Which approach do you tend to use in studying Theology and why?

Tzaousios · Sep 23, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
Since all Christians besides me have totally messed it up, I close my eyes and wish really, really, really hard then I open up my Bible to a random page, put my finger on a verse, and then come up with whatever sounds really good at that moment and say God told me.

It would be prudent for some in this thread to take what you say to heart and ask if the methodology they have convinced themselves is "right" or "biblical" is not really what you have described.

football5680 · Sep 23, 2013

sunlover1 said:
Nope. The corruption began even in the times the Apostles were alive.

Then don't trust your Catholic church produced Bible. If the church is not infallible then the bible isn't either. A fallible body can't produce an infallible cannon. Don't be inconsistent.

Crandaddy · Sep 24, 2013

I'm rather partial to philosophical theology, myself, but all of it's important.

I just like thinkin' about stuff...

sunlover1 · Sep 24, 2013

Originally Posted by sunlover1
Nope. The corruption began even in the times the Apostles were alive.
Doesn't matter.
Pharisees learned right from Jesus but lied about HIm

Tzaousios said:
Do you mean to suggest that the early church fathers and those who study them for spiritual benefit have been corrupted and lie like pharisees?

Oh please!
How absurd!
^_^

I meant just what I said Tzaousios.
That no, you can't say that you find a "purer"
form of Christianity if you go all the way back to
the early church fathers... because even those
men who were "further" back and who "knew"
Jesus intimately, could lie or be corrupted.

sunlover1 · Sep 24, 2013

Originally Posted by sunlover1
Nope. The corruption began even in the times the Apostles were alive.

football5680 said:
Then don't trust your Catholic church produced Bible.

I don't.
That's why I have different books than yours.

If the church is not infallible then the bible isn't either.

I'm sure you believe this.
Who "produced" the OT by the way?

A fallible body can't produce an infallible cannon. Don't be inconsistent.

So you said.
I'm sure you believe that to be true.
Who produced the OT?
And were they infallible?

Gnarwhal · Sep 24, 2013

sunlover1 said:
Nope. The corruption began even in the times the Apostles were alive.

Opinion.

Tzaousios said:
It would be prudent for some in this thread to take what you say to heart and ask if the methodology they have convinced themselves is "right" or "biblical" is not really what you have described.

I think there's too many big words in there for some people.

sunlover1 said:
I don't.
That's why I have different books than yours.

I'm sure you believe this.
Who "produced" the OT by the way?

So you said.
I'm sure you believe that to be true.
Who produced the OT?
And were they infallible?

The point is that when the Church compiled the texts and collectively agreed on the canon, they were guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors, Old Testament or New.

Lion King · Sep 24, 2013

Cogent said:
Opinion.

How is it an opinion when you have Peter and Paul complaining about the "super-apostles" corrupting some from inside the church?

Ever read Revelation 2 and 3?

The point is that when the Church compiled the texts and collectively agreed on the canon, they were guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors, Old Testament or New.

Which canon would that be?

Gnarwhal · Sep 24, 2013

Lion King said:
How is it an opinion when you have Peter and Paul complaining about the "super-apostles" corrupting some from inside the church?

Ever read Revelation 2 and 3?

"Super Apostles" eh?

I wager the issue was these folks taught against what Christ and the Apostles taught. The ECF's weren't novel authors, some of the earliest were disciples of the Apostles themselves, the Apostolic teachings were passed on.

Which canon would that be?

Gee, I reckon the same one you have on your desk there assuming you use any of the commonly used translations. The only difference is it's a little light.

Lion King · Sep 24, 2013

Cogent said:
"Super Apostles" eh?

I wager the issue was these folks taught against what Christ and the Apostles taught. The ECF's weren't novel authors, some of the earliest were disciples of the Apostles themselves, the Apostolic teachings were passed on.

I've read some of these so-called early church leaders writings and I think most of it is nonsense to be honest. I am perplexed at how some of these writings are even considered to be Christian, considering nearly everyone today has access to the Scriptures.

ViaCrucis · Sep 24, 2013

While I quite objectively do not take place the ancient fathers on the same level as the very apostles of Christ Himself, I do find something a bit strange.

If by the time we get to Clement and Ignatius, writing within the same general time period as John did when he wrote the Apocalypse, and whose works may predate Jude or Hebrews; if the Church had become so wholly corrupt already, even in the apostolic period, then how do we know the apostles themselves can be trusted?

We read in the letter to the Galatians that Peter erred by shying away from full Gentile inclusion and liberty.

Perhaps the Apostolic Church had been torn asunder already, and thus perhaps we can't put any faith, or any stock into the apostolic writings which may simply be full of lies.

Or were they immune to this problem?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Sep 24, 2013

Lion King said:
I've read some of these so-called early church leaders writings and I think most of it is nonsense to be honest. I am perplexed at how some of these writings are even considered to be Christian, considering nearly everyone today has access to the Scriptures.

You mean you read what Christians have taught and believed from the beginning, and they disagree with how you've attempted to reinvent Christianity in your own image, and so they--not you--must be wrong.

Lion King, after all, cannot error. Therefore it must be all other Christians everywhere. Lion King just "believes the Bible" as God magically puts all the right doctrines and ideas directly into your brain.

-CryptoLutheran

Lion King · Sep 24, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
You mean you read what Christians have taught and believed from the beginning, and they disagree with how you've attempted to reinvent Christianity in your own image, and so they--not you--must be wrong.

Lion King, after all, cannot error. Therefore it must be all other Christians everywhere. Lion King just "believes the Bible" as God magically puts all the right doctrines and ideas directly into your brain.

-CryptoLutheran

lol at thinking im the only Christian in disagreement with your precious early church leaders. Humans err, plain and simple.

ViaCrucis · Sep 24, 2013

Lion King said:
lol at thinking im the only Christian in disagreement with your precious early church leaders. Humans err, plain and simple.

Yes, they do, which is why I don't believe myself able to figure everything on my own, or that I am somehow infallible. So I look to, and rely on, the great cloud of witnesses.

-CryptoLutheran

Lion King · Sep 24, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
Yes, they do, which is why I don't believe myself able to figure everything on my own, or that I am somehow infallible. So I look to, and rely on, the great cloud of witnesses.

-CryptoLutheran

Me too.

However, my cloud of witnesses is only limited to the forerunners of our faith (Abel, Abraham, Peter, Paul etc), and does not extend to your early church folks such as Origen or John Chrysostom.

sunlover1 · Sep 24, 2013

Cogent said:
Opinion.

I'm hoping you're not dishonest but merely confused.
It's not my opinion and anyone who's read the Bible
is aware that God continually warned us about false
prophets, false teachers and false Christs; and would
also be aware of the fact that false teachers had
come into the church.

I think there's too many big words in there for some people.

Hmm, you seemed to understand his post well enough

The point is that when the Church compiled the texts and collectively agreed on the canon, they were guided by the same Holy Spirit that inspired the authors, Old Testament or New.

I believe that God inspired the authors of both Old and New.
Obviously we don't agree on the rest and perhaps on the canon.
What denomination do you attend?

sunlover1 · Sep 24, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
While I quite objectively do not take place the ancient fathers on the same level as the very apostles of Christ Himself, I do find something a bit strange.

If by the time we get to Clement and Ignatius, writing within the same general time period as John did when he wrote the Apocalypse, and whose works may predate Jude or Hebrews; if the Church had become so wholly corrupt already, even in the apostolic period, then how do we know the apostles themselves can be trusted?

We read in the letter to the Galatians that Peter erred by shying away from full Gentile inclusion and liberty.

Perhaps the Apostolic Church had been torn asunder already, and thus perhaps we can't put any faith, or any stock into the apostolic writings which may simply be full of lies.

Or were they immune to this problem?

-CryptoLutheran

Good question,
How "do" you know?
Your church?
How "do" you know that your church isn't?
Ya don't.

jpcedotal · Sep 24, 2013

Leave the "fringes" of Biblical Theology in the fringes.

Tzaousios · Sep 24, 2013

Lion King said:
I've read some of these so-called early church leaders writings and I think most of it is nonsense to be honest. I am perplexed at how some of these writings are even considered to be Christian, considering nearly everyone today has access to the Scriptures.

Please explain exactly how "most of it is nonsense." The fact that you associate the early church fathers with Catholicism, which you hate, does not make what they wrote "nonsense."

Gregory Thompson · Sep 24, 2013

Fireinfolding said:
I always thought doing that was odd. And when I see someone doing that it drives me (silently) insane

Good thing I didn't know you back then MC, I would have beaten you up (verbally)

back then i avoided circles where that was socially acceptable so i might have even enjoyed turning the other cheek .

Tzaousios · Sep 24, 2013

ViaCrucis said:
If by the time we get to Clement and Ignatius, writing within the same general time period as John did when he wrote the Apocalypse, and whose works may predate Jude or Hebrews; if the Church had become so wholly corrupt already, even in the apostolic period, then how do we know the apostles themselves can be trusted?

Very good question. We shall see if Lion King or others actually answer it truthfully.

My understanding of the situation is that Evangelical Protestants must, by necessity, affirm that the contemporary NT canon is empirically true, because if they do not, then they are guilty of the exact same thing that they enjoy indicting about those who find truth in the early Apostolic fathers. No one wants to be shown to be a hypocrite!

Which approach do you tend to use in studying Theology and why?

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Well-Known Member

Classical Theist

Beloved, Let us love one another

Beloved, Let us love one another

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Veni, vidi, vici

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Veni, vidi, vici

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Veni, vidi, vici

Confessional Lutheran

Veni, vidi, vici

Beloved, Let us love one another

Beloved, Let us love one another

Old School from the Backwoods - Christian Style

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός

Similar threads