What books are you currently reading?

[Matthias]

 

[Michiah-Imla]

2 Samuel 18/John 6

38% of Bible completed (Day 30).

 

[Matthias]

Returning now to the 3rd century. I’m currently reading On The Trinity, written by Novatian.

 

[Matthias]

 

[Matthias]

 

[Matthias]

I took my time reading Novatian’s treatise, On The Trinity. Novatian wasn’t required reading when I was a student. There are echoes of Tertullian and the concept of the Son having a beginning in his writing. I recommend it to trinitarian and non-trinitarian readers alike.

I’m currently reading On The Jewish Meats, a letter written by Novatian.

 

[Matthias]

 

[Mr E]

View attachment 31416

Hey-- you must have your profile set so as not to accept pm's.... anyways-- I was popping around old sites this morning and it seems TF is offline and PJ has now banned all members on WH. All members.

 

[Mr E]

If you want to dig into something interesting and deep, here's one I'm currently reading.

It was prompted by a discussion with @Waiting on him when he referenced Psalm 19.

Well actually it was the reference in Romans 1:19 which essentially quotes Psalm 19 that got me looking in this direction, but the psalmist says-

The Heavens declare the glory of God. This book by Bullinger (1837-1913) is perhaps the first 'gospel in the stars' works from which others have been sired. He's what's called an ultradispensationalist-- reckoning the ages of man in terms of the heavens, harmonizing the two.

If anyone here, you might find it of interest also. Free download.

The Witness of the Stars by E. W. Bullinger

Free kindle book and epub digitized and proofread by volunteers.

www.gutenberg.org

 

[Matthias]

I’m currently reading A Treatise Against The Heretic Novatian, written by an anonymous bishop.

 

[The Learner]

When reading a book, I check footnotes and quotes for context.

 

[The Learner]

 

[Michiah-Imla]

2 Kings 1/John 16

43% of Bible read (Day 43)

 

[Matthias]

I’m currently reading A Treatise Against The Heretic Novatian, written by an anonymous bishop.

So, what was the beef the anonymous bishop had with Novatian?

Novatian took a hard line attitude toward apostates who abandoned the faith in times of Roman persecution and then later repented. Novatian caused a schism by denying those who repented a return to the Church. The bishop made a powerful argument, imo, against Novatian in regard to this matter.

Staying in the 3rd century, I’m currently reading A Treatise On Re-Baptism. The author is unknown. (He is writing in opposition to Cyprian, who was in favor of rebaptizing repentant heretics.) My religious heritage has roots in the Anabaptist tradition. Hence my interest in this particular writing, which was previously unknown by me.

 

[Mr E]

So, what was the beef the anonymous bishop had with Novatian?

Novatian took a hard line attitude toward apostates who abandoned the faith in times of Roman persecution and then later repented. Novatian caused a schism by denying those who repented a return to the Church. The bishop made a powerful argument, imo, against Novatian in regard to this matter.

Staying in the 3rd century, I’m currently reading A Treatise On Re-Baptism. The author is unknown. (He is writing in opposition to Cyprian, who was in favor of rebaptizing repentant heretics.) My religious heritage has roots in the Anabaptist tradition. Hence my interest in this particular writing, which was previously unknown by me.

I can't help but draw a comparison.

The powerful church of Rome was essentially governmental-- law of the land in these periods, certainly authoritarian concerning all things "Christian." How easy it was for them to label anything they didn't like or agree with as "heresy" and any person a heretic in order to silence them and kill the conversation.

An anonymous complaint? The Church had it's own deep state, and leakers and unnamed sources always at the ready to do their bidding. Novatian was essentially arguing against the once saved, always saved doctrine on one hand, taking it to an extreme polarity where he believed that once abandoned, there is no return for a person who leaves the faith. While I don't agree with this position, his point was simply that if you let these flip-floppers back into the congregation, you end up with a congregation of flip-floppers. It's a fairly accurate understanding. But, isn't that what churches are? Groups of varying degrees of sinners. Novatian contended that this shouldn't be so.

Was he wrong?

 

[Matthias]

I can't help but draw a comparison.

The powerful church of Rome was essentially governmental-- law of the land in these periods, certainly authoritarian concerning all things "Christian." How easy it was for them to label anything they didn't like or agree with as "heresy" and any person a heretic in order to silence them and kill the conversation.

An anonymous complaint? The Church had it's own deep state, and leakers and unnamed sources always at the ready to do their bidding. Novatian was essentially arguing against the once saved, always saved doctrine on one hand, taking it to an extreme polarity where he believed that once abandoned, there is no return for a person who leaves the faith. While I don't agree with this position, his point was simply that if you let these flip-floppers back into the congregation, you end up with a congregation of flip-floppers. It's a fairly accurate understanding. But, isn't that what churches are? Groups of varying degrees of sinners. Novatian contended that this shouldn't be so.

Was he wrong?

I understand Novatian’s concern, and the sentiment that accompanies “we remained faithful and suffered while the heat was one; you sold out to save your skin. Now that the persecution has stopped, you want to come back. Stay where you are, you traitors!”

However, the “traitors” had acknowledged their sin, repented, served a probationary period (for lack of a better term) and gone on to prove their repentance was genuine by persevering when times of persecution returned.

Folding under pressure isn’t the unpardonable sin. Repentance should always be encouraged when people go astray, the wayward recovered, and brought back with rejoicing into the fold.

In my opinion, Novatian (a presbyter in Rome) was on the wrong side of the issue.

 

[Mr E]

I understand Novatian’s concern, and the sentiment that accompanies “we remained faithful and suffered while the heat was one; you sold out to save your skin. Now that the persecution has stopped, you want to come back. Stay where you are, you traitors!”

However, the “traitors” had acknowledged their sin, repented, served a probationary period (for lack of a better term) and gone on to prove their repentance was genuine by persevering when times of persecution returned.

Folding under pressure isn’t the unpardonable sin. Repentance should always be encouraged when people go astray, the wayward recovered, and brought back with rejoicing into the fold.

In my opinion, Novatian (a presbyter in Rome) was on the wrong side of the issue.

I wholly agree. Not with this anonymous source, but with the ultimate source- who taught the parable of the prodigal.

 

[Matthias]

I’m currently reading The Life and Passion of Cyprian, written by Pontius of Carthage aka Pontius the Deacon.

 

[Matthias]

I’m starting The Epistles of Cyprian today. After reading Pontius of Carthage, how could I not?) There are 82 of them, so this will occupy me for a while.

 

[Matthias]