The Doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, Volume 2...

[Doubting Thomas]

Interesting articles, Mike. Many of the points raised therein beg the question (particularly in regard to the four things God is said to do have done in the act of justification), disregard the overall context of passages offered in support of that view, and/or ignore other verses (ie especially some of the verses I've already posted) which contravert the points advanced. (Their treatment of James 2 is particularly weak.) But merely than just asserting all of this, I will also give a lengthy rebuttal to this article and post it by the end of the week (I'm off work this coming Friday)...and then I just may have to link to an article myself. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[BobRyan]

This term justification in the Greek means ‘to render (show or regard as) just or innocent'. This means that his faith was shown or regarded as just (or true) by the works it brought about. This is the same Greek word used by Christ in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35, where he states: "Wisdom is vindicated (justified) by her deeds (or all her children)." This means that in this context to vindicate or justify means to take an action which demonstrates or evidences the worth or authenticity of something. We are rendered righteous before God by faith and our faith is shown true by its fruit.

That is how our works function in accordance with our faith. Works are the evidence that our faith is real. They are not the currency with which we purchase our place in heaven, but works are the receipt, or the evidence that Christ has purchased it for us and given us faith. Many people say I look like my father and sound like my father. Is this what makes me my father's son? No. I am my father's son because I am born of him. Looking like him and sounding like him are evidences that have occurred which bear testimony to the fact that I am his son. In the same way, talking like God, living Godly, laboring for God do not make us children of God. However, they are evidences that bear testimony to the fact that we have been born of God. [Example of King Solomon-1Kg 3:16-28]



Assurance of Salvation: An Examination of Works in a Christian's Faith
By Eric Schumacher
http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/works.html

Perfect!

Who is Schumacher?

This fits perfectly with Dan 7:22 "Judgment passed in favor of the saints"

 

[DHK]

Now I agree with you that this is the Scriptural position, and I have indeed argued thus from Scripture. However, the fact that DHK and D28guy also insist that theirs is the "Scriptural position", shows the weakness of sola Scriptura. As the Apostle Peter said Scriptures can be twisted by untaught and unstable men, as there are some hard things in them--particularly some of Paul's sayings (2 Peter 3:15-16). So while I would assert that Scriptures "contain all things necessary for salvation ("scriptura omnia continet"), I would continue to disagree that Scripture by itself--apart from the consensual teaching of the Church across time and space--is sufficient at arriving at it's own correct interpretation (ie "sola Scriptura"), as is demonstrated by the endless debates on this board as to what is "the Scriptural position" on this and many other issues. *In other words, Scriptures are materially sufficient--they have all the "stuff" necessary for salvation--but are formally insufficient--they need to be correctly interpreted.

(I hope this clarifies my position on this issue)

DT

Thanks, it clarifies your position a whole lot. However, the Bible still teaches sola scriptura. We find that throughout both the OT and the NT.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
--In the OT it was the only rule of authority.
--The expression “thus saith the Lord,” is used 430 times in the Bible. It refers to God’s Word. It is written for us in the Bible. It is what God has said. It is our authority; we have no other.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
--There is no greater example of sola scriptura then with the Bereans, who would not accept Paul’s NT message without verifying it first by means of studying the OT. This they did daily, and were commended for it.

2 Peter 1:16-19 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory,
18 This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
--Follow along here closely.
First Peter assures his readers that this is not “made-up” stuff. It is not a cunningly devised fable. It is no story. He was an eyewitness of “His Majesty.” What is he referring to here? In verse 17 it was the Lord that received from God the Father, honor and glory, when a voice came from heaven testifying to such. What did the voice say?
This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased! Then Peter testifies that he heard that voice when they were with him in the holy mount. He was describing the most awesome experience that a man could ever have; the most tremendous form of revelation that could ever be revealed—the glorified Christ and the appearance of Elijah and Moses, along with the testimony of God the Father’s voice booming out of heaven. What a tremendous, awesome experience one could ever have.
And yet, in spite of all that, what does Peter conclude:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy.
He is referring to the Word of God, as the succeeding verses tell us. The Word of God is more reliable than the greatest spiritual experiences that a man can have. They are more reliable than the sum total of all the writings of the ECF put together. There is nothing more important than the Word of God. We have a more sure word of prophecy. It is even greater than the revelation given on the Mount of Transfiguration. All you need to know is given in the Word of God. You have no need of any other authority. This is the emphasis that Peter is making. If we can’t get it from these few verses one must be blind to the truth, and yet for the obstinate he continues on:

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
---Don’t take heed to my experiences; but rather take heed to the Word of God, its prophecies, its promises, what it has to say. That is where you will find life.
--It is the Word of God that shines in dark place, and it will continue to grow brighter and brighter in the life of the believer until the coming of Christ. Christ is not here in physical form. But his Spirit is, and indwells every believer. His Spirit illuminates every believer and gives light. That light shines, and will continue to shine until Christ comes. Tradition doesn’t shine. The ECF don’t shine. Creeds don’t shine. Denominational dogmas don’t shine. The magesterium and papal decrees don’t shine. It is only the Word of God through the life of the believer that shines, and will do so until the day of Jesus Christ.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
--By “private interpretation” is meant “by compulsion.” It is the absence of soul liberty. It is the practice of the RCC to compel its adherents to adhere to the Magesterium and its teachings (the Catechism), and thus have no soul liberty whatsoever. There is no such thing as freedom of religion; no tolerance of another’s belief. You are dictated what you must believe. This form of thinking was quite evident in the days of the Reformation and just before. One of the best examples was Mary, Queen of Tudor, who after two reigning Church of England Monarchs, saw the RCC almost pass out of England. She was a zealous Catholic who was determined to do something about that. Every person who would not conform to the Catholic religion she had murdered. This was the evident result of a state church—persecution to those who would not succumb to the state church. It is still evident today in Islamic lands where Christians are not tolerated and undergo great persecution.
Catholics today have no soul liberty—the right to believe what they determine in their hearts to believe is right whether or not it agrees with the RCC. This is because the RCC has a “private interpretation,” contrary to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Prophecy did not come by Tradition, by ECF, by Creeds, by decrees, by Councils, etc. Prophecy (i.e., the Word of God) came by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Peter wrote this about the prophets of the OT. It is only fair to say that by extension they also apply to the NT apostolic writers as well. We have other Scriptures that verify that such as 2Pet.3:1,2.

All of the above make an irrefutable case for sola scriptura. This is a bit off topic from “salvation by faith,” but also a bit needful in order to set some groundwork. Besides it was in answer to your post.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --Quote:
So how would you use that in this case to resolve a disputed idea that is not resolved by the other side simply admitting to the truth of the scriptures you have posted?

DT said -
I could point not only to the Scriptures (as I have done) but also to the consensus of how the early fathers interpreted them on this issue. That's all I can do, because some won't accept the evidence in either case.

1. Does the fact that they don't accet the ECF's statement as well as your presentation sola-scriptura form a proof of weakness in using the ECF's just as you say that it shows the flaw in Sola Scriptura?

2. in the case of your use of the bible AND the ECFs - everyone views that as using an infallible source (scripture) AND a fallible source (ECFs). Wouldn't you agree.

3. In the case of your use of the INFALLIBLE source (scripture) they will say it is a reference to the infallible text plus your fallible interpretation of what the scripture writer is saying.

4. In the case of your quote of the ECF quotes - they will say it is your use of a FALLIBLE source AND your FALLIBLE interpretation of what the ECF writer is saying... don't you agree??

How then can this be taken as an argument for the weakness of Sola-scriptura and the need for ECF quotes?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

1. Does the fact that they don't accet the ECF's statement as well as your presentation sola-scriptura form a proof of weakness in using the ECF's just as you say that it shows the flaw in Sola Scriptura?

No. If people are so wed to the notion of "sola Scriptura" that they refuse to see the ahistorical nature of that doctrine or the epistemological and practical difficulties involved, then it's no wonder they won't accept the need for the consensus patri in interpretating Scriptures within the Church. The historical fact is that in the early Church (even well before Constantine and Nicea) heresy was combatted by appealing to Scriptures as they had been commonly understood from the beginning within the Apostolic Church based on its "rule of faith".

2. in the case of your use of the bible AND the ECFs - everyone views that as using an infallible source (scripture) AND a fallible source (ECFs). Wouldn't you agree.

First, I'm not claiming infallibility for individual ECFs--I'm claiming indefectability for the Church corporately. It is within this corporate Church that the Scriptures were written by the founders of the Church, the apostles, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is also this corporate Church that was led by the same Holy Spirit to collect the Scriptures, come to a consensus on the limits of the canon, and finally fix those limits at the end of the 4th century. Therefore, one should be careful in merely dismissing the same folks who finally fixed those canonical limits as simply "fallible". It was the indefectable Church which by consensus finally set the limits of the Scriptural canon, and we should probably heed this same indefectable Church when they have expressed a consensus in interpreting specific doctrines/passages within those same Scriptures.

3. In the case of your use of the INFALLIBLE source (scripture) they will say it is a reference to the infallible text plus your fallible interpretation of what the scripture writer is saying.

Yes, that's what "they will say". Then I will say theirs is the fallible interpreation. So who decides which of our mutually contradictory interpretations is correct? The consensus patri within the Church--the same Church which, led by the Holy Spirit, received and finalized the limits of the canon.

4. In the case of your quote of the ECF quotes - they will say it is your use of a FALLIBLE source AND your FALLIBLE interpretation of what the ECF writer is saying... don't you agree??

They may say that, however it's not an individual ECF writer to whom the appeal is made, but the consensus. As I said in my post above: "However, I think when people began to interpret Scriptures in a certain way, it should give those folks pause if that particular interpretation is contrary to how the consensus of the Church across time and space has interpreted Scripture on that issue." It's not that any of the ECFs are individually infallible, but if they generally agree on an interpretation of a certain doctrine--going back to the beginning--then we should probably re-examine a certain alternative (particularly when it was the ECFs in the corporate Church that by consensus arrived at the limits of the Scriptural canon).

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

"However, I think when people began to interpret Scriptures in a certain way, it should give those folks pause if that particular interpretation is contrary to how the consensus of the Church across time and space has interpreted Scripture on that issue."

The consensus of "the Church" across time and space?

Which "church"? Two of the oldest "across time and space" are the Roman Catholic Church...created almost 4 centuries after the birth of Gods church...and the Eastern Orthodox church(created even later that the RCC). And both of those groups are overflowing with blasphemy, idolatry, paganism, goddess worship and legalistic falsehood.

So it cant be those.

Do you think it might be the oldest of the churches, the one begun on the day of pentecost? The Jesus people. The non-hierarchial "royal priesthood" of Gods believers justified through faith in Christ alone? The children of God. The evangelicals.

They have been here from the day of pentecost until today. They have gone by many different names through the centuries. And they are still here. And they hold to sola scriptura and faith alone.

The truth is...

We DO NOT judge the scriptures up against the traditions and unbiblical ruling hierarchies of men.

Rather, we judge all organisations, practices and teachings up against the scriptures.

Mike

 

[DHK]

First, I'm not claiming infallibility for individual ECFs--I'm claiming indefectability for the Church corporately. It is within this corporate Church that the Scriptures were written by the founders of the Church, the apostles, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is also this corporate Church that was led by the same Holy Spirit to collect the Scriptures, come to a consensus on the limits of the canon, and finally fix those limits at the end of the 4th century. Therefore, one should be careful in merely dismissing the same folks who finally fixed those canonical limits as simply "fallible". It was the indefectable Church which by consensus finally set the limits of the Scriptural canon, and we should probably heed this same indefectable Church when they have expressed a consensus in interpreting specific doctrines/passages within those same Scriptures.

Just what "church" are you referring to? The RCC only started or originated in the fourth century, so it couldn't have been them. The ECF did not belong to any one collective "church," but rather they were scattered far and wide, all having wide and divergent views.
For example many view Origen as the real Father of Arianism. Even the RCC labeled him as an heretic. Is he included in your list of ECF, of did he appear to late on the scene for you to include him?
Iraneus believed that Christ lived to the ripe old age of eighty years old! If we are to believe him on such oddities as those, then what other strange doctrines do they hold? How can they be trusted? What makes them any different than any other non-inspired falliblel man?

For that matter why not take into consideration all the "great" leaders throughout the centuries: EGW, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, William Branham, Benny Hinn, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and so many others. Shouldn't we examine all their beliefs and give them just as much credence as the ECF? Why not? Weren't they "great leaders" also, as history will have them eventually portrayed.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas,
The consensus of "the Church" across time and space?

Yes, that's what I said.

Which "church"? .

The visible Church founded on the Apostles at Pentecost, consisting of those visible congregations founded by the Apostles and the visible congragations begat from missionaries of those local congregations etc. Those who in these visible local churches have maintained common episcopal succession from the Apostles and have maintained the common Apostolic Faith. Indeed, the same visible Church which collected and finallized the limits of the Scriptural canon at the end of the 4th century.

Do you think it might be the oldest of the churches, the one begun on the day of pentecost? The Jesus people.

Yep...that's what I just said.

The non-hierarchial "royal priesthood" of Gods believers justified through faith in Christ alone? The children of God. The evangelicals.

No, more like the Church which was heirarchical from the beginning, with the Apostles being the chief "heirarchs", and those like Timothy and Titus")--along with others like Mark, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp-- (whom the Apostles commissioned to ordain elders "in each city") who were their immediate successors. That "royal priesthood" in Christ, washed and united to Christ in baptism, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, justified by faith working through love, nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion, created unto good works. The New Covenant children of God; the evangelical orthodox catholic Church; the heavenly Jerusalem "which is the mother of us all". (Gal 4:26) :thumbs:

They have been here from the day of pentecost until today. They have gone by many different names through the centuries. And they are still here. And they hold to sola scriptura and faith alone.

The heretics and schismatics have been known by different names through out the centuries (with the latter at least maintaining the catholic apostolic faith). Sola Scriptura and Sola fide were more or less not championed until the Reformation.

The truth is...

We DO NOT judge the scriptures up against the traditions and unbiblical ruling hierarchies of men.

Except that the Biblical ruling heirarchy was set up by Christ. He commissioned the Apostles, breathing His Spirit on them saying those whose sins they forgave were forgiven (John 20:22-23). He gave them the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) and said that those who hear them, hear Him, and those that reject them, reject Him. (Luke 10:16). The Apostles later commissioned others like Titus and Timothy (and Mark) to ordain elders and teach others what they have been taught by the Apostles. And the gift goes on... raying:

Rather, we judge all organisations, practices and teachings up against the scriptures.

Yet, it was the Church--the "organization" founded by Christ on the Apostles--which finally determined the limits of the canon of Scriptures. That you have the 27 book NT in your hands is a gift by the Holy Spirit from that same Church. :saint:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Doubting Thomas,



The consensus of "the Church" across time and space?

Which "church"? Two of the oldest "across time and space" are the Roman Catholic Church...created almost 4 centuries after the birth of Gods church...and the Eastern Orthodox church(created even later that the RCC). And both of those groups are overflowing with blasphemy, idolatry, paganism, goddess worship and legalistic falsehood.

So it cant be those.

Do you think it might be the oldest of the churches, the one begun on the day of pentecost? The Jesus people. The non-hierarchial "royal priesthood" of Gods believers justified through faith in Christ alone? The children of God. The evangelicals.

They have been here from the day of pentecost until today. They have gone by many different names through the centuries. And they are still here. And they hold to sola scriptura and faith alone.

The truth is...

We DO NOT judge the scriptures up against the traditions and unbiblical ruling hierarchies of men.

Rather, we judge all organisations, practices and teachings up against the scriptures.

Mike

Please D28guy, if you’re going to play dumb about Church History, at least attempt to be a little more convincing….lol

For starters, your right there was no ‘Roman’ Catholic Church or ‘Eastern’ Orthodox Church in the Apostolic Church age. There was but ONE Church centered around five (5) ecclesiastical centers of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

My conclusion is that it was the Patriarch of Rome that excommunicated herself from the other 4 Patriarchs in 1054. This Schism resulted in the Western Church (Roman Catholic) and the Eastern Church (Eastern Orthodox Church) which still consisted of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Then we see the Protestant revolt against the Western Church (Roman Catholic) in which we see continuous births of churches today that number in the thousands and are growing.

Would the faith of these little schismatic ‘evangelical’ churches of modern America like Joel Osteen be recognizable to the Apostles? Would the Fathers claim these churches as their own? Would the martyrs find it the very faith for which they gave their lives to defend?

Today’s ‘reformed’ mindset of these schismatic churches is a blasphemy. To even think that the Church Christ promised to be with until the end of the world and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against at some point in history became lost and needed to be ‘reformed’ or ‘restored’ makes it out that Christ failed to do what He said He would do. Even if the Church failed to exist even for a second, Christ would have failed.

No there still is a Church that today continues to live the Trinitarian Life…that they all may be one, as Thou Father, art in Me, and I in Thee…that they may be one as We are one (John 17:21-22).

The Church today is still holding fast the word of life (Phil 2:16) and baptizing men in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. No the Church doesn’t need to be ‘reformed’ or ‘reinvented’ to suit today’s American culture…For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Just what "church" are you referring to?

(See my response to Mike immediately above)

The ECF did not belong to any one collective "church," but rather they were scattered far and wide, all having wide and divergent views.

Sure they did. They were all conscious of belonging to the same visible Church in it's various local congragations founded by the Apostles, maintaining the same episcopal succession and the common Apostolic deposit of faith, being thus in communion with each other. Some may have had divergent views on some more or less minor issues (though some of Origen's more major views--preexistence of souls, for example--were definitely on the fringe....these were ultimately deemed heretical by the Church), but the consensus acknowledged a common faith resting on the common foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. It was the views (doctrines/praxis) they had in agreement, and not the idiosyncratic views of individuals, that bear witness to the common faith of the Apostolic Church. It was in this visible Church that the Scriptures were written, collected, and then canonized.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

For that matter why not take into consideration all the "great" leaders throughout the centuries: EGW, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, William Branham, Benny Hinn, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and so many others. Shouldn't we examine all their beliefs and give them just as much credence as the ECF? Why not? Weren't they "great leaders" also, as history will have them eventually portrayed.

For they were obviously outiside the visible, historical, apostolic Church.

 

[DHK]

(See my response to Mike immediately above)

"Just what church? It would be good for you to do a word study on the Greek word translated church in the KJV. The word is ekklesia, and it's meaning is assembly or congregation. It is consistently translated as such in Darby's translation and leaves far less confusion in the reader's mind as to what is a church? The fact is that there is no such thing as a universal invisible church (assembly) except in heaven where all believer will assemble some day. It is impossible on this earth to have an unassembled assembly, and thus the word "church" or assembly cannot be universal such as the RCC and many Christians claim it to be.
The ECF belonged to their own local churches, each one different from each other and each one indendent of each other. Paul, on his missionary journeys never set up any hierarchy; neither did Jesus. That is a foolish tradition, man's tradition; totally unbiblical. Jesus wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation--all different from each other. Paul wrote 13 epistles--all to different churches or pastors of different churches. There was no connection between them, no association, convention, denomination, hierarchy of any kind.

ekklesia means assembly or congregation, and that is all.

Sure they did. They were all conscious of belonging to the same visible Church in it's various local congragations founded by the Apostles, maintaining the same episcopal succession and the common Apostolic deposit of faith, being thus in communion with each other.

First they were not all members of the same visible church. They didn't even all live in the same place. It was impossible for them to be members of the same visible church. If you are speaking of invisible, there is no such thing. There were various congregations founded by the apostles, true. They were members of them, true. But those churches were independent one of another. Thomas ended up going to India. How are his churches connected with the ones that Paul started in Greece? They are not! They are all visible, local churches; but all independent one of another.

There was no episcopal succession. You can believe that til the cows come home. But you have no way to prove it, no evidence to show. It is an imaginary belief--no evidence, just a nice sweet emotion--a nice thought to think that way. But that is not the way it was. Of course there was a deposit of faith given through the Apostles and passed down through Bible-believing churches everywhere. That deposit of faith is known as the Bible. It came down slowly to us through a process of inspiration. For example James and Matthew were two of the earliest books written, both about 50 AD. It was shortly after that they were inspired. The Apostles themselves knew that these books were inspired and thus (much to the chagrin of Luther) had already declared to the early believers that these were inspired books. They knew which of their writings were inspired and which were not. True believers always did. It was the heretics that liked to throw a monkey wrench into the midst of things--but only to confuse sects like the RCC:laugh: True believers knew all along which books were part of the canon and which were not. The Bible believing churches knew and had them.

Some may have had divergent views on some more or less minor issues (though some of Origen's more major views--preexistence of souls, for example--were definitely on the fringe....these were ultimately deemed heretical by the Church), but the consensus acknowledged a common faith resting on the common foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. It was the views (doctrines/praxis) they had in agreement, and not the idiosyncratic views of individuals, that bear witness to the common faith of the Apostolic Church. It was in this visible Church that the Scriptures were written, collected, and then canonized.

Not true. Origen was a heretic--a heretic to the Catholics, to the "Protestants," to all Christians whoever they were. He was not part of the "common faith."
Among the ECF, there was not a consensus acknowledging a common faith resting on the common foundation of the Apostles and prophets. That is simply not true. A brief reading of the ECF can prove that true in a short time. Their beliefs were widely divergent and very unbiblical in many ways. The Apostles would have condemned many of them. Perhaps some of these were the very ones that John was speaking of in 1John 2:19.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Just b/c one may read of an Early Church Father drift into heresy and call each other ‘Satan’ isn’t unusual and it’s not enough to keep me from Orthodoxy! Fact is many drifted into heresy and later repented and was welcomed back into the Church. Eusebius is an example of one such Father that drifted into error and later repented once he saw his error.

Fact is the Church that stretched from Rome to Jerusalem to Constantinople to Antioch to Alexandria were all solidly united on many fronts. This FACT is quite evident in the Ecumenical Councils. The fundamental doctrines of the Church were proclaimed and defended by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These Councils didn’t create new doctrines, but proclaimed what the Church everywhere already believed and taught. Each Council was represented by Bishops who were the direct Apostolic Successor of the very Apostles who founded their particular Church.

St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, St. Thomas, St. Andrew…all taught and preached the same identical gospel and it was the Holy Spirit that ensured what they taught was error free, for Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would remind them of ALL things.

In regard to DHK question of what of these protestant church fathers: EGW, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, William Branham, Benny Hinn, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and so many others. And what will history say about these?

They have nothing new to present to the Church that wasn’t already handed down to the Church from the Apostles! There’s no new revelation…period! What has been proclaimed has thus already been proclaimed from the Apostles and has been reaffirmed through the Seven Councils of the Church.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

For they were obviously outiside the visible, historical, apostolic Church.

They were either outside of "the visible, historical, apostolic Church inasmuch as the RCC and Orthodox were outside "the visible, hisorical, apostolic Church, OR
Both the RCC and Orthodox are just as heretical in doctrine as the above mentioned "leaders." Both are true.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

"Just what church? It would be good for you to do a word study on the Greek word translated church in the KJV. The word is ekklesia, and it's meaning is assembly or congregation. It is consistently translated as such in Darby's translation and leaves far less confusion in the reader's mind as to what is a church? The fact is that there is no such thing as a universal invisible church (assembly) except in heaven where all believer will assemble some day. It is impossible on this earth to have an unassembled assembly, and thus the word "church" or assembly cannot be universal such as the RCC and many Christians claim it to be.

Yet, the "assembly" often referred to the whole nation in the OT. In the NT Peter refers to the "elect" "pilgrims" collectively in "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1,2)--ie not only one local congregation--as a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation", God's "own special people". (1 Peter 2:9). This holy nation is the Church in it's universal sense.

The biggest problem with your assertion that there cannot be a universal Church is that Christ Himself said He would build His CHURCH, SINGULAR--not "churches"--and the gates of hell would not prevail against it--not against "them".

The ECF belonged to their own local churches, each one different from each other and each one indendent of each other.

Yet they shared the same apostolic foundation and they often did interact with each other.

For example, Clement, who was Bishop of Rome (third from the Apostles) at the end of the first century, wrote an epistle to another local congregation--the Corinthians--in 95 AD instructing them to honor their duly appointed leaders. He assumes a common faith and a common apostolic foundation in making his appeals. This letter was held in high honor by the Church in Corinth well into the late second century.

Likewise, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (second from the Apostles) wrote seven letters on the way to his martyrdom at the beginning of the second century. Six of those letters were addressed to other local congregations--three of which were also three of the same churches written to by the Apostle John in REVELATION: Ephesians, Smyrneans, and the Philadelphians. In these letters Ignatius warned these believers of the docetic and Judaizing heresies, and he instructed them to honor their ordained authorites and to look out for his flock at Antioch after his departure. Another of those local churches was the Romans (to which of course Paul had previously written).

The seventh letter of Ignatius was written to his brother bishop, Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna--and later Polycarp himself refers to these epistles of Ignatius in his own letter to the Philippians (another local congregation of the Church to which Apostle Paul had previously sent a letter).

Examples can be multiplied of the local "churches" and their bishops continuing to interact with each other after the last of the apostles died. They even assembled themselves in local and regional synods to discuss matters of common discipline and doctrine....well before Constantine came on the scene.

And let's not forget that the decisions of the council of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15) were binding on the other local churches--well before the NT gospels or epistles were actually written.

Paul, on his missionary journeys never set up any hierarchy; neither did Jesus. That is a foolish tradition, man's tradition; totally unbiblical.

That's simply false, DHK. Christ Himself set up the "hierarchy". He commissioned the Apostles, breathing His Spirit on them saying those whose sins they forgave were forgiven (John 20:22-23). He gave them the authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18) and said that those who hear them, hear Him, and those that reject them, reject Him. (Luke 10:16). The Apostles later commissioned others like Titus and Timothy (along with Mark, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc) to ordain elders and teach others what they have been taught by the Apostles.

Jesus wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation--all different from each other. Paul wrote 13 epistles--all to different churches or pastors of different churches. There was no connection between them, no association, convention, denomination, hierarchy of any kind.

That's simply not the case either. As I mentioned above many of these same Churches were also recipients of letters from Ignatius (at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Philadelphia) and a bishop of Smyrna himself, Polycarp, even wrote to yet another apostolic congregation (at Philippi). So there is ample of evidence of connections between these congregations of the Church, both before and after the apostles were on the scene. It was these congregations of the Church (and many others like them) that circulated the Scriptures and then later on came to a consensus about what constituted the limits of the canon. So it is simply wishful thinking and patently false to suggest there were no connections or associations between these churches. Only those with their heads in the sand would make such ahistorical assertions.

ekklesia means assembly or congregation, and that is all.

As I said above, it can also refer to the whole nation, as it did in the OT to the Jews. In the NT, Peter applies "holy nation" to the "elect pilgrims" collectively..not the ones confined to one city or even one region. The various local congragations regarded themselves as alike part of the same "holy nation" founded on the apostles and prophets.

(Continued....)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Continuing on....

First they were not all members of the same visible church. They didn't even all live in the same place. It was impossible for them to be members of the same visible church.

Wrong, for the reasons I listed above.

But those churches were independent one of another.

Wrong, for the reasons I listed above.

Thomas ended up going to India. How are his churches connected with the ones that Paul started in Greece? They are not! They are all visible, local churches; but all independent one of another.

They were built on the same apostolic foundation, share the same apostlic faith and episcopal order.

There was no episcopal succession. You can believe that til the cows come home. But you have no way to prove it, no evidence to show. It is an imaginary belief--no evidence, just a nice sweet emotion--a nice thought to think that way.

You really need to get your head out of the sand and read some real Church history, and not the "trail of blood" nonsense that you've obviously been imbibing in. The Apostle Paul comissioned Timothy and Titus and instructed them to ordain elders in Ephesus and Crete respectively. Clement in his letter to the Corinthians explains that the apostles knew there would be "strife" for the office of bishop, so they set in motion the episcopal succession. Ignatius instructed to churches to whom he wrote that they should honor their ordained leaders, including the bishops. Irenaeus lists the succession of bishops in Rome from the Apostles up to his day (with Clement being third on that list), and this list is consistent with similar lists also written in the ante-Nicene period. Eusebius in his CHURCH HISTORY in several places lists succeeding bishops in many different locations. Again, these bishops would meet in local and regional synods--long before Constantine--and discuss matters of discipline and doctrine. These are all well established facts in history, and examples can be multiplied.

But that is not the way it was. Of course there was a deposit of faith given through the Apostles and passed down through Bible-believing churches everywhere. That deposit of faith is known as the Bible.

Correction--the deposit was transmitted orally and by written epistle (2 Thess 2:15) and the authorized canonical written form of the deposit is the Bible.

The Apostles themselves knew that these books were inspired and thus (much to the chagrin of Luther) had already declared to the early believers that these were inspired books.

Where is the divinely inspired list, or "table of contents" if you will, written by the Apostles and outlining the exact 27 books we have in our NT? Where and when was this declaration made? Evidence, please.

They knew which of their writings were inspired and which were not. True believers always did. It was the heretics that liked to throw a monkey wrench into the midst of things--but only to confuse sects like the RCC:laugh: True believers knew all along which books were part of the canon and which were not. The Bible believing churches knew and had them.

Again, show me your evidence. Where is the list before AD 367 that showed all 27 books exactly as we have them today? The earliest lists that we do have evidence for always left off a handful of books--none contained all 27 books. To say that "true believers always" knew the exact 27 book NT canon is too argue anachronistically and to argue from silence.

Not true. Origen was a heretic--a heretic to the Catholics, to the "Protestants," to all Christians whoever they were. He was not part of the "common faith."

Read my post again. Though Origen was ultimately declared a heretic for some of his views (at the Second Council of Constantinople), he was not unorthodox in every respect. He was in substantial agreement with his fellow churchmen in other issues that were commonly agreed upon.

Among the ECF, there was not a consensus acknowledging a common faith resting on the common foundation of the Apostles and prophets. That is simply not true. A brief reading of the ECF can prove that true in a short time. Their beliefs were widely divergent and very unbiblical in many ways.

Well, a more measured, comprehensive reading (as opposed to "brief) of the fathers will show there was a consensus acknowledging the common faith of the apostles. For example, they believed:

--there was ONE GOD (creational and covenantal monotheism) who was both the Maker of Heaven and Earth (in the OT) and the Heavenly Father (in the NT), contrary to what gnostic dualists and Marcionites taught.
--this ONE GOD was somehow Triune, but not in a way the modalists (Sabellians, etc) taught--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were really distinct yet inseparable "persons".
--there was ONE JESUS CHRIST who had really existed before creation as Divine (contrary to the adoptionists)--distinct yet inseparable from the Father--and who had really became man at the Incarnation (contrary to the docetists)
--this ONE JESUS CHRIST, divine and human, really physically died on the cross for our sins and salvation, and literally arose in bodily form from the dead and really ascended into heaven.
--this ATONEMENT is available to all, Christ is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the whole world, fulfilling the OT prophecies.
--that MAN is sinful and needs to be saved, and can only be saved by God's GRACE in CHRIST.
--that SALVATION is by God's grace, but that man has free will and must cooperate with that grace and can ultimately spurn that grace and fall away (ie no hint of "OSAS")
--that man is actually united to Christ in the WATERS of BAPTISM, where he is "born of water and the Spirit". (ie water baptism is not merely a visual aid)
--that man actually partakes of the BODY AND BLOOD of CHRIST when he eats the BREAD AND WINE of HOLY COMMUNION (ie these aren't just visual aids, either)
--that the ONE CHURCH is the communion of all visible congregations founded on the common foundation of the Apostles and prophets, connected to the apostles by episcopal succession and guarding the apostolic deposit.

ALL of these beliefs were present before Constantine allegedly "corrupted" the Church, and they reflected the consensus of the Church across time and space before the limits of the CANON were finalized.

The Apostles would have condemned many of them. Perhaps some of these were the very ones that John was speaking of in 1John 2:19.

The Apostles certainly would have condemned many of the views advanced as "biblical" by some Baptists on this board (ie OSAS, Zwinglian memorialism, pre-trib rapture, etc)

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. Does the fact that they don't accet the ECF's statement as well as your presentation sola-scriptura form a proof of weakness in using the ECF's just as you say that it shows the flaw in Sola Scriptura?

DT -

No. If people are so wed to the notion of "sola Scriptura" that they refuse to see the ahistorical nature of that doctrine or the epistemological and practical difficulties involved, then it's no wonder they won't accept the need for the consensus patri in interpretating Scriptures within the Church. The historical fact is that in the early Church (even well before Constantine and Nicea) heresy was combatted by appealing to Scriptures

No doubt - but you were making the argument that it is a sign of "weakness" or "flaw" in the Sola Scriptura doctrine that everyone does not agree with your very well and detailed argument from scripture -- yet you say that everyone objecting is NOT also a weakness for the ECF arguement like it is for scripture.

Given what you just said -- that ECF heresies were corrected with scripture -- it seems we are back to admitting that just because someone does not accept the truth of scripture does not constitute a weakness for the sola-scriptura basis of testing doctrine since there is in fact no more reliable source.

Bob said

Quote:
2. in the case of your use of the bible AND the ECFs - everyone views that as using an infallible source (scripture) AND a fallible source (ECFs). Wouldn't you agree?.

First, I'm not claiming infallibility for individual ECFs--

Which is my point above.

DT
I'm claiming indefectability for the Church corporately.

Claim it all you want - the point in the post above is that this is not an agreed to statement by the group and even you admit that whereas scripture is fallible -- ECFs are not.

I am just pointing out that those who differ with your well stated study on OSAS and Justification are not MORE likely to yield to a FALLIBLE source than to an INfallible source where BOTH sides agree that this is in fact the case with scripture vs ECFs.

The answer once again is that your strongest arguments come from the infallible source -- if that does not work THEN resorting to the FALLIBLE disputed source is not MORE likely to meet with success.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. It was the indefectable Church which by consensus finally set the limits of the Scriptural canon,

And invented "purgatory" indefectibly?
Persecution of saints "indefectibly"?
Prayers to the dead and for the dead "indefectibly"?
Bible burning "indefectibly"??

Mary sinless like God "indefectibly"?

Or are you arguing that these are all "later defections"??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Quote:
3. In the case of your use of the INFALLIBLE source (scripture) they will say it is a reference to the infallible text plus your fallible interpretation of what the scripture writer is saying.

D.T
Yes, that's what "they will say". Then I will say theirs is the fallible interpreation.

True enough you will both take what you both see as an INFALLIBLE source that both AGREE to and dispute it's interpretation.

My point is "how much MORE THEN will you take a FALLIBLE source and dispute both it's level of failings AS WELL as your interpretation of it"!!?

In other words going down the "more fallible and more disputed path" does not lead to "greater common ground" or greater resolution -- it's going "the other way"!

DT
So who decides which of our mutually contradictory interpretations is correct? The consensus patri within the Church--the same Church which, led by the Holy Spirit, received and finalized the limits of the canon.

You can not have an arbiter whose role is disputed by even one of the two sides, whose accuracy is disputed by even one of the two sides.

You are inventing this idea that BOTH sides have AGREED to some 3rd party that has the infallible status to settle the matter where Scripture "alone" can not -- but no such agreement exists!!

Scripture -- "sola scriptura" then remains as your MOST solid ground for proving doctrine. And as noted in this thread - it is even used to correct the heresies of the ECF's.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

You are inventing this idea that BOTH sides have AGREED to some 3rd party that has the infallible status to settle the matter where Scripture "alone" can not -- but no such agreement exists!!

I'm not inventing that at all. I'm quite certain, in fact, that one side has not agreed to the "3rd party"--ie the consensus of the Church, within the Church. Whether they agree to it or not, the historical fact is that Christians in the early Church did appeal to the "standard of tradition" or "rule of faith" of the Church, or "universality, antiquity, and consent" within the Church in solving the impasse of mutually contradictory interpretations. Case in point is the Arian heresy: both sides threw Scriptures back and forth at each other, but it was the Church that decided, based on it's consensual tradition (rule of faith/liturgical life/catechesis/etc) from the beginning, that the Arians were the ones misinterpreting the Scriptures regarding the Deity of Christ. The Arians, of course, disagreed, but they ultimately found themselves outside the Church.

Scripture -- "sola scriptura" then remains as your MOST solid ground for proving doctrine. And as noted in this thread - it is even used to correct the heresies of the ECF's.

I'm not disputing that the Scriptures are the most solid ground--in fact I've been basically arguing against "sola fide" only using Scriptures. However, the heretics in the early Church were not corrected by not appealing to Scriptures alone--since the heretics were fond of distorting the Scriptures--but by also appealing to the common tradition of Scriptural interpretation. If Scriptures have indeed been the most solid ground for proving doctrine, then the consensus of the Apostolic Tradition has been considered the surest way of arriving at the correct and authentic interpretation of those same Scriptures.