Featured The ECF were Pretribulational

so answer my question to yeshua in post 35

Again, you're missing the point ENTIRELY. Read the OP all the way through, especially to the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Did you know that it was very well known throughout the whole chuch all the way to Eusebius, who records it, that the shepherd of hermas was a) quoted as scripture by some fathers (Iranaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chap. XX, 2; etc. ), b) included in manuscripts that many consider valid today, so as to give great evidence that they regarded it inspired and c) contains the pretribulation idea?

"[The Shepherd of Hermas] had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex)" (A. D. Howell-Smith, Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 120-1).

"as we know, [the Shepherd of Hermas] has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it" (Eusebius, Early Church History, Chap. 3, 6).​

 

The idea of an imminent disaster being unfolded, as cyprian states, can very hardly be reconciled with the idea that there is no pre trib rapture of the church. What imminent disaster could it possibly be that would kill all christians at once? Give a reference from cyprian that proves that the church would all die at once, if that is what you think cyprian is talking about when he states that the church is "snatched hence" from the great tribulation. Cyprian does write about the tribulation suffered by the roman authorities, I would think we should find what you are claiming he believes somewhere in these sections, no?

Here's a quotation that negates the belief that Cyprian thought the entire church should all die at once in order to be snatched hence from the great tribulation. "To the hearers also, if there are any overtaken by danger, and placed near to death, let your vigilance not be wanting; let not the mercy of the Lord be denied to those that are imploring the divine favour" (EpistleXII, 2). He says that, to the recipients of the letter, it is possible that some will die by martyrdom: he doesn't say that they will, and he doesn't say that all will either.

Further, doesn't your view go against the doctrine of inevitable presence of a godly seed on earth (Romans 11:5)?

Furthermore, Cyprian read the shepherd of hermas.

 

My point is that the Protestant Lutheran canon is not a divine doctrine. It is man made. Christendom has experienced different canons (note, for eg, Augustine's canon, which differs from our Protestant canon). If it's possible for them to be saved under different canons, and it's also untrue that "God Wrote The Lutheran Canon", that would mean that God's revelation is somewhat subjective to man! And is it any surprise that Eminent and Christian William James, father of American Psychology, believed this. Not to mention eminent philosopher George Hegel; Socrates; etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

"The very kind of truth we are often demanding [of Scripture] was, in my opinion, never even envisaged by the ancients" - C.S. Lewis.

"[Luther] questioned whether the books of Esther and Revelation should be in the Bible. He did not place much value on James' Epistle. He recognized that some of the forecasts of the prophets were in error, so that the Bible is by no means infallibly correct in all details" - William Hordern, A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology

"The question of biblical inspiration, like many Christian doctrines, has never been completely resolved within the church. Men of faith have struggled with the question through the ages, advanced many theories, and held countless views" - Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture, p. 82


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Just because they may have erred somewhere doesn't mean they erred in all areas. You have just committed the ad hominem fallacy Martin.

(Miss me? )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

One can see from the ecf what was considered orthodox. I really think you ought to rethink your statement that the church fathers were the heretics. Even today baptismal regeneration is still considered orthodox (the Protestant Lutheran and Calvinist denominations still believe in it), and I don't find any scripture to condemn the practice either. If you think about it, anyone who wilfully gets baptized and knows what it means shouldn't be unsaved, otherwise he wouldn't consent in the first place to the baptism. I really don't think there's anyone out there who would get baptized into the Christian religion without understanding what that religion is. Otherwise you're just taking a dunk in a tank of water. Do I believe that you won't be saved if you're not baptized? I'm not going to argue about that right now anyways, but there's enough leeway in the scriptures for baptismal regeneration. Check out 1 Peter 3:21. I do also think there's some Scripture that would indicate that water does not save--the thief on the cross for example. Can I still be Baptist and believe in baptismal regeneration? Yes. Am I stating that I am a baptismal regenerist? No. Haven't made up my mind yet I guess.

Anyways. The church fathers weren't the heretics. If they were, then who were the orthodox? The gnostics? Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

...so what's the difference between heretic and apostasy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk