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

[Ramon96]

Indeed. Weirdly SimontheZealot, unable to do this tried to appeal to the ECF's to show that they believed in only the Bible - so in order to prove that we should have sola scriptura, unable to prove this from the Bible, he wanted ECF's authority to prove that they had no authority

Who's the architect of this confusion?

I am still a little confuse with that

He went to a source that he himself does not believe holds any authority. He accept and reject the ECF authority at the same time

So its "Since I cannot prove my doctrine with X let me use Y to prove it, but I want to make it clear that I do not believe Y holds any authority". LOL.

Blessings,
Ramon

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

You have failed to show that Scripture even defines itself, let alone explains itself. Neither have you explained how you get to your understanding of Scripture. No one talked about 'genius', again, your own man made tradition gets in the way. You, and you alone, are the canon by which you judge what you think; the ECFs would help, if you would let them.

This is a little sad in that it reveals how little you begin to comprehend of that tradition which you criticise.

Hey Anglian,
Whats your rule? scripture, tradition,fathers
and when these fly in your face you jump over to the 7 councils. When the councils seem to condemn a teaching you look to your pope or leader... It's a big game of musical chairs.

If that is how you see the living tradition of the Orthodox Church, then you have not only not reached first base, you're not even in the same State as the baseball stadium. Read some books on Orthodoxy, find out what we hold and why, then you will see that we are quite as Bible-centred as you; indeed, since our Church established the canon you use, even more so.

The Fathers base their writings on Scripture, and have aided so many of our understandings. Of course there are many mentions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, but the only reason you have any understanding of the Trinity is that the Cappadocian Fathers helped us all there; the only reason you have a doctrine of the Incarnation, is that St. Athanasius helped us all there. You simply refuse to acknowledge where you got either these ideas or the Scriptures you imagine you understand infallibly.

You condemn Sola camps for inconsistencies in
interpretation yet you and the catholics have these floating chairs of infalliblity with piles of theologians constantly striving to reconcile one to another...Hence NO settled foundation upon which to set your weary SOULS.

Again, if you knew the first thing about Orthodoxy, you'd know we don't believe anyone save God is Infallible. We are saved by God, in Christ through the Spirit; that is the settled foundation of our salvation.

You say:

We have Gods word as our rule...His unchanging infallible perfect word.

but you only have that because the Church established the canon of the NT, and you only understand so much of what it means because so much of what the ECFs taught about that book has made its way into the common language of Christians.

When you can show us all where, in Scripture, it defines what is Scripture, then we shall all believe that Scripture can interpret itself; until then, you are simply claiming a personal infallibility for your own views; not even the Pope whom you dislike so much claims that.

To reiterate. No one is claiming the ECFs are infallible, or that they are Scripture; just that in elucidating what is Scripture and our understanding of it, they have played, and continue to play, a great role. That being so, 'who care what the ECFs said' - even you do, whether you are prepared to admit it or not; the very terms in which we discuss these matters are to be found in the Fathers.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

I'd like Protestants to show how they think the Bible came into being.

Did the books all just rise up and bind themselves?

When we look at the "Gospel of John" how do we know it's from John? Why not include the "Gospel of Thomas". Thomas was also an Apostle.

 

[katherine2001]

I'd like Protestants to show how they think the Bible came into being.

Did the books all just rise up and bind themselves?

When we look at the "Gospel of John" how do we know it's from John? Why not include the "Gospel of Thomas". Thomas was also an Apostle.

You don't know that the the Bible as we know it today fell out of the sky on Pentecost?

 

[Montalban]

You don't know that the the Bible as we know it today fell out of the sky on Pentecost?

And each chapter is self-explanitory. It's the only book that teaches and corrects.

 

[Hentenza]

I'd like Protestants to show how they think the Bible came into being.

Did the books all just rise up and bind themselves?

When we look at the "Gospel of John" how do we know it's from John? Why not include the "Gospel of Thomas". Thomas was also an Apostle.

Protestants don't believe that the "Gospel of Thomas" is inspired or canon material. The gnostics do.

You are not comparing the gnostics to Protestants, are you?

 

[Montalban]

Protestants don't believe that the "Gospel of Thomas" is inspired or canon material. The gnostics do.

You hit upon the very point I'm making. What is it about the "Gospel of Thomas" that says it's not divine?

What is in it that says "This is not genuine"? And what is in the Gospel of John that says "This is genuine"?

You are not comparing the gnostics to Protestants, are you?

To the extent made so far, yes.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Hentenza You are not comparing the gnostics to Protestants, are you?

To the extent made so far, yes.

Wow. I learn something new everyday.

 

[Montalban]

Wow. I learn something new everyday.

The problem is what you're learning. You don't want to discuss the topic here because you don't want to learn.

 

[Montalban]

So, the Gospel of Thomas is not canon material, because it's not in the canon?

Is that the answer?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The problem is what you're learning. You don't want to discuss the topic here because you don't want to learn.

Greetings. I mainly want to learn how the ECFs view that Queen in Revelation but it doesn't look as if there is much before the 6th Century.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

Revelation 18:7 As much as glorifies herself, and indulges be giving to her tormenting and mourning that in her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.

 

[Hentenza]

You hit upon the very point I'm making. What is it about the "Gospel of Thomas" that says it's not divine?

What is in it that says "This is not genuine"? And what is in the Gospel of John that says "This is genuine"?

LOL!!! The Holy Spirit told me.

To the extent made so far, yes.

I am not going there. You might want to study a little.

 

[Trento]

simonthezealot[/COLOR];47999965]Their are multiple dozens who point to scripture for its ultimate sufficiency in matters of faith....Here are a few of the MANY i can offer...
Ambrose
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iv.iii.vii.html?highlight=let%20us%20enquire%20of%20the%20father#highlight

"The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father...

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iv.iii.xix.html?highlight=mask%20itself%20with%20dye%20or%20face%20paint#highlight

So, indeed, following the guidance of the Scriptures, our fathers [at the Council of Nicaea] declared, holding, moreover, that impious doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were, mask itself with dye or face-paint." - Ambrose (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 1:6:43, 1:18:119)



http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.i.ii.xxiii.html?highlight=for%20how%20can%20we%20adopt%20those%20things%20which%20we%20do%20not%20find%20in%20the%20holy%20scriptures#highlight
"For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?"


Augustine
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.XXXVII.1.html?highlight=every%20sickness%20of%20the%20soul%20hath%20in%20scripture%20its%20proper%20remedy.#highlight
"Every sickness of the soul hath in Scripture its proper remedy." - Augustine (Expositions on the Psalms, 37:2)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.ix.xiii.html?highlight=the%20innumerable%20books%20that%20have%20been%20written%20latterly#highlight

In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

As I have shown you many times your analysis in reguards to the CF on scripture and Tradition is not correct according to even Protestant Patristic Scholars. You can prove just about anything by Cherry picking CF quotes.

"The church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse."

Philip Schaff, a major Protestant church historian from last century writes in his History of the Christian Church --

"The church view respecting the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is further developed in particulars. The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; AND the ORAL TRADITION or LIVING FAITH of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed to the varying opinions of heretical sects -- TOGETHER FORM THE ONE INFALLIBLE SOURCE AND RULE OF FAITH. BOTH are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse." (volume 3, page 606)

J.N.D. Kelly, a major Protestant church historian from this century writes in his Early Christian Doctrines -- (after many examples)

"It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture AND tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the SUREST CLUE TO ITS INTERPRETATION, for in TRADITION the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an UNERRING GRASP of the real purport and MEANING of the revelation to which Scripture AND tradition alike bore witness." (page 47-4

Thus in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [cf. 1 Tim 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e. the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and CORRECTLY interpreted in the Church's UNERRING tradition." (page 51)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"The church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the KEY TO THE TRUE INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse."

So who you calling a heretic?

 

[Montalban]

The Holy Spirit told me.

I don't think it was the Holy Spirit

I am not going there. You might want to study a little.

Perhaps you need to study English. I said to the extent shown, you are alike. And you are... you both profess a 'special knowledge' of the Scriptures without any rhyme or reason for why you do.

I could say "Gnostics and Christians are alike, to the extent that they both believe in Christ" and this isn't to say "Gnostics are the same as Chrisitans".

 

[Montalban]

So who you calling a heretic?

For Catholics you are heretics. We're considered schismatics.

 

[Montalban]

Greetings. I mainly want to learn how the ECFs view that Queen in Revelation but it doesn't look as if there is much before the 6th Century.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7263327
Early ECFs and Queen/Babylon in Revelation

Revelation 18:7 As much as glorifies herself, and indulges be giving to her tormenting and mourning that in her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.

WHy is it important to get their opinion on this, if they have no 'authority'?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

WHy is it important to get their opinion on this, if they have no 'authority'?

They indeed have no authority over me and neither do the Orthodox or Catholic Denominations. But, if ya don't want to help me out on this Scripture, fine.

 

[Montalban]

They indeed have no authority over me and neither do the Orthodox or Catholic Denominations. But, if ya don't want to help me out on this Scripture, fine.

Not particularly. I see no point.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not particularly. I see no point.

Okie Dokie.

Nahum 3:2 A sound of a Whip, and sound of a quaking wheel, and horse galloping, and chariot leaping. A horseman mounting. And blazing sword, and flashing spear, and many wounded and mass of corpses and there is no end to bodies. [Isaiah 28 "scourge"]

Reve 15:1 And I perceived another sign in the heaven, great and marvelous. Messengers, seven, having blows/stripes/plhgaV <4127>, seven, the last, that in them is finished the fury of the God.