Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

[calluna]

Hello, Calluna. I just caught your post. Forgive me if perhaps you have already answered a question like this.

If we are to use the Spirit to discern which writings are truth, which pool of writings are we to choose from? Ought we survey all of the Christian writings that existed before a council decided the canon? Some early "lists" of different writings that were used in liturgical settings include common things we accept now - the Gospel according to Mark, for example. But the lists also include other books, like the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, etc.

Do you think that, in determining which writings we think are inspired, we should survey everything? I guess that would make the most logical sense to do. At least historically, anyway.

Yes, everything is eligible, our posts included.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Yes, everything is eligible, our posts included.

Are you being sarcastic? I just found your perspective interesting and posed an honest question.

 

[calluna]

Are you being sarcastic? I just found your perspective interesting and posed an honest question.

No. I am being perfectly serious, and completely respected your question. (I only wish there were more like them.) Anything in verbal form is eligible to be considered the word of God.

 

[Thekla]

What appears astonishing at first view is that the RCC and Eastern Orthodox took several hundred years to recognise what takes normal mortals a few seconds. But then one must remember that they did not exist for several centuries!

could you provide a further explanation:

1. whatever one may define early Christianity as, afaik, no one (regional) group had the entire canon (NT)
2. (at least) many groups used books now not considered canonical (NT)

given the above, and your statement that mortals could have recognised the 'authentic books' in a few seconds, would you consider these groups in some sense (more than average) deficient or diminished ?

 

[Gwendolyn]

No. I am being perfectly serious, and completely respected your question. (I only wish there were more like them.) Anything in verbal form is eligible to be considered the word of God.

Interesting. I always wonder about the canonisation process that the church went through. I've read certain letters of Ignatius and Clement, and they are perfectly sound letters. They're fabulous for edification, and great in terms of historical data, too. But I often find that I can't quite understand why some things, like the Pauline epistles, were canonised whereas my beloved Ignatius was not. But then again, I haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the process, either...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Veritas,

The short answer as to why the Ignatian epistles were not received into the canon of the NT was that they were not of Apostolic origin; this was one of the three yardsticks used by the early Church:

• was it of Apostolic origin?
• was it of orthodox teaching?
• was it received everywhere?

Some books, such as St. John 2 and 3, St. James, St. Jude, and 2 Peter, had a limited circulation, but the tradition that they were of Apostolic origin and their orthodox were so strong that those Churches which had not received them recognised them as canonical.

Hebrews, by contrast, was doubted in the West because of the tradition that it was not by St. Paul - indeed Origen, who considered it should be included because of its orthodoxy, wrote:
'the thoughts are Paul's, but the diction and composition are those of a companion. If then any Church hold this Epistle to be Paul's, we cannot find any fault with it for so doing, for it was not without reason that the men of old handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote the Epistle, God knows.' Tertullian received a tradition that it was by Barnabas. St. Jerome and St. Augustine were also doubtful about whether the book was canonical, but the former, who greatly respected St. Athanasius, accepted his view that it was by Paul. As St. Augustine wrote in accepting it: 'I am moved by the prestige of the eastern Church.'

Of course other writings, such as those by St. Ignatius, St. Clement and the other Fathers are considered edifying, and the other writings can also have that effect; but there is only one Apostolic teaching of the Faith 'once revceived'.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[calluna]

Interesting. I always wonder about the canonisation process that the church went through. I've read certain letters of Ignatius and Clement, and they are perfectly sound letters. They're fabulous for edification, and great in terms of historical data, too. But I often find that I can't quite understand why some things, like the Pauline epistles, were canonised whereas my beloved Ignatius was not. But then again, I haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the process, either...

I have been asking Catholics and Orthodox for decades why Ignatius, 'Clement', Irenaeus and the rest have not been canonised, and have never received a satisfactory answer. (In this forum, I get no answer at all, which I suppose must signify something.) The first of these men wrote before the 'Tradition' canon was decided, and their works were up for consideration for canonisation at the outset, but were rejected. Many of the 'ECFs' have been sainted, and are freely quoted by Tradition' people at lower levels as if they were God's Word, yet they remain officially uncanonised. There does not seem to be the same courage of convictions where it matters.

As for personal preference, it may be that those who prefer Ignatius et al. are also those who would prefer Paul to be left out of the canon; and vice versa. However, I would point out that Ignatius in particular makes much of Paul, and, to my mind, imitates his style to a level that might even seem to be plagiarism.

 

[Anglian]

I have been asking Catholics and Orthodox for decades why Ignatius, 'Clement', Irenaeus and the rest have not been canonised, and have never received a satisfactory answer. (In this forum, I get no answer at all, which I suppose must signify something.) The first of these men wrote before the 'Tradition' canon was decided, and their works were up for consideration for canonisation at the outset, but were rejected. Many of the 'ECFs' have been sainted, and are freely quoted by Tradition' people at lower levels as if they were God's Word, yet they remain officially uncanonised. There does not seem to be the same courage of convictions where it matters.

.

Whether the answer contained in my last posting is 'satisfactory' for you, only you can know; but an answer has been offered.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[angelosgabriel]

Dear Veritas,

The short answer as to why the Ignatian epistles were not received into the canon of the NT was that they were not of Apostolic origin; this was one of the three yardsticks used by the early Church:

• was it of Apostolic origin?
• was it of orthodox teaching?
• was it received everywhere?

• 
  
  What I find fascinating is that there was an understanding of "orthodox teaching" that existed outside the New Testament writings in the hearts and minds of the faithful. Often churches might have access to maybe one or two of the writings we now know as the New Testament. Yet through the traditioning (paradosis- handing down) of the Faith orally through faithful elders and bishops and priests, and through the worship life of the Church (in hymns, prayers, etc.) the faithful were able to "smell a rat", when it came to spurious writings, gnostic writings, heresy, etc. When one examines the question "which came first - the New Testament or the Church?" and its obvious answer, it seems only logical to believe that there was an oral tradition within the Church of what belongs to the Christian faith.
  
  Colluna, perhaps this may be helpful to you. Even within the canon of the New Testament there is a hierarchy in terms of authority. At the paramount are the Gospels - the words and deeds of our Lord during His earthly life. These have greater authority than e.g. the epistles of St. Paul. Yet all of the New Testament is inspired by God and in harmony. We see the writings of the Early Church Fathers as in a category below Scripture. We concede that individual Church Fathers err, but we look to their consensus for helping us to understand the Faith and help us discern what Scripture means.
  
  All non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians also believe that Scripture alone is to form one's understanding of the Faith, yet they disagree vary broadly as to what the Scriptures mean, even on many issues of great importance. Each denomination has a "tradition" of its own for interpreting Scripture. So the protestant process of interpretation can be summed up as using Scripture plus one's opinion/theological tradition (not truly Sola Scriptura- I believe "Sola Scriptura" is misleading). Whereas in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches, generally speaking, the method is to look to those whom the apostles taught to rightly divide the Word of Truth (the apostles whom the Spirit lead into "all truth") within the Church (which was established by Christ, and lead by the Holy Spirit) to help us properly interpret the Scriptures. As Anglian mentioned, Catholic/Orthodox believe there is a harmony between the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. Both come from the same wellspring, which is the teachings of the apostles (both oral and written - see 2 Thessalonians 2:15) who were taught by none other than our Lord Himself (directly).
  
  So the questions which are quite easily answered with such an understanding of apostolic Tradition, but I believe are problematic with a Sola Scriptura vantage are these: how did early Christians know what to believe prior to Scripture being widespread and readily available? Apart from a handing down orally of the Christian faith, how would the Church know what is "orthodox teaching" in order to discern what should constitute Scripture?

 

[Anglian]

What I find fascinating is that there was an understanding of "orthodox teaching" that existed outside the New Testament writings in the hearts and minds of the faithful. Often churches might have access to maybe one or two of the writings we now know as the New Testament. Yet through the traditioning (paradosis- handing down) of the Faith orally through faithful elders and bishops and priests, and through the worship life of the Church (in hymns, prayers, etc.) the faithful were able to "smell a rat", when it came to spurious writings, gnostic writings, heresy, etc.

Dear angelosgabriel,

You make some excellent points in your post, and this one, in particular, is very important. When Marcion, in the post-Apostolic period, tried to persuade the Church in Rome to accept his doctored version of St. Luke, plus doctored versions of the Pauline epistles, he found himself and his money rejected. The early Churches clearly did have a keen understanding of the tradition as passed on to them, and they were not going to have a false gospel passed on.

Of course, none of this is to suggest that there were not those in the early Church who did not try to foist their own understanding on it, but simply that, partly as a reaction to those like Marcion and Valentinus who claimed a different set of authoritative writings of the Apostles. the Church found it necessary to begin to define a canon.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How did the understandings of the ECFs change once the Canon was finalized in the 4th century? Is that when more differences started occuring among them? Just curious.

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

 

[Anglian]

How did the understandings of the ECFs change once the Canon was finalized in the 4th century? Is that when more differences started occuring among them? Just curious.

Dear LLOJ,

The fixing of the canon had remarkably little effect, if only because heretics such as Arius had always been able to cite Scripture in support of their views.

In the great Christological arguments of the fifth century, Nestorius cited the same Scriptures as St. Cyril, he simply chose to interpret them in a way that most Christians had not. It is the very fact that heretics have always been able to twist Scripture to suit their views that has made the Orthodox Church stress the importance of understanding it within the compass of Holy Tradition.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

The fixing of the canon had remarkably little effect, if only because heretics such as Arius had always been able to cite Scripture in support of their views.

In the great Christological arguments of the fifth century, Nestorius cited the same Scriptures as St. Cyril, he simply chose to interpret them in a way that most Christians had not. It is the very fact that heretics have always been able to twist Scripture to suit their views that has made the Orthodox Church stress the importance of understanding it within the compass of Holy Tradition.

Peace,

Anglian

Thanks Anglian. When were Josephus's writings first published as he appears to write about the Destruction of Jerusalem that Jesus prophecied to the Apostles in the Olivet Discourse. Did most of the ECFs view that even fulfilled as I do? Thanks.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269540
Jesus death on Passover

Matt 24:19 "Woe yet to those in belly having and to those suckling in those the days! 20 "Be ye praying yet that no may be becoming the flight of ye of winter neither a Sabbath.

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country,

 

[Anglian]

Thanks Anglian. When were Josephus's writings first published as he appears to write about the Destruction of Jerusalem that Jesus prophecied to the Apostles in the Olivet Discourse. Did most of the ECFs view that even fulfilled as I do? Thanks.

,

Dear LLOJ,

I shall have to look through my notes to see if I have anything on these topics, but from memory, I think those ECFs who wrote on the Olivet discourse took the same view as yourself.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,
I shall have to look through my notes to see if I have anything on these topics, but from memory, I think those ECFs who wrote on the Olivet discourse took the same view as yourself.
Peace,
Anglian

Greetings Anglian. Thanks. I started a seperate thread on that.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48118900#post48118900
ECFs and the writings of Josephus question

A lot of others and I believe Revelation is showing the event of the Olivet Discourse and why I am curious on this.

Reve 9:11 and they are having on them a king, the messenger of the abyss, name to him to-Hebrew, abaddwn <3>, and in the greecian name he is having apo-lluwn <623>. [Exodus 12:23]

Luke 21:28 Beginning yet to-be-becoming/ginesqai <1096> (5738) these-things/toutwn <5130>, up-bend!, and lift up! the heads of ye, thru-that is nearing the loosing/apo-lutrwsiV <629> of ye [Daniel 12/Reve 19,20]

 

[sunlover1]

Dear LLOJ,

The fixing of the canon had remarkably little effect, if only because heretics such as Arius had always been able to cite Scripture in support of their views.

Nothing new under the sun huh?
Adam and eve didnt even HAVE written words and the devil
still twisted it up on them and suggested that God didnt
REALLY mean waht He'd said.

That's why we have to "hide" it in our hearts.
So we can do as Jesus did when the devil tried
to do the twist with him, we can say "IT IS
WRITTEN"

 

[Anglian]

Dear Sunlover,

Yes, Satan can twist anything - but that, experience shows, includes the written word. Arius and Nestorius were both very proficient Bible scholars, as one can see from the way in which they both quoted Scripture extensively to support their point of view. The same was true of some one like one of the earliest heretics, Valentinus, whose version of the faith lasted for several hundred years. One of the things that always strikes me about the ECFs is how often they cite both Scripture and each other; there is a humility of method in this.

This, for me at least, is why I need my fellow Christians (including the ECFs), my priest and my bishops, as well as Holy Scripture - just to try to keep me along the right lines. I admire those who can rightly divide the word of God by their own efforts - it is something that, if I try to do, I always feel is vitiated by a pride in my own opinion.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Sunlover,
Yes, Satan can twist anything - but that, experience shows, includes the written word. Arius and Nestorius were both very proficient Bible scholars, as one can see from the way in which they both quoted Scripture extensively to support their point of view.

Greetings Anglian. 1 Corin 5:5 is interesting and I am wondering if the greek word used here is similar to the one used in Rev 11:18? [You can tell I like harmonizing Revelation to the Bible ]

1 Tiomothy 6:9 uses both of these words in these verses. Thoughts? Peace

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver the such-one to the Satan into destruction/oleqron <3639> of the flesh, that the spirit may be being saved in the Day of the Lord.

Reve 11:18...............and to the ones fearing the name of you, the small ones and the great ones, and to blight/thru-corrupt/diafqeirai <1311> (5658) the ones blighting/thru-corrupting/diafqeirontaV <1311> (5723) the land. [Genesis 6:11-13]

3639. olethros ol'-eth-ros from a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. death, punishment:--destruction.
3645. olothreuo ol-oth-ryoo'-o from 3639; to spoil, i.e. slay:--destroy.
3644. olothreutes ol-oth-ryoo-tace' from 3645; a ruiner, i.e. (specially), a venomous serpent:--destroyer.

1311. dia-phtheiro dee-af-thi'-ro from 1225 and 5351; to rot thoroughly, i.e. (by implication) to ruin (passively, decay utterly, figuratively, pervert):--corrupt, destroy, perish
5351. phtheiro fthi'-ro probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste); properly, to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave):--corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

 

[Anglian]

Greetings Anglian. 1 Corin 5:5 is interesting and I am wondering if the greek word used here is similar to the one used in Rev 11:18? [You can tell I like harmonizing Revelation to the Bible ]

1 Tiomothy 6:9 uses both of these words in these verses. Thoughts? Peace

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver the such-one to the Satan into destruction/oleqron <3639> of the flesh, that the spirit may be being saved in the Day of the Lord.

Reve 11:18...............and to the ones fearing the name of you, the small ones and the great ones, and to blight/thru-corrupt/diafqeirai <1311> (5658) the ones blighting/thru-corrupting/diafqeirontaV <1311> (5723) the land. [Genesis 6:11-13]

3639. olethros ol'-eth-ros from a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. death, punishment:--destruction.
3645. olothreuo ol-oth-ryoo'-o from 3639; to spoil, i.e. slay:--destroy.
3644. olothreutes ol-oth-ryoo-tace' from 3645; a ruiner, i.e. (specially), a venomous serpent:--destroyer.

1311. dia-phtheiro dee-af-thi'-ro from 1225 and 5351; to rot thoroughly, i.e. (by implication) to ruin (passively, decay utterly, figuratively, pervert):--corrupt, destroy, perish
5351. phtheiro fthi'-ro probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste); properly, to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave):--corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

Dear LLOJ,

I'd need to check - but it is suggestive that the same word is used.

Really appreciate your contributions here.

Peace,
Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

I'd need to check - but it is suggestive that the same word is used.

Really appreciate your contributions here.

Peace,
Anglian

I have a folder just on these words LOL. Here is the translation from the Greek texts which can be viewed at this site:

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver the such-one to the Satan into destruction/oleqron <3639> of the flesh, that the spirit may be being saved in the Day of the Lord.

1 Timothy 6:9 Those yet determined to be being rich are falling into trial and a snare/offense and desires, many, foolish and harmful, which any are swamping/sinking the men into whole-ruin/oleqron <3639> and destruction/apwleian <684>.

Btw, have you seen my theads on Matt 24 yet?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7273625
Matthew 24:1 only verse study only