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

[JacktheCatholic]

Still Solo Scriptura here

LOL

You and I both know that "Solo Scriptura" is the latest invention. I also know that you brother are indeed Sola Scriptura.

 

[simonthezealot]

I think you and Rick should admit that you followTradition too.

Sola Scriptura seems to have become anything but "scripture alone".

Where you been friend?

Here is the only tradition I live by and as far as I am concerned its implied clearly enough in scripture...
I am justified by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone

 

[simonthezealot]

I thinkl it would do catholic and orthodox brethren good to study up on King Josiah and how traditions affected his kingdom...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Where you been friend?

Here is the only tradition I live by and as far as I am concerned its implied clearly enough in scripture...
I am justified by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone

Been busy with my kids and have not even stepped foot in my office since the 25th. God has blessed us with some fine weather and much to do.

God Bless you Simon.

I know that you study scripture with more than scripture to understand scripture. I guess I see that as being something other than "Scripture Alone". I tend to see Sola Scriptura as something Martin Luther tried and was unable to do because he kept falling back on Tradition himself. However, the best example of what I understand Sola Scriptura to mean is LLoJ and his complete adherance to scripture only and his ever vigulant persuit for truth with the Greek copies and no other outside sources.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I thinkl it would do catholic and orthodox brethren good to study up on King Josiah and how traditions affected his kingdom...

Tradition with an upper case "T" please. That is the Catholic way.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

Good to have you on board

Were you seriously suggesting that when Christ says 'it is written' He was referring to the New Testament?

The point, which our friend Simon thinks is ridiculous (because he can't answer it?) is that nowhere in Scripture does it define what the canon of it should be. The early Christian Church had various definitions of its own new Scriptures, which included, in the earliest surviving complete codices, books that are no longer in the NT.

Those books were edited out by the Church, which, using the Inspiration of Holy Tradition (which includes the workings of the Spirit), discerned which books were Apostolic. You accept that book, not because you defined it, but because the Church did.

And the answer to Simon's OP remains that much of what most Christians take for granted about the working of the Holy Spirit as being an equal part of something called the Trinity, they take from the ECFs whether they know it or not.

That just about catches up with where we are.

Peace be with you,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOL

You and I both know that "Solo Scriptura" is the latest invention. I also know that you brother are indeed Sola Scriptura.

Still trying to see if there were any oral traditions before the 4th century concerning Revelation.

Luke 12:49 Fire I came to be casting upon the land and any I am willing if already it was kindled.

Reve 8:5 And has taken, the messenger, the franckincensor, and he crams-full it out of the fire of the Altar. And he casts it into the land and became thunders and sounds and lightnings and quaking

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Those books were edited out by the Church, which, using the Inspiration of Holy Tradition (which includes the workings of the Spirit), discerned which books were Apostolic.

Awwww...


You said "Holy Tradition".

 

[Rick Otto]

I hadn't thought of the Bereans as moderns, but then maybe my grasp of history isn't as broad as yours.

I think you and Rick should admit that you followTradition too.

We DO! Just not over any theological cliffs.
How's the job search goin'?
Have they found ya yet?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

We DO! Just not over any theological cliffs.
How's the job search goin'?
Have they found ya yet?

I am glad you guys know it.

Job search sucks but I am until September when the kids are back in school. Then I get aggressive.

 

[simonthezealot]

The fact is that no Scripture teach Sola-Scriptura. The Early Christians follow what the Apostles taught them either through written form or unwritten form (2 Thes 2:15).

macarthur breaks this down well...

no one—even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura—would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth.
So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position.

Nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.
In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports.
On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.
Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians' tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested. Unsure of whether they could trust the apostolic message—which, by the way, was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself—the Bereans erased all their doubt by double-checking the message against Scripture. Yet Roman Catholics are forbidden by their Church to take such an approach! They are told that the Church through her bishops dispenses the only true and infallible understanding of Scripture. Therefore it is pointless to test the Catholic Church's message by Scripture; for if there appears to be a conflict—and make no mistake, there are many—Rome says her traditions carry more weight that her critics' interpretation of Scripture.

What the apostle was telling the Thessalonians was nothing like what Rome tells faithful Catholics. Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips. And since the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture, that means that we, like the Bereans, must compare everything with Scripture to see whether it is so.
Roman Catholic apologists protest that only a fraction of Paul's messages to the Thessalonians are preserved in the two brief epistles Paul wrote to that church. True, but may not we assume that what he taught the Thessalonians were the very truths that are found in generous measure throughout all his epistles—justification by faith, the true gospel of grace, the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and a host of other truths? The New Testament gives us a full-orbed Christian theology. Who can prove that anything essential is omitted? On the contrary, we are assured that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and spiritual life (2 Tim 3:15-17). Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well-being? One thing is certain: these words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 imply no such thing.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Still trying to see if there were any oral traditions before the 4th century concerning Revelation.

Luke 12:49 Fire I came to be casting upon the land and any I am willing if already it was kindled.

Reve 8:5 And has taken, the messenger, the franckincensor, and he crams-full it out of the fire of the Altar. And he casts it into the land and became thunders and sounds and lightnings and quaking

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

Revelation is a tough nut to crack. Good luck finding something from the 1st 4 centuries and let me know what you find.

I intend to do some study of the Apocolypse as soon as I finish 2 Corinthians. Maybe next week. In which case I hope to open a theological thread on Revelations based on what I am studying. I hope to see you around. I also need to find the thread you started where you were translating it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am glad you guys know it.

Job search sucks but I am until September when the kids are back in school. Then I get aggressive.

That must be why the atheists are so agressive lately

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7264253

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Sorry, Nathan, time to add you to the the big I-List with Tomk80 as two of my most --- well --- unique [quarantined] posters.
​

Originally Posted by AintNoMonkey

Off-topic thread is off topic. How do you impliment this ignore function? Help me out AV. It'll be the 1 thing you've contributed to this forum, ever. Does that excite you?
​

Two clicks and you're there:

1. Click UserCP
2. Click Edit Ignore List

 

[JacktheCatholic]

no one—even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura—would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth.
So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position.

I would submit that what was taught by word of mouth from the Apostles was preserved in their successor's writings and teachings as well.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That must be why the atheists are so agressive lately

I would be aggressive too if I had no Hope as Atheists must.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Jack,

Good to have you back too Glad you're OK; goodness, all we need now is our old friend Beamishboy and the whole gang will be here - who needs GA?

I'm tremendously impressed by these chaps who don't seem to think the ECFs have anything much to say to us, but won't say whether that is because they've read 'em, or because that's what their own infallibility thing tell 'em.

There's a nice thread going started by dear MamaZon Holy Tradition, in which we've been trying to explain that Holy Tradition works together. Guess it turns on whether you want a chair with four legs or one of those newfangled jobs with just the two.

Good to hear from you again

Peace,

Anglian

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Dear Jack,

Good to have you back too Glad you're OK; goodness, all we need now is our old friend Beamishboy and the whole gang will be here - who needs GA?

I'm tremendously impressed by these chaps who don't seem to think the ECFs have anything much to say to us, but won't say whether that is because they've read 'em, or because that's what their own infallibility thing tell 'em.

There's a nice thread going started by dear MamaZon Holy Tradition, in which we've been trying to explain that Holy Tradition works together. Guess it turns on whether you want a chair with four legs or one of those newfangled jobs with just the two.

Good to hear from you again

Peace,

Anglian

I try to have nothing but love for our dear and young BeamishBoy. I do like his zealousness.

Thanks for the greeting and God Bless you.

Now I am going to take a quick look at MamaZ's thread...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

no post.....OT......

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=AnglianDear Rick,

Good to have you on board

Thanks.

Were you seriously suggesting that when Christ says 'it is written' He was referring to the New Testament?

No! "You're trippin' " as they say on the street. He was referring to the authority of the written word of God. OT info prefigures NT info. It isn't like the OT is about The Cat In The Hat & the NT is about Sam I Am.
(And no, I'm not suggesting Sam I Am is a messiah figure, lol)

The point, which our friend Simon thinks is ridiculous (because he can't answer it?) is that nowhere in Scripture does it define what the canon of it should be.

Actualy the totality of it determines what the canon should be.
Canonizing was just like sculpture - you start with a big block of material & chisel away what doesn't reveal God with internal consistancy.

The early Christian Church had various definitions of its own new Scriptures, which included, in the earliest surviving complete codices, books that are no longer in the NT.

Yes, the church did and does err, but corrections come forth even if like Jesus, they take a while to get here. "Truth will out."

Those books were edited out by the Church, which, using the Inspiration of Holy Tradition (which includes the workings of the Spirit), discerned which books were Apostolic.

So you say.

You accept that book, not because you defined it, but because the Church did.

You're guessing. You'd do better to ask me why I accept it, and how much of it or with what reservations if any, I accept it. See how traditions get started?

And the answer to Simon's OP remains that much of what most Christians take for granted about the working of the Holy Spirit as being an equal part of something called the Trinity, they take from the ECFs whether they know it or not.

So much for "most". Will most Christians go to heaven?

Peace be with you,

Backatchya, bro!

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ,

If only AV had been able to claim private revelation

Peace,

Anglian