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

[Montalban]

That's rich. You're jokin', right? Of course it's right next to where your church is listed as the one true.

Our basis for believing our church is the 'one true church' isn't based on sola scriptura. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

Odd that you can't prove your point by sola scriptura and you think it's a score if you think we can't either!

 

[Montalban]

You didn't answer the question. I can see why.

Indeed. He's virtually surrendered on the point. He's in effect saying "I can't prove my claims by sola scriptura, but then again, neither can you!" when we're not making claims about our church being the 'one true church' by sola scriptura argument anyway.

He's just shown how weak his position is.

 

[Montalban]

Hi Anglian,

Are there differences between Roman Catholic interpretation and Orthodox, however small they may be? Presumably, there must be. Are there differences in Oral Tradition between RC and Orthodox churches? Again, presumably, there must be or your practices would be the same.

In your opinion, which interpretation is correct? Orthodox or Roman Catholic?

I ask the above questions because you frequently post your comments as if there is no difference between your church and the RC church. You write as if all Orthodox churches practise the same thing as do RCs. You write as if your church is at war only with Protestants and the Great Schism is nothing more than a minor misunderstanding and you are happy to accept that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Within the Orthodox church there are differences of practice, but not of dogma.

In the Anglican church there are vast differences in dogma, so much so that there is serious danger of major splits over the ordination of gay priests - which has been carried out by Anglican communions in North America.

 

[Montalban]

Maybe not on Paper it didn't.. But it existed before the foundation of the world. For Gods word will never pass away and is what holds the universe together. The world was created by Gods word. Nothing not nothing was made without it. So as the Apostles wrote it became binding just as the OT is binding.. It is Gods word written for all to see read and adhere to. Gods word will judge the world..

But only the written word?

 

[MamaZ]

But only the written word?

Did Jesus direct us to any other than it is written? Did Jesus ever direct anyone to tradtion?

 

[MamaZ]

How can one be bound by something someone said over 2000 years ago if we were not there to hear it? All we have is someone saying this is what he said handed down for years and years and no proof if it was ever said or if it was said the way it is being said now.

 

[simonthezealot]

Like SimontheZealot misquoting ECFs in an effort to show why we should rely on Scripture - to have an 'authority' outside scripture say "rely on scripture only"

They're very confused.

Your accusing me of misquoting ecf's, buck up and show it.

 

[beamishboy]

Ho Ho Ho, Montalban, you're in serious trouble if you dare antagonise the great SimontheZealot. By the way, I'm his novice, beamishboytheZealot. Hehe.

 

[Anglian]

My dear chap,

How good to have you back - now 'the gang's all here'!

Hi Anglian,

Are there differences between Roman Catholic interpretation and Orthodox, however small they may be? Presumably, there must be. Are there differences in Oral Tradition between RC and Orthodox churches? Again, presumably, there must be or your practices would be the same.

Yes there are, and since we accept different Councils as Ecumenical and different Liturgies, one would expect that. Holy Tradition rests on four main sources and these work together: Scripture, Liturgy, the Councils, the Fathers and Saints; if we receive two of these differently there are bound to be differences of practice, and indeed of interpretation.

I have two booklets my Church produces, one showing the difference between us and the RCs; it is 30 pages and deals with: the filioque clause; the Immaculate Conception; Papal Infallibility and married priests; one dealing with us and the Protestants, which is 96 pages and covers 300 areas. After 2000 years it might be expected that a Latin and a Greek culture might have ended up with different interpretations in some areas; after a mere 500, the various protestant denominations have 300 differences from what we and the Catholics have practised since the beginning. Rather tells its own story, I think.

In your opinion, which interpretation is correct? Orthodox or Roman Catholic?

Were I of the opinion that on the matters mentioned, the RCs were correct, I should be with them. But as all these areas are the subject of continuing and fruitful dialogue between our Churches, I am happy to be part of such a dialogue.

On the Procession of the Holy Ghost, if the Catholics are, as they say, talking about the sending, then we have a technical disagreement; if they are talking about the economy of the Trinity (and they say they are not) then we remain divided. But what divides us pales into insignificance with what divides us from those who do not accept Holy Tradition; do not accept that the Scriptures say that we call the Theotokos 'blessed'; do not accept that the Bread and the Wine become the Body and the Blood of our Saviour Himself; do not accept that Scripture cannot interpret itself; do not accept sacramental grace; and ordain women, active homosexuals and commend gay marriage as an option pleasing to God.

These last are just a few of the areas where your bit of your Church (those chaps you keep wanting to throw out, the Anglo-Catholics, who are actually as much a part of your Church as you are, are a different matter) depart from what we and the Catholics continue to teach; as we have from the beginning, will now, and shall unto the ages of ages.

Good to have you back with us.


Peace,


Anglian

 

[jamescarvin]

Greetings and thanks for that informative post!!!
My view is armegeddon/gog-magog are one and the same event, but then I am Solo Scriptura and study the Greek translations, so I am allowed to believe that.

[you must spread some reputation around before giving it to jamescarvin again!]

2 Peter 3:12 toward-hoping for and hastening the parousian <3952> the of the GOD, Day, thru which heavens being on fire shall be being dissolved and elements burning being melted;

Reve 16:14 For they are spirits of demons doing signs which is going-out/ekporeuesqai <1607> (5738) on the kings of the land, and the being-homed, whole, to-be-together-assembling/sunagagein <4863> (5629) them into the battle of the Day, that the Great of the God the Almighty.

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out/exeleusetai <1831> (5695) to deceive the nations, the in the four corners of-the land, the Gog and the Magog, to-be-together-assembling/sunagagein <4863> (5629) them into the battle.................

Thank you for the reps! Uhh, By the way, how do you get your translations? They seem to come from a bot.

On Gog/Magog vs. Armageddon, it is necessary for partial preterists to view these as synonimous because they are amillennialists. You can't very well say that the event takes place after the millennium if you don't believe in a millennium to begin with. Or if you equate the millennium with the current age you can, but you lose out on Armageddon taking place prior to the current age. Either way, you are forced to combine the events.

You know, after a while, all war starts looking the same. It is all ugly, all based on deception and in every case our hope for victory is in our Deliverer. Beyond that, the only similarity in the descriptions of Armageddon and Gog/Magog are in that the birds have a feast after the battle.

Of course, that is just a part of the ugliness of it. Personally, I have never had the horrid experience of surveying a battlefield after thousands were dead. And they skipped the bird feasts in my favorite movie of all time, BraveHeart. But that was probably just an oversight to an otherwise very graphic movie.

One thing is certain, John was very familiar with apocalyptic literature, especially the Old Testament. This would account for many similarities, such as language - so you point out, they've got to gather (sunagogein), for instance. John deliberately alludes to Armageddon but this does not mean the battle is the same. The description in Ezekiel 38-39, in fact, indicates that there is a clear warning in advance about it. This is something we would expect King Jesus to do - to allude to it for a thousand years.

The fact that John was familiar with Ezekiel and Zechariah and Daniel is a compelling reason, as far as I can tell, to take seriously the Apocalypse. John, who knew Jesus personally, in his ripe years, starts alluding to apocalyptic and writes in that stye. It indicates that Jesus probably did the same. If apocalyptic is "worldly" then what was happening to him in his old age? Did he all of a sudden go juvenile on us?

A closer look at the battles of Armageddon versus Gog/Magog will show that literally all of the geography is different. We also find in the descriptions of Gog/Magog a much higher view of the rule from Jerusalem - a description that indicates that Christ is already reigning there as King. This is not the case with descriptions of Armageddon, where we get the sense that the Lord ultimately wins the battle for them, but not as the one who is already reigning over Israel.

It appears that most on this thread are more interested in the Catholic/Sola Scriptura debate (doesn't that get a little old?), so I'll try to tie this post and my last back to that by pointing out …

Tradition after Constantine = amillennial allegorists
Early Fathers prior to Constantine = millennial literalists

The evidence indicates that both the oral and the written Tradition favored chiliasm, which was later declared a heresy.

Conclusion: Tradition changed and abandoned the original deposit of faith. Paul said, "wasn't I telling you these things when I was with you?"

Similarly, the Protestants, who reject Tradition, went right along with it, up until a century ago when they started really looking closely at the Bible Text itself more seriously. I won't fight that they were like the Berreans in this.

Yet they also reject Tradition in its entirety and look on it with disdain and I don't think the Berreans would have done that, though they may well have rejected the abuse of authority, which seems to amount to nothing more than a control show and a power struggle, where the few cointinue to assert a monopoly on religion so they can keep filling their cauffers.

Look, I give as unto the Lord. It's not a complaint. It's a description given concerning Babylon, (and I include The Moody Bible Institute in that category).

But O My, now I've poked at the wallet. Get ready for bloodshed!

The title of the thread is "Who Really Cares What the Early Church Fathers Had to Say?"

Well, apparently nobody does.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ho Ho Ho, Montalban, you're in serious trouble if you dare antagonise the great SimontheZealot. By the way, I'm his novice, beamishboytheZealot. Hehe.

Welcome back, Beamishboy. It's great to see you here again.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Within the Orthodox church there are differences of practice, but not of dogma.

In the Anglican church there are vast differences in dogma, so much so that there is serious danger of major splits over the ordination of gay priests - which has been carried out by Anglican communions in North America.

The Anglican church defines dogma differently than the EOC and the RCC so it is difficult to make that comparison. Most Anglicans would not place the ordination of gay priests as being an issue of dogma, but of practice. That being said, the whole world knows that the Anglican church and the RCC have been ordaining gay priests, bishops, and cardinals for centuries.

 

[MamaZ]

wow for real? How sad since the bible tells us this is sin and now they have leaders that balantly walk in sin as leaders of an assembly? How does this fit in with Pauls teaching
2Th 3:5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

 

[beamishboy]

Howdy folksies and blokesies!!!

Thanks for the welcome. The beamishboy is a valiant knight and will ever remain fearless. For the moment, his sword is sheathed and rests by his side as he rides his white steed home to his Castle of Truth.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by MamaZ

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture.
​

Originally Posted by Montalban I didn't ask you for Scripture to show all truth. Thanks for the straw-man



Originally Posted by MamaZ

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.
​

Originally Posted by Montalban And the 'truth' that you should rely on scripture for salvation is not contained IN scripture. Try again.

LOL. Where did Mama Z say anyone should rely on scripture for salvation?
Do you not know the difference between salvation & truth, or dso you just enjoy sidetracking with your own straw?

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto We can check what scriptures we aren't sure are true from what scriptures we know are true., just like the Bereans checked what the apostles were saying by referring to scripture.
Originally Posted by MontalbanWhich is circular logic. How do you know those that are true, are true?

Jesus accepted them. Paul accepted them and used them in an illustration of exemplary behavior. You need to learn to think outside the circle.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto How do you come to the conclusion that the veracity of the 27 books was comprehended without checking them against the OT? Tradition?
Originally Posted by MontalbanBy seeing what the Church had to say of them. They held tradition of what books were known to and through the church and what books taught against what the church taught.
I thought you didn't accept circular logic. The Church believes what's true because it checked to see what The Church believes is true.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto You're totaly trippin'.
Originally Posted by MontalbanTry again
No problem, but please be rational so my efforts won't be wasted.

 

[Rick Otto]

Posted by Rick Otto Monty,
Posted by Montalban I'll assume you mean me, Montalban

Daffy Duck would applaud your insightfulness
Originally Posted by Rick Otto I told you "It has been said", or "Have you heard" doesn't support tradition - it doesn't count - when it refers to something that was actually written and even widely known among illiterates, to have been written!
Originally Posted by Montalban Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

I'm not "just saying it". The Ten Commandments had been written down.
When "have you heard" refers to something written, it doesn't stand in comparison against an instance of "It is written" being said.
Originally Posted by Montalban Where is it written an eye for an eye?

I'll show you but I suspect you will ignore it, not respond by admitting your error, and simply throw straw to distract from your obvious mistake:
Ex 21:24 - Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Le 24:20 -Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
De 19:21 - And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.


Originally Posted by Rick Otto Nowhere. I read in scripture that scripture was referred to, to check if what the Apostles were saying was true. Nowhere is there an example of anyone referring to tradition to see if what the Apostles was saying was so.
Originally Posted by Montalban What a strange challenge. The Gospels weren't even written when Paul et al were preaching. What else were they using?

The OT is scripture & existed at that time. Is that news to you?
Originally Posted by Montalban Paul writes to people to hold to the traditions he has taught.

Irrelevant. Paul also writes that the Bereans were more noble because they checked scripture (OT!) to see if what the apostles were telling them was true.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto Ergo, Sola Scriptura has strong scriptural support,

You mean it has none of itself explicitly stating to hold to scripture, but if you make up circumstances to support it, you have circumstances that support it.

I didn't make up the Berean example. You have strayed so far from reality that I probably won't dignify your posts with an actual answer unless you admit your own circular logic & ignorance. I don't have much time for that much daffiness. The sun is shining & there are too many insects that need to be tortured by my magnifying glass.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto tradition as a reference to check truth does not. Sure it says to remember, but that isn't an argument against Sola Scriptura, nor is it a recommendation of tradition as a reference for checking truth.
Originally Posted by Montalban Given that Paul's telling them to keep to the tradition then of course it does. He's saying "keep to tradition".
You interpret him saying "Keep to the traditions taught you" as meaning "Don't rely on these traditions" You simply have to interpret the exact opposite of what it says.

No I don't. I just don't read into "keep the traditions" as "traditions have authority equal to written scripture" or "tradition is a reliable source to gage the veracity of scripture".
Originally Posted by Montalban Did Matthew teach differently from Mark? That is tradition. Even before the Bible came into being the teachings were the same.
That is beside the point. The first half of The Bible had already come into being, and it was used to verify the truth of the next half by the Bereans as it was being delivered to them.
Sola Scriptura.

 

[Anglian]

[QUOTE]The first half of The Bible had already come into being, and it was used to verify the truth of the next half by the Bereans as it was being delivered to them.[/QUOTE]
Dear Rick,
Apart from you, says who? All the histories of the early Church with which I am familiar describe a process guided by Apostolicity of origin, orthodoxy of teaching, and catholicity of acceptance.

If you want a non-Orthodox and non-Catholic source on the Internet for this, try the Bible dudes site here:
http://bibledudes.com/bible/canon.php

But do refer me to where the early Church sat down with the OT (which isn't the one you accept, by the way) and explain how they used it to decide whether disputed books such as the last two Johannine epistles and those of James and Jude should be included; I could do with some amusement.


Peace,
Anglian

 

[Rick Otto]

[QUOTE]The first half of The Bible had already come into being, and it was used to verify the truth of the next half by the Bereans as it was being delivered to them.[/QUOTE]
Dear Rick,
Apart from you, says who? All the histories of the early Church with which I am familiar describe a process guided by Apostolicity of origin, orthodoxy of teaching, and catholicity of acceptance.
Everyone with any common sense knows that the scriptures in the OT existed before any of the NT material was written. The OT scriptures that Paul says the Bereans were checking, verified the truth of the new revelations Paul was telling them. The OT existed previous to the process of canonization. I find it difficult to believe anyone would dispute that.


http://bibledudes.com/bible/canon.php

But do refer me to where the early Church sat down with the OT (which isn't the one you accept, by the way) and explain how they used it to decide whether disputed books such as the last two Johannine epistles and those of James and Jude should be included; I could do with some amusement.

I don't need or desire to defend any churchianity council. That isn't the purpose of Sola Scriptura or necessary to explain or defend it.
The example of the Bereans alone illustrates that scripture verifies scripture.

I could do with some amusement

Get a magnifying glass.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Rick,

You did cheer me up!

No one has said that the OT did not exist, but the Bereans did not use it to establish a canon which did not exist; they accepted Paul's claim that what he preached was the fulfilment of the Jewish tradition of the Messiah.

I am assuming you know that the canon of the NT consists of 27 books which had to be authorised at some point. It was authorised by the Church.

Before the Church did so we can see, from the earliest surviving books that some Christians thought Hermas, Barnabas and 1 Clement were Holy Scripture; there they are in the Codex Alexandrinus (Clement) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Hermas and Barnabas).

I hadn't realised you meant by Sola Scriptura that you read no books except the Scriptures. Get hold of any of the many standard works on how the canon of the NT was established - then you'll understand that you only have the text you have because of the Tradition of the Church.

Your interpretation of the Berean episode was exploded way back on one of Montalban's posts. The Bereans looked at the OT, like the Thessalonian Jews; but they accepted the oral testimony of Paul, an Apostle by the selection of the Lord. They did not say, 'look here Paul, where's your book? We've got one here, and we only accept stuff in a book. We're Sola Scriptura types, so, no book, no converts.'

Peace,

Anglian

Peace,

Anglian