What are we doing here?

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

The Liturgist said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

bèlla said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Delvianna said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

The Liturgist said:

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).

Click to expand...

I am sure Polycarp wrote more, but I am not aware of any that survived. If you know more than I, by all means share them
You began referencing works of the fourth century. Those are good and by all means should be covered at the proper time
Justin Martyr I believe is a contemporary of Iraneus. We could examine his work also as it refers to Apostolic teaching. I was just particularly interested in Iraneus Demonstration of the Apostolic preaching and how it compares to modern thought
What I wanted to focus on in this thread was to take a look at what was taught in the second century. This is the generation that was closest to direct apostolic trenching. Does it resemble what is being proposed today? Have we drifted from the faith, or do we defend the faith which was once delivered to the saints?

Peace be with you

Delvianna said:

The danger is prioritizing peoples interpretations over following Gods, is what is the main issue as to why there are so many fragments.

Click to expand...

That is true. My point is how do you follow God’s interpretation? What criteria do we use?

I propose that we should look at the generation closer to the Apostles and see what they did.


We look at a child’s game called telephone where one person tells a message to one child and then the message is sent down the line of children and the last person says the message out loud
It is usually hilarious how much the message changes. To get the real message, we would go back to the people that first heard it rather than interview others further down the chain of the “telephone”

In this situation, we are dealing with eternity. Would it not be prudent to read what the first students of the teaching had to say?

bèlla said:

Bear in mind where you are on the site in relation to your comments. This isn’t the space for catholics or an area for those who hold similar beliefs. You’ve posted your thread in a section that will result in different perspectives. If you prefer others like your own you may want to have it moved.



I do not share your beliefs on apostolic teachings in relation to those who weren’t mentioned in the bible. Nor do I accord them the same importance or validity. I realize others feel differently and hold early church fathers in high esteem or have a passion for patristics.



I didn‘t plead anything or share my perspective in that post. I expounded on the comment made by @Freth.

And as far as I can tell this isn’t a forum for debate.

~bella

Click to expand...

From the statement of purpose
We are in the denomination specific theology forum.

The Denomination-Specific Theology (DST) forum is for discussing and debating the specific theological doctrines of a denomination.


Although not strictly Catholic, we can use this as a forum for debate between denominations