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

GratiaCorpusChristi · Mar 19, 2012

razeontherock said:
I have no idea what "economy of Salvation" refers to, unless it is along the lines of Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."

Perhaps your aforementioned papers will explain this as well?

Basically, economy of salvation means the whole mechanism of salvation, both redemptive-history in the history of Abraham's call, Israel's exodus, the giving of the law, exile, return, the Christ-event, and eventually the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, as well as the process of predestination, call, justification, union with Christ, sanctification, and glorification in the individual. The main thrust of Trinitarian studies in the twentieth century has been to show how the doctrine of the Trinity is not merely about how the Scriptures describe God "up there," but to show how a Triune God is exactly the sort of God that would act the way he has in the economy "down here" and that this sort of economy shows us a Trinitarian God.

Melethiel · Mar 19, 2012

Then how come I could read the Scriptures as a child and clearly see Trinity?

If that is in fact true, then that's only because you were reading them after having already been (if only subconsciously) indoctrinated with the Trinity.

GratiaCorpusChristi · Mar 19, 2012

razeontherock said:
Then how come I could read the Scriptures as a child and clearly see Trinity?

Melethiel said:
If that is in fact true, then that's only because you were reading them after having already been (if only subconsciously) indoctrinated with the Trinity.

Well, not only that. Athanasius and Basil have a whole lot more to say about the Trinity than you could ever, ever find in the scriptures. But what they have to say is so glorious, so edifying, and shows how the whole scheme of salvation rotates like a blessed hurricane around the God who saves us and whom we worship.

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Under this interpretation, John 1:9 is not a statement about the light coming into the world in the incarnation, but rather about the illumination of the world through the eternal creative work of the Logos.

Exactly as I read it as a child. (Except I had no idea what Logos referred to, and I still don't thoroughly understand all it conveys)

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
the Word of God is essentially light passing through the Father into the Heir of His Essence.

While I've never been this eloquent, this is again what I understood upon my very first reading of Scripture, at an age where I actually thought that because I was under the covers past bedtime, no one would see that my flashlight was on to be able to read.

This also sets the stage for a good understanding of Trinity, right there in Scripture.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
At this point Cyril draws a strong contrast between the true light of the Logos and the other light which is not light at all. It appears that Cyril is not trying to call genuine truth within the world a sort of false truth, but instead is trying to call it an untrue light in the sense that whatever light it has is reflected. The true light, the Logos, is true in the sense that the light of the sun is true: the light of the sun is generated by the sun. So too, earthly visions of the good, the true, and the beautiful are not true light in the same way that the light of the moon is not self-generating; genuine truths comprehended by the world are not the sources of illumination, but rather reflections of the higher, genuine, true light, the Logos. This distinction between the true light and reflected light reminds one readily of the common grace vs. nature distinction at work throughout patristic literature.

Ok this brings to my mind Gen 1 and the distinction of sun and moon, while i have no familiarity with "grace v. nature."

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
deploys a distinction between the simplicity of the unified vision of wisdom and the refracted complexity of particular wisdom found among creatures. Thus, that in the creature is what is compound, and nought of simple is in it.

We have this foundation:

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Which version renders that "witty devices?") If this goes along with people not receiving Him, I can say that has merit; but it seems to be a stretch to read this into John 1 otherwise.
This seems to be much more pertinent to the idea of a "single eye," that Jesus refers to.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
the Logos is fully divine because as the universal font of wisdom, all wisdom exists in him as a partless unity. This unity cannot be divided or delegated to creatures, by definition

This may prove to be a hefty apologetic with Muslims, re: their concept of "assigning partners."

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
(Quoting Cyril)
one may not, I deem, say on these subjects anything overmuch. [Whew!] Therefore our forefather Adam too is seen to have attained the being wise not in time, as we, but straightway from the first beginnings of his being does he appear perfect in understanding, preserving in himself the illumination given of God to his nature as yet untroubled and pure, and holding the dignity of his nature unadulterated.

Based on what? Or is he merely saying Adam was fully culpable?

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Cyril reminds us again of Augustine and his famous statement: The Gospel of John is deep enough for an elephant to swim and shallow enough for a child not to drown.

Best thing I've seen from an ECF yet!

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Basically, economy of salvation means the whole mechanism of salvation, both redemptive-history in the history of Abraham's call, Israel's exodus, the giving of the law, exile, return, the Christ-event, and eventually the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, as well as the process of predestination, call, justification, union with Christ, sanctification, and glorification in the individual. The main thrust of Trinitarian studies in the twentieth century has been to show how the doctrine of the Trinity is not merely about how the Scriptures describe God "up there," but to show how a Triune God is exactly the sort of God that would act the way he has in the economy "down here" and that this sort of economy shows us a Trinitarian God.

Gotcha! So economy of Salvation = plan of Salvation. And yes, everything about this elucidates His 3 Persons

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

Melethiel said:
If that is in fact true, then that's only because you were reading them after having already been (if only subconsciously) indoctrinated with the Trinity.

Honestly, you cannot possibly know that. You are speaking with someone who rejected the Episcopal Church as powerless and false at the ripe old age of 4, based on the great divide between what was said and how people lived.

ViaCrucis · Mar 19, 2012

Agreed with the OP. I am perfectly capable of figuring out Christianity out all on my own without paying attention to what Christians have believed or taught over the last two thousand years.

That's why my Bible consists of two books, the Books of I and II Bob, and Jesus is a pickle that I talk to in my fridge.

Amen Holy Pickle. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran

razeontherock · Mar 19, 2012

Crypto, every once in a while

Lion King · Mar 20, 2012

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
This simply isn't true. The greatest single bulk in the patristic writings is defending the doctrine of the Triune God and Christ's fully human, fully divine personhood against heretics assaulting Christianity from all sides. Without Athanaius writing his Orations Against the Arians and On the Incarnation, without Basil writing Against Eunomius and On the Holy Spirit, without Cyril writing his Three Chapters, we would likely not have a doctrine of the Trinity because the Arians would have succeeded in their assault on the faith.

Christians already have the doctrine of the Godhead in the Scriptures, and no one can tell me anymore, than what we already know through the word of God. I have also read some of Cyril's work, and I am truly disappointed. I really do not understand the reason some people go gaga over his interpretations of the Scriptures, since most of them are plain incorrect.

SolomonVII · Mar 20, 2012

I openly wonder how much the word 'Trinity' actually helps any of become closer to God, or just how much of an effect that the Three Persons, Two natures, One Substance dogma has on any of us?

Jesus praying to his Father, and promising the outpouring of his Holy Spirit upon us is a more natural expression of my understanding that what the ecfs philosophize about.

The counterpoint to ecf philosphizing about the Godhead and preventing schism and heresy is the idea that this has also led to schism, namely the EO and OO, over a point of contention that few of us can even wrap our heads around, let alone understanding the true nature of the arguments of either side.

Incariol · Mar 20, 2012

Lion King said:
Christians already have the doctrine of the Godhead in the Scriptures, and no one can tell me anymore, than what we already know through the word of God. I have also read some of Cyril's work, and I am truly disappointed. I really do not understand the reason some people go gaga over his interpretations of the Scriptures, since most of them are plain incorrect.

Incorrect according to whom? You?

ViaCrucis · Mar 20, 2012

Lion King said:
Christians already have the doctrine of the Godhead in the Scriptures, and no one can tell me anymore, than what we already know through the word of God.

That word which you received because your spiritual predecessors in Christ have passed on, preserved, and delivered to that word.

How would you know to believe the Scriptures lest the faith to believe had been delivered to you?

How would you know to believe the Gospel lest it were preserved, recorded and passed on to you?

I have also read some of Cyril's work, and I am truly disappointed. I really do not understand the reason some people go gaga over his interpretations of the Scriptures, since most of them are plain incorrect.

Because you say so?

It is no more possible to divorce the Scriptures from the context of the Christian Church and universal community of the Faithful than it is to separate heat from flame.

Otherwise all we have is a consortium of individuals crowning themselves with their own self-made papal crown, declaring themselves the magisterial pontificators of all Sacred Writ and Christian Truth.

That's chaos and at odds with all Christ has given us. It is not of the Holy Spirit, but is rather fleshly and sinful.

-CryptoLutheran

GreekOrthodox · Mar 20, 2012

ViaCrucis said:
Agreed with the OP. I am perfectly capable of figuring out Christianity out all on my own without paying attention to what Christians have believed or taught over the last two thousand years.

That's why my Bible consists of two books, the Books of I and II Bob, and Jesus is a pickle that I talk to in my fridge.

Amen Holy Pickle. Amen.

-CryptoLutheran

Dill or polish... Orthodox or heretic?

St. Sauerkraut, your brine is that of the almighty Dill, especially when served with your briney compatriots and with the beef of corn and thousand island dressing on the rye bread of the heavens. Also include with your salvation, a nice serving of potato pancakes without the sin of too much grease. - Prayer of the Reuben

GreekOrthodox · Mar 20, 2012

SolomonVII said:
I openly wonder how much the word 'Trinity' actually helps any of become closer to God, or just how much of an effect that the Three Persons, Two natures, One Substance dogma has on any of us?

Jesus praying to his Father, and promising the outpouring of his Holy Spirit upon us is a more natural expression of my understanding that what the ecfs philosophize about.

The counterpoint to ecf philosphizing about the Godhead and preventing schism and heresy is the idea that this has also led to schism, namely the EO and OO, over a point of contention that few of us can even wrap our heads around, let alone understanding the true nature of the arguments of either side.

Solomon, I know what you mean, but when you look at the really big issues it makes more sense. If I were to say to you that Jesus was only a man but completely blessed by God, wouldnt that set off some alarms?

razeontherock · Mar 20, 2012

GreekOrthodox said:
If I were to say to you that Jesus was only a man but completely blessed by God, wouldnt that set off some alarms?

Yes, and of the Baha'i sort. They look good at first, but this is who they say Jesus is, very much like Muslims.

Lion King · Mar 20, 2012

Incariol said:
Incorrect according to whom? You?

Incorrect according to the Scriptures.

Lion King · Mar 20, 2012

ViaCrucis said:
That word which you received because your spiritual predecessors in Christ have passed on, preserved, and delivered to that word.

How would you know to believe the Scriptures lest the faith to believe had been delivered to you?

How would you know to believe the Gospel lest it were preserved, recorded and passed on to you?

I am very thankful to God who worked through the apostles allowing the Gospels to be written and preserved, that we may all know about the GODHEAD.

As I said earlier, everything I know about the GODHEAD came directly from the word of God, and not some man-made doctrines littered with errors.

Because you say so?

It is no more possible to divorce the Scriptures from the context of the Christian Church and universal community of the Faithful than it is to separate heat from flame.

Otherwise all we have is a consortium of individuals crowning themselves with their own self-made papal crown, declaring themselves the magisterial pontificators of all Sacred Writ and Christian Truth.

That's chaos and at odds with all Christ has given us. It is not of the Holy Spirit, but is rather fleshly and sinful.

-CryptoLutheran

...because the Scriptures say so.

The word of God denounces Arius teachings, just as it also equally denounce the works of Cyril/Origen etc. Unbeknownst to some, the ECF actually fought the heresies of Arius with heresies of their own.

simonthezealot · Mar 20, 2012

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

Why is that?
So you'd automatically assume they are all saved?

simonthezealot · Mar 20, 2012

Bourne said:
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).

Which ones wrote eloquently>?
the quality of content of which writings for example?

simonthezealot · Mar 20, 2012

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

HAHA what?
There is nothing new under the sun, but feel free to share something they illumine that a thorough reading of scripture does not disclose?

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

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Miserere mei, Domine

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Veni, vidi, vici

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Psalti Chrysostom

Psalti Chrysostom

Well-Known Member

Veni, vidi, vici

Veni, vidi, vici

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency