Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[DHK]

Your church would probably treat him very much like the Catholic Church treated him.

That's doubtful. If the RCC treated him as a heretic or persecuted in any way, it would be considered as a compliment historically.
Baptist history is a history written in blood.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I thought the “free church movement” was about getting rid of pew fees and other financial aspects of church life in the 19th Century.

The descriptive "free church movement" has been in use by non-roman Catholic historians for some time to describe pre-reformation evangelicals.

However, it appears you equate the term with the schismatic movements of the early church. Yet the fundamental Christian doctrines, particularly those doctrines pertaining to the nature of Jesus Christ, sprang from the ecumenical councils of the early church.

Not so! The termonology may have sprung from certain post-Biblical times but not the doctrine. Those you call "schismatic" such as the "Montanists" even your own historians admit were "orthodox" in doctrine. As I said before, the evils of one or a few are simply transferred to a whole movement in order to trash them. Even Montanus did not attribute the gift of prophecy to anyone other than himself and his two prophetesses. You simply do not have suffient data to accuse the whole movement of everything Montanus is accused of.

The “free church” crowd were usually excluded from these councils because it was they who were teaching false doctrines. Fortunately they all withered away and disappeared (the gates of hell did prevail against them). They preserved nothing. The only church that has had continuity over the centuries is the Catholic Church. Why? Because Jesus promised Peter (and us) that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Circular reasoning. The heretics proclaim themselves as orthodox and the orthodox are trashed as heretics. If the Post-Nicene counsels are the evidence of what was preserved by Rome as truth then heresy has no meaning at all. The free church movement preserved the true gospel of Christ while condemning the sacramentalism and idolatrous religion of Rome.

With all due respect, your admiration for the likes of Montanus (not Montanist) is seriously misplaced.

With all due respect those who followed Montanus and even Montanus was labled a "Montanist" and the movement referred to as Montanism. I don't defend Montanus or his two prophetesses from all the charges. Those churches condemned with Montanism, like those whole groups of churches condemned as Novationists or Donatists or Paulicians or Catharists or Waldenses were simply slandered for the most part and there is evidence to indicate they were simply slandered in order to be brought under the secular condemnation. The free church movement was the holy catholic apostolic church while the apostates were in an adulterous union with the secular state and murderers of the true children of God.

 

[Zenas]

The descriptive "free church movement" has been in use by non-roman Catholic historians for some time to describe pre-reformation evangelicals.

You mean like purple cows and unicorns?

Not so! The termonology may have sprung from certain post-Biblical times but not the doctrine. Those you call "schismatic" such as the "Montanists" even your own historians admit were "orthodox" in doctrine.

That's why I called them schizmatic rather than heretecal.

As I said before, the evils of one or a few are simply transferred to a whole movement in order to trash them. Even Montanus did not attribute the gift of prophecy to anyone other than himself and his two prophetesses. You simply do not have suffient data to accuse the whole movement of everything Montanus is accused of.

I thought I focused on Montanus and not his movement, although I must say that anyone who followed a nut case like that would have to be a little squirelly. It's no wonder they died out.

Circular reasoning. The heretics proclaim themselves as orthodox and the orthodox are trashed as heretics. If the Post-Nicene counsels are the evidence of what was preserved by Rome as truth then heresy has no meaning at all. The free church movement preserved the true gospel of Christ while condemning the sacramentalism and idolatrous religion of Rome.

I can tell you what heresy is but I would probably be banned for doing so. One of the problems with debating on a board such as this is that you can't come out too strong against the basic beliefs of the management. If you do, you are seen as proselytising or otherwise damaging the purpose for which the board has been put up. So I will simply say that you are no doubt a nice person I would enjoy having as a friend. I know you are sincere in your beliefs but you are sincerely wrong. See Jeremiah 5:21.

With all due respect those who followed Montanus and even Montanus was labled a "Montanist" and the movement referred to as Montanism. I don't defend Montanus or his two prophetesses from all the charges. Those churches condemned with Montanism, like those whole groups of churches condemned as Novationists or Donatists or Paulicians or Catharists or Waldenses were simply slandered for the most part and there is evidence to indicate they were simply slandered in order to be brought under the secular condemnation. The free church movement was the holy catholic apostolic church while the apostates were in an adulterous union with the secular state and murderers of the true children of God.

Where are these movements today? All gone, just like the Hittites and the Philistines. You say there has been continuity of the "free church"? Why then did some of them adhere to doctrines that others regarded as anathema? Where are the confessions of faith of these so called "free churches"? What church today identifies with any of them? Mine certainly does not.

 

[Matt Black]

The belief that ECFs like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their Christian faith, were somehow heretical, I find totally obnoxious.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The belief that ECFs like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their Christian faith, were somehow heretical, I find totally obnoxious.

totally agree :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

That's why I called them schizmatic rather than heretecal. I thought I focused on Montanus and not his movement, although I must say that anyone who followed a nut case like that would have to be a little squirelly.

You missed my point! They were not followers of him - they were charged as followers of him because like him they demanded a Spirit regenerate membership and a holy life.

It's no wonder they died out. I can tell you what heresy is but I would probably be banned for doing so.

They did not die out. Even the Catholic Encylopedia admits that they continued to the Seventh Century into the very same geographical areas with the Novationists, Donatists and Paulicians who held the very same tenets, the latter of which continued to the ninth century under that particular term into the very same geographical area with the Catharists who in turn continued geographically in the same area holding the same tenets with the Waldeneses who in turn continued in the same geographical area with the Anabaptists many of which contained Waldenses preachers. They are called the "free" church because each of these groups were separate from Rome and liberty of conscience was a major tenet so they became a haven of freedom for other anti-Roman Catholic groups that were heretical. Modern Baptists have their roots in the Anabaptist movement in Europe and the ancient Brittins in Wales.

Of course Rome and those who swallow Roman Historians hook line an sinker ridicule the "free church" history because it has been and always willl be a threat to their "apostolic succession" heresy theory.

 

[Dr. Walter]

totally agree :thumbs:

As I said before, any unbiased reader of the so-called documents that are attributed to the so-called Early church Apostolic Fathers (they were not the "fathers" of anything but the history of error) will freely admit that they are more Apostolic in character such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius but as you continue to read there is a clear and evident transition into more and more error.

For example, these early letters speak of only two kinds of church officers "presbyters" and "deacons" and no pope and no centralized administrative church hiearchy. As you delve further into these writings an ecclesiastical system begins to arise. The seeds of this error can be found in Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius in their over emphasis upon the authority of the ordained members.

As one continues into the Ante-Nicene writings the errors and myths begin to increasingly manifest and by the time you reach Augustine you have a more developed worldly church in union with the Roman secular state and from that point forward the transformation into error increases dramatically.

Hence, the ante-nicene, nicene and Post-nicene in totality is the history of the spirit of antichrist. The true apostolic churches are first called "schismatics" and smeared by identification with individuals who are strange or did strange things and then called "heretics" and hunted down like dogs and killed by the so-called "holy" Roman Catholic church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You know, when a person cannot respond intelligently they reduce themselves to redicule. Your interpretation of my response are as flawed as your interpretations of Hislop. When truth is not your objective, error becomes your necessary food. Sad!

This is actually the basis of your argument. I've shown how little scholarly evidence he provides. Most "evidence" is based on conclusions obtained his his personal observation rather than any real understanding of the objects, religions, etc in question. I'm certain if Hislop mentioned many of his own observation to Zahi Hawaas he would be laughed at. Especially at the modern day diluge of discoveries and modern desiphering of the Ancient world.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This OP is a waste of time! It is based upon false assumptions. Philosophy and the church fathers are not the answer to the problem. Get away from the scriptures and you get away from the source of the real problem in Christendom. The problem is squarely a departure from the basic truths of scripture. Paul did not invent a new denomination, a new religion or a new system of philosophy or philosophical language. The problem is a departure frome basis essentials of the faith spelled out in child like language in the Scriptures.

Dealing with the doctrine of Biblical justification, the essence of the gospel, the differences between the kingdom, family and church of God is where the real problems are at.

We have got back to essentials and what really is the problem rather than entering into the non-authoritative land of philosophical speculation.

This post tells me you didn't even read the OP. Nowhere on this thread and I repeat Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or even alluded to "philosophy and the church fathers" as being the answer to the problems facing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Nowhere did I state that "Paul...invent(ed) a new denomination" etc... It seems you didn't understand the OP thus have spewed nonsense fight a fight that isn't even occuring. What did I acutally say? You really need to improve your reading comprehension. This is what I actually said

In order to describe spiritual truths to this class of believers educated believers made use of a science already fully developed at that time. To define truths they used the language of Philosophy. Much like today Chemist who make modern drugs to deal with alements use a well established language of chemestry that no-one speaks but is exacting in its definition which is Latin...I think the application of this had two effects 1) it helped people understand certain consepts 2) it fortified problematic consepts and carried forward in the Church. A thread was posted asking when did it all go wrong. Well, in a sence the very thing that helped spread the gospel, ie Hellenization, also modified it from how Jesus presented it to his disciples and how his disciples presented it to their followers...and turned it into a tulmutous western faith

I put in the main points so you can see what it was I was actually saying I left out the other stuff since history is problematic for you. But this is the premise of the argument. See, I can help you with your reading comprehension.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I said before, any unbiased reader of the so-called documents that are attributed to the so-called Early church Apostolic Fathers (they were not the "fathers" of anything but the history of error) will freely admit that they are more Apostolic in character such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius but as you continue to read there is a clear and evident transition into more and more error.

For example, these early letters speak of only two kinds of church officers "presbyters" and "deacons" and no pope and no centralized administrative church hiearchy. As you delve further into these writings an ecclesiastical system begins to arise. The seeds of this error can be found in Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius in their over emphasis upon the authority of the ordained members.

As one continues into the Ante-Nicene writings the errors and myths begin to increasingly manifest and by the time you reach Augustine you have a more developed worldly church in union with the Roman secular state and from that point forward the transformation into error increases dramatically.

Hence, the ante-nicene, nicene and Post-nicene in totality is the history of the spirit of antichrist. The true apostolic churches are first called "schismatics" and smeared by identification with individuals who are strange or did strange things and then called "heretics" and hunted down like dogs and killed by the so-called "holy" Roman Catholic church.

Wally,

Fanatics always have perceived legitimate reasons why they are fanatics. If I'm correct Thinkingstuff 1st wanted to elevate this conversation to how philosophy has operated as a substitute or basis for religion, if I'm reading his initial comments correctly.

As a suggestion, perhaps we should fast forward to the years of European Enlightenment & discuss more tangible issues of religious development....Surely then we have much more historical data to point to & work from. Start with Francis Bacon, Descartes, Hobbs & my favorite Spinoza.

 

[Matt Black]

They did not die out. Even the Catholic Encylopedia admits that they continued to the Seventh Century into the very same geographical areas with the Novationists, Donatists and Paulicians who held the very same tenets, the latter of which continued to the ninth century under that particular term into the very same geographical area with the Catharists who in turn continued geographically in the same area holding the same tenets with the Waldeneses who in turn continued in the same geographical area with the Anabaptists many of which contained Waldenses preachers. .

You think the Paulicians and Cathars were Christians?:laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

The seeds of this error can be found in Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius in their over emphasis upon the authority of the ordained members.

As I have said, I find the idea that Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ - in Polycarp's case quite horribly - as some kind of heretics, to be quite abhorrent and disgusting.

Hence, the ante-nicene, nicene and Post-nicene in totality is the history of the spirit of antichrist.

I'm sure the martyrs of the Early Church would rejoice to be called the antichrist

The true apostolic churches are first called "schismatics" and smeared by identification with individuals who are strange or did strange things and then called "heretics" and hunted down like dogs and killed by the so-called "holy" Roman Catholic church.

So, which Montanists, Donatists or Novatianists were killed by the Catholic Church? Bear in mind that the Catholic Church was itself persecuted until the Edict of Milan in 313, which post-dates these movements.

Your opinions are both ahistorical and revolting.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes....some in here seem to have amnesia when it comes to blood letting & both sides have been complicit. hopefully we have learned from those horrible times & can come together in Christ. Now what the original question on the OP? :wavey:

Jesus Saves

 

[Dr. Walter]

You think the Paulicians and Cathars were Christians?:laugh:

Unlike Rome I don't lump them all in one category. There were truly saved persons among those lumped into that category. The true churches of Christ could be found among them as well as others who were simply categorized under the same name.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As I have said, I find the idea that Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ - in Polycarp's case quite horribly - as some kind of heretics, to be quite abhorrent and disgusting.

As I said repeatedly, the errors are minor in these writers as compared to others as you progressively read. I did not say Polycarp or Ignatius or Clement were lost persons. I simply said that they overemphasized the authority of the ordained office. That does not make them "heretics" per se but it does introduce the errors that led to heresies.

So, which Montanists, Donatists or Novatianists were killed by the Catholic Church? Bear in mind that the Catholic Church was itself persecuted until the Edict of Milan in 313, which post-dates these movements.

Even Catholic historians admit that the Montanists, Donastists and Novationists existed after long after the union of State and church. The Catholic Encylopedia traces the earliest group (Montanists) to at least the 7th century. So the State church had plenty of time to persecute them.

Your opinions are both ahistorical and revolting.

They are "ahistorical" from Roman Catholic historian view points. They are no "ahistorical" in regard to the information that is available that many protestant historians from Lutheran (Moshiem) Presbyterian (Neander) and Baptist perspectives.

 

[Matt Black]

I see. So, let me get this straight - Gnostic dualists (the 'wolves' that Paul warned Timothy about) were Baptists. Riiiight. And in what way is that not ahistorical?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No Spinoza??? You guys are no fun :laugh:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No Spinoza??? You guys are no fun :laugh:

Wasn't he a rationalist?

Will and intellect are one and the same thing

 

[Dr. Walter]

I see. So, let me get this straight - Gnostic dualists (the 'wolves' that Paul warned Timothy about) were Baptists. Riiiight. And in what way is that not ahistorical?

Paulicians are on record for vehemently denying the charge they were Manicheans and Rome admits they denied it but continues to charge them with it anyway. Rome paints the historical picture the way they please in spite of the facts. Rome murders their opponents through the secular arm of government which they have controlled to the point of making a kings bow to their threats of excommunication. Rome lies, distorts the truth of history over and over and you choose to believe them. That is your personal choice and personal problem not mine.

 

[Zenas]

Paulicians are on record for vehemently denying the charge they were Manicheans and Rome admits they denied it but continues to charge them with it anyway. Rome paints the historical picture the way they please in spite of the facts. Rome murders their opponents through the secular arm of government which they have controlled to the point of making a kings bow to their threats of excommunication. Rome lies, distorts the truth of history over and over and you choose to believe them. That is your personal choice and personal problem not mine.

For the record, Paulicians rejected the Old Testament and refused to observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. Genuine orthodox believers, those guys. Dr. Walter, why do you find it necesary in your posts to devote a sentence or two to the issue at hand and then write a whole paragraph ranting about the evils of "Rome"?