Apostasy

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
91
Southeast USA
Apostasy:This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasyThis is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.Finally...2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.***Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.THE LORD'S SUPPERThree of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.” These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation). QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught? Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCEIgnatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.THE MYSTERYDid Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.WATER BAPTISMThis early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible. One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.2 Tim 1:1515 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.(NKJ)Richard
smile.gif
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
Interesting research. People often site the so-called "Church fathers" as though they had some sort of special insight into the scriptures, but the fact is that any of us have the ability to understand His Word just as well as they did, and probably better if one has His Spirit in them. These guys were clearly heretics when you compare their writing with God's Word, as you have, which illustrates why we are told by Christ to trust His word, and not the traditions of men. This was the error of the Pharisees that has been largely repeated in what is called "Christianity" today.SealedEternal
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
Irtenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. So his credentials were good.Perhaps Paul got it all wrong. After all we only have his word for it.
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(winsome;51164)
Irtenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. So his credentials were good.Perhaps Paul got it all wrong. After all we only have his word for it.
If you're willing to deny the Bible as God's inspired Word in favor of the opinions of uninspired self proclaimed experts who claimed to know one of the apostles, then you could believe almost anything. Scripture speaks of many individuals who had direct contact with the apostles and went off and started their own heretical sects, so even if these people did in fact come in contact with John, it wouldn't give us any reason to trust in their credibility, especially when they contradict scripture.SealedEternal
 

Gareth

New Member
May 27, 2008
53
0
0
35
(SealedEternal;51123)
Interesting research. People often site the so-called "Church fathers" as though they had some sort of special insight into the scriptures, but the fact is that any of us have the ability to understand His Word just as well as they did, and probably better if one has His Spirit in them. These guys were clearly heretics when you compare their writing with God's Word, as you have, which illustrates why we are told by Christ to trust His word, and not the traditions of men. This was the error of the Pharisees that has been largely repeated in what is called "Christianity" today.SealedEternal
Are you claiming that the Church Fathers who were Church leaders didn't have as much of an influence with the Holy Spirit as you did? Some of the experiences of people like Augustine are amazing, such as coming from a heretic sect like Manichaeism to traditional Christianity. I wouldn't scoff at these. I would always take the Bible to be my primary source, but I have no problem saying that texts like the work of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin etc can prove helpful.
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(Gareth;51168)
Are you claiming that the Church Fathers who were Church leaders didn't have as much of an influence with the Holy Spirit as you did?
If their teachings don't match up with God's Word, then they never had His Spirit. There have always been "leaders" who had their own religious agendas that were in direct contradiction to scripture.
Some of the experiences of people like Augustine are amazing, such as coming from a heretic sect like Manichaeism to traditional Christianity. I wouldn't scoff at these. I would always take the Bible to be my primary source, but I have no problem saying that texts like the work of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin etc can prove helpful.
That was the error of the Pharisees who followed after the traditions of men rather than scripture alone. They had their own commentaries that used scripture and twisted it around to conform to their own religious biases, rather than allowing God to do the teaching. The Bible should not simply be the primary source of truth, but the only one, because all false "Christian" religions claim the Bible as their source, but they all make it conform to their religious agendas rather than allowing God to set the agenda and then conforming themselves to Him. You can make the Bible say almost anything when you cherry pick your verses and interpret them to fit your own Theology, but God's Word is clear and irrefutable when you allow Him to do the teaching without some man's selective interpretations.
 

Gareth

New Member
May 27, 2008
53
0
0
35
You seem to be very judgemental. You must be much better than all of these people who built the Christianity of the West that we have today.So are you telling me that you have never read any devotionals, or books written by Christian writers discussing the Christian faith? Or are you saying that we shouldn't use these. Also our prayers and hymns would be also written. Are you saying that we cannot use anything in our churches. If interaction with the Spirit occurs today, why can't these things be acceptable if we accept the Bible as the only source having authority and take the secondary sources merely for apologetics and understanding more clearly.
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
(SealedEternal;51166)
If you're willing to deny the Bible as God's inspired Word in favor of the opinions of uninspired self proclaimed experts who claimed to know one of the apostles, then you could believe almost anything. Scripture speaks of many individuals who had direct contact with the apostles and went off and started their own heretical sects, so even if these people did in fact come in contact with John, it wouldn't give us any reason to trust in their credibility, especially when they contradict scripture.SealedEternal
And who is to say what is God's inspired Word or not? You?Me?Those "apostate" Fathers who you decry so much?Or perhaps King James when he wrote the Bible?
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(Gareth;51172)
You seem to be very judgemental. You must be much better than all of these people who built the Christianity of the West that we have today.
Do you mean those who built these hundreds of contradictiong religions that all claim to be "Christianity"?
So are you telling me that you have never read any devotionals, or books written by Christian writers discussing the Christian faith? Or are you saying that we shouldn't use these. Also our prayers and hymns would be also written. Are you saying that we cannot use anything in our churches.
When you do, you are indoctrinating yourself into the opinions of men, rather than the Word of God, and willfully allowing yourself to have false precepts implanted in your mind. That is why we have hundreds of religions calling themselves Christian, while teaching completely different things.
If interaction with the Spirit occurs today, why can't these things be acceptable if we accept the Bible as the only source having authority and take the secondary sources merely for apologetics and understanding more clearly.
I don't have a problem with consulting other sources on difficult passages, and then comparing them to God's Word, but we should be teaching out of His Word and not man made religious writings, because it is through them that many of these heresies have been passed down for hundreds or thousands of years.SealedEternal
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(winsome;51175)
And who is to say what is God's inspired Word or not? You?Me?Those "apostate" Fathers who you decry so much?
His Word testifies of itself that it is not of human origin.
Or perhaps King James when he wrote the Bible?
The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek more than 1500 years before King James came along. He didn't write the King James translation either, but simply authorized its creation.SealedEternal
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
(SealedEternal;51181)
His Word testifies of itself that it is not of human origin.The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek more than 1500 years before King James came along. He didn't write the King James translation either, but simply authorized its creation.SealedEternal
You've evaded my point.
 

Gareth

New Member
May 27, 2008
53
0
0
35
(SealedEternal;51181)
The Bible was written primarily in Hebrew and Greek more than 1500 years before King James came along. He didn't write the King James translation either, but simply authorized its creation.SealedEternal
I thought Tyndale wrote the first English Bible anyway.
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
(Gareth;51188)
I thought Tyndale wrote the first English Bible anyway.
Actually there were much earlier English translations, at least of part of the Bible - for example the glossing into Anglo-Saxon found in the Lindisfarne gospels.
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(Gareth;51188)
I thought Tyndale wrote the first English Bible anyway.
I think he translated the New Testament almost a century before the KJV, and the translators used his work in their translation.SealedEternal
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(winsome;51187)
You've evaded my point.
No, I answered it. No human determines what is or isn't the Word of God. God did that, and in a way that it testifies of itself as true and irrefutable, so that man couldn't claim to have authority over it.SealedEternal
 

winsome

New Member
Feb 15, 2008
180
0
0
80
(SealedEternal;51206)
No, I answered it. No human determines what is or isn't the Word of God. God did that, and in a way that it testifies of itself as true and irrefutable, so that man couldn't claim to have authority over it.SealedEternal
But who discerned what was to go into the scriptures that we have today, and what to leave out?Someone had to decide. Do you accept the NT canon that was finally decided upon, and used ever since by all Christians?
 

SealedEternal

New Member
Jan 6, 2008
161
1
0
52
(winsome;51209)
But who discerned what was to go into the scriptures that we have today, and what to leave out? Someone had to decide.
God did.
Do you accept the NT canon that was finally decided upon, and used ever since by all Christians?
Yes, but it wasn't "finally decided upon" by men. The books that we now regard as scripture were passed around from the time they were written, and always regarded as being authoritative, even before they were compiled into what we call the Bible. I believe that God made it known to these authors that these were His inspired words, that He wrote them in a way that testifies of their truthfulness, and that He preserved them ever since.SealedEternal