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

MamaZ · Jul 23, 2008

Have you ever read the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians? Clement is mentioned in Phillipians 4:3.
3 Yes, and I ask you also, my true yokemate, to help them, for they have struggled at my side in promoting the gospel, along with Clement and my other co-workers, whose names are in the book of life

And? What does this have to do with what is written and cannonized as scripture?

Yarddog · Jul 23, 2008

MamaZ said:
Yes He was but as the letters of the Apostles went out they were also scripture.

Hi Mom,
Well, today we accept them as scripture but that doesn't mean that they were accepted as scripture when they were written.

We see Paul saying what Peter wrote was scripture and we see where Peter calling what Paul wrote scripture. Therefore they are scripture and they are written and we are not to exceed what is written. What Paul wrote was binding for it was scripture.

Paul didn't say this about Peter and though Peter did confirm Paul's writing when scripture is mentioned in the NT, it refers to the OT writings.

Peter said:
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

He is not referring to Paul's letters as scripture but he certainly does acknowledge that they are inspired.

Yarddog

Montalban · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
The author and the finisher of our Faith is not the church. It is Christ. We are not to put our eyes upon any man for our faith. For our Faith does not come from Man but from Christ the Head..How does faith come? It cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. not the word of Man. Not tradtions but the word of God. This is why we see in scripture that we are not to live by bread alone but by Every word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God and that scripture is indeed breathed by God. Therefore the scriptures are what we are to live by. For it is the enterance of Gods word that brings light. Men are just men. Prone to error and delusions and being deceived. This is why the word has been written so that we have a sure testimony as to what is from God and what is not from God. His word is pure. Where mens word are just that mens word. The ECF never uttered scripture only their interpretation of the scripture already written. This is why we have a more sure promise.. Gods written word. For Gods word is sufficient to fully equip the man or woman of God.

I see you choose the evidence-lite approach to discussion. When I present words from the Bible you just give me your thoughts based on what? Your thoughts!

Where does it say "God's written word is sufficient...."?

Montalban · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
1Co 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

I ask you again, where does it say something has to be written down?

You did not answer my question.

If I tell you "Don't go beyond 60kph when driving" and you read "Don't go beyond 60kph when driving" then the spoken word has not exceeded the written word, and still doesn't say "It must be written"

And, in point of fact, if this were the case then Paul, when he went from town to town preaching could only have done so by writing everything down then and there.

Romans, Philemon, Hebrews, & Colossians had not yet been written down. So for you were the 'lessons' not truly from God until Paul wrote them down?

Montalban · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
Yes He was but as the letters of the Apostles went out they were also scripture. We see Paul saying what Peter wrote was scripture and we see where Peter calling what Paul wrote scripture. Therefore they are scripture and they are written and we are not to exceed what is written.

So Paul went from town to town with a series of slide-cards with the lessons written down because his verbal lessons would not have yet been valid.

MamaZ said:
What Paul wrote was binding for it was scripture.

And why isn't what Clement wrote binding?

Montalban · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
And? What does this have to do with what is written and cannonized as cripture?

Well it's your position that we need to take into account what is written. Why not take this too into account as it's written?

MamaZ · Jul 24, 2008

Yarddog said:
Hi Mom,
Well, today we accept them as scripture but that doesn't mean that they were accepted as scripture when they were written.
Well I have to disagree here. For I see in scripture this.
1Ti 5:18 For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
Now Timothy says the scriptures say then he gives two guotes. The first quote is from
Deu 25:4 "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.

Now the second quote is not from the OT but from the Gospel of Luke.

Luk 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.

So what Moses wrote in Deuteronomy is the Scripture and what Luke wrote in his gospel is also the Scripture. Here you have the testimony then of a New Testament writer to both the Old Testament as the Scripture and the New Testament as the Scripture. Paul calls Luke's writing Scripture.
Paul didn't say this about Peter and though Peter did confirm Paul's writing when scripture is mentioned in the NT, it refers to the OT writings.

you are right about Paul not saying this about Peter. It was Luke. Sorry about that.

Peter said:
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

You may want to read that again for Peter compares all of Pauls letters to scripture here.

He is not referring to Paul's letters as scripture but he certainly does acknowledge that they are inspired.

They're a part of Scripture, just like the rest of Scripture. Here again as Paul called Luke's writing Scripture, this is the leading writer of the epistles verifying a writer of the gospels. So Peter calls Paul's writing Scripture. In fact, all his letters are Scripture.

Yarddog

In Jude we also see Peter being affirmed.. Scripture cannot be broken.

Jesus also said repeatedly that the problems that people were having in not knowing God was because they didn't know the Scripture. "Search the Scripture, they are they that speak of Me." "Has not Scripture said?" He repeated again and again and again.

MamaZ · Jul 24, 2008

Montalban said:
I ask you again, where does it say something has to be written down?

We are not to exceed what is written. Pretty simple there.

You did not answer my question.

If I tell you "Don't go beyond 60kph when driving" and you read "Don't go beyond 60kph when driving" then the spoken word has not exceeded the written word, and still doesn't say "It must be written"

Here is what we have. We have what is written. Then we have what some call tradtion. So in comparison it would be like this. On the speed limit it says that the speed limit is 60 MPH. But the tradtion of the road speed is 70 MPH. So instead of following the written someone follows the tradtion and therefore is breaking what is written. But because someone said that actually it says 60 people that travel that road everyday do not go 60 but 70 so therefore we have tradtion breaking and becoming ruler over what is written. Not good.
And, in point of fact, if this were the case then Paul, when he went from town to town preaching could only have done so by writing everything down then and there.

What He preached would have been the very same as what He had written. So now that Paul is no longer among believers we have now to go with what it was that He wrote for He is no longer around to speak orally to us. We only have His written. For the tradtions Paul speaks of is from Him and not from hand me down of what someone thought he said.

Romans, Philemon, Hebrews, & Colossians had not yet been written down. So for you were the 'lessons' not truly from God until Paul wrote them down?

Paul was an Apostle. What He spoke and what He wrote would not contradict itself. For He spoke with the Holy Spirit and He wrote with the Holy Spirit. Same Spirit. Gods Spirit. No contadiction in God. For God is truth. So Paul spoke and wrote truth. Now Paul does not speak orally. He is not here..

MamaZ · Jul 24, 2008

Montalban said:
So Paul went from town to town with a series of slide-cards with the lessons written down because his verbal lessons would not have yet been valid.

And why isn't what Clement wrote binding?

Because He was not an Apostle Chosen by God. We are to follow the teachings of the Apostles. This is why we are to test the Spirits to see if they are indeed of God. Clements writings are just religious writings.

Anglian · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
Because He was not an Apostle Chosen by God. We are to follow the teachings of the Apostles. This is why we are to test the Spirits to see if they are indeed of God. Clements writings are just religious writings.

Dear MamaZ,

Hi there

But you only know Clement wasn't because of the Church. One of the oldest extant copies of the Scriptures,, the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus includes 1 Clement amongst the rest of the Scriptures as we have them, as does Irenaeus earlier. The other ancient surviving text, the Codex Sinaiticus includes The Epistle of Barnabas as well as The Shepherd of Hermas. Clement of Alexandria refers to his Roman namesake as 'an Apostle' in his Stromateis iv. 105, as his text of Scripture included 1 Clement.

Had the Church not decided otherwise, the book we all refer to would have had Clement in it and you would be telling us that because he was in it we should believe his writings.

So, those old ECFs, who helped establish the Canon, came to agree with you - after a manner of speaking!

peace,

Anglian

MamaZ · Jul 24, 2008

Anglian said:
Dear MamaZ,

Hi there

But you only know Clement wasn't because of the Church. One of the oldest extant copies of the Scriptures,, the fifth century Codex Alexandrinus includes 1 Clement amongst the rest of the Scriptures as we have them, as does Irenaeus earlier. The other ancient surviving text, the Codex Sinaiticus includes The Epistle of Barnabas as well as The Shepherd of Hermas. Clement of Alexandria refers to his Roman namesake as 'an Apostle' in his Stromateis iv. 105, as his text of Scripture included 1 Clement.

Had the Church not decided otherwise, the book we all refer to would have had Clement in it and you would be telling us that because he was in it we should believe his writings.

So, those old ECFs, who helped establish the Canon, came to agree with you - after a manner of speaking!

peace,

Anglian

There must be an explanation as to why God did not want the writings of Him in the scriptures lol.. We see who is named in the scriptures and who the Apostles are. Clemet is not one of them. The second letter of this man cannot even be proven to be his. So here we go again on and on and on with the circular reasoning.. This is why God has set His word as He has and what it is we are to listen to. For it is God who is sovereign and Watches over His word to Preform it.

Anglian · Jul 24, 2008

Dear MamaZ,

Here is the puzzle then.

You, and others, tell us that Scripture stand by itself and interprets itself. We ask you how you know what the Scriptures are? You tell us they were inspired by God.

But I point you to two of the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Scriptures and they have in them books that are not included in the Scriptures you and I use. Who was it decided to leave out 1 Clement, Barnabas and Hermas? If it was God, then why are these books in the earliest manuscripts? Had Sola Scriptura existed then (and as we know it didn't), then you'd have been telling us these books were there because God put them there. Well, they are there, and there in the earliest complete books.

Fortunately, the Church did not receive a book, it received the orthodox faith by oral and written tradition, and that faith enabled it to see that whilst Clement and co, were books that could be read for edification, they were not in the same league as the other books in the two Codex.

So, there is no circle. The earliest surviving books contain more in them than the current book; the reason for this is that the Inspired Church knew what was and was not genuine - as it does in other areas of the Faith.

I really can't see why a Sola Scriptura Christian doesn't insist on what is in the earliest books - that would be a consistent line to take. Accept the earliest books, not those edited by the Church. In fact, I can't quite think why you accept the books canonised by the Church over these earlier books?

Peace,

Anglian

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 24, 2008

I really can't see why a Sola Scriptura Christian doesn't insist on what is in the earliest books - that would be a consistent line to take. Accept the earliest books, not those edited by the Church. In fact, I can't quite think why you accept the books canonised by the Church over these earlier books?

Greeting Anglian. Do the Orthodox view the "lake of fire" in revelation as literal or symbolic? Thansk.

Reve 19:20 and the wild-beast was taken, and with him the false-prophet who did the signs before him, in which he led astray those who did receive the mark of the beast, and those who did bow before his image; living they were Cast--the two--to the Lake of the fire, that is burning with brimstone;

Revelation 15:3 and They are singing the Song of-Moses, the bond-servant of the God, and the song of the Lamb-kin, saying, `Great and marvelous the works of Thee, Lord!, the God, the Almighty, just and true the ways of Thee, the king of the [*Ages/Saints] Nations

Exodus 15:1 Then sang Mosheh and the sons of Yisra'el this song unto YHWH, and they spake saying,--"I will sing to YHWH for He is exalted exalted,--The horse and his rider hath He cast into the Sea.
2 My might and melody is Yah, and He became mine salvation/y@shuw'ah.--This is my 'El and I will glorify Him, 'Elohiym of my father and I will set Him on high". '

Anglian · Jul 24, 2008

Dear LLOJ,
Hi there

Because the Church in the East only accepted Revelation late, as you know there aren't too many Orthodox commentaries. The Orthodox study Bible inteprets the fire as an image, not a literal discription.

Might I ask you the same question I asked MamaZ.? Why do you accept the text of the NT as edited by the Church rather than that in the earliest surviving codices? It has always puzzled me.

Peace,

Anglian

Yarddog · Jul 24, 2008

MamaZ said:
There must be an explanation as to why God did not want the writings of Him in the scriptures lol.. We see who is named in the scriptures and who the Apostles are. Clemet is not one of them. The second letter of this man cannot even be proven to be his. So here we go again on and on and on with the circular reasoning.. This is why God has set His word as He has and what it is we are to listen to. For it is God who is sovereign and Watches over His word to Preform it.

Hi Mama,

I wonder why so many people trust that God led the Church to the proper writings to include in the Bible but fail to trust in many other items from the same period.
That Clement was not included does not mean that it is unworthy or full of biblical truths. I've already shown you where Paul endorses Clement. Eusebius says of Clement:The account given of it by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) is as follows: “There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement (whom he has just identified with the friend of St. Paul), great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day.”

As for the 2nd letter Jerome says:
There is also a second Epistle under his name which is rejected by earlier writers, and a Disputation between Peter and Appion written out at length, which Eusebius in the third book of his Church history rejects. He died in the third year of Trajan and a church built at Rome preserves the memory of his name unto this day.

I believe that God guided the Christian Church in which books to include, but that doesn't mean that the ECFs should be rejected in understanding Christianity.

Many of the writings can be found at this site:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Yarddog

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 24, 2008

..........I wonder why so many people trust that God led the Church to the proper writings to include in the Bible but fail to trust in many other items from the same period.
That Clement was not included does not mean that it is unworthy or full of biblical truths. I've already shown you where Paul endorses Clement...........

I decided to look at the greek word used for "clement" and interestingly, it comes from the greek word used for "called" with the greek suffix "mento".
Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the glad tidings, with Clement/klh-mentoV <2815> also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Reve 17:14 These with the lamb-kin shall be battling, and the lamb-kin shall be conquering them. That Lord of Lords He is, and King of Kings. And the-ones with Him called-ones/klhtoi <2822> and chosen-ones and faithful-ones

Gwendolyn · Jul 24, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
I decided to look at the greek word used for "clement" and interestingly, it comes from the greek word used for "called" with the greek suffix "mento".
Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the glad tidings, with Clement/klh-mentoV <2815> also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Reve 17:14 These with the lamb-kin shall be battling, and the lamb-kin shall be conquering them. That Lord of Lords He is, and King of Kings. And the-ones with Him called-ones/klhtoi <2822> and chosen-ones and faithful-ones

Interesting. Clement of Rome would draw his name from Latin, though - and in Latin, clementia means mercy, forgiveness.

LittleLambofJesus · Jul 24, 2008

Veritas_et_Puritas said:
Interesting. Clement of Rome would draw his name from Latin, though - and in Latin, clementia means mercy, forgiveness.

LLOJ: Does not do Latin. That is a Catholic thingy

Gwendolyn · Jul 24, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
LLOJ: Does not do Latin. That is a Catholic thingy

LOL! Your Greek is fun though, I like reading the words you inject into the post. Whenever people start bickering over a translation, I am always one of the first people to say, "Well, what does the original Greek say?" Greek is a really precise language.

Yarddog · Jul 24, 2008

LittleLambofJesus said:
I decided to look at the greek word used for "clement" and interestingly, it comes from the greek word used for "called" with the greek suffix "mento".
Thoughts?

Have you looked into the many other names of the people of that era?

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

MamaZ

Guest

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

MamaZ

Guest

let us love one another, for love is of God

MamaZ

Guest

let us love one another, for love is of God

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

let us love one another, for love is of God

Senior Contributor

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

back in black

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

back in black

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency