ECF's -Which ones were right?

[simonthezealot]

Seriously how does an institute decide which fathers to trust and who not to...I can see evidence of the doctrines of my evangelic fundamental beliefs within the Early Christians....BUT I would NEVER consider them as affirmation of doctrine. How can you? They are all over the place on EVERY issue with the exception of the very most fundamental aspects of Christianity.

 

[calluna]

Seriously how does an institute decide which fathers to trust and who not to...I can see evidence of the doctrines of my evangelic fundamental beliefs within the Early Christians....BUT I would NEVER consider them as affirmation of doctrine. How can you? They are all over the place on EVERY issue with the exception of the very most fundamental aspects of Christianity.

If one checks out the 'ECF's, one finds that they all state heresy somewhere. That seems to be the criterion for their status.

 

[simonthezealot]

If one checks out the 'ECF's, one finds that they all state heresy somewhere. That seems to be the criterion for their status.

No doubt...I found this to be true as well..

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

If you take any one part of Holy Tradition and lean on it alone, you are likely to get an unbalanced result.

Where the ECFs, Scripture, the Liturgy and the Councils agree, there you are likely to find Truth.

peace,

Anglian

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Seriously how does an institute decide which fathers to trust and who not to...I can see evidence of the doctrines of my evangelic fundamental beliefs within the Early Christians....BUT I would NEVER consider them as affirmation of doctrine. How can you? They are all over the place on EVERY issue with the exception of the very most fundamental aspects of Christianity.

One could argue that if the earliest Christians closes to the source of Christianity differed so markedly on such issues, then these issues aren't so important to what makes a Christian a Christian, and that we moderns are missing the boat by attaching too much importance to them.

Is our religion simply all the idea we hold in our head?

Or is it what we do and how we live?

 

[Ramon96]

Seriously how does an institute decide which fathers to trust and who not to...I can see evidence of the doctrines of my evangelic fundamental beliefs within the Early Christians....BUT I would NEVER consider them as affirmation of doctrine. How can you? They are all over the place on EVERY issue with the exception of the very most fundamental aspects of Christianity.

You seem confuse since not one person have said they were 100% infallible. What Angian said is true. The fact is that they were many things the Early Church Fathers held in agreement (such as the natures of Holy Baptism and the Divine Eucharist) which Protestants today do not have a common ground. The ECF's were more in agreement than Protestantism today. Scholars such as J.N.D Kelly [Protestant] will not agree with you that the ECF's argue on almost every issue [thus splitting the Church, cf. Early Christian Doctrines]. Granted, most of them had personal opinions [i.e., Saint Gregory of Nyssa' view on Hell, which lead to "universalism"] and we are not denying that they did, but where the ECF's held in communion is where you will find the truth. We are not denying that some of the ECF held to doctrines not shared by the whole Church. We also are not denying that certain Fathers interpreted certain Scriptural text differently [perhaps some interpretations were more good [orthodox] than others], depending on there School of thought [and this does not necessary mean they were "disagreeing" as different Scriptures can be interpreted in different "lights"]. But Christ left us a Church to guide us and teach us. I accept what the Church has taught for the past 2,000 years and not a invented doctrine in the 1500's.

Thanks for the straw-man thread though.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

If you take any one part of Holy Tradition and lean on it alone, you are likely to get an unbalanced result.

Where the ECFs, Scripture, the Liturgy and the Councils agree, there you are likely to find Truth.

peace,

Anglian

Lets for the sake of a direction in this thread work on "Holy images"
Please show how there is a balance between scripture and the other 3 areas? I'll just have to trust you that liturgy is groovey with it but focus on the other 3 shall we? Because I happen to know the scriptural view is at odds, as well as 2 different councils, furthermore many ecf's as well at odds with images....

 

[simonthezealot]

The ECF's were more in agreement than Protestantism today.

I think you meant to say...
The ECF's were more in agreement with Protestantism today.

 

[Anglian]

Lets for the sake of a direction in this thread work on "Holy images"
Please show how there is a balance between scripture and the other 3 areas? I'll just have to trust you that liturgy is groovey with it but focus on the other 3 shall we? Because I happen to know the scriptural view is at odds, as well as 2 different councils, furthermore many ecf's as well at odds with images....

Dear Simon,

Again, I do not think anyone has argued that there is only one line of thought here in the ECFs, and we can see the lines of discussion throughout the iconoclast controversy. You say you know the Scriptures are against icons, so too did some of those in the Orthodox Church; however, after prolonged discussion and much argument, the second of the Councils you mention came down in favour of the line that icons were not contrary to Scripture. If you are simply going to assert that your interpretation and that of Leo III and Constantine V, was right, fair enough - but the Church decided otherwise.

No one said that Tradition could not be interpreted wrongly; as we have said before, no Orthodox Christian goes on about infallibility. I am quite happy to get into a detailed account of the iconoclast controversy, even though it never touched my own Church, but in the end one comes out with the Council, quoting the ECFs and the Bible to support the position arrived at.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

but in the end one comes out with the Council, quoting the ECFs and the Bible to support the position arrived at.

This is precisely my point they can only quote a select very few of each ecf's and scripture out of context to support it, yet you guys hang your full support on this combination as opposed to erring on the safe side of what is CLEAR in Scripture.

 

[Anglian]

This is precisely my point they can only quote a select very few of each ecf's and scripture out of context to support it, yet you guys hang your full support on this combination as opposed to erring on the safe side of what is CLEAR in Scripture.

Dear Simon,

As you will know, there were many in the discussion who took precisely your view about what was 'clear', and they no doubt took your view that the winning side had quoted ECFs and Scripture out of context; oddly enough, the iconodules took the same view of your side of the argument. The Council decided what it did, and the Church has accepted that ever since; don't be a sore loser.

As a side note, my own Church took no part in what it regarded as an entirely unnecessary controversy, brought on because of a desire to combat Muslim claims that Christians worshipped images! (Where've we heard that one since?)

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

The Lord God is approachable only through the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, NO scripture or word twisting by a group of men will ever make it okay to do otherwise there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...Just because God makes an image of Himself by becoming incarnate doesn't mean we can try and do this by making things with our hands.
Epiphanius

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LI.html?highlight=place%20to%20take%20the%20curtain#highlight
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

As you have now been told many times, no one regards the ECFs as infallible. The views you express here were known to the Church and expressed during the iconoclast crisis; the Church came down on the other side. Of course you think they are 'twisting' things - even as the Church has come to the settled view that your side of that argument was the one doing the twisting.

Deciding whether those who would destroy items of great beauty made to honour the Lord have the right of it, or those who would smash and destroy beauty in His name, are correct, gives me little trouble. I've always found it difficult to side with vandalism which calls on the name of the Lord; do remember the iconoclasts also destroyed books. Book burning in the name of God - nope, no appeal there for me either; but that's me for you - always up for worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear Simon,

As you have now been told many times, no one regards the ECFs as infallible. The views you express here were known to the Church and expressed during the iconoclast crisis; the Church came down on the other side. Of course you think they are 'twisting' things - even as the Church has come to the settled view that your side of that argument was the one doing the twisting.

Deciding whether those who would destroy items of great beauty made to honour the Lord have the right of it, or those who would smash and destroy beauty in His name, are correct, gives me little trouble. I've always found it difficult to side with vandalism which calls on the name of the Lord; do remember the iconoclasts also destroyed books. Book burning in the name of God - nope, no appeal there for me either; but that's me for you - always up for worshipping the Lord in the beauty of holiness.

Peace,

Anglian

Which is it though the beauty of His holiness as portrayed by mans art? Or more proper the beauty of His holiness as scribed on your heart? I'd never acknowledge as the iconoclasts for destroying images...But clearly feel the work of the adversary took place during the 787 council...And has blinded billions since, it's really a travesty...

 

[simonthezealot]

ps i know the ecf's aren't infallible...

 

[Anglian]

Which is it though the beauty of His holiness as portrayed by mans art? Or more proper the beauty of His holiness as scribed on your heart? I'd never acknowledge as the iconoclasts for destroying images...But clearly feel the work of the adversary took place during the 787 council...And has blinded billions since, it's really a travesty...

Dear Simon,

Why posit a dichotomy?

Why can man's artistic talent, given him by God, not be consecrated to His service and glory?

How very sad it must be not to be able to enter into somewhere like Notre Dame Cathedral and not to feel the love poured out by hundreds of craftsmen to the Lord God. We all use what talents we have been given for the Lord. Those who insist on telling others that they are doing wrong when they make a beautiful object to show their love for God, might consider for a moment that they may just have it wrong.

I think I begin to understand my instinctive recoil from some types of Protestantism; anything which destroys beauty in the name of God makes me uneasy.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

Dear Simon,

If you take any one part of Holy Tradition and lean on it alone, you are likely to get an unbalanced result.

Where the ECFs, Scripture, the Liturgy and the Councils agree, there you are likely to find Truth.

peace,

Anglian

Simon's not interested in answers, I'm afraid. He asked a question on another thread then asked the thread to be closed.

 

[Yarddog]

This is precisely my point they can only quote a select very few of each ecf's and scripture out of context to support it, yet you guys hang your full support on this combination as opposed to erring on the safe side of what is CLEAR in Scripture.

Hello Simon,
Exactly what scripture are you referring to?

 

[Ramon96]

I think you meant to say...
The ECF's were more in agreement with Protestantism today.

No, as the ECF's were far away from Protestantism. Anyone who have study the Early Church Fathers for years will quickly know the Early Church were not Protestant [a sect that came about in the 1500s]. After studying the Early Church Fathers personally for years and reading Renowned Protestant Scholar J.N.D Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" your statement is laughable. Nothing in the Early Church were Protestant; they believe in Baptismal Regeneration, the intercession of the Saints/Angels in Heaven, the Bread and Wine IS the Body and Blood of Christ [not symbolic], and other doctrines which Protestants in the 21st Century do not agree with [at least some that is]. This is also supported by Scholars such as J.N.D Kelly. The ECF's were more in agreement than Protestantism [a very diverse group, so you cannot say "The ECF's were more in agreement with Protestantism today"]. The Early Church did not believe in Sola-Scriptura [admitted by Renowned Protestant Scholars/Historians J.N.D Kelly and Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, pg 606)]. But this is a lost-case, so I will leave it at that. They were Orthodox, and nothing more.

I think you meant "The ECF's were more in agreement with Orthodox Christians than Protestants today".

Get yourself a better mentor.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Rick Otto]

This is precisely my point they can only quote a select very few of each ecf's and scripture out of context to support it, yet you guys hang your full support on this combination as opposed to erring on the safe side of what is CLEAR in Scripture.

Yea, hath God said, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,"? For God doth know that in the day ye graven thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, venerating good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UL_1RcJ9ys&feature=related