In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[OzSpen]

I am familiar with the reality and history of the groups mentioned, and in general terms, have no issue with Britannica's summary, exceot in the points it was making regards these people being "heretics'. What I am not sure of is why you are claiming that your links are somehow contradictory to what I have thus far offered. Can you detail your basis for any differences please? I do recommend those other sources...

In #144 you stated: 'PS. Please don't presume that I have read all the above cited works'. So I'm left to presume you are not taking the information I provided seriously.

 

[tom55]

I am familiar with the reality and history of the groups mentioned, and in general terms, have no issue with Britannica's summary, exceot in the points it was making regards these people being "heretics'. What I am not sure of is why you are claiming that your links are somehow contradictory to what I have thus far offered. Can you detail your basis for any differences please? I do recommend those other sources...

So no one person or no one group can be called a heretic unless BRAKELITE approves of it or says they are?

Who or what organization has the authority to call someone (or group) heretical??

 

[tom55]

There is a general perception with modern Christianity regarding history of the early church, and I think a grave and sad misconception, that the Roman church was the "only shop in town" so to speak. While over 2 or 3 centuries the Emperors certainly gave more and more favor to the Roman branch of the church, the authority thus bestowed upon Rome was not shared with much magnanimity among the rest of Christendom, which by the 3rd and 4th centuries, had extended well into Britain, Africa, Europe, all around central and southern Asia and even as far as the far east into China (Seres)and Vietnam. Papal supremacy, as granted to Rome, was rejected at first by most churches that came within reach of the Roman tentacles over the ensuing centuries, and it was only by force of arms through secular powers that brought about any sense of Roman Catholic "unity" in Europe.

If you were to read about the HISTORY of Christianity instead of anti-Catholic literature you would see that even during the time of the apostles there were divisions in the church. As you know some of the divisions are spoken of in scripture. If you read letters from the apostolic fathers and early church fathers you will see that in FACT supremacy WAS generally granted to the Roman Church because that is where Peter and Paul were martyred. When one reads scripture Peter was CLEARLY the leader of the other apostles (as chosen by Jesus) and his leadership didn't end after Jesus death. Historically we know for a FACT that Papal supremacy was NOT rejected by "most churches". The FACT is most churches accepted Papal or Roman Church supremacy; the ones that rejected it were in FACT in the minority.

The Church in Rome did have some help from secular powers. They also recognized that the Roman Church did have authority over most Christians. That is why those secular or governmental powers backed the Roman Church because even they recognized the authority or Rome which has been proven and consistent for 2000 years.

Since you believe that the RCC is the anti-Christ, whore of Babylon etc. etc. blah blah blah.....Whey did God allow the RCC to become so powerful and all the other Churches, that the RCC calls heretical, so weak?

Did God abandon the Christians and let satan run wild on earth??

When did God abandon us?? Do you have a certain century under a certain ruler in mind for a time frame? I would love to hear your theory. (which you will probably get from an anti-Catholic website)

 

[tom55]

Just because you don't accept it doesn't mean I didn't but that would be your problem not mine.

I accept the way you have gracefully bowed out of this conversation.

I do not have a problem with the truth and facts. What I wrote is the truth and factual. That is why you couldn't articulately refute it.

respectfully....Tom55

 

[tom55]

The edict, which happened four years afterwards, only put into words what was already a reality. That Constantine was the emporer and took on the title of “Pontifex Maximus", made Christianity, at that point, the state religion.
No different than the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy only confirmed what was already a reality, in that the Church of England was the state Church.

As you know the Edict of Milan (313AD), which was signed by Licinius also, was preceded by the Edict of Toleration (311AD) which was signed by Galerius. So for SEVERAL years prior to the signing of these two edicts there was a softening of attitudes toward Christianity. By the time both Edicts were signed Christianity was enjoying peace and harmony. There were a lot of Christians in politics and as military leaders. So it wasn't like Constantine came along and in one Edict made Christianity instantly acceptable and Catholicism swept the world because of Constantine.

Not sure what you mean by Constantine taking on the title of Pontifex Maximus made Christianity the state religion? There is a lot of HISTORY about that title BEFORE Constantine. It wasn't something he invented and not the first time the title was used.

But I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to convey.

 

[StanJ]

I accept the way you have gracefully bowed out of this conversation.

I do not have a problem with the truth and facts. What I wrote is the truth and factual. That is why you couldn't articulately refute it.

respectfully....Tom55

Nice try, but I can only lead you to the truth, you have to actually accept it.

 

[StanJ]

As you know the Edict of Milan (313AD), which was signed by Licinius also, was preceded by the Edict of Toleration (311AD) which was signed by Galerius. So for SEVERAL years prior to the signing of these two edicts there was a softening of attitudes toward Christianity. By the time both Edicts were signed Christianity was enjoying peace and harmony. There were a lot of Christians in politics and as military leaders. So it wasn't like Constantine came along and in one Edict made Christianity instantly acceptable and Catholicism swept the world because of Constantine.
Not sure what you mean by Constantine taking on the title of Pontifex Maximus made Christianity the state religion? There is a lot of HISTORY about that title BEFORE Constantine. It wasn't something he invented and not the first time the title was used.
But I could be misunderstanding what you are trying to convey.

The issue is not acceptability, the issue is whether or not it was the defacto state religion and as Constantine himself had taken on the title of Pontifex Maximus, then it was the states religion as he represented the state. Before that time it had never been taken on by a member of State but only by the most senior Christian in Rome.

 

[tom55]

Nice try, but I can only lead you to the truth, you have to actually accept it.

So StanJ has the truth? How do you know YOU have the truth? Why is it not possible that I, Tom55, has the truth?

 

[StanJ]

So StanJ has the truth? How do you know YOU have the truth? Why is it not possible that I, Tom55, has the truth?

Well if you just have the truth you wouldn't be making all these mistakes and I would you?
You see, I know Jesus and I am free, and as his word says; "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

 

[tom55]

The issue is not acceptability, the issue is whether or not it was the defacto state religion and as Constantine himself had taken on the title of Pontifex Maximus, then it was the states religion as he represented the state. Before that time it had never been taken on by a member of State but only by the most senior Christian in Rome.

Thank you....this statement makes more clear to me what you were trying to say.

 

[tom55]

Well if you just have the truth you wouldn't be making all these mistakes and I would you?
You see, I know Jesus and I am free, and as his word says; "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

I, Tom55, know Jesus and I have the truth and I am free because as Jesus said, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

I know, and have proven, that StanJ does not know the truth and I will pray for him to be set free.

 

[StanJ]

I, Tom55, know Jesus and I have the truth and I am free because as Jesus said, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
I know, and have proven, that StanJ does not know the truth and I will pray for him to be set free.

Looks like your cognitive dissonance is kicking in Tom.

 

[OzSpen]

So no one person or no one group can be called a heretic unless BRAKELITE approves of it or says they are?

Who or what organization has the authority to call someone (or group) heretical??

Tom,

The Heruli, Vandals and Goths were Germanic tribes. What about the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Lollards (mentioned by brakelite)?

How do we define 'heresy'? Heresy is that which is contrary to 'the truth once delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3 ESV). In Harold O. J. Brown's magisterial work, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Doubleday 1984), he defined heresy as follows:

The Greek word from which the English terms "heresy" and "heretic" are derived simply means an "act of choice" or an "attachment." For a time hairesis merely meant "party" (from "part") or "sect" (from the Latin verb "to cut") and did not imply any disparagement. At an early date in the history of Christianity heresy became almost the worst offense in which a Christian could become involved.... In Christian usage, the term "heresy" refers to a false doctrine, i.e. one that is simply not true and that is, in addition, so important that those who believe it, whom the church calls heretics, must be considered to have abandoned the faith (Brown 1984:1).

The Albigenses were heretics, based on their doctrine of God, when compared with Scripture. See HERE.

The Waldenses were a lay group of travelling preachers in the Roman Catholic church who were persecuted severely by the RCC. They were precursors of the Reformation. See 'Who are the Waldensians?' When compared with Scripture, their teachings were not those of heretics.

As for the Lollards, being followers of John Wycliffe, they also were precursors of the Reformation. See 'The foundations: John Wycliffe'. Scripture declares them as orthodox and not heretics.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Looks like your cognitive dissonance is kicking in Tom.

Lol.....What I wrote and said to you was basically what you wrote and said to me. Sooooo I guess your cognitive dissonance kicked in first? :blink:

 

[tom55]

Tom,

The Heruli, Vandals and Goths were Germanic tribes. What about the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and the Lollards (mentioned by brakelite)?

How do we define 'heresy'? Heresy is that which is contrary to 'the truth once delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3 ESV). In Harold O. J. Brown's magisterial work, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Doubleday 1984), he defined heresy as follows:

The Albigenses were heretics, based on their doctrine of God, when compared with Scripture. See HERE.

The Waldenses were a lay group of travelling preachers in the Roman Catholic church who were persecuted severely by the RCC. They were precursors of the Reformation. See 'Who are the Waldensians?' When compared with Scripture, their teachings were not those of heretics.

As for the Lollards, being followers of John Wycliffe, they also were precursors of the Reformation. See 'The foundations: John Wycliffe'. Scripture declares them as orthodox and not heretics.

Oz

Heresy: a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion (and your above definition)

Who or what organization has the authority to call someone of the Christian religion heretical??

 

[OzSpen]

Heresy: a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion (and your above definition)

Who or what organization has the authority to call someone of the Christian religion heretical??

You try promoting the Christian religion in Saudi Arabia and you'll soon learn that Christianity is regarded as heresy for which there is capital punishment, in agreement with the Quran's suras that say so. Take a read of these three:

Quran 4:76 [Yusuf Ali translation], ‘Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan’.

Quran 5:33 [Yusuf Ali], ‘The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter’.

Quran 8:12 [Yusuf Ali], ‘Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them’.

Oz

 

[brakelite]

Heresy: a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion (and your above definition)

Who or what organization has the authority to call someone of the Christian religion heretical??

The answer to that Tom55 is all of us. We all can readily discern from scripture as to whether a certain group or individual is doctrinally sound. My thought however is that no group or individual has the right to enforce anyone to accept any tenet of religious faith or doctrine against their conscience. Persecution, exile, torture, and death, as meted out by the Roman power in the dark ages against groups such as the Arians/Abgeneses/Waldenses and hundreds of thousands of individuals because Rome claimed "authority" over everyone else was an abomination and a sad and "heretical" reflection on the policies of the Roman church of the time.
Policies I might add that have not been abrogated.

 

[StanJ]

Lol.....What I wrote and said to you was basically what you wrote and said to me. Sooooo I guess your cognitive dissonance kicked in first? :blink:

It kicks in when you can't think of anything original to say and just parrot what I say. It's only the first sign.

 

[BjornFree]

Almost everyone is a 'heretic' to someone.
With a few exceptions who (like myself) think outside the 'box', and consequently are occasionally regarded as 'heretics' to almost everyone.
Most 'forumites' belong to one group or another,who regard everyone who believes differently from themselves as 'heretics'.
Generally the worst examples of 'forum' membership know better, but are unable to apply their knowledge.
Such is religion......the seedbed of confrontation, insular bigotry, hatred, persecution, and even torture and murder.
Even Calvin, who so many rever, fell foul to torture and murder of one of his dissidents.
Now ...... how's about another 'biggie' regarding the historical accuracy of my source of information re Calvin.

 

[OzSpen]

Almost everyone is a 'heretic' to someone.
With a few exceptions who (like myself) think outside the 'box', and consequently are occasionally regarded as 'heretics' to almost everyone.
Most 'forumites' belong to one group or another,who regard everyone who believes differently from themselves as 'heretics'.
Generally the worst examples of 'forum' membership know better, but are unable to apply their knowledge.
Such is religion......the seedbed of confrontation, insular bigotry, hatred, persecution, and even torture and murder.
Even Calvin, who so many rever, fell foul to torture and murder of one of his dissidents.
Now ...... how's about another 'biggie' regarding the historical accuracy of my source of information re Calvin.

Oneoff,

Seems as though you are pointing the finger at yourself as well!