Ancient Christian Witness

One of the places to find Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Early Christian Literature.

The online link:
http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/

Augustine taught a severe view of the fall before the Pelagian controversy. If one remembers, the whole thing started when Pelagius either read or heard something from Saint Augustin: "Give me what you command and command what you will". This is how the controversy started. And so I wonder what Philip Schaff meant by "developed"? Does he mean his view being hardened by the controversy? If so I agree 100%ly! Or does he mean adding more ideas in support of it? Well, probably that too! We know that Saint Augustine first started to change his mind around the year 396A.D. I forgot the exact dates of the Controversy, but it was around the range of 405A.D. to about 418A.D. My favorite works of Saint Augustine were around 410A.D. to 412A.D. his determinism was pretty mild in his middle years, but towards the end of the Pelagian Controversy his determinism got worse


(From Richard's site.......our homie Maximus Scott did all the quotes)
The link:
http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/03/irresistible-grace-and-synergy/

Quote:
"Philip Schaff 1819-1893

The Augustinian system was unknown in the ante-Nicene age, and was never accepted in the Eastern Church. This is a strong historical argument against it. Augustine himself developed it only during the Pelagian controversy; while in his earlier writings he taught the freedom of the human will against the fatalism of the Manichaeans. (History of the Christian Church VIII The Theology of Calvin § 112. The Calvinistic System

Alister Mcgrath

The main external threat to the church, particularly during the second century, appears to be pagan or semi-pagan fatalism, such as Gnosticism, which propagated the thesis that humans are responsible neither for their own sins nor for the evils in the world. It is quite possible that what some consider to be the curious and disturbing tendency of some of the early fathers to minimise original sin and emphasise the freedom of fallen humanity is a consequence of their anti-Gnostic polemic. While it is true that the beginnings of a doctrine of grace may be discerned during this early period, its generally optimistic estimation of the capacities fallen humanity has led at least some scholars to question whether it can be regarded as truly Christian in this respect.

The pre-Augustinian theological tradition is practically of one voice in asserting the freedom of the human will.

While there is still uncertainty concerning the precise nature of Gnosticism, it may be noted that a strongly fatalist or necessitarian outlook appears to be characteristic of the chief Gnostic systems. Far from recognizing the limitations of humanity’s free will, many early fathers enthusiastically proclaimed its freedom and self-determination (autoexousia)…God cannot be said to force the free will, but merely influence it. While God does not wish people to do evil, He cannot compel them to do good. (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 34-35)

To read the rest please visit http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/03/irresistible-grace-and-synergy/

John S. Romanides, from his first preface to the Greek edition of The Ancestral Sin in 1957:

"It is unfortunate that Orthodox theologians often use Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestants and Protestant arguments against the Roman Catholics. The unavoidable result of this method of defense is an influence on Orthodox thought from both sides. The result is that some Orthodox appear to be "Roman Catholicizers" and others "Protestantizers." Thus, they are also regarded as conservative and liberal respectively.
The need to clarify the authentic Orthodox position with regard to Roman Catholics and Protestants is at last obvious to most of us. The Orthodox theologian must not counter Protestantism with Roman Catholic arguments but with the authentic teaching of the Fathers of the Church. Likewise, he must not counter Roman Catholicism with Protestant arguments but with the authentic spirit of the Greek Fathers.

Perhaps the most important theological problem faced by Orthodox theologians in America is the charge by Protestants that the orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Synods amounts to a corruption of the teaching of the primitive Church. The attempt by some Orthodox to respond to this charge with Roman Catholic arguments is doomed to failure at the outset because the characteristic views of medieval Roman Catholicism regarding the topics of this study are not found in the primitive Church. This is not at all difficult to demonstrate. In refuting a charge of this kind, however, the Orthodox cannot simply bring forth the opinions of the great Church Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries. The charge, after all, alleges that the corruption of the Christian teaching took place prior to the major Fathers. Therefore, in confronting Protestantism, it must be demonstrated that the central teachings of the major Greek Fathers are essentially the same as the teachings of the primitive Church and constitute a mere continuation and explication of them. On the one hand, this study attempts to respond to this frequent charge by Protestants and, on the other, to present the basic differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism regarding the topics under discussion. [1]

[1] pages 13-14, from the book The Ancestral Sin by John S. Romanides, translated by George S. Gabriel; Zephyr Publishing 2008

From the blog Lutherancatholicity

You can see the quotes here:
http://lutherancatholicity.blogspot.com/2010/12/peter-of-damascus-on-clarity-and.html#comment-form

and
http://lutherancatholicity.blogspot.com/2010/12/basil-great-on-authority-of-scripture.html



Pr. Mark Henderson's comment about Peter of Damascus:

Quote:
"But what concerns us here is not Peter’s hesychasm, but his high regard for the authority of scripture, which he traces back to several of the greatest Fathers of the Greek church, and his suggestions on hermeneutics, which assume the clarity of scripture, properly defined, and the usefulness of the analogy of scripture and interpreting in context. In this he shows himself a disciple of the ancient Antiochian school of Biblical interpretation, which pre-figured many aspects of Reformation hermeneutics. With not a little irony, then, we must say that it is a pity Peter did not more consistently apply his hermeneutic to his hesychasm, which bears the impress of neo-Platonism. Perhaps we can say in his defence that, like him, we all have our blindspots, which are often related to the worldview of our particular time and place."

My response, which may or may not be seen on his blog. The reason why I re-posted this here is because of past experiences in where my comments weren't ok'd, but the response to them was visible to the public. I was puzzled by this practice, but I thought it's his blog and so he has the right to do what he wants. At the time I thought my censureship was mostly due to protecting his protestant readership from anything non-Lutheran, but then I saw the visible comments of Anglicans and other protestant posters. And so I really don't know why. However, just as he has the freedom to censure my comments. I have the freedom to re-post them here.


My Response:

Pr. Mark Henderson,

There is a difference between the Patristic belief of Prima Scriptura vs the Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist beliefs of Sola Scriptura?

Their rule of Faith is different from that of Lutherans, Reformed, and Anabaptists. Their view of the clarity of Scripture had everything to do with the rule of Faith of the Church. And it had everything to do with those reading the Bible who were in communion with them. It had nothing to do with just anyone picking up the Bible and reading it.

I'm gonna re-post this comment and your quote on my blog. I hope you don't mind.

The link:
http://www.elpenor.org/macarius/homilies.asp

Life of Saint Polycarp

As seen from the Roman Catholic blog "Called to Communion" by Bryan Cross

Quote:
"According to PCA pastor Wes White, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is “impossible in the Reformed system.”1 By noting this, he intends to show that we should reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But if the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is stronger than the evidence for the truth of the “Reformed system,” then the incompatibility of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the Reformed system serves as evidence against the Reformed system. Here I present both Patristic and Scriptural evidence for the truth of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration

. Introduction

The only sacrament mentioned by name in the Creed is baptism. We confess in the Creed: “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Because Protestants and Catholics share the same Trinitarian baptism, we share a certain real but imperfect unity. But baptism is also a point of disagreement not only between Protestants and Catholics, but also between various Protestant traditions. The Catholic Church has always believed and taught that the grace by which we are born again comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. A small percentage of Protestants agree with the Catholic Church that through baptism we are regenerated with the life of God, cleansed of all our sins, and brought into the Kingdom of God. But many other Protestants think that justification is not through baptism, but by “faith alone,” or by some kind of “sinner’s prayer.” Some Protestants believe that baptism is only a symbol, something not to be done until a person is old enough to understand the gospel for himself. Other Protestants believe that like circumcision in the Abrahamic covenant, not efficacious for rebirth and the reception of the grace of divine life but only a ‘confirmation’ or ‘seal’ of faith through which one is brought into the New Covenant family.

One way that we resolve these disagreements about what baptism is and what it does, is to consider what the Church Fathers believed and taught about baptism. Here I am only focusing on what the Church Fathers say about the relation between baptism and regeneration. I have kept my commentary to a minimum, providing only needed explanatory notes. After examining what the Church Fathers say about this subject, I then offer a brief summary of the New Testament teaching regarding the relation of baptism and regeneration.

To read the rest please visit Called to Communion.







ICXC NIKA

David of ( Pious Fabrications ) did another excellent job in his History of Christianity Series. This is from his Youtube Channel:







Jnorm

This book is By Albert McIlhenny (a traditional Anglican)

The New Restorationists: A Critique of Frank Viola and George Barna's "Pagan Christianity?"



I just downloaded the pdf for $3.99. It is an awesome read. I have had several emails about when I was going to give a response to the book, I planned on doing something in the future after I'm done working on what I'm doing now in regards to something else. But Albert is already doing an excellent job as it is. It took him a year, all on his free time to trace the quotes and sources of the book, and so he is already on it. He is writing a larger book about the issue, and so, he just put this smaller version out now. But it's awesome! Buy one for all your friends who have Viola and Barna's book. If I ever get around to writing something about it, I will most definately use Albert as one of my main sources.

Also, show them the new set of videos Albert put out as well:

Viola, Barna, and the Church 1: Introduction



Viola, Barna, and the Church 2: Basic Misconceptions



Viola, Barna, and the Church 3: Domus Ecclesiae




Viola, Barna, and the Church 4: Constantine



Viola, Barna, and the Church 5: Basilicas




Viola, Barna, and the Church 6: Gothic Cathedrals



Viola, Barna, and the Church 7: Liturgy




Viola, Barna, and the Church 8: Authority



Viola, Barna, and the Church 9: Eucharist




Viola, Barna, and the Church 10: Conclusion








jnorm

Christ is Ascended!

The link:
http://www.searchgodsword.org/his/ad/ecf/ant/


It has all 10 books in the series online.

I'm gonna have to find a spot for this link somewhere. Hmm?









Christ is Risen!

It's called Patristic Lucubrations!

Check it out! It's really good!










Christ is Risen!

David W did another excellent job! As seen from his youtube page.
















Christ is Risen!

I totally misjudged him earlier and I'm sorry for that.












Christ is Risen!

From the blog By Whose Authority?. My response was too long for his comment section, and I didn't feel like chopping it all up. The issue at hand is the 1hr or so lecture by Dr. Ligon Duncan,
As seen here:
T4G 2010 -- Session 7 -- Ligon Duncan from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.



David N,

You are mostly repeating what you said earlier. So in order to move the argument forward, I will try to explain where and why I either agree or disagree.



David N, said:
"Dr. Duncan taught a whole Patristics class at RTS, so I'm sure he was much more even-handed and scholarly than he was in his 1-hour talk to a mixed group of pastors and laymen. It's simply impossible to do the same work at a short talk like that as you would do in an extended class setting where everyone has read the source material."

Granted



David N, said:
"When you only have 1 hour, and your thesis is that the Early Church Fathers were not all "hostile" to Protestant theology, it's pretty much necessary to cherry-pick quotes and offer some basic, surface level explanations of things (like why most of the Fathers seem to stress free will, for example). You can't really fault Duncan for that."


I took issue with the false picture he was trying to paint. What picture do you think he was trying to paint by saying their view of free will was nothing like that of protestant Arminianism and medieval Roman Catholicism?

What do you think he was trying to say? Do you think he was trying to imply that their view of free will was much like their own (Soft and hard determinism)?

1.) Do you really think they were compatibilists(soft determinists)?

2.) Do you really think they were of the kind of Calvinists that reject any idea of free will? You know, what some might call "hard determinism" while others might call another form of "soft determinism"?

3.) How can Calvinistic and Reformed protestants speak from one side of their mouths about Rome and Arminianism being ""semi-Pelagian"", but on the otherside of their mouths say that the early church fathers views of free will were nothing like medieval Rome and Arminianism?

Now in saying that, I am not really saying the early fathers were semi-pelagian, nor am I saying Rome and Arminianism are semi-pelagian, what I am saying is their(the church fathers) views of free will was most definitely closer to medieval Rome and protestant Arminianism than the deterministic schools found within Calvinistic and Reformed protestant circles.

So yes, I think I have some valid reasons to fault him for trying to paint the opposite picture. He should of left Arminianism and Rome out the 1hr lecture. And he should of chosen a topic about the fathers that really represent the Reformed perspective.....the topics he chose just wasn't gonna fly.



David N, said:
"But again, I fundamentally disagree with most of your claims, so I wouldn't expect you to like Dr. Duncan's approach anyway."

So you fundamentally disagree with most of my claims in regards to the fathers?

I still believe in free will, foreknowledge, and predestination just like the Eastern Fathers, and pre-Augustine western fathers did. I also agree with portions of what Saint Augustine had to say about the issue in his early to middle years. And even in the western regions of the church, it took them decades after the death of Saint Augustine to adopt a moderate Augustinian position that still adhered to some form of synergy after the first contact of monergism as seen below at the 4 to 6 minute mark. And even at the local western council of 2nd Orange the Calvinists Robert A. Peterson and Michael Williams said in the book "Why I am not an Arminian" on page 38 that the council supported a semi-Augustinian form of "synergism". And so, a form of free will was still preserved in Rome even after Augustine.





I still believe and hold to the doctrine of Recapitulation(Saint Irenaeus)

I still believe and hold to what Saint Athanasius had to say about the Incarnation.

I still believe and hold to a form of the Classical/Ransom/Christos Victor doctrine of the Atonement.

I am a pacifist(well, a self professed semi-pacifist now for I see some warrant in self-defense) that believes and knows that both sides of this issue co-exist within Christiandom. And yes, Eastern Orthodoxy preserved a form of pacifism as seen here. But guess what? It also preserved the opposite as well, as seen here.

I still believe and hold to an interpretation of the Doctrine of the Trinity that are extremely close to the pre-nicene era. Infact, my understanding is the Nicean and Neo-Nicean views. This is way closer to the thoughts of the pre-nicean era than your Calvinistic double(a tendency towards bi-theism) or triple(a tendency towards tri-theism) asiety views.

My Christology is essentially the same as Saint Cyril. The 4th ecumenical council adopted much of his views and works about the issue, and the 5th ecumenical council adopted even more Cyrillian language and writtings, and it gave the proper and official interpretation of the 4th ecumenical council.

The Calvinistic and Reformed Christology has strong Nestorian tendencies, as seen here, here, here, here, and as this Lutheran youtube video below shows:




I'm sorry David N, but it is more likely for the Calvinistic and Reformed protestants to read what they believe into the fathers in regards to the issues I just mentioned above than me. If it could be said that I read things into the fathers, and I don't believe I do, but if it could be said.....just know it will always be to a much lesser degree than Calvinists and Reformed protestants.



David N, said:
"You can't compare a Protestant claiming some of the Fathers as their own to an Orthodox person claiming the Puritans as their own. It's simply not the same thing. The Puritans were aware of and consciously rejected the main elements of Catholic and Orthodox theology, so of course it would be silly for an Orthodox person to claim the Puritans as being Orthodox."


I don't know if the puritans were aware of Orthodox theology. They were aware of Roman Catholic theology. You keep making the mistake that we are one and the same. However, I do see your point and so, I will use another example more to your liking.

David N, how would you feel if an Arminian protestant who was well read in the works of both John Calvin and Theodore Beza gave a 1hr lecture about how they were truly Arminians, and that modern Calvinists are just reading their beliefs back into them? How would you feel about that? Now you know how I feel when you try to say we(Orthodox Christians) read our beliefs back into the fathers, and that you(Calvinist and Reformed protestants) mostly have them on your side against us.


David N, said:
"The Fathers were not aware of the debate over Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide, and there was no free will debate until Augustine (which I don't find at all coincidental, by the way), so it is not silly to claim that their theology might agree with Protestants on some points, because they were not explicitly addressing our modern concerns."


They did deal with seeds, variations and forms of some of those issues when dealing with the gnostics and other heretics of their day. To say that a debate centuries later in time can overturn the concepts of free will, the role of Scripture and faith that we Orthodox still hold to and preserved is to put your development not only at odds with them, but also us as well.

In regards to the issue of free will, they fought against the determinism and fatalism of both the gnostics and pagans, and so why should they think it would be ok to embrace a christianized version of determinism when they already rejected it? Why do you think Saint Vincent of Lerins wrote his famous rule of faith? It was because he rejected what Saint Augustine was saying in his later years. The stuff Augustine said in his later years is the very blueprint and foundation of a huge chunk of Calvinism. Without it, Calvinism would not have a chance of existing many centuries later.

In regards to Scripture, they already developed a "rule of faith" Prima Scriptura modal so why should they abandon it for a Solo/Sola Scriptura principle? It is said by some that the heretic Arius only wanted to stick to scripture, if this is truly the case, then they were aware of some form of Solo/Sola Scriptura. They were aware of some seeds of it, and they rejected it for a rule of Faith modal.

And in regards to faith, most of them already saw it as an issue of fidelity, and so, why should they change that perspective for the imputation modal formed many centuries later?


David N, said:
"However, there are some significant overlaps in theme and emphasis between the Reformed and the Orthodox, so it would not be so absurd for an Orthodox person to appreciate some of the Puritans and agree with some of their work."

Granted


David N, said:
"That's what's going on here with the Fathers."

I don't know if that was the picture he was trying to paint. I would agree with you if he didn't include mid evil Rome and Arminianism in a negative light in regards to the issue of free will and the church fathers. He should of left the issue of free will alone. Or just not mention Rome and Arminianism. For he tried to make it seem as if they were in agreement with the Reformed, and as you and I both know....or should know....that is far from being true.



David N, said:
"The Fathers were not aware of 16th century debates (or even 8th or 10th century debates), so it makes no sense to read those debates back into Patristic theology and claim that the Fathers were definitively "Orthodox" or "Catholic" or "Protestant."

Our beliefs some centuries later are mostly nothing more than logical conclusions of what was taught centuries before. This isn't the case for Reformed protestants and in some cases Rome. What you teach flips what was taught centuries before on it's head and out the window.

David W, does a good job in explaining this very thing:





David N, said:
"There is much in the Fathers that I would argue is essentially "Protestant" (specifically Reformed, not Anabaptist). But that does not make the Fathers Protestants."

It all depends on what you see as "essentially protestant". I would have to see what you think that is first before I can comment further.



David N, said:
"In any case, now I'm rambling. My only point is that the Orthodox are just as guilty of reading their theology into the Fathers as everyone else is (especially when it comes to the Eucharist and a few other things)."

I disagree. At first I was gonna give in and say something like......if it could be said that we read something into the fathers then....whatever we read into the fathers will always be to a lesser degree than you(Calvinistic and Reformed protestant). But when I saw that you added the issue of the Eucharist into all this, that's when I knew you really don't have a clue, and that I shouldn't give up any ground to you at all, for if you truly think we are reading our theology of the Eucharist into the fathers then you must be full of it! I'm sorry! I tried to be nice.

Before you make such statements, I think you should point the finger at the Reformed and their philosophical and Nestorian influences first, for we are not the problem in this regard.



David N, said:
"Orthodoxy represents an "easternized" development of Patristic theology, just as both Roman Catholicism and a few Protestant denominations (Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican) represent slightly different "westernized" developments."


Technically we don't believe in the "development of doctrine", at least not in the sense you are talking about. What we believe in is an organic logical conclusion or growth to what was taught before. And so our development is more natural, whereas yours is unnatural for you:

1.) Turn free will into determinism
2.) Turn Ransom/Christos Victor into Penal Substitution
3.) Turn the Real Presence into either grape juice, symbolism only or light spiritualism only
4.) Turn the "rule of faith" into Solo/Sola Scriptura
5.) Turn Baptismal regeneration into symbolism or obedience only


David N, said:
"Everyone has developed their theology beyond anything the Fathers could have originally intended, so it makes little sense to try to claim that everything one group believes today, after centuries of debates and developments that the Fathers had never heard of, is exactly what the Fathers believed."

I'm gonna play David W's video again:




David N, said:
This is why Protestants can more honestly approach the Fathers, appreciating their insights without being forced to accept their errors or implausibly fit their theology into a predetermined mold that doesn't always fit.

That's not what I saw when I was protestant, and seeing different protestant groups quoting the fathers in defense in whatever their group believed. The difference is, the Orthodox are closer to the fathers in most things, and so, we can quote far more of what they say in our defense than most protestant groups.





Christos Anesti

This one is by David

He is working on the new series from the 1st century all the way up to our day. It's gonna be a fascinating endeavor!





To see the transcript, sources and footnotes, please visit his blog Pious Fabrications.












Christ is Risen!

T4G 2010 -- Session 7 -- Ligon Duncan from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Dr. Ligon Duncan is a Presbyterian, but he was talking about the church fathers in this Reformed and Calvinistic conference.

1.) He tries to read his theology into the fathers, he can do this with the first 4 points of Calvinism with Saint Augustine, but he can't do this with the 5th point. He ignores Augustine's views of Justification, and Regeneration in favor of Saint Hilary of Poitier's form of "faith alone". He doesn't make it known that the form of "faith alone" found before Martin Luther can by pass many of the anathema's of the Roman Catholic council of Trent. Shoot! Even the protestant Arminian form of "faith alone" can by pass some of the "faith alone" anathema's of the Roman Catholic council of Trent. The Reformed protestant interpretation of "faith alone" is static, while the protestant Arminian version is dynamic. The same is true for the half dozen to dozen "faith alone" statements you will find among some church fathers, heretics, schismatics, and witnesses/nonchurchfathers. This is something Dr. Ligon Duncan ignores or just doesn't let the people know......he is making it seem as if they believed or understood "faith alone" in the same way the Reformed do today. If they didn't believe in "imputation".......then it is an obvious difference.

2.) He poisons the well by exaggerating their differences. I saw this with Rhology as well. For those that don't read the fathers, it is easy to tell others that they were "all over the map", "contradicted each-other", "didn't agree".......etc. Yes, it is true that the fathers, nonfathers, schismatics, and heretics disagreed. But one needs to know the context of all of that. If the issue at hand is the doctrine of "free will", and if you include Augustine and his followers on the issue.........then yes, the fathers contradicted each-other! Then yes, they disagreed! But if you don't include Augustine and his followers......then no, the fathers mostly agreed on the issue of free will, no they were not all over the map on this issue! And so context matters! Also in the area of eschatology, their differences back then weren't as drastic chaotic, and all over the map like it is today in protestant circles. Back then you pretty much had 2 choices......chillism, and pessimistic amill.....well 3 if you want to include some statements by origin that would make it seem more optimistic......but it was pretty much 2 different views. 2 different issues is not being all over the map.......that difference is not as drastic and chaotic like it is today with different views of Reformed protestant partial preterism.....they alone are all over the map in regards to what was or wasn't fulfilled in 70 A.D., but then you have the full-preterist / Hyper-preterist. You have postmillers, pessimistic and optimistic amill, and in modern chillism you have historist, pre-trib, mid-trib, and post trib. You have classical dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism......etc.

And so, the contradictions, disagreements ....etc. of the past is not to the same degree to the disagreements going on now within protestantism.




3.) He tries to make an excuse for the early church fathers stress on free will.....by saying it was an over-reaction to the fatalism and determinism of their day. He denies that their belief of free will was similar to that of both modern Arminians and middle age Roman Catholics.
He is trying to make it seem as if they were compatibilists. Now, one can make that case for Saint Augustine in his mid to later years, but you can't make that case for the early Augustine nor for the Eastern Fathers and pre-Augustine western Fathers.
He never makes it known that Saint Augustine was at odds with everyone else.


4.) Outside of Saint Jerome, and some Eastern Fathers, and heretics either looking at the Hebrew or referencing the Hebrew from time to time, the earlychurches' Bible was not the Hebrew Bible. It was the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Their Bible was the LXX/Septuagint

5.) He reads penal substitution into the Classical/Ransom/Christus Victor statements of the Fathers. Also the translator he was reading used the word "propitiation" instead of "expiation". The greek word "hilasteriaon" can be translated either way.


I'm tired, and so I might of missed some other things. I'll have to listen to it again to see what I missed. But uhm, if his gospel is different from theirs then they are the ones with a different gospel.








Christ is Risen!

This was done by David

Check out his Youtube Channel as well as his Pious Fabrications blog.













ICXC NIKA

We don't know with 100% certainty who wrote the book of Hebrews either. That too is an unknowable. Infact, if you dismiss the claims of the early Christians in who wrote what Gospel, then we wouldn't even know who wrote some of the Gospels either.....with 100% certainty. Also, I never claimed that there weren't any "unknowables" in history. The Gospels, the Epistle of Hebrews and the western Athanasius creed at least truly existed in "KNOWABLE HISTORY".

That is totally different than the existence of full-preterists being absent within the Church in Recorded knowable History.


Who said it was? I never said it was! But it is a guide, and if your view doesn't exist in most of Knowable recorded church history, then that should throw up some red flags that maybe your way of dividing scripture is fallible.

Is the way you interpret Scripture INFALLIBLE? If not, then maybe you can use Knowable recorded church history as a tool to help you correct a faulty exegesis.

So, Clark's analysis of history was INFALLIBLE?


I know you didn't say that, but your view will have to lead to that conclusion anyway. Because the Apostles did teach something about the Resurrection, and it was up to the next generation to hold on to what they taught...... and your view wasn't taught by the early christians......instead it was taught by the gnostics......one of their main enemies.

And so, in order for your view to be right, everyone in recorded known history had to become apostate, fell away, got it wrong, forgot.....etc.


It is because of Knowable recorded church history that we know about all these differences. And so, I accept the reality of it.

What you should be worried about is why your view about the Resurrection shows up among the ancient gnostics in knowable recorded church history? What you should be worried about is why your view of full-preterism shows up pretty late in knowable recorded church history.

You see, your view is a difference too. Your view was debated too. Your view is a schism too. It's just that it was all these things late in time.

Yes the radar shows a marker in history of when something happened.

Just like we can tell how old a tree is by the rings of it's trunk:



We can tell how old a certain biblical interpretation/view is as well. How do we know about the circumcision sect, Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism.....etc? How do we know about all this stuff? It is because the debates caused a ripple in Church history. A scar, an imprint!

How do we know about some of the different movements that popped up over time? It is because they left a mark in Church History. It is because the unity of the Church was disturbed by it.

This is why we know about Montanism, Novationism, Ebionites, Donatists.....etc. This is why we know about Tertullian changing for something else in his later years. The same with Tatian. This is why Clement of Alexandria is not considered a Saint among the Eastern Orthodox because we don't know about his life after a certain point in time of persecution. Christians were all up in your business back then.....just as we still are today. So yes, I accept all those difference you mentioned as a reality! It exist in knowable recorded History.

The same is true when it comes to the history of the Baptist church I was raised in. In my time there, the congregation split twice. Those splits are known among the members of that congregation because it disturbed the unity of the faithful there.

And so yes, I accept those things as a reality. Your full-preterism comes late in time, and that is the REALITY of your view.


What did Saint Paul say?
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 out of the 3 has to be right. All 3 can't be wrong for there has to be a "they which are approved may be made manifest among you"

But all heresy isn't at the same level of wrongness. Some are more wrong than others. Saint Paul didn't mind the circumcision sect until they started to cause him and his gentile followers problems. He didn't mind those who didn't eat meat until they started to cause his gentile followers problems.

And so, all error isn't equal. Some are more harmful than others. Full-preterism destroys the Faith. Shoot! Even some forms of Partial-Preterism destroys the faith.

Pre-mill doesn't. Eventhough my Church rejects pre-mill.....they are very lenient or soft handed when it comes to the error. The only difference I can see between Eastern Amill and pre-nicene pre-mill is the 1,000 year reign and the super foods and other carnal things within that reign. And this is why it was easy for me to switch. I really didn't have to change that much.



Amill existed along with Pre-mill. I have to review, but you start to see people arguing against pre-mill around 200A.D.

Caius from Rome, argued against the view, and he lived around 215 A.D.

Origen and Dionysius from Alexandria both fought against the view.
Origen lived from 185 A.D. to about 255 A.D.
And Dionysius was ordained a Bishop around 247 A.D. and he mentioned that there were people before his time, that rejected the book of Revelations.

The book of Revelations had a hard time being accepted in the christian East....which is ironic for it came from the East. It was immediately embraced by the christian west. The west, had a hard time embracing/accepting the book of Hebrews. But eventually the West made the East embrace Revelations, and the East made the West embrace Hebrews.

But to answer your question....Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Church solves some disputes.



In the book of Acts, we see how the Apostles handled the circumcision party dispute.
Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

You have beef with councils, but gathering to solve disputes is Scriptural.

1st Corinth 6:1-2
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?



If I must talk about INFALLIBLE Authority, then the only INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

It was God that Inspired Scripture, and it's God that leads the Church into all truth.



It seems like to me that your only standard is your flawed interpretation. You are only hiding behind Scripture as a smoke screen.
You refuse to admit that maybe....just maybe....you took a wrong turn in your exegesis. Instead of going right you went left, somewhere along the process, and instead of checking yourself for errors you are sticking your nose up and blaming most of known recorded church history for being wrong.

I find it strange that you will pick and choose a side when it comes to christians being divided on an issue, but you refuse to side with christians when they are actually united on something.


This is what the text says:
1.Jude 1:3
"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.


John chapter 17:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."


Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:


and

2 Timothy 2
1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 3Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

Did Saint Timothy do a Lousy job? I say no! In order for you to be right, the earlychristians who taught that our Resurrection was physical had to be wrong. All the people in whom Timothy taught and discipled had to get it wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:14
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

Saint Paul used the word dead only once here. Last month, you and Brandon tried to make our "Resurrection" something different from Christ's Resurrection. Well this verse is making it more difficult for you guys to do that. You see, 1st Corinth 15 should be obvious.

Now if we combined this with 1st Corinth 15, then there is little to no wiggle room to assume that our Resurrection is different from that of Christ's.

Like I said before, the word "death" is only used once here. So what are you and Brandon gonna do? You can't say that the word "death" is figurative......for that would make Christ's death figurative as well.

The same word is used for both us and Jesus, and since your hermeneutics doesn't allow you to believe that a verse can have more than one interpretation. It looks like the only thing you can do is have one interpretation for the word "death".

So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?



You can't say that our rising is "figurative" for that would make Christ's rising figurative too! So which is it gonna be? Figurative or Literal?


What are you gonna do Neb? How are you gonna interpret this verse? How are you gonna get out of this one?






ICXC NIKA


Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 1

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 2

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 3

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 4

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 5

As seen from Holyculture.net




Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 1

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 2

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 3

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 4

Did the Apostles Do A Lousy Job? Part 5