How Should We Read the Church Fathers?

[Episkopos]

This is literally stupid.

Bible literacy to you is not only stupid...it is meaningless to your purpose.

 

[reformed1689]

Bible literacy to you is not only stupid...it is meaningless to your purpose.

Not true. You are the one who seems to go off the deep end.

 

[reformed1689]

That's a re-direct. You can't possibly defend a position that allows NO intervention from God that doesn't have a chapter and verse. So you must obfuscate and invert the logic to deflect truth away.

John says that ALL the books in the world cannot contain the works and words of Jesus. The silly nonsense is in your limiting God to just one of those books.

But the Bible is the only verified word we have from God which is why it is what we follow. Not private prophecy that cannot be verified.

 

[Episkopos]

The irony in all the foolishness of this thread and the position of the OP is that if you want to limit God to one book...at least show the respect to that book to learn the languages used in that book.
The superficial mutterings of a person who arrogantly makes claims from translations...calling such study...stupid... displays a lack of respect for God's words.

 

[Episkopos]

Not true. You are the one who seems to go off the deep end.

Spoken from the shallow end of the pool...

Why have you no humility or fear of the Lord? I'm not saying this for you to make another superficial quip...but to think it out.

 

[Episkopos]

But the Bible is the only verified word we have from God which is why it is what we follow. Not private prophecy that cannot be verified.

The bible books were selected by church fathers...later ones. Bishops at that.

How do you allow for that?

Do you think the bible is a divine book dropped directly from heaven?

 

[Enoch111]

Did he invent T.U.L.I.P. or did someone else make that from his teachings?

TULIP came about 100 years later than Calvin's Institutes. It was the Synod of Dort (Dutch Reformed Churches) which presented TULIP to refute the Arminians.

And yes, Origen (correct spelling) is totally unreliable and was also deemed a heretic at one point.

 

[reformed1689]

Why have you no humility or fear of the Lord? I'm not saying this for you to make another superficial quip...but to think it out.

Why are you bearing false witness?`

 

[Episkopos]

As the early apostles died off...and even in their lifetimes...we see divisions entering the church. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna (among others) sought to keep the unity of the faith.
What we lack today are men such as these. Men like Luther brought in those divisions. The ECF would have condemned Luther and his divisive works.

I would challenge anyone to compare the lives of any of the ECF with that of Luther.

Hitler was inspired by Luther. You will find that the early martyrs had no influence on Hitler...or most modern believers.

 

[Episkopos]

Why are you bearing false witness?`

I don't bear false witness...but you do towards me. Again you do as you accuse others of. Why can't you see your own lack? Why are you so proud? The privileged generation that cannot be corrected. Unteachable...lacking any fear. Jude speaks of this generation.

 

[reformed1689]

The ECF would have condemned Luther and his divisive works.

WHICH IS IRRELEVANT. This idea that the ECF have some special authority is nonsense. The ECF goes for CENTURIES after the Apostles. CENTURIES. In America, we are less than three centuries old and we can't even get our history right. The idea that the ECF were all correct, despite the fact they contradict each other, is absurd. Not to mention, you have no idea how the ECF would have handled Luther because they were not alive at the time of Luther, they did not see the things going on at the time of Luther so you cannot possibly state that. Are you suggesting that the ECF would have all rather seen the church go on without division even if it is in error? If that were true, that is an even bigger condemnation of following the ECF blindly.

Hitler was inspired by Luther.

This is a red herring argument and is despicable.

 

[reformed1689]

I don't bear false witness...but you do towards me. Again you do as you accuse others of. Why can't you see your own lack? Why are you so proud? The privileged generation that cannot be corrected. Unteachable...lacking any fear. Jude speaks of this generation.

You bore false witness against me, whether intentionally or unintentionally is another matter. You don't know me. Yet you claimed I do not fear God.

 

[marks]

Speaking anything against the bible is now seen as blasphemy...as if the bible itself was divine.....as if it was a god in it's own right.

You are defending your right to speak against the Bible?

 

[reformed1689]

You are defending your right to speak against the Bible?

They don't follow their arguments to their logical conclusion. Heresies abound.

 

[Giuliano]

And I never claimed that it was.

Sure you did. You said I quoted it out of context that it "interpretation" in that context meant "writing."

And notice the explanation was IN SCRIPTURE.

Again you jest. First of all, we are not told all the things Jesus explained to them; and secondly, they were unable to understand the passages by themselves.

First, it isn't a contradiction between the manuscripts and the Bible. It is a contradiction in one manuscript, the Septuagint, which Stephen would have likely studied, and the Bible. That being said, this is a historical record of a speech that was given by Stephen. The speech itself was not the Word of God. It is only the Word of God as recorded as a historical record. In other words, God wanted it in the historical record of the book of Acts. But that does not make the Bible contradict itself. To say that it does is either dishonest or ignorant.

So you are telling me the New Testament can be inspired and without error when it makes mistakes because the authors read a flawed translation?

Was Stephen speaking when inspired? Earlier we are told he was speaking by inspiration of the Spirit. That annoyed some people.

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

After the speech, we are also informed:

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

You are also forgetting the promise Jesus made:

Luke 12:11 And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:
12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

Stephen was from Israel. He wouldn't have made the mistakes he made, especially about Abraham's tomb; and if he had made mistakes, the learned Jews would have corrected him. You say Stephen got his words from a flawed translation in one instance and who knows where he got the other ideas?

Second, Again, Abraham and Jacob is not a contradiction either. Abraham did, in fact, have land in Shechem where an altar was built and most likely purchased the land on which he built it. The land at some point reverted to the people of Hamor, likely because Abraham did not settle there. Jacob then repurchased it like Isaac repurchased the well at Beersheba. These are not contradictions. Rather, by stating they are contradictions, it shows you haven't studied closely enough and want there to be contradictions.

Pure invention on your part and pretty sill invention too. Who would buy a burial plot that would revert to its former owner? And why would Abraham buy two burial plots?

Genesis 23:19 And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.

Genesis 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

There is another problem in Stephen's speech which I find more serious.

Acts 7:32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold.

I assure you if someone said that to educated Jews, they'd tell him he had quoted it wrong. It is a serious mistake if you ask me. He got this wrong too:

Acts 7:4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.

 

[marks]

Why do I make this point when talking about the Early Church Fathers (ECF)? It is simple.

Hi David,

Personally, I like to simply say, early church writers. They were not "fathers". We do not call men "Father". And calling them this gives undue credence to the endless appeals to their authority.

I find them as mixed a bag a any bunch of commentators, personally.

And, of course, it is absolutely impossible for us to know, short of God revealing, how representative their teachings are of the main body of believers, considering 'history is written by the winners". The CC had plenty of time to round up an burn whatever they didn't like. They did do that kind of thing, didn't they?

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

So you are telling me the New Testament can be inspired and without error when it makes mistakes because the authors read a flawed translation?

Stephen was not an author.

Sure you did. You said I quoted it out of context that it "interpretation" in that context meant "writing."

You need to read what I wrote, as well as what Peter wrote, again. I did not say interpretation means writing.

First of all, we are not told all the things Jesus explained to them; and secondly, they were unable to understand the passages by themselves.

Yet we can understand those passages because of Scripture. Your argument is nonsense.

Was Stephen speaking when inspired? Earlier we are told he was speaking by inspiration of the Spirit.

I don't see that in the passage in the way you are trying to use it.

As far as the learned Jews. Notice they killed Stephen.

 

[Hidden In Him]

First, it isn't a contradiction between the manuscripts and the Bible. It is a contradiction in one manuscript, the Septuagint, which Stephen would have likely studied, and the Bible.

Not that I'm wishing to get all heated about it (since it seems like this thread is getting a bit contentious), but this sentence suggests you regard the Masoretic as inspired and the Septuagint not. A study was done showing that the LXX is cited 340 times in the NT whereas the Masoretic is cited only 33. Why would the NT writers cite it ten times more often if it were not as you say, "the Bible"?

Blessings in Christ.

 

[reformed1689]

Not that I'm wishing to get all heated about it (since it seems like this thread is getting a bit contentious), but this sentence suggests you regard the Masoretic as inspired and the Septuagint not. A study was done showing that the LXX is cited 340 times in the NT whereas the Masoretic is cited only 33. Why would the NT writers cite it ten times more often if it were not as you say, "the Bible"?

Blessings in Christ.

I'm of the opinion that only the original manuscripts, of which none exist, were inspired.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I'm of the opinion that only the original manuscripts, of which none exist, were inspired.

And what form do you believe those original manuscripts have been preserved for us in?