What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?

[Hmm]

So to me at least, it seems that your motivation must be to throw out the ECF all together as a source that should be considered in evaluating an issue, where they are fairly uniform and disagree with your theological beliefs.

Of course, that's just my speculation.

Well, the only way to know someone's motivation is to ask them.

Do you think biblical scholarship in all it's many faceted areas has no use at all then?

 

[chilehed]

Not "preposterous" at allnif you allow yourself to think about it.

I did think about it. It's an absurd idea.

Did you never misunderstand anything ever said to you by any of your teachers at school. Well?

You accuse me of being uncivil, after that snarky (and silly) comment?

 

[Hmm]

I did think about it. It's an absurd idea.

Convincing.

 

[Tony B]

That’s all well and good, but scripture has the final say on doctrines - the Holy Spirit does not replace scripture.

No, that's true...He is the source of scripture, He inspired it.

It is indicated in scripture though, that for those that have been born again of the Spirit of God, they have received the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, and it is He Who will be teaching them (counselling, comforting them, and leading them into all truth).

When it says the HS leads us to truth, it means He reveals scriptural truth to us as we study the scriptures.

Please don't blaspheme God, bring Him down to our level, by using initials to name Him.

Where does it say we won’t need teaching?

Jeremiah. God speaking through him said there would be a time that neither neighbour or brother will need to teach each other, since God will write His laws on their minds and hearts. That has happened to me, so I have deduced we must be in those times that Jeremiah foretold about.

I agree with you though, that we can all learn from each other, and the ability to teach is an important tool in the toolbox of an overseer. Didn't Paul say we ought teach each other in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, too.

But I haven't sat at the foot of a teacher to learn, nor have I watched those religious shows on TV. God has taught me direct by putting His thoughts into my mind. He has used men in the past to point out a scripture that I had missed too. Interestingly enough, one of those incidents was a word given by an Episcopalian Priest that was visiting us from the US, when he said...you know, we are all priests, check out what the apostle Peter wrote about us, spiritual Israel, being a holy nation and a royal priesthood.

Thanks for the heads up..I will edit my original post with a better explanation of what I was meaning to say.

 

[Hmm]

You accuse me of being uncivil, after that snarky (and silly) comment?

I presume you mean my snarky (and silly) question. Perhaps you could answer it?

 

[Gregorikos]

Yes, but would that knowledge necessarily have been available even as early as one hundred years after the early church times? I'm thinking in particular of the New Perspective on Paul in which its protagonists believe that Christian understanding about Judaism (especially about how Jews did not really differentiate faith from works the way Christians did. For Jews, works followed naturally from faith as obedience would to someone you loved and trusted) up to that point was wrong. They came to this view from talking to and reading actual Jewish theolgians.

Some would, some wouldn't. I don't know how the early Church Fathers would have impacted the NPP debate, and I wouldn't put excessive stock in it. Who knows if their theology was right or not three or four hundred years after Christ? That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about.

But consider the Greek statement in Romans 16:7 and the question of Junia/Junias, and whether this person was a man or woman, and whether an apostle or simply well known to the apostles? What did Paul mean by that Greek sentence?

Why would we not consider pre-eminent the understanding of John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) , the Archbishop of Constantinople.. the "first among equals" of the Greek Orthodox church, who read, preached and taught directly from the Greek Old and New Testaments in a time much closer to Paul?

No, but instead we had a bunch of know-it-all modern scholars who ignored what Chrysostom said and gave Junia a sex change for about a hundred years, before finally recanting, and even now ascribe to the illogical position that she wasn't an apostle at all.

 

[Swag365]

Well, the only way to know someone's motivation is to ask them.

Do you think biblical scholarship in all it's many faceted areas has no use at all then?

I asked you.

Modern biblical scholarship is useful.

 

[Gregorikos]

Christians are lead and taught by The Holy Spirit.

There is scripture that says God is Spirit, and another that says spiritual truths can only be spiritually discerned.

Jesus said we must be born twice...the second birth refers to our spiritual birth, ie our spirit is brought to life.

There is a promise from God, that if we are born again then we will receive the indwelling of The Holy Spirit.

Scripture implies in part that when we receive the indwelling of The Holy Spirit, That Spirit will counsel and comfort us, and lead us into all truth. Therefore He will be teaching each one of us directly, One on one as it were.

So in my opinion the deduction would be....no, it would make no difference if we were born in Jesus' time or now...we are being taught the exact same truths by the exact same Spirit. He imparts understanding to us, and that understanding is timeless.

Your reasoning leaves no room for teachers in the Body of Christ. It's just "me and the Holy Spirit." But I'm sure you know from the Scriptures that God placed teachers in the body for a reason. And if we have teachers, we want those who have knowledge of the Scriptures and their context. The early Fathers often provide valuable context.

 

[Hmm]

Why would we not consider pre-eminent the understanding of John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) , the Archbishop of Constantinople.. the "first among equals" of the Greek Orthodox church, who read, preached and taught directly from the Greek Old and New Testaments in a time much closer to Paul?

No, but instead we had a bunch of know-it-all modern scholars who ignored what Chrysostom

I'm not familiar with the Junia/Junias debate or any if it's implications but, to give a general response, 300+ years seems quite a long time to me and I would expect that a more contemporary scholar with all the modern tools available to him or her would probably be more accurate. That's just my feeling though and I can't really back it up but what's why I asked the question!

 

[Hmm]

I asked you.

Modern biblical scholarship is useful.

Yes, sorry, you did in the quote below. I missed the question at the end:

My guess is that you want to throw out the ECF completely in areas whey they disagree with your theology (perhaps the Real Presence, for example). Would that be a fair guess?

No, I really don't want to throw the ECFs out at all. One proof of that is that I don't really know what they say! I was just wondering if the tools and techniques that are now available to modern biblical scholarship mean that we can have a better understanding now of NT times and the writers of scripture thought than earlier commentators and teachers would have had, sound counter intuitive that that may seem.

I'm an Anglican but I don't particularly favour the Real Presence view over transubstantiation. I believe Jesus's resurrected body could be actually present in the bread and wine if He wished it to be but I'm not sure what difference it would make to me anyway. It wouldn't make me regard the Eucharist with any more reverence than I do now.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Not "preposterous" at allnif you allow yourself to think about it. Future historians and linguists is very likely to understand the cultural and language of your country better than you do unless you think you have a perfect knowledge of these things. Do you?

Modern scholars do not know how the ancient Hebrews pronounced the Tetragrammaton (YHWH).

 

[Hmm]

How does that relate to understanding scripture?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It relates to understanding the languages in which Scripture was written...

 

[Hmm]

Pronunciation doesn't relate to the meaning of language, unless it's a play on words. Who knows what local accents tbe apostles had.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, sorry, you did in the quote below. I missed the question at the end:



No, I really don't want to throw the ECFs out at all. One proof of that is that I don't really know what they say! I was just wondering if the tools and techniques that are now available to modern biblical scholarship mean that we can have a better understanding now of NT times and the writers of scripture thought than earlier commentators and teachers would have had, sound counter intuitive that that may seem.

I'm an Anglican but I don't particularly favour the Real Presence view over transubstantiation. I believe Jesus's resurrected body could be actually present in the bread and wine if He wished it to be but I'm not sure what difference it would make to me anyway. It wouldn't make me regard the Eucharist with any more reverence than I do now.

 

[bling]

One thing that surprised me when I first started reading on this forum were the frequent appeals to the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. I understand the point being made that the nearer the writer lived to NT times, the better their understanding must be. But is that true? Doesn't a modern theologian or Bible scholar have a better grasp of the language and times that scripture was written in than the early writers could possibly have had and doesn't that make them more accurate in what they tell us about what scripture means?

Edited to add that I don't have an issue with the Early Church Fathers (or any fathers come to that hopefully!). I was really asking whether Biblical understanding increases over time instead of decreasing, much like science builds on what's gone on before even though it often rewrites it.

Some people like to say: “These really early Church Fathers spoke Greek, so they would knew it better”, but that is not true, since we are talking about 100 years+ after John’s last letter and in that time the koine Greek had become corrupted by that time especially in countries outside of Greece. Scholars today have over 40,000 manuscripts in first century Greek to consult.

A good “grasp of the language” is really not the problem, but allowing the indwelling Holy Spirit to lead you is always the problem. To many time people go to find scripture to support for their doctrine, instead of allowing scripture to form their doctrine. Fast, pray a lot, meditate, question your motives, have the right reason for knowing, consult with others of like convection and avoid looking for your answers from sources outside of scripture is the best.

 

[Hmm]

Fast, pray a lot, meditate, question your motives, have the right reason for knowing, consult with others of like convection and avoid looking for your answers from sources outside of scripture is the best.

These are all very important points and very easily overlooked, not least fasting! I believe in Sola Scriptura because scripture contains all we need for our salvation although I find it hard to read the Bible alone . To me, consulting good books is like consulting "others of like conviction" and my preference is to consult as widely as I can - which isn't anywhere as widely as I'd like it to be - and learn in a gradual fashion. I'm also quite comfortable with the idea that our knowledge will always be partial, "through a glass darkly", in this world but of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to grow as best we can. We are commanded to have mature minds after all.

 

[Light of the East]

So in my opinion the deduction would be....no, it would make no difference if we were born in Jesus' time or now...we are being taught the exact same truths by the exact same Spirit. He imparts understanding to us, and that understanding is timeless.

You joke, right?

I mean, there are hundreds of different teachings in Protestantism, all differing with each other and yet all claiming that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" and the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

And if the teaching regarding the Eucharist is not the same now as it was in the beginning, how can you say that we are being taught the exact same truths now as the Holy Spirit taught in the first century?

 

[Hmm]

I mean, there are hundreds of different teachings in Protestantism, all differing with each other and yet all claiming that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" and the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

You're obviously not a fan of Protestantism but to say it portrays the Holy Spirit as schizophrenic is crass. I'm sure you wouldn't want someobet saying that about your own denomination. Do unto others yeah?

 

[pescador]

You joke, right?

I mean, there are hundreds of different teachings in Protestantism, all differing with each other and yet all claiming that they are being "led by the Holy Spirit" and the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit schizophrenic?

And if the teaching regarding the Eucharist is not the same now as it was in the beginning, how can you say that we are being taught the exact same truths now as the Holy Spirit taught in the first century?

There is only one teaching in Catholicism, and therein lies the problem. Can you spell "dogma", as in rigid dogma?

God did not intend for us to be robots. As you may or may not know, the various "books" of the Bible differ from each other, proving that the Holy Spirit equips the saints with independent minds.

You all think your dogma and/or the Pope are infallible. There is no basis for such rigid thinking. None.