Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is the theory but one only has to read the comments in this and other forums to know that truth is not high on the agenda for a lot of people. They much prefer their own ideas and interpretations against stated scripture and overwhelming evidence.The Holy Spirit also guides the Lord's people 'into all truth' (John 16.13).
"When two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them.."
If you believe that the Holy Spirit guided the early church (and the canon), why not later? I'm not talking about any wayward Bishop (of which there were many).. I'm talking about the body of a Council. They had the same sincerity and faith behind it, as any other earlier councils.
And if you can't believe the Holy Spirit was working through that, then WHEN and can you ever trust anything? How does it make sense to dismiss all of that as uninspired, but then jump on the bandwagon of one individual (be it Luther/Calvin/Zwingli/etc). This is no different than the very thing the Reformers rejected to begin with: a virtual Papacy, of one man. One private Reformer setting himself against Councils and hundreds of church leaders, hashing out issues for decades at times, praying for guidance.
I can't speak for @redleghunter but most Reformed and Lutherans accept the first four ecumenical church councils because they teach in accord with what scripture says. The problem you are going to run into is not all councils taught what scripture says. What about the Arian councils that had more bishops attend than Nicea? There was a time when most of the bishops in the world were Arian and Athanasius stood alone hence his quip, "Then Athanasius against the World". Yet no one on in this discussion believes these councils were authoritative and everyone agrees (I hope) with Athanasius.
Not at all. The fact is you have totally contradicted all your arguments. It doesn't matter what had consensus, the fact is you just showed reliance on a Majesterium and what they accepted/rejected as canonical. It totally makes no sense for you to still go back and rep sola scriptura, because based on what scriptural text did Iraneaus (who, as i said, believed in Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate conception) draw his conclusion about the 25/27 books true NT books? There is no names listed on any of the 25 books he knew. Also, if you thought relying on a church/majesterium to confirm the authenticity of certain books (Gospel of thomas) to be a negative, then why did you demand from me to provide evidence of Iraneaus accepting the Gospel of Thomas or any of the apocrypha?You are operating from a false premise the Reformation rejected catholic teachings. Catholic is not a shingle on a church. It meant back in the 2nd century the teachings which were universal....Which had consensus. The consensus was always tested against Holy Scriptures.
It seems they knew what was of Divine origin and what was not.
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.1 (St. Irenaeus)
Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lecture 4.17)
What makes you think Against Heresies which I quote from is from the magisterium? There wasn't a magisterium in the 2nd century given the persecuted church. What unified the church is what was handed down to them in the Scriptures from the apostles.Not at all. The fact is you have totally contradicted all your arguments. It doesn't matter what had consensus, the fact is you just showed reliance on a Majesterium and what they accepted/rejected as canonical. It totally makes no sense for you to still go back and rep sola scriptura, because based on what scriptural text did Iraneaus (who, as i said, believed in Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate conception) draw his conclusion about the 25/27 books true NT books? There is no names listed on any of the 25 books he knew. Also, if you thought relying on a church/majesterium to confirm the authenticity of certain books (Gospel of thomas) to be a negative, then why did you demand from me to provide evidence of Iraneaus accepting the Gospel of Thomas or any of the apocrypha?
Obviously. But why are you relying on the church of the 2nd CE for your arguments on what books where valid? You are arguing what catholics argue now.
Of course the Jerusalem council in Acts 15.I can't speak for @redleghunter but most Reformed and Lutherans accept the first four ecumenical church councils because they teach in accord with what scripture says. The problem you are going to run into is not all councils taught what scripture says. What about the Arian councils that had more bishops attend than Nicea? There was a time when most of the bishops in the world were Arian and Athanasius stood alone hence his quip, "Then Athanasius against the World". Yet no one on in this discussion believes these councils were authoritative and everyone agrees (I hope) with Athanasius.
What makes you think Against Heresies which I quote from is from the magisterium? There wasn't a magisterium in the 2nd century given the persecuted church. What unified the church is what was handed down to them in the Scriptures from the apostles.
How many times do I need to quote the exact words of Irenaeus?
How many times must I point out he was operating from Sola Scriptura by refuting heretics using the words of the OT prophets, the words of Christ and the words of the apostles from the NT?
You can't claim I'm upholding some nebulous sacred tradition because you can't even list what those traditions are.
Do you really believe that? Do you believe that the eternal Word of God on earth is contingent on a record? Do you believe that what is living depends on what is not? That the promise of the Holy Spirit depended on a dead letter? Because without the People of God the written word of God is a dead letter. Like the Pharisees who taught the gift on the altar was greater than the altar, the hands that hand down the gift are the altar because they are alive and belong to the givers. What is greater the gift or the givers?What unified the church is what was handed down to them in the Scriptures from the apostles.
This is strange, because Protestants operate on the same principle. They're using their own rule to become their own magisterium/Popes in a sense.. declaring by fiat which past Councils are good, which are not, what is canon, what is not. In fact, this is more bold than any Pope known to that point. Not even Rome set themselves up against the ecumenical canons to this extent.
Every assertion in this post is incorrect.
Book 4 of against heresies is more than just a few pages .
No quote because he doesn't say what you want him to say does he? I actually gave you the relevant quote and source which you seemed to have ignored so I'll repost it for you:
8. True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution5 of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system8 of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].
Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 508). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
And the oak tree comparison is a Cardinal Newman quote whose weakness is that I can literally prove anything using that reasoning . Furthermore the idea contradicts what Irenaenus just said above.
Try against heresies III, 3, III,4
How long was that?
The key takeaway points...
1/ That the source of true doctrine is apostolic succession.
2/ That the truth is to be found NOWHERE EXCEPT the catholic church - the repository of true doctrine.
3/That all other churches must fall in line with doctrine of Rome.
And he list the bishops of Rome, and whilst Iraneus links them to Peter and Paul
Other fathers state clearly it is because of Peters special role appointed by Jesus.
And for anyone who doesnt know where to find such writings look here - all the early fathers. READ THEM!
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Take Justin martyr saying that the eucharist is the "flesh of jesus"
[Staff edit].
I often see quotes taken from Iraneus (one particular section) whose context there is saying that gnostics, dodge from scripture to tradition whenever one or other disagrees with them, the posters then QUOTE ONLY where Iraneus notes that gnostics referred to only as "they" are negative on tradition - the posters use that quote to somehow saying tradition is no good.
[Staff edit].
But you cannot take that as Ireanus meaning. [Staff edit]. So read Ireanus, get the context then read III and leading to 3 and 4 .
The key takeaway points...
1/ That the source of true doctrine is apostolic succession.
2/ That the truth is to be found NOWHERE EXCEPT the catholic church - the repository of true doctrine.
3/That all other churches must fall in line with doctrine of Rome.
Then read what he has to say about gnostics ignoring both scripture AND tradtion when it suits them. [Staff edit].
It is why I wont quote sources on Luther either. [Staff edit].
Sola scriptura is false.
You cannot read Iraneus in an objective way and still believe that is true.
Get over it.
BTW I am ex protestant, ex evangelical. NOt a cradle catholic.
But early fathers like irenaus and those taught by john the apostle, such as ignatius/polycarp showed me where truth really lies.
So I know all the well worn (and easily discredited) arguments protestants use.
It took me years to realise I was conned by them!
Jesus taught His diciples that the Sanhedrin were a bunch of scoudrels who abused the authority handed down to them. Since it was authority from His Father given to Moses He taught them to obey. Jesus taught obedience to God even if subject to evil men placed in authority. The first martyr Stephen was Christ's perfect witness of witnesses showing obedience to evil men in authority even unto death. I think his prayer for Saul (evil doer in authority )was what gave the Gentiles their Apostle.By your Sola Ecclesia model, Jesus and His disciples should have listened to the Sanhedrin for matters of truth. They
Out of curiosity, I searched. The best I can tell that particular quote attributed to Luther, in full is:
"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams."- Martin Luther
I have yet to find the source.
This was according to what Irenaeus wrote in Against Heresies Book III, chapter 1, section 1.Do you really believe that?
This above...QFT.The problem you are having is that you are trying to anachronistically read modern RC doctrine back into the Early Church Fathers instead of letting the ECF be the ECF. It doesn't work, does it?
Are you asking why I used the term "sola ecclesia?" Having some difficulty what point you are trying to make from the post I actually made to another poster.Jesus taught His diciples that the Sanhedrin were a bunch of scoudrels who abused the authority handed down to them. Since it was authority from His Father given to Moses He taught them to obey. Jesus taught obedience to God even if subject to evil men placed in authority. The first martyr Stephen was Christ's perfect witness of witnesses showing obedience to evil men in authority even unto death. I think his prayer for Saul (evil doer in authority )was what gave the Gentiles their Apostle.
It's curious you use the word sola to imply error.
Not due to lack of understanding, but lack of true desire to know truth,The "liberty" you choose is perpetual disagreement over even the basics of Christian doctrine while the body's unity fragments more and more each year?
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?