I believe with a fundamental theory that the true,ancient,patristic,catholic/orthodox early Church is the true Church of Christ.
Then from there it gets Komplicated.
Then from there it gets Komplicated.
aaaand.... what leads you to believe that?I believe with a fundamental theory that the true,ancient,patristic,catholic/orthodox early Church is the true Church of Christ.
Then from there it gets Komplicated.
What fundamental theory is that?I believe with a fundamental theory that the true,ancient,patristic,catholic/orthodox early Church is the true Church of Christ.
Then from there it gets Komplicated.
The theory that states that the FOUNDATION (i.e. fundamental) of Christianity is built on the Scriptures as understood in their proper context, which we can gain understanding of through use of the ECF writings (i.e., Patristics).What fundamental theory is that?
aaaand.... what leads you to believe that?
but the ECF's are not consistant. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in the works?The theory that states that the FOUNDATION (i.e. fundamental) of Christianity is built on the Scriptures as understood in their proper context, which we can gain understanding of through use of the ECF writings (i.e., Patristics).
Nope. The accepted ECFs are universal in their understanding of Christ, salvation, sacraments, and the nature of the Church.but the ECF's are not consistant. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in the works?
then could we not say that all other doctrines should not be so? The things that they are NOT consistant in? The things that typically seperate us into various denominations?Nope. The accepted ECFs are universal in their understanding of Christ, salvation, sacraments, and the nature of the Church.
but the ECF's are not consistant. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in the works?
I'm talking about specifically the around 300 AD explosion of teachings that are not previously seen in any writings. What of them?No.
The Orthodox Holy Fathers were God's spiritual champions who exegeted the Scripture with real knowledge and a sense of patristic understanding.
They were the bearers of the apostolic traditions we still keep today.
Keep in mind that this is going back to the 1st century.
I'm talking about specifically the around 300 AD explosion of teachings that are not previously seen in any writings. What of them?
Ancient patristic understanding of orthodox trinitarian Christianity is the key to the early Church.
It's too bad many Protestants often look over that.
I don't!
I admire the Book of Concord which LCMS conservative Lutherans are supposed to know and confess, but disagree the Protestant explanations of their theology.
I'm with Uphill on this one, and as I mentioned on another thread Paul was correcting churches as early as the mid 1st century whom already started screwing things up. Why would patristic sources support fundamental Christianity, when so many practiced different forms until some structure was forced in the councels of the 4th century.but the ECF's are not consistant. Doesn't that throw a monkey wrench in the works?
and, at which point, some uncorrected error and/or unsupported doctines were dragged in to the mix, if I'm not mistaken.I'm with Uphill on this one, and as I mentioned on another thread Paul was correcting churches as early as the mid 1st century whom already started screwing things up. Why would patristic sources support fundamental Christianity, when so many practiced different forms until some structure was forced in the councels of the 4th century.
I'm with Uphill on this one, and as I mentioned on another thread Paul was correcting churches as early as the mid 1st century whom already started screwing things up. Why would patristic sources support fundamental Christianity, when so many practiced different forms until some structure was forced in the councels of the 4th century.
I'm sure providing us with some specific examples would help us understand your paradigm.I'm with Uphill on this one, and as I mentioned on another thread Paul was correcting churches as early as the mid 1st century whom already started screwing things up. Why would patristic sources support fundamental Christianity, when so many practiced different forms until some structure was forced in the councels of the 4th century.