canon for Christians to follow for the first 300 years of Church History.

Yes there were some disputes to which overall scriptures where infact inspired and which where used to edify only. As always when called on, the HS will prevail and truth will reign...Praise Him!

Like I said, I am sure you have study all the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and I am sure you have read and have there official documents, so please tell us where did the Seven Ecumenical Councils contradicted themselves? But first will you answer my questions?

754 Constantinople and 787 Nice for starters...1 decreed the removal and abolishment of images, and the other established images and veneration to them.

 

[Ramon96]

Yes ERRORS, 27 books of the NT are because of Gods providence not because of anything else...the HS has the ultimate and final authority in this matter...Church councils errored and contradicted...

Where are the errors? Please show. But if the HS had the ultimate and final authority, did he not inspired the Councils [The Church] to pass judgments? The fact is that the Holy Spirit use the Church. Your logic does not make sense. You want to say the Holy Spirit had the final authority, but you do not want to admit that He use the Church to pass judgments on things. And if he guided her to set the Canon, why did he did not guided her to all things? Why did he allow errors to crept in? Is God that weak Simon? Its illogical!

Yes there were some disputes to which overall scriptures where infact inspired and which where used to edify only. As always when called on, the HS will prevail and truth will reign...Praise Him!

So you agree that you accept that there are 27 Books in the NT because the Church said so, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, correct? Yes, I praise Him for guiding His Church. The Church had the ultimate authority on this matter because the Holy Spirit guided her to the Truth. They did not go to Scriptures to find out the Canon. No Sola-Scriptura, sorry!

754 Constantinople and 787 Nice for starters...1 decreed the removal and abolishment of images, and the other established images and veneration to them.

Please give some cited source, or do you want us to to just take your word for it? I am sure you have study these councils for years and have there official documents, to which you can cite. Refresh my memory, were they Ecumenical Councils?

Again, will you answer my questions on page 40, Post #392? Where in Scriptures does it state that only the Bible is the rule of faith? Please answer my questions, or you just want to ignore them since you can not respond to them?

It seems you are going all over the wall to prove your point, but you cannot answer the questions at hand.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[simonthezealot]

How about the council that put Rome and Constantinople as equals with equal priveleges...LONG LONG since been a contradiction.

The councils of Basil and constance claim the infallibility and supremecacy of councils, yet Leo and the Lateran call them to be subject to the bishop of Rome, with authority over the councils...
I can go on and on...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,
Do you have a whole barn of these straw men?

Yes ERRORS, 27 books of the NT are because of Gods providence not because of anything else...the HS has the ultimate and final authority in this matter...Church councils errored and contradicted...

God's providence was manifested through the Church founded by His only begotten Son. It recognised, by Inspiration, that 1 Clement, Barnabas and other texts were not of Apostolic origin; that's why you accept the same canon.

Neither has anyone claimed that Councils are infallible, so there's another straw man erected so you can knock it down.

Tradition consists of 4 main parts, and when taken as a whole act as our guide to the Truth: Holy Scripture; Holy Liturgy; the Saints and Fathers; the Councils. When all concur we know there is Truth. There was never an heretic who did not claim justification from Scripture; there never was one who could claim justification from the whole of Tradition.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

I can go on and on...

erecting straw men? We noticed.

Only you have argued that Councils are infallible - and then only to say they aren't - when no one said they were.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

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.

Actually I cannot see any truth to this. For I see the RCC being traced only to when Rome declared what would be Chritianity and added pegan rituals. The Marian Doctrine was not even deemed dogma until the 1800's or so.. So if it dates clear back to the Apostles why do we not see in the written scriptures any of what the EO or the RCC claim?

 

[MamaZ]

Yes, I can see that since you cannot answer the questions I have ask and have failed to prove where in Scriptures does it give you a canon list of Books to accept, you have to resort to give these speculative questions.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth and will testify to what is Gods written word is? For we see in the very beginning that the Spirit of God was moving. God Spoke and it was so. So when one is born again then with what God breathed and it was written the Holy Spirit will testify to these writings and truth and able to lead us into what is truth and what is not truth? Therefore by taking the whole cannon.. OT and NT they have to be written by the same Spirit and not just mens religious writings. For the scriptures are pure.. They have been tested and tried.. They are indeed the very words of God that men penned down by the Holy Spirit and not of mens writings.. This is how one born of the Holy Spirit can discern what is true scripture and what is not for it is the Same Spirit in us that Moved upon the men to pen the scriptures..