What are we doing here?

[boughtwithaprice]

We all say we are here to follow Jesus Christ to the reward of eternal life. Many have varying opinions on how to reach that goal, but I believe that is the goal of all of us.
Good news is that God loves us all, as He wants all men to be saved. Bad news is that we are still human and our flesh is at war with our spirit. We say we want to follow Jesus, but what do we do?
We all think we know the right way, but do we really? How do we find out? As fallen humans, we tend to believe what makes us feel good and helps us feel exalted.
If we follow that way, we become as sheep that go astray and each follows his own way. We go back to the original scriptures to try and avoid that, but the evidence is that way is incomplete. The original scriptures are subject to human interpretation, and their intended message becomes unclear.
Another way is to look at the Apostles and what they taught, but their records are incomplete from original manuscripts.
Some light can be shed by looking at the writings of those directly taught by the Apostles and see how the Gospel was being transmitted to future generations. Some say those generations apostacized and are not scripture so therefore unreliable. Did God really abandon His Church so quickly as to have it become publicly unstable in the second and third generations? I think that is a bit of a stretch in reason. I can perhaps see when secular authorities influenced the Church that argument can be made, although not necessarily true, but those taught directly by the Apostles and the generation that followed them?
What happened to the promise of the gates of hell shall not prevail?
Polycarp was taught directly by John the Apostle. He has one surviving writing in his letter to the Philippians, although not scripture, it gives us insight as to how the scripture was being taught.
Then we have Iraneus, who was taught by Polycarp. We have one of his writings intact called Demonstration of the Apostolic preaching.
Iraneus was also famous for a work called against heresies, which was written as a rebuke against the gnostics.
When we read the Demonstration of the Apostolic preaching, we get an idea of what was preached by those very close in time to Apostolic teaching. It is worth the read to see if what is taught today lines up with original Christian thought. Reading Agaisnt Heresies would give us an idea of what was taught by heretics contemporary to the Apostles.

I believe these works are worth reviewing and would be interested in others opinions on them, whether agree or disagree and why?

Peace be with you all. May Christ bless you and keep you and bring you to everlasting life

 

[Freth]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible is the truth. It explains God. It explains salvation. It explains Jesus. It explains what is expected of us. It even has prophecy so that we can know where we are in time, and what is to come. It is complete.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible is the truth. It explains God. It explains salvation. It explains Jesus. It explains what is expected of us. It even has prophecy so that we can know where we are in time, and what is to come. It is complete.

If that is true, then why all the division over what it means?

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe these works are worth reviewing and would be interested in others opinions on them, whether agree or disagree and why?

I agree. St. Irenaeus provides us with invaluable insight on the second century heresies and also provides important information on the Nicolaitan heresy and the connections between different Gnostic sects. He also provides vital information on the history of the development of the New Testament canon by insisting there are only four canonical Gospels.

Likewise, in refuting different heresies he also makes clear the doctrine of the early church apophatically.

Anyone who opposes his writings is likely engaging in knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, particularly since St. Irenaeus rebuked St. Victor the Bishop of Rome when he attempted to impose his will on the churches of Corinth and Asia Minor which were outside his jurisdiction.

Likewise the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who, like St. Irenaeus, were in apostolic succession from St. John, are invaluable.

I also reccommend the fourth century Panarion, by St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, which quotes St. Irenaeus when discussing heresies he covered, and the eighth century Fount of Wisdom by St. John of Damascus, which quotes the epitomes from St. Epiphanios, as these cover all the heresies experienced by the early church.

Many Orthodox believe Iconoclasm was the last original heresy and all subsequent heresies are simply renewals and recombinations of earlier heresies.

 

[bèlla]

If that is true, then why all the division over what it means?

What you perceive in your OP isn’t an issue for all as @Freth explained. The incompletion you noted may inspire you to seek insight from the sources you mentioned and others. And there’s those within the faith who find the scriptures more than enough for their purposes. It’s a matter of personal choice.

~bella

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I agree. St. Irenaeus provides us with invaluable insight on the second century heresies and also provides important information on the Nicolaitan heresy and the connections between different Gnostic sects. He also provides vital information on the history of the development of the New Testament canon by insisting there are only four canonical Gospels.

Likewise, in refuting different heresies he also makes clear the doctrine of the early church apophatically.

Anyone who opposes his writings is likely engaging in knee-jerk anti-Catholicism, particularly since St. Irenaeus rebuked St. Victor the Bishop of Rome when he attempted to impose his will on the churches of Corinth and Asia Minor which were outside his jurisdiction.

Likewise the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who, like St. Irenaeus, were in apostolic succession from St. John, are invaluable.

I also reccommend the fourth century Panarion, by St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, which quotes St. Irenaeus when discussing heresies he covered, and the eighth century Fount of Wisdom by St. John of Damascus, which quotes the epitomes from St. Epiphanios, as these cover all the heresies experienced by the early church.

Many Orthodox believe Iconoclasm was the last original heresy and all subsequent heresies are simply renewals and recombinations of earlier heresies.

I greatly appreciate your insight The Liturgist, but for the sake of focus, I would ask that we limit the discussion to Polycarp and Iraneus.
Others can be discussed hopefully only as to how they reference these works

Thank you and peace be with you

 

[Delvianna]

If that is true, then why all the division over what it means?

Because most rely on their own wisdom, rather than letting God lead them to truth. Most people also rely on reading someone else's interpretation, carrying on answers that are taught and spread or being comfortable with reading something surface level, forming an opinion about it and leaving it there but with the possibility their initial idea could be wrong. The vast majority of people want information spoon fed, instead of actively delving into the word and trying to seek out truth themselves.

When talking to most people, the amount of gotquestions.org links I've gotten, or ones to just youtube videos is insane. We are told we have ONE teacher and that is Jesus. While hearing others opinions is good in a sense for correction, the main source should always be God himself. And sometimes that means accepting corrections that might be counter to whatever you've been taught. A lot of people also don't like being corrected.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

What you perceive in your OP isn’t an issue for all as @Freth explained. The incompletion you noted may inspire you to seek insight from the sources you mentioned and others. And there’s those within the faith who find the scriptures more than enough for their purposes. It’s a matter of personal choice.

~bella

So we put our personal choice above Apostolic teaching. Does this not go against what Jesus and His Church teaches?
If any one come after me, let him deny his very self and begin to follow in my footsteps

How is that reconciled ?

You may plead ignorance, but the simple light of reason shows that we do not put ourselves above God and claim that we have understanding to “know better”. One would think that those that came before us and were closer to the original teaching would know better. Do you say that is not true?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Because most rely on their own wisdom, rather than letting God lead them to truth. Most people also rely on reading someone else's interpretation, carrying on answers that are taught and spread or being comfortable with reading something surface level, forming an opinion about it and leaving it there but with the possibility their initial idea could be wrong. The vast majority of people want information spoon fed, instead of actively delving into the word and trying to seek out truth themselves.

When talking to most people, the amount of gotquestions.org links I've gotten, or ones to just youtube videos is insane. We are told we have ONE teacher and that is Jesus. While hearing others opinions is good in a sense for correction, the main source should always be God himself. And sometimes that means accepting corrections that might be counter to whatever you've been taught. A lot of people also don't like being corrected.

What you say is good, but what of the verse that says there is no private interpretation? He gave us apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors?

We rely on Jesus and The Holy Spirit to show us to submit to teachers of the truth. If we relied merely on private interpretation, we risk being overwhelmed. Else why would God appoint shepherds?

 

[Delvianna]

What you say is good, but what of the verse that says there is no private interpretation? He gave us apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists and pastors?

The point of leaders was to lead by example (to do what is being taught and to guide people back to God and the scriptures). The point of apostles was to spread what Jesus taught them, so they were repeating what they were taught by God. That's literally all a teacher/prophet/apostle etc is, is someone who repeats what the Lord teaches. But we are called to be like the Bereans, who searched the scriptures to make sure what was being taught was correct. So even if God raises a teacher to repeat his teachings, he still teaches them first, just like the apostles were taught, or the prophets, etc.

Within the church :
God>others>you>back to God for confirmation
Personally:
God> you >others

We rely on Jesus and The Holy Spirit to show us to submit to teachers of the truth. If we relied merely on private interpretation, we risk being overwhelmed. Else why would God appoint shepherds?

I've never been overwhelmed in my personal walk with God. Have I run into times where I didn't understand something or even just didn't want to accept it? Yes, but that's not the same as being overwhelmed. God is a very very patient teacher and he builds concepts on each other to help you grow in a way where it isn't too much. Shepherds are people who are supposed to guide by reminding what the scriptures say and lead by example but your walk and number 1 priority is God. This is why we have the rule that God comes first so if there is a false teacher or misinterpretation, that God would be able to correct it, even if it took time to understand the correction. It actually keeps you more safe instead of being swayed by a false teacher/leader/pastor. I've heard instances where there are people becoming pastors, or leaders that were never called by God and only did it because they thought it was a good career, you make decent money, or they like the attention. There's actually someone I know who was a pastor and used the position to meet women while he was married. That's what he cared about. Sad, but true. So it helps keep you more spiritually safe, than deceptionally led.

 

[The Liturgist]

I greatly appreciate your insight The Liturgist, but for the sake of focus, I would ask that we limit the discussion to Polycarp and Iraneus.
Others can be discussed hopefully only as to how they reference these works

Thank you and peace be with you

But you are aware are you not that St. Irenaeus declares his apostolic succession, which is linked to St. John via St. Justin Martyr, who, likeSt. Polycarp was the disciple of St. Ignatius?

And I’m also a bit confused - St. Polycarp only wrote one thing - a short epistle, a good one, but a short one -I had assumed in fact you were confusing what St. Polycarp wrote with what St. Ignatius wrote, given the relative lack of writings attributed to St. Polycarp compared to those attributed to St. Irenaeus, and given that the writings that address heresy which you refer to in the OP are exclusively written by St. Irenaeus (but are implied by the writings of his spiritual ancestors).

 

[The Liturgist]

I've never been overwhelmed in my personal walk with God. Have I run into times where I didn't understand something

The danger is in thinking we understand something, which we do not. This is why a teaching office in the early church was clearly established in the New Testament.

Speaking of which the fact we have four Gospels is largely thanks to the early church leaders like St. Irenaeus, who argued against the use of spurious texts which had been authored by sects such as the Valentinians, like the Gospel of Truth or the Gospel of Thomas.