Spotting Heretics

[Matthias]

Yeah, I got that.
And just to be clear, I am a trinitarian... But not in the way the creeds demand.

Hello, fellow heretic.

How does your way differ from the way that the trinitarian creeds demand?

 

[Enoch111]

”Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tri-personal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?

No one was waiting until Nicaea. Read John chapter 20. It was Thomas who declared that Jesus was both Lord and God one week after the resurrection of Christ. And that is already two persons in the Godhead. On the day of Pentecost, the third person of the Godhead -- the Holy Spirit -- made His power known in Jerusalem. And following that the Acts and the epistles also established the Holy Trinity. So Dr Brown is way off base (as are most "doctors", just like the "doctors" in the time when Christ was on earth).

 

[Matthias]

No one was waiting until Nicaea. Read John chapter 20. It was Thomas who declared that Jesus was both Lord and God one week after the resurrection of Christ. And that is already two persons in the Godhead. On the day of Pentecost, the third person of the Godhead -- the Holy Spirit -- made His power known in Jerusalem. And following that the Acts and the epistles also established the Holy Trinity. So Dr Brown is way off base (as are most "doctors", just like the "doctors" in the time when Christ was on earth).

Are you familiar with the term “elemental trinitarianism”?

As for Dr. Brown, he was a Protestant defender of historical orthodox trinitarianism. His goal in life was to bring trinitarians back to that faith. He didn’t succeed in doing that with either one of us, though for different reasons.

 

[Matthias]

“Historians of Christianity and its relationship to society often claim that Constantine created Christian Europe, or Christendom, but that now we are in the post-Constantine era. In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era. The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity. It can be compared only to the transition within biblical monotheism itself, from the unitary monotheism of Israel to the trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Yisrael, of Deuteronomy 6:4 (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord …’),to the confession of the Athanasian Creed, ‘We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity.’”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p.431)

Dr. Brown was very concerned about this. It was his great desire for Christians to return to the historic orthodox trinitarian faith.

He knew historical orthodox trinitarianism is in trouble and he labored to reverse the tide. He fought what appears to be a losing battle.

 

[Matthias]

“Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted or disproved, has been widely forgotten and ignored. Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon, the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that there is any final truth about the one who said, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life’ (John 14:6).”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, 431-432)

What Dr. Brown saw as a catastrophic development, I see as a positive development.

Dr. Brown wanted to see Christianity move theologically back into the past. I want to see the same thing. The difference is that he wanted to see Christianity move theologically back to where it was in the fourth and fifth centuries; I want to see Christianity move theologically back to where it was in the first century.

 

[Brakelite]

Hello, fellow heretic.

How does your way differ from the way that the trinitarian creeds demand?

Here's how I see the gospel.
Jesus said

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

Jesus told Nicodemus that God “gave” His Son. This is the everlasting gospel. If God did not possess a son then He would not have had a son to give. It must follow therefore that Christ was God’s “only begotten Son” before He came to earth.

If the Father did not have a Son to give then this ‘giving of a Son’ is nothing more than divine play-acting. In fact it could even be called a lie. According to Jesus, also to what is said here by Ellen White, it was God the Father who had the prerogative of deciding whether or not Christ should come to earth. It was therefore the Father’s ultimate decision that His Son should be allowed to become the ‘sacrificial lamb’ to make the atonement for mankind.

That God gave His Son as a sacrifice for sin is the core-belief of Christianity. Without this belief, Christianity is meaningless. It is therefore a subject that not only demands our fullest attention but also needs great care when being presented. To get it wrong will pervert the gospel. A correct understanding of the atonement is totally dependent on a correct understanding of the relationship between God the Father and His Son.

Those who teach that Christ is not really the Son of God are perverting what it cost God in redeeming mankind from sin. They are also perverting, in the minds of those who believe what they say, the love that God has for humanity.

The apostle Paul wrote
“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:” Romans 8:3

“He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” Romans 8:32

When expressing this great truth to his little flock, John the gospel writer put it this way

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” 1 John 4:7-11 It is only when we realize that God really did give His Son that we can say we truly understand the gospel. Any other understanding of it is a perversion. In order to make manifest God’s love in the way that we treat others we need to correctly understand what God has done through His Son. It is only when we see the ‘other person’ (whoever that may be) as someone purchased by the blood of God’s only begotten Son that we are able to treat that person as they should be treated. Christ died for everyone. He did not die only for those who will be saved. We must regard everyone as the purchase of God. There are no exceptions.

John also wrote
“Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?…He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” 1 John 5:5, 10-11

To me, the formula of the trinity doctrine simply does not allow for a literal Father/Son relationship. The Catholic concept of eternally begotten makes no sense when we consider we were made in God's image. Our children are begotten.. Sometimes only begotten. But nevertheless they come out from us. This i believe is as Christ was begotten before creation. A literal Son.
Also, and even more importantly, the trinity formula does not allow for Christ to have died. The formula demands that all 3 members of the trinity be equal in all respects, including immortality. Which means there was a part of the Son which was always in an inseparable state with the other members of the trinity... According to the formula. This Jesus never truly fully died. And if that was the case, there was only a human sacrifice, and we are still in our sins.

 

[Jay Ross]

How about finding yourselves a mirror to look into. You might be surprised as to who you will see is the heretic in it.

 

[Brakelite]

How about finding yourselves a mirror to look into. You might be surprised as to who you will see is the heretic in it.

You know Jay, I couldn't care less if I were to be labeled a heretic by the church... Any church. But I believe absolutely that truth matters. So I'm not going to be so arrogant to suppose that I couldn't possibly be wrong in the above assessment. That's what my current thinking is. If you have a scriptural view that contradicts it, I would welcome your contribution to the discussion. As it stands, your post above doesn't contribute anything much at all. Give us something to talk about and consider. My criticism above incidentally is only leveled at the creeds as devised by the church. It isn't leveled at scripture. Even less so God. So in a certain sense you are correct...I am a heretic for disagreeing with the church manual.

 

[Jay Ross]

You know Jay, I couldn't care less if I were to be labeled a heretic by the church... Any church. But I believe absolutely that truth matters. So I'm not going to be so arrogant to suppose that I couldn't possibly be wrong in the above assessment. That's what my current thinking is. If you have a scriptural view that contradicts it, I would welcome your contribution to the discussion. As it stands, your post above doesn't contribute anything much at all. Give us something to talk about and consider. My criticism above incidentally is only leveled at the creeds as devised by the church. It isn't leveled at scripture. Even less so God. So in a certain sense you are correct...I am a heretic for disagreeing with the church manual.

Brakelite, I did not reference anyone with my post. If you believe that I was speaking directly to just you, you are sadly mistaken.

Let the post stand and hopefully it will cause people to be more careful with who they call a heretic.

Shalom

 

[Brakelite]

Brakelite, I did not reference anyone with my post. If you believe that I was speaking directly to just you, you are sadly mistaken.

Let the post stand and hopefully it will cause people to be more careful with who they call a heretic.

Shalom

I can totally agree with you that far far too many are way to eager to accuse others of heresy. The letter in Revelation to the church at Pergamum is a lesson in that very thing.

KJV Revelation 2:12-16
12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

Notice that a two edged sword cuts both ways... You and your opponent.

13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

So what was their sin that offended God? Having others in their midst who taught heresy right? But look at what the Lord recommended...
16 Repent; hey what? Us?

or else I will come unto thee quickly, you'll come to us?
Yes. Remember that little counsel I told you regarding logs?

and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

"I will deal with the heretics. You deal with yourself, else you will be included among their number".

 

[theefaith]

Which we symbolize by bread and wine. He doesn't need to be resacrificed. Eternal meaning, it is finished. He did it. We are redeemed by His blood.

yes all men are redeemed!
It is NOT re-sacrificed!

there is only one bloody sacrifice of Christ!

but Christ is an eternal priest!
Heb 7:17

and a high priest heb 9:11

High priest according to the order of melchisedec heb 7:17 (not according to the royal priesthood)

so there must be low priests 1 Tim 4:14 of the same ministerial order!

the office or purpose of a priest is to offer sacrifice!

Once for all!

once on the cross bloody, but this same sacrifice is eternally offered by Christ and by his church

mal 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

unbloody sacrifice or pure offering or clean oblation!

there is no fake Christ no fake symbolic holy communion!

 

[theefaith]

Nothing new under the sun...

The self righteous, become the pious, become the hypocrites...oh, and what Momma said: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

So...who wants to claim responsibility for the 6 out of 7 churches legacy? Who are their fathers? Oh my!

Nonetheless, what is true...and foretold, is that false teachers shall enter into the church causing strong delusion, and what was to come is not what you expect--just as it is written.

Oh, yeah, and three lefts do make a right--but if you are looking the wrong way, you'll never see it coming!

he is right and he is right? They can’t both be right! You know something, you also are right!
Lol!

 

[theefaith]

When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, he replied-
“This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name..." (Matthew 6:9)

I don't see any mention of his mum in there..

and he said this is the only way to pray?
Rev 5:8

 

[amadeus]

You know Jay, I couldn't care less if I were to be labeled a heretic by the church... Any church. But I believe absolutely that truth matters. So I'm not going to be so arrogant to suppose that I couldn't possibly be wrong in the above assessment. That's what my current thinking is. If you have a scriptural view that contradicts it, I would welcome your contribution to the discussion. As it stands, your post above doesn't contribute anything much at all. Give us something to talk about and consider. My criticism above incidentally is only leveled at the creeds as devised by the church. It isn't leveled at scripture. Even less so God. So in a certain sense you are correct...I am a heretic for disagreeing with the church manual.

So am I a heretic in that sense, my friend. I cannot agree with established essentials of anyplace where I have attended regularly. visited or read about. I want to agree always with God and His Word, but how well do I understand them? How well does any man understand them? What does it take to grow closer to God?

Help us dear Lord!

 

[theefaith]

1 pet 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

1 pet 2:20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

 

[Marymog]

I am not denying history, or Christian history--but confirming it. Which you and your ilk are repeating.

You of course do not believe that, but Jesus, Peter, and Paul all warned and prophesied it--it's a scriptural fact. Which you, like those who went before, reject...and we know how that went.

Hi Scott,

You are right! Me and my ilk proudly repeat Christian history:

Historically Christianity is liturgical.
Historically Christianity accepts the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
Historically Christianity taught that baptism is necessary and saves.
Historically Christianity has taught and practiced Apostolic Succession.
Etc
Etc

Since you and your ilk generally reject these things you reject the teachings of Christ and the Apostles....and we know how that will end for you.

 

[Marymog]

1- We non-denoms follow Jesus the Son of God, but you caths follow Pope Whats-his-name, spot the difference?..

2- Jesus is ultra-simple to understand so there's nothing for non-denoms to disagree about..

1. Nope, we don't follow the Pope. He has not created a single doctrine for The Church. What man taught you that? Also, if you and your non-denom friends DON'T have a Pope like figure leading you how do you fulfill Hebrews 13:17 and Matthew 18:17?

2. If Jesus is ultra simple to understand then why so much division in Christianity? Logically you are wrong. And Scripturally you are wrong: 2 Peter 3:16

Can you now spot the difference in what you believe and what Scripture actually teaches?

 

[Marymog]

The Pope doesn't want women to be priests, and he says it's fine to pray to Mary instead of to God, so he doesn't sound very sensible to me..

As for Paul correcting people, it's our duty to set them straight-
Paul said- "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

Hey Dropship,

The Pope didn't decide if women can be priests or decide it's fine to pray to Mary instead of God. What man taught you this fallacy?

You do know that the letters to Timothy are considered pastoral letters? Do you know what that means?

 

[Marymog]

IF a leader supports gay marriage , are you gonna support it . I used that as a simple example to show you something .
I know they teach falsehoods cause it CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE . The CC is dangerous .
The problem is you cannot see this . WHILE you do know things that are true , you aint seeing THE TRUTH .
FLEE the CC my friend . I am not the enemy .

I ain't seeing the Truth according to who's Truth? Yours?

The enemy teaches opposite of Scripture. From what I have read of your post's.....you teach opposite of Scripture. With that said i know that you believe that The Church teaches opposite of Scripture. So, who is the real enemy?

 

[amigo de christo]

I ain't seeing the Truth according to who's Truth? Yours?

The enemy teaches opposite of Scripture. From what I have read of your post's.....you teach opposite of Scripture. With that said i know that you believe that The Church teaches opposite of Scripture. So, who is the real enemy?

The RCC is . now flee her chambers and hurry . Never look back . You will be prayed for as well .