How Should We Read the Church Fathers?

[CharismaticLady]

No, he didn't agree with Scripture.

You say that, yet, again, don't give me the Scriptures to ponder for myself...

BTW, when your church decides what they will allow, will it have to do with homosexual bishops and ministers? Are you for gay bishops or against? We are against.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I do. And I do not believe the Roman Church put all inspired writings into the canon, even though it wasn't their call to make.

Though a discussion on what should be included would be involved and possibly rewarding and interesting (if all the noise were filtered out), I agree with you here... But then this goes to point for me. I don't need anyone telling me what is inspired and what is not anyway. When I was a younger Christian, certainly it helped knowing what writings were beyond doubt. But after spending years of studying those, I can now recognize what writings harmonize with the cannon or amplify on it in a way that expounds on it without contradicting it, and receive the witness of the Spirit within me.

But this is clearly an issue where, as Jesus taught, "Wisdom is deemed right by her children."

 

[Hidden In Him]

It depends what they mean by that.

I rephrased it. What would you say to Post #69?

 

[Enoch111]

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

Since I have studied this matter in depth, I will respond. As far as the Hebrew Tanakh was concerned, it was already an established canon at the time of Christ. The scribes were given the responsibility of making painstakingly accurate copies, and copies of copies, so essentially the original manuscripts were preserved through a succession of accurate copies. The proof of this was established after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, where a copy of the Isaiah scroll from c 200 BC was almost identical to the Masoretic text from about 900 AD. That is a gap of over 1000 years. But these texts went all the way back to 1500 BC or even earlier (since Job was written around the time of Abraham).

Again, for the New Testament writings, copies of the originals were made almost immediately and circulated to the various churches, since we find the apostle Peter stating that all the epistles of Paul were equivalent to Scripture. Obviously he was totally familiar with them.

So by the 2nd century AD the New Testament canon was practically established (and the Muratori Canon shows this). Also the Syriac Peshitta (2nd century) was a complete translation of the Bible into Syriac. Subsequently, copies of copies of copies were also made of the whole Bible and also translated into many languages.

Thus we have the traditional Hebrew and traditional Greek texts (supported by the majority of manuscripts) in printed form since the 14th century AD. And all the Reformation bibles in various languages were based upon these texts.

Christians can be confident that the Reformation bibles (including the KJV) have solid manuscript support, as well as support from the lectionaries (lesson books) of the Greek Orthodox Church from a very early time.

 

[reformed1689]

You say that, yet, again, don't give me the Scriptures to ponder for myself...

BTW, when your church decides what they will allow, will it have to do with homosexual bishops and ministers? Are you for gay bishops or against? We are against.

We are absolutely against gay leadership. We have been staying in the denomination only because, for the most part, they have left us alone. But this is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Here's how things ultimately boil down in regards to the ECF and other teachers:
- Nobody is an island. You are going to be influenced by teachers and the teacher's teachers, etc.
- You can either ignore or acknowledge this, and study that legacy to whatever depth.
- Ideally though your ultimate teacher is the Lord Himself, guiding you directly and helping you discern which teaching are His Truth.

We can squabble all day long on which teachers each person believes is correct. And profit zero for it. the Lord alone is the Master Teacher, and we all best remember to listen to He alone that sits in that Throne.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I was just checking Tertullian on what he wrote about baptism. Basically he said that water washes away sins and regenerates the soul (with a very lengthy dissertation). That false teaching of baptismal regeneration was first promoted by the ECF, starting with Justin Martyr. John 3:5 was misunderstood from a very early time.

I don't believe that either. Baptism is in answer to a good conscience. You can't have a good conscience if you still have sin. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin. He gives us the Holy Spirit to keep power over sin (which I know we may disagree with), THEN that is when we can have a good conscience and our old self is buried in baptism and resurrected to walk in the Spirit. Do you agree, or what would you change?

 

[CharismaticLady]

We are absolutely against gay leadership. We have been staying in the denomination only because, for the most part, they have left us alone. But this is the straw that has broken the camel's back.

I agree. But the Presbyterians are in the same boat.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The proof of this was established after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, where a copy of the Isaiah scroll from c 200 BC was almost identical to the Masoretic text from about 900 AD. That is a gap of over 1000 years. But these texts went all the way back to 1500 BC or even earlier (since Job was written around the time of Abraham).

Yes, well it makes sense that it would have been preserved in the Masoretic because the Qumrun community were Jews and Essenes, and as such very separatist (and not only separatist but elitist, in claiming to be the true Israel that all other devout Jews would eventually join).

But now, if you believe the Masoretic to be the truly inspired version of the OT, what is your answer to those who point out that the LXX is actually cited ten times more often in the NT?

 

[Episkopos]

Yes, well it makes sense that it would have been preserved in the Masoretic because the Qumrun community were Jews and Essenes, and as such very separatist (and not only separatist but elitist, in claiming to be the true Israel that all other devout Jews would eventually join).

But now, if you believe the Masoretic to be the truly inspired version of the OT, what is your answer to those who point out that the LXX is actually cited ten times more often in the NT?

It may have something to do with it being in Greek...the language that the letters were being written in?

 

[Hidden In Him]

It may have something to do with it being in Greek...the language that the letters were being written in?

Hey! Very good! Made me feel a bit like a dummy, LoL.

But now, this still wouldn't excuse citing it if they considered it (or even significant portions of it) to be corrupt beyond giving apostolic endorsement to it.

So the question would still stand.

 

[Enoch111]

I don't believe that either. Baptism is in answer to a good conscience. You can't have a good conscience if you still have sin. It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin. He gives us the Holy Spirit to keep power over sin (which I know we may disagree with), THEN that is when we can have a good conscience and our old self is buried in baptism and resurrected to walk in the Spirit. Do you agree, or what would you change?

As long as we are agreed that ordinary water does not wash away sins, we are on the same page. "The answer of a good conscience toward God" should be interpreted in the light of all Gospel truth. Those who hear the Gospel and are convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit repent and believe on Christ and are saved. At that point all their sins are forgiven, their guilt is removed, and they then have a clear conscience before God. (Repentance also involves restitution for wrongs committed earlier as we see in the case of Zacchaeus). Thus when a new believer comes to be baptized he or she comes with a clear conscience before all, and professes his or her faith in Christ.

 

[reformed1689]

Here's how things ultimately boil down in regards to the ECF and other teachers:
- Nobody is an island. You are going to be influenced by teachers and the teacher's teachers, etc.
- You can either ignore or acknowledge this, and study that legacy to whatever depth.
- Ideally though your ultimate teacher is the Lord Himself, guiding you directly and helping you discern which teaching are His Truth.

We can squabble all day long on which teachers each person believes is correct. And profit zero for it. the Lord alone is the Master Teacher, and we all best remember to listen to He alone that sits in that Throne.

No it's not that simple actually. We are called to refute and rebuke false teachers.

 

[reformed1689]

I agree. But the Presbyterians are in the same boat.

It depends on which Presbyterians you are talking about.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

No it's not that simple actually. We are called to refute and rebuke false teachers.

Should a person follow the Lord or you?

Don't try to take the Lord's throne in this regard. To often us humans fall into that prideful trap.

 

[Enoch111]

But now, if you believe the Masoretic to be the truly inspired version of the OT, what is your answer to those who point out that the LXX is actually cited ten times more often in the NT?

Just to clarify:
1. No texts other than the original manuscripts were inspired. So the Masoretic text is a FAITHFUL REPRESENTATION of the original manuscripts.

2. However, under the good hand of God, faithful copies of the manuscripts were made over the centuries, so that we can be confident that we have the Word of God in our hands. This is called the doctrine of the divine preservation of the Scriptures. And that is why we can say that the Bible is inspired, therefore inerrant, and therefore infallible.

3. The LXX was a corrupted Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh and was used by Hellenistic Jews. For details see The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim (a true scholar).

4. It is ALLEGED that the apostles used the LXX because of similarities in quotations within the NT. But that is superficial. There are also many dissimilarities, and frequently the Holy Spirit led Christ and the apostles to quote quite differently from even the Hebrew Tanakh.

5. Christ Himself REJECTED the LXX when He referred to the Hebrew Tanakh: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the Law of Moses, and in [2] the Prophets, and in [3] the Psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

What was the Lord referring to? The three major divisions of the Hebrew Bible:
1. "the Law of Moses" = TORAH = the five books of Moses
2. "the Prophets" = NEVIIM = the eight books of the Prophets
3. "the Psalms" = KETUVIM = the eleven books of the Writings (starting with Psalms)

That is a total of 24 books (quite unlike the LXX which has close to 50 books). This also proves that both Christ, the apostles, and the scribes and Pharisees were referring to the Hebrew Tanakh within the NT. When Jesus said "IT IS WRITTEN" this is what He was talking about.

This also proves that from the time of Moses to the time of Christ (c 1500 years) the Bible remained unchanged.

 

[reformed1689]

Should a person follow the Lord or you?

What does this have to do with what I said? Nothing.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

What does this have to do with what I said? Nothing.

It is the ENTIRE point of what I am saying.

There are many teachers and teacher's teachers out there. People can discuss or argue or squabble about things all day long.

But ultimately, a person needs their own relationship with the Lord and to follow Him. Not me, you, or any mortal teacher. We must acknowledge that first and foremost.

 

[Hidden In Him]

4. It is ALLEGED that the apostles used the LXX because of similarities in quotations within the NT. But that is superficial. There are also many dissimilarities, and frequently the Holy Spirit led Christ and the apostles to quote quite differently from even the Hebrew Tanakh.

This is an interesting theory, but I'm checking it out. I picked as my first verse one that appears to have a very clear distinction in rendering between the Masoretic and LXX.

In Matthew 12:21 we have "καὶ [ἐπὶ] τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν," which equals "and in His name shall the Gentiles hope."
The quote is from Isaiah 42:4, and in the LXX we also have "καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν," which is an exact equivalent to Matthew 12:21 in the Greek. Isaiah 42:4 in the Masoretic meanwhile reads, ְי ַי ֵחילוּ ִא ִיּים וּ ְלת ָרת, which translates literally as, "the isles shall wait for his law." This is the first verse I researched, and I'm already finding instances where the theory deosn't seem to hold up too well.

I'm not discarding it out of hand, as truly testing it out would take a lot of work. But on first glance I don't know that you have a very good case.

 

[reformed1689]

It is the ENTIRE point of what I am saying.

There are many teachers and teacher's teachers out there. People can discuss or argue or squabble about things all day long.

But ultimately, a person needs their own relationship with the Lord and to follow Him. Not me, you, or any mortal teacher. We must acknowledge that first and foremost.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that I said we are to rebuke false teachers. That is COMMANDED in Scripture. It IS following the Lord to rebuke false teaching (such as LDS).