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

[simonthezealot]

Dear Montalban,

Thank you for an excellent statement of the position of the Orthodox Church.

Whether it is any proof against these infallible man-made traditions of Sola Scriptura we shall see.

I would be quite convinced by SS if someone could point out where, in Scripture, it defines what is Scriptural.

Peace, and thanks,

Anglian

Anglian,

It needn't be directly pointed out in scripture for many early Christians yet they understood the total sufficiency of scripture...

In the latter days it is (T)raditions causing the falling away of the faith...NOT scripture.

For example when believers can NOT seperate justification and sanctification and the two are compounded, ONE will never understand in their heart and mind the COMPLETENESS of what Christ did for us, scripture is clear that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Yet tradition places a list of "what to do's" in order to receive the grace of justification.

It's this very sense that a person can and should say "who cares what the ecf's said"...Because you guys take their words and turn it into something equal to scripture, when they should NOT be...

 

[Anglian]

,Dear Simon,

Welcome back.

So where, exactly in the Scriptures do you derive your definition of what is and is not Scriptural? If you cannot do this, then your tradition of Sola Scriptura is man made. It would be good to see some evidence for your assertion here:

It needn't be directly pointed out in scripture for many early Christians yet they understood the total sufficiency of scripture...

On this theme:

In the latter days it is (T)raditions causing the falling away of the faith...NOT scripture.

Your definition of 'tradition' is one which neither myself nor any Orthodox Christian would recognise. Here is our understanding briefly put.

Orthodoxy does not accept such a time bound view. It does not look to the past so much as live in the awareness of the eternal ‘now’ of the undivided Church in heaven and earth, in which modern Christians are contemporaneous and in communion with the saints and Fathers of earlier ages.....Freedom from fear is the hallmark of the dynamism of the Spirit. The Orthodox keeper of Tradition is not someone who clings to mediaeval beliefs through fear of letting go of what is no longer seriously tenable in the present age. He or she is a person who recognizes from experience certain truths as central to the gospel message and way of life, and is not afraid to remain faithful to them despite ridicule or persecution. [Gillian Crow “The Orthodox Vision of Wholeness” in Andrew Walker and Costa Carras Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World London, SPCK, 1996:9]

The only 'tradition' we see causing a 'falling away' is that coming from the erroneous, man made Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura, which has seen the Church divided into more fragments in the last 500 years than in the first 1500.

tradition places a list of "what to do's" in order to receive the grace of justification.

As my definition offered above shows, this is not so for the Orthodox Church; you must take it up with the Catholics, if you think they hold it.

This is something that has been implied before, so it is good to see it stated thus:

Because you guys take their words and turn it into something equal to scripture, when they should NOT be

Evidence would be good here. I have yet to see anyone on my side of the discussion make such a claim - or anyone from your side substantiate it.

The only claim being made by me, and others, is that the ECFs offer edifying reading which deepens our appreciation of the meaning of the Scriptures they helped establish as canonical. Which bit of that do you not agree with?

Much earlier today I offered a concrete example from St. Augustine, on which I see no one from your side of this argument has commented. Did you all know that already by Inspiration? Or did it have nothing that helped deepen your understanding?

Again, no one is making the claim the ECFs are the equivalent of Scripture; you are making a claim which is not yet substantiated. If you will point to the place in the Scriptures where they define themselves, we shall all agree with you.

Until then, all we are saying is that the ECFs are edifying reading; it is you who are saying we make them something more. If you would show me where I have done that, I will agree with you.
Peace,

Anglian

p.s. I agree with this from your signature:

It is the very reason we must accept the writings of the apostles and their disciples as our final authority, not on a church which based its authority on something NO early CHRISTian writers from the first few hundred years even believed.

So when are you going to do it and stop with the non-scriptural SS stuff?

 

[simonthezealot]

,p.s. I agree with this from your signature:

So when are you going to do it and stop with the non-scriptural SS stuff?

Ang,

The comment refers ONLY to those scriptures written with a beyond human genius to them, those obviously inspired words given to those whom walked with Jesus and/or His apostles.

 

[simonthezealot]

The only 'tradition' we see causing a 'falling away' is that coming from the erroneous, man made Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura, which has seen the Church divided into more fragments in the last 500 years than in the first 1500.

I'd say Iconstasis itself would be one, now that is a man made tradition, with a complete theology built around it.

 

[Anglian]

Ang,

The comment refers ONLY to those scriptures written with a beyond human genius to them, those obviously inspired words given to those whom walked with Jesus and/or His apostles.

Dear Simon,
I see, another man made tradition of recent origin.

'Obviously inspired' consisted of 1 Clement, Barnabas and Hermas - until the 'obviously inspired' Church gave us all the current canon of NT.

That is the major flaw in your position. What is 'obvious' to one is not to another. As I pointed out before, with supporting quotations, you and MamaZ are only able to identify the Holy Spirit as of one essence with the Father and the Son and not as a creature because of the clarification provided by St. Gregory of Nazianzus.

We know we are pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants; you believe you are the giant; fair enough.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

I'd say Iconstasis itself would be one, now that is a man made tradition, with a complete theology built around it.

Dear Simon,

Do elaborate. Is it as recent as Sola Scriptura?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Since you've such a strong appeal to these characters, i'll continue to use them to make a point to you...
Well for starters we can read an Epiphanius account regarding images of Christ...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.LI.html
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

So there you see both an appeal to scripture and a warning against imagery...

 

[simonthezealot]

Early Christians regarded images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption this is very clear in early writings.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

I suspect you are arguing with yourself here. Non one on my side of this has argued that the ECFs have the same authority of Scripture, so pointing to things one or another said that are incompatible with what another wrote is pretty pointless, and about the same use as atheists pointing to inconsistencies in the Scriptures.

If you agree the ECFs may be read for edification, you agree with the only point being made here.

That still leaves you to explain where, in Holy Scripture, it defines what is in it. If you can't, then whether you admit it or not, you accept the verdict of the Church as to what constitutes the NT canon. Your refusal to accept anything else it says is also a misreading of your own position, since presumably you accept what St. Gregory Nazianzus wrote about the Holy Spirit and St. Athanasius wrote about the Incarnation.

In fact, I bet there's a whole lot of stuff from the ECFs the Protestants kept on board when they mutinied; they just forgot to attribute their sources, pridefully maintaining that all these things came to them by the Inspiration of the Spirit. Well, of course, in a way they did - via the ECFs.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

Early Christians regarded images as a Gnostic peculiarity, and as a heathenish corruption this is very clear in early writings.

And none of them claimed Sola Scriptura, although some of them made drawings on the walls of the catacombs.

If you want to start a thread on the iconoclastic controversy, I'd direct you to TAW, where it is relevant. My own Church has used icons from the earliest times and has always been able to discern the difference between worship and veneration. Unlike our Muslim rulers - and the protestants.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And none of them claimed Sola Scriptura, although some of them made drawings on the walls of the catacombs.

If you want to start a thread on the iconoclastic controversy, I'd direct you to TAW, where it is relevant. My own Church has used icons from the earliest times and has always been able to discern the difference between worship and veneration. Unlike our Muslim rulers - and the protestants.

Peace,

Anglian

I do not agree with the Muslims biblical version of Mary

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7244198&page=3
Islam and the Mary/Jesus story

In the Qur'an we read: "They (Jews) said, 'We killed the Messiah Isa the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God' - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them." (Qur'an 4:157).

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/621/
The Birth of Jesus

 

[Anglian]

I do not agree with the Muslims biblical version of Mary

Dear LLOJ,

Nor do I. Nor do I agree with their docetic Christ, nor their iconoclasm; nor their denial of the Trinity; nor, indeed, with just about anything else their faith preaches - other than submission to the will of God.

When it first appeared, people in my Church thought Islam a deviant form of Christianity. Indeed, when we first came across protestantism, we thought it and Islam had much in common: no icons; belief in a book and no tradition; no sacraments; no priesthood; but we learned better.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

And none of them claimed Sola Scriptura, although some of them made drawings on the walls of the catacombs.

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)

 

[simonthezealot]

Clement of Alexandria

"But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:16)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html?highlight=ready%20to%20toil%20in%20the%20most%20excellent%20pursuits#highlight

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear LLOJ,

Nor do I. Nor do I agree with their docetic Christ, nor their iconoclasm; nor their denial of the Trinity; nor, indeed, with just about anything else their faith preaches - other than submission to the will of God.

When it first appeared, people in my Church thought Islam a deviant form of Christianity. Indeed, when we first came across protestantism, we thought it and Islam had much in common: no icons; belief in a book and no tradition; no sacraments; no priesthood; but we learned better.

Peace,

Anglian

They don't read the Bible like we CHRIST-ians do either [neither do the Jews for that matter]. The NT/NC is strictly a "Christ-ian" thing.

Matthew 17:5 Still of-Him speaking, behold! a cloud, luminous, upon-shadows them. And behold!, a voice out of the cloud, saying, `This is the Son of ME, the Beloved, in whom I delight, be ye hearing Him!".

Revelation 2:18 And to the messenger of the assembly inThyatira, write! Now this is saying the Son of the GOD, the One having the eyes of Him as flame of fire, and the feet of Him as to burnished-brass.

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

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Where in scripture does it define what is the NT canon of Scripture? no one is arguing that the ECFs are greater than Scripture; that's your red herring of straw so to say!

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Dear Simon,

Where in scripture does it define what is the NT canon of Scripture? no one is arguing that the ECFs are greater than Scripture; that's your red herring of straw so to say!

Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

Anglian,

The primitive Christians read scripture and exercised their own judgement as to what was inspired.
Paul said,", "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37)

Scripture is the rule to form a perfect faith as far as man is capable.
It is the rule of faith to form it in a degree of sufficiency for salvation.
Man need not question the canon of scripture nor know the original language nor consult interpretters...The things required to form a true faith obtainable by all are;
know what is sufficient for salvation, having this adapted to the capacity of all,
forming a true persuasion in the mind, one that is free from injuriouis errors.

 

[Anglian]

Anglian,

The primitive Christians read scripture and exercised their own judgement as to what was inspired.
Paul said,", "If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual,let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor 14:37)

Dear Simon,
What the Church which canonised the verse you quote says is that here St. Paul is saying that anyone who claims to be a prophet will acknowledge Paul's authority as coming from God - not that LLOJ, Anglian or Simon can make it up as they go along.

What is being asked of you is perfectly simple. Show, in Scripture (not the ECFs whose authority you seem uncertain about when it suits your argument) where it tells you what the canon of Scripture is. You can't, because it doesn't. You only know what is and is not Scripture because you accept the book edited by the Church whose authority you otherwise deny.

Scripture is the rule to form a perfect faith as far as man is capable.
It is the rule of faith to form it in a degree of sufficiency for salvation.

Did you see LLOJ's straw man? I see it again here. I have never, and did not, and will never argue the contrary; indeed, no one has done so in this discussion. All that is being said is that the ECFs are edifying reading.

I have added one concrete example of how St. Augustine helps deepen our understanding on one text, and have illustrated from St. Gregory of Nazianzus how even your argument about the Holy Spirit being able to inspire us with the word of God depends upon the ECFs. You, in return, raise and knock down your straw man.

All that is being said is that the ECFs help our understanding of the word of God, even as they helped illustrate what the canon should be. You accept these things without acknowledging to whom you owe the insights. We accept them with due acknowledgements.


Peace,

Anglian

 

[simonthezealot]

All that is being said is that the ECFs are edifying reading.

Edified reading sure...Creating doctrine from them and their practices NO WAY, thats the way of the pagan...and the true purpose of this thread...I look at the early writings as a less complete commentary than someone like Dr. John Macarthur.