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

[Tzaousios]

some Christians use scripture to judge tradition and others use tradition to judge scripture.

Nice pithy phrase. Does "others" mean all of those who do not hold to the particular brand of aniconic Protestantism that you espouse (i.e. what you label "bible Christianity")?

 

[ViaCrucis]

A difference between him and the reformers (and others) is that he was alive at the time of that council, and participated in a local council for his own teachings. He was just as much a fan of councils as his peers and contemporaries, just not Nicea II.

Also, not all the Reformers were iconoclasts. The Evangelical (i.e. "Lutheran") Reformers weren't Iconoclasts. Calvin and the Reformed tradition was more iconoclastic; the real Iconoclasm of the Reformation period were among those of the so-called Radical Reformers, in particular the fanatical fringes of the Anabaptists and those such as Karlstadt and the Bildursturm.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[simonthezealot]

Nice pithy phrase. Does "others" mean all of those who do not hold to the particular brand of aniconic Protestantism that you espouse (i.e. what you label "bible Christianity")?

Well Jesus Himself used scripture to judge tradition, as does Paul in Romans 4...That's a good enough example for me.

 

[simonthezealot]

A difference between him and the reformers (and others) is that he was alive at the time of that council, and participated in a local council for his own teachings. He was just as much a fan of councils as his peers and contemporaries, just not Nicea II.

His pastoral time was a few decades after the council at Nice..

 

[fhansen]

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.

Many ECFs go back earlier than the 3rd century. They can give us a good taste of what the early Church was like, better than some of the speculations people have after simply reading the NT alone. Their attitude towards the Eucharist, for example, tells us that the church looked on the Eucharist with a very high degree of reverence as contrasted to some of today's churches.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread will probably be cleaned up shortly to remove the off topic discussion.
It would be appreciated if you could stick to the ECFs and not make that job any bigger than it already is.
Thanks


Mod Hat Off​

 

[simonthezealot]

Their attitude towards the Eucharist, for example, tells us that the church looked on the Eucharist with a very high degree of reverence as contrasted to some of today's churches.

Whose attitude toward the eucharist? there were three views at the very least: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen

 

[chilehed]

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.

I suppose you have the same objections for caring about Luther, Calvin, Beza, Wycliffe, Knox, Tyndale, Zwingli, Arminius, Wesley, or any of the more modern theologians?

 

[simonthezealot]

I suppose you have the same objections for caring about Luther, Calvin, Beza, Wycliffe, Knox, Tyndale, Zwingli, Arminius, Wesley, or any of the more modern theologians?

As they align with scripture so shall we care...I like Augustin for example and dislike Arminius, because one seems to be more in line with scripture....But what I/we don't do is create doctrine based on a unanimous consent of fathers, rather on scripture.

 

[Anoetos]

Irenaeus is usually suggested as the first to put forward the view that in the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine continue with the Body and Blood, a view Luther later accepted and which is current among Lutherans today.

Anyway, all this just goes to show that the ECFs are, again, useful historically and should be objects of our respect as fellow Christians who have gone before but that they must be measured against Scripture which alone is the Word of God. The ECFs contradict each other and teach varying things, some of these may be things about which a variety of opinion may be held, but some are not.

The same is true of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Tozer, et al

 

[God's Word]

Isolation is a breeding ground for unorthodox theology, when someone believes they have a unique direct line by which esoteric knowledge is delivered and no communal accountability by which to verify it.

Tell that to John the Baptist (just one of many who comes to mind)...

 

[fhansen]

Irenaeus is usually suggested as the first to put forward the view that in the Lord's Supper, the bread and wine continue with the Body and Blood, a view Luther later accepted and which is current among Lutherans today.

Anyway, all this just goes to show that the ECFs are, again, useful historically and should be objects of our respect as fellow Christians who have gone before but that they must be measured against Scripture which alone is the Word of God. The ECFs contradict each other and teach varying things, some of these may be things about which a variety of opinion may be held, but some are not.

The same is true of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Tozer, et al

The interesting thing is that the ECFs, also, believed they were in line with scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Whose attitude toward the eucharist? there were three views at the very least: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen

Their attitudes were all consistent in the extremely high reverence with which they viewed the Eucharist. I've attended church services where the Lords' Supper was treated as little more than an occasional grape juice and cracker memorial get together. This, for me, is relevant. OTOH, I know of no one who thinks the ECFs were inerrant in their beliefs or teachings.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Tell that to John the Baptist (just one of many who comes to mind)...

Go on.

How many of your examples lived prior to the resurrection of Christ?

I can name examples too: Joseph Smith, Harold Camping, Ellen White.

 

[Christos Anesti]

As another poster already noted tradition = that which was handed down. The Bible itself was handed down and if one makes use of that they certainly don't reject "tradition" in general. The simply reject the traditions they consider to be in conflict with the Bible. If one totally rejected divine tradition they would have to leave the Bible out and go solely based on direct personal revelation. Then again that personal revelation would have been handed down to them (i.e. traditioned) by God so I should rephrase that to say personal imagination.

 

[Anoetos]

The interesting thing is that the ECFs, also, believed they were in line with scripture.

Well, if you run across a Christian who claims to NOT be in line with Scripture, let me know.

 

[fhansen]

Well, if you run across a Christian who claims to NOT be in line with Scripture, let me know.

Yes, and that was the point. You said they must be measured against scripture but, measured according to whom? They'd already assume/claim they're in line with it-everybody does!

 

[Anoetos]

Yes, and that was the point. You said they must be measured against scripture but, measured according to whom? They'd already assume/claim they're in line with it-everybody does!

Your question presupposes the need for an infallible interpreter. We don't see any such need.

The bible is clear enough where it is clear for us to be equipped, nourished and guided by it. Where it is less clear there should be liberty. Where there are disagreements even in important areas, we are content to await our Lord's arbitrament.

 

[fhansen]

We don't see any such need.

Yes, I'm sure that's true-for whoever's included in "we".

 

[Kepha]

Your question presupposes the need for an infallible interpreter. We don't see any such need.

Then go start the church of Aneotos and preach what's clear to you, to your fellow sS brethren. I'm sure they're eager to hear the 'true' word of God as they have slowly deviated from it.

The bible is clear enough where it is clear for us to be equipped, nourished and guided by it. Where it is less clear there should be liberty. Where there are disagreements even in important areas, we are content to await our Lord's arbitrament.

Ahh, the old "the Bible is clear enough" remark when self appoints what's not clear to self, unimportant for the rest of Christianity. I never get tired of hearing this.