The only place I have heard the word ''heretic'' used in on internet debating websites, never in any church I have attended
-
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.
The only place I have heard the word ''heretic'' used in on internet debating websites, never in any church I have attended
S
Sophia
Guest
Perfect example.The only place I have heard the word ''heretic'' used in on internet debating websites, never in any church I have attended
Me an you disagree about several topics, including the identity of Israel,
but have prayed with and for each other personally.
Little disagreements come and go,
but you are my brother
and I am your sister.
Re Justin Martyr: The sense here is not of salvation lost; but rather of salvation falsely assumed.
Re: Irenaus Jesus also said:
Mt 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
KJV
This is not salvation lost, it is Salvation falsely assumed.
more to follow
Re Tertullian:
TERTULLIAN
is the most ancient of the Latin fathers whose works are now extant, and one of the most noteworthy personages belonging to the early Church. Our knowledge of his personal history is extremely limited. He was born at Carthage in 160, or near that date, his father being a Roman centurion in the service of the proconsul of Africa. His natural endowments were great, and they were supplemented by a comprehensive course of studies whose fruit appears in the wealth of historical, legal, philosophical, physical, and antiquarian elements contained in his writings. 'He was destined for the civil service of the empire, and was accordingly trained in Roman jurisprudence and the art of forensic eloquence (comp. Eusebius, H.E. 2, 2, where Tertullian is described as one of the most 'highly esteemed Romans — not as Rufinus renders it, "one of the most distinguished writers of the Latin Church" inter nostros scriptores admodum clarus"). 'His mode of argumentation and terminology everywhere reveal the legal turn of his mind, and his writings in many places throw light on disputed points of the Roman civil law. Tertullian was 'converted to 'Christianity when between thirty and forty years of age, and he immediately became its fearless champion against pagans, Jews, and heretics, especially Gnostics. He was the first religious teacher after the apostles who attained to a clear recognition of the mighty contrast between sin and grace, and who presented it in all it force to the mind of the Church. He was married (see his tract Ad Uxorem), but nevertheless entered the ranks of the clergy.' Jerome, says that he was first a presbyter of the Catholic Church, but his own writings do not determine whether he was a member of the spiritual order prior to his lapse into Montanism or not. It is certain, however, that he sojourned for a time in Rome (see De Cultu Fen. c. 7; Eusebius, H. E. 2, 2).
The transition to 'Montanism' occurred a few years after Tertullian's conversion, and about 202. The act doubtless had its origin in his eccentric disposition and rigorous moral views, which predisposed him to regard that heresy with favor and to dislike the Roman Church. Jerome attributes it to personal motives excited by the jealousy and envy of the Roman clergy, and modern writers have ascribed it to disappointed ambition. We know, however, that the penitential discipline of the Church was administered at Rome with exceeding laxity, and that such indifference was an abomination in the eyes of Tertullian (Philosophumena [ed. Miller, Oxon. 1851], 9:290). Assuredly he did not regard Montanus as the Paraclete. He recognized in the latter simply an inspired organ of the Spirit. He, rather than Montanus, became the head of the Montanistic party in Africa, giving to their undefined views a theological character and a conceded influence over the life of the Church, and establishing it on foundations sufficiently firm to enable it to protract its being down to the 5 th century. He died in old age, between 220 and 240. The assertion that he returned to the Catholic Church before he died is sometimes made, but cannot be substantiated, and the continued existence of the sect of Tertullianists would seem to contradict the assumption (see Neander, Tertull. [2 d ed.], p. 462; August. De Haer. H. 86). It is a significant fact, and an argument in behalf of the liberal interpretation of ancient Church history for which Protestantism contends, that it was precisely this great defender of Catholic orthodoxy against Gnostic heresy who was a schismatic to such a degree that he has never been included by the Church of Rome among the number of her saints, or among that of the patres as distinguished from the mere scriptores ecclesiastici.
(excerpted from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
Tertullian can be dismissed as both a Catholic and a Montanist heretic.
more to follow
“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will be introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” ~ Origen (c. 225)
Re: Origin
Origin is not suggesting Salvation can be lost, he is saying that he does not accept the Calvanist view of election. His objection centers on belief in freewill.
“Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.” ~ Commodianus (c. 240)
Re: Commodianus this is a 2nd class conditional used for conditions contrary to fact. the sense here is that Commodianus is quite rightly saying that such a thing is impossible- a true believer would never do that.
“Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.” ~ Commodianus (c. 240)
“Let us press onward and labor, watching with our whole heart. Let us be steadfast with all endurance; let us keep the Lord’s commandments. Thereby, when that day of anger and vengeance comes, we may not be punished with the ungodly and the sinners. Rather, we may be honored with the righteous and with those who fear God.” ~ Cyprian (c. 250)
Ciprian, like Paul, is saying that genuine faith will persevere through hardships; and supposed faith which does not is not saving faith
I could continue; but this is enough
M
mikeuk
Guest
And that was my journey too. From Protestant to evangelical to RCC. The more I studied history, the more I saw that the early church was liturgical, sacramental, believed in real presence, baptismal renewal,shared your observations on justification. In short, it was what evolved to become RCC. I then discovered that the standard objections, I had even held as a Protestant, did not stand scrutiny in the harsh light of day,.
Eg mary as queen is entirely compatible and proper for her position as mother of davidic king, because that is what the mother was called in the davidic kingdom, a position of honour not authority, with powers of advocacy, not rule.
I followed your path some ten years ago. Was it Newman who said " to be immersed in history is to cease to be Protestant"
Hope you like rotten tomatoes, there are plenty coming your way if you express such views here!
Last edited:
M
mikeuk
Guest
This is simply not true. There are many manuscripts still extant i cleary copied that were rejected by the compilers of the canon , because they regarded them as either forged or questionable on doctrine. But the copies exist n part or in wholenone the less. Book of jubilees, Shepherd of hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Paul to Laodiceans and so on. Lots of them.
But more important than that, the question all protestants have to address is why do you regard the canon of the new testament as infallible, whilst roundly rejecting the authority or inspiration of the same early fathers who who compiled it, and also rejecting their views on the interpretation of what it meant, which is the basis if why they chose it, or believing that they supressed comment on a heresy so allowing it to reach the bible! . In short, you cannot reject the early fathers, without rejecting the new testament too.
So what then you think the bible is? A fallible canon of infallible books? It simply does not make sense! If you regard the church fathers as uninspired, then there could be indeed would be fallible books as part of the Canon! Luther recognised this problem, and honoured the catholic church for its role in creating it.
The question of where the new testament came from weighed heavily in my jumping over the fence.
There are other questions that scream out from scripture as well. That paul is seen quoting from the greek old testament, rather than hebrew, his use of text more closely resembles the greek version in some cases, the historic copies of which contain Maccabees. So why reject maccabees out of hand, when the early fathers accepted it as worthy of reading? If you question any decision they made in compiling of the canon, then you must question the fallibility of the new testament.
Protestants seem to have this view that the new testament dropped out of the sky complete - or more often they do not question it at all. It really was not like that. For the very early church, the word was passed on by word of mouth and tradition, only documented slowly. Scripture written was the old testament, and it would be a couple of centuries before what we know as the new testament canon was finalised by a council you can only describe as catholic in essence. It would be millenia before it was practical for the bible to be other than liturgical readings in a liturgical tradition.
Books cost too much, and most could not read anyway!
Last edited:
S
Sophia
Guest
Based on the Ethiopian Church and the Syrian Church mixed with the "Catholic Church" we can see that a canon was already in place, long before it was officialized.
M
mikeuk
Guest
But that is the distinction: "a canon" evolved over a period, not "the final canon" now accepted as infallible for protestant sola scriptura. A collection of the documents was undoubtedly in use for liturgy within decades of the ressurection, but it would be a long time before "the canon" became what it is.
So the question to ask is by what power or authority did those who "officialized" it as it now is, confer "the canon" as it now is to make it infallible? And if they did not have such power, how can anyone regard it as infallible teaching.
Last edited:
Yes we are brother and sister in Christ, for on the required salvational belief we would both agree.
You know, I was on a website once. A catholic man spent much time on it. He was kind, loving, courteous to all others. When he was insulted he did not reply back in kind. If he could offer support to someone who needed it he gladly did so. He would not remain in a debate once its usefulness had ended, and words may be spoken that were said unkindly
I guess my theology is about as far away from catholocism as you can get. But out of the four or five people on the site my theology would pretty much agree with, only one of them was like that catholic in manner. The others did not display love or kindness to their fellow men and women on the site as he did.
I will never be a catholic, but it made me think!
S
Sophia
Guest
The Spirit makes known to each of us what is Scripture, and what is helpful, and what is a distortion.
We don't trust a council of men, but the Spirit which guides us to Truth.
Praise God that so many have been led to the same, making the Canon a clear point of unity in the Spirit.
Those who reject the Spirit question and reject the Canon, because it has not been confirmed to them.
Those who trust their own minds add to the Canon.
S
Sophia
Guest
M
mikeuk
Guest
But is that really true? Is your Theology really as far as you can get from catholicism?
Here is the very coreof catholic belief: the nicene creed developed in essence by those who also settled the canon of the new testament and spoken by the congregation in mass.
I present it here to ask you, are we really so very different?
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic (which means universal!) and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come"
A large section of the catholic catechism analyzes that very creed.
S
Sophia
Guest
If this creed was the extent of Catholic doctrine, then we would have no debate...
But it is not.
Even the capitalization of the word "virgin", and not of "He" is proof of corruption.
There are a few believers among the "Catholic" group, but they are few, and not in positions of authority.
M
mikeuk
Guest
But that is to deny the origin of the Canon! The new testament (as a book, rather than covenant) was defined by a council.
So do you accept the new testament is indeed the infallible word? And how so if you distrust its origin?
I have to say I do not understand the rest? Who do you say rejects the Canon? Who adds to it? Perhaps you mean Luther took it upon himself to do some "editing" of it, indeed declaring an epistle as an "epistle of straw" , because it did not conform to his thinking rather than him conform to it. Dangerous ground indeed! Although even he respected the catholic church, credited it with the Canon of scripture, and never actually wanted a schism!
As I say in my post to Michael. Are we really all so different, when we look back to the creed, the core of catholic belief?
S
Sophia
Guest
The core of Catholic belief is in traditions of men, not in the Word.
The origin of the Canon is the Spirit, not a council.
Sorry, but the Canon of Scripture was accepted, unofficially, by believers long before the council. And the council admitted that clearly and repeatedly.
S
Sophia
Guest
You ask who adds to it? How about the Apocrypha.
The very books rejected by the council, re-added later on.
How about the 23 verses found in the Catholic Bible that are not found in the pre-Jerome manuscripts?
The very books rejected by the council, re-added later on.
How about the 23 verses found in the Catholic Bible that are not found in the pre-Jerome manuscripts?
A fair comment is this. Most catholics and protestants I know of are ignorant as to much official doctrine of their churches. This may be true more of protestants than catholics. I can assure you this is the truth where the average pew sitter is concerned. A website such as this, where doctrine is the reason for being here IS NOT reflective of the average church goer.
They may know some of the basic beliefs, but certainly not all the official doctrine
They may know some of the basic beliefs, but certainly not all the official doctrine
M
mikeuk
Guest
Let us not repeat a myriad of arguments well known on both sides, you and I will not add to them.
Suffice to say that there was a difference between the Greek Old testament and Hebrew, which is hinted at in the church fathers, and that in as far as anyone can tell, Paul was quoting the septuagint, which from historic record, appears to have included maccabees for example.
I have shown you the summary of catholic belief in the creed: Do you really disagree with what it says?
My interest is in sharing what we can agree on, not one more fruitless argument.
M
mikeuk
Guest
That is the core belief, and indeed the catechism has it as a main section. But I agree entirely that few seem to know the official teaching of their own church, and indeed in many protestant factions it is not well defined, seemingly up to the pastor in many cases.Cradle catholics can be a problem too. It disturbs me when I see some of the old myths trotted out - when the catechism is there for all to see.
I think we would all do well to consider what it is we share, accepting Jesus as Lord, rather than air the differences!