Watch how you use their words

John t

Active member
Marcion was the 'genius' Esau who separated off the OT from the New, that was his idea, later adopted by the same fools who called him a heretic. But his reasoning for doing it is documented, for he hated the OT and he wanted to distinguish it it from the NT...all this based upon his hatred of God of the OT and his wrong viewing of God as an evil deimurge; he as was Augustine and Aquinas was gnostic, knowing or unknowingly is not the point.

HUH??
I did not praise Marcion; I merely mentioned his contribution towards establishing NT canon

As you know from the courses you teach, Aquinas (d.1275) was a 13th century person having no contact with Augustine, except through his books. But if you look at Augustine's many works, you will find that it is a mixture of RCC ideas as well as protestant thoughts. I fail to get your connection, but you are correct about his heresies

Anyway, nothing introduced by Marcion can be trusted.
Agreed

Even the division of scripture into 'old' and 'new' is a very tricky devious thing which has had consequences and is not merely a convenience for reading.
The 400 years of silence between the prophets Malachi and John the Baptizer is a most natural breaking point for division between the Covenants
 

e v e

Active member
HUH??
I did not praise Marcion; I merely mentioned his contribution towards establishing NT canon

As you know from the courses you teach, Aquinas (d.1275) was a 13th century person having no contact with Augustine, except through his books. But if you look at Augustine's many works, you will find that it is a mixture of RCC ideas as well as protestant thoughts. I fail to get your connection, but you are correct about his heresies


Agreed


The 400 years of silence between the prophets Malachi and John the Baptizer is a most natural breaking point for division between the Covenants
I didn't and would not accuse you of supporting or praising marcion...I was just adding that bit about him, since other readers might not know. I realize that what I added is but a tiny sliver of the problems in marcion.

True, aquinas. But Augustine was very mixed, as you pointed out, and aquinas was worse. His summa is better an expose of averroes the Islamist and their shared Aristotelian mindset. It's just that often Augustine and Aquinas are put out as model theologians when both are so mixed with pagan ideas that it makes it almost impossible to untangle.

I'm not posting to criticize what you said previously. But responded to some of the topics.

I don't see that what is protestant about Augustine can be separated out that way. His overall views are Platonic disguised in christian language. Just because he says some quasi okay things doesn't resolve that the text leads any reader astray and does more harm than good to the topics. For example, I accept He and His Spirit and His Son are God. But any student reading De Trinitate will think, logically, that Augustine got all this from Plato and Aristotle...which he did. He used their pagan version of a pagan trinity to argue for a Christian trinity, and because of that, polluted the topic for later students... I see that even on this forum, where the trinity topic is argued along aristotelian lines unknowingly, which wrecks the topic and gives perhaps the RCC version but not a version I can sign off on, because being filled with Greek archetypes of God. I've had to painstakingly explain to students that the Greek version is a MIMIC of His version, and I believe and have said that Satan knew christ was coming and brought forth Greek philosophy to pollute christianity -- in advance -- by saturating what came to be known as a classical education with Greek interpretations of being, reality, substance etc.

Aquinas may have had no contact with Augustine, but he had the same problem of being enamored of the Greeks. Brown's bio of Augustine is quite sad to read in context of Ambrose and Jerome as well. Both of them portrayed as very keen on the Greeks. That I would be more hesitant about, simply because Augustine's own interpretation of them as enamored of the things he was enamored of, are not trustworthy to me. I'd need to study each of them a lot more. I think they as most were most likely affected but this does not place them in the Greek camp in the same way Augustine seems to reside there, being a horrible reader of scripture and getting everything most generally mixed up.

His retractions didn't even even begin to resolve the problems, although he came to recognize more and more the problems with his view of free choice as expressed in Free Choice of the Will (because there he built an image of man as completely in control of their salvation).

I would say that much of the view of the soul and the fall and Genesis has been affected by Augustine's distorted view of it. He had no sensitivity to God and could not hear HIm and most of the time was caught up in his own conflicting speculations.
 

e v e

Active member
HUH??
I did not praise Marcion; I merely mentioned his contribution towards establishing NT canon

As you know from the courses you teach, Aquinas (d.1275) was a 13th century person having no contact with Augustine, except through his books. But if you look at Augustine's many works, you will find that it is a mixture of RCC ideas as well as protestant thoughts. I fail to get your connection, but you are correct about his heresies


Agreed


The 400 years of silence between the prophets Malachi and John the Baptizer is a most natural breaking point for division between the Covenants
you would not want to hear my response about the covenants.
 

e v e

Active member
In fact, it would be better I had not bothered to bring in Aquinas...since it is Augustine who affected for the worst so much of the direction the canon today. Aquinas' theology is just further cement added later on, to the mess created by Augustine.
 

e v e

Active member
One key item that some people tend to overlook is that while many of the church fathers were wise men and able to clarify many spiritual points, their words are not inspired like the Bible's.
which church father(s) specifically ? Who chose which parts of the "bible" were to be considered "Inspired"? What do you mean by inspired. Etc.

Esau was wise and probably inspired, but .... by who? Not by God.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
There are so many errors in your posts, it's not funny.

First of all, as others have pointed out, the Church did not "select" the books to be in the Bible, they simply RECOGNIZED which books were God's word.

Well, the basic idea from the Nicene Creed in terms of "inspiration" is that God spoke by the prophets.

That didn't come from "the Nicene Creed", it comes from Scripture:

2 Pet. 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out (KJV, "inspired") by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,


And the idea is that God inspired the ancient prophets to make prophecies and they show up in our Old Testament. There could be a debate I suppose whether the prophets were directly speaking God's words like a medium or if they were interpreting God's meanings,

You could debate it, of course, if you rejected 2 Pet. 1:20-21 above.


Even Paul at one point, in the course of his teachings about marriage, comments: "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord..." (1 Corinthians 7:10-12)

Paul is not saying that his teaching is inspired, he is simply pointing out that the Lord (Jesus) did not teach it during his Earthly ministry.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
And look at the authority Augustine a pagan dressed as christian had within the early Church! It's scary to list all the decisions he was central to as to what was canon, how to interpret that canon, and what books were canon. And these choices have become a sacred Tradition now.

Um, the canon had already been identified long before Augustine.
 

e v e

Active member
There are so many errors in your posts, it's not funny.

First of all, as others have pointed out, the Church did not "select" the books to be in the Bible, they simply RECOGNIZED which books were God's word.
that is very true, that a soul can recognize His words.
 

e v e

Active member
Your wording seems as if you have a dislike to God's plan of salvation, and the methods He chose to implement it. Please clarify
I don't dislike God's plan. The understanding I have is that the first covenant with the OT fathers was broken, and not by God. That is how it ended. The OT fathers did not listen to Him and when instructed, did things He said not to do.
 

John t

Active member
The understanding I have is that the first covenant with the OT fathers was broken, and not by God.
Your understanding is correct. Humans always broke the covenants because we are too fickle.

However, that is where unmerited grace comes into play. God is faithful, we are not. Look at these eternal promises:

Genesis 9:12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:

Genesis 9:16
When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”

Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

Genesis 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

So here are just 4 of the many mentions of "eternal covenant" in just the book of Genesis. There are others. Rhetorically, I ask "How many times does God have to repeat a message before people believe that God says what he means, and means what he says?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
No that is not quite right. The Church, not the Church Fathers selected the books of the Bible long before the latter did. The council of Nicea only confirmed what the church already knew and had accepted.
The Council of Nicaea didn't affirm the books of the Bible.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
I believe it was the late Dr. Metzger who said, it was the church who picked the books not because they were on an authoritative list but because they were authoritative. it was not the church fathers although some may have had a little influence. But all people not just a small group of elites recognized what books were from God.
While I agree with you, Dr David, that no single Church Father is inspired the way the biblical texts are, I don't think Metzger is precisely right here. Yes, the books held to be in the canon were authoritative - but some books held to be authoritative were not included, and others (of dubious authority) were included. That means that the Church must have been at least equally authoritative to select or recognise the biblical canon.

There was also no exact consensus on the canon, which can be see in the slightly different OT canons between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. It really wasn't until a challenge occurred that the canon was officially and dogmatically endorsed.
 
The Church fathers gathered in a Council and selected the books of the Bible. To say that the Church fathers' decisions were not inspired or moved by the Spirit but the Bible was inspired creates this strange tension. Plus, it was also necessary to decide which of the words variants to use because Bible words differ. It's like purely by human reasoning these Christian leaders who succeeded the apostles knew what books and words should be in the canon. Otherwise if you say that the Spirit led them in their words and decisions, then you are also saying that they were inspired.

Protestants have a more serious problem than the Catholics since these men got the NT canon correct but the same men chose approx. 46 books for the OT.

Are we to suppose the HS inspired them for the NT choices but did not inspire them when they chose the books of the OT?
 
Last edited:
Top