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

[Pythons]

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?

Yes, that's why the Christian Church had 'Councils' which met to vett out those wolves & i.d. their teachings as heresy...
...The same thing happened in Acts 15 where people who had zero authority to teach.
...Started teaching the Church at Antioch they had to follow the law of Moses, keep the sabbath ( stuff like that ).

 

[Standing Up]

The Apostles and Evangelists mentioned in the Bible like St Paul, St John, etc... are Church Fathers themselves. I would be happy to sit at their feet and I would most certainly care what they had to say. I would feel the same way about Saints of later generations who lived and breathed the same spirit of Christ and by their life showed that they could teach with authority. Saints who could teach with authority didn't all die out after the last of the original Apostles went to be with the Lord. Christianity isn't a historical relic or something past tense that can only be studied historically in the first generation of it's existence.

In what sense are the Church Fathers equivalent to Apostles?

 

[razeontherock]

BUMP

I offered you my Cyril papers.

I offer you what resources I have on hand.

In post #64, you can see me digest the first one you posted, which took me less than 1/2 an hour. Can we progress to #2? And is this Cyril (of Alexandria, right?) the same person that served as Bishop of the Church at Jerusalem?

 

[razeontherock]

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

This does not support ECF's as they have come to be used.

 

[razeontherock]

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.

I would hope the church never spoke against monotheism

 

[lionroar0]

meh! SSDD

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by fhansen 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.

I would hope the church never spoke against monotheism

Isn't that the belief of both Judaism and Islam?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7605204/
What came first, Monotheism, or, Polytheism?

It's more likely that polytheism came first, then there was henotheism (worship one god but believed in the existence of other gods) then there's monotheism.

 

[Knee V]

I'm sure that fhansen meant monothelitism.

 

[Pythons]

This does not support ECF's as they have come to be used.

Why would that be?

 

[fhansen]

I would hope the church never spoke against monotheism

OOps

 

[Christos Anesti]

In what sense are the Church Fathers equivalent to Apostles?

Some, but not all, Church Fathers are Apostles. I was pointing out that the Apostles mentioned in the Bible are Fathers of the Church and not trying to imply that all Fathers are Apostles. I do believe it is possible for someone to come along even today and teach with the same power and authority as the first Apostles though even if they aren't (like some of the early ones) authorized to create new Scriptures. If that weren't the case than Christianity would simply be a museum piece. A dead faith. Christianity and the Body of Christ is a present reality.

 

[Standing Up]

Some, but not all, Church Fathers are Apostles. I was pointing out that the Apostles mentioned in the Bible are Fathers of the Church and not trying to imply that all Fathers are Apostles. I do believe it is possible for someone to come along even today and teach with the same power and authority as the first Apostles though even if they aren't (like some of the early ones) authorized to create new Scriptures. If that weren't the case than Christianity would simply be a museum piece. A dead faith. Christianity and the Body of Christ is a present reality.

So your sense is some Church Fathers continued in th apostolic role. One role being to create Scripture. Would another role be that some did create doctrine (new Scripture-like)? It seems like a fairly tricky view of the office.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So your sense is some Church Fathers continued in th apostolic role. One role being to create Scripture. Would another role be that some did create doctrine (new Scripture-like)? It seems like a fairly tricky view of the office.

There does appear to be some trickery around


http://www.christianforums.com/t7411153-44/#post53271205
Slick move by the Pope to attract Anglicans

NKJV) 2 Corinthians 12:16 But be that [as it may,] I did not burden you. Nevertheless, being crafty/panourgoV <3835>, I caught you by cunning!

 

[Knee V]

So your sense is some Church Fathers continued in th apostolic role. One role being to create Scripture. Would another role be that some did create doctrine (new Scripture-like)? It seems like a fairly tricky view of the office.

All christians are, in a sense, continuing the apostolic role (some to greater or lesser degrees), but particularly the bishops who succeed the Apostles in their role of leading the church, some being more influential then others. Only the early ones created what now hold to be Scripture, namely the Apostles and their close associates. And no one has the authority to create doctrine. They only have the authority to hand down to others what has been handed down to them.

Nothing tricky about that, imho.

 

[Standing Up]

All christians are, in a sense, continuing the apostolic role (some to greater or lesser degrees), but particularly the bishops who succeed the Apostles in their role of leading the church, some being more influential then others. Only the early ones created what now hold to be Scripture, namely the Apostles and their close associates. And no one has the authority to create doctrine. They only have the authority to hand down to others what has been handed down to them.

Nothing tricky about that, imho.

I'd agree. It's just the impression I got that some think that the ECFs could do more than "teach the same".

 

[Knee V]

I'd agree. It's just the impression I got that some think that the ECFs could do more than "teach the same".

I hear ya.

The only thing that I would say that new generations are able to do is to articulate the same message in a new way to be more relevant to a new language or culture, or to make the message more clear in the face of some kind of false teaching.

 

[Thekla]

So your sense is some Church Fathers continued in th apostolic role. One role being to create Scripture. Would another role be that some did create doctrine (new Scripture-like)? It seems like a fairly tricky view of the office.

The Apostles are "Church Fathers".

Some Church fathers write (graphe = scripture/what is written), but not all that is written is "Scripture" or of equal value, and not all the Apostles produce written work. Not all Church fathers write, and not all of them are "Saints".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up I'd agree. It's just the impression I got that some think that the ECFs could do more than "teach the same".

I hear ya.

The only thing that I would say that new generations are able to do is to articulate the same message in a new way to be more relevant to a new language or culture, or to make the message more clear in the face of some kind of false teaching.

Is that such a bad thing?


...