The neo-Gnostic spirit of New.Modern.Hyper Grace

  • 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.
M

Mitspa

Guest
#502
#502
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
My accusations are based on what Irenaeus wrote. I have studied it in-depth. Have you? Or are you biased by your belief that Irenaeus was accused of heresy?

His writings can be trusted to tell us what the gnostics thought. To state otherwise without evidence is extraordinarily biased. And what snippets of church doctrine they contain vis-a-vis gnostic beliefs, in no way contradict what the bible teaches about godly doctrine. So in that context, any implications of heresy on his part are meaningless.

I'm glad you're you're a defender of grace. Take a warning from me. Defending new.modern.hyper grace is not defending GOD's grace.
Click to expand...
No Irenaeus has no standing in the discussion of sound doctrine ...anymore than the Pope. How can a man so full of errors be trusted to see the truth of the conflict between the gospel and gnostic teachings... His main purpose in that letter is to accuse anyone that disagreed with the Roman church ... Which we know has denied the grace of Christ from the beginning ...

Let me also warn you...I know what I believe and why I believe it... I have been taught by the Lord. My doctrine is sound and cannot be defeated in a scriptural discussion. Irenaeus ... is nothing more that a early catholic teacher of heresy.
 
HeRoseFromTheDead

HeRoseFromTheDead

Senior Member
#503
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
691
113
#503
Mitspa said:
And Irenaeus himself is accused of heresy ...
Click to expand...
The only 'heresies' that I can find that Irenaeus is accused of are the millenarian 'heresy' (1,000-year reign of Christ on earth following his return), the idea that Jesus was God the Father incarnate (a view commonly held during his time), and that Jesus died as a ransom paid to Satan (also a belief common to his time).

So insinuating this man was a heretic is just a red herring.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#504
#504
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
The only 'heresies' that I can find that Irenaeus is accused of are the millenarian 'heresy' (1,000-year reign of Christ on earth following his return), the idea that Jesus was God the Father incarnate (a view commonly held during his time), and that Jesus died as a ransom paid to Satan (also a belief common to his time).

So insinuating this man was a heretic is just a red herring.
Click to expand...
Well you can hold him in esteem if you like...To me he is nothing more than a early catholic and none of his words or teachings have weight against the truth.. The Word of God makes clear what is sound doctrine ...and history has many sources to tell us what gnostics taught and believed .... I don't need to go to a catholic to figure out anything.
 
HeRoseFromTheDead

HeRoseFromTheDead

Senior Member
#505
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
691
113
#505
Mitspa said:
No Irenaeus has no standing in the discussion of sound doctrine ...anymore than the Pope. How can a man so full of errors be trusted to see the truth of the conflict between the gospel and gnostic teachings... His main purpose in that letter is to accuse anyone that disagreed with the Roman church ... Which we know has denied the grace of Christ from the beginning ...

Let me also warn you...I know what I believe and why I believe it... I have been taught by the Lord. My doctrine is sound and cannot be defeated in a scriptural discussion. Irenaeus ... is nothing more that a early catholic teacher of heresy.
Click to expand...
This is just your anti-Catholic bias showing. The church of his day was not the church that was taken over by pagan and gnostic thought several centuries later.

I dare you to read the OP and extract from there anything he said regarding church doctrine that is not sound. If it is sound, then you have no basis to say that he has no standing.

I also dare you to prove what he said about the gnostics is wrong.

I also challenge you to document here what errors he was so full of.
 
HeRoseFromTheDead

HeRoseFromTheDead

Senior Member
#506
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
691
113
#506
Mitspa said:
Well you can hold him in esteem if you like...To me he is nothing more than a early catholic and none of his words or teachings have weight against the truth.. The Word of God makes clear what is sound doctrine ...and history has many sources to tell us what gnostics taught and believed .... I don't need to go to a catholic to figure out anything.
Click to expand...
Who said I'm holding the man in esteem? Do I have to do so to anyone to believe what they wrote?

Frankly, you are not a credible witness in this topic due to your rabid anti-Catholic bias.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#508
#508
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
This is just your anti-Catholic bias showing. The church of his day was not the church that was taken over by pagan and gnostic thought several centuries later.

I dare you to read the OP and extract from there anything he said regarding church doctrine that is not sound. If it is sound, then you have no basis to say that he has no standing.

I also dare you to prove what he said about the gnostics is wrong.

I also challenge you to document here what errors he was so full of.
Click to expand...
Your absolutely right ...I have a complete rejection of the whole catholic system and do believe it to the very seat of satan..as most of the Protestant fathers believed as well.... I trust nothing that relates to the RCC as anything more than a deception.

As far as proof ... I did not come on this thread to prove anything more than what I have already proven... That gnostic thought has no relation to the sound doctrines of grace that are based on the wretchedness of the flesh of all men.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#509
#509
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
Who said I'm holding the man in esteem? Do I have to do so to anyone to believe what they wrote?

Frankly, you are not a credible witness in this topic due to your rabid anti-Catholic bias.
Click to expand...
Yes I think the catholic church is evil as did most of the Protestant fathers ... That's what Protestantism is based upon... The Word of God ..not these phony holy men who rape children and murder true Christians.
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#510
#510
This Ireanas fellow is doing nothing more than what the RCC has done from the beginning ...make some charge against some group, so they can destroy them and bring power into Rome.... anyone who disagrees with the abomination of Rome is accused of this or that... who don't know this but someone that has been brainwashed by Rome?
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#511
#511
Mitspa said:
Well you can hold him in esteem if you like...To me he is nothing more than a early catholic and none of his words or teachings have weight against the truth.. The Word of God makes clear what is sound doctrine ...and history has many sources to tell us what gnostics taught and believed .... I don't need to go to a catholic to figure out anything.
Click to expand...
Mitspa said:
Your absolutely right ...I have a complete rejection of the whole catholic system and do believe it to the very seat of satan..as most of the Protestant fathers believed as well.... I trust nothing that relates to the RCC as anything more than a deception.

As far as proof ... I did not come on this thread to prove anything more than what I have already proven... That gnostic thought has no relation to the sound doctrines of grace that are based on the wretchedness of the flesh of all men.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to put titles and associate people with a church that did not exist in their time ???

Does your Protestant church teach the same false history of the Catholic church that the Catholic's still try to pass off ???


The term catholic was not used tell the 2nd Century (101-200 A.D.), and then it was only used in the universal sense that no matter what ethnic background a person can become a believer in Christ.

It was not tell the middle 4th Century (301-400 A.D.) that the Catholic church we know of was finally formed, and in the late parts of this century is when the apostasy teachings started taking off as Augustine was one of the first to go Apostate in his teachings.

Anything from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries of the early church have absolutely no association with the RCC !!!
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#512
#512
KennethC said:
Why do you continue to put titles and associate people with a church that did not exist in their time ???

Does your Protestant church teach the same false history of the Catholic church that the Catholic's still try to pass off ???


The term catholic was not used tell the 2nd Century (101-200 A.D.), and then it was only used in the universal sense that no matter what ethnic background a person can become a believer in Christ.

It was not tell the middle 4th Century (301-400 A.D.) that the Catholic church we know of was finally formed, and in the late parts of this century is when the apostasy teachings started taking off as Augustine was one of the first to go Apostate in his teachings.

Anything from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries of the early church have absolutely no association with the RCC !!!
Click to expand...
The church of Rome as been the source of evil from the beginning ...the term catholic being used later has no bearing on any point that I made.
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
#513
#513
RickyZ said:
And herein lay a huge part of the problem. I've repeated till I'm blue in the face that belief is not an act of works. And yet here you are thinking I said it was. When will people learn to read things with an open mind, instead of hearing what they want to hear?
Click to expand...

I actually read it several times, which is why I said "if" that is what you were saying. In that case then I have no idea what your point was.
 
Bookends

Bookends

Senior Member
#514
Aug 28, 2012
4,225
99
48
#514
eternally-gratefull said:
John plainly says that those who walk away fro God were never saved.

The bible can not contradict. Your belief makes it contradict.

so as you said.

"Things cannot be proven to those who don't want to hear what the bible plainly says"
Click to expand...
How can you walk away from something/place unless you've been there first?
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#516
#516
Mitspa said:
The church of Rome as been the source of evil from the beginning ...the term catholic being used later has no bearing on any point that I made.
Click to expand...
It does have bearing because you are the one who has tried to associate 2nd Century people with a church that did not exist.

That is what your Protestant church teaches you which is one of their lies, do you not know that the book of Romans from Paul is addressing the believers in Rome. He does not call them evil, but calls them beloved !!!

The RCC can not be associated with anything before the 4th century !!!
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#517
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#517
PeterJens said:
Words - It all comes down to words

If you write out the statement of belief that we call theologically correct, which defines what as believers would say is sound and excludes various sects and groups who deny the basic faith, how long is it? One page of A4 maybe.

So someone comes and says the words. But the meanings they have gets slightly lost. Is there a gate which now says you have passed over, yep you know enough, you are in and can never leave now, even if you wanted to.

So words have to mean something in the soul of the believer. What we do know is all of us have our own individual version and insight to this. For some it is completely wrong and others completely down the line 100% brilliant.

Now the faith is a commitment to a walk in righteousness not sin. You may have noticed the signs on the way in.
"I repent of my sins" "I ask Jesus to help me walk in righteousness" "I am loved and accepted to be transformed into His likeness"

Now the clue might be righteousness. No evil or imperfect thing in sin will enter the new Kingdom. That is what you have bought into. So the only question is when and how is this transformation going to happen. It is the only argument in town.

Gnostic view - A pure spirit perfect is given to you at the point of faith
Traditional view - We are washed, reborn and as we walk with Jesus transformed through obedience. It gets better with time.

The gnostics say the traditionalists are evil, lost, under judgement, empty. Hyper grace is gnostic. Only those who have been christians many years, know the culture, have been refined over many years suddenly get this revelation, because they already have very few issues in their lives so it is easy to believe such an idea. The evil they create is this condemnation and judgementalism of others, you are evil for doing good but "carnally"

The real problem is they should have had this new spirit already at point of faith, but they never did, so it is just an invention
Click to expand...
lol the gnosticism that never was. you are just trying to pick holes in others and call it Gnosticism

Gnostics don't teach what you say at all
 
F

FreeNChrist

Guest
#518
#518
KennethC said:
It does have bearing because you are the one who has tried to associate 2nd Century people with a church that did not exist.

That is what your Protestant church teaches you which is one of their lies, do you not know that the book of Romans from Paul is addressing the believers in Rome. He does not call them evil, but calls them beloved !!!

The RCC can not be associated with anything before the 4th century !!!
Click to expand...

Try telling them that.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#519
#519
Bookends said:
How can you walk away from something/place unless you've been there first?
Click to expand...
That is because they constantly take that passage from 1 John 2:19 and place it on all who does not continue in the faith instead of apply to the only group being mentioned here; anti-christ.

These are those who tried to bring in lies to the truth, not those that fell away because of hardships and troubles !!!

As long as scripture keeps getting misapplied to involve people it is not talking about then the wrong understanding will continue to be seen.
 
V

valiant

Senior Member
#520
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
126
63
#520
HeRoseFromTheDead said:
The only 'heresies' that I can find that Irenaeus is accused of are the millenarian 'heresy' (1,000-year reign of Christ on earth following his return), the idea that Jesus was God the Father incarnate (a view commonly held during his time), and that Jesus died as a ransom paid to Satan (also a belief common to his time).

So insinuating this man was a heretic is just a red herring.
Click to expand...
lol you have just proved that he was a heretic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.