Sola Scripture?

Having JUST admitted in #1 that the Bible AUTHORS are to be read and accepted as having MORE authority than the ECFS - you contradict yourself by then saying in #2. that the ECFs should be taken as our standard of faith and doctrine OVER what WE READ in the Scriptures!!

What comes to my mind when reading Acts 20 and the "predicted doctrinal errors to come" is the RCC pronouncements on "EXTERMINATION" for Christians. Benedicts confession about 25 Million Christians slaughtered by decree of the RCC and that such a record fails to document fully 2/3's of what they actually did!

The Bible burning practices of the RCC in history.

The Invention of Purgatory, indulgences and priests with "magic powers" to CONFECT God!

The list is "endless".

But for you ... it is "Mormons"!! How "trite" - how tiny and insignificant a group could you pick as compared to the institution that "presided over the DARK AGES"!!.

FINALLY! you make one single statement AS IF you actually believed your point #1. I applaud your assertion of #4 "as if" you actually did validate ECF teaching AGAINST the Bible!! To do such a thing you would have to have done MORE Than simply look at scripture "when they told you to". You would have to weigh their words against all that scripture said on a given doctrine that they speak to --

In Christ,

Bob

 

1. According to who? you?
2. Seeing as this answers number. Who's interpetation your private interpetation? And who is to say that your interpetation is any better than Bob's or the Pope's? Bob being an SDA claims to be led by the Holy Spirit Bob believes in soul sleep you don't. Is the Holy Spirit lying? Cause both aren't right.
In Christ,
Nate </font>[/QUOTE]It wasn't my interpretation, or Bob's or the SDA's, etc. I quoted from Jim, an Anglican, who said "they were corrected later on." Obviously the church as a whole accepted that Ireneus had erred. No one today believes that Jesus lived to be 80 years old. Do you? Do you have Biblical proof?
Do you believe in Origen's Arianism?
Have you Biblical prrof for this heresy as well?
Do you think that believer's following these men were right in correcting these men according to the dictates of what the Bible teaches. This is sola scriptura at work. These men were wrong because the Bible says they were wrong, and believers every where can point to the foolishness of their error. They use their Bibles as their guide, their authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Don't tell me that you don't. Or do you follow the teachings of Charles Taze Russel to tell you that these doctrines are wrong. Which authority do you use?
DHK

 

By the way, the lengthy life of Christ is not new and it was held by more than one person at the time. Remember, Irenaus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. How close must one be to Jesus to understand truth?

Yet, in the time of Christ, Gnosticism developed in various forms, including pagan, Jewish and Christian. Irenaus, Hippolytus and Origen et al were the instruments of truth who sidetracked Gnosticism and dispensed it as being incompatible with the life and words of Christ.

The Christian Gnostics had access to the same Jesus, the same manuscripts and the same Holy Spirit inspiration. Still, error evolved from these first century people, including "believers". The claim to inspiration does not preclude that inspiration, it too must be tested, and is often found wanting by historical and scriptural test.

These fathers didn't have all the manuscripts in an orderly fashion and were working on either first hand or second hand sources.

Irenaus based his theory on the redemptive graces being provides by Jesus' incarnation rather than His death on the gospel of St. John, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of GRACE and truth...." St. John 1:14, and then John 1:14,1:18, 14:26. It was in about 186 when Irenaus postured this teaching...some 150 years following the crucifixion.

The point is, he postured the theory based on scripture; his interpretation of scripture. It tooks another council of fathers to posture the theory that most of us now accept as historical and scriptural truth, based on the teachings of Paul in Hebrews, with redemptive values in the death of Christ. Irenaus believed it was in the incarnation and culminated in the death; they attributed it to the death only and not the earthly life of the Christ.

How much more are we able to not interpret the scriptures some 2000 years removed? The various councils and church fathers provide, at least a modicum of understanding. We can then use our own brains to put the jigsaw together.

Don't be so quick to condemn these men with perceived error, and deem it malicious. We are talking about godly, Spirit-filled men, whose only interest was in preserving the truth for all time.

We are so quick to judge, and resting on our own laurels, that we are blinded by a great light called truth.

Cheers,

Jim

 

This is a very important point which is why we should not put a lot of emphasis on the ECF. There is a such thing as progressive revelation, and by that term I don't mean in adding to the Word of God. I mean that 2,000 years later, just as technology has increased in the secular field, our understanding of the Bible has increased in the Biblical field. We have far more resource material than they did.
They didn't have sword-searcher on a computer.
They didn't even have a concordance like Strong's.
They didn't have so much of the knowledge that we have right on our finger tips. We not only have the writings of all of the ECF availble to us, we have all of the books of the Bible available to us in one cohesive book called the Bible. Remember the printing press was not even invented until the 15th century. They had to make do with large bulky scrolls.
Many people don't think for themselves. They just follow the beliefs of others. Many were content to follow the teachings of Augustine, his Calvinistic teachings, his allegorical interpretations, for many years without questioning it.
In the area of eschatology many of the old Presbyterians believed in amillenialism. And people have followed them blindly until just recently when their belief system has been challenged on a more Scriptural ground. People don't like change. They are sheep. Just like the KJVO crowd who resist any change to the KJV, so when the Latin vulgate was in use, people resisted any change to it. Translations from it was at first considered anathema even though the Vulgate itself was a translation.
The Vulgate isn't inspired.
The KJV isn't inspired.
The ECF aren't inspired.
But all three are profitable to our learning.
The Bible remains our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.
DHK

 

You mean like dispensationalism? The system that destroys any coherence of scriptural integrity whatever.

Yeppers,,modernity can do wonders, but not always for the best.

Again, you miss the point...These fathers are only a few years removed from those who should know the truth,,Irenaus...Polycarp..the Apostle John...each a disciple of the other. How much closer to truth can one be, and still miss the boat according to us?

Cheers,

Jim

 

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
--In John's generation there were those among them that were false teachers. John's first epistle was written to combat the heresy of gnosticism. False teachers arose to great prominence in the generation following John. Many of them wrote and published what they wrote. Some of them may have been among your ECF. Earlier doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

You missed the direct link to St. John......just what stories did John tell that didn't make the scriptures?....Polycarp and Irenaus got their ideas from somewhere.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Here is the totally bogus nature of your argument. The RCC itself is a perfect example NOT ONLY of extreme doctrinal errors that "Evolve over time" even to the point of incorporating paganism - but is also rife as the source of dcotrinal division within the Christian church all throughout history.

That system DID NOT result in a stable doctrinal statement that stayed the same from NT times. It is an example of the gross and extreme evolution of doctrinal heresy over time AS WELL as myriads of doctrinal splits.

So "by contrast" we see the "reformation" outside of Catholicism that sweeps out the error and heresy injectied into the Christian religion over time by the RCC. Your "claim" is that ALL the reformed groups should "act as a single denomination" UNLIKE the RCC and all of its factions! This would be like a Muslim claiming taht since ALL of Christendom does not agree on all doctrines - then Christianity must be wrong!

The argument is totally bogus.

In Acts 15 you find various groups within the ONE church (a church with one leading governing body) where EVEN IN THAT context there was division. Paul and Barnabus eventually differ so strongly that they can no longer minister together in evangelism. That is not "proof" that "Apostles are not led by the Holy Spirit"!!!

Your argument is without merrit in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You assume a direct line without any outside influence which isn't true. All men have different influences. Ireneus didn't get his idea of Jesus age from John. That much is obvious. There were many false teachers at that time. Who else he was influenced by we don't know. There were many false teachers and false doctrines being promoted at that time. Ireneus was not just taught by one individual. To think that he was is being naive. The Apostles themselves were prone to go astray very easily. Paul had to rebuke Peter publicly. John fell before the angel to worship him. Who is to say that these men (or at least some of them) did not fall away into apostasy? Consider Tertullian. On some subjects Tertullian changed his views two or three times. He ended up being a Montanist. Thus when you quote Tertullian on the subject of Baptism, what part of his life are you quoting from? The view that he had in the beginning of his life was different than what he believed at the end of his life.
DHK

 

The argument is not that "ECF's CAN't HAVE ANY truth at all!".

The argument is that John IS "the infallible source" because he writes as an "inspired author" and Polycarp is NOT! Polycarp is a mere faint reflection that is subject to error! There exists NO CLAIM to infallible doctrine, text, views for Polycarp -- any more than you or I!

So when the RCC dumps the INFALLIBLE sources and latches on to the error-prone fallible sources "instead" we have a wide open door "for gross error".

ONe that results in Bible burning, Saint slaughtering, Purgatory, worship at the altars of Mary "queen of heaven" co-redemptrix, priests with "magic powers" that remain EVEN AFTER they go into apostacy - powers to confect God, prayers to the dead...etc

Once the decision is made that "the traditions of man" and "fallible sources" are a MORE RELIABLE platform than the infallible source "scripture" -- the door is wide open to error and the stage set for The Dark Ages!

History anyone?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, please get off your bandwagon against the rcc church when addressing me. I am tired of that tirade.

DHK and I are having a sensible and responsible discussion, We don't need the nonsense, thank you very much.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Polycarp is a celebrated figure in the history of Christianity. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D., connecting him to both the biblical apostles and the age of the early church fathers. Several ancient sources document the contributions of Polycarp to Christianity, including his letters written to the church at Philippi, in which he encourages the members to remain strong in their faith and to flee from materialism.
===============================================

I offer this to save me typing a lengthy history about Polycarp's link to St. John....a pupil of John and not just another believer. One did not become a pupil in those days by mere sayso.

Cheers,

Jim

 

My focus is on "substance" not merely bluster - though I appreciate your stab at it.

The point is that WE ALREADY HAVE the experiement IN history. This is not simply "theory" it is fact. The experiement has been tried - and guess what Jim - "the results are in".

Turning a blind eye to history does not improve your argument.

Blustering at me for "noting history" does nothing to improve your case either.

Try again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The argument is not that "ECF's CAN't HAVE ANY truth at all!".

The argument is that John IS "the infallible source" because he writes as an "inspired author" and Polycarp is NOT! Polycarp is a mere faint reflection that is subject to error! There exists NO CLAIM to infallible doctrine, text, views for Polycarp -- any more than you or I!

So when the RCC dumps the INFALLIBLE sources and latches on to the error-prone fallible sources "instead" we have a wide open door "for gross error".

ONe that results in Bible burning, Saint slaughtering, Purgatory, worship at the altars of Mary "queen of heaven" co-redemptrix, priests with "magic powers" that remain EVEN AFTER they go into apostacy - powers to confect God, prayers to the dead...etc

Once the decision is made that "the traditions of man" and "fallible sources" are a MORE RELIABLE platform than the infallible source "scripture" -- the door is wide open to error and the stage set for The Dark Ages!

History anyone?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Sigh, "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition" on a debate about the ECFs, but, then again, this does sadly seem to be one of Bob's obsessions.

If Polycarp is a 'mere reflection' being only three generations removed from Jesus and thus apparently disqualified to interpret Scripture, then how much more disqualified are we!

 

It is not the matter of generation.

Look at here:

Paul was warning the Elders of Ephesus " even among you there shall arise someone who try to draw the people to follow himself!"

Apsostasy didn't take that long.
I have often noticed so-called th second generation Apostles had the problems and made ridiculous mistakes.

I mentioned Cathari and Albigenes were true believers, but am sure that they made ridiculous mistakes too! and that was the points where RC found fault with and branded as Heretic! even though they were born again people in general.( Not all, as usual)

 

Jim,

You've got to be kidding. Is that what is actually believed in the circles you frequent? My goodness that is stunning.

Hard core dispensationalism might be 100% true, it might be partially true, it might be almost completly wrong, but that doesnt change the fact that serious minded, and scholarly, men and women hold to it. They come to their conclusions as a result of in-depth and serious minded scriptural study.

It is 100% reasonable and worthy of consideration.

One aspect of dispensationalsim anyone is forced to acknowledge, even you. That being that God deals with His people in different ways during different God ordained dispensations.

Example: THe Israelites where given a system that included animal sacrifice to make atonement for their sins.

We, in this *dispensation* now understand what those animal sacrifices represented and we have no animal sacrifice for our sins.

That is all dispensationalism is. How much beyond that it should go is where brothers and sisters disagree.

God bless,

Mike

 

Doubting Thomas… you said “True, and you can look at how the earliest Christians in the Apostolic Churches consistently interpreted Scriptures on the key doctrines of God, Christ, and salvation and find a consistency across time and space.”
True. But there was not lock step conformity among the earliest Christians.

However the larger point here is that there was disagreement on many doctrines, and each person had to decide for themselves which teaching (say for example Arius versus Augustine) best fit the whole counsel of God. The “Church” was divided on it, for a time Arius gaining the upper hand, so was the Holy Spirit infallibility guiding the church then? Or were fallible men reading the Scriptures with the help of the Holy Spirit? Plainly, it is the latter. Otherwise you are forced to conclude that the Holy Spirit—if the Holy Spirit is to be so identified with the Church as that which be the ground and pillar of truth, as you seem to want to claim-- was wrong at one time or another as the church wrestled through various doctrines, and that the Holy Spirit has to depend on fallible man to decide what is true in doctrine and what is not. For if the Holy Spirit be equated with the church, and the church sometimes, even often, decided matters of doctrine on votes, then the Holy Spirit had to wait until a vote was over in order to proclaim what the doctrine of the church was. Or, if you want to say that the Holy Spirit moved men to vote in one way or another to decide on doctrine, then all the men who voted in the minority must not have had the Holy Spirit within them, and those in the majority had the Holy Spirit. Is this what you want to say? That everyone who errs doctrinally does not have the Holy Spirit?

Fallibility extends out beyond the apostles, infallibility on certain matters belongs to the writers of the NT as they faithfully recounted the teachings of Jesus. It was these (the apostles) that Christ promised to bring to their remembrance all the things He had said and done, not the general church.
Joh 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
So you can point to 1 Tim 3 all you like, but will not find the doctrine of papal infallibility or infallible apostolic succession, rather the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of as referring to God; “that ὁς εστι, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to Θεος, God, just before…. the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, Who Is (ὁς εστι) the pillar and ground of the truth.” (Clarke) This must refer to God for the following reason; that men are prone to error. That is, if it were referring to the church, then the pillar and ground of truth would be found to have error in it, but if it had error in it, it would cease to be the pillar and ground of truth. Therefore that which is referred to must be God, the only true and absolute truth. It is this truth that supports and under girds the truth.

Paul was all too familiar with the error of the church taken as a whole, look at the Galatians and the Corinthians for example. They were filled with believers that were in serious doctrinal error, sometimes being outside the church altogether, and sometimes not. For those errors that did not place someone outside of the faith altogether, they were in error nonetheless. Why then would Paul refer to that as being the ground and pillar of truth that was itself filled with all sorts of doctrinal error? This makes no sense at all.

blessings,
Ken