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

[Tzaousios]

And of course Catholics don't suffer from the Peter syndrome at all LOL...
Come on! goose/gander

Huh? Do you mean that Catholics try to grandfather in a select group of proto-Protestants into Catholicism to use against Protestants? That really does not make sense.

 

[simonthezealot]

Huh? Do you mean that Catholics try to grandfather in a select group of proto-Protestants into Catholicism to use against Protestants? That really does not make sense.

No my suggestion is that Catholics take history and fail to look at it objectively...Dr. James White appropriately calls it the Peter syndrome.

 

[Tzaousios]

No my suggestion is that Catholics take history and fail to look at it objectively...Dr. James White appropriately calls it the Peter syndrome.

Well, yes, but James White has a specific interest in rhetorically portraying Catholics' use of history in that manner.

However, one rarely sees White criticizing the anachronistic and revisionistic use of early church history by Protestants, which is even more laughable than Catholic attempts at asserting Papal Primacy. I would like to see him specifically address Protestant beliefs in The Trail of Blood or comparable, independently-constructed justifications for their existence from history.

 

[simonthezealot]

Well, yes, but James White has a specific interest in rhetorically portraying Catholics' use of history in that manner.

However, one rarely sees White criticizing the anachronistic and revisionistic use of early church history by Protestants, which is even more laughable than Catholic attempts at asserting Papal Primacy. I would like to see him specifically address Protestant beliefs in The Trail of Blood or comparable, independently-constructed justifications for their existence from history.

So Whites clarification about Ignatius's letter to the Smyrneans was faulty? you never watched the videos that i posted regarding docetisism?

 

[Tzaousios]

So Whites clarification about Ignatius's letter to the Smyrneans was faulty? you never watched the videos that i posted regarding docetisism?

What does this have to do with my post you quoted about Protestant revisionism and anachronism and White's failure to address it?

 

[Christos Anesti]

disagree with this view, there are writers in every early century that I agree with and disagree with all through out the first 600 years.

Me too. I'm not saying everyone thinks that way. I think the excessive stress on early fathers rather than the fathers is often motivated by a fear that the latter ones were all heretics though. Extreme examples of this would be the Jehovah's Witnesses.

and I think if you speak with anyone who is fairly well read in the early years of Christianity they would agree with this as well.

Not that many Christians are well read in the early years of Christianity. This doesn't stop a lot of people from having strong opinions despite that though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I've read that the "Trail of Blood" theory includes the Albigensians or Cathars as links in the chain. It makes me wonder if the creator of the theory even studied their beliefs? It looks like he just randomly selected a chronological series of sects simply to tie things together. Not many of the links seem to agree on much with the previous links.

The method works something like this:

Find dissenting group in history that "those Catholics" spoke against and/or suppressed (good examples: Donatists, Paulicians, Albengenses, etc).

Claim said group is a link in the secret chain of history.

Respond to points explaining that their beliefs actually were by claiming that the "real truth" was suppressed by "those Catholics" and that they really believed what your particular sect believes.

Rinse and repeat.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[simonthezealot]

The method works something like this:

Find dissenting group in history that "those Catholics" spoke against and/or suppressed (good examples: Donatists, Paulicians, Albengenses, etc).

Claim said group is a link in the secret chain of history.

Respond to points explaining that their beliefs actually were by claiming that the "real truth" was suppressed by "those Catholics" and that they really believed what your particular sect believes.

Rinse and repeat.

-CryptoLutheran

Have you read of Claudius at all? He was anti-pelagian Sovereign grace advocate in the same vein as Augustin and the Apostle Paul, he scoffed at those who bowed before idols claiming they were honoring saints... He was a tried and true bible Christian.

 

[Standing Up]

Have you read of Claudius at all? He was anti-pelagian Sovereign grace advocate in the same vein as Augustin and the Apostle Paul, he scoffed at those who bowed before idols claiming they were honoring saints... He was a tried and true bible Christian.

Might make for an interesting thread.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Have you read of Claudius at all? He was anti-pelagian Sovereign grace advocate in the same vein as Augustin and the Apostle Paul, he scoffed at those who bowed before idols claiming they were honoring saints... He was a tried and true bible Christian.

Claudius who? I can find four saints by that name, is it one of these or another?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[simonthezealot]

Claudius who? I can find four saints by that name, is it one of these or another?

-CryptoLutheran

Oh sorry, no Claudius Bishop of Turin.

 

[Tzaousios]

He was a tried and true bible Christian.

A "bible Christian" as opposed to what other kind of Christian?

 

[Going Merry]

A "bible Christian" as opposed to what other kind of Christian?

perhaps a tradition christian

 

[Thekla]

perhaps a tradition christian

All Christians use the Bible, all Christians have traditions.

 

[Knee V]

Claudius was an iconoclast heretic who rejected the 7th Ecumenical Council.

 

[simonthezealot]

perhaps a tradition christian

Yep

 

[simonthezealot]

Claudius was an iconoclast heretic who rejected the 7th Ecumenical Council.

So do i and most reformers, guess you made my point thanks.

 

[simonthezealot]

All Christians use the Bible, all Christians have traditions.

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

 

[Thekla]

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

Uh-huh.

Scripture is part of, the crown of, Tradition; we received it by paradosis (hand-over).

The rule of faith underlies Scripture; this is important as without it, Scripture can mean many things and not all of them true. This is so, for example, when atheists read Scripture. What is said about the Scripture, the meaning of Scripture, when described by members of the "Jesus Seminar" sounds truly unfamiliar to me - as if they have a different Scripture. They don't have or use a different Scripture; but, they do not have the same 'rule of faith'.

The other factor is worship; worship is central in tradition Churches. In fact, the Scriptures attest to this centrality. After all, in Greek, the term for worship is related to the term for healing/therapy.

 

[Knee V]

So do i and most reformers, guess you made my point thanks.

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.