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.
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.
You mean something like interpreting the closed east gate as meaning the ever-virgin. Definitely takes the appointed self to show the rest the clear meaning of that. If you don't see it, you're the one who's deviating.
That's known as a typological interpretation. You will see both Christ and the Apostle Paul using the typological method of exegesis for some of the statements found in the Old Testament. Now, certainly, something presented as one could be a false parallel or type but the basic idea of typological interpretation is sound. It's not as absurd as it might sound at first glance. Typology is used in the NT and continued on from there. Paul notes that certain things from the OT are a shadow of things to come and that were then manifest in regards to Christ and elements of his life and ministry. That's the basic theory behind typology.You mean something like interpreting the closed east gate as meaning the ever-virgin. Definitely takes the appointed self to show the rest the clear meaning of that. If you don't see it, you're the one who's deviating.
East, west north or south gate, I have yet to understand how the east gate points to virginity.
I doubt that is it's exclusive meaning. Verses can have more then one meaning though. There might be a moral meaning, a typological meaning pointing to something about Christ, an allegorical meaning relating to some reality in the heavens, an historical meaning, etc.. This is why seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit and access to the collective wisdom of the Church throughout the last 2012 years can be very helpful. The later to make sure the meaning given you via an apparent Holy Spirit teaching isn't in fact a subtle form of deception or illusion. Something to help ground one to the wisdom of the great Christian combatants who lived previously. How many people do you see say "God told me" and you are convinced they really believe it but then what they say is absurd and contradictory to Scripture. That's why some grounding can be helpful. I would assume, though I can't say this from personal experience, that at higher stages of the Christian walk access to the thought of others would probably become progressively less import but in the forming stages it seems absolutely essential. "He who has himself as his guide has Satan as his guide" is an old Arabic saying that seems pretty accurate in all but the most exceptional cases.East, west north or south gate, I have yet to understand how the east gate points to virginity
That's known as a typological interpretation. You will see both Christ and the Apostle Paul using the typological manner of exegesis for some of the statements found in the Old Testament. Now, certainly, something presented as one could be a false parallel or type but the basic idea of typological interpretation is sound. It's not as absurd as it might sound at first glance. Typology is used in the NT and continued on from there. Paul notes that certain things from the OT are a shadow of things to come and that were then manifest in regards to Christ and elements of his life and ministry. That's the basic theory behind typology.
"These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
Colossians 2:17
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.
Pythons said:Evidently St. Paul thought what the E.C.F.'s WOULD SAY was worth listenting to.
2 Timothy 2,2
And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also
Pythons said:Evidently St. Paul thought what the E.C.F.'s WOULD SAY was worth listenting to.
2 Timothy 2,2
And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also
By what criteria, then, should we hold the ECF's accountable, especially when many of their writings contradict each other?
Paul also had the following to say:
Acts 20:26-31
"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
Paul warned the church at Ephesus, night and day with tears, by the space of three years, that after his departing grievous wolves would enter amongst them, speaking perverse things and drawing away disciples after themselves. How, then, by your estimation, are we to determine whether or not the ECF's of Ephesus are to be trusted or not? Christ Himself commended the church at Ephesus for "trying them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Revelation 2:2), didn't He? By what criteria, then, should we hold the ECF's accountable, especially when many of their writings contradict each other?
The Church has always had that duty and obligation-to keep the faith pure. And she did so against Arianism, Nestorianism, Monotheism, et al. And early Church writings as well as ECFs were/are judged by the same standard, against the faith of the Church as passed down in conjunction with guaranteed guidance by the HS-and not everything an ECF taught or said met the grade.Paul also had the following to say:
Acts 20:26-31
"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore, watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears."
Paul warned the church at Ephesus, night and day with tears, by the space of three years, that after his departing grievous wolves would enter amongst them, speaking perverse things and drawing away disciples after themselves. How, then, by your estimation, are we to determine whether or not the ECF's of Ephesus are to be trusted or not? Christ Himself commended the church at Ephesus for "trying them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars" (Revelation 2:2), didn't He? By what criteria, then, should we hold the ECF's accountable, especially when many of their writings contradict each other?
Tzaousios said:This is repeated so much by people who are paranoid about the church fathers that it has almost become a new trope in the handbook. "Contradict each other" about what exactly? The natures and person of Christ? Christ's relationship to God the Father?
The question of their infallibility is a different thing all together. This was about why we should care what they have to say at all as if the writings of saintly men and women are completely worthless and not worth reading.By what criteria, then, should we hold the ECF's accountable, especially when many of their writings contradict each other?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?