Why trust the "Early Fathers?"

[Dan Clarkston]

This verse is not supposed to prove the lord is slow; it says that he is fast. Your evidence is weak, compared to mine.

You have not and cannot prove Jesus has already returned for a second time... it's false doctrine to claim He has returned because if he had returned then we would be in His 1000 reign right now which is obviously NOT the case seeing how the world is still in a mess, satan and his demons are still here running around, and the anti-chirst and false prophet hasn't even been revealed yet.

All these facts prove your claim is in error.

Oh well, some folk just gotta learn the hard way rather than accepting the whole counsel of God.

 

[MonoBiblical]

View attachment 56066

You have not and cannot prove Jesus has already returned for a second time... it's false doctrine to claim He has returned because if he had returned then we would be in His 1000 reign right now which is obviously NOT the case seeing how the world is still in a mess, satan and his demons are still here running around, and the anti-chirst and false prophet hasn't even been revealed yet.

All these facts prove your claim is in error.

Oh well, some folk just gotta learn the hard way rather than accepting the whole counsel of God. View attachment 56067

Correction his 1000-year reign was in the Kingdom of God.

 

[chandlere880]

the Greek speaking Christians themselves, in Greece, mostly known as the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church they did not translate their Greek Bibles into modern Greek for nearly 2000 years.

In 1850 Neophytas Bambas (or Vamvas) finished the New Testament into modern Greek but he was outcast and denounced by all of the churches in Greece.

All of his Bibles were confiscated. The Orthodox bishop of Crete burned his translations of the “New Testaments” and ousted him out completely.

The Greeks burned and immediately destroyed any attempt made by anyone translating the Bible into modern Greek.

In 1901, Alexandros Pallis attempted to translate the Gospels in Modern Greek. In Greece, the Greek Christians fell into a raging fit and gathered in a massive mob and created a furious, violent riot - in Athens, in 1901 in which 8 people died.

Today’s Greek Version (TGV) was produced in 1997 - this translation simply reflects the consensus of many different organizations and groups and what they feel the Bible should say -

 

[PinSeeker]

Because they lived closest to the time of Christ/Apostles and some were students of the Apostles.

Agreed. For the most part... Lambano clarified sufficiently.

This is not any kind of pointed question, but I'm asking just out of mild curiosity: Do you, Marymog, consider Augustine, who lived well after the age of the apostles (in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.) to be one of these early fathers? And just to say, it really matters not to me ~ and I have no problem with ~ whether you say yes or no to that...

Why trust Protestant Reformers if they teach different than the early fathers?

Right, but they didn't. <smile> The whole impetus of the Reformation was to return Christianity to it's apostolic roots... the roots that Catholicism ~ and other groups ~ had strayed from.

PS: I consider the "early fathers" as the Apostolic Fathers or fathers that lived close to their lifetime.

Well, fine, but it would be a bit more relevant to define at least a few of the teachings of the Reformers ~ Martin Luther and John Calvin in particular ~ that you think are different from the early fathers. I mean, you don't have to tell me, because I know very well... <smile> But... feel free. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Correction his 1000-year reign was in the Kingdom of God.

It hasn't happened yet... so it's not "was"

 

[PinSeeker]

It hasn't happened yet... so it's not "was" View attachment 56126

Well, it was... and is. ;) And will be, until Christ returns.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

Well, it was... and is. ;) And will be, until Christ returns.

Grace and peace to you.

No, we are not living in the 1000 year reign of Christ right now.

That starts when Jesus returns

 

[The Learner]

You called Revelations a so Speculations. That is loopy.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

You called Revelations a so Speculations. That is loopy.

No, I did not say or claim the Book of Revelation was speculation

The "Book of Speculations" is a joke referring to an imaginary "book" where
people get their false from (doctrine not actually taught in God's Word.)

Aka... funky cold medina doctrine
<--- funky cold medina doctrine homeboy

 

[Marymog]

Agreed. For the most part... Lambano clarified sufficiently.

This is not any kind of pointed question, but I'm asking just out of mild curiosity: Do you, Marymog, consider Augustine, who lived well after the age of the apostles (in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D.) to be one of these early fathers? And just to say, it really matters not to me ~ and I have no problem with ~ whether you say yes or no to that...

Hello PinSeeker,

As I stated in that post that you quoted: I consider the "early fathers" as the Apostolic Fathers or fathers that lived close to their lifetime.


Mary

 

[Marymog]

Right, but they didn't. <smile> The whole impetus of the Reformation was to return Christianity to it's apostolic roots... the roots that Catholicism ~ and other groups ~ had strayed from.

Hello PinSeeker,

You are incorrect sir/mam. The Protestant Reformers did in FACT teach different than the early fathers.

Calvin taught there was no free will. The early fathers taught there was. Calvin and Zwingili did not teach/believe in the Real Presence. Martin Luther rejected..........I'm not going to go on and on and on to destroy your theory PinSeeker. It is up to you to learn your own Christian history. Not for me to teach it to you.

It is NOT true that the "whole impetus of the Reformation was to return Christianity to it's apostolic roots.". Your theory makes zero sense when you consider that all the Reformers disagreed with The Church, each other AND, in many cases, the Apostolic Fathers (students of the Apostles). If the Reformers were trying to return Christianity to its Apostolic roots then they all should have been in agreement with each other and the Apostolic Fathers at a minimum. You should reconsider your theory.

 

[Marymog]

Well, fine, but it would be a bit more relevant to define at least a few of the teachings of the Reformers ~ Martin Luther and John Calvin in particular ~ that you think are different from the early fathers. I mean, you don't have to tell me, because I know very well... <smile> But... feel free. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

If you already know that the teachings of Luther and Calvins teachings are different than the early fathers then how can you suggest that their teachings were getting back to the roots of the Apostles? That makes no sense.....

 

[Marymog]

Not in the least, the early church had many and varied doctrines until Constantine ended the persecutions and laid the seeds for the RCC. Which then ruled Europe and led to what used to be called the dark ages. There were many divergent voices in teh church until Rome put a stranglehold. To disagree with Rome and the Papal authority often meant death.

Not true. In the early Church, before Constantine, there were some men (Docetism, Montanism, Adoptism, Gnostism etc etc) who broke away from The Church because they disagreed with the teachings of The Church. So those "divergent voices in teh {sic} church" that you speak of were on in the church. They were heretical teachings of men outside The Church. The Church has had 1 doctrine under 1 united Church with 1 teaching since the time of the Apostles. If you do not believe that then you believe that Christ and the Apostles failed. I do not believe they did. You apparently do.



Please answer my question from the original post: Who was God leading and guiding during the Reformation? Martin Luther? Zwingili? The Catholic Church? Calvin?

Mary

 

[Wrangler]

If you already know that the teachings of Luther and Calvins teachings are different than the early fathers then how can you suggest that their teachings were getting back to the roots of the Apostles? That makes no sense.....

Everyone makes mistakes. Also, there may be 2 overlapping subjects.

1. A return to Apostolic teachings, made possible by the printing press.
2. Reformation insights that go beyond above.

For instance, how technology might assist in the Great Commission and synergies of zeitgeist and modern philosophies in vogue with the Spirit (and Word) of God.

I suspect this was this driving force behind Calvin’s TULIP; given that God is outside time, certain natural consequences follow …

 

[Marymog]

YOu obviously do not know Church history. Teh church was a real mess in teh first Century. It was divided between Jews and Gentiles.

Sects surrounding Paul, Peter, Apollos, James rose up. These were all believers in these divisions. Even when Constantine ended the persecutions. Many of the councils were near wars as to the disagreements- this was the church. The church is not an institution but an organism composed of believers.

And as for the reformation? God uses imperfect men to bring Him glory!

But as you appear to be Roman Catholic, do you agree wi9th the current pope? to bless gay unions, to call Muslim Imams brothers in Christ?
Did you agree with the Catholic Inquisition that murdered hundreds of thousands?
Did you agree with the Papal Crusades? Instead of evangelizing the Muslims- the popes raised armies to slaughter them?

As a historian I know Church (Christian) history and Scripture very well. The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has never failed. Since The Church always has the Truth, it cannot fail. Also, you must abide by the teachings of The Church or you will be kicked out (Matthew 18:17). Some men in The Church have failed. Some men left The Church and became heretics. But The Church has never failed even though some men in The Church were a "real mess".

Who belongs to this organism of composed believers that fulfill Matthew 18:17 and 1 Timothy 3:15 that you speak of?

Now to answer your questions: It doesn't matter what the personal opinions are of any Pope. It only matters what The Church teaches.

I do not agree with the Catholic Inquisitions or the Protestant inquisitions both of which had horrible consequences and is a stain on Christianity.

"YOu obviously do not know Church history." The Muslims attacked Christian countries and subjected Christians to their will by taking their property, slaughtering them and they had to convert or pay a tax if they didn't convert. Thank God The Church (the Popes) RESPONDED TO THEIR ATTACKS and called for the Glorious Crusades (there were 8 of them over 200 years) to stop the killing of Christians and to retake our Holy Land. If you think the Muslims could have been converted by evangelizing to them then put your words into practice. Go to a Muslim country TODAY and do that. Please make sure your life insurance is up to date so your family can cash in.

Your welcome........Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

!00% I agree as they are written. But what is your point? That the church in its declaration is infallible? that is a fallacy.

That is exactly what 1 Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17 mean: The Church is infallible. If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette is the pillar and foundation of truth, wouldn't YOU be infallible? If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette has the final decision on if a person should be kicked out of The Church or not, wouldn't that make YOU infallible?

You and @ScottA, who "liked" your unfortunate post, crack me up!

 

[MonoBiblical]

No, I did not say or claim the Book of Revelation was speculation

Yes, you did.

 

[Marymog]

Why should I repeat what you have not acknowledged these many times, regarding what is written, while you repeat your erroneous position? If what you said were true, it would have begun with your repenting all that you have been denying. Will you not acknowledge your error?

Lol...Yup, Marymog repeats erroneous positions but ol' Scotty is always right and never wrong.

Yes, I acknowledge the error of communicating with a pompous person.

 

[ScottA]

That is exactly what 1 Timothy 3:15 and Matthew 18:17 mean: The Church is infallible. If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette is the pillar and foundation of truth, wouldn't YOU be infallible? If Scripture said that Ronald Nolette has the final decision on if a person should be kicked out of The Church or not, wouldn't that make YOU infallible?

You and @ScottA, who "liked" your unfortunate post, crack me up!

Mary, you are assuming your definition of "the Church" is the same as Jesus' definition. But it's not:

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth]will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:17-19).​

The fact that Jesus said those things to Peter, does not make him the Rock of heaven upon which Jesus builds His church. Your choosing "flesh and blood" against what Jesus said, simply shows that the leaders of the church at that time failed to understand the riddle which Jesus set before them as "life and death, blessing and cursing"--as Moses had also previously done with Israel. The Priests and Leaders chose death and cursing. Unfortunately.

 

[PinSeeker]

No, we are not living in the 1000 year reign of Christ right now.

We are.

That starts when Jesus returns

No, its close prompts Jesus's return.

We disagree... and can leave it at that if you like. Grace and peace to you.