Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

[LittleLambofJesus]

I strongly agree.

Of course you do. Your a Catholic

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7004034&page=46
What sets Catholics/Orthodox above Protestant churches?

 

[simonthezealot]

It makes no logical sense that they would 'know' which was scriptures, which was gnostic, and yet were unable to give an account of those same scriptures.

You seem to know not the power of the HS...Whom used the jackass to speak truth.

 

[simonthezealot]

Dear LLOJ,

Yes, and there was a wonderful exhibition last year at the British Library where there were copies of the early codices on display.

You can see, quite clearly that the earlier codices we have are not consonant with the canon of the NT we now have.

Fact. The Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
But the Codex Sinaiticus has bound as Scripture Hermas and Barnabas; the Alexandrinus has 1 Clement in it.

Problem: Which Scriptura are actually inspired?

Answer: The books which the tradition of the Church decided were inspired - and the Church did not agree with the compilers of the earliest known complete codices, so the Church omitted 1 Clement, Hermas and Barnabas (but held they were edifying and should be read).

Further problem: Why do Sola Scriptura Protestants accept the book the Church edited but not the Church which edited it?

Answer: ????

Peace,

Anglian

SSer's recognise it by the inspiration of the HS! your post only proves
they were a mixed up bunch they couldn't figure which did and which did not have a right to be canonized...And it's proved as well by the early churches complete lack of unity in this regard! remember this thread I started...
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47847399&postcount=1

Goes hand in hand.

 

[Anglian]

SSer's recognise it by the inspiration of the HS! your post only proves
they were a mixed up bunch they couldn't figure which did and which did not have a right to be canonized...And it's proved as well by the early churches complete lack of unity in this regard! remember this thread I started...
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47847399&postcount=1

Goes hand in hand.

Dear Simon,

I don't see this. The earliest books contain texts which were edited out not by SSrs, but by the Church. The Church was not, unlike the SSrs, mixed up; it saw which were and were not Inspired Scripture. You only have the NT you have because the Church decided on it. You didn't, LLOJ didn't, none of us did.

On your logic, if the Codex Alexandrinus had not be edited by the Church, you'd have been telling us all that 1 Clement was inspired Scripture.

I'm sorry, but if you believe in the book, then you should believe in the earliest book, surely? Why do you accept the book the Church canonised but not the Church; your position has chutzpah. You accept the book canonised by the Church and them tell us that the Holy Spirit tells you what it means. But if you told us the HS told you that 1 Clement was wrong excluded (as some now hold), we'd have no argument against your 'voice'.

You would appear to be claiming for your self the infallibility that you deny the Roman Pope. Good game, but not one anyone else can join. In the end it involves your believing what you say the Spirit tells you; how that differs from what you choose to believe is a question none of us can answer without being offensive.

The fact remains that the NT canon you read was not decided by yourself or what the HS tells you; it was decided by the tradition of the early Church, which you accept here and reject elsewhere; that is what seems a little 'mixed up'. But hey, as long as you accept the book canonised by the Church, that's what matters, I guess.

Peace

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The fact remains that the NT canon you read was not decided by yourself or what the HS tells you; it was decided by the tradition of the early Church, which you accept here and reject elsewhere; that is what seems a little 'mixed up'. But hey, as long as you accept the book canonised by the Church, that's what matters, I guess.

Peace

Anglian

"Just da Scriptures Ma'am, just da Scriptures"

 

[Montalban]

You seem to know not the power of the HS...Whom used the jackass to speak truth.

Protestants seem to think that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church which quickly became apostate, but came back to work with the church to compile the Bible, but only for that and then left again, to return 1500 years later and work with Martin Luther

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Protestants seem to think that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church which quickly became apostate, but came back to work with the church to compile the Bible, but only for that and then left again, to return 1500 years later and work with Martin Luther

What, ya think that thar pope is da only one to have da HS.....

 

[Ramon96]

Protestants seem to think that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church which quickly became apostate, but came back to work with the church to compile the Bible, but only for that and then left again, to return 1500 years later and work with Martin Luther

Exactly! Its like a "hit and run" thing.

They want to accept a man-made doctrine of Solo-Scriptural, but the Church had the ultimate authority in determining the Canon of the Holy Scriptures not Scriptures, so there belief backfires. Without the ECF's, we would have no "Bible". It seems some Protestants what to accept the authority of the Church when it fits there needs.

I have yet to see a Protestant give a solid Scripture proving Solo-Scriptural.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Anglian]

"Just da Scriptures Ma'am, just da Scriptures"

Dear LLOJ,

But that's the point. Which edition? The earliest surviving books or the one authorised by the Church? That would be the same Church which Protestants imagine had fallen into apostasy by the fourth and fifth centuries.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[MamaZ]

So far MamaZ's argument that the Gospel is inspired, is because it is. Whereas Clement isn't, because it isn't.

Those who have the Holy Spirit in them are taught by the Holy Spirit. Therefore if the writings do not bear witness with the Spirit of Christ in us then it goes to show that this writing may be of religious writings but not Scripture breathed by God.

 

[MamaZ]

So when, after Judas died, and they chose a successor to him, Matthias' teachings carried less weight than did Paul, because Matthias was chosen by men and Paul was chosen by God?

One must ask who really chose Matthias. Read the whole account of how this man was chosen.

 

[MamaZ]

Dear LLOJ,

Indeed, and who best to 'unfuzzy' it than the Church which decided what it was in the first place? After all, if those guys were up to spotting that 1 Clement wasn't Apostolic, why assume the other things they thought weren't equally worth reading?

Peace,

Anglian

Once again giving power to man instead of the sovereign God. For what is in the cannon of the 66 books is what God intended to be there. The other books were never even thought of scripture by the earliest of church fathers.

 

[Yarddog]

Hello Simon,
I'm not sure what you think that your proving against Anglian but you seem to help his point.

The chester beatty papyra predates Romes power grab it is from when the churches were operated by a multiplicity of elders...

If you hadn't noticed, Anglian is not Roman Catholic, he's Orthodox and I'm sure that he may agree.

The papyri are believed to be from the 3rd century and are most likely the product of the Egyptian Church. This area produced many of the ECFs.

Prior to much of the ECF writings and it contained gospels acts and epistles...The earliest ecf's relied VERY heavily on scripture...SO your all wet on this one Anglian, the tiber swimmer.

The ECFs predate the Beatty papyri and we all know that they relied heavily on scriptures.
Anglian is talking about caring for those great men that followed the Apostles. These men faced far many more dangers than most christians of today do. Being appointed Bishop was a death sentence in many cases but these men accepted God's will for them. Most of these men did not die a natural death, they were executed, many of them being tortured horribly before the end came.

When I read the letters of Ignatius, I am in complete awe. Here is a man that was the Bishop of Antioch and Syria. He was sentence to go to Rome and to die by being eaten by lions because he refuse to turn away from Christ. He relished the idea of dying for his faith.

During his journey to Rome he wrote a number of letters to Churches in Asia encouraging them to keep the faith. He also sent a letter to the Romans asking them to not do anything to stop his execution.

Anyone who truely had the Spirit of God alive within them could see the wonderful faith that the ECFs had. Even though they disagreed on certain items of faith, they still had a undeniable desire to remain unified as One Church.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Montalban]

One must ask who really chose Matthias. Read the whole account of how this man was chosen.

I know how he was chosen. Why do you think it was different from how Clement was chosen to be a bishop?

 

[Montalban]

Those who have the Holy Spirit in them are taught by the Holy Spirit. Therefore if the writings do not bear witness with the Spirit of Christ in us then it goes to show that this writing may be of religious writings but not Scripture breathed by God.

And how do you know which have the Holy Spirit in them?

Really, after several days of 'discussing' this issue, you've offered nothing but circular logic and 'just-so' statements.

 

[Montalban]

What, ya think that thar pope is da only one to have da HS.....

Check out what religion I am before you make strange statements like that

 

[Montalban]

Exactly! Its like a "hit and run" thing.

They want to accept a man-made doctrine of Solo-Scriptural, but the Church had the ultimate authority in determining the Canon of the Holy Scriptures not Scriptures, so there belief backfires. Without the ECF's, we would have no "Bible". It seems some Protestants what to accept the authority of the Church when it fits there needs.

I have yet to see a Protestant give a solid Scripture proving Solo-Scriptural.

Blessings,
Ramon

Well I had this as an open challenge on this thread. I bumped it forward three times.

The only person who tried was MamaZ who confused two concepts
a) The Bible is 100% inspired by God
with
b) the Bible is the only God inspired work

She showed verses that showed a) to prove b)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I know how he was chosen. Why do you think it was different from how Clement was chosen to be a bishop?

Hi. How come he wasn't made a pope instead?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7265052&page=4
The Greek word for Clement in Phil 4:3

 

[Anglian]

Dear MamaZ,

Once again giving power to man instead of the sovereign God. For what is in the cannon of the 66 books is what God intended to be there. The other books were never even thought of scripture by the earliest of church fathers.

I fear your last sentence is not accurate. Irenaeus, who gives us one of the earliest lists that include all four gospels, do not include all the books we now receive.

The Codex Alexandrinus is one of the earliest surviving complete codexes, and it has 1 Clement bound in as Scripture with all the books we now receive. The even earlier Codex Sinaiticus has Hermas and Barnabas as Scripture. The Beatty Papyri mentioned by Simon do not have all the books the Church later received.

Had the Church - inspired, I would say, but God, not decided to leave out the books mentioned, and not decided to put in books such as the epistles of St. James, St. John and St. Jude, as well as 2 Peter, you and I would not have the canon we have now.

My point is not that the Scriptures are not inspired; I hold them to be so. It is that the text we receive was canonised by God's hand through His Church. It was not decided on by any Protestant figure - indeed, one of the first of these, Luther, thought of dropping St. James.

Protestants only have the NT text as we all have it because of the Church; if it was guided by God to canonise Scripture, it just seems sensible not to make the made made assumption that He later abandoned it.

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

My point is not that the Scriptures are not inspired; I hold them to be so. It is that the text we receive was canonised by God's hand through His Church. It was not decided on by any Protestant figure - indeed, one of the first of these, Luther, thought of dropping St. James.

Greetings Anglian. How do you define a protestant? That is the same as a CHRIST-ian isn't it?

Btw, is there any record by the ECFs of an "antipas" that is mentioned in Reve 2:13? Thanks.

Reve 2:13 I have seen the works of thee and where thou are dwelling the-where the throne of the Satan and thou are holding the name of Me, and not disown the faith of Me even in the days Antipas/antipaV <493>, the witness of Me, the faithful, who was killed beside ye where the Satan is dwelling.