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

Incariol · Mar 19, 2012

Lion King said:
So, in other words, we should only interpret the Scriptures according to how "certain" people interpreted them centuries ago, and not in accordance with the Holy-Spirit?

No, thank you.

For the record, I hold the doctrines of the ECF, with the same regards, as I do the teachings of Mr Harold Camping.

It's pretty arrogant to assume that the church fathers didn't have the holy spirit guiding them.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Mar 19, 2012

Lion King said:
So, in other words, we should only interpret the Scriptures according to how "certain" people interpreted them centuries ago, and not in accordance with the Holy-Spirit?

No, thank you.

For the record, I hold the doctrines of the ECF, with the same regards, as I do the teachings of Mr Harold Camping.

I did not say that we should interpret Scriptures only in accordance with how the early church fathers interpreted them. I said that if you're going to go against the interpretation of the texts given by the communities to whom they were addressed, then the burden of proof is on you.

This is a rule for interpreting any historical text. If you interpret the Federalist Papers in a way that does not conform to the general consensus of how it was interpreted in the last second of the eighteenth century, the burden of proof is on you. More likely than not, Thomas Jefferson, who knew Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, and the American people in 1788, who did not know those three but to whom they were actually writing the texts, are going to have a far better handle on what the Federalists Papers actually say that you or I living in the twenty-first century. Now multiple the difference in time by eight, and make the texts in question be written in a non-American, non-European culture in a foreign language.

Now, of course, it is entirely possible to meet that burden of proof. For instance, it has been shown time and again that George Kennan's famous 'X Paper' on U.S. foreign policy toward the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War was gravely misinterpreted at the time. But in order to demonstrate that, you need to do more than read the 'X Paper' and proclaim that you have read it correctly. You need show how officials in the Truman administration, who knew Kennan, got him so wrong.

So by all means, go against the earliest church fathers. But don't just proclaim to the world that they're wrong because Scripture says so. And don't just show me places where their interpretation of Scripture conflicts with your interpretation of Scripture. Show me where and how and why their interpretation- an interpretation informed by linguistic, cultural, and community continuity- went wrong.

The burden of proof is on us.

Lion King · Mar 19, 2012

Incariol said:
It's pretty arrogant to assume that the church fathers didn't have the holy spirit guiding them.

Actually, I do not assume anything. I am quite aware of some of their writings, and I know what they preached contradicted to what the Scriptures actually taught, thus I have no desire to follow any of their work.

Incariol · Mar 19, 2012

Lion King said:
Actually, I do not assume anything. I am quite aware of some of their writings, and I know what they preached contradicted to what the Scriptures actually taught, thus I have no desire to follow any of their work.

How sad. Personally, I dont have a high enough opinion of myself to think I know more and am wiser than over a thousand years of christianity, but if it works for you, ok then...

GratiaCorpusChristi · Mar 19, 2012

simonthezealot said:
So would you claim that for example the people in Rome at the the time of the Letter to the Roman's are more qualified to interpret the book of Hebrews or Ephesus or Colossians or anything other than what was written to them better than nowadays?

Absolutely. Lets not forget that letters weren't developed by a postal system. They were accompanied by people involved in the composition. And we know from ancient letter-writing customs that these deliverers would read the letter and add interpretive comments. So no, the case is not as strong as in the gospels, but again- texts are written with recipients in mind, and they are written in order to effect recipient interpretation given the assumptions one can make about the recipients. That's just how texts are written- all texts.

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

daydreamergurl15 said:
What is ECF?

Even Confucius Failed

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

Bourne said:
Ultimately I don't think of these men any different than the apostles in the new testament.

I do. The quality of their writing is miles apart.

Gnarwhal · Mar 19, 2012

razeontherock said:
I do. The quality of their writing is miles apart.

Do you mean in style or content? If it's the former I would agree.

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

The word, was "quality"

Gnarwhal · Mar 19, 2012

razeontherock said:
The word, was "quality"

Again, it could refer to both. IMHO the Early Church Fathers wrote very eloquently, so they have a high "quality" in that sense.

The quality of the content could also be discussed. Again, IMHO, even though the Scriptures are considered inerrant, I think the quality of the content by much of what the ECF's wrote is right up there (not inerrant, but equally edifying).

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

Ok, they were incredibly eloquent and terribly verbose, but their content was mainly disseminating Scriptures to those not in possession of them, with some very simple rightly dividing to help see how it is applicable.

Gnarwhal · Mar 19, 2012

razeontherock said:
Ok, they were incredibly eloquent and terribly verbose, but their content was mainly disseminating Scriptures to those not in possession of them, with some very simple rightly dividing to help see how it is applicable.

Agreed, much of their writing sheds new light on the Scriptures themselves.

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

Bourne said:
Agreed, much of their writing sheds new light on the Scriptures themselves.

I've never seen anything like that, but this thread sure seems like the ideal place to share things of that nature?

HisKid1973 · Mar 19, 2012

I never had an interest in the ecf's..I've been walking with the Lord a long time and it's the scriptures that the Holy Spirit's been using in me to work in my life in changing me into His image. I not one of the sharper pencils or deeper thinkers so I just stick with the basics..

PaladinValer · Mar 19, 2012

GCC and Bourne have done an excellent job already, so I will merely second them

Jase · Mar 19, 2012

Lion King said:
So, in other words, we should only interpret the Scriptures according to how "certain" people interpreted them centuries ago, and not in accordance with the Holy-Spirit?

No, thank you.

For the record, I hold the doctrines of the ECF, with the same regards, as I do the teachings of Mr Harold Camping.

And why should we assume you, or any other Christian today is interpreting them any better? If anything, I'd say Christian viewpoints have been more inaccurate in modern day. At least Augustine was smart enough to know telling a non Christian Genesis is literal is an embarrassment to Christianity.

Was he right about everything? Of course not. I don't agree with his views on sex or original sin. But the point being, no Christian, past or present is really in a position to claim their interpretation is necessarily superior unless they have the evidence to back it up.

LittleLambofJesus · Mar 19, 2012

daydreamergurl15 said:
What is ECF?

Have you been living in a cave

Fireinfolding · Mar 19, 2012

LittleLambofJesus said:
Have you been living in a cave

I asked the same question myself (and basically) because I live in an earthberm home

But after all my years being here I even blow past some of the abreviated things others understand but I never know what they are saying.

Incariol · Mar 19, 2012

Jase said:
And why should we assume you, or any other Christian today is interpreting them any better? If anything, I'd say Christian viewpoints have been more inaccurate in modern day. At least Augustine was smart enough to know telling a non Christian Genesis is literal is an embarrassment to Christianity.

Was he right about everything? Of course not. I don't agree with his views on sex or original sin. But the point being, no Christian, past or present is really in a position to claim their interpretation is necessarily superior unless they have the evidence to back it up.

Mm yes. If anything the ECFs had a lesser language barrier and would be very familiar with the cultural context in which the new testament took place

Gnarwhal · Mar 19, 2012

Incariol said:
Mm yes. If anything the ECFs had a lesser language barrier and would be very familiar with the cultural context in which the new testament took place

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

Newbie

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Veni, vidi, vici

Newbie

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Well-Known Member

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Well-Known Member

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus For Interceding For Me

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Well-Known Member

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

Well-Known Member

Newbie

☩ Broman Catholic ☩

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency