The ECF were Pretribulational

[JonC]

...so what's the difference between heretic and apostasy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heresy is a teaching contrary to orthodox doctrine. Origen's view of the Atonement, for example, would be considered heresy by most (it is contrary to both Protestant and Catholic doctrine). Apostasy deals not with orthodox faith but renounce of religious belief (an abandonment of the Christian faith would be apostasy). All apostasy is heresy, but not all heresy is apostasy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

...so what's the difference between heretic and apostasy

What I wrote was:

The apostasy was beginning even in the time of the Apostles (Acts 20:28-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 1 John 2:18 etc.). Isaiah 8:20 applies.

I gave four examples from Scripture. If you disagree with my statement, you should deal with those.
What I mean is that right from the start there was a downgrade in doctrine which led to a whole variety of errors. For example, Ignatius of Antioch gives a good witness to the deity of Christ, but he teaches a monarchical episcopacy which sowed the seeds of the Papacy.
Justin Martyr is weak on the deity of Christ; J.W.s will quote him as someone who believed in their doctrines. He was also the first to conflate baptism with regeneration.
Irenaeus was the first (I think) to teach the fallacy of Apostolic Succession ('the Apostle John taught Polycarp; Polycarp taught me, therefore I am teaching the truth').
Cyprian was the first to teach infant baptism.
And so on.

I don't say that no one should read the ECFs. My favourites are the Letter to Diognetus, which is a wonderful witness to the doctrine of imputation, and Polycarp who shows how familiar he was with the Canon of Scripture. But we shouldn't draw our doctrine from them.[/QUOTE]

 

[Yeshua1]

One can see from the ecf what was considered orthodox. I really think you ought to rethink your statement that the church fathers were the heretics. Even today baptismal regeneration is still considered orthodox (the Protestant Lutheran and Calvinist denominations still believe in it), and I don't find any scripture to condemn the practice either. If you think about it, anyone who wilfully gets baptized and knows what it means shouldn't be unsaved, otherwise he wouldn't consent in the first place to the baptism. I really don't think there's anyone out there who would get baptized into the Christian religion without understanding what that religion is. Otherwise you're just taking a dunk in a tank of water. Do I believe that you won't be saved if you're not baptized? I'm not going to argue about that right now anyways, but there's enough leeway in the scriptures for baptismal regeneration. Check out 1 Peter 3:21. I do also think there's some Scripture that would indicate that water does not save--the thief on the cross for example. Can I still be Baptist and believe in baptismal regeneration? Yes. Am I stating that I am a baptismal regenerist? No. Haven't made up my mind yet I guess.

Anyways. The church fathers weren't the heretics. If they were, then who were the orthodox? The gnostics? Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Baptismal regeneration is a major heresy, as that denies the Gospel of Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

One can see from the ecf what was considered orthodox. I really think you ought to rethink your statement that the church fathers were the heretics. Even today baptismal regeneration is still considered orthodox (the Protestant Lutheran and Calvinist denominations still believe in it), and I don't find any scripture to condemn the practice either. If you think about it, anyone who wilfully gets baptized and knows what it means shouldn't be unsaved, otherwise he wouldn't consent in the first place to the baptism. I really don't think there's anyone out there who would get baptized into the Christian religion without understanding what that religion is. Otherwise you're just taking a dunk in a tank of water. Do I believe that you won't be saved if you're not baptized? I'm not going to argue about that right now anyways, but there's enough leeway in the scriptures for baptismal regeneration. Check out 1 Peter 3:21. I do also think there's some Scripture that would indicate that water does not save--the thief on the cross for example. Can I still be Baptist and believe in baptismal regeneration? Yes. Am I stating that I am a baptismal regenerist? No. Haven't made up my mind yet I guess.

Anyways. The church fathers weren't the heretics. If they were, then who were the orthodox? The gnostics? Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They were tiht in some areas, but really went bad in others!

 

[Yeshua1]

What I wrote was:

I gave four examples from Scripture. If you disagree with my statement, you should deal with those.
What I mean is that right from the start there was a downgrade in doctrine which led to a whole variety of errors. For example, Ignatius of Antioch gives a good witness to the deity of Christ, but he teaches a monarchical episcopacy which sowed the seeds of the Papacy.
Justin Martyr is weak on the deity of Christ; J.W.s will quote him as someone who believed in their doctrines. He was also the first to conflate baptism with regeneration.
Irenaeus was the first (I think) to teach the fallacy of Apostolic Succession ('the Apostle John taught Polycarp; Polycarp taught me, therefore I am teaching the truth').
Cyprian was the first to teach infant baptism.
And so on.

I don't say that no one should read the ECFs. My favourites are the Letter to Diognetus, which is a wonderful witness to the doctrine of imputation, and Polycarp who shows how familiar he was with the Canon of Scripture. But we shouldn't draw our doctrine from them.

[/QUOTE]
Good foir historical research, not so much for our theology!

 

[Jope]

I'm no great expert on the ECFs,

That would explain your statement below:

The apostasy was beginning even in the time of the Apostles (Acts 20:28-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 1 John 2:18 etc.). Isaiah 8:20 applies.

"The" apostasy, as in, saints reverting or backsliding? Yes. This has always been happening in the history of sainthood. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, etc. Is it any surprise we find backsliding in the centuries after the apostles then? No. Backsliding happened in their days too. Peter and Judas, to give some examples. To restrict backsliding to the church fathers is narrow minded prejudice. The Scripture you reference is nothing short of narrow minded prejudice too: acts 20:28ff is speaking of men like Marcion who used to be in the correct line of teaching and had great number of Christian followers, 2 Thessalonians 2 could not be attributed to the church fathers, same with 1 Timothy 1:18ff, which paul specifically restricts to Hymenaeus and Alexander and 1 John 2:18 is speaking of the antichrist. I don't know of anyone that would be so ignorantly daring to state that the church fathers were antichrist(s). Isaiah 8:20 doesn't support your position and doesn't disprove mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

The canon of scripture was completed when the book of revelation was penned down

Prove to me that the bible itself, and no external authority, claims this.

Did you pay attention to my statement and quotation(s) of the church fathers that claim other non-16th-century-Protestantism-books are scripture?

and any other than the 66 inspired by God were dubious and not from God,

Says who? Luther? He claimed that some of the bible wasn't inspired and questioned whether other books should be taken out of the bible. Not to mention his actual removal of some texts that the ancients considered "Scripture." Maybe it's time you lay aside the dogma you were taught in Sunday school and start thinking for yourself on these things.

and your reference source i sprobasbly from the liberal/critical schhol!

And let me guess, Sunday school taught you they were "bad guys."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Prove to me that the bible itself, and no external authority, claims this.

Did you pay attention to my statement and quotation(s) of the church fathers that claim other non-16th-century-Protestantism-books are scripture?




Says who? Luther? He claimed that some of the bible wasn't inspired and questioned whether other books should be taken out of the bible. Not to mention his actual removal of some texts that the ancients considered "Scripture." Maybe it's time you lay aside the dogma you were taught in Sunday school and start thinking for yourself on these things.



And let me guess, Sunday school taught you they were "bad guys."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Jews NEVER accepted other than the OT canon as being inspired by God, and was agreed upon those books atime of Jesus, and the early Church agreed upon thge NT canon by end of first century pretty much!

They alone witnessed to being insired, as others had false theology, inaccurate historical accounts eyc!

And liberal/critical Christians refuse to believe in what Jesus stated concerning the sceiptures and Himself!

 

[Jope]

The Jews NEVER accepted other than the OT canon as being inspired by God, and was agreed upon those books atime of Jesus, and the early Church agreed upon thge NT canon by end of first century pretty much!

They alone witnessed to being insired, as others had false theology, inaccurate historical accounts eyc!

And liberal/critical Christians refuse to believe in what Jesus stated concerning the sceiptures and Himself!

Ya there's probably no point in saying anymore to you. You're wise in your own mind and repeat your ignorant mantra based on lack of study in place of the truth. Have a good one yesh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Ya there's probably no point in saying anymore to you. You're wise in your own mind and repeat your ignorant mantra based on lack of study in place of the truth. Have a good one yesh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What I just posted is what reputable historians would also tell you!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

To those who may be interested, Irenaeus seems to have been the originator of the cult of Mary.

'Just as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel [Satan] so that she fled from God having disobeyed His word, so Mary received good news by the word of an angel, so that she might give birth to God in obeying His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, mary was persuaded to be obedient to Him, so that the virgin Mary might become an intercessor for the virgin [!] Eve. And thus, just as the human race fell into bondage to death through a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; the disobedience of a virgin has been balanced in the opposite scale by a virgin's obedience.' [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3:22:4 and 5:19:1]

 

[Covenanter]

To those who may be interested, Irenaeus seems to have been the originator of the cult of Mary.

'Just as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel [Satan] so that she fled from God having disobeyed His word, so Mary received good news by the word of an angel, so that she might give birth to God in obeying His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, mary was persuaded to be obedient to Him, so that the virgin Mary might become an intercessor for the virgin [!] Eve. And thus, just as the human race fell into bondage to death through a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; the disobedience of a virgin has been balanced in the opposite scale by a virgin's obedience.' [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3:22:4 and 5:19:1]

Irenaeus is also the originator of the 90s date for Revelation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Irenaeus is also the originator of the 90s date for Revelation.

Like most of the ECF, dead right in some, dead wrong in others!

 

[Yeshua1]

To those who may be interested, Irenaeus seems to have been the originator of the cult of Mary.

'Just as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel [Satan] so that she fled from God having disobeyed His word, so Mary received good news by the word of an angel, so that she might give birth to God in obeying His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, mary was persuaded to be obedient to Him, so that the virgin Mary might become an intercessor for the virgin [!] Eve. And thus, just as the human race fell into bondage to death through a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; the disobedience of a virgin has been balanced in the opposite scale by a virgin's obedience.' [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3:22:4 and 5:19:1]

Satan was getting that into the church early on, eh?

 

[Covenanter]

They were tiht in some areas, but really went bad in others!

If you read & corrected your own posts you would write less rubbish.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you read & corrected your own posts you would write less rubbish.

The ECF kept some of the Apostolic theology, but really distorted it in others!

 

[Jope]

To those who may be interested, Irenaeus seems to have been the originator of the cult of Mary.

'Just as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel [Satan] so that she fled from God having disobeyed His word, so Mary received good news by the word of an angel, so that she might give birth to God in obeying His word. And if Eve disobeyed God, mary was persuaded to be obedient to Him, so that the virgin Mary might become an intercessor for the virgin [!] Eve. And thus, just as the human race fell into bondage to death through a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin; the disobedience of a virgin has been balanced in the opposite scale by a virgin's obedience.' [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3:22:4 and 5:19:1]

For one, that's not properly cited, for another, that quote is not saying what you think it's saying and it's in no way erroneous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

For one, that's not properly cited, for another, that quote is not saying what you think it's saying and it's in no way erroneous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think the Church of rome would disagree with you!