critic my logic for trusting the early christian leaders more

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I was taught in a protestant church background. After studying many different denominations and teaching, I found this pattern:

A leader of x denomination always like to bash other and establish his ideal church. I'm not really sure whether they're genuine or it's true or not they heard the voice of God, but this is a non-stop pattern I see.

I trust the early leader simply because it was life threatening back then to be a Christian. Also the early Christian's number were small, so less corrupt leaders trying to make money selling Christian religion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think there is logic to believing those closest to an event have greater understanding than those further away from it. I tend to believe it both arrogant and absurd for persons coming along a few millennia later to say, "You've been doing it wrong all this time. We have the truth; do it our way." I think Christians should be more mindful to consider the tradition of the Church beyond relying solely upon our own idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

sandman

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2003
2,458
1,640
MI
✟119,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Constitution
I think there is logic to believing those closest to an event have greater understanding than those further away from it. I tend to believe it both arrogant and absurd for persons coming along a few millennia later to say, "You've been doing it wrong all this time. We have the truth; do it our way." I think Christians should be more mindful to consider the tradition of the Church beyond relying solely upon our own idiosyncratic interpretations of scripture.

Tradition vs Truth

To each his own …tradition is an interpretation thereof …with the accumulation of historical religious barnacles. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psa 12:6)

The Word tells us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, not interpret. Which means…. seeing how it fits in the verse in the context both (immediate and remoter) an throughout the entirety of the Word of God… If it’s from God, it will not contradict and will fit together like an intricate jig saw puzzle.
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,838
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I believe Christians should be able to cooperate and still be aware of some differences. C.S. Lewis seems to accomplish this in his writings; Mere Christianity is probably a prime example.
Mere Christianity - Wikipedia
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I believe Christians should be able to cooperate and still be aware of some differences. C.S. Lewis seems to accomplish this in his writings; Mere Christianity is probably a prime example.
Mere Christianity - Wikipedia
But orthodox Christian claim there're in the true church and other groups are merely a bunch of herotodox
 
Upvote 0

Lukaris

Orthodox Christian
Supporter
Aug 3, 2007
7,838
2,533
Pennsylvania, USA
✟745,287.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
But orthodox Christian claim there're in the true church and other groups are merely a bunch of herotodox

I also realize many other Christians follow the Lord better than I do. I think the Spirit can show us how to go here and there.
 
Upvote 0

Iohannes Origenis

Wannabe Saint–Mystic–Sage
Jun 29, 2022
14
9
Caesarea Palestinae
Visit site
✟9,925.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I was taught in a protestant church background. After studying many different denominations and teaching, I found this pattern:

A leader of x denomination always like to bash other and establish his ideal church. I'm not really sure whether they're genuine or it's true or not they heard the voice of God, but this is a non-stop pattern I see.

I trust the early leader simply because it was life threatening back then to be a Christian. Also the early Christian's number were small, so less corrupt leaders trying to make money selling Christian religion.

Strictly speaking your logic is sound but not at all impervious to problems. The main reason to trust what many in academia call "the proto-orthodox" Church and its leaders is their association (sometimes face-to-face) with the Blessed Apostles. Unlike all other groups, especially Gnostics and Judaizers, these men and sometimes women carried on in their church life, ministry, and teaching extremely strong memories, beliefs, & often quite consistent ideas from the Apostolic Era. Moreover, they were the keepers of the canonical texts of the NT...even if there wasn't yet widespread agreement on all the books (outliers mainly).

Yet, sin can still arise and did arise in the Early Church. While I reject strongly any notion of a "Great Apostasy" to be later remedied at the Reformation or some other figure (e.g. a Joseph Smith), the Fathers (as we tend to call them) were not impeccable. Yes, it was life-threatening to be a Christian back then, but many also sold out to save themselves (the "traditores" and "apostates", for example). It was quite easy, generally, to demonstrate one's loyalty to Rome; a pinch of incense and a certificate of witness that you did it. So many in fact committed idolatry to save themselves or family that it caused a crisis in the 3rd & 4th century between how to deal with Christians repenting of their idolatrous deed.

Secondly, while I know of only the heresiarch Simon Magus and other heretical leaders charging for services or what not, I have no doubt there were some unscrupulous souls among the proto-orthodox who did such things. NT Scripture even warns against such people, suggesting it was at least a reality.
 
Upvote 0

Iohannes Origenis

Wannabe Saint–Mystic–Sage
Jun 29, 2022
14
9
Caesarea Palestinae
Visit site
✟9,925.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Tradition vs Truth

To each his own …tradition is an interpretation thereof …with the accumulation of historical religious barnacles. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (Psa 12:6)

The Word tells us to rightly divide the Word of Truth, not interpret. Which means…. seeing how it fits in the verse in the context both (immediate and remoter) an throughout the entirety of the Word of God… If it’s from God, it will not contradict and will fit together like an intricate jig saw puzzle.

So, basically the law of non-contradiction by a skilled exegete (who probably holds to your own general theology) putting together Biblical passages into a "catena aurea" of meaning is the standard?

No offense intended, but this seems rather weak and a recipe for multiple divergent interpretations. I mean, how does one even distinguish essentials & adiaphora, what books are canonical, can new inspired books be written, etc.? For the record, the Early Christians themselves, it seems, did not favor such an approach (and this despite their own love and devotion to Scripture). As Irenaeus of Lugdunum, himself a disciple of Polycarp who knew John the Apostles, put it around 189 A.D.:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same... (Adversus H. 1:10:2)."

He goes further: "What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

My Great Teacher, Origen Adamantius ("Man of Steel") put it likewise in 225 A.D. at the very beginning of his Peri Archon 1:2,

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."

Moreover, Origen was no slouch in Scripture nor Biblical hermeneutics, as his Hexapla demonstrates aptly.

Regardless, I find the position you advocate fascinating. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,920
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Oral tradition spread and preserved the faith before the Gospels or Epistles were written. Tradition helped shape what was to become canon and what did not.

Ack! You have stolen my thunder! What will The Liturgist post about now that seeking.IAM has become the torchbearer of this very important point?

Probably I shall discuss in greater detail the possible derivation of the Anaphora of St. James from the Anaphora of St. Basil, rather than it being the other way ‘round as was generally assumed until some recent and interesting scholarship. See Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, edited, like so much else worth reading, by Paul R. Bradshaw.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,920
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So, basically the law of non-contradiction by a skilled exegete (who probably holds to your own general theology) putting together Biblical passages into a "catena aurea" of meaning is the standard?

No offense intended, but this seems rather weak and a recipe for multiple divergent interpretations. I mean, how does one even distinguish essentials & adiaphora, what books are canonical, can new inspired books be written, etc.? For the record, the Early Christians themselves, it seems, did not favor such an approach (and this despite their own love and devotion to Scripture). As Irenaeus of Lugdunum, himself a disciple of Polycarp who knew John the Apostles, put it around 189 A.D.:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same... (Adversus H. 1:10:2)."

He goes further: "What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

My Great Teacher, Origen Adamantius ("Man of Steel") put it likewise in 225 A.D. at the very beginning of his Peri Archon 1:2,

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."

Moreover, Origen was no slouch in Scripture nor Biblical hermeneutics, as his Hexapla demonstrates aptly.

Regardless, I find the position you advocate fascinating. :)

You get points for anti-anachronistic style, by correctly referring to ancient Lyons as Lugdunum, which is one of the few cases where the old Latin place name lacks the panache of its successor. I obviously prefer Neapolis to Nappoli, for instance.
 
Upvote 0

seeking.IAM

Episcopalian
Supporter
Feb 29, 2004
4,235
4,910
Indiana
✟931,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Ack! You have stolen my thunder! What will The Liturgist post about now that seeking.IAM has become the torchbearer of this very important point?

I'm still leaving all the heavy lifting to you. All I have is a simple view from the pew. :grinning:
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,920
5,590
49
The Wild West
✟461,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I'm still leaving all the heavy lifting to you. All I have is a simple view from the pew. :grinning:

Well given my immense capacity for boring people to an induced somnolescent state, that may not be for the best. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Arctangent

Active Member
May 28, 2022
63
53
41
Midwest
✟26,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I was taught in a protestant church background. After studying many different denominations and teaching, I found this pattern:

A leader of x denomination always like to bash other and establish his ideal church. I'm not really sure whether they're genuine or it's true or not they heard the voice of God, but this is a non-stop pattern I see.

I trust the early leader simply because it was life threatening back then to be a Christian. Also the early Christian's number were small, so less corrupt leaders trying to make money selling Christian religion.
If the original audience of the New Testament couldn't understand it, then neither could anyone else a millennium and a half later.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DragonFox91

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2020
4,979
3,083
32
Michigan
✟212,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Most denominations disagree on pretty trivial matters. I’ve attended churches of several different denominations on a consistent basis & find them more similar than different. You’ll hear there’s hundreds of different teachings or interpretations out there & they’re just pulling it out of their tail or the person's somehow miseducated or misinformed. I disagree w/ that assessment. I think that’s just trying to create more divisions & turmoil.
 
Upvote 0

Jesusthekingofking

Well-Known Member
Jun 16, 2019
487
140
-
✟38,345.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So, basically the law of non-contradiction by a skilled exegete (who probably holds to your own general theology) putting together Biblical passages into a "catena aurea" of meaning is the standard?

No offense intended, but this seems rather weak and a recipe for multiple divergent interpretations. I mean, how does one even distinguish essentials & adiaphora, what books are canonical, can new inspired books be written, etc.? For the record, the Early Christians themselves, it seems, did not favor such an approach (and this despite their own love and devotion to Scripture). As Irenaeus of Lugdunum, himself a disciple of Polycarp who knew John the Apostles, put it around 189 A.D.:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same... (Adversus H. 1:10:2)."

He goes further: "What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

My Great Teacher, Origen Adamantius ("Man of Steel") put it likewise in 225 A.D. at the very beginning of his Peri Archon 1:2,

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."

Moreover, Origen was no slouch in Scripture nor Biblical hermeneutics, as his Hexapla demonstrates aptly.

Regardless, I find the position you advocate fascinating. :)
Tradition is not consistent, how do you weigh which church leader is legit? Their opinions contradict with each other. The protestant hold Bible as the highest authority seems safe to preserve the common truth despite it gives room for even more disagreement.
 
Upvote 0