The Church fathers

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But I'm not trying to prove that the doctrines werre systematized from the fathers' teaching like Christology. They began to put their own spin on the sacraments and works (as well as Christology); that led in the direction of the later formulas, which were finally systematized in the Catholic councils. This still does not prove that the spins the fathers were putting on the NT teaching were correct in the first place.

It doesn't prove otherwise. The burden of proof is for the Reformers to demonstrate that their new "spins" are the correct NT teaching as opposed to the consensus of Church teaching up to that point.

The Canon was established in around the fourth century; not by Protestants. If there was to be an ever expanding body of revelation; then why did the Catholic Church even speak of a "canon"?

That question was answered by Vincent of Lerins back in the 5th century:
"Here someone may ask: since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the interpretation of the Church? Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in universal sense. The same statements are interpreted by some one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people...[Here he lists a dozen or so individuals and there associated heresies including the Sabellians, Eunomians, Arians,etc].. Therefore, on account of the number and variety or errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the catholic church."

This "rule" indeed began with the apostles teaching the Jews how the OT was to be properly interpreted (and was taught to them by Christ Himself). It continued as the "rule of faith" mentioned by those such as Irenaeus who showed how the Scriptures were to be interpreted as opposed to the interpretations of the heretics.

Once again, the Bereans were commended for searching the scriptures; not just following what their "traditions" just because they said so. The traditions are subject to the written revelation.

The Bereans were primarily commended because they received the apostolic word with all readiness, and they saw in the OT how it was indeed fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. For those Jews who refused to receive the Apostolic, Christocentric interpretation of the OT, the OT remained (and remains) a closed book. Just look at modern day Jewish apologists who try to argue from Scripture (the OT) that Jesus of Nazareth could not be the Messiah and had no right to "change or set aside the Law".

I even look at the cross-reference in 1 Cor.11:2; and while they were not inspired; still they give an idea of what these "traditions" (KJV "ordinances"; Gk.lit. "transmission") were--things you could find elsewhere in scripture!

The Greek word is paradosis which is "that which is handed down". It's the same word used for the "tradition" of men condemned in Mark 7. We're commanded to keep "tradition" in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15 (the latter mentioning whether it's transmitted by mouth or by epistle). In the latter case, it's given by Christ through the apostles to the Church which is why we are to keep it and not the Jewish traditions of men.

So proper "apostolic tradition" is no license to add anything we want to the faith.

Of course not. It's no license to subtract anything either.

It's funny that you turn to the scriptures to try to prove your doctrines. If it's oral tradition; then there should be no need to find them in the scriptures. If it's scriptural; there would be no need to appeal to tradition. But once again; this shows that tradition is a last minute attempt to fill in the holes these doctrines encounter in either a scripture or tradition argument.

Not at all. There has always been a reciprocal relationship between the oral interpretive tradition and the Scriptures themselves, starting with the Christ and the apostles who intrepreted the OT in light of the person in work of Jesus Christ as opposed to the rabbinical Jewish interpretation of the day. This continued with the fathers arguing from the apostolic traditional interpretation of Scriptures against heretics, especially the Arians in the 4th century who claimed to be using Scripture alone.

Still; if salvation ("entrance into the Kingdom") is tied to this; then it IS about a "line" no matter how you slice it. How do you define "faithful"? How much work is necessary, and how do we know if it is enough?

You're asking the wrong questions. God is the Judge--we must faithfully abide in Him by continuing to repent and by obeying His commands. There may be a "fear" aspect to it ("work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Phil 2:14 for example) but it's ultimately about love--if we love him we'll keep His commands.(John 14:15, 21)

"By this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says 'I know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
(1 John 2:3-4)

that was something I planned to ask after the last post. Just what is this "cultural/philosophical setting" that shaped sola-fide and symbolic sacraments?

Let's see...nominalism, rationalism, determinism. (see for example, Louis Bouyer The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism)

Certain correlations can be made with the mystical and legalistic concepts of the the fathers with the gnostics.

Only by misunderstanding both the fathers and the gnostics.

... But what outside ideological development suggested sola fide and symbolism? If you say it was gnostics; what gnostics were left in the 15th century?

The idea that Christianity can be reinvented outside the apostolic tradition that resides in the church. The novel idea that works are not important for salvation which is contrary to Scripture and the consensus of Church teaching. The rationalistic idea that what's physically perceptible can not also convey a spiritual reality. The rationalistic idea that the locus of salvation is in a particular "knowledge" and not in the sacramental life of the Church. It's these latter ideas that makes Protestantism (particularly it's contemporary form) strangely reminiscent of good old-fashioned gnosticism.

These are isolated statements that are snatched up as proving the later Catholic practices; but even they in themselves do not necessarily prove the whole deal.

These are not "isolated" statements but are consistent with the particular father's other teachings and are consistent with other fathers' teachings across time and space.

I was aware after I posted that I seemed to be totally dismissing any visible elements. (in the way gnosticism puts down physical existence). But still; in the true spiritual fulfillments; they would not be the center of the worship experience.

Why not? Denying the usefulness of the physical is inconsistent with embracing the reality of the Incarnation. Christ the Divine-human is the center of our worship and He has ordained divine-physical means by which we may participate in His Divine-human life.

They would not have some divine powers in themselves. This is what Church practice had done.

The "divine powers" is by the power of the Spirit. You err in supposing that the Spirit cannot use physical media to convey His grace. This is very close to gnosticism.

God is a spirit, and does not reside in temples or anything else made by hands.

Which is the same argument advanced by those early heretics who denied the reality of the Incarnation, proposing docetism instead. It's also the same argument of those of various stripes today who deny that God can become incarnate in human being.

but when He left; it was the Spirit that took His place and continued His presence on earth until His return. Not new physical manifestations.

The Spirit indwells the Church which has a physical reality. Christ breathed on the disciples (physical beings) and gave them the power by the Spirit to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23). The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ's body in the waters of baptism, and by the invocation of the Spirit the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

To have such is to have partners besides God; which is precisely what Jews and Muslims; reacting to these "traditions" accuse Christianity of; even though in reality it is not.

Which is why Jews and Muslims rejected the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. They misunderstood the Church's teaching on these and other vital truths.

So the "new forms instituted by Christ and His apostles" were symbols by which we do show spiritual truths; not actually recreate them.

Which you've asserted several times, but have yet to prove. It wasn't until Zwingli that this idea was taught--the consensus of the Church has taught otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove Zwingli's views are the correct ones. You have failed to do so.

"give every indication" can become a fallacy that is a substitute for real proof. Basically; you're reading it into the NT (just as much as you accuse the later dosctrines), basically with the fathers as the ultimate proof that this is what they believed; and then saying "this proves that the apostles taught it the fathers". That is a cyclical argument.

Pot...Kettle...
Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents of doctrinal novelties to prove that the consensus of Church teaching got it wrong for 1500 years without begging the question and reading those new doctrines back into scripture.

I think it's inconsistent to emphasize, as you do, the spiritual fulfilment of the OT, yet reject the possibility of a mystical connection via the physical sacraments to Christ, the Divine Logos who became a physical man for us and our salvation. This is a reflection of 16th century rationalistic beliefs with its consequent widening split between the spiritual and material which is ironically more in keeping with the gnosticism of old than historical Christianity.

At any rate, at this point I need to step away from message boards and attend to other things. I do appreciate your collegial dialogue, Eric.

 

[Eric B]

It doesn't prove otherwise. The burden of proof is for the Reformers to demonstrate that their new "spins" are the correct NT teaching as opposed to the consensus of Church teaching up to that point.

So the Reformers have the burden of proof; but not the fathers, and their "consensus". Just because they came earlier; and they had these "traditions", then they are above all scrutiny; and what they say goes no matter what.

That question was answered by Vincent of Lerins back in the 5th century:
"Here someone may ask: since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the interpretation of the Church? Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in universal sense. The same statements are interpreted by some one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people...[Here he lists a dozen or so individuals and there associated heresies including the Sabellians, Eunomians, Arians,etc].. Therefore, on account of the number and variety or errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the catholic church."

This "rule" indeed began with the apostles teaching the Jews how the OT was to be properly interpreted (and was taught to them by Christ Himself). It continued as the "rule of faith" mentioned by those such as Irenaeus who showed how the Scriptures were to be interpreted as opposed to the interpretations of the heretics.

Legitimate concern; but then as I said; if we are that unstable and disputatious with written revelation; then how much worse we will be with "oral tradition". And since all those heresies that this approach reacted to were already a couple of centuries after the NT; it shows that this "consensus" was NOT "handed down from the apostles"; but when these disputes became troublesome; people sat down and determined what was the "truth"; read it back into the NT; and then "apostolic tradition" was used to make this an unchallengeable; untestable "authority". No wonder disputes and dissension continued after this; and with the Catholic Church continuing to add new and more radical practices (presumably all from "the sposles"; right?); more groups broke off; the Church divided right down the middle when the Eastern Church split off; and finally; it was so much that we had the Protestant reformation. So much for these "centuries of Church consensus ruined by those Protestants and their 'novel ideas'"!
Stepping back; in areas like the disputes over the Godhead; the opposing "formulas" were weighed; and the best one chosen. The Nicene formula was not spelled out as precisely in the Bible; (I believe the "econoomic" view of the earlier fathers was more accurate); but it was superior to Arianism; which made Christ both Creator and Created; and Sabellianism; which couldn't really explain how Christ could pray to the Father. But that does not mean that "the Bible lays out Nicene orthodoxy as a formula". (Even though most; including evangelical Protestants seem to assume that). We do not read these things back into the NT; we just take them in their hostorical contexts. Likewise; since the Church had already adopted its concepts of baptism, communion and works; then these would be "canonized" as "apostolic traditon" as well. What you are missing is how what the Church is actually doing, is claiming to retroactively create new truth "from the apostles". It is similar to the more radical KJVO's claim that the English translation is what God actually inspired; and the ancient texts are based on it!
We must remember that these were men; and they interpreted the truth from their perspective just as much as any later movements.

For those Jews who refused to receive the Apostolic, Christocentric interpretation of the OT, the OT remained (and remains) a closed book. Just look at modern day Jewish apologists who try to argue from Scripture (the OT) that Jesus of Nazareth could not be the Messiah and had no right to "change or set aside the Law".

Not at all. There has always been a reciprocal relationship between the oral interpretive tradition and the Scriptures themselves, starting with the Christ and the apostles who intrepreted the OT in light of the person in work of Jesus Christ as opposed to the rabbinical Jewish interpretation of the day. This continued with the fathers arguing from the apostolic traditional interpretation of Scriptures against heretics, especially the Arians in the 4th century who claimed to be using Scripture alone.

And what do the Jews use? Oral Tradition! (supposedly of Moses!). They too have some OT passage they use (like the NT ones you posted) to prove that this was just as authoritative. And ironically; one of the thing they criticize Christianity for is using the Bible only, and not the oral traditions. (BEats me how they miss Catholicism's empasis on tradition; when they accuse all of Christianity of many things only the Catholics teach and do).
Once again; who can know what is right? People can teach anything, and it can't be challenged! How can you say the JEws are wrong? You try to prove Christ from the OT scriptures; but since "patristic oral tradition" says something else; then christ is not really proven. And since theirs came before ours; that would make them right! So church traditions would be invalid from the getgo; because Christ would be false! Can't you see the dilemma this appeal to "tradition" creates? SO once again; not wonder the Church accelerated in splintering after the Church took this position. It made the proble of "scriptural interpretation" WORSE; not better!

The Greek word is paradosis which is "that which is handed down". It's the same word used for the "tradition" of men condemned in Mark 7. We're commanded to keep "tradition" in 1 Cor 11:2 and 2 Thess 2:15 (the latter mentioning whether it's transmitted by mouth or by epistle). In the latter case, it's given by Christ through the apostles to the Church which is why we are to keep it and not the Jewish traditions of men.

Still; these are things that can be found in scripture; not things totally foreign to them. Things could be "passed down', and then recorded in scripture too; and still be "tradition". Remember; when the NT was being written, it was being written (as letters to individuals and congregations). It was not yet cuhrch wide "scripture". So it was "handed down tradition" until it was copied for the entired Church.

You're asking the wrong questions. God is the Judge--we must faithfully abide in Him by continuing to repent and by obeying His commands. There may be a "fear" aspect to it ("work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Phil 2:14 for example) but it's ultimately about love--if we love him we'll keep His commands.(John 14:15, 21)

"By this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says 'I know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
(1 John 2:3-4)

This is what we believe; but still, we cannot say that these "works" are what get us into Heaven. For that brings God's standards down to basically, a grade-curving. Because none of us; even after conversion; have kept the commandments consistently, and would still be condemned if God were judging by works. And it says "work out your salvation". (i.e. you are already saved (from the penalty as well as power of sin); so now live like it!) We must not confuse this (As the Campbellites also do) with "work FOR your salvation!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that was something I planned to ask after the last post. Just what is this "cultural/philosophical setting" that shaped sola-fide and symbolic sacraments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see...nominalism, rationalism, determinism. (see for example, Louis Bouyer The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain correlations can be made with the mystical and legalistic concepts of the the fathers with the gnostics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only by misunderstanding both the fathers and the gnostics.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... But what outside ideological development suggested sola fide and symbolism? If you say it was gnostics; what gnostics were left in the 15th century?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that Christianity can be reinvented outside the apostolic tradition that resides in the church. The novel idea that works are not important for salvation which is contrary to Scripture and the consensus of Church teaching.

All of this assumes once again; that their "tradition" was right in the first place. Now suppose we do the same thing. Let's imagine; If the RCC; lets say, were to completely water down into a non-Christian elcectic/ecumenical religion. Therefore, the "catholic" position would be out of the way as another false movement that came and went; and the Protestants would remain the sole representatives of "historic orthodoxy". Hundreds of years from now; people then defend all of Protestantism's doctrines as "apotolic tradition handed down from the apostles". Does that make them right then? But they would be so far removed from actual history; who could really test it? The details of actual history that led to it would be glossed over and ignored. This is what has happened in the history we are discussing.
And rationalism determinism are not the same as gnosticism. God could have used those movements to break the stranglehold of the Dark Ages Church. Once again; if that Church, with its "traditions" had everything right all along; then why was there such darkness, and "nominalism", and those other movements (rationalism, etc) in the first place? (Actually; a works-based system is more likely to lead to nominalism; since people know they cannot do good enough for God; and therefore "give up". This describes more churchgoing Catholics today than Protestants).

The rationalistic idea that what's physically perceptible can not also convey a spiritual reality.

We do not deny this. But it is how you confine "convey" where the conflict is. A mystical sense is what characterize gnosticism; not a representative sense.

The rationalistic idea that the locus of salvation is in a particular "knowledge" and not in the sacramental life of the Church. It's these latter ideas that makes Protestantism (particularly it's contemporary form) strangely reminiscent of good old-fashioned gnosticism.

But the gnostics did not have JUSt "knowledge"; but had their own practices as well. And they and the philosopy behind them bore more similarity to the catholic practices than anything Protestantism does.

These are not "isolated" statements but are consistent with the particular father's other teachings and are consistent with other fathers' teachings across time and space.

Regardless; by "isolated", I meant that they in themselves were not spelling out a whole formula of doctrine or ritual. From Ignatius" "confess not the communion to be the body and blood" we do not necessarily get some mystical ritual of the elements being turned into literal flesh and blood of Christ (which was laready risen and glorified). Not even some "spiritual presence". It is a metaphor (decribing something as what it represents, without using "like" or "as".)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was aware after I posted that I seemed to be totally dismissing any visible elements. (in the way gnosticism puts down physical existence). But still; in the true spiritual fulfillments; they would not be the center of the worship experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not? Denying the usefulness of the physical is inconsistent with embracing the reality of the Incarnation. Christ the Divine-human is the center of our worship and He has ordained divine-physical means by which we may participate in His Divine-human life.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They would not have some divine powers in themselves. This is what Church practice had done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "divine powers" is by the power of the Spirit. You err in supposing that the Spirit cannot use physical media to convey His grace. This is very close to gnosticism.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is a spirit, and does not reside in temples or anything else made by hands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is the same argument advanced by those early heretics who denied the reality of the Incarnation, proposing docetism instead. It's also the same argument of those of various stripes today who deny that God can become incarnate in human being.

Again, the burden of proof is on the proponents of doctrinal novelties to prove that the consensus of Church teaching got it wrong for 1500 years without begging the question and reading those new doctrines back into scripture.

I think it's inconsistent to emphasize, as you do, the spiritual fulfilment of the OT, yet reject the possibility of a mystical connection via the physical sacraments to Christ, the Divine Logos who became a physical man for us and our salvation. This is a reflection of 16th century rationalistic beliefs with its consequent widening split between the spiritual and material which is ironically more in keeping with the gnosticism of old than historical Christianity.

Once again; this does not necessarily follow. for one thing; the divinity lied in the spiritual aspect of Christ; not His flesh. Likewise; the value of baptism and communion like in what they represent. Not the physical element themselves. It was the gnostics; who rejecting the physical as bad; then made everything (including Christ's body) "spiritual". But since we cannot see spirit, and are in a physical world; this led to ironically; focusing on physical elements (just like the idolaters of old), and ascribing magical powers to them! This takes the focus off of the Spirit. It is a very slick tactic of the enemy!

The Spirit indwells the Church which has a physical reality. Christ breathed on the disciples (physical beings) and gave them the power by the Spirit to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23). The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ's body in the waters of baptism, and by the invocation of the Spirit the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

And as I said; that physical "incarnation" of the Spirit is now in US; the BODY itself; not in these external elements. This is where your position has gotten it all mixed up. The spirit baptized believers into the body. the water was the symbol of this; not the actual conmversion itself; for anyone can be baptized without really having accepted Christ into their heart; and someone can accept Christ an possibly not be able to be baptized (at least not right away). But we cannot deny them salvation until that ceremony.
And as we fellowhip together, and eat and drink (whether "bread and wine" or not); We are one as a Body by the Spirit. Once again; focusing on the elements themselves (which anyone nor spiritually apart of the Body can do) takes the focus off of spiritual realities.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To have such is to have partners besides God; which is precisely what Jews and Muslims; reacting to these "traditions" accuse Christianity of; even though in reality it is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why Jews and Muslims rejected the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. They misunderstood the Church's teaching on these and other vital truths.

Because the formulas they used were confusing and misleading. (And the Church's positon on Mary made it worse; as this was who Muhammad thought was the third person beside Jesus and God). Sticking to scripture alone (and the less formulated expressions) could have avoided all that conflict and misunderstanding!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the "new forms instituted by Christ and His apostles" were symbols by which we do show spiritual truths; not actually recreate them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which you've asserted several times, but have yet to prove. It wasn't until Zwingli that this idea was taught--the consensus of the Church has taught otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to prove Zwingli's views are the correct ones. You have failed to do so.

The fact that I'm quoting scripture (1 Cor.11:26) should be enough "proof". "show" is "proclaim" I forgot to add. Here is a clear statement taeeling us how the elements relate to the spiritual reality. But precisely the problem; focusing on extrabiblical revelation then renders the scriptures useless. They then only serve to support the tratidions where they can. This is why it's so dangerous.

 

[Matt Black]

As I see it, one has the following choices:-

Either

1. The Catholic/Orthodox Church of the 4th and 5th centuries was apostate and incapable of making the correct decisions. If that is the case, however, then the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Ephesus and Chalcedon are wrong. Accordingly, please pick the Christological/ Trinitarian heresy you would like us to have: Arianism, Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Docetism, Monophysitism etc. Also, as the New Testament canon is up for grabs too, please feel free to pick and choose your NT books: clearly, James has to go (too Catholic, salvation by works etc); what about the διδαχη or the 'Shepherd of Hermas'. Better still, have a heresy and a new NT book in one: the Gospel of Thomas!

Or

2. The Church that made the above Conciliar decisions was infallible and made correct decisions. Consequently, we should believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and Baptismal Regeneration for infants as well as adults...

You choose...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

No takers? No surprise, I guess

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

There's no inbetween? If they were not infallible; and all their practices the truth; then they were totally heretical, and all their practices false?
Sorry; but in a world of fallen men; nothing is ever like this. Like the Ying and Yang (a testimony of how eastern religions fits into the point I am now making!) every good man does has imperfection in it; and every evil has at least some good in it.
In the New testament; what we see is warnings that error was creeping into the Church. So a mixture is what it would be. (And since John was the primary reporter of this condition; even the 10 years you earlier insisted on was enough. It was already there as he wrote!) Unfortunately; the error increased. The 4th/5th century Church is a lot closer to the truth then the present RCC. Remember, as I said; new "truth" was constantly being brought in; leading to all the schism as it became too much for certain groups of people.
As for James "salvation by works"; that is not what he is saying. He is warning people (apparently, who realized the grace they had in Christ; but then became lax) that if they have no works; then their faith is "dead". This acknowledges that it is faith that saves; and a living faith has fruits (works). Not that it's the works that save them, as if faith is just some side issue that is indecisive, or something. The way you are taking it has James contradicting Paul.

Just curious; in your profile; or at least its teachings and practices are infallible then? Have you changed churches and just didn't update the profile?

 

[Matt Black]

No, I still go to a Baptist Church and feel more or less at home in that particular congregation. But I have been put off what appears to be mainstream Baptist doctrine eg: sola Scriptura, on the basis of the conduct of some of the posters on this board.

On the issue of 'inbetween', I don't think that's a viable stance to take: if the Church of the 4th and 5th centuries was not infallible, then how can we be sure of the doctrine of the Trinity, or the canon of the New Testament. If we're admitting the possibility that those Church Councils could have got it wrong, then it means we have no way of knowing whether eg: they made the right decision about what was in the NT and what was not; accordingly how do we know that the Bible we have by our bedside is correct?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

How about just read the Bible for yourself!
That's why; after centuries of witnessing the ever shifting shifting sands annd winds of human doctrine coming from the RCC; and all claimed to be "infallible truth", Luther taught "private interpretation". (not in the sense criticized in 2 Per.1:20; which is referring to an esoteric (secret) interpretation; which more matches the historic RCC position!); and the doctrine of sola-scriptura developed. God made His word understandable to any who diligenty studies it and takes it in its contexts; so He doesn;t need a body of leaders who themselves are corrupt and often have agendas they are trying to read into it.

Even which books are correct; while "officially" ratified by the councils; was generally known before that. Most of those other "gospels, acts epistles and apocalypses" were gnostic fabrications; and to read them; you can tell the difference; at least a spiritually discerning person could. I can even see the difference between the NT epistles and the similar apostolic fathers (Clement; Ignatius; psueido-Barnabas, Hermas, etc). As I said; they began adding in little allegories and thing of their own that just do not look like what the Holy Spirit inspired. (Like 1 Clement's fable of the phoenix; 2 Clement's "anger he calls female and concupisence he calls male" (or however that went), and Barnabas' "the weasel conceives through it's mouth"--imagine if Creationists had to defend that from modern science! )
So if one has the Holy Spirit; he will recognize the words of the Holy Spirit

Just curious; what does the conduct of people on this board have to do with sola-scriptura?

 

[Matt Black]

Try the millenialist threads in the Theology Forum - there are FOUR of them! They demonstrate the bankruptcy of private interpretation

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

They are doing nothing more than what the RCC has done throughout the ages. Coming up with their own theories. The only difference is that here we have individuals stating their own interpretation of scripture instead of a Church government making it a law based on their interpretation of scripture plus church fathers. Centuries of dark Church history shows that the individual way is less dangerous.

 

[Kiffen]

The Church councils are not infallible but their importance in defeating Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism cannot be overstated nor the fact that they canonize Scripture. Yes, the Fathers were not infallible but the Church councils should not be ignored. Personally I hold the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian and Athanasian creeds to be definers of orthodoxy in one's interpretation of both the Trinity and Christology.

 

[Matt Black]

If they are not infallible then why do you hold to those Creeds and the Chalcedonian Definition? And how do you know that the NT you have in your Bible is the correct one, if the 'canonising councils' are not infallible? Scripture can hardly be inerrant if we don't even know for sure what IS Scripture!

Eric, I would submit that the individual approach is far more dangerous - you only have to look at all the cults and some of the charismatics to see that, and I personally have seen the widespread damage that can cause. It also boils down to "one man and his Bible" which, last time I looked, was at least one person short of a church - what happens then to "when two or three are gathered together"?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

Cults (most relatively small), and "one man and his Bible". Could this possibly be worse than one large body (which in the past ruled practically the whole world), and it's infallible authority? Then people experience that it is full of darkness; and then the doctrines even change! (Vatican II, etc). Basically, a giant cult, and one man with his Bible, catchisms, etc. over millions of people. Which one has more power, and therefore can do (And has done) more damage.

 

[Kiffen]

If they are not infallible then why do you hold to those Creeds and the Chalcedonian Definition?

Because their definition agrees with Scripture. I don't believe Tradition is equal to Scripture but nor do I agree Tradition is irrelevant as some Protestants. Tradition is a guide and as Dr.R.C. Sproul states if you come up with a Bible interpretation that has been associated with heretics and is contradictory to the Councils then you most likely better change your doctrine. Let me state that I agree 100% with the Ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon, Athanasius) but that does not mean I believe the Church councils have the same weight as Scripture but serve as guide to interpretation.

And how do you know that the NT you have in your Bible is the correct one, if the 'canonising councils' are not infallible? Scripture can hardly be inerrant if we don't even know for sure what IS Scripture!

Because I agree the Council made a correct choice on the NT books and many of these NT books were already accepted before the Church officially canonized them. I don't want to get into a long discussion on Canonization but they painstakingly researched this. I think they erred on the Apocrypha despite Jerome's objections (Though Protestants and Catholics make a bigger deal about this than they should)but God in His sovereignty corrected this with the Reformation.