Posted on 05/21/2011 4:46:26 AM PDT by marbren
Rome digs the Apocrypha while Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation for reasons he considered valid. Some folks add in the Gospel of Thomas and other gnostic writings including some ante-Nicene texts. The Canon is still being revised today based on standards and rulings that shift and move through the centuries.
Hmmm. Could I suggest you take a look at Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority. He has some interesting insights in to the nature of canonicity. (At this instant I'm seeing one copy at $5.)
When quoting Paul's mention of scripture, Paul was referring to the OT since the NT was being written during this period and did not exist as we know it today. So how were these ones saved without the NT only relying on the spoken word?
Would the Slickster care to explain Harold Camping who adhered to your sola and rapture nonsense with total devotion. When are you going to make some prophetic prediction?
Sola dumbo,mumbo jumbo is a product of sinful minds who like Satan worship themselves not God.
Today the sola scriptura crowd needs to be reformed, stop cheering for their poster child Harold Camping, and start worshiping Jesus.
Isaiah 43 is for the Japanese, Germans and Irish. Again, you have no concept of the Biblical Israel.
it is not DNA or blood, it is the Body of Christ.
who is a blessing to the earth, unbelieving corporate Israel or the Church teaching faith in Christ?
the eternal covenant was with Abraham and his decendents by faith, not seed.
please, please, this is elementary and something even most Protestants hold to. you are way out in left field!
according to the Scriptures, it is The Church which is the pillar of truth and the ultimate authority.
care to name any of these sola scriptura early church fathers?
one of the early church fathers, Paul, told the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions they received, were you aware of that?
here are two quick examples to prove the early church fathers didn’t believe in sola scriptura. all the early church fathers agree The Church received the practice of infant baptism and worshipping on Sunday from the Apostles, yet no where does the Bible indicate either one. the church fathers followed Paul’s admonition and kept the Apostolic Tradition and the Catholic Church has done so for close to 2,000 years. it’s a shame your “church” doesn’t.
so you follow Paul’s admonition to the Thessalonians and keep the Apostolic Tradition? and yes, the Apostles were all men, so i guess the Catholic Church must plead guilty to following the traditions of men, you got us there!!
I think some of these folks are ultra dispensationalists. Not sure but I think it may basically be the old Paulinist heresy with an added twists and turns. They believe the Gospels are for the Jews only and the book of Acts/Letters are for the Gentiles only.
This is why they are blind to the fact that the Kingdom is already here. In denying the Gospels, this allows them to mangle and twist scripture so that it is unrecognizable to normal Christians.
“added twists and turns” that is an understatement!! LOL!
So all the mentions of the nation Israel in Isaiah 43 were just God's screw ups? All those mentions of the nation Israel should read "Ireland" and "Germany" and "Japan"?
it is not DNA or blood, it is the Body of Christ.
OK. You're just going to choose to deny all the Scripture I posted to you that proves you wrong, while providing none to validate your premise. Remember, the day you stand before Jesus Christ, your denials of what He has said will be a topic of discussion. Are you sure you want to stick by your replacement theologist lies?
who is a blessing to the earth, unbelieving corporate Israel or the Church teaching faith in Christ?
Well, since God said that He created Israel to bless the nations, not the Church, I'm going to stick with God. The Church is nothing more that a blip on the road to God's resuming His relationship with His chosen people and giving her all the land that He promised and all the blessings. The Church is a parenthesis in God's plan for Israel and soon we will be taken off the scene and God will turn His attention back to His chosen people.
We play a role and serve a purpose, but we are not Israel.
the eternal covenant was with Abraham and his decendents by faith, not seed.
Where do you get the delusions you have that you can just lie about what God said and what He wrote and get away with it? Where do you get the authority to insert your own opinions and elevate them to the mind of God? What is wrong with you?
Do you really think that you are someone who is taken seriously when you not only can provide no Scriptural validation for your bizarre and godless comments, but you exist in some parallel universe that is 180 degrees in opposition to God? Has no one ever given you any Biblical truth? What is wrong with you?
please, please, this is elementary and something even most Protestants hold to. you are way out in left field!
You have absolutely no Biblical evidence for your belief system and I'm in left field? You have created your own reality which inexplicably glorifies an institution that, were it not for the Jews, would not even exist yet you arrogantly and with no Scripture to back you up, declare, in spite of all the truth you've been given, that the Jews have been thrown away by Jesus Christ.
Your hatred and contempt for the very people who God created to bring Jesus Christ into the world is despicable. You are without excuse. You have been given enough Scripture to prove beyond any doubt that you are 1000% wrong about the Jewish people and God's eternal love for them and His plan for them and yet you cling to your sickening hate.
And you call yourself a Christian? You're a Christian yet you despise the people of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is something that is not possible. Jesus said, "You shall know them by their fruits". Genuine Christians have a love for the people without whom they would have had no chance for salvation.
Your "christianity" has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Satan hates the Jews too.
I don't need to know Latin to understand the clear teachings of one everyone regards as an Early Church leader. The "nice try" advice should be me telling you. The source I gave for the Irenaeus quotes goes much further than just his opinions on the matter. Did you by chance read it? Just in case you didn't bother, I'll share some more from it. And, BTW, saying that the Bible was not available to him and that he was only referring to the OT, is simply untrue. We have St. Peter referring to Paul's writings as "Scripture" way before there was an "official" canon. Here we learn a little more about Irenaeus' support of the Scriptures as the source of authority for "the faith": (from:http://www.christiantruth.com/scriptureandchurchfathers.html
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes:
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
Irenaeus proposes here a hypothetical situation. The Churches have received the tradition of the truth from the apostles. What, he asks, if they had not left us any writings? Then it would be necessary to follow the teaching, the tradition, of those Churches which have had direct contact with the apostles. The operative phrase here is, ‘what if the apostles had not left us their writings.’ But in point of fact they have left us their writings. And the point he makes is that while the Church does preach and teach orally, the doctrinal content of that preaching and teaching is directly verifiable from the written Scriptures. Irenaeus is not affirming the existence of oral tradition. He is simply presenting a hypothetical situation as a way of combating the Gnostic heretics.
The Bible is the means by which the traditio (tradition), or teaching of the apostles is transmitted from generation to generation and by which true apostolic teaching can be verified and error refuted. Irenaeus actually uses a form of the word ‘tradition’ to convey this idea.
And to dispute your assertion that Irenaeus was only referring to the Old Testament, he says:
Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.
Let's skip over to Tertullian, and see what his opinions are on the subject:
Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. He was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity.’ He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. The teaching of Tertullian on apostolic tradition and its relationship to Scripture is a mirror image of Irenaeus. Like him, Tertullian believed the revelation of God to be the ultimate authority for the Church. This revelation was handed down in the Old Testament Scriptures and through Jesus Christ to the apostles who in turn faithfully handed on this teaching to the churches which they founded. Tertullian referred to the doctrine which the apostles taught as tradition,48 and equated this apostolic teaching with the fundamental doctrines of the faith and the gospel. Initially, this tradition or teaching was given orally by the apostles and later inscripturated in their Gospels and epistles:
Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles.
Because scripture contains the revelation and is part of tradition, it has of course absolute authority...And therefore, if a doctrine or precept is written in the Bible, it cannot be but true, and if a dogma needs to be proved true, it is entirely sufficient to show that it is written. And even more important, scripture is not only sufficient evidence, but strictly necessary evidence for proving the truth of a dogma.
I really recommend you read the rest of this well done article. It may help clear up the misunderstanding concerning the role of Holy Scripture in the lives of all Christians. It includes the teachings of Clement of Alexandria and Origen as well as Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine and other notables.
I understand why you would want to change the subject, but we WERE talking about the ECF's views of the authority of Scripture. Please see my next post to you.
“Satan hates the Jews too”
You have stepped over the line, name one word i have said that was hateful to the Jews. Saying the Jews are saved the same way the Irish, German and Japanese, by the grace of God in the Body of Christ is orthodox Christian belief, not hateful at all.
your statement “the Church is just a blip on the road.....” tells any knowledgeable reader that you not only do not understand what “Israel” means in the Bible, you don’t understand the Church is nothing less than the Body of Christ on earth, hardly what anyone who knows Christ would call a blip.
Camping may also believe there are 24 hours in a day, like most Catholics do. anyone who has listened to Camping for more than 15 minutes quickly realizes he holds no brief for the Catholic Faith.
i really recommend you read all of those Catholic church fathers and you will see what Baptism, the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession , the Sacrifice of the Mass and other Catholic doctrines really mean and how your beliefs were unknown to these great men of faith!
not trying to change the subject. my point was these ECF held to the Catholic Faith, including believing in Sacred Tradition, and i think it is ironic that you would try to appeal to someone, who, were you alive in the 2nd century, you would not, could not worship with since you reject the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
St Irenaeus practiced and believed in infant baptism. if he really held to sola scriptura and not the Apostolic Tradition, in what verse did he find the command to baptize infants?
I have read the early church fathers and found them to be excellent in regarding to testifying to the veracity of the Bride of Christ the catholic Church.
I would encourage you to read all of these fathers as they have some wonderful theological ideas and most Catholics are the richer for having read them and their thoughts.
Reading them in Latin will insure you obtain their exact meaning not some mistranslated version .
It is important to remember that defense of Scripture by these fathers must be distinguished from advocacy of the heretical myth of Sola scriptura which allows the over 30,000 plus cults to follow Harold Camping and pervert and desecrate the word of God.Trust in Jesus as your personal Savior.
You have denied every single word of Scripture provided to you which proves that God is not finished with the Jews and which proves that the Church has not replaced Israel. You have been able to give me not one scintilla of Scripture to support your assertion that the Jews are cast away by God and the Church, would would not exist if not for the Jews, has taken Israel's place in the plans of God. The fact that you deny absolute truth and substitute your own opinions reveals spiritual blindness and a hatred and contempt that you refuse to let go of. And I stand by what I say.
Saying the Jews are saved the same way the Irish, German and Japanese, by the grace of God in the Body of Christ is orthodox Christian belief, not hateful at all.
The eternal covenant made by God with Abraham and his physical descendants was the Abrahamic Covenant, the unconditional covenant that God made giving all of the land outlined in Scripture to Abraham and his physical descendants, not to the Irish or the Germans or the Japanese.
Biblical Israel is exactly what God says it is, not what your fantasies tell you it is.
your statement “the Church is just a blip on the road.....” tells any knowledgeable reader that you not only do not understand what “Israel” means in the Bible, you don’t understand the Church is nothing less than the Body of Christ on earth, hardly what anyone who knows Christ would call a blip.
The Church is a blip, a favor done by Jesus Christ to create a people for Himself from among the Gentiles, nothing more. Salvation is offered first to the Jew, not to the Gentile. God created the Jewish people specifically from one man: Abraham. The entire Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is about God's plan for the Jewish people and, since salvation is for the Jew first, that would include the New Covenant that Jesus Christ created with His death on the cross.
The entire Old Testament is about Israel, and, except for a few books in the New Testament, which are about the Church and which ends at chapter 4 of Revelation because the Church is no longer on the earth, is about Israel also. The wealth of premillenialism which can be found all throughout the Old Testament is about the Jews and the place they will have in the Millennial Kingdom of Jesus Christ. None of that has anything to do with the Church.
So while you're parading your abysmal ignorance about what God, Who wrote the Bible, has to say about His chosen people, the plan He has for them is being carried out right under your nose. And you're so spiritually blind you can't see it.
And yep, Satan hates the Jews and has been trying to wipe them off the earth since God created them. And anyone who expresses contempt and hatred for God's chosen people is in the same category.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.