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

[Albion]

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?

You might as well say that all the liturgical churches are in disagreement with each other tsk tsk.

There isn't any "The Protestant Church" to be either in order or in disarray.

 

[pescador]

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

They didn't pronounce it! God's name was considered too sacred to be used, i.e., one didn't address God on a first name basis.

 

[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?

Because the Holy Spirit is part of the unchanging Godhead.

 

[hedrick]

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?

Because he lived 300 years later, in a very different culture, and the early church's attitude on gender and sex was insane.

 

[Valletta]

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.

Popes are not infallible, popes are sinners and can go to Heaven or hell. I disagree with Pope Francis on many things.

 

[pescador]

Popes are not infallible, popes are sinners and can go to Heaven or hell. I disagree with Pope Francis on many things.

You disagree with the Pope on many things? Congratulations! How about joining the Protestant church? We believe in and follow Jesus Christ and the infallibility of the Bible.

 

[Andrewn]

the early church's attitude on gender and sex was insane.

?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

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

It often does, even in English.

 

[Hmm]

It often does, even in English.

Give me one example.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Q. What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?
A. Prayerful guidance of God's Spirit and seeking to know the truth of God's Word through the scriptures.

 

[Hmm]

Q. What's more accurate, Early Church Father writings or modern scholarship?
A. Prayerful guidance of God's Spirit and seeking to know the truth of God's Word through the scriptures.

I agree but I'd just add that because the Holy Spirit also guided the ECFs and scholars since then, because God honours every sincere attempt to discover truth, we can access that guidance too, as we can from talking to people we encounter too.

Of course guidance doesn't mean doing the work for them as every teacher would know. The ECF's writings and works of scholarship are still written from the writer's own perspective and influenced by their prejudices. I heard it described once as God's word written in the words of man. Infallibility just doesn't come into it.

 

[Swag365]

How about joining the Protestant church?

Which one? How about yours? What church do you belong to?

 

[jacks]

I'd say the early writers probably had a better understanding. (Though there have been many good arguments otherwise and for "it depends" in this thread) The reason I lean towards the earlier writers is based on my own experience. When things I lived through personally are retold as history by modern writers, they never quite get it right. There are subtleties and nuances that just aren't captured. By omitting what are seemingly minor details, the overall picture is distorted. Studying something, is not the same as having lived it.

 

[Swag365]

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.

It's tough to declare a winner on that one. Both groups, old and modern, have their various advantages. Regardless, I think it's been demonstrated that we cannot attain the complete truth merely as matter of intellectual processes. The Holy Spirit has to been involved at some level, whether you view that as individual guidance or guidance given to the Church at large.

 

[Hmm]

It's tough to declare a winner on that one. Both groups, old and modern, have their various advantages. Regardless, I think it's been demonstrated that we cannot attain the complete truth merely as matter of intellectual processes. The Holy Spirit has to been involved at some level, whether you view that as individual guidance or guidance given to the Church at large.

Agreed. The Holy Spirit operates in many ways we're probably not even aware of.

 

[Hmm]

The ECF's writings and works of scholarship are still written from the writer's own perspective and influenced by their prejudices.

A bit weird to quote yourself but thinking about it, this could be one advantage modern scholars have over the ECFs, and no reflection on the ECFs. Scholars nowadays are probably more aware of subjective factors like these and try to minimise them as far as possible.

 

[parousia70]

How can I ignore the very plain words of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp when they were taught directly by the Apostle John?

Proximity to an apostle in no way guarantees correctness of doctrine... otherwise the Bible would have no documentation of the apostles own flocks falling into apostasy as many of them did.

 

[Tony B]

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?

Scripture tells us there is no changing in God, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever, and God and The Holy Spirit are one.

All the apostles reiterated Jesus' requirement/plea for unity in the church.

Many of us became Christian outside of any denomination, and choose to honour Jesus' plea for unity, so haven't joined up to anything knowing God has already joined us up to His church.

Our focus is on listening to The Holy Spirit, not so much to 'scholars', and doing our best to respond to His promptings to get rid of past immoral and ungodly behaviours which are of course foreign to God.

So therefore we are not prone to be dragged into what we feel are divisive arguments as to which denomination or non-denominational group, generation or theology has ascendency over the rest in any matter. We're more concerned about our moral behaviour, and in respect of that at least, The Holy Spirit's rulings in the days of the apostles are exactly the same as to what He is advocating now.

 

[Light of the East]

Scripture tells us there is no changing in God, and He is the same yesterday, today and forever, and God and The Holy Spirit are one.

All the apostles reiterated Jesus' requirement/plea for unity in the church.

Many of us became Christian outside of any denomination, and choose to honour Jesus' plea for unity, so haven't joined up to anything knowing God has already joined us up to His church.

Our focus is on listening to The Holy Spirit, not so much to 'scholars', and doing our best to respond to His promptings to get rid of past immoral and ungodly behaviours which are of course foreign to God.

So therefore we are not prone to be dragged into what we feel are divisive arguments as to which denomination or non-denominational group, generation or theology has ascendency over the rest in any matter. We're more concerned about our moral behaviour, and in respect of that at least, The Holy Spirit's rulings in the days of the apostles are exactly the same as to what He is advocating now.

You entirely dodged my whole point. Not to mention that your description of the Church is way off base.

Jesus taught the disciples "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood" The Apostles taught the next generation of Christians, who faithfully passed that teaching down for hundreds of years until Protestants thought they knew better.

You cannot have unity in disagreement, especially over something so important, since Christ taught that eternal life is found in the eating of His Flesh and the drinking of His Blood. Who gave any Protestant the right to change that which was taught for 1500 years?

Jesus taught baptism for the forgiveness of sins, including the baptism of little ones. This is why the Apostles and the next generations of Christians also taught this, right up until the Anabaptists decided they knew better.

This is not about "listening to the Holy Spirit." It is about men who thought they knew better than the Holy Spirit and have started their own religions because they thought they "found something" in the Bible. But when what they found disagrees with the men who learned directly from Christ....then there is a real problem.

 

[Light of the East]

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?

I don't belong to a "denomination." Check your history. Denominations started after the Protestant Reformation. Prior to that, there was one Church. Now that Church may have suffered a schism, but the basis of beliefs between Orthodox and Catholic is very close, unlike the extremes between various Protestant denominations. We understand one baptism for the remission of sins, for instance. Protestants can't agree on the methodology, whether it forgives sin or not, sprinkling or dunking, or dunking three times, etc.