JimP,JimParker said:
So, if you're not RCC, then why the need to defend them in this post? What is your affiliation with them?
zeke25
Obsessed with Rome
- Thread starter JimParker
- Start date
-
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!
So, if you're not RCC, then why the need to defend them in this post? What is your affiliation with them?
zeke25
- Aug 10, 2012
- 5,611
- 6,878
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
Lets try to keep this on the original topic. If you want to discuss forum policies please start a new topic or an existing one that is related.
I recommend reading the following for answers first.
Rules
Statement of Faith
Statement on the Trinity
I recommend reading the following for answers first.
Rules
Statement of Faith
Statement on the Trinity
Well let's have a recap of the information.JimParker said:
<<I am not a Trinitarian>>
Ah! Then you are not Christian.
Christianity is Trinitarian.
And then I asked if you Knew Polycarp and if he was a Christian.
You evaded the question by stating make your point.
So here is a little on Polycarp:
"Polycarp is a celebrated figure in the history of Christianity. A direct pupil of the apostle John, Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 A.D., connecting him to both the biblical apostles and the age of the early church fathers. Several ancient sources document the contributions of Polycarp to Christianity, including his letters written to the church at Philippi, in which he encourages the members to remain strong in their faith and to flee from materialism. He also instructs the members in the proper handling of financial dishonesty that was creeping into the church. Polycarp served as the bishop of the church at Smyrna (modern day Izmir), and was recognized as one of the early combatants of Christian heresies."
Ok early Christian father, Christian Martyr.
Now lets; review your post.
Christianity is Trinitarian.
Polycarp was a binatarian.
So does that mean that Polycarp, who was an apostle of John and a martyr to Christianity; was NOT a Christian?
Jim, I'd like to take the time to address your posts so we are clear.
- This is a Christian forum, not a Church. While we are very much here because we believe the testimony and eyewitnesses of this man Jesus, and believe that the Truth must come to light, we are a forum, which necessitates discussions perhaps even on topics we don't like, even with cult members.
- Even if we were a Church, you are an Eastern Orthodox practitioner and the team and majority of the members are Protestants, thus we have a different definition and praxis when it comes to Church. And this is okay. I knew when I started this place, and knew precious little about EO as well, that I'd run into people whom I don't agree with or don't define as Christian myself. That said, I had no idea what I was in for. I do not define Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Oneness Pentecostals(and we've had the militant variety), etc as truly Christian in 99% of the cases. That said, I do know we have Oneness believers who I disagree with very strongly, but will not kick them out. In our humble opinion, and we've discussed this as a team many times through the years, we believe in addressing the issues rather than shunning them. We've seen some fruit from this.
- If you want to determine all discussion boundaries, you're really not going to be happy until you have your own forum. I don't always shut down everything I don't like here, even.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
JImP,JimParker said:
Herein lies the problem. That which you consider "uncontrollable" "slander" "ignorant" "stupid" "lies" "twisting scripture" are all subject to your interpretation, which may equally apply to you rather than the people you so disdain.
I disagree with many RCC doctrines. That's what we do here. We analyze doctrine. Some doctrine of some believers and most church business have faulty doctrine that is contrary to the Scriptures. You do not disagree with those doctrines that I do. So, somebody is wrong and somebody is right. But you will never see the conversation through to reach a proper conclusion. You throw an insult over your shoulder and walk away claiming the person who disagrees with you - yet they have Scriptural support to prove they are right - to be ignorant, or stupid, or whatever.
Let's look a one example, and believe me there are many that we could choose from. Exodus 16:12. Does your Bible have the word "twilight" in this verse? If it does, then you do not have a valid translation before you, and if you believe that which it says in this verse, then you are believing a falsehood and the doctrine of "time markers" in the Scriptures has been attacked and lied about. Your turn.
Zeke25
Wormwood
Chaps
pom2014,
The church explorations of the person of Christ as it relates to the Trinity occurred long after Polycarp died. The first use of the word "trinity" did not even occur until the late 2nd century...Polycarp died in 167.
To your point, yes there have been influential believers who have not been Trinitarian. That does not change the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity has been a central Christian doctrine throughout the history of the Church. I would not consider a Modalist to be non-Christian by virtue of their modalism alone, but I would consider their understanding of God as it relates to the Bible to be seriously flawed...and the core of all Christians throughout history would agree. To point to a particular individual who may have a somewhat heretical view (not saying Polycarp did) on one particular doctrine as a means to erasing the lines between what we understand as orthodox is not very convincing.
The church explorations of the person of Christ as it relates to the Trinity occurred long after Polycarp died. The first use of the word "trinity" did not even occur until the late 2nd century...Polycarp died in 167.
To your point, yes there have been influential believers who have not been Trinitarian. That does not change the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity has been a central Christian doctrine throughout the history of the Church. I would not consider a Modalist to be non-Christian by virtue of their modalism alone, but I would consider their understanding of God as it relates to the Bible to be seriously flawed...and the core of all Christians throughout history would agree. To point to a particular individual who may have a somewhat heretical view (not saying Polycarp did) on one particular doctrine as a means to erasing the lines between what we understand as orthodox is not very convincing.
Answered on previous page....JimParker said:
...however.was wondering along with some others, why so defensive of Catholicism? An honest look at her history, and at the current furor over child abuse in many different countries such as Ireland, Canada, and Australia and the U.S., seems to me that if we were to take Jesus words seriously regards fruit inspecting, the RCC should have been dismissed a long time ago as an institution worthy of any consideration whatsoever. That said, I am not denying the culpability of various Protestant churches of injustice either. It must be remembered however that those Protestant churches all came out of a system saturated with corruption and excess...it took several centuries to shake off the old habits. The US was God's answer to that difficult situation...the US (in particular the historical establishment of Rhode Is ) was a gift to God's people to discover the true value of religious and political freedom.
Nonsense. No group, institution,or church, regardless of its heritage, history, or boasting, be they church, or cult, decides what is truth on behalf of the individual.JimParker said:
As for your exaltation of creeds, I would offer a post I presented a long tome ago on another forum, itself a quote from another writer the name of whom I have long forgotten, but whose thoughts I believe are quite pertinent.
Do we use our man-made creeds as weapons against those who would disagree with us? Is our creed limiting the power and ability of the Holy Spirit to unveil new truth? Do we ostracize other believers, not because we may prove them wrong from the Bible, but because their beliefs are not in harmony with our creed?
"The first step to apostasy is to set up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second step is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And the fifth is to commence persecution against such."
J.N. Loughborough 1861
What truths we may learn today would not perhaps have been present truth years ago, but it is God's message for this time. We must never allow ourselves to make all scripture meet our established opinions. We must not carry our creed to the Bible and read the Word in light of our former opinions.
We must not attempt to make scripture agree with our creed. By so doing we are exalting our creed to the status of the Bible, thus making the creed or even our opinion the norm for authority.
Even when our creed does agree with scripture, to use such as a guide for spiritual authority is giving it a status equal to the scriptures themselves.
We may have a means by which we summarize in a listed from whether formal or informal, those doctrines we hold to be true. These however, must never carry a quality of finality or infallibility, nor should they be accorded a binding authority upon the consciences of members in a way the Bible does. Statements of beliefs or historical creeds are not spectacles through which the word of God is to be read.
They must always remain only a reflection of the church's best understanding and expression of Biblical truth up to the present time. Revisions of such statements should always be seen as an option as the church is led by the Holy Spirit, where better language and understanding is found in which to express the teachings of the Bible. End quote.
Read Revelation 17 to see what the word of God says about the Roman church and her daughters....seems the "harlot" has a pretty dim future when God's final judgment is pronounced on planet earth.
Why do think its only the rcc that fits when all of the Schisms of the first church have returned to the ways of the Levitical order?
The rcc is NOT the mother.
Its a schism of the church that turned its back on Jesus.
The idea that the rcc alone is bad is just plain western rite bashing.
Every single denomination that is on this planet has gone against the King.
Not one is doing as he said to do.
Its a schism of the church that turned its back on Jesus.
The idea that the rcc alone is bad is just plain western rite bashing.
Every single denomination that is on this planet has gone against the King.
Not one is doing as he said to do.
She is the first "Christian" entity that abandoned the power of the Holy Spirit by way of conviction, in favor of the power of the state by way of coercion. No other "Christian" entity has been, is, or ever could be as politically involved with the kings and rulers of this earth as she has been, is, and will continue to be. This is one of Babylons main identifying marks.pom2014 said:
Rev 17:1 ¶ And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Rev 18:1 ¶ And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Church
http://www.news.va/en/news/the-church-is-a-mother
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1405294.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404866.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301718.htm
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Oh good reminder. I believe that nonTrinitarians fall outside of Orthodoxy, but I will certainly adhere to the rules of the board. I've been here awhile and am still learninglforrest said:
The eastern rite WAS the empire.Keeth said:
Until they fell to the Turks, they held the power politically and religiously. Not the western rite.
And neither the western nor eastern followed the King.
All denominations do not follow the King no matter how much they claim.
No, there was and is an east and west for a reason, because they split. Thus the empires declined and fell for different reasons and at different times.pom2014 said:
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Well Pom, you would not be a fan of Eastern Orthodoxy if you realized how tied their Bishops are with the political leaders of their respected countries. Also, their bishops have been unable/unwilling to agree with each other since the schism ........ I think the last counsel they recognize as authoritative was in the 7th century
Keeth, brush up on your history of the forth to fifteenth centuries of the common era.
Concentrate on the Bizantine period and the fall of constantinople.
The eastern rite was the church of that empire and held the power, not the western rite.
The bishop of Rome was no power until the Roman church allowed the fall of constantinople.
Aspen, not a fan of any denomination.
I have the most in common with the anabaptists. Until we get to their social views. Not one for isolationism as its hard to get out the good news when you're stuck in a hundred hectare parcel and never leave it. Nor big on shunning.
But all of them fail at doing what the King said.
Concentrate on the Bizantine period and the fall of constantinople.
The eastern rite was the church of that empire and held the power, not the western rite.
The bishop of Rome was no power until the Roman church allowed the fall of constantinople.
Aspen, not a fan of any denomination.
I have the most in common with the anabaptists. Until we get to their social views. Not one for isolationism as its hard to get out the good news when you're stuck in a hundred hectare parcel and never leave it. Nor big on shunning.
But all of them fail at doing what the King said.
How very strange, you say they had no power, and yet you state that it was they who allowed the fall of Constantinople. I have read plenty on the history of the Roman Church, no institution or governemnt could wreak so much havoc thruoghout history without the aid of the powers that be of this earth, which power they had and abused.pom2014 said:
Similar threads
