"The early Christians said.." argument.

[Skala]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

 

[seeingeyes]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

To be fair, every time we use the Biblical canon, we are trusting in what some "early Christians said".

 

[abysmul]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

Good points, I don't disagree.

 

[Ignatius21]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Any sillier than "What the Bible says is..." which always ends up meaning "What I and my particular tradition thinks you should believe is what the Bible says"?

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

You're just jealous that the Tabernacle Choir doesn't sing at your church.

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

There are tons of reasons for the sola scriptura. They're all bound together with the medieval papacy and power structures of Western Christianity in the middle ages. Also, would you say SS is actually a doctrine? I always saw it more as a methodology, or a praxis, that can lead to doctrine. As such, it is a tradition. Like every tradition, it arose within a particular group of people under particular influences.

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

So nothing in the Bible itself makes use of ideas, experiences and traditions that aren't relevant to the majority of mankind living in the 21st Century?

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

And your interpretive methods, and how you relate to what you read in the text, are also here in the "now." Why would you be less likely to impose a foreign mindset upon the intent of the authors, than people who walked among their disciples 2000 years ago?

How do you know which books you should be reading? I mean, the WCF just plain lays them out without any justification in the very first chapter. As a Reformed person, do you count the first chapter of the WCF as Scripture so that you know which books are "in" and which are "out?" Or the writings and opinions of some other group?

If you just picked up a Bible on the shelf and read it, would you finish up saying "Wow, that Jesus was two distinct natures in one divine hypostasis, without any mixture or confusion, distinct but not separate?" It took thousands of Christians, hundreds of years to arrive at that clarity. Can you do better? Think how many of the Trinitarian and Christological heresies were just a tiny bit off from what was formally accepted over time. Have you looked at those? Can you see how close some of them were to the "real" understanding, and how easily people could fall into those?

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

No offense brother, but that's simply absurd. Known any missionaries? How well does that work out? Have you read The End of the Spear? Great book. Tells of the difficulties involved in conveying the idea of things like "debt" to a tribe with no concept of property or economy, or "sovereignty" to a tribe with no sense of structure or hierarchy. But they had a loose idea of a God, so you try to latch onto that to convey the idea. But then, oh boy, all the baggage starts coming in with it.

In the end, I believe SS fails because it was initially conceived as a means of reforming the Latin church from within, in that it presupposed an existing structure within which SS could be used to clear out the cobwebs and discern true doctrine from excessive traditions. But once the structure was dissolved, and people found themselves outside the visible boundaries of the historic church...now what? Where is the Church? Who within that church gets to define doctrines using SS? What are the "marks" of a "true church?" I was always taught in the Reformed tradition, that they were (but not limited to)

1. Faithful preaching of right doctrine from Scripture
2. Right administration of sacraments
3. Right exercise of Church discipline

Ok. let's take these one at a time.

1. Is this preacher faithfully teaching right doctrine? I don't know. How can I tell It's in the Bible! But I read the bible and find it hard to understand. Is he right, or isn't he? Can I check him against another preacher? Sure I can, but what if they disagree? What if I'm sure he's not teaching something right because I can't see it in the bible? So it's circular. A church is a true church if it teaches the Bible rightly, and I must submit to its authority so long as it teaches right doctrine, which I must determine for myself by reading the Bible, but I'm supposed to be learning from the preachers....

2. Which sacraments are sacraments? What do they really mean? How should they really be administered? It's in the Bible! But...um...dang, everyone has a different idea of what the Bible actually says is a sacrament (it never uses the word in that sense), and of what those sacraments actually mean. The Bible clearly says that to be saved, one must repent and be baptized. But wait! The preacher here is telling me that actually, baptism doesn't do anything, it just "signs and seals" grace to me. Which is cool, because only Papists would think grace comes through sacraments. But wait! The Lutheran pastor down the road says that regeneration actually is effected in baptism. So, this all leads me to the third point which is,

3. To whose discipline should I submit? I have to interpret Scripture to determine who is teaching right doctrine, and administering right sacraments, to figure out which church is a true church, and then I can submit to their teaching. Until...what? Until my understanding of Scripture changes? In the end, I submit only to myself. I just place a Bible in front of me, and say I'm actually submitting to it.

That's my humble opinion. Ultimately, these issues of epistemology and ecclesiology were what led me out of Protestantism. Each book I read by a Reformed author, defending SS, led me further from it.

 

[Tzaousios]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Based on what else you said in this OP, I am left still wondering why you think it is silly or how it can be considered an "argument" per se. Can you explain further?

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

It is good that you say you value them in theory, but can you provide some more specific examples of how you value them in practice? With all due respect, anyone can say that Mormonism is bunk with a vague allusion to it having no historical roots.

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

I think there can be a reason for it, too. However, how it is applied by many Protestants in actual practice is what makes it confusing and decontextualized from how the Reformers used it.

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions.

Each culture does have experiences and traditions, which subsequently are brought to bear on their readings of the Biblical text, and result in interpretations. This happens when both you and I read Scripture, too, right?

So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Once again, with all due respect, this sounds like a contradictory if not hypocritical statement after your declaration that you supposedly value history and tradition for something.

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth.

Then how do you explain the fact that you always provide interpretations that just happen to coincide quite easily with Reformed and Calvinistic exegetical traditions? Please don't say that you "merely repeat what the Bible plainly says"...

If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

Not necessarily. This statement creates a false dilemma by excluding any middle ground in one's acceptance of commentary.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

A Bible in the King's English?

 

[Knee V]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

I'll echo what I and T said above.

But I think that the root of my disagreement with what you said here lies in your belief that God's revelation is a book. I couldn't disagree more. His Revelation is a Person; the book bears witness to that revelation. The way to know that revelation is to know the Person, and the way to know the person is in the context of His body, which, being the very body of the incarnate God, is itself the pillar and ground of truth. The book comes from within that context, and is only understood in that context. The book is a product of the life of the body of the incarnate God, and is a tool that it uses; but the book does not give legitimacy to the church, nor is it God's revelation. Rather, it is the body that gives legitimacy to the book.

 

[LBP]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

I would disagree 1000%, if that were possible. The revelation of God is in the person of Jesus and the working of the Holy Spirit in one's life and the lives of others. Your final paragraph is staggering to me. There is a grain of truth in that I don't doubt that some members of the tribe would be saved (but some people are saved without ever seeing a Bible at all). Given enough time, however, your "civilized tribe" would eventually look like the fussin' and feudin' folks on Christian Forums or the 30,000+ warring denominations -- not a pretty picture.

Equally staggering to me is your assertion that biblical truth remains the same no matter who reads it. I am always troubled by the fact that, if the Bible really were God's sole message to mankind, the message seemingly could and should have been delivered a lot more succinctly, clearly and definitively than in what I have described on another recent thread as (IMHO) 60% primitive hogwash, 20% demented ravings and 20% profound historical and spiritual truth. While I am willing to cut God a lot of slack (big of me, eh?) because his ways are not our ways and whatnot, it is really difficult for me to hypothesize any reason that the Almighty Creator of the Universe would have presented his one and only message to mankind in a book with so many flaws and subject to so many interpretations that it has set people at each other's throats (figuratively and literally) for centuries. It seems to me that Bible literalism and idolatry are at the root of what is wrong with much of what tries to pass for Christianity today. My approach has been to distill the Bible to a 3-page summary that I believe captures the gist of the message and to pretty much ignore the rest of it.

Regarding Mormonism, it certainly does have historical roots. Unfortunately, when those historical roots are closely examined, they don't inspire confidence. Nor does the history of the Americas as set forth in the Book of Mormon, which is demonstrably false. Even if I happened to find the teachings of Mormonism or Scientology fantastically appealing, I would still reject them because their historical roots inspire zero confidence. If I want an invented religion, I can invent my own. The only history of Christianity that I really care about is the existence and resurrection of Jesus, on which the religion stands or falls. When that history is closely examined, it does (IMHO) inspire confidence.

 

[Skala]

To answer all of your questions above:

Honest to goodness: exegesis

My goal when I'm reading the Bible is to extract what the author intended me to. I want to walk away with the conclusion the author intended for me.

There were some accusations of my interpretations "always lining up with the reformers", but is that a bad thing? It's not as if the reformers were some strange group that suddenly appeared on the scene out of no where and had no connections or knowledge about the religion that existed before them. They knew how theology had been shaped and changed. They knew history. In fact, Luther was an "Augustinian Monk", so he was after a tradition that was a thousand years before his time.

And it can't be denied that the reformers and puritans were some of the best exegetes in our history. To say that my interpretations "line up with Reformed theology" because I'm reformed is just silly, and is actually backwards from the truth. It's a chicken and egg situation. The reason I consider myself reformed because of what was shown to me to be in the Bible, not vice versa. I don't "see" reformed ideas in the Bible because I was first reformed. That could only be true if you were raised in the reformed tradition, which I was not. I was originally a staunch Arminian, your typical free will embracing Baptist.

I can't respond to every reply that has been given, but here's some ones:

To be fair, every time we use the Biblical canon, we are trusting in what some "early Christians said".

True, but ultimately we're trusting God to guide his church and establish his canon through those men, right?

Any sillier than "What the Bible says is..." which always ends up meaning "What I and my particular tradition thinks you should believe is what the Bible says"?

Not necessarily true if your goal is exegesis. Which mine is. So my defense is exegesis (drawing out the intended meaning of the text). What is the EO's goal? it can't be exegesis because you guys seem to put a lot of stock in tradition, almost to be equal with scripture. This is a disagreement that I don't see us reconciling. I fully agree with the reformers that scripture alone is the final authority on matters of faith and practice.

I also agree with the reformers "semper reformanda" which means "always reforming". We should always be checking ourself to see if we have strayed from the path. But in order to do so, you have to establish what that standard is, and to us, that is the Bible. hence sola scriptura. It i sthe standard that we are constantly checking ot see if we match up with it.

If one assigns tradition as an authority, he cannot "semper reformanda" can he? Because if tradition is authority, then your current situation might have become tradition. So there is no objective unchanging standard to measure up against.

Regarding my OP, I feel that something important is missed by you guys. And that is, the early church wasn't focused on many of the doctrines we talk about today. Instead, they were more focused on foundational doctrines such as the Trinity, and the person of Christ. They had a lot of work to do in establishing "essential" doctrines that could lay the foundation for future generations, and didn't have time to mess with non-essentials like monergism and synergism.

However, not surprisingly, these doctrines (such as predestination, monergism/synergism) did eventually arise as the focal point of controversy. You could say after the dust was settled from the hard work of the early christians, it wasn't long before more and more issues arose that needed to be addressed - and addressed they were.

What I'm trying to say is, doctrine is established over time, and partly due to the controversies that arise. The church encounters an issue, they deal with it, and they leave their conclusions behind for future generations. I'm convinced this is what happened regarding monergism in the early 500's. (Council of Orange) It's not as if the things us Calvinists debate on the forums is some new idea to church history. Christians were already talking about it and making conclusions thousands of years ago.

In other words, just because a doctrine wasn't talked about yet, doesn't mean it's not true, not important, or not worth talking about now.

You guys appeal to ECF, but ironically, we can find statements from them to support almost any stance. I've seen both Calvinists and Arminians quote ECF in support of both sides of the issue. That is, you can find ECFs talking about free will, but you can also find them talking about God's control of all things and predestination. (as a side note, this proves to me that considering their stance of God controlling all things, when they talk about free will they simply mean the ability of choice - they don't mean the Libertarian Free will that is necessary for synergism/arminianism, but I digress) This is just one more example of a concept in theology that needs to time to grow and be expounded upon.

To me, much light is shed, I feel, when I consider the fact that the reformation, in their desire re-capturing old ideas, were vehemently opposed to synergism, and so strong on the stances of God's absolute control and monergism. It tells me that my current understanding of God's sovereignty and monergistic salvation, is deeply rooted in church history. It was the resounding affirmation of my Christian ancestors, traced all through history.

That is not to say there were not also synergists in church history, but it means that you cannot simply dismiss monergism/Calvinism with a wave of the hand. Nor can you dismiss the things we discuss on these forums as being non important, or dismiss them as "framing the conversation in a way the early church didn't understand", because as I hope I've laid out here, that is irrelevant.

A Bible in the King's English?

Their own language of course

 

[Tzaousios]

Skala, can you please address the specifics of my reply? Thank you.

 

[Skala]

My approach has been to distill the Bible to a 3-page summary that I believe captures the gist of the message and to pretty much ignore the rest of it.

So, you obviously consider this the best tactic (because that's what you do). And would you say you'd recommend that everyone adopted this tactic, too?

The thing is, this is nothing but subjective preference serving as the foundation for each individual.

The end result is the very thing you take issue with (the varying denominations and interpretations and ideas)

If each person did what you do, and simply takes what they subjectively "feel" are the important bits, and ignore the rest, then we are left with...exactly what you argued against.

Kind of a self-refuting worldview isn't it? And yet you feel confident?

In my mind, your post did nothing but further establish the importance of a singular, objective, unchanging truth. (sola scriptura)

Somethings for your studies:

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/...-statements-defined-and-some-common-examples/

http://www.frame-poythress.org/self-refuting-statements/

 

[guuila]

So, you obviously consider this the best tactic (because that's what you do). And would you say you'd recommend that everyone adopted this tactic, too?

The thing is, this is nothing but subjective preference serving as the foundation for each individual.

The end result is the very thing you take issue with (the varying denominations and interpretations and ideas)

If each person did what you do, and simply takes what they subjectively "feel" are the important bits, and ignore the rest, then we are left with...exactly what you argued against.

Kind of a self-refuting worldview isn't it? And yet you feel confident?

Anything that is logically self-refuting shouldn't be entertained. It's not logical, it's intellectual dishonest and nonsensical.

Your post did nothing but further establish the importance of a singular, objective, unchanging truth. (sola scriptura) So, I thank you for your post, as it greatly advanced my cause!

Somethings for your studies:

Self-refuting statements defined and some common examples | Wintery Knight

http://www.frame-poythress.org/self-refuting-statements/

 

[Tzaousios]

Honest to goodness: exegesis

My goal when I'm reading the Bible is to extract what the author intended me to. I want to walk away with the conclusion the author intended for me.

That is a good goal to have. I am sure that many others across denominational lines have that goal as well. The questions remain: what is your specific exegetical methodology? does this method allow you every time to arrive at the conclusion that the author intended for you?

There were some accusations of my interpretations "always lining up with the reformers", but is that a bad thing?

Not necessarily, but it could become a problem if one considers how the early church fathers arrived at strikingly different conclusions than the Reformers. How do you reconcile this when they were closer chronologically as well as contextually to the original apostles than the Reformers?

They knew history. In fact, Luther was an "Augustinian Monk", so he was after a tradition that was a thousand years before his time.

Indeed, and Luther, as well as Calvin, when they read the church fathers preceding Augustine, usually wrote them off or re-interpreted within the exegetical canal that Augustine had plowed.

And it can't be denied that the reformers and puritans were some of the best exegetes in our history.

If you, Skala, were to compare the exegetical methodologies of the reformers and puritans with that of the early church fathers, what is the main distinction between them that permitted the former group to exegete the truth?

The reason I consider myself reformed because of what was shown to me to be in the Bible, not vice versa. I don't "see" reformed ideas in the Bible because I was first reformed. That could only be true if you were raised in the reformed tradition, which I was not. I was originally a staunch Arminian, your typical free will embracing Baptist.

This could simply mean that you either consciously or subconsciously replaced your previous, internalized presuppositions concerning how the Bible should be interpreted with a new or different set of presuppositions, could it not?

Not necessarily true if your goal is exegesis. Which mine is. So my defense is exegesis (drawing out the intended meaning of the text).

How does your exegetical methodology happen to draw out the unvarnished truth (i.e. "what the Bible plainly says") while others (presumably in your estimation) consistently draw out untruth?

Regarding my OP, I feel that something important is missed by you guys. And that is, the early church wasn't focused on many of the doctrines we talk about today. Instead, they were more focused on foundational doctrines such as the Trinity, and the person of Christ. They had a lot of work to do in establishing "essential" doctrines that could lay the foundation for future generations, and didn't have time to mess with non-essentials like monergism and synergism.

This simply is not true. While many of the very early ones, such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Ignatius, etc. were concerned with foundational doctrines, they and many others spent considerable time discussing the human and divine wills, divine grace and human freedom, and their various interrelationships. To mention a few, John Chrysostom, Makarios of Egypt, and Maximos the Confessor feature these themes prominently in their writings.

What I'm trying to say is, doctrine is established over time, and partly due to the controversies that arise. The church encounters an issue, they deal with it, and they leave their conclusions behind for future generations. I'm convinced this is what happened regarding monergism in the early 500's. (Council of Orange) It's not as if the things us Calvinists debate on the forums is some new idea to church history. Christians were already talking about it and making conclusions thousands of years ago.

If this is what you think about the relationship between historical context and theological development, then why are the early church fathers consistently faulted for holding a synergistic position?

You guys appeal to ECF, but ironically, we can find statements from them to support almost any stance. I've seen both Calvinists and Arminians quote ECF in support of both sides of the issue. That is, you can find ECFs talking about free will, but you can also find them talking about God's control of all things and predestination.

The same thing can be done with the statements of the Reformers. Neocalvinists on the internet are especially apt at mixing and matching various Reformed statements to match their personal views. For example, many Neocalvinists are staunchly calvinistic when it comes to soteriology, but when it comes to questions of episcopal authority, efficacy of baptism and the sacraments, they reject Luther and sometimes Calvin for the radical views of Zwingli.

 

[little bubbe]

The entire New Testament is formed from what 'early' Christians believed is it not? Why would anyone value post New Testament commentary over the New Testament itself?

 

[pshun2404]

To me, I think the argument that "early Christians said..." is silly.

Don't get me wrong, I value tradition and history. For example, I can easily dismiss Mormonism not only on the grounds of "It doesn't match the Bible", but also on the grounds of "It has no historical roots".

That being said, there is a reason for the doctrine of "sola scriptura".

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Me, in the "now", can pick up the text and see for myself what it says, to get the objective truth. If I was expected to rely on the commentary of any particular person or people group, then those writings would be scripture.

But right now, I feel like I can take the Bible to some uncivilized tribe in the jungle and just toss it to them, and leave with no explanation, and God would use the message contained within to save souls. They'd easily be able to understand its assertions and conclusions.

However, what those who are followers of John Calvin's interpretations fail to realize is that the "early Christians" believed the Scriptures are the final authority in ALL matters of faith and doctrine. All there positions are founded and confirmed therein.

Paul

 

[pshun2404]

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Strange that when someone came along 1500 years later and took to the other extreme Augustine warned about not being the truth, you hang your hat only on his peg.

Paul

 

[guuila]

However, what those who are followers of John Calvin's interpretations fail to realize is that the "early Christians" believed the Scriptures are the final authority in ALL matters of faith and doctrine. All there positions are founded and confirmed therein.

Paul

What's up with you and the John Calvin red herring? Seriously - why do you always do that? Do you honestly think monergism was invented by John Calvin? How many times do we have to correct you on this?

 

[Skala]

The whole point of God's revelation being in an unchanging, written format is so the truth remains the same throughout time, no matter who reads it. Each culture has different ideas and experiences and traditions. So what "some guy" said 2000 years ago is ultimately irrelevant to me. (though it may be helpful)

Strange that when someone came along 1500 years later and took to the other extreme Augustine warned about not being the truth, you hang your hat only on his peg.

Paul

Um, it's like you don't know that Calvin agreed with Augustine.

 

[seeingeyes]

True, but ultimately we're trusting God to guide his church and establish his canon through those men, right?

Right. But that argument can be used for any number of other traditions as well. There is nothing historically that sets the tradition of the canon apart from, say, the tradition of using a certain rite to accompany baptism, or the tradition of Christian feasts.

 

[Ignatius21]

Um, it's like you don't know that Calvin agreed with Augustine.

Don't appeal to Augustine please. That's just silly ;-)

 

[Tzaousios]

Um, it's like you don't know that Calvin agreed with Augustine.

What do you mean? Augustine did not believe in Double Predestination.

Also, I hope that you might find the time to look at my reply to you in post #12 above. Thanks!