When did the early fathers begin to go askew?

GoldenKingGaze said:

Objective truth should become subjective after time. Repentance is scriptural but should also result a change of state to a clear conscience, a new feeling. Salvation should result in the fruit as in Gal 5:22.

My experience of repenting is why I am committed to Christ, and scripture.

Pentecostal and Charismatic Biblical interpretation is now mainstream, and highly regarded. I have heard of Wayne Grudem and Have been listening to Gordon Fee, and now have to read his book, How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth. For a long time, Spirit Filled Bibles haves been available.

All the Bible authors experienced God's presence.

Click to expand...

The truth is the actual words of God. Everything else may or may not be true. If you cannot demonstrate your "truth" in the actual words of God, as recorded in the Bible, you are not teaching truth, but opinion.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

From my perspective, they didn't go askew.

From a Pentecostal perspective, I suppose it would be almost immediately after the death of John if not during the life time of the Apostles and perhaps even by the Apostles themselves.

The first century/second century churches operated differently than most if not all protestant Churches today in that they insisted on visible universal communion, a common Eucharist and adherence to the authority of Presbyters/Bishops. Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century.

I for one cannot believe that the very body which Christ died for would crumble so easily. One could point to the politicisation of Christianity when it became the religion of the empire but that seems like a 21st century secular perspective which divides sharply between the civil life and religious life. I would argue that despite it's flaws and corruption the Christianisation of the empire was evidence of God's hand in the Church.

Click to expand...

Ignatius the Kiwi,

G'day from across the Tasman.

Your claim is: "Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century".

That's not what I read in Scripture and the early church fathers. I've documented it in my article:
Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

Sincerely,
Oz

GoldenKingGaze said:

I think the Holy Spirit is the life of the church. It is written in the letters about gifts and the laying on of hands. Without the Spirit we are left with Pelagianism.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. I just think your idea of how the Holy Spirit works might need some tweaking, if you think somehow real Christianity died soon after the apostles. They may not have been Pentecostals but they did have spiritual experiences. However, individual spiritual experiences have never been the defining factor that Christians used to determine the boundarymarkers for their movement until relatively recently.

I did not find the manifestation of Shaktism, but I previously heard of the Kundalini spirit. The snake spirit of some sort. The manifestations look only similar, and the end result is not like a Christian conversion.

Click to expand...

Even though I'm a Christian, I'm very familiar with world religions. I think the similarities are more than trivial.

What matters are the Biblical gifts and the Old Testament blessings such as Isaiah 11:2. The power of Jesus blood. And if people fall backward or laugh, that they get up well, and more free from sin... Without it, some people cannot fulfill their Christian lives. So I think Pentecostalism is at least better for me.

Click to expand...

I'm not here to tear down anything that genuinely helps people live better lives. However, I doubt you are in the best position to evaluate ancient and premodern Christianity in regards to what is, and is not authentically Christian.

What other Christians have that is good, is receive Christ. But if they do not go on to gifts, I think they are not well off

Click to expand...

The apostle Paul said we should desire the higher gifts: faith, hope, and love. That's what's really important, the real miracle.

GoldenKingGaze said:

There is no gift of love, there were love feasts mentioned in the letters.

Click to expand...

We Lutherans have the "4th sacrament" of "the fellowship hall". That is our "love feast". In fact I think that's fairly common in churches in general.

Our hearts should be hot. I think losing the love feasts and only keeping the mass, with communion, built on the Passover feast, and losing it's Jewishness is an element of going askew.

Click to expand...

You may look at a Lutheran or Catholic mass and see no "heart", but that's only because we tend to not wear our feelings on our sleeves. Our spirituality looks different, but that doesn't mean it doesn't stir feelings.

Communion is not a Jewish ritual equivalent to Passover. Jesus instituted a new rite altogether, with different symbols. If anything, many scholars believe the Lord's Supper may have come from his practice of having supper with sinners and outcasts.

A revival of Pentecost and love feasting is a very good idea, really a God idea. When waves of love come over people and it is visible, it is compared to Hindu practices, which is an error. I have seen revival live and on video, and Hindu awakening on video, and read about it.

Click to expand...

Given the nature of spiritual experiences are subjective and Hindu experiences in particular, contextualized within their own culture and symbols which is largely alien to Christian and Abrahamic faiths- how exactly do you know that the essence of the experience is different? In both cases, people appear to be ecstatic or absorbed in altered state of consciousness.

OzSpen said:

Ignatius the Kiwi,

G'day from across the Tasman.

Your claim is: "Sola Scriptura as an idea didn't exist in the minds of the Apostles nor in the generation which followed and thus the impetus for Protestantism never took root in the first or second century".

That's not what I read in Scripture and the early church fathers. I've documented it in my article:
Is there no ‘Scripture alone’ in early church fathers?

Sincerely,
Oz

Click to expand...

I would defend that claim based on the presence of other visible authorities within the Church since the beginning. How could sola scriptura be practiced in the era of the apostles? Could the Corinthians have told Paul they only needed the Old Testament and his letters, the four Gospels, acts and revelation? No, for Paul exacted authority as a human in the Church against those who disagreed with him regarding the Old Testament application within the Church. Should they have followed the man Paul or their convictions regarding the literal application of the Old Testament and the law? Can such a structure just utterly disappear from the Church with the death of the last apostle, with no authority left in men but in a book subject to interpretation by the human mind? I don’t think so.


Your quotations from the fathers I do not find compelling pieces of evidence for a doctrine of sola scripture which sets itself up apart from the Church like Luther did. That is one of the key distinguishing features of Sola Scripture which the reformation advocated, the text ultimately removed from the ecclesial structure for anyone to read and determine what it says.


You quote Iraneaus yet he appealed to Apostolic tradition as if it were authoritative.


Against Heresies 3:1.2

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.


And need I point to Ireneaus' insistence on being part of the visible church which the Apostles established? his argument of Apostolic succession (something not clearly described in the bible.)


We find in the fathers an absolute insistence of the authority of scripture (this is right and is the position of my Church as well, since scripture is the absolute authority) yet within their Church context how can we interpret them as advocates of any sola scriptura model? Would any of them have advocated reading the scripture alone apart from the Church when all of the men you quoted participated within Church life, were baptised into it and administered the Church as ecclesiastical figures? I don't feel the need to respond to every single quotation, so I would ask, who do you think out of the quotations you have given represents a truly sola scriptura position?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I would defend that claim based on the presence of other visible authorities within the Church since the beginning. How could sola scriptura be practiced in the era of the apostles? Could the Corinthians have told Paul they only needed the Old Testament and his letters, the four Gospels, acts and revelation? No, for Paul exacted authority as a human in the Church against those who disagreed with him regarding the Old Testament application within the Church. Should they have followed the man Paul or their convictions regarding the literal application of the Old Testament and the law? Can such a structure just utterly disappear from the Church with the death of the last apostle, with no authority left in men but in a book subject to interpretation by the human mind? I don’t think so.

Click to expand...

Ignatius the Kiwi,

Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) was practised by a leading apostle, Paul, in his writing, "All Scripture is God-breathed...." (2 Tim 3:16 NIV). All Scripture here refers primarily to the OT but 2 Peter 3:13-16 (NIV) compares Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures". So, Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture:

Could the Corinthians have told Paul they only needed the Old Testament and his letters, the four Gospels, acts and revelation?

Click to expand...

That's a straw man!

Can such a structure just utterly disappear from the Church with the death of the last apostle, with no authority left in men but in a book subject to interpretation by the human mind? I don’t think so

Click to expand...

You want authority to reside in men but not in a book subject to interpretation. Are you joking!

It's OK for you to agree with authority of men (Apostolic Succession) whose words and traditions are just as subject to interpretation as the Scripture.

The difference is: Apostolic Succession deals with human limitation at the source. Scripture deals with God-breathed authority at the source but allows for fallible interpretation by human beings. However, it's the interpretation that can be incorrect, not the Scripture in the original MSS.

Oz

OzSpen said:

Ignatius the Kiwi,

Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) was practised by a leading apostle, Paul, in his writing, "All Scripture is God-breathed...." (2 Tim 3:16 NIV). All Scripture here refers primarily to the OT but 2 Peter 3:13-16 (NIV) compares Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures". So, Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture:

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (1 Pet 3:15-16 NIV).​

That's a straw man!



You want authority to reside in men but not in a book subject to interpretation. Are you joking!

It's OK for you to agree with authority of men (Apostolic Succession) whose words and traditions are just as subject to interpretation as the Scripture.

The difference is: Apostolic Succession deals with human limitation at the source. Scripture deals with God-breathed authority at the source but allows for fallible interpretation by human beings. However, it's the interpretation that can be incorrect, not the Scripture in the original MSS.

Oz

Click to expand...

Scripture being God-breathed and authoritative does not necessarily imply sola scripture. Here we get into the argument of it's material sufficiency vs it's formal sufficiency. I firmly lead into the former rather than the latter and believe it makes best sense of the scripture and it's handling within the Church. I do not understand the scripture apart from the life of the Church.

It is hardly a straw to ask the question. Who has more authority, the Apostle or the Apostle's writings? Who or what should have the believers listened to primarily, their conscience regarding the words of scripture even if they disagreed with the council or the Apostles collectively? Seems sola scriptura must imply that since the voice of any man cannot trump the authority of the written word. The written word must be the ultimate source of appeal, so how do you understand apostolic authority to have been applied under this understanding? Should the Judaisers have submitted to Paul and the Jerusalem council? To me they absolutely should have, despite their obvious appeals to the literal application of Old Testament law.

I would also suggest that I do not limit authority to men above scripture, since there are times when individuals can correctly speak against the majority or ecclesiastical figures. It is not an either or of church and scripture it is both. So as a result there isn't necessarily a right application. So while of course it's obvious human interpretation can be incorrect, that's not the issue. We all agree scripture is right. We differ as to the method of understanding it and using it as authoritative. The Protestant insists the individual cannot be trumped by any other source besides scripture whereas I can admit there are times when we should submit ourselves to the authority of others. That is the crucial difference and one which I see good precedent for in the actions of the Church fathers. Particularly in their exercise of ecclesiastical authority to excommunicate people who would not submit to the decisions of councils.

In the context of the Church fathers I simply do not see this emphasis in their church life or in their beliefs as explained in the previous post.

OzSpen said:

Ignatius the Kiwi,

Sola scriptura (Scripture alone) was practised by a leading apostle, Paul, in his writing, "All Scripture is God-breathed...." (2 Tim 3:16 NIV).

Click to expand...

2 Tim. 3:14 – continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and believed knowing from whom you learned it. (MAGISTERIUM) Paul lists Scripture last, not first.

2 Tim. 3:16-17

This passage doesn't teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and the Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn't there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). And to use an analogy, let's examine a similar passage:

Ephesians 4:11-15

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

All Scripture here refers primarily to the OT but 2 Peter 3:13-16 (NIV) compares Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures". So, Peter regarded Paul's writings as Scripture:

1 Pet 3:15-16

Click to expand...

The nerve of Peter acknowledging Paul's letters as Scripture! Doesn't he know Paul is supposed to acknowledge his letters???

You want authority to reside in men but not in a book subject to interpretation. Are you joking!

Click to expand...

Why the false dichotomy?

It's OK for you to agree with authority of men (Apostolic Succession) whose words and traditions are just as subject to interpretation as the Scripture.

Click to expand...

If "authority of men" is such a bad word, how did we get the canon of Scripture in the 4th century? How many Apostles were still alive at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD? If the Holy Spirit wasn't guiding "the authority of men", there would be no Bible. This is a big problem for sola scripturists. FYI, Sacred Tradition, properly understood, has the same divine protection from error as does Scripture. If it didn't, you would have no Bible. There is a complementarity with Scripture and Tradition and just because the mode of transmission is different does not mean one is inferior.

Why are Protestants so obsessed with changing the meaning of Tradition? Looks to me like a false tradition of men.

The difference is: Apostolic Succession deals with human limitation at the source. Scripture deals with God-breathed authority at the source but allows for fallible interpretation by human beings. However, it's the interpretation that can be incorrect, not the Scripture in the original MSS.Oz

Click to expand...

First you change the meaning of Tradition, then you change the meaning of apostolic succession. Two straw men.

kepha31 said:

2 Tim. 3:14 – continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and believed knowing from whom you learned it. (MAGISTERIUM) Paul lists Scripture last, not first.

Click to expand...

I find this to be a sad piece of eisegesis, kepha31, with your imposing your meaning into the text - TRADITION & MAGISTERIUM.

'Teaching the message of truth accurately' 2 Tim 2:15 NET) focusses on the meaning (truth) coming ek (out of the word).

Oz

tz620q said:

What you have said has a lot of merit and is promoted in Catholicism as well. We are called to unite ourselves through the Eucharist to the original sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Ritual without intent is meaningless; but what is our intent when we do this. It seems that Paul was trying to address this very concern in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians were eating the Eucharist as just another meal and he correctly pointed out that it has much deeper spiritual significance.

You seem to advocate a "Real Presence" in the Eucharist, albeit a spiritual one only. Catholics would agree that there is a real spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So it is easy to find Early Church Fathers that talk about this spiritual presence; but to leave it there you have to ignore or refute their statements that only make sense if there is an actual physical presence as well.

So this thread does not make logical sense except when you start from the paradigm that the early church went apostate and then was somehow recovered later through the Reformation. This recovery has taken on many varying beliefs, that are neither coherent with the Early Church Fathers or with other movements within the Reformation. So where is the solid foundation of truth to even frame an argument to prove this theory about the ECF's?

Click to expand...

I've read enough of your posts to see that you cannot tell the difference between substance (Who the Bread and Wine becomes) and the accidents, what you see, mere bread and wine. It requires supernatural faith, not logic (fleshly thinking).

Protestants have been bending over backwards to discredit St. Ignatius for two reasons:
1) he teaches the ESSENCE of the Eucharist that he learned from St. John the Apostle. This ESSENCE has remained unchanged but there has been doctrinal development as with all doctrines, meaning deeper clarity and understanding takes place over the centuries without changing the ESSENTIAL truths.
2) he was not a Protestant.

Within 60 years after Luther did his nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "This is my body".

What the Apostles understood about the Eucharist is the same, in essence as what St. Ignatius wrote, which is the same in essence as what St. Augustine...St. Aquinas...Pope Francis, we have more than historical continuity to brag about. We are an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist.

OzSpen said:

I find this to be a sad piece of eisegesis, kepha31, with your imposing your meaning into the text - TRADITION & MAGISTERIUM.

'Teaching the message of truth accurately' 2 Tim 2:15 NET) focusses on the meaning (truth) coming ek (out of the word).

Oz

Click to expand...

That's not the verse I quoted. I quoted 2 Tim. 3:14-15. Sola scripturists can only quote 2 Tim 3:16 because verses 14-15 damages SS, SO THEY AVOID IT.

TRADITION is loosely defined as "continue in the things you have learned " (NET)
MAGISTERIUM is loosely defined as " know who taught you.(NET)
Neither definition fits your preconceptions.

14 You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. NET

Where in the Bible does "word of God" mean the written word alone?

Is Paul instructing Timothy to teach from a Bible that would not exist for 350 years, or is Paul instructing Timothy to teach accurately the message of truth from the OT?

Or is it at all possible that this "message of truth" was received orally before it got written? Is the entire "message of truth" confined to Paul's letters to Timothy?

"focusses on the meaning (truth) coming ek (out of the word)."
I find this to be a sad piece of eisegesis, since you can't find anywhere in the Bible where "word of God" describes scripture alone. Biblegateway has a great search engine. I couldn't find any, maybe you can.

Where in the Bible does "word of God" mean the written word alone?

Click to expand...

Where did I state that?

Is Paul instructing Timothy to teach from a Bible that would not exist for 350 years, or is Paul instructing Timothy to teach accurately the message of truth from the OT?

Click to expand...

If you read a few more commentaries you will find that they understand the 'Scripture' of 2 Tim 3:16-17 refers to the Old Testament and to parts of the New Testament. Steven Cole states:

First, what did Paul mean by “all Scripture”? The word translated “Scripture” is used 51 times in the New Testament and always refers to some part of the Bible. Sometimes it refers to the entire Old Testament (Luke 24:45; John 10:35), sometimes to a particular Old Testament passage (Luke 4:21), sometimes to a particular New Testament passage (1 Timothy 5:18) and sometimes to a larger portion of the New Testament, as when Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16).

Click to expand...

Ellicott's commentary on 2 Tim 3:16 is:

The affirmation that Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 refers to OT and NT (not yet gathered together in a canon):

"focusses on the meaning (truth) coming ek (out of the word)."
I find this to be a sad piece of eisegesis, since you can't find anywhere in the Bible where "word of God" describes scripture alone. Biblegateway has a great search engine. I couldn't find any, maybe you can.

Click to expand...

Could you have overlooked John 10:34-35 (NIV)?


Oz

I don't believe the church has departed from its initial 'birth' at Pentecost. Why? How?

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Thus, throughout history, the Holy Spirit has guided the church. Through rough seas it has been guided by God. It has shaken off the bad. It has clothed itself in the Armour of God.

The early days had to happen. The wheat from the chaff had to be separated!

OzSpen said:

Where did I state that?
If you read a few more commentaries you will find that they understand the 'Scripture' of 2 Tim 3:16-17 refers to the Old Testament and to parts of the New Testament. Steven Cole states:
Ellicott's commentary on 2 Tim 3:16 is:

“all Scripture” the subject, and “given by inspiration of God” the predicate, declares positively the inspiration of all the Old Testament Scriptures, for this is what the Apostle must have referred to, if we understand this verse as we have it rendered in the English version​

The affirmation that Scripture in 2 Tim 3:16 refers to OT and NT (not yet gathered together in a canon):

In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul uses the same word for Scripture (graphe) that he uses here in 3:16 to refer to quotations from both the Old Testament and New Testament: “For Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain’ (Deut. 25:4) and ‘The laborer deserves his wages’ (c).” (Hughes & Chapell)​

Could you have overlooked John 10:34-35 (NIV)?

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—​

Oz

Click to expand...

Timothy learned from parts of the NT as a child (2 Tim. 3:15) ??? Interesting...
Deut. 25:4 is about threshing grain, it does not support sola scriptura
John 10:34-35, Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6 which has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
Laborers and workers always refer to bishops in the NT, and many SS Protestant churches don't even have bishops, contrary to scripture.

Where in the Bible does "word of God" used in context to mean the written word alone?

kepha31 said:

Where in the Bible does "word of God" used in context to mean the written word alone?

Click to expand...

kepha,

With my quote from John 10:34-35 (NIV), I referred to your question as asked here.

Here are what these verses state:


This verse sinks your claim that nowhere in the Bible is the 'word of God' used to refer to the written word of God. These are the points from this verse:

• The OT Law is written;
• The written Law refers to the word of God;
• This written Law, the word of God, is Scripture.

It's too late to try to convince me that the written word of God is not Scripture.

Bye,
Oz