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

[simonthezealot]

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding? Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

Thought I would bring forth my OP to try and get this back on track...

 

[Rick Otto]

whilst it is in the Bible is not defined by the Bible

nonsense.

 

[simonthezealot]

Anyone deny this?
"in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds..."

 

[simonthezealot]

Or this?
Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations.

 

[simonthezealot]

Why would it be plausible?
It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

 

[simonthezealot]

For my own bug-bear I think it's a pity no one here (on the other side) wished to take up the fact that the Trinity, whilst it is in the Bible is not defined by the Bible - the fact heretics also used the Bible in their argument I thought interesting

Heretics fell by the wayside BECAUSE they did not rightly divide "the word"...Even the ECF's stated as much, that it is clear in scripture and that others would fail trying to use scripture to support their beliefs.
and BTW the Trinity is certainly indirectly implied in the OT. Right in the very first chapter of Genesis as well as in Isaiah to name a few...You need not be some high level genius to figure it out, just rightly dividing scripture...

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

 

[Thekla]

it is not the Biblical interpretation per say that the ECFs and the great gerondas and gerondissa's (elders) of our Church are valued for ...

it is their "mindset", the eyes and practice of their nous/kardia that informs their interpretation that we look to and value as well (mindset is not to be confused with academic or intellectual prowress)

we are to have the "mind of Christ"; the Church is to have the same - the fathers and mothers of the Church exhibit this in their lives, their practice, their interpretation.

as elder Paisios says,The interpretation of the Gospel is lived in the lives of the Saints; their lives interpret the Gospel to us.

 

[simonthezealot]

it is not the Biblical interpretation per say that the ECFs and the great gerondas and gerondissa's (elders) of our Church are valued for ...

it is their "mindset", the eyes and practice of their nous/kardia that informs their interpretation that we look to and value as well (mindset is not to be confused with academic or intellectual prowress)

we are to have the "mind of Christ"; the Church is to have the same - the fathers and mothers of the Church exhibit this in their lives, their practice, their interpretation.

as elder Paisios says,The interpretation of the Gospel is lived in the lives of the Saints; their lives interpret the Gospel to us.

But wouldn't you agree with guys like Hegessipus who stated that the "purity of the heart" the "understanding" or mindset as you call it was prone to err after the apostles generation?

 

[Anglian]

Dear Simon,

Many thanks for reiterating the OP.

Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures

One can't really respond to anything as general as 'their theology was wrong in many areas'; if you have specific examples, it would help discussion to be a little more focused.

and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding?

Again, this is rather general. What do you call 'heavy leaning'? As we have tried to explain, the ECFs are only one of four parts of Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Tradition; over reliance on any one part unrelated to the others will always produce distorted understandings.

Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.
Anyone deny this?

Anyone assert this?

"in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds..."

Not sure what you are trying to say here. St. Isaac of Nineveh had absolutely no one save the Holy Spirit to commune with - and his writings remain, for many Christians, one of the most profound guides about how to live the Christian life. Salvation does not, at least in the Orthodox Tradition, depend upon the quality of one's intellect. If, as you seem to, you believe that the Spirit can inspire you, why not also accept He could do the same for the ECFs?

It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW

.

No one has argued this; but if they had, why would it be less plausible than hanging one's salvation on one's own 21st century interpretation of the Scripture they had THEN?

As we have now suggested several times, any model such as that suggested, of over-reliance on the ECFs would appear to be a construction of your own; no one in this very long thread has ever asserted this line, and yet you reiterate it as though they had, and as though an alternative line of explanation had not been offered.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No one has argued this; but if they had, why would it be less plausible than hanging one;s salvation on one's own 21st century interpretation of the Scripture they had THEN?

Did any of the ECFs mention the writings of Josephus?

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269540
Jesus death on Passover

Matt 24:19 "Woe yet to those in belly having and to those suckling in those the days! 20 "Be ye praying yet that no may be becoming the flight of ye of winter neither a Sabbath.

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country,

 

[Anglian]

But wouldn't you agree with guys like Hegessipus who stated that the "purity of the heart" the "understanding" or mindset as you call it was prone to err after the apostles generation?

Dear Simon,

Yes, and so would the ECFs, who always insisted on fidelity to the tradition handed on by the Apostles; they particularly distrusted claims to private inspiration - because it was from such claims that men like Marcion and Valentinius constructed their own heretical versions of Christianity.

Again, we see the wisdom of the Church in insisting on resting on more than one pillar.

peace,
Anglian

 

[Thekla]

Heretics fell by the wayside BECAUSE they did not rightly divide "the word"...Even the ECF's stated as much, that it is clear in scripture and that others would fail trying to use scripture to support their beliefs.
and BTW the Trinity is certainly indirectly implied in the OT. Right in the very first chapter of Genesis as well as in Isaiah to name a few...You need not be some high level genius to figure it out, just rightly dividing scripture...

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 63:8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
10 But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.

if I may respond to two posts at once,

to "rightly divide" is the result of a spiritual disposition, the enthronement of Christ in the heart - it is not the ability for analysis, though that will be given by Him as needful.

as for the other question, why a 3rd or 4th century interpretation might be different than a 21st, as it is somewhat related. As we start our struggle toward Christ, our interpretation is not quite aright, because our 'water' (that we swim in) is secular -- especially now.

as an example is the NT term pyche.
Actually, the first "psychology" was described by the ECFs, and was understood in the context of the existential reality of relationship between God and man - this relationship, its "health" and the effect of the health of this relationship on the psyche.

modern psychology, the secular 'step-child' of the ECFs, has now helped to form our understanding of psyche - and this influence is so pervasive that is invisible to us. Yet modern psychology is without power and effect because it is envisioned as secular; it has divorced the psyche from God in order to define and evaluate it.

in returning to the ECFs, we are more able to understand pyche aright, in it 's spiritual dimension. As psyche is a Biblical term, our "default understanding" of the term effects our interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[simonthezealot]

Did any of the ECFs mention the writings of Josephus?

Hippolytus referred to his writings...

 

[Thekla]

But wouldn't you agree with guys like Hegessipus who stated that the "purity of the heart" the "understanding" or mindset as you call it was prone to err after the apostles generation?

the mind of Christ does not change

if the mindset is prone to change, then whatever the mindset is, it is not the mindet that results from the enthronement of Christ in the heart. The historicity - the connection of the mindset of the pre-200 Church to the ECFs of the 3rd and 4th century - the link is found in the witness of the early martyrs and Saints.

Christ is in the heart, but there is a matter of "degrees" - in the ECFs and the witness of the Apostles, in the martyrs - it is whatever even small degree of Christ within us that responds to and is warmed by these.

 

[simonthezealot]

if I may respond to two posts at once,

to "rightly divide" is the result of a spiritual disposition, the enthronement of Christ in the heart - it is not the ability for analysis, though that will be given by Him as needful.

as for the other question, why a 3rd or 4th century interpretation might be different than a 21st, as it is somewhat related. As we start our struggle toward Christ, our interpretation is not quite aright, because our 'water' (that we swim in) is secular -- especially now.

as an example is the NT term pyche.
Actually, the first "psychology" was described by the ECFs, and was understood in the context of the existential reality of relationship between God and man - this relationship, its "health" and the effect of the health of this relationship on the psyche.

modern psychology, the secular 'step-child' of the ECFs, has now helped to form our understanding of psyche - and this influence is so pervasive that is invisible to us. Yet modern psychology is without power and effect because it is envisioned as secular; it has divorced the psyche from God in order to define and evaluate it.

in returning to the ECFs, we are more able to understand pyche aright, in it 's spiritual dimension. As psyche is a Biblical term, our "default understanding" of the term effects our interpretation of the scriptures.

Hold on Simon runs down the block to Ottos house to get him and have him translate this into laymens terms....

 

[Montalban]

Heretics fell by the wayside BECAUSE they did not rightly divide "the word"...

Which is you applying your circular logic again. How do YOU know it wasn't 'rightly divided'?

Even the ECF's stated as much, that it is clear in scripture and that others would fail trying to use scripture to support their beliefs.

The ECFs said what was 'right' based on what was always taught.

and BTW the Trinity is certainly indirectly implied in the OT. Right in the very first chapter of Genesis as well as in Isaiah to name a few...You need not be some high level genius to figure it out, just rightly dividing scripture...

Where have I denied this? I sense a straw-man coming on.
I have in fact The Trinity As Revealed in the Old Testament by Ford Wilson. You may like to re-read what's been said regarding the Trinity on this thread to note that the 'type' or 'relationship' of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible

Thank you for the Biblical verses to support an argument I've not argued against.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus Did any of the ECFs mention the writings of Josephus?

Hippolytus referred to his writings...

Hold on Simon runs down the block to Ottos house to get him and have him translate this into laymens terms....

That would be like trying to translate Matt 24 into laymen terms

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7269540
Jesus death on Passover

Matt 24:19 "Woe yet to those in belly having and to those suckling in those the days! 20 "Be ye praying yet that no may be becoming the flight of ye of winter neither a Sabbath. [Luke 21:23]

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country,

 

[Montalban]

Again, we see the wisdom of the Church in insisting on resting on more than one pillar.

Amen.

It seems Protestants offer that the books of the Bible are authentic because they are, and that people who were heretics were because they were - and didn't follow authentic scripture.


Around we go.




And...

Didn't anyone watch the opening ceremony?

 

[beamishboy]

I could just as easily say "She is MY queen and is the head of YOUR country". However it serves enough to point out that whilst you all cry foul of personalising debate, that's exactly what you're doing now.

Of course you could say anything (as we have seen) but the whole world will laugh their heads off. A colony claiming to possess the monarch of the mother-country is laughable beyond words. But Anglian and I won't laugh.

My point is, you (like most Australians) show immense respect for the British Royal Family and the British Peerage. Isn't that true? You would call a peer, particularly a hereditary one "My Lord", wouldn't you?

That's my point. Hehe.

 

[simonthezealot]

Where have I denied this?I have in fact The Trinity As Revealed in the Old Testament by Ford Wilson. You may like to re-read what's been said regarding the Trinity on this thread to note that the 'type' or 'relationship' of the Trinity is not stated in the Bible

I stand corrected for thinking you questioned it...I was going from memory your comment on this post...

How did the OT guide people in the form of how the Trinity exists?