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

[Yarddog]

Show me where any other than scripture is it written that is to be inspired of God? We do not see where tradtion is inspired by God. In fact we see where Jesus condemns tradtions that contradict the written word of God or adds to the written word of God.

What is Paul actually saying in these verses?
2 Timothy
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What does Paul mean by "All scripture"? He is talking about the inspired writings of what we call the OT, not what we now have as the Bible.

Paul had said in verse 15 "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

What writings NT books were there from Timothy's childhood? The OT scriptures.

Paul said this in verse 14 "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

Here is talking about the things that he has taught Timothy, not in writing but "orally". All of these teachings are not written down in the NT. That is why it is so important to also read what the ECFs, such as Clement, wrote. Clement, the one that Paul claimed was written in the Book of Life.

The traditions of the Church are the scriptures plus those things that were handed down from the Apostles to the ECFs through the spoken word. Where these spoken traditions were all agreed upon, throughout the whole Church, they became the canon.
In other words, where the teaching was consistant in Rome, Alexanderia, Caesarea, Ephesus, Antioch, Corinth, Arabia, etc....

We see where we are to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.. Gods breath. Then we see that scripture is indeed breathed by God.

There is no agruement about that.

So therefore this is what I as His am to live on.

But the Bible doesn't teach that. What you have is what you were taught by your church. This is not in the Bible and is actually the tradition of your Church.

IF scripture is suffecient to fully equip the man of God why would I need ECF to teach me?

Again it doesn't say sufficient, it says profitable for teaching. Paul clearly used these scriptures to teach what was further needed.

For I have the very Scriptures to teach me.

So do we and we also have many other Holy Spirit filled men.

I do not need men to teach me. For I have the annointing in me that teaches me. He is the Spirit of Truth. Jesus is Truth and God is True. Men on the other hand are fallable.. So therefore tradtions of men are not solid nor can they be trusted to lead you into truth. Show me where Jesus stated anything other than they word is truth.

So your traditions are not solid nor can they be trusted? You, as all men, are fallible.
I also have the annointing of the Spirit of God within me. But, I have read the scriptures for years and held an opinion about something. It was written, so I believed it. Then, the Spirit of God may speak to me and reveal a hidden truth about that very verse and I saw that my understanding hadn't been the truth. Many times we mistake our own ability to discern using our mind and spirit but mistake it for God's Spirit.
All christians can misinterpret the scripture.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[MamaZ]

If God chose these men to put the canon of the bible together, why do you not trust these same men for what was put into canon on other issues?

Yarddog

Because only Scripture is inspired of God. They put together what was already written. Therefore I trust in and obey what was written and not the men who put them together.

 

[MamaZ]

What is Paul actually saying in these verses?
2 Timothy
16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

What does Paul mean by "All scripture"? He is talking about the inspired writings of what we call the OT, not what we now have as the Bible.

Paul had said in verse 15 "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

What writings NT books were there from Timothy's childhood? The OT scriptures.

Paul said this in verse 14 "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

Here is talking about the things that he has taught Timothy, not in writing but "orally". All of these teachings are not written down in the NT. That is why it is so important to also read what the ECFs, such as Clement, wrote. Clement, the one that Paul claimed was written in the Book of Life.

The traditions of the Church are the scriptures plus those things that were handed down from the Apostles to the ECFs through the spoken word. Where these spoken traditions were all agreed upon, throughout the whole Church, they became the canon.
In other words, where the teaching was consistant in Rome, Alexanderia, Caesarea, Ephesus, Antioch, Corinth, Arabia, etc....

There is no agruement about that.


But the Bible doesn't teach that. What you have is what you were taught by your church. This is not in the Bible and is actually the tradition of your Church.

Again it doesn't say sufficient, it says profitable for teaching. Paul clearly used these scriptures to teach what was further needed.


So do we and we also have many other Holy Spirit filled men.

So your traditions are not solid nor can they be trusted? You, as all men, are fallible.
I also have the annointing of the Spirit of God within me. But, I have read the scriptures for years and held an opinion about something. It was written, so I believed it. Then, the Spirit of God may speak to me and reveal a hidden truth about that very verse and I saw that my understanding hadn't been the truth. Many times we mistake our own ability to discern using our mind and spirit but mistake it for God's Spirit.
All christians can misinterpret the scripture.

God Bless,
Yarddog

This has already been discussed. We see that the scripture even the NT cannot be broken. Back then yes they had the OT scriptures. But now we have both the NT and the OT all being scripture.. Therefore what Paul said then and wrote about is also binding upon us now with even the NT scripture. We do not have to rely upon what men interpret scripture to mean. We can go to the scripture ourselves now and the annointing in us will teach us what God is saying to His people.

 

[MamaZ]

It is a matter of Growing in the Lord. This is why Jesus tells us to continue in His word and we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Free from what? Free from having to rely upon man to understand the things of God for now we are born again and have Christ living in us to lead us into all truth and Jesus said that His word is truth..

 

[Yarddog]

This has already been discussed. We see that the scripture even the NT cannot be broken. Back then yes they had the OT scriptures. But now we have both the NT and the OT all being scripture.. Therefore what Paul said then and wrote about is also binding upon us now with even the NT scripture. We do not have to rely upon what men interpret scripture to mean. We can go to the scripture ourselves now and the annointing in us will teach us what God is saying to His people.

But that is not sola scripura.

Are you sola scriptura or go beyond scripture into the traditions of man that your Church now teaches?

 

[Yarddog]

It is a matter of Growing in the Lord. This is why Jesus tells us to continue in His word and we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Free from what? Free from having to rely upon man to understand the things of God for now we are born again and have Christ living in us to lead us into all truth and Jesus said that His word is truth..

This is the same as the ECFs. You have no more of the Holy Spirit than they had and they also had the direct teaching of the Apostles. Some of which you do not have not because you refuse to understand what the Apostles spoke and did not write.

 

[Gwendolyn]

We do not have to rely upon what men interpret scripture to mean. We can go to the scripture ourselves now and the annointing in us will teach us what God is saying to His people.

What if our personal interpretation of Scripture leads us to different conclusions? What if I read the Gospel of John, and I feel firmly convicted that Jesus is not divine, but is instead God's greatest worldly creation? After all, in John's Gospel, numerous time Jesus speaks of the Father being separate from Him. Who's to say that I'm wrong if that's how I am personally convicted?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Lord,

We should all care what the ECF's wrote, not because they are in any way canonical - no one had claimed that, so arguments which imply they have simply erect straw men; not, we should care because they illuminate the word of God, as well as helping establish what it was.

Much has been written about the Holy Spirit in this thread; but how are we sure that He is the Third Person of the Trinity and is one one essence with the Father and the Son? Where is it written thus plainly in the Scriptures?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in an early example of an an attempt at Sola Scriptura wrote thus:

Let us say about the Holy Spirit nothing but what was written [in Scripture]; if something has not been written, let us not meddle with it. Catechetical Lectures, 16.2

But, as ever with such bold declarations, it fails the first test; Christians cannot always agree about exactly what was meant by what was written. Many in the early Church thought the Holy Spirit was subordinate to the Father and the Son, that He was a 'creature' and not at the same level as they were.

It was the great Cappadocian Father, St. Gregory of Nazianzus whose writings firmly established that which we now now hold - namely that the Spirit is of one essence with the Father and the Son. So the comments made by MamaZ and others about the Spirit were not revealed by their own inspiration, but by the fact that St. Gregory's explanation found its way into the orthodox teaching of the Church. His explanation can be read to day in his Oration 31. In 31.26 he describes our understanding of living tradition and shows why simply supposing that one's own reading of Scripture, whilst edifying, does not give one the fullness of the Faith:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly and the Son rather obscurely. The New testament manifested the Son and suggested the divinity of the Spirit. The Spirit now dwells among us and provides a more clear revelation of itself. For it was not good to proclaim the Son clearly, when the Father's divinity had not yet been acknowledged, nor to add the burden (to use a bold expression) of the Holy Spirit, when the Son's divinity had not been accepted.

Fortunately for those who maintain they require no help but that of the Holy Spirit in rightly dividing the world of Scripture, the insights of the Fathers, including this one, have been incorporated into the teaching of the Church, and this one was not thrown out as others were in the sixteenth century.

But whether they know it or not, Protestants are only able to proclaim the divinity of the Spirit with such confidence because St. Gregory was guided by Him, and the Church, guided by Him, accepted that insight.

Those who have all the insight they want courtesy of themselves, nonetheless still rely upon the teachings of the Fathers; they just don't know it.

The blessings of the Lord's day be with you all,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Fortunately for those who maintain they require no help but that of the Holy Spirit in rightly dividing the world of Scripture, the insights of the Fathers, including this one, have been incorporated into the teaching of the Church, and this one was not thrown out as others were in the sixteenth century.

Greetings Anglian. I put up a response here concerning the ECF and "real presence" as I will no longer respond on this thread. Peace

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6943180
Ignatius of Antioch: Who Reads Him in Context?

 

[MamaZ]

But that is not sola scripura.

Are you sola scriptura or go beyond scripture into the traditions of man that your Church now teaches?

I am sola scriptura. The assembly that I attend is also sola scriptura. Preaching the word of God.

 

[MamaZ]

This is the same as the ECFs. You have no more of the Holy Spirit than they had and they also had the direct teaching of the Apostles. Some of which you do not have not because you refuse to understand what the Apostles spoke and did not write.

IF they Spoke it then it is gone with them. I am only responsible for what is written and not what some one says that someone said years and years ago.. For the scripture is binding and is indeed the breathe of God to which I am told to live by. Just as Jesus said it is written I also stand on the written word of God as being truth and all I need to fully equip me.

 

[MamaZ]

What if our personal interpretation of Scripture leads us to different conclusions? What if I read the Gospel of John, and I feel firmly convicted that Jesus is not divine, but is instead God's greatest worldly creation? After all, in John's Gospel, numerous time Jesus speaks of the Father being separate from Him. Who's to say that I'm wrong if that's how I am personally convicted?

It is not up to us to interpret. It is up to the Holy Spirit to teach us. This is why we are to continue in His word. Scripture will interpret scripture for scripture cannot be broken.

 

[Trento]

It is a matter of Growing in the Lord. This is why Jesus tells us to continue in His word and we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Free from what? Free from having to rely upon man to understand the things of God for now we are born again and have Christ living in us to lead us into all truth and Jesus said that His word is truth..

What does Scripture preach? - the reality is that it is a collection of personal testimonies written by Holy men under the inspirationof the Holy Spirit thus inerrant and sacred to the Church.

- Scripture does not preach - it is a written reflection/record of what Apostles and others preached during that time when the revelation ("once given the saints")that was Jesus was passed down embodied in the Church by the Apostles

-Scripture whilst it does contain some emphatic clear statements does not answer back and as a result it cannot correct false conclusions - not by itself and not alone, as measured against what the Apostles understood.

Amongst the emphatic statements we find 75 definitions of "The Word of God" and that status goes to Apostolic teaching, liturgy, practices, authority etc; summed up as Apostolic Traditions. So surely rather than deciding what 'Scripture preaches" we need to know what did "The Word of God" tell us.

The practical reality when someone says "this is what Scripture says", really means 'this is what I understand and this passage seems to support this notion'.

Protestantism is not a definite faith and it is difficult for Catholics to debate with Protestants when there is such a diversity of belief - all based on "what the Scripture is supposed to say". So to ignore what the Apostles thus The Word of God taught, in favour of what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, White,ad infinitum devised from Scripture alone, is a traversity of subjective truth.

A cursory look at SDA, JW, Baptists, Lutherans,Quakers, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Christedelphians, Plymoth Brethen, Methodists, Pentecostals, A.O.G. Revival Centres, and all those that come and go etc; for the next few thousand hodgepodge of beliefs - all claiming to strictly adhere to what "Scripture Preaches" renders it all of little credibility - and a rejection of God's Word.
In the area of Salvation - we have those who promote OSAS yes, those who reject it, those who say we are saved if we speak tongues, those who promote faith alone and those who say it cannot be alone, those who say it is by works, those who say a faith working in love, those who promote by election alone - so what is one to believe if one accepts your criteria??? All claiming the same inspired authority.

Our Lord designed His Church to speak with one voice. One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example.
The source of this discord was pointed out by Tertullian in a masterpiece titled A Prescription Against Heretics written 1800 years ago and within earshot of Apostolic times. Tertullian himself was a Christian convert within two generations of the death of the Apostle John.

Scripture is authorative but not an authority as it cannot speak or be dogmatic. The Constitution of the USA is specifically written to serve as a clear dogmatic reference (unlike Scripture) yet we need Lawyers to discern it and others to rule on it - there has to be a Divinely delegated authority to make decisions on faith and morals or we have chaos as we see in multiplying Denominations.

In the OT there was such - Jesus endorsed this authority when He said that the Jews MUST obey those who sit on the seat of Moses as they have Divine authority. Jesus passed on all His authority to His Apostles to do whatever and they in turn set up sucession - Barnabas is an example.
The Word of God" unlike those who promote interpretation of Scripture alone - that thus rejects what Scripture itself defines as God's Word. Scripture should be seen in the light of Apostolic teaching and vice versa and there must be a DIvine duly appointed earthly authority as that is also clear in the sacred record we have of Christ's teaching

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Protestantism is not a definite faith and it is difficult for Catholics to debate with Protestants when there is such a diversity of belief - all based on "what the Scripture is supposed to say". So to ignore what the Apostles thus The Word of God taught, in favour of what Luther, Calvin, Wesley, White,ad infinitum devised from Scripture alone, is a traversity of subjective truth.

I just wanted to quote this with no comment from me.

 

[Yarddog]

IF they Spoke it then it is gone with them.

No, fortunately that is false. It is gone to you because you refuse to hear the what the Holy Spirit said through the early Church.

I am only responsible for what is written and not what some one says that someone said years and years ago.. For the scripture is binding and is indeed the breathe of God to which I am told to live by. Just as Jesus said it is written I also stand on the written word of God as being truth and all I need to fully equip me.

There is no doubt that what you need for salvation can be found in the Bible but there are more blessings which you may miss out on, which come through the Holy Spirit, which can be found in the early Church.
The carzy thing about all of this is that you accept most of what the Church canonized around 400 AD but reject all of that between the Apostles and the canonization.

Yarddog

 

[Gwendolyn]

It is not up to us to interpret. It is up to the Holy Spirit to teach us. This is why we are to continue in His word. Scripture will interpret scripture for scripture cannot be broken.

I don't understand what you mean. Scripture has clearly led Christians to different conclusions, and they ALL feel as though the Spirit has led them to said conclusions. How are we supposed to know which conclusions are the "right" ones? Everyone who feels convicted of a certain position, feels so based on Scriptures they have read. Does the Holy Spirit really lead people to very, VERY divergent conclusions, some of which even contradict each other?

 

[Ramon96]

We do not have to rely upon what men interpret scripture to mean. We can go to the scripture ourselves now and the annointing in us will teach us what God is saying to His people.

Yes, that is what the 30,000 different Protestant Churches say! The problem here is that Solo-Scriptural is not Scriptural to begin with, Christ gave the authority to Church not a book. If the Church was the ultimate authority back then in determining which books belong "where", under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then she is the ultimate authority in telling us the correct interpretation and which doctrines is "true or false" based upon on Holy Tradition, correct? You submit to the authority of the Church to tell you what should be included in the Holy Bible, right?

The Holy Spirit is the teacher, but he use the Church. May I ask why is your [and your church] interpretation of Scriptures the correct one? The slogan that goes "I am lead by the Spirit to the truth and thus I do not need men" does not cut it since over 30,000 different Protestant Churches are saying that, and all of them can't be right! You can speak to a Pentecostal or a Baptize or a "non-denominational" and they will all say there have the truth because the Holy Spirit is inside them. Hum...Is God the author of confusion?

If the Holy Spirit is the one who teach the Church the truth [and it is He who provide us with the correct interpretation of Scriptures], where is he is now? Is he in the Baptize church? The Pentecostal Church? A "non-denominational" [oxymoron] Church? The Mormons? The Seventh Day Adventist? The List can go on.....

Two reasonable people [Christians] can read Scriptures, and they both will end up having two conflicting understanding of the same book being read, all this with the Holy Spirit! So it is clear that we need the Authority of the Church, for the Spirit teach us through the Church. So who has the correct understanding of Scriptures today since every Protestant Christian is preaching conflicting teachings all based on "Solo-Scriptural"?

The problem is Mamaz is that Scriptures is not your authority but the way you understand a particular Scripture is. In reality, you and other Protestants follow what you believe is the correct interpretation and then you cry "The Holy Spirit lead me to this interpretation; I have the Holy Spirit dude" yet the same guy next to you is a Christian, endowed with the Holy Spirit, and he came with a different conclusion then you. All Protestants claim to follow the same authority, and all Protestants are lead to different conclusions on what a Scripture means. So which conclusions is the correct one Mamaz?

The Bible disproves Solo-Scriptural:

Saint Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

Saint Paul told the Early Christians to follow what was written and was not written [those teachings which was passed along by the Holy Apostles that did not make it through written form] in 2 Thes 2:15. So why did Saint Paul told the Early Christians to not to follow what was only written [Scriptures]?

Mamaz, Christ started a Church to preach and guide people. Even Saint Paul said in Ephesians that God gave certain men the ability to teach his word correctly.

The Holy Spirit was sent down on the Apostles on Pentecost, and they were given the charisma to serve and lead the Church. This charisma they passed on to their successors, the Bishops, who in turn passed it on to their own successors, even to this present day [2 Tim 2:2]. The Apostles and the Bibles lead the Church decades before any NT Scriptures written down, and more decades before the Church could agree on what belong in "The Holy Bible". Christ has guided His Church to all truth since the era of the Holy Apostles. Most Christians today what to follow what some 21st Century preacher teach instead of listening to what the Early Church taught in the 1st and 2nd Century.

It is not up to us to interpret. It is up to the Holy Spirit to teach us. This is why we are to continue in His word. Scripture will interpret scripture for scripture cannot be broken.

But who is the Holy Spirit teaching today, since all Protestant Christians are claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit teach us through the Church, since the Church existed before any NT Scripture was ever written. All Protestant have "continue in His word" and all claim different things, so the real question is who [Bob, John, Liza, Lizzy] is the Holy Spirit teaching today?

Solo-Scriptural has cause more problems than good Mamaz, it has cause more splits in the Body of Christ than the amount of hairs I got in my head.

I do not rely merely on my own interpretation [Like the Ethiopian told St Phillip, how can I understand what I read in the Scriptures unless someone explains them to me?], but the Holy Spirit-filled Tradition of the Living Church from the past 2,000 years. We need to based our understanding of Scriptures on what the Church has taught for the past 2,000 years.

Blessings,
Ramon

P.S: So the ultimate question is Mamaz: Where in the Bible does it teach that one should follow only what was written [Scriptures] (or Solo-Scriptural)?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The Bible disproves Solo-Scriptural:

 

[Montalban]

What compels you to continually post you don't care to post on this forum? How strange

 

[Montalban]

It is not up to us to interpret. It is up to the Holy Spirit to teach us. This is why we are to continue in His word. Scripture will interpret scripture for scripture cannot be broken.

Where does it say in scripture that there's only scripture to be interpreted?