Theological Truth and Real Truth

[Boaz]

I agree.
The problem is that there are certain verses that make particular doctrine sound correct but which do not reconcile with other scripture. You say there cannot be contradictions in scripture...if there were no contradictions, we would all agree on everything.

Jesus gave the Apostles authority to confess sins. He said that THEY had the choice to forgive the sin or not.

Should we be confessing our sins to an elder? To a priest? To a pastor? Did Jesus REALLY mean to confess to God? Then why give the authority to the Apostles?

And other such questions.
To which I am not really asking for a reply.

Does that mean you don't want me to reply? If so, why not? Pm me if necessary.
Is there contradiction in God? Obviously not. When a contradiction APPEARS to exist, something, somewhere in some way is not being interpreted correctly.
Not sure what scripture you are referring to about the Apostles forgiving sins. Let me know?

 

[GodsGrace]

Does that mean you don't want me to reply? If so, why not? Pm me if necessary.
Is there contradiction in God? Obviously not. When a contradiction APPEARS to exist, something, somewhere in some way is not being interpreted correctly.
Not sure what scripture you are referring to about the Apostles forgiving sins. Let me know?

LOL
No! I didn't mean that you shouldn't reply...
I meant that I don't expect a reply explaining about Jesus telling us to confess our sins...
John 20:23

Some believe we should confess our sins....
Some do not.
Who's right???

This is all I'm saying.
I've said many times that I wish the writers of the N.T. had been more clear in what they meant.

It was a different time,,,different ways of speaking.

 

[Boaz]

LOL
No! I didn't mean that you shouldn't reply...
I meant that I don't expect a reply explaining about Jesus telling us to confess our sins...
John 20:23

Some believe we should confess our sins....
Some do not.
Who's right???

This is all I'm saying.
I've said many times that I wish the writers of the N.T. had been more clear in what they meant.

It was a different time,,,different ways of speaking.

John20:23
Maybe this will help maybe not. I know you weren't really asking me to answer the question, but it got me thinking. Jesus was giving instructions to His disciples, the Apostle, as His appointed founder and head of His church. They had the authority, s now church leadership, has the authority, (though it is seldom exercised today)to pronounce a sin forgiven or not. It was about church discipline. My study Bible referenced Matt.16:19, Matt.18:18, 1Cor.5:4,5.
16:19 IS the keys to the kingdom passage
18:18 the binding and loosing passage
1Cor.5:4,5 (actually beginning inv 3
"For though absent in body, I am present in spirit;and as if present I have already pronounced judgement on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." This is an example of Paul using this authority to discipline a church member. In other places it makes clear that someone who commits open sin visible to the church, is disciplined by the elders, and if he doesn't repent, publicly in the church, and if he still doesn't repent, he is to be put out of the Church, for the purpose of bringing him to repentance, and if he does repent, restore him to fellowship.
So. That passage in John is about church discipline.

1John1:9 says, "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness."
And the Bible is full of people confessing privately before God. No examples that I know of of confessing to any human in order to receive forgiveness from God. Jesus alone is our mediator.

 

[GodsGrace]

John20:23
Maybe this will help maybe not. I know you weren't really asking me to answer the question, but it got me thinking. Jesus was giving instructions to His disciples, the Apostle, as His appointed founder and head of His church. They had the authority, s now church leadership, has the authority, (though it is seldom exercised today)to pronounce a sin forgiven or not. It was about church discipline. My study Bible referenced Matt.16:19, Matt.18:18, 1Cor.5:4,5.
16:19 IS the keys to the kingdom passage
18:18 the binding and loosing passage
1Cor.5:4,5 (actually beginning inv 3
"For though absent in body, I am present in spirit;and as if present I have already pronounced judgement on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." This is an example of Paul using this authority to discipline a church member. In other places it makes clear that someone who commits open sin visible to the church, is disciplined by the elders, and if he doesn't repent, publicly in the church, and if he still doesn't repent, he is to be put out of the Church, for the purpose of bringing him to repentance, and if he does repent, restore him to fellowship.
So. That passage in John is about church discipline.

1John1:9 says, "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness."
And the Bible is full of people confessing privately before God. No examples that I know of of confessing to any human in order to receive forgiveness from God. Jesus alone is our mediator.

I need time to check out all your references...but it sounds interesting...
Later.

 

[WIP]

The problem is that there are certain verses that make particular doctrine sound correct but which do not reconcile with other scripture. You say there cannot be contradictions in scripture...if there were no contradictions, we would all agree on everything.

It isn't contradictions in the Bible that inhibits our ability to agree. It is our own spin on Scripture that causes it. Two people can read the same text and end up with two different understandings. That's why we need to do more than just read the text. We must meditate on it, pray about it, and listen to God.

 

[Boaz]

I need time to check out all your references...but it sounds interesting...
Later.

W
I just double checked my two other translations, the NIV and NKJ to see if they gave the same references as the ESV. Both give the Matt16 and Matt 18 references but not the 1Cor reference. I think because the last moves slightly from a direct reference to more of an actual example of its usage. Maybe you have other translations (other than it is Italian, not English LOL) and that should be interesting.

 

[GodsGrace]

It isn't contradictions in the Bible that inhibits our ability to agree. It is our own spin on Scripture that causes it. Two people can read the same text and end up with two different understandings. That's why we need to do more than just read the text. We must meditate on it, pray about it, and listen to God.

This is interesting WIP.

If it isn't a contradiction -- why don't we agree?

We have TOS here that must be read.
What good would they be if two people reading them come away with two different ideas? They must be written in such a way that BOTH will understand what is required to stay on this Forum.

The reason there are two different understandings is because we refuse to study the ECFs and instead study those that came many years later and have their own spin on every doctrine.

Also, the reformers of the Catholic Church were so against what it was teaching (and they were right) that they just took everything that was bad AND GOOD about that church and just dumped it.

This is unfortunate since the CC has some really good qualities about it.

I believe, as I've said many times, that we MISUNDERSTAND some of the scripture in the N.T. because it was written in different times and in a different culture and persons understood things differently.

Take the sealing of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is given as a guarantee of our salvation.

The word was EARNEST....and earnest is a down-payment NOT a guarantee. But since so many preachers teach it this way, this is how it's accepted.

There are many examples like this.
If we just studied what JESUS taught, we'd all be in the same boat (I think). Maybe we should eliminate all the books except the gospels??

LOL
JUST KIDDING!

 

[Susannah]

This is a good topic for me. I love the expression, "And the truth shall set you free." Before I was a Christian I did not know this was in the Bible. I thought Benjamin Franklin wrote it. He was a self-help author and said, "God helps those who help themselves." Anyway . . .

I have to prioritize. There is the one GREAT truth which is that Christ came down to earth to die for our sins and that he was indeed resurrected. And he sent the Holy Spirit for us.

Then there is the truth of scripture even though it has been translated a lot and sometimes and contradicts itself. And culturally it holds women back. Still it is the light of the world.

The third truth is what the Holy Spirit says to me each day. It has to fit certain criteria like being loving, but other than that she tells me what to do as a wander around each day. She says do this and do that. Avoid this and give a smile to him or her etc. Now and then, doing what she says saves my life. Long story . . .

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

humble soul is positing the fact that we can become intolerant when we think we have the truth. But someone MUST have the truth...and if someone else has a different truth...then we do NOT know what the truth is.

He is also asking if the bible is more the truth than Jesus is,,,which I'm discussing with Not_Now.Soon right now.

This is why we discuss things here....to see how the other person understands different doctrine.

If that what we're discussing? Hmmm, maybe it is. I think the bible is the foundation to hold to, and the foundation to hold other parts of life to. But then after that as long as you are acting within the scope of what you know in the bible, and what you do, what you say, and what you believe aren't corrected by the bible, then everything else after that is a a mix between living life the right way, and potentially being led in the right direction.

Some people say they felt led or called to move, to change jobs, or to enter into a ministry. As long as any of those things aren't contrary to what's taught in the bible, then it's possible that that person was led by the Holy Spirit, or led by Jesus, or led by God. It's stories and experience like those that feel me with hope that God still acts in the world today and leads us like He led Israel sometimes through the prophets, or through men of faith or filled with the Holy Spirit.

For instance the bible points to Jesus, and I hold the bible to be reliable source for finding God. In that way the bible will not lead you astray and away from God, from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless when Paul was healed after he was blinded, the Christian who healed him was to,d to do so in a dream or a vision. He didn't read it in the scriptures or in the writtings of the early believers. He was led.

To the idea if the bible is more true then Jesus, my thought is that if you find any contradiction, then that means it's not really Jesus. The bible point to Jesus. And Jesus is the truth, He won't contradict what's in the bible.

 

[GodsGrace]

John20:23
Maybe this will help maybe not. I know you weren't really asking me to answer the question, but it got me thinking. Jesus was giving instructions to His disciples, the Apostle, as His appointed founder and head of His church. They had the authority, s now church leadership, has the authority, (though it is seldom exercised today)to pronounce a sin forgiven or not. It was about church discipline. My study Bible referenced Matt.16:19, Matt.18:18, 1Cor.5:4,5.
16:19 IS the keys to the kingdom passage
18:18 the binding and loosing passage
1Cor.5:4,5 (actually beginning inv 3
"For though absent in body, I am present in spirit;and as if present I have already pronounced judgement on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." This is an example of Paul using this authority to discipline a church member. In other places it makes clear that someone who commits open sin visible to the church, is disciplined by the elders, and if he doesn't repent, publicly in the church, and if he still doesn't repent, he is to be put out of the Church, for the purpose of bringing him to repentance, and if he does repent, restore him to fellowship.
So. That passage in John is about church discipline.

1John1:9 says, "If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness."
And the Bible is full of people confessing privately before God. No examples that I know of of confessing to any human in order to receive forgiveness from God. Jesus alone is our mediator.

Hi Boaz,,,
What a well thought out post !

After dinner I pulled out my NASB and also the Living Bible because there were a couple of verses that I couldn't understand 100%. I have many bibles and this is what I do when I don't understand something or have a question. I read the verses in 2 or 3 bibles and I tend not to use commentaries unless absolutely necessary.

I agree with you that confession is about church discipline!
I had never thought of it this way.

What I HAD believed once was that confession had to do with whether or not one was allowed to enter into the Christian community. IF they had sinned, were they truly repentant? If so, they could be allowed in, if not they would not be.

You brought up 1 Corinthians 5:1.....and this is what I needed time for because I remembered that there's another verse in
2 Corinthians 2:5.....regarding this same person/event.

It's speaking exactly about what you stated.
In 1 Cor 5:1 the person has done something truly terrible, something that wouldn't be tolerated even outside the church.
Paul is telling those in that church in Corinth that the person should be dealt with and not ignored. Paul specifically says to deal with it with the authority of Jesus. The man's conduct is to be held up to public scrutiny so he could defend himself -- if possible. And if he cannot, then he should be removed from the church.

Then in 2 Cor 2:5....
Paul says he does not want to be too hard on the person, that there has been punishment enough...they should forgive the man and invite him back into the church and show him love.

The interesting part here is that in 2 Cor Paul says that the reason for his first letter to them... 1 Cor 5, was not so much to punish the person as to make that church take responsibility for what had happened and act accordingly as a church.

If they forgave the man...then Paul will forgive him too.

The two ideas above seem to mesh somewhat...
The one I used to have and still really believe,,,
and the one you brought forward.

A confirmation of this is how the early church viewed confession and how it developed...no use to get into this.

You did make two contrasting statements, however, that confused me and could you please clarify...

First you said:

They had the authority, s now church leadership, has the authority, (though it is seldom exercised today)to pronounce a sin forgiven or not.

Then you said, at the end:

No examples that I know of of confessing to any human in order to receive forgiveness from God. Jesus alone is our mediator.

I think you're saying what I also said...
about the church having the authority to declare that one has sinned...not necessrily to forgive it.
Please confirm.

 

[Boaz]

This is interesting WIP.

If it isn't a contradiction -- why don't we agree?

We have TOS here that must be read.
What good would they be if two people reading them come away with two different ideas? They must be written in such a way that BOTH will understand what is required to stay on this Forum.

The reason there are two different understandings is because we refuse to study the ECFs and instead study those that came many years later and have their own spin on every doctrine.

Also, the reformers of the Catholic Church were so against what it was teaching (and they were right) that they just took everything that was bad AND GOOD about that church and just dumped it.

This is unfortunate since the CC has some really good qualities about it.

I believe, as I've said many times, that we MISUNDERSTAND some of the scripture in the N.T. because it was written in different times and in a different culture and persons understood things differently.

Take the sealing of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is given as a guarantee of our salvation.

The word was EARNEST....and earnest is a down-payment NOT a guarantee. But since so many preachers teach it this way, this is how it's accepted.

There are many examples like this.
If we just studied what JESUS taught, we'd all be in the same boat (I think). Maybe we should eliminate all the books except the gospels??

LOL
JUST KIDDING!

Thank heavens you wee just kidding!!!on that last remark. LOL.
I don't understand why you think the ECF carry more weight than anyone who came after. Not disagreeing, I just don't understand your reasoning.
I know you say the Reformers dumped everything bad and good from the Catholic church but that isn't true. You can see everything that was true about CC still there. The Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection, even infant baptism (which I btw don't agree with because I can't understand the purpose but don't fret bout it). You can see a lot of CC especially in Luther. It is over the years and the splintering into a thousand denominations that things changed more and more. The Reformers, and there were many more than two, were diligent beyond the capability of anyone today to get at what the Bible truly said. They studied the scriptures to discover this. They did not begin with a preconceived bias. And sure they formed an opinion as they went along but EVERBODY EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME does that. How else? There were synods and dorts and bulls and counsel to weigh all sides and make decisions, based on information,not opinion to distinguish what was Biblical and what was heresy. Not arguing the right or wrong of my beliefs. I am only saying that the intensive work they did on behalf of us all shouldn't be dismissed s nothing or invalid.
That being said lol, back to point.
The problem in interpreting scripture needn't be because we live in a different time, culture and say things differently. We have those helps available to us and usually they are contained in Book introductions and footnotes. If not everybody can understand everything th same way this does not mean that there is a contradiction. Also, there are mysteries in the Bible, though most are in the OT nd are revealed in th New. Some mysteries will only b revealed in the next life. And there
e are paradoxes, things that seem impossible or contradictory, but are not, we are just unable to see them clearly here on Earth.
We are all, once our eyes have been opened, able to understand the message that saves.

 

[Boaz]

Hi Boaz,,,
What a well thought out post !

After dinner I pulled out my NASB and also the Living Bible because there were a couple of verses that I couldn't understand 100%. I have many bibles and this is what I do when I don't understand something or have a question. I read the verses in 2 or 3 bibles and I tend not to use commentaries unless absolutely necessary.

I agree with you that confession is about church discipline!
I had never thought of it this way.

What I HAD believed once was that confession had to do with whether or not one was allowed to enter into the Christian community. IF they had sinned, were they truly repentant? If so, they could be allowed in, if not they would not be.

You brought up 1 Corinthians 5:1.....and this is what I needed time for because I remembered that there's another verse in
2 Corinthians 2:5.....regarding this same person/event.

It's speaking exactly about what you stated.
In 1 Cor 5:1 the person has done something truly terrible, something that wouldn't be tolerated even outside the church.
Paul is telling those in that church in Corinth that the person should be dealt with and not ignored. Paul specifically says to deal with it with the authority of Jesus. The man's conduct is to be held up to public scrutiny so he could defend himself -- if possible. And if he cannot, then he should be removed from the church.

Then in 2 Cor 2:5....
Paul says he does not want to be too hard on the person, that there has been punishment enough...they should forgive the man and invite him back into the church and show him love.

The interesting part here is that in 2 Cor Paul says that the reason for his first letter to them... 1 Cor 5, was not so much to punish the person as to make that church take responsibility for what had happened and act accordingly as a church.

If they forgave the man...then Paul will forgive him too.

The two ideas above seem to mesh somewhat...
The one I used to have and still really believe,,,
and the one you brought forward.

A confirmation of this is how the early church viewed confession and how it developed...no use to get into this.

You did make two contrasting statements, however, that confused me and could you please clarify...

First you said:

They had the authority, s now church leadership, has the authority, (though it is seldom exercised today)to pronounce a sin forgiven or not.

Then you said, at the end:

No examples that I know of of confessing to any human in order to receive forgiveness from God. Jesus alone is our mediator.

I think you're saying what I also said...
about the church having the authority to declare that one has sinned...not necessrily to forgive it.
Please confirm.

That is what I m saying. ?
In addition to the church having authority to declare a sin as sin in one who is sinning, they also have the authority AND obligation according to 2Cor., to restore that person to the congregation upon repentance, in EFFECT declaring the sin forgiven. I say in effect because only God can truly forgive as in, wipe it out, but the church has the authority to speak for God on this matter. Of course the whole process has to be in agreement with Bible teaching, I.e. the will of God. That is why Jesus gave them this instruction and authority.
Anymore scriptures we can explore like this, ones you find puzzling? I hadn't put these ones together with the 2Cor., So that was enlightening!

 

[GodsGrace]

That is what I m saying. ?
In addition to the church having authority to declare a sin as sin in one who is sinning, they also have the authority AND obligation according to 2Cor., to restore that person to the congregation upon repentance, in EFFECT declaring the sin forgiven. I say in effect because only God can truly forgive as in, wipe it out, but the church has the authority to speak for God on this matter. Of course the whole process has to be in agreement with Bible teaching, I.e. the will of God. That is why Jesus gave them this instruction and authority.
Anymore scriptures we can explore like this, ones you find puzzling? I hadn't put these ones together with the 2Cor., So that was enlightening!

Sure...there are plenty of verses that are difficult to understand.
OzSpen is working on one right now....the loosing and binding.
Matthew 16:19

I sure hope he tags us when he finishes and posts it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank heavens you wee just kidding!!!on that last remark. LOL.
I don't understand why you think the ECF carry more weight than anyone who came after. Not disagreeing, I just don't understand your reasoning.

It's easy to understand.
I used to like to take the example of John F. Kennedy because back when he was dead about 40 years...Now it's 60 so it doesn't fit so well, but here goes:

If you wanted to know what JFK really thought about something, would you ask someone he knew and worked with or would you ask some guy that read about him and wrote about him hundreds of years after he died?

The ECFs KNEW an Apostle and learned from him. And some ECFs learned from those persons....Don't you think they knew what the Apostles had learned from Jesus better than someone in some theology school today?

I have all respect for theologians, don't get me wrong...I just trust the ECFs better than anyone today.

ou say the Reformers dumped everything bad and good from the Catholic church but that isn't true. You can see everything that was true about CC still there. The Trinity, the crucifixion and resurrection, even infant baptism (which I btw don't agree with because I can't understand the purpose but don't fret bout it). You can see a lot of CC especially in Luther.

You're right but the doctrinal issues were all eliminated.
The Council of Trent was specifically to reinforce what the CC held to be true doctrine in view of the fact that the Protestant church changed almost all of them.

The foundation was kept, of course.

over the years and the splintering into a thousand denominations that things changed more and more. The Reformers, and there were many more than two, were diligent beyond the capability of anyone today to get at what the Bible truly said. They studied the scriptures to discover this. They did not begin with a preconceived bias. And sure they formed an opinion as they went along but EVERBODY EVERYWHERE FOR ALL TIME does that. How else? There were synods and dorts and bulls and counsel to weigh all sides and make decisions, based on information,not opinion to distinguish what was Biblical and what was heresy. Not arguing the right or wrong of my beliefs. I am only saying that the intensive work they did on behalf of us all shouldn't be dismissed s nothing or invalid.

I have often said that Calvin was a brain.
His sermons and even his writing in the constitutions is a work of art. I just don't understand how he could come up with some of his ideas from reading the N.T.

ing said lol, back to point.
The problem in interpreting scripture needn't be because we live in a different time, culture and say things differently. We have those helps available to us and usually they are contained in Book introductions and footnotes. If not everybody can understand everything th same way this does not mean that there is a contradiction. Also, there are mysteries in the Bible, though most are in the OT nd are revealed in th New. Some mysteries will only b revealed in the next life. And there
e are paradoxes, things that seem impossible or contradictory, but are not, we are just unable to see them clearly here on Earth.
We are all, once our eyes have been opened, able to understand the message that saves.

I agree that we all agree on the important doctrines.

 

[humble soul]

It would have been easier for all of us, if Jesus lived, died and rose in modern times.
Only problem would be political spin. Mainsteam media might send a sceptical, atheistic journalist who would suggest fake news.
But we might get closer to the truth because modern day Apostles could be interviewed.
Things could be documented much more easily than2000 years ago.
Is that why Jesus chose that time?
Before the printing press? Rely on an oral tradition?

 

[Boaz]

It's easy to understand.
I used to like to take the example of John F. Kennedy because back when he was dead about 40 years...Now it's 60 so it doesn't fit so well, but here goes:

If you wanted to know what JFK really thought about something, would you ask someone he knew and worked with or would you ask some guy that read about him and wrote about him hundreds of years after he died?

The ECFs KNEW an Apostle and learned from him. And some ECFs learned from those persons....Don't you think they knew what the Apostles had learned from Jesus better than someone in some theology school today?

I have all respect for theologians, don't get me wrong...I just trust the ECFs better than anyone today.




You're right but the doctrinal issues were all eliminated.
The Council of Trent was specifically to reinforce what the CC held to be true doctrine in view of the fact that the Protestant church changed almost all of them.

The foundation was kept, of course.



I have often said that Calvin was a brain.
His sermons and even his writing in the constitutions is a work of art. I just don't understand how he could come up with some of his ideas from reading the N.T.



I agree that we all agree on the important doctrines.

I haven't read ECF material so I can't commit on what they said one way or the other. Here,s a thought though since you said one of them knew a Apostle and learned from him. So what this ECF wrote would be what was SAID to him, second hand information, subject to memory and fluctuation, with no way to verify it. The Epistles on the other hand are not second hand information, but from the very pens, minds of the Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their writings canonized using rigorous guidelines and standards. This direct information is available to everyone. The closeness or distance in time to the Apostles is not a factor.
Everyone, no matter how intelligent for diligent in interpreting the Bible will make mistakes. No one, and no theology has or ever will have it all right. And I do not, and no one should take face value anyone's interpretation. We should always check against scripture for ourselves.
I don't put blind trust in any theologian though I admire them. I take into consideration what they say, then check, as best I can with my limited and half lazy intellect, compared to Calvin and his contemporaries anyway. I can't believe he wrote the institutes when he was 26!!! What was I doing at 26? Well-----you don't want to know. Nothing intensely intellectual or of benefit to mankind, that's for sure.

 

[Boaz]

Sure...there are plenty of verses that are difficult to understand.
OzSpen is working on one right now....the loosing and binding.
Matthew 16:19

I sure hope he tags us when he finishes and posts it.

That should be interesting, and I promise to not tangle with Oz. We got off on the wrong foot when I first joined the forum. ??

 

[GodsGrace]

It would have been easier for all of us, if Jesus lived, died and rose in modern times.
Only problem would be political spin. Mainsteam media might send a sceptical, atheistic journalist who would suggest fake news.
But we might get closer to the truth because modern day Apostles could be interviewed.
Things could be documented much more easily than2000 years ago.
Is that why Jesus chose that time?
Before the printing press? Rely on an oral tradition?

Do you have trust in the Apostles?

 

[OzSpen]

The ECFs KNEW an Apostle and learned from him. And some ECFs learned from those persons....Don't you think they knew what the Apostles had learned from Jesus better than someone in some theology school today?

I have all respect for theologians, don't get me wrong...I just trust the ECFs better than anyone today.

wondering,

I consider that to be a dangerous position for these reasons:

Even the ECF or early church writings we encounter heresy, among those closest to Jesus and the original apostles:

• Gnosticism was a heresy that troubled the early church;
• ca. 140 Valentinus began teaching Gnostic views in Rome;
• In 144 Marcion was excommunicated from the church for Gnostic-like views.
• ca. 175, Basilides promoted Gnostic teachings in Alexandria.

This led to Irenaeus's refutation of Gnosticism, Against Heresies.

See Gnosticism: Definition and Beliefs.

Then in the third century, Unitarianism raised its ugly head through Arius (AD 256-336). He dominated the debate on the deity of Jesus. His primary beliefs were:

• Jesus was a created being with divine attributes but was not eternally divine (contrary to John 8:58; 10:30). Jesus was a finite being.
• He opposed the Trinity;
• Arius was was excommunicated from the church for his teachings at the Council of Nicea in AD 325.

Modern-day Arians are the JWs.

The responsibility for all Christians from the first century and to today is: 'Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11 NIV).

If the Bereans had to check Paul's preaching against the Scriptures (it was not in book form then), we have no lesser obligation. I find too many Christians don't read the Bible regularly so they are sitting ducks for the content of false teachers.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

I haven't read ECF material so I can't commit on what they said one way or the other. Here,s a thought though since you said one of them knew a Apostle and learned from him. So what this ECF wrote would be what was SAID to him, second hand information, subject to memory and fluctuation, with no way to verify it.

Do you think the N.T. might be second hand information at times? Who wrote the gospels? Who wrote Hebrews? Did Paul write ALL of the letters penned with his name?

If you'd care to read up on the ECFs here are a few you might be interested in:

Ignatius of antioch.......learned directly from Peter and knew John
Clement of Rome.........learned directly from Paul and knew Peter
Polycarp of Smyrna.....learned directly from John

There's a whole volume of 10 books of their writings,,,it costs really a lot. I don't have it...I look up stuff on google. For instance, if you wanted to know what they thought of salvation, that's what you would look for. You could type in the early church fathers or a particular one.

The Epistles on the other hand are not second hand information, but from the very pens, minds of the Apostles, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Their writings canonized using rigorous guidelines and standards. This direct information is available to everyone. The closeness or distance in time to the Apostles is not a factor.

The ECFs are the ones that put together the New Testament...they are the ones that decided which books would be canonized.

Everyone, no matter how intelligent for diligent in interpreting the Bible will make mistakes. No one, and no theology has or ever will have it all right. And I do not, and no one should take face value anyone's interpretation. We should always check against scripture for ourselves.
I don't put blind trust in any theologian though I admire them. I take into consideration what they say, then check, as best I can with my limited and half lazy intellect, compared to Calvin and his contemporaries anyway. I can't believe he wrote the institutes when he was 26!!! What was I doing at 26? Well-----you don't want to know. Nothing intensely intellectual or of benefit to mankind, that's for sure.

Agreed on the above.
I was raising one child...a year old.
Would eventually have a second two years later.
And didn't know who anyone was!
Met Jesus at the age of about 28.