Eliyahu said:
Your source, please.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Waldes of Lyons' Profession of Faith
- Thread starter CarpentersApprentice
- Start date
Your source, please.
D28guy said:
And it also amazes me the lengths to which people will go to try and show that there was an Alternative Church for 1500 years using faux history and calling blatant heretics 'Christian'.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
"One man's meat is another man's poison" says the adage. What one person calls "heresy", another calls "truth" and vice-versa. So who decides that the heretics are heretics? In the West, Roman Catholicism held sway for hundreds of years, and that system would refer to anyone who disagreed with it as "heretical". For instance, the "Catholic Encyclopedia", in its article on the filioque controversy, says:
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque. On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.
And back in July this year, we heard (or heard reports of) the pope saying that if a church was not Roman Catholic, it was not a proper church! The Times, on 11th July this year carried a report which began:
If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians
The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as “not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outling the “defects” of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
The document said that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added.
It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them”, said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ”.
The Church you claim doesn't exists is called the Eastern Orthodox Church…the Christian faith as taught by the Early Fathers of the Church and which has been preserved and practiced within the spiritual life of the Orthodox Christian Churches around the world.D28guy said:
The Orthodox Christian Church is evangelical, but not Protestant, it is Orthodox but not Jewish, it is not Non-Denominational, it is pre-Denominational. It is believed, preserved, defended, taught and died for the faith of the Apostles for 2,000 years.
-
David, you raise several points in your post, which I will attempt to deal with in turn.
Firstly, just because a religious group is 'not Catholic' in the first millenium or so of Church history doesn't make it Christian. The Arians, for example, were 'not Catholic' but were heretics because they denied the Trinity. It's also not correct that Rome was the 'only Christian show in town' during those years: the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and, later, Constantinople were around as checks and balances to that of Rome; these Patriarchates likewise agreed with the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) that groups such as the Bogomils, Paulicians, Cathars/Albigenses were gnostic heretics, without waiting for or seeking the Pope's approval; indeed the Bogomils and Paulicians were far more of a problem for those Eastern Patriarchates than they were for the Pope (the Cathars-Albigensians were the other way round).
Secondly, +++Benedict's recent ecclesiological pronouncements are nothing new - the Vatican has consistently asserted that only in full communion with the Roman See does a/ the Church exist in its fullness. Now you and I doubtless disagree with that assertion, but this can be traced back to Vatican II documents such as Lumen Gentium and more recent dogmatic pronouncements such as Dominus Iesus, authored largely by +++Benedict when he was still Cardinal Rottweiller. In asserting this, however, Rome does not state that salvation is not found in those other denominations, or 'ecclesial communities' as they so charmingly put it; indeed, the Vatican positively states that the more a Church resembles the Catholic Church (eg: if it has bishops and sacraments), the more of a 'Church' it is and the more likely that salvation is to be found within it. That's rather bad news for you Baptists, who find themselves quite a way down in the pecking order in this ecclesiastical hierarchy but rather better news for us Anglicans, according to Rome!
Firstly, just because a religious group is 'not Catholic' in the first millenium or so of Church history doesn't make it Christian. The Arians, for example, were 'not Catholic' but were heretics because they denied the Trinity. It's also not correct that Rome was the 'only Christian show in town' during those years: the Patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and, later, Constantinople were around as checks and balances to that of Rome; these Patriarchates likewise agreed with the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) that groups such as the Bogomils, Paulicians, Cathars/Albigenses were gnostic heretics, without waiting for or seeking the Pope's approval; indeed the Bogomils and Paulicians were far more of a problem for those Eastern Patriarchates than they were for the Pope (the Cathars-Albigensians were the other way round).
Secondly, +++Benedict's recent ecclesiological pronouncements are nothing new - the Vatican has consistently asserted that only in full communion with the Roman See does a/ the Church exist in its fullness. Now you and I doubtless disagree with that assertion, but this can be traced back to Vatican II documents such as Lumen Gentium and more recent dogmatic pronouncements such as Dominus Iesus, authored largely by +++Benedict when he was still Cardinal Rottweiller. In asserting this, however, Rome does not state that salvation is not found in those other denominations, or 'ecclesial communities' as they so charmingly put it; indeed, the Vatican positively states that the more a Church resembles the Catholic Church (eg: if it has bishops and sacraments), the more of a 'Church' it is and the more likely that salvation is to be found within it. That's rather bad news for you Baptists, who find themselves quite a way down in the pecking order in this ecclesiastical hierarchy but rather better news for us Anglicans, according to Rome!
CarpentersApprentice said:
I would check with the Library of U of T here.
But it seems to me that the author makes a hasty conclusion without any grounds, just based on his own logic, without any defense from the claimer. He says the documents makes the teachings on the Antichrist than the doctrine of Purgatory earlier, then use the future tense for the AntiChrist. The doctrine about the Antichrist is indeed earlier as it is shown in Epistle 2 Thessalonians, but he will appear in the future. Theory of Purgatory is taught in later centuries.
When I read the article, the author seems to have very limited sights. He claims that the style of the writings are the Presbyterian style of 16 century, the language is not antique and so on. These have to be verified further. If the documents was an exact copy of a catechism of 17 century, then it can be very much understandable that one should conclude the document is a forgery. If one found, Samuel Morland mistook the 17 c catechism as the 12 century one, it could be more reasonable. It is like poisoning the well by claiming Morland was a liar who manufactured a document. Indeed, we have to rely on God believing that God knows everything. God will judge who tells the lies or makes the false accusation based on their reasoning or agenda.
The whole process of his reasoning shows quite narrow mindedness. Relying on such comment, if one conclude the document claimed by a reliable person, it is like a Judgment by Default, in the absence of any advocator for it.
If you read so many articlces on the Believers outside RCC before 1517, you will find they are not standing on a few evidences. I would not conclude any final judgment.
Last edited:
As I said, it was a story on a certain booklet like tracts. But it is quite plausible, considering the story about the Novatians, Donatists, etc. when their opponents pursued the bigger building, regarded the larger multitude of attendants by accepting and tolerating the apostates as the success of the ministry and the fullness of Holy Spirit. So, I believe it is a real story.Matt Black said:
Even today, there are many so-called Christians pursuing such standards of success in the evangelism especially among the protestant churches such as Pentecostal, Presbyterian etc, though their style has been more streamlined and sophisticated.
So, not a contemporary primary source, then, but something you might have read somewhere in a tract. Fine, that's all I needed to know.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Matt Black said:
Thank you for your reply Matt. I didn't mean to give the impression that I believed that all non-(Roman) Catholic religious groups at any time were necessarily Christian. But the problem remains of who decides which "groups" were heretical. You have argued elsewhere against "sola scriptura", which leaves us with lots of different groups claiming to be Christian, but teaching things which are diametricallly opposed to one another!
I agree that Benedict's pronouncement is nothing new. I don't agree that it is "bad news for baptists" - they don't tend to think in terms of "pecking orders" and "Ecclesiastical hierarchies"
.As I have said, sola Scriptura does (inevitably) create disparate groups of Christians believing things diametrically opposed to each other. You ask 'who decides what is heretical'; my answer would be that given by the Church for its first millenium at least: all the bishops in succession to the Apostles appointed by Christ as God-ordained representatives of the whole Church.
Just one of the many things that caused me to search for the New Testament Church was the issue or question of heresy. For example on what basis and by what authority can the non-denominational Protestants and churches call anyone a heretic?
I suspect the answer would be as, It’s not what the Bible teaches-which still leaves the door wide open for Arianism, Sabellianism, etc.
-
I suspect the answer would be as, It’s not what the Bible teaches-which still leaves the door wide open for Arianism, Sabellianism, etc.
-
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Which church, Matt? How do you even know that the idea of apostolic succession is right, or that the notions of bishops (in the sense used in the Anglican church and other episcopal churches) being men responsible for a "diocese" of local churches is right?Matt Black said:
Matt,
Completly false. They have different convictions regarding SOME things. That is perfectly normal and not necesarrily a problem. But...no matter the denomination...we are all brothers and sisters and co-workers in the harvest.
The "Church" is all of the born again people. Not a specific counterfeit organisation with their finely robed hierarchial clerics.
God bless,
Mike
Completly false. They have different convictions regarding SOME things. That is perfectly normal and not necesarrily a problem. But...no matter the denomination...we are all brothers and sisters and co-workers in the harvest.
The "Church" is all of the born again people. Not a specific counterfeit organisation with their finely robed hierarchial clerics.
God bless,
Mike
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Matt Black said:
Exactly, and I would add (as I'm sure Matt would) that the criteria by which "all the bishops in succession to the Apostles" have recognized/decided/determined what is 'heretical' is that which has failed the test of "universality, antiquity, and consent" (as described by St. Vincent of Lerins). By this criteria the Church has been able to determine what formulas/doctrines are consistent with the faith once received (ie are legitimate clarifications of what she has always believed)--such as the Conciliar Trinitarian and Christological defintions, for example--and which ones are not (eg. Arianism, Sabellianism, adoptionism, docetism, monophysitism, Nestorianism, etc)
Last edited by a moderator:
In terms of RCC or any other Catholics ( like COE ), are the followings the heretics even though they believe in Trinity, Creation, Heaven and Hell, the Second coming of Jesus Christ.
1. Reject Mass as they believe that the Sacrifice was completed at the Cross.
2. Reject Infant Baptism but perform only Believers Baptism
3. Reject Purgatory
4. Believe in Sol Scriptura
5. Reject Transubstantiation.
6. Reject the Encyclical that there is No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church.
Are these enough for you to conclude that they are Heretics?
1. Reject Mass as they believe that the Sacrifice was completed at the Cross.
2. Reject Infant Baptism but perform only Believers Baptism
3. Reject Purgatory
4. Believe in Sol Scriptura
5. Reject Transubstantiation.
6. Reject the Encyclical that there is No Salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church.
Are these enough for you to conclude that they are Heretics?
Last edited:
Because that is what the Undivided Church of the first millenium, established by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, has always taught. Now, if you want to deny that that was a True Church(TM) then you must also deny its decisions: out therefore goes the Trinity, orthodox Christology etc and you might as well trundle off to your local JW Kingdom Hall, as they - based on sola Scriptura, don't forget! - have clearly got it right.David Lamb said:
Matt,
That undivided church you speak of was a paganised counterfiet organisation filled with blasphemy, idolatry, and Godless oppression that came into being 300-400 years after Christ.
And during that millineium God was NEVER without His "church"...outside of the counterfeit.
Nonsense. The truth of the triune nature of God comes straight from Gods scriptures.
Sound teaching regarding Christ comes straight from the scriptures.
They clearly have it wrong. The scriptures say completly different than they do regarding who Christ is, and the basis for our justification.
Nice try.
Mike
That undivided church you speak of was a paganised counterfiet organisation filled with blasphemy, idolatry, and Godless oppression that came into being 300-400 years after Christ.
And during that millineium God was NEVER without His "church"...outside of the counterfeit.
Nonsense. The truth of the triune nature of God comes straight from Gods scriptures.
Sound teaching regarding Christ comes straight from the scriptures.
They clearly have it wrong. The scriptures say completly different than they do regarding who Christ is, and the basis for our justification.
Nice try.
Mike
Oh, come on, Mike! You really expect me to believe that garbage? Where was this Alternative Church(TM), then? Show it to me. Produce evidence - and I don't mean any of that Trail of Blood ahistorical clap-trap; that's been amply demonstrated to be a bogus (counterfeit if you want to use that word) view of Church history. I want to see primary source documents from the time you claim this Alternative Church existed.
Catholics believe the sacrifice was completed at the Cross too. Anglicans are ambivalent concerning the concept of the 'sacrifice of the Mass'. To answer your question, therefore, since the Undivided Church believed the sacrifice was completed, Christians who believe likewise are not heretics.Eliyahu said:
Not heretics so much as mistaken as rejecting both Scripture and Tradition on this point.
Ditto.
. Mistaken but not heretical
They are correct to reject this overformulation of the Real Presence, as this was never a doctrine of the Undivided Church, but incorrect in so far as they may reject RP as that has been universally held from the earliest times.
They are correct to do this in so far as Lumen Gentium (for I believe that is the document to which you refer) means by "the Holy Catholic Church" only those who are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but incorrect if LG means by that term "the whole of Christendom".