Why were heresies wrong in the Early Church, but fine now?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...
Why can't be have that same trust in Christ and Christ alone?

Ekklesia do. (by definition actually, and life, and all Scripture)
(oh, NOT the same trust, but much much much better and pure and blameless)

Why does all heresies have to be wrong? Whos to say one of those wasn't the one true? Why is Catholics always assumed when someone say Christian?
Just because majority hold onto something doesn't make it right.

Ekklesia are never the majority, ever in history, so far.

oops - sorry - TWICE in history. That's all so far. (1) The Garden of Eden (2) Right AFTER the world wide flood.

 

[Just Another User]

Don't mean to split hairs, but just so it's out there, Montanism was condemned at a synod held in Phrygia in the year 177, presided over by HG Bishop Apollinarius of Hierapolis. If I had to guess, other places were probably more lenient on them because they actually emerged in Phrygia, and hence were likely more influential/a bigger problem there than elsewhere, at least initially.

Completely agree. I should have mentioned that synod since it's was very important to early Montanistic growth. Thanks for mentioning it. I would like to add that those who called themselves Montanists outside of East Asia appeared to disagree with the earliest Montanists on some issues. That may be due to hostile reports from the eastern Christians or different beliefs. Personally I would advocate the latter.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

This post points out a very important problem today. Great post and thanx for addressing this issue.

 

[FEZZILLA]

You've never been to an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox church, have you?

When you get things right the first time, nothing has to change and nobody has to be infallible.

For the 1st 1000 years of Christianity there was no eastern or western orthodoxy. There was only one united Apostolic Church.

 

[FEZZILLA]

I have concluded that the Geneva scholars got the ball rolling for the ultra radical Protestants. I know who the Puritans were and why they retaliated against the church. They had good cause and were nothing but sincere in their efforts. But their unwarranted rebellion against William Tyndale, the greatest translator of all time, superior to both the Geneva scholars and KJV scholars, was uncalled for. Thus the radical notes in the Geneva Bible and their disdain for Tyndale set the stage for the misery to come. Had they stuck with Tyndale's renderings our church today would not be this divided and heresy would not be fashionable among people today. But the Geneva scholars set the stage for what would become the conspiracy driven churches today who are too anti-Catholic for their own good. There has got to be a line drawn here which many don't want to see drawn.

 

[CaspianSails]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

While many protestants are divided on some doctrinal points, most, notice I say most agree on a set of fundamental and core beliefs. I have not found many which would dispute the foundations of the Apostles Creed. Some who don't understand the meaning can tripped up with the holy catholic church statement but on the whole there is more agreement than disagreement on these foundational statements. That alone binds the church.

 

[Blade]

How far are we going back? Well Catholic was not there.. nor the others.. so..