Did the ECFs really know/understand the Scriptures better?

[bbbbbbb]

The great difficulty with Tradition is that nobody can really know what it is, because it is not written and, therefore, unverifiable. Thus, our RCC friends can say, in perfect innocence that it is obvious that the Pope is the head of the church because of "Apostolic Succession" which is part of True Christian Tradition. Apart from the Bible, everything else is pretty much up for grabs in Christianity.

 

[Anglian]

The great difficulty with Tradition is that nobody can really know what it is, because it is not written and, therefore, unverifiable. Thus, our RCC friends can say, in perfect innocence that it is obvious that the Pope is the head of the church because of "Apostolic Succession" which is part of True Christian Tradition. Apart from the Bible, everything else is pretty much up for grabs in Christianity.

Dear bbbbbbb,

Yes, that is how some use it. But for the Orthodox tradition is written - in the works of the Apostolic and the Church Fathers, some of the writings of whom were included in some of the earliest Scripture texts that survive - in the Holy Scriptures themselves - and in the words of our Liturgies.

You say everything apart from the Bible is up for grabs, but the earliest surviving texts of the NT aren't the ones you and I use today. The Church edited out books like 1 Clement and Barnabas which we find in the earliest surviving codices.

That's one reason Orthodox Christians couldn't assent to the idea that we find the truths only in the Holy Book, for it is, itself, a part of the wider understanding of tradition. All, you will note, written down, and no one able to say: 'well, pastor bob told me by personal revelation', or 'our oral tradition says the Pope is infallible.' Of course, both those hypothetical quotations are exaggerated, but they help make the point.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

We use, oddly enough, Coptic, which, as you know, is the language many of the earliest Scriptures are written in; we also use Greek, of course, and Arabic; heck, we even use English when necessary

Peace,

Anglian

Greetings Anglian. There is actually one Christian that post against the Muslims concerning the Arabic translations of the Koran and wonder if you know him? He appears to be more knowledgable with it than most Muslims are..........

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7257471&page=16
What Was the Religion of Adam and Eve?

Originally Posted by dnihila

Allah/God is One and He created Adam and Eve.
​

ApplePie7

Hi dnihila,

First of all, the "allah" of the Koran is not the God of the Holy Bible.

Secondly, the Koranic "allah" never once states, in the first-person singular, that he created anything at all...much less Adam & Eve...

 

[calluna]

The great difficulty with Tradition is that nobody can really know what it is, because it is not written and, therefore, unverifiable. Thus, our RCC friends can say, in perfect innocence that it is obvious that the Pope is the head of the church because of "Apostolic Succession" which is part of True Christian Tradition.

One thing that is certain is that any claimants to Christianity through physical succession cannot be acceptable to the church. Every NT letter writer except James warned strongly of the existence, incipient, if not actually present among Christians as they wrote, of false brethren. Paul warned the bishops of Ephesus that, after his departure, 'grievous wolves' would arise from among 'your own number'! So even if a teacher starts off in true faith, it does not mean that he will stay faithful. Bribery or persecution can easily turn a man from the straight and narrow. To claim succession from 'wolves' is of course disastrous, but these men that 'Tradition' people follow could have been the very sort of people that Paul warned of. 'Tradition' people don't know that they were not, and they cannot be truthful if they claim to know that they were not, and cannot be accepted into the church.

In fact, the traditions of man since the apostles left this world have in every case been akin to those of the Pharisees- outward show disguising inward disobedience and corruption, easy versions of tough truths. Real succession is doing as only Jesus and the apostles commanded, nothing more, nothing less. Protestants find that hard, too, but again, Christians do not associate with any who condone failure to do so.

 

[Trento]

One thing that is certain is that any claimants to Christianity through physical succession cannot be acceptable to the church. Every NT letter writer except James warned strongly of the existence, incipient, if not actually present among Christians as they wrote, of false brethren. Paul warned the bishops of Ephesus that, after his departure, 'grievous wolves' would arise from among 'your own number'! So even if a teacher starts off in true faith, it does not mean that he will stay faithful. Bribery or persecution can easily turn a man from the straight and narrow. To claim succession from 'wolves' is of course disastrous, but these men that 'Tradition' people follow could have been the very sort of people that Paul warned of. 'Tradition' people don't know that they were not, and they cannot be truthful if they claim to know that they were not, and cannot be accepted into the church.

In fact, the traditions of man since the apostles left this world have in every case been akin to those of the Pharisees- outward show disguising inward disobedience and corruption, easy versions of tough truths. Real succession is doing as only Jesus and the apostles commanded, nothing more, nothing less. Protestants find that hard, too, but again, Christians do not associate with any who condone failure to do so.

There is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom. Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The early Church fathers steered the young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.[/FONT]
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom. Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.

And also a better understanding of the Scriptures.
So what need of there for the Pope and Papacy any longer

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6831283&page=56
How different would Christianity be without the Pope

 

[Yarddog]

The great difficulty with Tradition is that nobody can really know what it is, because it is not written and, therefore, unverifiable. Thus, our RCC friends can say, in perfect innocence that it is obvious that the Pope is the head of the church because of "Apostolic Succession" which is part of True Christian Tradition. Apart from the Bible, everything else is pretty much up for grabs in Christianity.

Hello bbbbbbbb,
One way to see that certain traditions have their foundation in the Bible would be to look at Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, concerning succession of the bishops.

Clement is accepted by most scholars to be the one mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Notice Paul acknowledges Clement to have his name in the book of life.
Clement later goes to Rome and becomes one of the first bishops there.
He explains succession in his letter.

• Chapter XLII.-The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

• Chapter XLIV.-The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

So, by reading the Early Church Fathers we can see Traditions which may not be spelled out in the Bible.

Yarddog

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Notice Paul acknowledges Clement to have his name in the book of life.
Clement later goes to Rome and becomes one of the first bishops there.
He explains succession in his letter.

I do not believe that is the same "clement" mentioned in Acts. But if that is the belief of others, that is ok with me and may not even be a proper name looking at the way it is in the Greek.

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the glad tidings, with Clement/klh-mentoV <2815> also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Reve 17:14 These with the lamb-kin shall be battling, and the lamb-kin shall be conquering them. That Lord of Lords He is, and King of Kings. And the-ones with Him called-ones/klhtoi <2822> and chosen-ones and faithful-ones

I put a thread up on the TAW board just for the heck of it:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7265052
The Greek word for Clement in Phil 4:3

 

[Trento]

I do not believe that is the same "clement" mentioned in Acts. But if that is the belief of others, that is ok with me and may not even be a proper name looking at the way it is in the Greek.

Reading Irenæus (III, iii) he tells us that Clement "saw the blessedApostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles". Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Reading Irenæus (III, iii) he tells us that Clement "saw the blessedApostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles". Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul.

Hi. Again I myself am cynical of that.

Reve 2:2 I have seen the works of thee, and the labour of thee, and the endurance of thee, and that not thou are able to bear evils, and thou test/try the ones saying themselves apostles are and not they are, and thou found them falsifiers,

 

[Anglian]

Dear LLOJ

There would be a consensus that it is not the same Clement. Nonetheless, one of our earliest books has 1 Clement bound in with other Scriptures as part of the Bible. Had it ot been for a decision of the Church, those who do believe in Sola Scriptura would be telling us it was a Spirit inspired text because it was in the Bible.

I still have to hear from any of our friends who believe in Sola Scriptura as to why they accept the NT as edited by the Church rather than the one in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus. If it is the book, the whole book and nothing but the book, then I remain puzzled as to why Protestants use the book canonised by the Bible rather than the one in the earliest surviving codices.

I don't know if you can explain it, but thus far, none of those who proclaim their belief in Sola Scriptura have done so. Maybe it remains a puzzle without a Protestant answer?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Yarddog]

Hi. Again I myself am cynical of that.

That may prove that point of this thread, the ECFs understood scriptures better.

 

[Anglian]

That may prove that point of this thread, the ECFs understood scriptures better.

Dear Yarddog,

And not only that, they established which Scriptures were worthy of canonisation, and thus saved LLOJ from having to translate 1 Clement.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Yarddog]

Dear Yarddog,

And not only that, they established which Scriptures were worthy of canonisation, and thus saved LLOJ from having to translate 1 Clement.

Peace,

Anglian

Hello Anglian,

I'm sure if many of the people that criticize the ECFs would take the time to read them, without the distortions that their Church's traditions have applied to them, they would be amazed at the tremendous spirits of these great men of our past.

I do thank them for allowing me to go back and review Clement and Ignatius. I have been blessed by this.

Let us all come together, in unity, as these fathers asked us.

Yarddog

 

[Anglian]

Hello Anglian,

I'm sure if many of the people that criticize the ECFs would take the time to read them, without the distortions that their Church's traditions have applied to them, they would be amazed at the tremendous spirits of these great men of our past.

I do thank them for allowing me to go back and review Clement and Ignatius. I have been blessed by this.

Let us all come together, in unity, as these fathers asked us.

Yarddog

Dear Yarddog,



Peace,

Anglian

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, who determined who the ECF's were and which of their writings were acceptable? We all know that there were multitudes of writers at the time, all claiming to hold the true faith and the even the ECF's disagreed with each other on various points.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So, who determined who the ECF's were and which of their writings were acceptable? We all know that there were multitudes of writers at the time, all claiming to hold the true faith and the even the ECF's disagreed with each other on various points.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That may prove that point of this thread, the ECFs understood scriptures better.

Nope. They were not Solo Scriptura like I am.

Zechariah 2:13 "Hush!, All of Flesh from view of YHWH. That He is roused from His habitation, holy of Him.

Luke 3:6 And shall-be-seeing All Flesh the Salvation of the GOD.'

Reve 19:17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun and he cries in sound, great, saying to all the birds, the ones flying in the mid heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper, the Great, of the GOD/YHWH. 18 That Ye may be eating Fleshes

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ

There would be a consensus that it is not the same Clement. Nonetheless, one of our earliest books has 1 Clement bound in with other Scriptures as part of the Bible. Had it ot been for a decision of the Church, those who do believe in Sola Scriptura would be telling us it was a Spirit inspired text because it was in the Bible.

I still have to hear from any of our friends who believe in Sola Scriptura as to why they accept the NT as edited by the Church rather than the one in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Alexandrinus. If it is the book, the whole book and nothing but the book, then I remain puzzled as to why Protestants use the book canonised by the Bible rather than the one in the earliest surviving codices.

I don't know if you can explain it, but thus far, none of those who proclaim their belief in Sola Scriptura have done so. Maybe it remains a puzzle without a Protestant answer?

Peace,

Anglian

Hi Anglian. I am quite satisifed with the 66 books that are in the Canon today, just not with the way they are translated as you well know.

As far as "clement" I am still waiting for more responses on this thread on the TAW board. Peace

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7265052
The Greek word for Clement in Phil 4:3

 

[Gwendolyn]

Hi Anglian. I am quite satisifed with the 66 books that are in the Canon today, just not with the way they are translated as you well know.

Why not the original 72 books that the Christian Bible contained for roughly 1300 years? These were the books the Christians were using in their liturgies, their monasteries, their churches... why aren't they considered canon? Just because one man decided he didn't like them? He almost removed the epistle of James, too. What authority did he have to do that?