working4christ2

Isaiah45_9 · #31 Apr 3, '13, 3:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemf

Although there are many aspects to bible interpretation, I have to disagree with the implication that the Holy Spirit CAN'T tell me its true meaning. On the contrary, Jesus's own words in John 16 tells me plainly that "when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide me into all truth". And he winds up, in verse 15 by telling me that "the Spirit will take from what is His and make it known to me(you)". Not to say that the church fathers don't have anything to say, but applying the scriptures shouldn't be attempted in our own strength,nor relying totally on the church fathers. Ironically, we note from these same church fathers, that the council that met at Jerusalem was guided/instructed by the Holy Spirit concerning their decisions. Let's make sure we realize the power for the decision making was(as they admitted) originated from the Holy Spirit, and not the natural abilities of the church fathers themselves. I know someone who owns the complete works of the early church fathers, he reads them, and yet he is no more illuminated by them than the light in my hallway(which is turned off by the way) ..due to the fact he is not letting the Spirit guide him in understanding those volumes.

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

How about what St. Peter talks about here:

2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

The Holy Spirit does guide us - we must be able to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn't.

That's why Christ instituted a Church to guide us

Peace.

Nicea325 · #32 Apr 3, '13, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

How about what St. Peter talks about here:

2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

The Holy Spirit does guide us - we must be able to discern what is of the Spirit and what isn't.

That's why Christ instituted a Church to guide us

Peace.

Some of the issues I encounter with many non-Catholics is the fact they want to apply every word Jesus had to say to the individual. Many places where Jesus spoke directly to the 12 only.

Attejohannes · #33 Apr 3, '13, 4:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Not authoritative?Hhhhm? Let us see.

Your words highlighted in black are false. Some were called post-Apostolic because did know some of the Apostles. If they lived hundreds of years from Jesus and had no direct access,then how could anything remotley considered orthodox be passed on from generation to generation? Second of all, those very men had the authority because many were successors of the Apostles and Christ bestowed them with authority. Third, those very men are the ones who wrote and defended orthodox doctrines against all heresies. Last but not least, if they do not have any authority, then did authority cease to exist?

The post- apostolic fathers I am familiar with (Ignatios, Polycarp) are inspiring to read as a testimony of Faith, but they do not teach anything that is not already contained in the actual apostolic writings of the New Testament. Never do they refer any oral apostolic tradition that somehow would complement the New Testament or to add something to it. You do not find expressions like, "as I was taught by St John" or " St Peter was of that opinion", but only discernible Scriptural references. Didache is an interesting document describing the Church practices in the second century, but for example the Eucharistic service described there would be considered as highly irregular by any traditional Catholic/ Orthodox to day, and as rather similar to the " breaking of bread" of some non denominational evangelicals.

Being a formal successor of an apostle was in itself not a guarantee of correct teaching, as the wide acceptance of Arianism in East and West by impeccably ordained hierarchy demonstrates. St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius are great thinkers, but all their knowledge of apostolic teaching was second hand, and therefore for example St. Augustine' s teaching on predestination is just his teaching, and does not have apostolic authority. Even less do the fifth century doctrines on Purgatory or the Assumption of the Virgin ( never mentioned by NT or the post- apostolic fathers) have any apostolic weight.

The authority we have is in the Scriptures as the earliest testimony of Apostolic Faith, and any teaching and any doctrine and any tradition has to be measured against that standard. That is the correct meaning of the "sola Scriptura" principle.

CrossofChrist · #34 Apr 3, '13, 4:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius are great thinkers, but all their knowledge of apostolic teaching was second hand, and therefore for example St. Augustine' s teaching on predestination is just his teaching, and does not have apostolic authority. \.

So did the Church hierarchy have any authority to compile the New Testament or was their compilation only their opinion of what should be considered authoritative?

jwinch2 · #35 Apr 3, '13, 4:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam_777

Check this book "The Sources Of Catholic Dogma", a very good reference for Christians, download the complete free PDF book (49.1M) from here:

http://archive.org/details/TheSourcesOfCatholicDogma

Excellent book!

This one, which sort of follows on to it, is also wonderful.
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-C...Catholic+Dogma
Here it is online. http://archive.org/details/FundamentalsOfCatholicDogma

**po18guy** · #36 Apr 3, '13, 4:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMatt25

I can't speak for the person you question. But it is only by walking by faith, not by sight, that any person of faith has any "assurance". Therefore when you factor in the requirement of faith in religious matters, it's not out of the realm of possibility that a believer in prayerful discernment as they seek to understand God, has faith that it is the Holy Spirit and not some worldly spirit Who is leading and guiding them.

However, each one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations all believe that the Spirit lead them to where they are now. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic? I thought that He always and everywhere lead to humble submission and unity - not to disagreement, division and discord(?)

In truth, Christ founded a Church, as He described in Matthew 18. He told Christians to take disputes there for a final resolution. Saint Paul had a disagreement with the Judaizers regarding circumcision. The only way to solve it was to go to the Church that Christ founded. The Church held a council, made their decision, and it has been final ever since. Acts 15

Rhetorical question: Which method more resembles Christ's instructions: Humbly submitting to the Church being convinced that the Church is right, or splitting off and going your own way, convinced that you alone are right?

**po18guy** · #37 Apr 3, '13, 4:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

You realize, of course, that the Early Church Fathers did not speak or write in English.

And, even though Jesus spoke in Aramaic, we will use the version of His words that was translated into Greek to arrive at the truth?

So many follow this path and are lead astray by the spirit of the air (Ephesians 2:2).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah45_9

So the Holy Spirit is revealing many different things to many different denominations?

Precisely! We cannot chop scripture off at artificial chapter breaks for the sake of conveneience. Scripture is, and was written as, a seamless whole. What Jesus said in John 13 also applies in John16. And, He was speaking to the twelve throughout.

But, if you have split off from the Church and rejected the priesthood, what else can you do except re-interpret scripture in a light that is favorable to you? Thus, we all have the Holy Spirit, even though we all disagree! And, we are all correct, except for Catholics, who are wrong by default. I never really understood that bit of logic.

Attejohannes · #38 Apr 3, '13, 4:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrossofChrist

So did the Church hierarchy have any authority to compile the New Testament or was their compilation only their opinion of what should be considered authoritative?

The NT books were used ( along with the OT Scriptures) at the end of the first century, as the example of the post- apostolic fathers demonstrates. If the Church later established the Canon, it does not mean that the writings did not have authority before that. Scriptures preceded the Canon just as the doctrine of the Trinity existed before Tertullian coined the word or the Council of Nicea formally defined it.

God miraculously preserved the Scriptures as the true guidance of His people in the midst of the doctrinal turmoils and human errors of the early centuries. As soon as St. Paul had released any of his epistles from his hand, that writing became authoritative to the curches. Not that the Churches first approved its content.

FabiusMaximus · #39 Apr 3, '13, 5:18 pm

In the Evangelical church in which I grew up, I never heard anything about the Early Church Fathers. Honestly, I had no idea that they even existed until a couple years ago. My father is a pastor and is aware of the Fathers because of his Catholic upbringing, but again, never have I heard any of them mentioned in any of his sermons, or in any Evangelical church service, for that matter.

I'd be willing to wager that most of the people of my last church are unaware of people like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Augustine. Personal interpretation of the Bible is the key, and of course, "the only possible interpretation" was the Evangelical one. Or at best "it didn't matter" because "as long as we believe in Jesus" all Christian denominations are essentially "the same." I've even heard people say that all denominations are probably incorrect in some aspect of the faith, and will be "corrected" in heaven, or at the End of Time.

When I discovered the Early Church Fathers and read them, I became stunned at the fact that there was very little that they had in common with the faith I knew. So I began asking myself: can it be that I have a better understanding of the faith than they?

Attejohannes · #40 Apr 3, '13, 5:35 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by FabiusMaximus

In the Evangelical church in which I grew up, I never heard anything about the Early Church Fathers. Honestly, I had no idea that they even existed until a couple years ago. My father is a pastor and is aware of the Fathers because of his Catholic upbringing, but again, never have I heard any of them mentioned in any of his sermons, or in any Evangelical church service, for that matter.

I'd be willing to wager that most of the people of my last church are unaware of people like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Augustine. Personal interpretation of the Bible is the key, and of course, "the only possible interpretation" was the Evangelical one. Or at best "it didn't matter" because "as long as we believe in Jesus" all Christian denominations are essentially "the same." I've even heard people say that all denominations are probably incorrect in some aspect of the faith, and will be "corrected" in heaven, or at the End of Time.

When I discovered the Early Church Fathers and read them, I became stunned at the fact that there was very little that they had in common with the faith I knew. So I began asking myself: can it be that I have a better understanding of the faith than they?

Without knowing exactly your background I cannot comment, but I find it strange If Ignatios or Polycarp would sound very strange to those who are familiar with Pauline epistles. Some of the early apologetics are a bit strange stuff, when they resort to extremely allegorical interpretation of OT.

Are you familiar with Didache? I have always thought that it could be the "Church manual" of present day pentecostalists and charismatics.

ChrisRedfield47 · #41 Apr 3, '13, 5:36 pm

Their writings do matter a lot to me, it gives me an idea of what the early Church believed and how they worshiped. If it wasn't for their writings, I don't know If I would be Catholic today.

For instance, things like the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, Liturgy, and Marian devotion, all that is often in dispute by our protestant brothers. Had they not been found in the Early Church, I probably wouldn't be Catholic by now. But they are, and it strengthens my faith to find these things in the earliest centuries. In fact, I cannot see myself ever as a protestant knowing what the Early Church believed and practiced, because they clearly were not protestant.

So my answer to your question:
Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?
Yes. A big deal to me. Had the early Church been protestant, Id be protestant.

Attejohannes · #42 Apr 3, '13, 5:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisRedfield47

Their writings do matter a lot to me, it gives me an idea of what the early Church believed and how they worshiped. If it wasn't for their writings, I don't know If I would be Catholic today.

For instance, things like the Papacy, Apostolic Succession, the Eucharist, Liturgy, and Marian devotion, all that is often in dispute by our protestant brothers. Had they not been found in the Early Church, I probably wouldn't be Catholic by now. But they are, and it strengthens my faith to find these things in the earliest centuries. In fact, I cannot see myself ever as a protestant knowing what the Early Church believed and practiced, because they clearly were not protestant.

So my answer to your question:
Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?
Yes. A big deal to me. Had the early Church been protestant, Id be protestant.

Not wishing to start an argument, but just demonstrating how differently we may regard the same sources. If anything, my reading of the apostolic fathers confirmed my protestant Faith. Ignatios, Polycarp, Digenetos etc. do not say a word of Papal supremacy, Purgatory, immaculate conception, Assumption etc, and the Eucharistic service described in Didache would probably be considered as invalid by present day dogmatics Catholics ( at least from the understanding I have obtained from the great concern regarding the tiniest minutiae regarding the liturgy by the traditional catholicism).

FabiusMaximus · #43 Apr 3, '13, 5:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

Without knowing exactly your background I cannot comment, but I find it strange If Ignatios or Polycarp would sound very strange to those who are familiar with Pauline epistles. Some of the early apologetics are a bit strange stuff, when they resort to extremely allegorical interpretation of OT.

Are you familiar with Didache? I have always thought that it could be the "Church manual" of present day pentecostalists and charismatics.

I am now familiar with the Didache, but it wasn't until I began discovering early Christian writing.

The church in which I was brought up was strictly biblical in nature. There was neither nothing else that would make a difference in interpreting Christian doctrine. Perhaps it is because I'm relatively young, but I really have never heard anything of Christian history in church in the immediate decades and centuries following the missions of the Apostles.

But if you understand the theology expressed in this kind of a church, it makes sense. To them, it's all about how you interpret the Bible. So even if there were Christians in the past who espoused different beliefs - so what? It doesn't matter.

Of course, a Catholic and Lutheran will understand a certain passage of the Bible differently than an Evangelical, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

IgnatianPhilo · #44 Apr 3, '13, 7:33 pm

For me it came down to this question, specifically about Ignatius of Antioch.

"is it possible that I can know more or be accurate on matters of faith Ignatius a martyr and man who was closest to the apostles, their teachings and church which they established."

It seemed to me I needed to learn from Ignatius, not say Ignatius was wrong.

CrossofChrist · #45 Apr 3, '13, 7:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Attejohannes

The NT books were used ( along with the OT Scriptures) at the end of the first century, as the example of the post- apostolic fathers demonstrates. If the Church later established the Canon, it does not mean that the writings did not have authority before that. Scriptures preceded the Canon just as the doctrine of the Trinity existed before Tertullian coined the word or the Council of Nicea formally defined it.

God miraculously preserved the Scriptures as the true guidance of His people in the midst of the doctrinal turmoils and human errors of the early centuries. As soon as St. Paul had released any of his epistles from his hand, that writing became authoritative to the curches. Not that the Churches first approved its content.

And by whose authority do you say that?

working4christ2

Friday, May 24, 2013

Early Church Fathers...Matter or Not?

No comments:

Post a Comment