Heymikey80,
'Besides this he was not merely the greatest philosopher among the Fathers, but he was the only great philosopher. His purely theological works, especially his "De Trinitate", are unsurpassed for depth, grasp, and clearness, among early ecclesiastical writers, whether Eastern or Western.' Catholic Encyclopedia, "Fathers of the Church"
Either you're lopping off one with pre-eminence among the churches, or you're not stating facts.
We do not think much of Augustine on several issues. Mostly because he imploys the platonic view of man and a lot of his former philosophical views creep into his writings.
No he didn't. He attested to the fact that, though they held to various views of predestination that were at variance with Calvin, they held quite a few in common with Calvin. And Calvin is well-within the overlap of views of the Church Fathers.
There is absolutely no overlap whatsoever. Not just on predestination, but on all five points they are precisely opposite of the Early Church Fathers. Terminology does not define, but context, the whole context. Then the whole context of all of their writings must be considered. A particular Church Father does not doctrine make. In fact they make none. It is the consistant consensus of the views of the Church Fathers and what the Church actually believes that is important.
Iraneous, a very good early Father, but not accorded a Saint because of one view which eventually was declared heretical, namely a form of millennialism. Origin falls in the same bracket. A very brilliant person, but had one false view, that also eventually, though not in his lifetime was declared heretical - universalism. I could go on, even Pelagius falls in this category. One false teaching marred his otherwise great body of works. But in each case the Church had other Fathers who taught the very same thing outside of the false view, thus we rarily if ever refer to any of these individuals. Augustine falls into this category as well.
Ah, so the ear of Christ can err, but not Christ. If you want to hold to such a view be my guest.
I'll let you hold that view. I'll hold to the one where members make up that Body. It is members who err, groups that err, whole councils that have erred, and were excommunicated, denied acceptance, whatever the case might be.
The Church is not Christ Jesus. Christ Jesus will return again in bodily form, and He will not come flying down from the sky as a church, but as a Person. Christ Jesus has a resurrected body. The Church is the Body of Christ because its members are baptized in the Spirit and drink of the Spirit -- but each of these is not Christ Jesus Himself. These people have the Mind of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ dwells in and among His people. But they are not inerrant, not as a unit nor individually nor as a council. Let God be true. Don't put it in the hands of men.
It is why we don't put it in the hands of a man, or a few men. But God does operate within the Body with the Holy Spirit indwelling each member. It is through that indwelling as a whole, the consensus of that Body that they Holy Spirit works to preserve Christ's Church and Gospel.
But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 1 Cor 12:24-26
that is the other side of the equation. That is precisely why Christ cannot be divided. When a person or a group leaves the Church, they are no longer part of that Church. It is not that there are many parts. This is the precise reason that the Early Church and the Orthodox od not accept the Pope or an organization as being the Body or the Head of the Church. The RCC is not catholic in that each congregation is parts of a whole. The Trinity is not parts of a whole, or modalism. It is many are ONE. Christ cannot be divided. We are united through the common Eucharist. Sharing in His Life. That is the One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church.
Of course the Church can err and fall. "I have this against you." Scripture states it.
Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Rv 1:17-20
I have this against you Rv 2:4,14,20
You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Rv 3:1
because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. Rv 3:16
Where is the Church shown to be erring here. This is a member of the Body. All congregations are whole complete, a Body of Christ. It is the same as individual members, many are ONE. It is Trinitarian. Each can be weak without the whole Body being weak. One can be in absolute error and the Church is not in error. You still have a misunderstanding of how the Church sees herself.
That promise does not state the Church would be inerrant. It states that the Church would not disappear.
Which is the same thing. Christ is Head of that Church. The Holy Spirit works within that Body to both preserve the Body and the Gospel given to it. There is no difference. Christ is that Truth. Can Truth become errant?
They didn't die so it would remain the same. You make a massive error thinking that the Church being errant means that Christ changes.
I'm not the one stating that view. It must be your misunderstanding. Church and Christ are ONE. It is His Body of which He is the Head. Is Christ errant? Will Christ disappear?
And ... hm, wasn't the Church at Rome there along with the various other Apostolic churches? How's this view of the Holy Spirit handling that purpose?
When one leaves the Church, they are no longer part of that Church. The Holy Spirit works within the Body of Christ. We as members can leave the Body of Christ, so can groups. I don't see any difference.
All you really needed to do was to examine history to see that was no more characteristic of all Protestantism than it is of all Orthodoxy.
Really? If I wanted to rationalize protestantism I guess one could do that as well. Yet, protestantism has no common thread except sola Scriptura. No common faith. It is becoming ever more fragmented and will continue to be so. There is absolutely no unity whatsoever, even if you claim anything remotely similar. Calvinist cannot even agree among themselves exactly what Calvinism consist. I see nothing of this in Orthodoxy whatsoever. Same faith, same Eucharist, same Liturgy, same Church.
My statement:
Your personal interpretation is a valid as any other personal interpretation. It is far from scripture being the authority, but individual interpreters.
Your response:
And your view is the interpretation of people who propose that everyone since the Apostles held to this view in the Apostolic churches. Which is patently false. Arianism and Pelagianism were once both majority reports in the churches descended from the Apostles.
Not my view. I have never made that statement. It is the Church that has been consistant in their faith and practice. Individuals mean nothing. Even bishops or councils. I have stated that several times. Christ is Truth. Paul indicated and warned of false teachers within the Body. History has shown Him to be accurate, giving testament to the veracity of his inspired teaching. The same veracity of the work of the Holy Spirit is preserving that Truth in an inending stream from then until now.
When you say, Arianism was a majority, yes, of those living at that time. But those other faithful through the work of the Holy Spirit over time showed that the Church Body who lived earlier than those of Arius never believed as he did. This has been true of all false teachings. It is how false teaching is determined. It is not the Rule of Faith, from the beginning. It is how scripture has always been understood that carries weight. Not man nor men nor councils.
Like I said, yours is a tough sell on anyone who actually peers into history. "Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by fighting back."
I can see your difficulty when one does not actually understand how the Church sees hereself.
My comment: That is why you have no solid basis for even determining what scripture says, because each has the same basis but different interpretation. Your view is as valid as even Mormons, just that it is their interpretation and not yours.
Your response:
Enough error for two people. I would wish that you'd adopt the inerrancy you claim for your church.
I as any other orthodox believer is but a single human being. A chief among sinners. How could I be inerrant. I surely do not attempt to outdo the Holy Spirit however.
Me, I just don't think the Orthodox church is Christ. I think your argument there is implausible. Christ Jesus has a Resurrected Body, does He not? If so, then Paul is making an analogy of the Church being the Body (ie, it's the physical, visible extension into the world) of Christ. He's not stating a fact.
And if your church is wrong on that count ... whew.
Not wrong, since that is what Paul is describing. We are not anterior to Christ. We dwell within His Body and the Holy Spirit indwells each member of that Body. We are an organic, ontological entity. The Church, the physical presence is precisely the extension of the Incarnation of Christ. It is why water in baptism is salvic since Christ consecrated water for that purpose in His own baptism. It is why we eat and drink of His Body and Blood. We share and partake of Him to have LIfe. Christ stated that if ye do not eat my Body and drink my Blood, you have no life in you. How precise can one get? This has been taught from the very beginning. Just another that has not changed.
As CygnusX1 demonstrated, even you don't hold to that same faith. Or did I miss it where you hold to Clement's particular election?
But Clement is not the Church. He is only an individual. If I actually believed everything that every single early Father stated, I would be the best, most faithful, while also being the worst heretic. Fortunately, as I stated many times, it is not man, men that makes Truth. It is Christ and the Body. What has the Body always believed. It is the consensus of that Body. When you take all those that Cygnus gave, plus all the rest who were faithful to the gospel once given, then we have what the Church believed. It is that faith that has been consistant and constant since the beginning.
This is where you err in thinking that the Early Church is like protestantism which you alluded to earlier. There is no room for individual interpretation that does not follow the rule of faith. They are called Church Fathers and some of them Saints because they were consistant with the faith.
Do you realize how much this smacks of special knowledge? How each theological point has to gather itself in some group hurtling miraculously through history, inerrant as regarding this knowledge? Where did this idea come from? I'm a little stunned that a Church that would argue so forcefully as to so decisively vanquish Gnosticism would take this view of their own special knowledge.
It is in Scripture. Christ is the ONLY Way. It is His Church, guarded and preserved by Him. All are welcome to enter, but on His terms. There are not many faiths, there are not many views, or many ways to worship Him. He is ONE Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One Church. I don't see many views to Christ. I don't see many churches to Christ. I don't see any allowance for individuals to proclaim their version of the Gospel He gave ONCE.
Obviously, if one wanted to rationalize the faith, make it more humanistic, more acceptable to modern tastes, in fact reform it to meet current social standards, then I guess you could look at it as special knowledge. But nevertheless, it is open to all. Christ calls all to come and partake of His Life.
My comment: I can understand the Reformation because it was indeed a change from the RCC. But the RCC was already 500 years in rebellion and schism and during that same time all of these changes and abuses came in because of what?
Your response:
Aw, but how could it, pre-eminent among the Apostolic Churches, and guarded by the Spirit of God and inerrant? It's tough to even point out some of the eventualities this idea gets into without embarrassment.
Again, total misunderstanding of what constitutes the Body of Christ. A bishop, a single bishop who, along with several before they actually split,
developed a false teaching relative to the papacy. That series of Bishops, some who left earlier over the same issue, came back, but 1054 was the last and permanent break, as it still exists today. The Holy Spirit does not prevent one from leaving. Scripture is quite clear on that. Most of the NT is speaking exclusively about guarding ones faith, persevering to the end, enduring. Man is free, God created Him so, and redeemed Him just so God could be just and give to each his desires.
The Pope leaving is no different than any other member of the Body of Christ rejecting Christ and leaving. Christ is not divided. Thus those that leave the Body isolate themselves from the internal work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works upon all men and works to bring them back in. So far 'Rome has not. However, it may be a short time away that the Coptic and Assyrian Churches are again united with the Orthodox. Discussions have been going on for some time, several Patriarchs have given their blessing. All that waits is the time honored tradition of the Body accepting what the individual heirarchs have already approved. When the last does, they will be officially Orthodox again. I see this happening within the next 20 to 30 years. For the Romans it is much more difficult . They have many more differences to overcome.
The point is, you can't sustain a single view, because no one holds that single view throughout history. Councils determine things that other councils disagree with. So the Bride of Christ errs. The Body of Christ is one Spirit with Him. Yet people don't become instantly perfect when they accept Christ. Do you think the Mind of Christ errs? We have the mind of Christ.
And your view is the interpretation of people who propose that everyone since the Apostles held to this view in the Apostolic churches. Which is patently false. Arianism and Pelagianism were once both majority reports in the churches descended from the Apostles.
Apparently there is no more than one Christian in the RCC to you? If Christ explicitly states His Presence as being among 2 or 3, then you're forced to conclude He's there. If not, you're outside the Apostolic faith. And the church is catholic when it's Christ's church, is it not? Or can a church have the Presence of Christ and yet not be catholic?
