Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
pardon my ignorance, but who or what is the ECF's?

Thank you kindly.

Early Church Fathers (See the first line in my post). The shortened form--ECF--is often used.

These are a scattering of admired Christian writers, clergy, and declared saints who lived during the first 500 years AD. In Catholic theology, their opinions define a second (after Holy Scripture) steam or source of divine revelation. Many of the doctrines that are unique to the Roman Catholic Church and which have no basis in Scripture come from the writings of these ECFs.

Thank you for your patience and explanation.

 

[brinny]

Re: the OP question, now that i understand better what ECF's are, my response is that no, they did not know the scriptures better or they would have adhered to them.

Just voted.

Thank you kindly.

 

[pshun2404]

Since the people who God breathed His words through, whose minds were opened to the scriptures by Jesus Christ, understood conclusion “A” absolutely soundly (the original interpretation)…they all (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) taught it to those they themselves trained and appointed to places of leadership, and they also taught the same conclusion they had been taught (Conclusion A)….people like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, and even Mark when he was sent to Alexandria all knew conclusion A because there was no other alternative conclusion. They all held all these conclusions (the same doctrine) in common no matter what Apostle trained them (this is a loud witness to the truth).

The same universally accepted conclusion A (what they taught the scriptures meant by what they said) continued for generation after generation of leadership for 100s of years. Conclusion B, C, and so on, came after many centuries. Though A preceded B…today we host the entire alphabet of conclusions...embrace the doctrinal understanding the Apostles taught that the scriptures mean.

Now I believe the Bible to be THE word of God and the truth upon which all our doctrines are to be based, just as the early church fathers did (shall I supply many quotes). I find their witness 100% more reliable as to how to interpret and as to what these things mean as theirs was the interpretation given them from the Apostles themselves, or from those who the Apostles themselves taught and appointed.

As for faulty translations that is a lark. They read the originals and direct copies of the originals in their own native tongue. This reality can hardly be compared to the hodge-podge of differing versions we now must bear. What I found fascinating is that many passages the bibles based on the so-called critical text exclude or play down are actually quoted by some of the fathers hundreds of years before these heavily edited discarded texts were found.

As for relying on scriptures, as I set out some time ago to capture the quotations used by the fathers I found NO doctrine or belief they espoused for 200 years (and more) not founded therein. For example, in Iranaeus Against Heresies, for this purpose only just having finished book four , I have over 12 pages of NT quotations from Mat, Mk, Lk, John, Acts, Rom, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Gal, Philip, Col, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, James, and Rev, and I haven’t even cracked book 5…and the OT quotes are just as many…so please accept no more lies about how they allegedly did not follow, know, or rely on the scriptures for their doctrinal understandings and positions ….

just my $.02

In His love
Paul

 

[MoreCoffee]

The early church fathers knew Koine Greek as their native language so that gave them a head start for understanding what the new testament means and they also shared the same basic culture as the apostles, with the exception of not normally being brought up as Jews with all that implies. On the whole their opinions about Christian teaching and the meaning of the scriptures of the new testament are remarkably informative.

Count this as a thread resurrection inspired by LittleLambofJesus

God bless.

Whiner!

I think that you might be the one who is whining in your reply

 

[pshun2404]

Tertullian (3rd century)

"An angel used to do things when he moved the Pool of Bethsaida. Those who complained of ill-health used to watch out for him, for anyone who got down there before the others, after washing had no further reason to complain." (On Baptism, Chapter 5)

Ambrose (4th century)

"Therefore it is said: "An angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was holden." This pool was at Jerusalem, in which one was healed every year, but no one was healed before the angel had descended." (On the Mysteries, Chapter 4, 22)

Chrysostom (late 4th century)

"And "an Angel came down and troubled the water," and endued it with a healing power, that the Jews might learn that much more could the Lord of Angels heal the diseases of the soul. Yet as here it was not simply the nature of the water that healed, (for then this would have always taken place,) but water joined to the operation of the Angel; so in our case, it is not merely the water that works, but when it has received the grace of the Spirit, then it puts away all our sins. Around this pool "lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water"; but then infirmity was a hindrance to him who desired to be healed, now each has power to approach, for now it is not an Angel that troubles, it is the Lord of Angels who works all." (Homilies 36 on the Gospel of John, John 5:2-3)