-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
Only included scripture and tradition until scripture was completed. Your assuming tradition was needed after scripture because God left his scripture incomplete. thus there was a need for tradition to help in places where scripture was not clear. (imagine what God thinks of this?? His book not complete and unclear??)
E
Take again a look at what your church said about hersy..
When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. "In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichæans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)
sounds like a God thing doesn't it? Did God burn the heretical jewish books? Did he send the pharisees to jail. Take their property, make it so no one could be around them, and eventually kill them for their heresies?
Nice try dude.
When Constantine had taken upon himself the office of lay bishop, episcopus externus, and put the secular arm at the service of the Church, the laws against heretics became more and more rigorous. Under the purely ecclesiastical discipline no temporal punishment could be inflicted on the obstinate heretic, except the damage which might arise to his personal dignity through being deprived of all intercourse with his former brethren. But under the Christian emperors rigorous measures were enforced against the goods and persons of heretics. From the time of Constantine to Theodosius and Valentinian III (313-424) various penal laws were enacted by the Christian emperors against heretics as being guilty of crime against the State. "In both the Theodosian and Justinian codes they were styled infamous persons; all intercourse was forbidden to be held with them; they were deprived of all offices of profit and dignity in the civil administration, while all burdensome offices, both of the camp and of the curia, were imposed upon them; they were disqualified from disposing of their own estates by will, or of accepting estates bequeathed to them by others; they were denied the right of giving or receiving donations, of contracting, buying, and selling; pecuniary fines were imposed upon them; they were often proscribed and banished, and in many cases scourged before being sent into exile. In some particularly aggravated cases sentence of death was pronounced upon heretics, though seldom executed in the time of the Christian emperors of Rome. Theodosius is said to be the first who pronounced heresy a capital crime; this law was passed in 382 against the Encratites, the Saccophori, the Hydroparastatae, and the Manichæans. Heretical teachers were forbidden to propagate their doctrines publicly or privately; to hold public disputations; to ordain bishops, presbyters, or any other clergy; to hold religious meetings; to build conventicles or to avail themselves of money bequeathed to them for that purpose. Slaves were allowed to inform against their heretical masters and to purchase their freedom by coming over to the Church. The children of heretical parents were denied their patrimony and inheritance unless they returned to the Catholic Church. The books of heretics were ordered to be burned." ( Vide "Codex Theodosianus", lib. XVI, tit. 5, "De Haereticis".)
sounds like a God thing doesn't it? Did God burn the heretical jewish books? Did he send the pharisees to jail. Take their property, make it so no one could be around them, and eventually kill them for their heresies?
Nice try dude.
S
Yet we still have their writings. But the key thing to notice is that Roman Emperors did this, and not out of a exclusively religious motivation. The various heresies at the time caused much civil unrest and it was in the best interests of the Empire that they should be suppressed. A homogeneous religious population is much more stable than one made up of varying faiths.
E
the major problems with this view.
1. You assume we still have writings, you have no proof. you were not there.
2. You assume that the heresies the romans were fighting were actually heresies. And not roman enforced heresies.
3. Your assuming non of the heresies consist of the beliefs myself and other what you call "protestants" like me believed. which would proof other people did believe as I did.
And I agree. there would be major unrest. Romans were a strictly pagan society. To remove their religion and force this new thing called Christianity on them would cause many many revolutions and civil wars. Why do you think they added so much pagan ritual to the thing they called Christianity? It is like christians do even today. We add things which do not offend people and hope they will come. Thinking it is alright to change up things. we get them in church. The problem is the things added usually stick anbd become gospel truth in the church that does this.
The jews did this when they returned from babylon. They did not at the time consider it scripture. Just a check and ba;;lance. so they would not fail again and fall back under captivity. In the time of Christ. these writings were considered equal with scripture.
Again. Man does not lean from the mistakes of their predecessors. We always make the same mistakes.
what you have is something written by men you assume is right. which is sad. because the one thing we can fully trust (scripture) you do not even hold as your sole authority.
1. You assume we still have writings, you have no proof. you were not there.
2. You assume that the heresies the romans were fighting were actually heresies. And not roman enforced heresies.
3. Your assuming non of the heresies consist of the beliefs myself and other what you call "protestants" like me believed. which would proof other people did believe as I did.
And I agree. there would be major unrest. Romans were a strictly pagan society. To remove their religion and force this new thing called Christianity on them would cause many many revolutions and civil wars. Why do you think they added so much pagan ritual to the thing they called Christianity? It is like christians do even today. We add things which do not offend people and hope they will come. Thinking it is alright to change up things. we get them in church. The problem is the things added usually stick anbd become gospel truth in the church that does this.
The jews did this when they returned from babylon. They did not at the time consider it scripture. Just a check and ba;;lance. so they would not fail again and fall back under captivity. In the time of Christ. these writings were considered equal with scripture.
Again. Man does not lean from the mistakes of their predecessors. We always make the same mistakes.
what you have is something written by men you assume is right. which is sad. because the one thing we can fully trust (scripture) you do not even hold as your sole authority.
S
.
I can direct you to Manichaean texts (They were the major group causing trouble in the time period of the Emperors you mentioned).
Well we don't have to wonder, we have the writings of the groups they were suppressing, Church Fathers even mention them in their writings. A good example is the works Augustine wrote to refute the Manichaeans which are De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum, De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, Acta contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, and De natura boni contra Manichaeos
As you can see we know what they believed not just from their own writings, but also from the writings of Church Fathers and leaders who wrote in defense of the Catholic faith. So unless your implying that Augustine and other were involved in some mass conspiracy to cover up the "true underground church" then your theory falls flat on it's face.
It's not an assumption. Like I said we have their writings and the writings of Church leaders refuting them, we know well what they believed, and it's not a protestant faith these heretics were espousing.
Not all ritual is pagan, the Jews had plenty of ritual and liturgy. Nor is ritual evil and something that separates people from God. Not only that but the liturgy in an earlier form was in place well before Theodosius made Christianity the state religion.
This statement is supposed to prove what? I know what I believe and what the Church believes and I can look back in history and see those same beliefs. I can not look back on history and say I see protestant beliefs, since they simply aren't there.
What your doing is taking your beliefs (which you believe are true) and trying to find them in history, and when they're not there your concocting some theory as to why they're not, so that you can explain why the "true gospel" wasn't around until the Reformation. Has it ever occurred to you that your beliefs may have actually began in the Reformation?
The truth of it is that all of the Protestant distinctives are innovations in the history of the Faith.
I can direct you to Manichaean texts (They were the major group causing trouble in the time period of the Emperors you mentioned).
Well we don't have to wonder, we have the writings of the groups they were suppressing, Church Fathers even mention them in their writings. A good example is the works Augustine wrote to refute the Manichaeans which are De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum, De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, Acta contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, and De natura boni contra Manichaeos
As you can see we know what they believed not just from their own writings, but also from the writings of Church Fathers and leaders who wrote in defense of the Catholic faith. So unless your implying that Augustine and other were involved in some mass conspiracy to cover up the "true underground church" then your theory falls flat on it's face.
It's not an assumption. Like I said we have their writings and the writings of Church leaders refuting them, we know well what they believed, and it's not a protestant faith these heretics were espousing.
Not all ritual is pagan, the Jews had plenty of ritual and liturgy. Nor is ritual evil and something that separates people from God. Not only that but the liturgy in an earlier form was in place well before Theodosius made Christianity the state religion.
This statement is supposed to prove what? I know what I believe and what the Church believes and I can look back in history and see those same beliefs. I can not look back on history and say I see protestant beliefs, since they simply aren't there.
What your doing is taking your beliefs (which you believe are true) and trying to find them in history, and when they're not there your concocting some theory as to why they're not, so that you can explain why the "true gospel" wasn't around until the Reformation. Has it ever occurred to you that your beliefs may have actually began in the Reformation?
The truth of it is that all of the Protestant distinctives are innovations in the history of the Faith.
E
What your doing is trusting men. You assume that since there is no proof in history it was not there. How many times do people in Israel dig up things that people said was not real because there was no proof. And now the proof is there. God seems to like to work without proof. That is why he wants us to live on faith. On things not seen. And not on things seen.Thats is why I could never be a catholic. It is more based on what Man said. And what God said (scripture) seems to be made second fiddle.
S
Yeah a couple of big difference between OT Israel and 33 AD and onwards.
1. OT events happened much farther back. Well before writing was universal and people were writing histories.
2. People in Roman times could actually read and write, and writing was a prolific form of communication.
3. Once again we have the writings of every major and minor heretical group. If any of them believed as you then it would show up in the writing of some church father somewhere or we would have their actual writings.
Also every time I reply to these assertions you make you simply dismiss me as "trusting men". Actually address my arguments and prove to me that what you say is there is indeed there.
1. OT events happened much farther back. Well before writing was universal and people were writing histories.
2. People in Roman times could actually read and write, and writing was a prolific form of communication.
3. Once again we have the writings of every major and minor heretical group. If any of them believed as you then it would show up in the writing of some church father somewhere or we would have their actual writings.
Also every time I reply to these assertions you make you simply dismiss me as "trusting men". Actually address my arguments and prove to me that what you say is there is indeed there.
Last edited:
If the Bible isn't the ultimate source of authority then the Bible is not true. If the Bible is not true then Jesus did not die for our sins. And if Jesus did not die for our sins what's the point of living? So I choose to believe the Bible is inerrant.
N
I'm going to have to take the position that there might be nothing wrong with traditions, but when those traditions contradict the God's Word those traditions should be rejected.
That is the entire basis for a lot of the reformation and other movements of people that came from Catholic or non-Catholic backgrounds and said that they had enough of the unscriptural traditions promoted by the Catholic church.
S
Are you saying that after the NT was completed, the 12 apostles and other disciples of the NT did not preach the Gospel of Christ to all the nations? According to the NT, they did. So that is spoken oral apostolic tradition. If there is no need for tradition, then 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is false. If 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is false, all of St. Paul could be false. Why stop there? Why not only doubt the rest of the NT, but also the OT as well. The idea of no tradition added to the NT Scripture falsifies and makes void 2 Thess. 2:15.
You are assuming tradition was not needed after the Scripture was completed. You are assuming Scripture is complete without the Church that wrote the Scripture. 1 Tim. 3:15. The Church gives the true meaning of Scripture. Without the Church, there is only private interpretations of the OT and NT Scriptures.
Tradition is needed in places where Scripture is not clear.
Tradition is needed in all places, for Scripture is part of Tradition. Scripture is inspired written Tradition. There is inspired oral Tradition as well.
All of them: Scripture and Tradition, and the Church, come from the same Holy Spirit.