The Church fathers

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

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".)

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!

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.

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!

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.

 

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

 

No takers? No surprise, I guess

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

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?

 

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

 

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?

 

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

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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.