How do we know . . . .

[Mathetes the kerux]

I am implying that Gnostics read the Bible too... choose any heresy you like. They all use the bible to back their claim.

Forgive me...

The term "Gnostic" is not a general term . . . it is a technical term applying to a given system of beliefs (albeit fluid within themselves) dating to within the first centuries of Christianity. No one here has espoused any view near anything like them. Perhaps you all should choose another word.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Sure there are . . . why would there not be . . .

Because your not allowed to say anything about them. Even mention the word heretic and you'll get stoned around here.

The term "Gnostic" is not a general term . . . it is a technical term applying to a given system of beliefs (albeit fluid within themselves) dating to within the first centuries of Christianity. No one here has espoused any view near anything like them. Perhaps you all should choose another word.

I know very well what a Gnostic is. I see them on the TV on channel 40. There's plenty of them. I assure you, there is one here.

I bet you were an A+ student in school.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Elitest? That your word for Bishops?

Forgive me...

Huh? No. I was using the words that were ascribed to us . . .

But as far as the RCC is concerned in the era in question, whoever it came from, the non-laity deemed common man incapable of understanding the Scriptures (whether because of lack of intellectual fortitude or education . . . or both) without the feeding of the Scriptures "by hand" (so-to-speak) of the clergy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

BTW ~ anyone who openly rejects The Holy Eucarist is a heretic.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Do you think all of the Ancient Churches fell into heresy?

Forgive me...

No . . . I like much of the biblical theology of many of the ancient churches . . . (believe it or not the Greek and Eastern Orthodox being my favorite) . . . but I think that there are also many additions that are superfluous . . . and some blatant error.

I esp like the continuance of the ministry of the exorcist . . .


I think that they all began well . . . and as the experience of the Spirit and the treasuring of Christ gave way to dead orthodoxy (I am all for Living Orthodoxy) the Churches became more of institutions than organisms and relationship with Christ gave way to polity in the leadership . . . absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Because your not allowed to say anything about them. Even mention the word heretic and you'll get stoned around here.



I know very well what a Gnostic is. I see them on the TV on channel 40. There's plenty of them. I assure you, there is one here.

I bet you were an A+ student in school.

Forgive me...

I am still in school . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Huh? No. I was using the words that were ascribed to us . . .

But as far as the RCC is concerned in the era in question, whoever it came from, the non-laity deemed common man incapable of understanding the Scriptures (whether because of lack of intellectual fortitude or education . . . or both) without the feeding of the Scriptures "by hand" (so-to-speak) of the clergy.

I'm not Catholic. You don't seem to have gotten around that yet.

In your opinion... Did the Church of Rome fall into heresy?

Have ALL the ancient Churches fallen into heresy? Is there not ONE left intact?

Which one has survived? Surely there is one?

Forgive me...

 

[Philothei]

You know very well... that they used in their doctrine that whoever has esoteric "gnosis" about Christianity is true Christian. To be a Christian is to "understand" and have special "gnosis" on the kyrigma of Christ...Arianism has its root in Gnosticism, saying that the son was a man, a creature claiming that the "gnosis" about Christ was "hidden" in the scripture... sounds familiar? SS brings forth this danger ... to "know" scripture on your "own" and come up with all kinds of itnerpretations.. disreagarding the counsiouness of the community of the faithful that is the Church.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

BTW ~ anyone who openly rejects The Holy Eucarist is a heretic.

Forgive me...

You mean the practice of the Lord's supper . . . or the concept of transubstantiation?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There is no power in Orthodoxy except in the Trinity.

Forgive me...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

BTW ~ anyone who openly rejects The Holy Eucarist is a heretic.

Forgive me...

The Eucharist is the pinnacle of worship.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There is no power in Orthodoxy except in the Trinity.

Forgive me...

All Glory to God.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You mean the practice of the Lord's supper . . . or the concept of transubstantiation?

transubstantiation? I told you... I'm not Catholic.

Forgive me...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You totally ignored what you could not deal with, I see?

The "church" is the universal body of believers. This body will form into churches according to how the Holy Spirit bestows the gifts. Was God amiss for giving Luther his fantastic gift to rightly handle the Word of God?

The Church is where we find two or more gathered in his name, and one of them has the gift given to teach the Word of God.

My understanding of the "Church" is not so narrow as yours.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

transubstantiation? I told you... I'm not Catholic.

Forgive me...

Transubstantiation is not in your vocabulary and that is all. Your Patriarchs have not defined anything as not being Transubstantion.

What is important is that you know it is Jesus in flesh and blood under the guise of bread.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I'm not Catholic. You don't seem to have gotten around that yet.

In your opinion... Did the Church of Rome fall into heresy?

Have ALL the ancient Churches fallen into heresy? Is there not ONE left intact?

Which one has survived? Surely there is one?

Forgive me...

I know very well where you stand . . . I know you are not RC.

I do not think that ANY church system ANYWHERE from ANY time has it all down . . . ALL of us are heretics somewhere . . . the question is whether or not the issues are of primary doctrinal importance or secondary. Primary warrant split . . . secondary warrants fellowship with deferance.

This will always be the state of a church full of redeemed sinners until the day of the redemption of our bodies and the Glorious wedding feast of the Lamb.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You mean the practice of the Lord's supper . . . or the concept of transubstantiation?

I know very well where you stand . . . I know you are not RC.

I do not think that ANY church system ANYWHERE from ANY time has it all down . . . ALL of us are heretics somewhere . . . the question is whether or not the issues are of primary doctrinal importance or secondary. Primary warrant split . . . secondary warrants fellowship with deferance.

This will always be the state of a church full of redeemed sinners until the day of the redemption of our bodies and the Glorious wedding feast of the Lamb.

And there we have our crux.

The Church is what remains as all heresy falls away. Anything heretical is not The Church. It is therefore impossible for The Church to be heretical else it ceases to be The Church.

Do you believe there are any absolute truths?

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

You know very well... that they used in their doctrine that whoever has esoteric "gnosis" about Christianity is true Christian. To be a Christian is to "understand" and have special "gnosis" on the kyrigma of Christ...Arianism has its root in Gnosticism, saying that the son was a man, a creature claiming that the "gnosis" about Christ was "hidden" in the scripture... sounds familiar? SS brings forth this danger ... to "know" scripture on your "own" and come up with all kinds of itnerpretations.. disreagarding the counsiouness of the community of the faithful that is the Church.

Whoa . . . I NEVER asserted that the Church has no say in the progression or formulation of Doctrine. You are creating a false dichotomy. I have ONLY asserted that the authority in the church to do so is subject to the Scriptures and that the church and traditions are NOT infallible.

Any serious SS proponent would never assert what you are claiming about us . . . and if they do then they neither understand the Scripture nor SS.

claiming that the "gnosis" about Christ was "hidden" in the scripture... sounds familiar? SS brings forth this danger ... to "know" scripture on your "own" and come up with all kinds of itnerpretations

See this is a false understanding . . . SS simply safe guards scripture as the final authority and the mediatorial work of Christ between the individual and Christ not the individual and the church and Christ. You have caracatured SS as a loose system that has an overarching premise that allows all kinds of wild things. This is NOT in the least what SS promotes or allows . . . it is safeguarded by a common system of hermeneutics that allows a unified understanding of a great many issues that are essential to Christianity and the fluidity of non essentials (like tongues and the rapture).

Please be charitable.

 

[Philothei]

a common system of hermeneutics that allows a unified understanding of a great many issues that are essential to Christianity and the fluidity of non essentials

a common ... what common scriptures came out of a worshiping community with common understanding and that community was a church call it a local church tradition... (God forbid to call it universal...ahhhh) but it was a common consience, that interpret and gathered the texts and doc that it is scripture. They were the Church fathers (brrrr what a word!!! forbiden ) who were enough educated and diversed with the texts. So how come that "common system of hermineutics" that constitutes in majority western scholars after the 1500 s so remote isolated to the scripture historiacally and geographically would have more validity as to do SS than the Fathers who did SS back in the 2nd century??

Impossible... also about the "fuidity" very weak point we are conserned with "true and authentic Bible Kyrigma" here not fuidity...Also about the non-essentials... who says what is and what is not? The "common system of hermineutics" who are already "far and remote" from the kyrigma of Christ??

Purification of Doctrine and oversimplification is not guarantee to lead you to the Truth. Certain "truths" exagerated in the Scripture... SS brings about more danger than solving any i.e rapture , predestination, Grace only, Born again...etc... all these are docrines .. are they not? Do you all claim them? do you prove them in the Scripture? You are either "truthful" or not and the Church would not be a Church if it fails to stand up for that ....truth.

 

[Philothei]

double post