Justin Martyr was a heretic

[zeke25]

My point Zeke, is that what you "Think" the Bible teaches may not be correct. If you're judging whether Jusitn is a Heretic or not based on what you "Think" the Bible teaches then you need to be 100% correct about what the Scriptures teach in order to judge whether or not he is a heretic. However, just seeing your statement suggests to me that you don't understand baptism correct because you called him a heretic. In the end we can debate wether your or my position is correct, however that won't prove whether Justin was heretic. All it will prove is our position on baptism. You said,


How does this statement make Justin a heretic?

Butch5,

I find no Scripture that describes being baptized in water causing one to receive illumination? Baptism is a physical act, not a spiritual one. With the quote available from Justin, does it not appear to you that he is trying to spiritualize the act of water baptism, claiming that it causes an illumination in one's mind and even spirit. Any illumination that has occurred should have occurred prior to undergoing water baptism.

zeke25

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

I find no Scripture that describes being baptized in water causing one to receive illumination? Baptism is a physical act, not a spiritual one. With the quote available from Justin, does it not appear to you that he is trying to spiritualize the act of water baptism, claiming that it causes an illumination in one's mind and even spirit. Any illumination that has occurred should have occurred prior to undergoing water baptism.

zeke25

Zeke,

No, I don't think illumination means anything spiritual. It was a custom in the early church for one to undergo certain education in things Christian prior to water baptism. Once the person had received this education they were baptized. I think that it is this Christian education that he is referring to.

 

[zeke25]

Zeke,

No, I don't think illumination means anything spiritual. It was a custom in the early church for one to undergo certain education in things Christian prior to water baptism. Once the person had received this education they were baptized. I think that it is this Christian education that he is referring to.

Butch5,

The quote from Justin says, "this washing is called illumination".

It appears to me that he is saying point blank, that it is the physical act of this washing (baptism) that is illumination. But let's assume you are right for a minute. Do you think that Martyr believes that water baptism is only a physical act and has no spiritual benefits or impartations from the spiritual realm?

Zeke25

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

The quote from Justin says, "this washing is called illumination".

It appears to me that he is saying point blank, that it is the physical act of this washing (baptism) that is illumination. But let's assume you are right for a minute. Do you think that Martyr believes that water baptism is only a physical act and has no spiritual benefits or impartations from the spiritual realm?

Zeke25

He explains why it's called illumination.

And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

He's speaking of the things they learned, so of which he explains in the chapter

 

[zeke25]

He explains why it's called illumination.

And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.

He's speaking of the things they learned, so of which he explains in the chapter

Butch5 said Martyr said: and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed

Zeke25 replies: More heresy. Water baptism does not take away our sins.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5 said Martyr said: and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed

Zeke25 replies: More heresy. Water baptism does not take away our sins.

That is where God remits one's sins, just ask Peter. You see, this was the point I was trying to make in the beginning. You disagree with Justin and deem him a heretic. Have you ever considered it may be you that is wrong and not Justin. You're trying to understand a book written 2000 years ago, in a different language, in a different culture, to people who didn't think the way we do today. Justin was there in that culture, in that language, at that time. I would submit that he had a much better understanding of the times than you or I do today.

 

[zeke25]

That is where God remits one's sins, just ask Peter. You see, this was the point I was trying to make in the beginning. You disagree with Justin and deem him a heretic. Have you ever considered it may be you that is wrong and not Justin. You're trying to understand a book written 2000 years ago, in a different language, in a different culture, to people who didn't think the way we do today. Justin was there in that culture, in that language, at that time. I would submit that he had a much better understanding of the times than you or I do today.

Butch5,

You forget that the Holy Ghost is the One who wrote the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” He wrote the Bible not only for those present at the time of the events, but for everyone, including those yet to be born. We are not at a disadvantage to those who preceded us.

You forget John 14:26 KJV, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” And the same Holy Ghost Who wrote the Scriptures is still with us today, reminding us, teaching us.

You are not to be subject to the errors made by men in the past, yet one can glean good information from those who preceded you that did not make errors. You have the same information available to you now as they did in the past. You have not be left an orphan if you are a child of God. Hebrews 13:5 KJV, “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Zeke25

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

You forget that the Holy Ghost is the One who wrote the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV, “16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” He wrote the Bible not only for those present at the time of the events, but for everyone, including those yet to be born. We are not at a disadvantage to those who preceded us.

You forget John 14:26 KJV, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” And the same Holy Ghost Who wrote the Scriptures is still with us today, reminding us, teaching us.

You are not to be subject to the errors made by men in the past, yet one can glean good information from those who preceded you that did not make errors. You have the same information available to you now as they did in the past. You have not be left an orphan if you are a child of God. Hebrews 13:5 KJV, “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Zeke25

The Scriptures that Paul is referring to are the OT.

John 14:26 was spoken to the Apostles. Notice the Holy Spirit will bring to their remembrance the things that Jesus had said to them.

Concerning the early writers. No, we don't have available to us all that they had. They had oral tradition the also had other writings of the apostles. Having said that we can still know what the Scriptures teach. However, they need to be understood in the context in which they were written, not interpreted in a vacuum or with a 21st century mindset.

 

[zeke25]

The Scriptures that Paul is referring to are the OT.

John 14:26 was spoken to the Apostles. Notice the Holy Spirit will bring to their remembrance the things that Jesus had said to them.

Concerning the early writers. No, we don't have available to us all that they had. They had oral tradition the also had other writings of the apostles. Having said that we can still know what the Scriptures teach. However, they need to be understood in the context in which they were written, not interpreted in a vacuum or with a 21st century mindset.

Butch5,

You seem to be running out of things to say, and I'm getting bored.

The bottom line for you is that it appears that you don't like that I'm not enamored with Martyr, but you like him. Suit yourself, believe what you want. As for me, me and my house will serve the LORD.

1 Co 1:12-13 KJV, 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Co 3:3-4 KJV, 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1 Co 3:20-23 KJV, 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Zeke25

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

You seem to be running out of things to say, and I'm getting bored.

The bottom line for you is that it appears that you don't like that I'm not enamored with Martyr, but you like him. Suit yourself, believe what you want. As for me, me and my house will serve the LORD.

1 Co 1:12-13 KJV, 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Co 3:3-4 KJV, 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

1 Co 3:20-23 KJV, 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;
22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;
23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

Zeke25

How am I running out of things to say? It doesn't matter to me if you like Justin or not. The reason I posted in this thread was because from reading it it seemed to me that you were calling Justin a heretic based on your understanding of Scripture. It seems to me that that is in fact the case. Justin's doctrines should b evaluated on what Justin said, not on one's perception of that.

 

[zeke25]

How am I running out of things to say? It doesn't matter to me if you like Justin or not. The reason I posted in this thread was because from reading it it seemed to me that you were calling Justin a heretic based on your understanding of Scripture. It seems to me that that is in fact the case. Justin's doctrines should b evaluated on what Justin said, not on one's perception of that.

Butch5,

Yes, and if Christ Himself stood before you and told you plainly that Martyr was a heretic, you would find an occasion to pontificate.

Butch5 said: "Justin's doctrines should b evaluated on what Justin said, not on one's perception of that." Huh?

Just as I said, you're running out of meaningful things to say. You can't depend on me to come back and reply to this nonsense anymore.

Zeke25

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

Yes, and if Christ Himself stood before you and told you plainly that Martyr was a heretic, you would find an occasion to pontificate.

Butch5 said: "Justin's doctrines should b evaluated on what Justin said, not on one's perception of that." Huh?

Just as I said, you're running out of meaningful things to say. You can't depend on me to come back and reply to this nonsense anymore.

Zeke25

Why do Christians do this? Whenever they can't make a case they try to turn the argument on the opponent. You made a claim, it wasn't so, just admit you misread what Justin said and move on, it's not a big deal. Ad hominems against me don't make your case.

Scripture says that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

 

[Forsakenone]

Justin inaccurately claimed,

“And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).”

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.

While I don't see in the scriptures where Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River specifically, yet I hear
Jesus was escorted to Jordan by the chief Priests Ananias and Caiaphas to be baptized of John. Luke 3:2

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. Mark 1:9

49 And they pitched by Jordan, from Beth-jesimoth even unto Abel-shittim in the plains of Moab.
50 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying,
Num 33:49-50

And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, saw the mourning in the floor of Atad, they said,
This is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians: wherefore the name of it was called Abel-mizraim, which is beyond Jordan.
Gen 50:11

It is apparent that the scriptures differentiate by, beyond and thus I have not found Jesus was baptized in the River Jordan.
Since the Jordan River was not in Jordan at the time, not to argue the point , it just seems peculiar that it is only written the river of.

And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him. John 3:26
And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode. John 10:40

 

[JimParker]

Since the Jordan River was not in Jordan at the time, not to argue the point , it just seems peculiar that it is only written the river of.

Jordan was named after the river, not the river after Jordan.

There was no country called "Jordan" at that time.

 

[gregjgordon]

Everybody in Christianity is a heritic... In the eyes of some another Christian.

That is very true. Sadly we can bite and devour one another for the sake of being right. God is not overly worried about some differences people have over his Word. Justin Martyr as every other godly saint of the past was falliable and I would want to take his writings in context as a whole. If we picked apart anything we said it could seem heretical or too extreme.

 

[zeke25]

That is very true. Sadly we can bite and devour one another for the sake of being right. God is not overly worried about some differences people have over his Word. Justin Martyr as every other godly saint of the past was falliable and I would want to take his writings in context as a whole. If we picked apart anything we said it could seem heretical or too extreme.

Greg,

It sounds as if you have been taught to be a compromiser, an ecumenical. The Bible commands us to seek out truth and identify heresy. Is this command of no value to you? 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Justin Martyr is not approved.

Zeke25

 

[mjrhealth]

Heb_11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

God approved of Enoch, yet he was rejected by the church Go Figure.

 

[zeke25]

God approved of Enoch, yet he was rejected by the church Go Figure.

I assume you're talking of the Enoch, the grand...son of Seth. Enoch and Martyr are quite different from one another.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I fail words and comprehension to explain what this is meant to mean . . .

Quote:
<<<If you can show me even one of these teachers you listed who can give me the Biblical definition of “evening”, then I’ll give some attention to their writings.>>>End quote

May God be merciful to us!

 

[epostle1]

Greg,

It sounds as if you have been taught to be a compromiser, an ecumenical. The Bible commands us to seek out truth and identify heresy. Is this command of no value to you? 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." Justin Martyr is not approved.

Zeke25

The Nicene Creed includes the phrase: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

I think the choices with regard to the history of the doctrine of baptism really boil down to:
1) belief that the Apostles had one teaching on the subject, and
2) belief that the Apostles contradicted each other, and/or that the Bible is internally incoherent on baptism, and/or that several contradictory positions can be legitimately, simultaneously held by Christians, which absolutely guarantees the presence of outright falsehood in the Church (by the law of contradiction).

As for the view of the early Church (first two centuries) on baptism, respected Protestant Church historian J.N.D. Kelly writes:
It was always held to convey the remission of sins . . . the theory that it mediated the Holy Spirit was fairly general . . . The early view, therefore, like the Pauline, would seem to be that baptism itself is the vehicle for conveying the Spirit to believers; in all this period we nowhere come across any clear pointers to the existence of a separate rite, such as unction or the laying on of hands, appropriated to this purpose.
(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper Collins, rev. ed., 1978, 194-195)
Likewise, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 100, "Baptism"), another respected Protestant reference work, which shows no inclination for Catholicism at all, in its tone or content, states:

Doctrinally, baptism very early came to be understood as a means of grace or a sacrament, in the sense of an instrumental means of regeneration . . . Infant baptism was practiced in the second century, but only with the aid of an adult sponsor.
(Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper Collins, rev. ed., 1978, 194-195)

The second century is not late at all for a doctrine to be fairly developmentally "mature," when we stop to recognize something like, e.g., the canon of Scripture. Before 160, the NT itself was not always clearly distinguished from other Christian writings. Justin Martyr's "gospels" contained apocryphal material (he also did not accept Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon as Scripture); Acts was scarcely known or quoted. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not considered part of the canon, and many of these books weren't even yet quoted. Therefore, if infant baptism must go due to lack of early enough attestation (as if the 2nd century were too "late"), then the NT canon goes with it. Since Protestants will not relinquish the NT canon on these grounds, then the argument against infant baptism on the same grounds must collapse, lest a double standard be applied. Doctrinally, baptism very early came to be understood as a means of grace or a sacrament, in the sense of an instrumental means of regeneration . . . Infant baptism was practiced in the second century, but only with the aid of an adult sponsor.

But I agree with you when you say "Justin Martyr is not approved." not in every thing he wrote. But that would count for a list of Early Church Fathers (ECF). That does not mean they are heretics. It means that not every single thing the ECF wrote was accepted by the Magisterium. What is important is the general consensus of their teachings. If they rebelled against the final ruling of the Church, they could not qualify as a ECF. There is scarcely any mention of sola scriptura or sola fide for several centuries, yet you hold these as true.

It seems to me there you don't have a grasp of Development of Doctrine and The Sacramental Principle. I hope you do a little reading.

Full context of Justin Martyr on Baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; John 3:3,5 lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35 Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. Titus 3:5-6 For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. Matt. 28:19-20 For Christ also said, “Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (John 3:5). Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias [Isaiah] the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it” (Isaiah 1:16-20).
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. Acts 4:14 For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. Proverbs 20:5And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. First Apology 61

Scholars have differed on whether Justin's writings on the nature of God were meant to express his firm opinion on points of doctrine, or to speculate on these matters. Specific points Justin addressed include that the Logos is "numerically distinct from the Father" though "born of the very substance of the Father", and that through the "through the Word, God has made everything". Justin used a metaphor of fire, to describe the Logos as spreading like a flame, rather than "dividing" the substance of the Father.

Accusing Justin Martyr of heresy with private eisegesis is simply wrong. A fire on the Jordan? Come on...Your strict literalism for a metaphor leads to dividing the substance of the Father, so who is the heretic?