Hey check out some stuff that Ignatius said. Ignatius reportedly lived somewhere between 30 - 107 AD (interesting how he's never mentioned in scripture). It is said that he was a bishop in Antioch, that is, a Catholic bishop. In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes,
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people]also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. (The Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. I, p. 90, chap. VIII, entitled "LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP")
Of course nothing should be done without the BIshop, the Bishop has to stay in-the-know about what's going on in people's lives and what they're thinking and believing. <_<
. . so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ. (ibid., p. 58, chap. XX)
So the antidote that keeps me from dying is obeying the bishop with an undivided (a.k.a. unquestioning) mind? Hmmm, I thought the shed blood of Christ was the medicine of immortality.
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. (ibid., p. 89, chap. VII)
I incur death by not believing in the Eucharist? Please. <_<
He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience. (ibid., p. 69, chap. VII)
<_<
It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (ibid., p. 90, chap. VIII)
Boy oh boy, it's getting thicker in here. It is not right to have a love-feast without the bishop? Of course not, him being the MOG, he has to be first in line and make sure he sits at the head of the table. As long as I please the MOG, I'm pleasing to God.
It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. (ibid., chap. IX)
And here's the final card he plays. "Make sure you reverence ME and if you do anything without my knowledge, the adversary's gonna get you!"
In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes,
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. (ibid., p. 51, chap. VI)
Hmmm, look at the bishop as the Lord Himself. And who's the bishop? Well he is, of course. <_<
Hey check out some stuff that Ignatius said. Ignatius reportedly lived somewhere between 30 - 107 AD (interesting how he's never mentioned in scripture). It is said that he was a bishop in Antioch, that is, a Catholic bishop. In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes,
Of course nothing should be done without the BIshop, the Bishop has to stay in-the-know about what's going on in people's lives and what they're thinking and believing. <_<
So the antidote that keeps me from dying is obeying the bishop with an undivided (a.k.a. unquestioning) mind? Hmmm, I thought the shed blood of Christ was the medicine of immortality.
I incur death by not believing in the Eucharist? Please. <_<
<_<
Boy oh boy, it's getting thicker in here. It is not right to have a love-feast without the bishop? Of course not, him being the MOG, he has to be first in line and make sure he sits at the head of the table. As long as I please the MOG, I'm pleasing to God.
And here's the final card he plays. "Make sure you reverence ME and if you do anything without my knowledge, the adversary's gonna get you!"
In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes,
Hmmm, look at the bishop as the Lord Himself. And who's the bishop? Well he is, of course. <_<
Perhaps you could point out in the Bible where he was wrong...where scripture contradicts him.
Rather than just doing the typical TWI act of mocking what they don't understand.
In regards to this passage:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
I suggest you look at this section of scripture:
1Cr 11:27-29 (RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
And I could do the same for the majority of his other statements...but I just don't have that much time nowadays.
I suggest that you consider actually learning something about others' beliefs before mocking them. This board has people from a whole host of belief systems...from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to Marcionites to Latter Day Saints to Pagans of various flavors. I think I can speak for the majority here when I say that we mostly don't mind having our belief systems questioned, we don't even mind having our belief systems challenged (well...some people who still subscribe to the twi mindset might disagree on that point), but mocking them is generally considered to be inappropriate.
Mocking generally gets more and more folks to hit the "ignore" button.
Just a friendly hint.
yes Jesus Christ and the 12 apostels are the true church fathers
all others are just false
that why I read books like the Gnostic books and others
rock was build on --------- not the Roman Catholic church
but some of them wrote great books too
I like this subject
Roy, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your response.
You have found a forum here where you aren't mocked. Yet you support mockery?
By the way, Roy, what is your opinion of Matthias? (Not Matthew, but Matthias)
You also need to understand, that "apostolic succession" was very important in the early church. In order to keep the doctrine, pure and uncorrupted, in the early church, they listened to the apostles - those who had been with Christ personally, and of course Paul, who saw him.
This was important because, let's say, I didn't like the way your fellowship was running, I could write an epistle, and say it was from Paul, or Peter, or whoever - i.e, palm myself off as one of the originals, to get people to do what I thought was best. There were hundreds of these fake epistles written over time.
It was terribly important, as the apostles died, for the next generation of leaders to have known these original men, who walked with Jesus. Apostolic sucession kept the "true" doctrine - as best they knew it, alive.
There is a reason for councils, etc. To debate what was correct and what wasn't. To keep the church from corruption.
Your mockery denotes your ignorance. Maybe you should do your own study, read some books outside of TWI, get a background of what was happening instead of following in VP's ignorant footsteps and mocking.
As I have delved more and more into other Christian circles to hear what they have to share and from listening to Christian radio, it is very apparent that the church "fathers" have had such an impact on Christian doctrine.
I have one simple question? Who the hell are these guys that they are so special that all of Christianity respects their views and interpretations?
The simple answer: Because there are people who care more about politics (i.e. what looks good) than the truth. Of course these "church fathers" are very special to those who only care about what looks good.
As I have delved more and more into other Christian circles to hear what they have to share and from listening to Christian radio, it is very apparent that the church "fathers" have had such an impact on Christian doctrine.
I have one simple question? Who the hell are these guys that they are so special that all of Christianity respects their views and interpretations?
So a bunch of church fathers get together at some council and decide what Christians are going to believe as truth and what is heresy? Of course none of the councils conclusions as to what is the truth ever conflicted with their own views, only others whose doctrine was not theirs.
This is pretty typical isn't it? "I have the truth and we have decided that YOU are a heretic, we're not heretics, but YOU are". How convenient.
Who are these people that God gave them some sort of special revelation as to what the proper interpretation of the scriptures are?
My dad laughs at them too. He calls them the "after the fact boys". And rightly so. These church fathers came decades and centuries after the first century Christians had long been dead.
You want to know who the church fathers are? How about Christ first and foremost (I will build my church). Peter, Paul, John, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas....they're the church fathers, not these pre-Roman Catholic people who gave a mandate as to what will be acceptable as the truth.
What a bunch of losers. If they were even born again, at best they were flawed, fallen men, who need to study and seek and pray and meditate for the understanding just like the rest of everyone else. And like everyone else, they were subject to personal bias and the heavy hand of the flesh in their own interpretations.
God shows in the scripture that Paul was a great believer. The scripture tells me Peter was a great believer. But once I get to the end of the book of Revelation and then at the bottom of the page it says, "The End"....that's the truth of the matter. All those who came after that time period are not commented on by God. So to assume they were so spiritually keen is very dangerous.
If God is so mysterious (as they will often say), then what made them think that they're perspective on God was so accurate?
I hear a lot of people on GS saying to look at a man's life, look at his fruit to know whether he is a disciple of Christ.
What fruit do I see from the church fathers? Hmmm, not much except a bunch of mysticism (which is why present day RC's are so ritual and mystical oriented), Aristotelian philosophy......and oh yeah, let's not forget about BURNING OTHER BELIEVERS TO DEATH FOR NOT AGREEING WITH THEIR COUNCIL'S CONCLUSIONS. Who the hell ever gave them the authority to do that? Only themselves.
Nothing but losers, the whole bunch of them.
One need not necessarily agree with the views and actions of the Church Fathers to derive much invaluable information from them concerning the history and development of early Christianity; they also comprise a wealth of information concerning movements and beliefs which eventually became largely superceded. Without their writings we would know very little. In fact, it is my view that through a careful review of scriptural citations throughout their works, can enable one to reconstruct an earlier state of the New Testament books than are not available through surviving NT manuscripts. Critical NT editions such as Aland-Nestle include cross references to "Patristic" citations.
The Church Fathers btw were not all homogenous in their views or their manner of expressions.
Tertullian, for example, has quite a sense of humor when writing against Marcion.
Epiphanius, on the other hand, strikes me a tad mean-spirited and hot-headed.
Whereas the Syrian St. Ephraim has a very eloquent style, even seemingly adjusting his tone accordingly to whom he is addressing.
You failed to mention, btw, which recension of St. Ignatius you quoted - the longer version of his epistles, or the shorter?
If the Church Fathers be "losers" then you are a bigger fool, because you are dependant upon the very version of the NT canon which they (and/or those among
them) had in fact a hand in ultimately producing. The canon of the NT which you read and stake your faith in today comprises the outcome of all their work.
There were no leather-bound "Companion Bibles" at the turn of the second century. It was the Church Fathers and their contemporaries which produced the
canon which came down to us. Consider, for example, St. Jerome.
The NT was not born in a vacuum, or isolated from views and events and even personalities which surrounded its production.
For this the writings of the Church Fathers are essential.
You will not arrive anywhere near "first century" Christianity without them.
I was (one of those words we can't say here) and that anger spilled over into my views of all Christianity and any set of organized religion. The more I learned, the more I saw that there is a much, much bigger picture than I could even imagine. There was a huge political agenda and power-play behind much of what we find in religions today.
Just like TWI, there were wonderful men and women who worked within the confines of the political climate and religious leaders fighting for power. I understand very, very little of it and have lost interest in trying to, but I'm okay with that. I just enjoy the bits and pieces I glean from our resident experts here.
I do recommend, if you haven't already, "The Origin of Satan" and "The Gnostic Gospels" ... well, anything by Elaine Pagels. The Nag Hammadi Scrolls and the other ancient scrolls that are being translated give a completely different picture of Christianity and beliefs throughout history. It's just fascinating to me.
The History Channel's "Banned From the Bible" is also extremely enlightening as to the history of Christianity, the politics and power plays influencing what we have today.
And, Mark, please don't get angry :) a book that's fiction, but a great "light" insight into the corruption and struggle for power in the church is Ken Follet's "The Pillars of the Earth"
There have always been "bad guys" and "good guys" and thank goodness for the "good guys".
Great points, Sunesis ! Another thing to consider is the value of historical proximity for modern Christianity. Think about the attention archeologists and historians give to any artifact of their target period. These artifacts provide a peek into the past through someone else's eyes. In the case of the early church fathers – those who were so close temporally/culturally to the birth of Christianity – through their writings we may get a clearer picture of the "raw data" of the Christian faith, the impact/experience of living so close to ground zero, and the earliest stages of doctrinal developments which I think would be invaluable – being uncluttered or tainted by any formalized theological systems.
Lone Wolf McQuade – your method of assessing church history has that God-taught-VPW-the-Word-like-it hasn't-been-known-since-the-first-century viewpoint written all over it.
This was important because, let's say, I didn't like the way your fellowship was running, I could write an epistle, and say it was from Paul, or Peter, or whoever - i.e, palm myself off as one of the originals, to get people to do what I thought was best. There were hundreds of these fake epistles written over time.
It was terribly important, as the apostles died, for the next generation of leaders to have known these original men, who walked with Jesus. Apostolic sucession kept the "true" doctrine - as best they knew it, alive.
That may seem and perhaps it even sounds like a good answer. However the only problem with that answer as I see it is, even those who were the closest to Paul had already forsaken him. (See 2 Tim. 4:10) One of the reasons Paul wrote to Timothy was to let him know of those who had forsaken him, and also to let him know that only Luke was with him (see v.11)
Here's a question that needs to be asked: Just how in the world did Titus end up being in Dalmatia (see 2 Tim. 4:10) when Paul had originally sent Titus to Crete for the purpose of ordaining elders? (Compare that section in 2 Timothy to: Titus 1:4,5) Apparently there must have been a "break down" in the fellowship among these very early church leaders. That is one of the reasons I don't buy the "Apostolic sucession" bit as a key for keeping "true doctrine" alive. There are other methods, but they have little or nothing to do with apostolic succession that some people just want to palm off.
There is a reason for councils, etc. To debate what was correct and what wasn't. To keep the church from corruption.
There might be a reason for church councils, but church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine. The council at Nicaea and the resulting creed of Nicaea (or Nicene creed) and the debate between the bishops, Constantine and Arius is a prime example. The doctrine explicitly stating Jesus as God was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by church bishops, yet their position (as well as Constatine's) on Jesus being God was no more correct than Arius' position. Although Arius did not believe Jesus to be God, his position was just as incorrect as Constantine's and the bishops at that council, as Arius himself did not hold to the belief Jesus Christ was God's only begotton son either - anymore than Constantine did, or the other bishops at that council. They all may have mouthed Jesus Christ was God's son, but then that phrase meant something different to everyone that was present at that council.
If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter. That is why I simply don't buy the line that the "reason's for councils is to debate what is correct and what isn't correct to keep the church from corruption" jive is the truth, anymore than that "Aposotolic succession" jive being the way to the truth either. There is a way to the truth, but it certainly isn't through man made church councils and their lousy apostolic successions! In fact, the whole RC church was built on all of that. You can't fool too many people today on how corrupt the RC church has become either.
I am not a catholic, and never have been and certainly never will be. There were too many cults, disagreements, gnosticism, etc. going around very shortly after Christ's death. That's why it was imperative to be instructed by those who had been with him and knew him personally. In the early church, only those who had been with Christ, or later, those who had been with those who had been with him and so on were considered authorities.
Of course there is bound to be politics when you get religious people together.
The point is, those early church fathers kept Christianity from becoming an irrelevant cult and/or dying out altogether.
You may hate them, but good did come from them also.
That may seem and perhaps it even sounds like a good answer. However the only problem with that answer as I see it is, even those who were the closest to Paul had already forsaken him. (See 2 Tim. 4:10) One of the reasons Paul wrote to Timothy was to let him know of those who had forsaken him, and also to let him know that only Luke was with him (see v.11)
Here's a question that needs to be asked: Just how in the world did Titus end up being in Dalmatia (see 2 Tim. 4:10) when Paul had originally sent Titus to Crete for the purpose of ordaining elders? (Compare that section in 2 Timothy to: Titus 1:4,5) Apparently there must have been a "break down" in the fellowship among these very early church leaders. That is one of the reasons I don't buy the "Apostolic sucession" bit as a key for keeping "true doctrine" alive. There are other methods, but they have little or nothing to do with apostolic succession that some people just want to palm off.
There might be a reason for church councils, but church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine. The council at Nicaea and the resulting creed of Nicaea (or Nicene creed) and the debate between the bishops, Constantine and Arius is a prime example. The doctrine explicitly stating Jesus as God was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by church bishops, yet their position (as well as Constatine's) on Jesus being God was no more correct than Arius' position. Although Arius did not believe Jesus to be God, his position was just as incorrect as Constantine's and the bishops at that council, as Arius himself did not hold to the belief Jesus Christ was God's only begotton son either - anymore than Constantine did, or the other bishops at that council. They all may have mouthed Jesus Christ was God's son, but then that phrase meant something different to everyone that was present at that council.
If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter. That is why I simply don't buy the line that the "reason's for councils is to debate what is correct and what isn't correct to keep the church from corruption" jive is the truth, anymore than that "Aposotolic succession" jive being the way to the truth either. There is a way to the truth, but it certainly isn't through man made church councils and their lousy apostolic successions! In fact, the whole RC church was built on all of that. You can't fool too many people today on how corrupt the RC church has become either.
It may benefit you to look into the biblical definition of "Apostle" – having the unique role of being the only office authorized by God to write the New Testament. It would seem appropriate that once the documents were written their function would serve more as guardians…keepers of true doctrine – a charge passed on to any successors vested by God with this foundational gift to a young church. Here's a link to a thread I started that gets into their distinctive authority - the Apostles, Prophets and prophecy thread
I think it would be worth your time to do some research on it – and I recommend looking at reputable books by real scholars. Your post has that familiar lament of VPW's egocentric view of church history and church government. He had that man-of-god-for-the-world mentality – everything revolved around the primacy of PFAL. And just as the first century world failed Paul so to our modern world has failed VPW.
It seems contradictory [and presumptuous] that you would claim that "church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine" and then say "If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter." How many church councils have you studied? Did you work up statistics on what issues were addressed to show percentages of content? And did you check any reference material other than VPW's hackneyed version of the Council of Nicaeain Jesus Christ is not God? It appears you have some presuppositions when it comes to assessing church councils.
But, Sunesis, most of the Bible, not even the Gospels, are proven (or even believed) to be written by people who actually walked the earth with Jesus. :unsure:
1Cr 11:27-29 (RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
And your point is?
Roy,
God loves you and so do I. :-)
Markomalley said to you...
"Roy, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your response."
Don't listen to him Roy, you're right on the money.
What The Hey, you said...
That is why I simply don't buy the line that the "reason's for councils is to debate what is correct and what isn't correct to keep the church from corruption" jive is the truth, anymore than that "Aposotolic succession" jive being the way to the truth either. There is a way to the truth, but it certainly isn't through man made church councils and their lousy apostolic successions! In fact, the whole RC church was built on all of that. You can't fool too many people today on how corrupt the RC church has become either.
Excellent! Well said.
Sunesis, you said...
I am not a catholic, and never have been and certainly never will be. There were too many cults, disagreements, gnosticism, etc. going around very shortly after Christ's death. That's why it was imperative to be instructed by those who had been with him and knew him personally. In the early church, only those who had been with Christ, or later, those who had been with those who had been with him and so on were considered authorities.
That's just it. There is no evidence at all that these so-called fathers were ever around Jesus or around anyone who was with Jesus (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) Therefore, I cannot give them "the benefit of the doubt" and assume that they ever were.
The point is, those early church fathers kept Christianity from becoming an irrelevant cult and/or dying out altogether.
They did not keep Christianity going. Christ did. Christianity had no chance of "dying out" because Jesus Christ is not a failure.
T-Bone, you said...
keepers of true doctrine – a charge passed on to any successors vested by God
The keeper of true doctrine is Jesus Christ. I have no proof at all that God had any stock in these so-called fathers.
It's so interesting that you will rail and rail on VPW and yet just from my quotes from one man (Ignatius), it is clear he taught the same bondage, people-controlling type of dogmas. Northing's OK and you serve Satan if you do anything for God outside of their approval. Disgusting.
TheInvisibleDan, you said...
The NT was not born in a vacuum, or isolated from views and events and even personalities which surrounded its production.
For this the writings of the Church Fathers are essential.
You will not arrive anywhere near "first century" Christianity without them.
I will not arrive anywhere near first century Christian understanding without them? This ludicrous.
Psalm 25:9
He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.
God teaches those who are meek. You don't need the church fathers to understand the scriptures. A meek heart and and desire to know the truth and a perseverance to find wisdom is required and it's God who teaches them HIS WAY.
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
The spirit of truth is what guides one to the truth. God gave me spirit so I could know HIM personally.
Diligent study, a meek heart, faithfulness in prayer, and the spirit of truth is all that is necessary to find the truth. I am not lost without "them".
Took this from the following://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm
In 380, the Roman Christian Emperor Theodosius passed a decree that read:
"We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
-- Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History
In 317 Constantine's Roman Christian sectarians in Carthage filled the well outside the main Donatist [non-Roman Christian] church with the bodies of their Christian opponents.
In 333 AD Constantine issued edicts against "Arius, wicked and impious," forbidding his teaching and even outlawing owning the Arian version of the New Testament.
In 382, in Egypt, celebrating Easter on the day set aside by the local non-Roman Christian sect was punishable by death.
In 383, in Spain, Urbanica was stoned to death and her bishop Priscillian was executed for their non-Roman Christian beliefs.
The first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, after having many of his close relatives put to death, convened this Council to determine which of the Christian factions with opposing ideas on the matter of the nature of Jesus should be considered orthodoxy:....
The burning question of the council was the argument between Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius claimed Jesus was essentially distinct from the Father, having been created ex nihilo by the latter. Alexander, however, claimed
"as God is eternal, so is his Son — when the Father, then the Son — the Son is present in God without birth, ever-begotten, an unbegotten-begotten."
By a packed vote, Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled. Three years later, however, Constantine ... recalled Arius to Constantinople. On the very day Arius was to reenter the Cathedral in triumph, his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy, obviating any need to redefine orthodoxy. The orthodox considered it a miracle; the Arians knew it was murder.
In time, the rival doctrines of Arius were declared a heresy. For this, Arianism was persecuted out of existence: since the Northern tribes and many others belonged to this Christian sect, the mainstream Church persecuted the highly numerous Arians to their deaths.
Whenever a vestige of this early heretical Christian sect resurfaced, it would be instantly suppressed. 16th century Protestant England, for instance, burnt an Arian to death.
"Ecumenical" Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431): St. Cyril, the Pope of Alexandria, bribed enough bishops to be able to convene the Council before the arrival of the Patriarch of Antioch, whose opposition he feared. Without opposition from the delegation from Antioch it was a simple matter to condemn one Nestorius as a heretic, and to proclaim the Virgin Mary to be theotokos, or "mother of god."
Such were the means by which truth was determined in the orthodox Catholic Church.
I guess I should list some Scripture as the basis for my statements in post # 13, regarding the role of gift ministries and guardianship of the divine revelation that was given to them:
Ephesians 2:19, 20 NASB
19 So then you are no longer (BI)strangers and aliens, but you are (BJ)fellow citizens with the saints, and are of (BK)God's household,
20having been (BL)built on (BM)the foundation of (BN)the apostles and prophets, (BO)Christ Jesus Himself being the (BP)corner stone,
Ephesians 4:11-16 NASB
11And He (V)gave (W)some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as (X)evangelists, and some as pastors and (Y)teachers,
12 (Z)for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of (AA)the body of Christ;
13until we all attain to (AB)the unity of the faith, and of the (AC)knowledge of the Son of God, to a (AD)mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the (AE)fullness of Christ.
14As a result, we are (AF)no longer to be children, (AG)tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by (AH)craftiness in (AI)deceitful scheming;
15but speaking the truth (AJ)in love, we are to (AK)grow up in all aspects into Him who is the (AL)head, even Christ,
16from whom (AM)the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself (AN)in love.
I Timothy 6:20, 21 NASB
20(BB)Timothy, guard (BC)what has been entrusted to you, avoiding (BD)worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--
21which some have professed and thus (BE)gone astray from (BF)the faith (BG)Grace be with you.
II Timothy 1:13, 14 NASB
13(AN)Retain the (AO)standard of (AP)sound words (AQ)which you have heard from me, in the (AR)faith and love which are in (AS)Christ Jesus.
14Guard, through the Holy Spirit who (AT)dwells in us, the (AU)treasure which has been entrusted to you.
II Timothy 2:1, 2 NASB
1You therefore, my (A)son, (B)be strong in the grace that is in (C)Christ Jesus.
2The things (D)which you have heard from me in the presence of (E)many witnesses, (F)entrust these to (G)faithful men who will be (H)able to teach others also.
"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1271
When quoting from the Summa, it is generally accepted practice to quote the entire reference. The Summa is a multi-volume work. Fortunately, we have Google which can help us narrow it down.
For example, your reference is a (misquote) from the Secunda Secundæ Partis (II.2) Question 11 (Part 3): Whether Heretics should be tolerated.
In order to fully understand an answer given in the Summa, one must look at the full context:
Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?
Objection 1. It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Timothy 2:24-25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.
Objection 2. Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.
Objection 3. Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matthew 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10-11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
Reply to Objection 1. This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.
Reply to Objection 2. The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.
Reply to Objection 3. According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (10, 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.
First of all, you will note that the actual Summa uses the term "heretic," not "unbeliever." A heretic is one who practices heresy. Heresy is the
"obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."
Heretic as used in Tts 3:10 is the Greek word "hairetikos" (schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine)
You will note a number of Biblical references above.
Tts 3:10 As for a man who is factious (hairetikos; kjv: heretick), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tts 3:11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
1Cr 11:19 for there must be factions (hairesis; kjv: heresies) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
&tc. You can look the remainder of them up for yourself (not that you would, but they tell me that this is the polite thing to say)
One other thing to keep in mind was that it was, in all European countries at the time, a civil crime to be a heretic. And you will note in the argument presented above, that the Church attempts multiple (at least twice) times to correct a person and then, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.
What did Paul advocate doing in Titus?
What is the proper end listed in 1 Cor 5:5? (Why?)
It seems to me that if you'd study the entire and quote it, you would achieve a slightly different result.
Oh, and by the way, Thomas Aquinas is not a Church Father. He is a Doctor of the Church. There is a difference.
(and as to your earlier comment, the quote in 1 Cor 11 that I cited in my earlier post was talking exactly about the Eucharist)
Hi Belle, I know, the gospels weren't written until later. I guess I'm talking in context that they did not have the Gospels and epistles to read in the early first century, although the apostles (peter, paul, john) did write letters.
Those who wrote either had been with him, or were close to those who had been with him. As time went on, there were so many people claiming to have been with him, or friends of those who were, writing different letters, bringing in different doctrines, it became imperative to gather and keep those writings of those who were closest to Christ - those who had the "true" so to speak, doctrine. Thus, in the NT, you have Paul, Peter, John, Timothy and Titus, Paul's close associates, James - the Lord's brother, John of Revelation.
Although, the more I understand prophecy, the more I see how amazingly the whole Bible is and how it does fit.
Speaking of 'looking at the full context', let's go over his post and see if it indeed corrects what McQuade posted shall we?
First of all, you will note that the actual Summa uses the term "heretic," not "unbeliever." A heretic is one who practices heresy. Heresy is the "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."
And the real difference is ... what? Oh I see. That the unbeliever is simply one that didn't believe at first, whereas the heretic is one who is taught 'the Truth', but still rejects it, right? ..... Yet the question remains. And the real difference is ... what? And this is in the context of whether someone should be put to death for refusing to believe the Gospel. See, that is where the difference between the two terms becomes miniscule. In the overall moral outlook of things, irrelevent really. ... Can you say 'nitpicking'?
Now the all-too-convenient copout--err point is brought up that it was the civil authorities are really the ones to blame for the death penalty for heretical behavior, and this is technically true. However, since it was the Church who saw themselves as responsible for the 'Christianization' of the aforeto 'ungodly' governments, why would keeping the death penalty for heresy necessary, and from a moral/ethical point of view? Also keep in mind that those verses in Timothy and Titus about dealing with heretics made no mention about turning heretics over to the civil government, but just to have nothing more to do with the heretic. For another thing, the civil government at the time when those epistles were written was the pagan Roman government, and they wouldn't do anything about the anti-Christian heretic anyway. It was only after the 'Christianization' of later governments did the civil government make laws against heresy and using the death penalty as enforcement of this.
Let me ask you all this. Does any Christian here actually believe that, morally and ethically, it is the right thing to do to have the death penalty for heresy? For 'false doctrine'? I know that most (if not all) here on Greasespot would radically oppose the concept of it being a moral thing for heretics to be put to death. Hell, even TWI at its worst, mostly didn't go that far (well, maybe some of Craigger's rantings did perhaps ).
Mark, regardless of your attempt to 'civilize' Summa's writings regarding heretics, the belief that unbelievers/heretics should die is irrevoceably there. Hell guy, you even emphasised part of his quote stating as much. "On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death." Oh wow! At least the Church gives 2 chances to turn away from heresy, then turns them over to be killed. Whatta K-Mart Blue Light Special deal! <_<
Face it Mark. Your denomination, regardless and irrelevent of your doctrinal and ecclesiastical loyalty to it, hasn't been exactly pure as the driven snow in its dealings with people over the past 1600-1800 years, and that includes a good number of things that it made Orthodoxically Official; its dealings with those who refused to submit to its Doctrines not being the least of these.
Wordwolf,
Regardless of McQuade's adulation of things Wierwille, generally speaking, he did get many of his points regarding the church's dealings with heretics correct. For one thing, there are independent and documentable sources that confirm at least many of the historical incidents that he brings up. ... Keep in mind the adage of "a broken clock is correct twice a day".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
7
5
12
Popular Days
May 1
17
May 2
14
May 3
9
May 5
4
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 8 posts
Lone Wolf McQuade 7 posts
year2027 5 posts
markomalley 12 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2007
17 posts
May 2 2007
14 posts
May 3 2007
9 posts
May 5 2007
4 posts
year2027
God first
Beloved Long Wolf McQuade
God loves you my dear friend
yes Jesus Christ and the 12 apostels are the true church fathers
all others are just false
that why I read books like the Gnostic books and others
rock was build on --------- not the Roman Catholic church
but some of them wrote great books too
I like this subject
thanks for written it
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Hey check out some stuff that Ignatius said. Ignatius reportedly lived somewhere between 30 - 107 AD (interesting how he's never mentioned in scripture). It is said that he was a bishop in Antioch, that is, a Catholic bishop. In his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes,
Of course nothing should be done without the BIshop, the Bishop has to stay in-the-know about what's going on in people's lives and what they're thinking and believing. <_<
So the antidote that keeps me from dying is obeying the bishop with an undivided (a.k.a. unquestioning) mind? Hmmm, I thought the shed blood of Christ was the medicine of immortality.
I incur death by not believing in the Eucharist? Please. <_<
<_<
Boy oh boy, it's getting thicker in here. It is not right to have a love-feast without the bishop? Of course not, him being the MOG, he has to be first in line and make sure he sits at the head of the table. As long as I please the MOG, I'm pleasing to God.
And here's the final card he plays. "Make sure you reverence ME and if you do anything without my knowledge, the adversary's gonna get you!"
In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes,
Hmmm, look at the bishop as the Lord Himself. And who's the bishop? Well he is, of course. <_<
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Perhaps you could point out in the Bible where he was wrong...where scripture contradicts him.
Rather than just doing the typical TWI act of mocking what they don't understand.
In regards to this passage:
I suggest you look at this section of scripture:
1Cr 11:27-29 (RSV) Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
And I could do the same for the majority of his other statements...but I just don't have that much time nowadays.
I suggest that you consider actually learning something about others' beliefs before mocking them. This board has people from a whole host of belief systems...from Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to Marcionites to Latter Day Saints to Pagans of various flavors. I think I can speak for the majority here when I say that we mostly don't mind having our belief systems questioned, we don't even mind having our belief systems challenged (well...some people who still subscribe to the twi mindset might disagree on that point), but mocking them is generally considered to be inappropriate.
Mocking generally gets more and more folks to hit the "ignore" button.
Just a friendly hint.
Roy, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your response.
You have found a forum here where you aren't mocked. Yet you support mockery?
By the way, Roy, what is your opinion of Matthias? (Not Matthew, but Matthias)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
You also need to understand, that "apostolic succession" was very important in the early church. In order to keep the doctrine, pure and uncorrupted, in the early church, they listened to the apostles - those who had been with Christ personally, and of course Paul, who saw him.
This was important because, let's say, I didn't like the way your fellowship was running, I could write an epistle, and say it was from Paul, or Peter, or whoever - i.e, palm myself off as one of the originals, to get people to do what I thought was best. There were hundreds of these fake epistles written over time.
It was terribly important, as the apostles died, for the next generation of leaders to have known these original men, who walked with Jesus. Apostolic sucession kept the "true" doctrine - as best they knew it, alive.
There is a reason for councils, etc. To debate what was correct and what wasn't. To keep the church from corruption.
Your mockery denotes your ignorance. Maybe you should do your own study, read some books outside of TWI, get a background of what was happening instead of following in VP's ignorant footsteps and mocking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved markomalley
God loves you my dear friend
I said something to bad did I not
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes Jesus Christ and the 12 apostels are the true church fathers
all others are just false
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
others are not the church fathers but yes that does not make them false writters
they could be church fathers of a their time
the Roman Catholic church take creit for a lot of things but I like reading old books
I like the work of Ignatius and others
and yes there are parts of all works I will disagree with
but I look for the good
When we talk about this I think about how some groups try to control what we read
I am not supporting mockery but what I aimed to point out in agreement is how they mock some books and some people
there are many forums were I am not mocked and mocking goes away in time if you just love people
If my words were phased wrong I am sorry
I do not aim to mock but I aim to get others to read other books
I love the Roman church cat.*. s I just can not spell it
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The simple answer: Because there are people who care more about politics (i.e. what looks good) than the truth. Of course these "church fathers" are very special to those who only care about what looks good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
One need not necessarily agree with the views and actions of the Church Fathers to derive much invaluable information from them concerning the history and development of early Christianity; they also comprise a wealth of information concerning movements and beliefs which eventually became largely superceded. Without their writings we would know very little. In fact, it is my view that through a careful review of scriptural citations throughout their works, can enable one to reconstruct an earlier state of the New Testament books than are not available through surviving NT manuscripts. Critical NT editions such as Aland-Nestle include cross references to "Patristic" citations.
The Church Fathers btw were not all homogenous in their views or their manner of expressions.
Tertullian, for example, has quite a sense of humor when writing against Marcion.
Epiphanius, on the other hand, strikes me a tad mean-spirited and hot-headed.
Whereas the Syrian St. Ephraim has a very eloquent style, even seemingly adjusting his tone accordingly to whom he is addressing.
You failed to mention, btw, which recension of St. Ignatius you quoted - the longer version of his epistles, or the shorter?
If the Church Fathers be "losers" then you are a bigger fool, because you are dependant upon the very version of the NT canon which they (and/or those among
them) had in fact a hand in ultimately producing. The canon of the NT which you read and stake your faith in today comprises the outcome of all their work.
There were no leather-bound "Companion Bibles" at the turn of the second century. It was the Church Fathers and their contemporaries which produced the
canon which came down to us. Consider, for example, St. Jerome.
The NT was not born in a vacuum, or isolated from views and events and even personalities which surrounded its production.
For this the writings of the Church Fathers are essential.
You will not arrive anywhere near "first century" Christianity without them.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
McQuade,
You sound like me shortly after I left TWI. :P
I was (one of those words we can't say here) and that anger spilled over into my views of all Christianity and any set of organized religion. The more I learned, the more I saw that there is a much, much bigger picture than I could even imagine. There was a huge political agenda and power-play behind much of what we find in religions today.
Just like TWI, there were wonderful men and women who worked within the confines of the political climate and religious leaders fighting for power. I understand very, very little of it and have lost interest in trying to, but I'm okay with that. I just enjoy the bits and pieces I glean from our resident experts here.
I do recommend, if you haven't already, "The Origin of Satan" and "The Gnostic Gospels" ... well, anything by Elaine Pagels. The Nag Hammadi Scrolls and the other ancient scrolls that are being translated give a completely different picture of Christianity and beliefs throughout history. It's just fascinating to me.
The History Channel's "Banned From the Bible" is also extremely enlightening as to the history of Christianity, the politics and power plays influencing what we have today.
And, Mark, please don't get angry :) a book that's fiction, but a great "light" insight into the corruption and struggle for power in the church is Ken Follet's "The Pillars of the Earth"
There have always been "bad guys" and "good guys" and thank goodness for the "good guys".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great points, Sunesis
! Another thing to consider is the value of historical proximity for modern Christianity. Think about the attention archeologists and historians give to any artifact of their target period. These artifacts provide a peek into the past through someone else's eyes. In the case of the early church fathers – those who were so close temporally/culturally to the birth of Christianity – through their writings we may get a clearer picture of the "raw data" of the Christian faith, the impact/experience of living so close to ground zero, and the earliest stages of doctrinal developments which I think would be invaluable – being uncluttered or tainted by any formalized theological systems.
Lone Wolf McQuade – your method of assessing church history has that God-taught-VPW-the-Word-like-it hasn't-been-known-since-the-first-century viewpoint written all over it.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Here's a question that needs to be asked: Just how in the world did Titus end up being in Dalmatia (see 2 Tim. 4:10) when Paul had originally sent Titus to Crete for the purpose of ordaining elders? (Compare that section in 2 Timothy to: Titus 1:4,5) Apparently there must have been a "break down" in the fellowship among these very early church leaders. That is one of the reasons I don't buy the "Apostolic sucession" bit as a key for keeping "true doctrine" alive. There are other methods, but they have little or nothing to do with apostolic succession that some people just want to palm off.
There might be a reason for church councils, but church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine. The council at Nicaea and the resulting creed of Nicaea (or Nicene creed) and the debate between the bishops, Constantine and Arius is a prime example. The doctrine explicitly stating Jesus as God was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by church bishops, yet their position (as well as Constatine's) on Jesus being God was no more correct than Arius' position. Although Arius did not believe Jesus to be God, his position was just as incorrect as Constantine's and the bishops at that council, as Arius himself did not hold to the belief Jesus Christ was God's only begotton son either - anymore than Constantine did, or the other bishops at that council. They all may have mouthed Jesus Christ was God's son, but then that phrase meant something different to everyone that was present at that council.
If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter. That is why I simply don't buy the line that the "reason's for councils is to debate what is correct and what isn't correct to keep the church from corruption" jive is the truth, anymore than that "Aposotolic succession" jive being the way to the truth either. There is a way to the truth, but it certainly isn't through man made church councils and their lousy apostolic successions! In fact, the whole RC church was built on all of that. You can't fool too many people today on how corrupt the RC church has become either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I am not a catholic, and never have been and certainly never will be. There were too many cults, disagreements, gnosticism, etc. going around very shortly after Christ's death. That's why it was imperative to be instructed by those who had been with him and knew him personally. In the early church, only those who had been with Christ, or later, those who had been with those who had been with him and so on were considered authorities.
Of course there is bound to be politics when you get religious people together.
The point is, those early church fathers kept Christianity from becoming an irrelevant cult and/or dying out altogether.
You may hate them, but good did come from them also.
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It may benefit you to look into the biblical definition of "Apostle" – having the unique role of being the only office authorized by God to write the New Testament. It would seem appropriate that once the documents were written their function would serve more as guardians…keepers of true doctrine – a charge passed on to any successors vested by God with this foundational gift to a young church. Here's a link to a thread I started that gets into their distinctive authority - the Apostles, Prophets and prophecy thread
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=312563
I think it would be worth your time to do some research on it – and I recommend looking at reputable books by real scholars. Your post has that familiar lament of VPW's egocentric view of church history and church government. He had that man-of-god-for-the-world mentality – everything revolved around the primacy of PFAL. And just as the first century world failed Paul so to our modern world has failed VPW.
It seems contradictory [and presumptuous] that you would claim that "church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine" and then say "If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter." How many church councils have you studied? Did you work up statistics on what issues were addressed to show percentages of content? And did you check any reference material other than VPW's hackneyed version of the Council of Nicaea in Jesus Christ is not God? It appears you have some presuppositions when it comes to assessing church councils.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
But, Sunesis, most of the Bible, not even the Gospels, are proven (or even believed) to be written by people who actually walked the earth with Jesus. :unsure:
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Markomalley, you said...
And your point is?Roy,
God loves you and so do I. :-)
Markomalley said to you...
Don't listen to him Roy, you're right on the money.
What The Hey, you said...
Excellent! Well said.Sunesis, you said...
That's just it. There is no evidence at all that these so-called fathers were ever around Jesus or around anyone who was with Jesus (Paul, Peter, John, etc.) Therefore, I cannot give them "the benefit of the doubt" and assume that they ever were.
They did not keep Christianity going. Christ did. Christianity had no chance of "dying out" because Jesus Christ is not a failure.T-Bone, you said...
The keeper of true doctrine is Jesus Christ. I have no proof at all that God had any stock in these so-called fathers.
It's so interesting that you will rail and rail on VPW and yet just from my quotes from one man (Ignatius), it is clear he taught the same bondage, people-controlling type of dogmas. Northing's OK and you serve Satan if you do anything for God outside of their approval. Disgusting.
TheInvisibleDan, you said...
I will not arrive anywhere near first century Christian understanding without them? This ludicrous.
Psalm 25:9
He guides the humble in what is right and teaches them his way.
God teaches those who are meek. You don't need the church fathers to understand the scriptures. A meek heart and and desire to know the truth and a perseverance to find wisdom is required and it's God who teaches them HIS WAY.
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
The spirit of truth is what guides one to the truth. God gave me spirit so I could know HIM personally.
Diligent study, a meek heart, faithfulness in prayer, and the spirit of truth is all that is necessary to find the truth. I am not lost without "them".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Sunesis and Lone Wolf McQuade
God loves you my dear friend
So you do not like Gnosticism but have you ever read them
I walk with Jesus Christ he is in me showing me the way in person
Lone Wolf McQuade - I love you too
I do not want to cut down any so called Church Fathers but I want to learn from them the good things
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Took this from the following://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm
In 380, the Roman Christian Emperor Theodosius passed a decree that read:
"We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."
-- Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History
In 317 Constantine's Roman Christian sectarians in Carthage filled the well outside the main Donatist [non-Roman Christian] church with the bodies of their Christian opponents.
In 333 AD Constantine issued edicts against "Arius, wicked and impious," forbidding his teaching and even outlawing owning the Arian version of the New Testament.
In 382, in Egypt, celebrating Easter on the day set aside by the local non-Roman Christian sect was punishable by death.
In 383, in Spain, Urbanica was stoned to death and her bishop Priscillian was executed for their non-Roman Christian beliefs.
The first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine the Great, after having many of his close relatives put to death, convened this Council to determine which of the Christian factions with opposing ideas on the matter of the nature of Jesus should be considered orthodoxy:....
The burning question of the council was the argument between Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius claimed Jesus was essentially distinct from the Father, having been created ex nihilo by the latter. Alexander, however, claimed
"as God is eternal, so is his Son — when the Father, then the Son — the Son is present in God without birth, ever-begotten, an unbegotten-begotten."
By a packed vote, Arius was condemned as a heretic, excommunicated, and exiled. Three years later, however, Constantine ... recalled Arius to Constantinople. On the very day Arius was to reenter the Cathedral in triumph, his bowels suddenly burst out in a privy, obviating any need to redefine orthodoxy. The orthodox considered it a miracle; the Arians knew it was murder.
In time, the rival doctrines of Arius were declared a heresy. For this, Arianism was persecuted out of existence: since the Northern tribes and many others belonged to this Christian sect, the mainstream Church persecuted the highly numerous Arians to their deaths.
Whenever a vestige of this early heretical Christian sect resurfaced, it would be instantly suppressed. 16th century Protestant England, for instance, burnt an Arian to death.
"Ecumenical" Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431): St. Cyril, the Pope of Alexandria, bribed enough bishops to be able to convene the Council before the arrival of the Patriarch of Antioch, whose opposition he feared. Without opposition from the delegation from Antioch it was a simple matter to condemn one Nestorius as a heretic, and to proclaim the Virgin Mary to be theotokos, or "mother of god."
Such were the means by which truth was determined in the orthodox Catholic Church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
"Unbelievers deserve not only to be separated from the Church, but also... to be exterminated from the World by death."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1271
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I guess I should list some Scripture as the basis for my statements in post # 13, regarding the role of gift ministries and guardianship of the divine revelation that was given to them:
Ephesians 2:19, 20 NASB
19 So then you are no longer (BI)strangers and aliens, but you are (BJ)fellow citizens with the saints, and are of (BK)God's household,
20 having been (BL)built on (BM)the foundation of (BN)the apostles and prophets, (BO)Christ Jesus Himself being the (BP)corner stone,
Ephesians 4:11-16 NASB
11 And He (V)gave (W)some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as (X)evangelists, and some as pastors and (Y)teachers,
12 (Z)for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of (AA)the body of Christ;
13 until we all attain to (AB)the unity of the faith, and of the (AC)knowledge of the Son of God, to a (AD)mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the (AE)fullness of Christ.
14 As a result, we are (AF)no longer to be children, (AG)tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by (AH)craftiness in (AI)deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth (AJ)in love, we are to (AK)grow up in all aspects into Him who is the (AL)head, even Christ,
16 from whom (AM)the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself (AN)in love.
I Timothy 6:20, 21 NASB
20 (BB)Timothy, guard (BC)what has been entrusted to you, avoiding (BD)worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge"--
21 which some have professed and thus (BE)gone astray from (BF)the faith (BG)Grace be with you.
II Timothy 1:13, 14 NASB
13 (AN)Retain the (AO)standard of (AP)sound words (AQ)which you have heard from me, in the (AR)faith and love which are in (AS)Christ Jesus.
14 Guard, through the Holy Spirit who (AT)dwells in us, the (AU)treasure which has been entrusted to you.
II Timothy 2:1, 2 NASB
1 You therefore, my (A)son, (B)be strong in the grace that is in (C)Christ Jesus.
2 The things (D)which you have heard from me in the presence of (E)many witnesses, (F)entrust these to (G)faithful men who will be (H)able to teach others also.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
When quoting from the Summa, it is generally accepted practice to quote the entire reference. The Summa is a multi-volume work. Fortunately, we have Google which can help us narrow it down.
For example, your reference is a (misquote) from the Secunda Secundæ Partis (II.2) Question 11 (Part 3): Whether Heretics should be tolerated.
In order to fully understand an answer given in the Summa, one must look at the full context:
First of all, you will note that the actual Summa uses the term "heretic," not "unbeliever." A heretic is one who practices heresy. Heresy is the
"obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith."
Heretic as used in Tts 3:10 is the Greek word "hairetikos" (schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine)
You will note a number of Biblical references above.
Tts 3:10 As for a man who is factious (hairetikos; kjv: heretick), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tts 3:11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
1Cr 11:19 for there must be factions (hairesis; kjv: heresies) among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
&tc. You can look the remainder of them up for yourself (not that you would, but they tell me that this is the polite thing to say)
One other thing to keep in mind was that it was, in all European countries at the time, a civil crime to be a heretic. And you will note in the argument presented above, that the Church attempts multiple (at least twice) times to correct a person and then, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.
What did Paul advocate doing in Titus?
What is the proper end listed in 1 Cor 5:5? (Why?)
It seems to me that if you'd study the entire and quote it, you would achieve a slightly different result.
Oh, and by the way, Thomas Aquinas is not a Church Father. He is a Doctor of the Church. There is a difference.
(and as to your earlier comment, the quote in 1 Cor 11 that I cited in my earlier post was talking exactly about the Eucharist)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Seems Lone Wolf Mc Quade just did something similar to something vpw condemned in
pfal- reading PART of a quote to support something the entire text does not,
like quoting Psalms to say "there is no God."
I doubt he made that mistake by reading a book of the Summa Theologica and misunderstanding
its contents- I think he's too intelligent to do that.
I think he saved a lot of time by coming up with his conclusion-
the Church Fathers were all wrong-
and then looking for specific quotes to back up his preconceived notion
rather than reading what they said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Hi Belle, I know, the gospels weren't written until later. I guess I'm talking in context that they did not have the Gospels and epistles to read in the early first century, although the apostles (peter, paul, john) did write letters.
Those who wrote either had been with him, or were close to those who had been with him. As time went on, there were so many people claiming to have been with him, or friends of those who were, writing different letters, bringing in different doctrines, it became imperative to gather and keep those writings of those who were closest to Christ - those who had the "true" so to speak, doctrine. Thus, in the NT, you have Paul, Peter, John, Timothy and Titus, Paul's close associates, James - the Lord's brother, John of Revelation.
Although, the more I understand prophecy, the more I see how amazingly the whole Bible is and how it does fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
Here is one of the groups that got supressed by the "church fathers".
There where Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was the "Saviour of the world"
All.....the whole world........nothing left out.........none left in hell ect.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
I went this rout for a while........it was freeing in many ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
"Good catch Mark O'malley" ??????
Speaking of 'looking at the full context', let's go over his post and see if it indeed corrects what McQuade posted shall we?
And the real difference is ... what? Oh I see. That the unbeliever is simply one that didn't believe at first, whereas the heretic is one who is taught 'the Truth', but still rejects it, right? ..... Yet the question remains. And the real difference is ... what? And this is in the context of whether someone should be put to death for refusing to believe the Gospel. See, that is where the difference between the two terms becomes miniscule. In the overall moral outlook of things, irrelevent really. ... Can you say 'nitpicking'?
Now the all-too-convenient copout--err point is brought up that it was the civil authorities are really the ones to blame for the death penalty for heretical behavior, and this is technically true. However, since it was the Church who saw themselves as responsible for the 'Christianization' of the aforeto 'ungodly' governments, why would keeping the death penalty for heresy necessary, and from a moral/ethical point of view? Also keep in mind that those verses in Timothy and Titus about dealing with heretics made no mention about turning heretics over to the civil government, but just to have nothing more to do with the heretic. For another thing, the civil government at the time when those epistles were written was the pagan Roman government, and they wouldn't do anything about the anti-Christian heretic anyway. It was only after the 'Christianization' of later governments did the civil government make laws against heresy and using the death penalty as enforcement of this.
Let me ask you all this. Does any Christian here actually believe that, morally and ethically, it is the right thing to do to have the death penalty for heresy? For 'false doctrine'? I know that most (if not all) here on Greasespot would radically oppose the concept of it being a moral thing for heretics to be put to death. Hell, even TWI at its worst, mostly didn't go that far (well, maybe some of Craigger's rantings did perhaps
).
Mark, regardless of your attempt to 'civilize' Summa's writings regarding heretics, the belief that unbelievers/heretics should die is irrevoceably there. Hell guy, you even emphasised part of his quote stating as much. "On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death." Oh wow! At least the Church gives 2 chances to turn away from heresy, then turns them over to be killed. Whatta K-Mart Blue Light Special deal! <_<
Face it Mark. Your denomination, regardless and irrelevent of your doctrinal and ecclesiastical loyalty to it, hasn't been exactly pure as the driven snow in its dealings with people over the past 1600-1800 years, and that includes a good number of things that it made Orthodoxically Official; its dealings with those who refused to submit to its Doctrines not being the least of these.
Wordwolf,
Regardless of McQuade's adulation of things Wierwille, generally speaking, he did get many of his points regarding the church's dealings with heretics correct. For one thing, there are independent and documentable sources that confirm at least many of the historical incidents that he brings up. ... Keep in mind the adage of "a broken clock is correct twice a day".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.