Theological Studies:

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Five heresies in the church.

Just something to keep in mind.


http://www.swordandtrowel.org/articles/The History of Heresy.pdf

EDIT:

It does list what it considers modern-day proponents of heresies, including my own church.

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no interest in converting someone to any faith and although I may not agree with some other theological points outside my faith, I do not follow any coercive conversion tactics whatsoever. This is for discussion purposes only. Please refer to my corrective post. To every man, his own opinion.

 

[Crown]

Very informative, thank you!

 

[divya]

This article is erroneous, at least in certain regards. It claims that SDAs are modern Judaizers and describe Judaizers as those who believe that ceremonial law/ordinances (the law of Moses) must be followed. SDAs do not adhere to ceremonial law and believe it was blotted out at the cross as noted in Colossians 2.

Further, it claims that Judaizers believe that works save instead of grace. SDAs do not believe that works save. We believe that good works are the fruits of salvation. The Scriptures state that "ye shall know them by their fruits." Matt. 7:16

If one is going to attempt to associate groups with certain beliefs, one should first learn what the groups believe. I'll just give this person the benefit of the doubt and consider it unintentional ignorance.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

This article is erroneous, at least in certain regards. It claims that SDAs are modern Judaizers and describe Judaizers as those who believe that ceremonial law/ordinances (the law of Moses) must be followed. SDAs do not adhere to ceremonial law and believe it was blotted out at the cross as noted in Colossians 2.

Further, it claims that Judaizers believe that works save instead of grace. SDAs do not believe that works save. We believe that good works are the fruits of salvation. The Scriptures state that "ye shall know them by their fruits." Matt. 7:16

If one is going to attempt to associate groups with certain beliefs, one should first learn what the groups believe. I'll just give this person the benefit of the doubt and consider it unintentional ignorance.

I was at first horrified until I read "Roman Catholic" listed under the Judaizers. LOLOL! I scanned it until the very end...where I saw the "modern proponents." My apologies...I wanted to present something that discussed just the heresies of the church...without deonominational name-calling. Back to the search!

 

[divya]

I was at first horrified until I read "Roman Catholic" listed under the Judaizers. LOLOL! I scanned it until the very end...where I saw the "modern proponents." My apologies...I wanted to present something that discussed just the heresies of the church...without deonominational name-calling. Back to the search!

Of all groups, the RCC! That was weird! Wonder where that came from...tee hee. I don't think this person has a real grasp of some of the faiths that he is describing. I understand where he is trying to go though. No need to apologize...you didn't write it.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

In an attempt to list the heresies of the early church from a neutral ground, I haven't found any. I don't wish to list any catholic sources to appear biased. The following article's opening paragraph is one I disagree with...but it lists the heresies of the early church. Take it with a grain of salt...this is for purposes of listing the heresies, not for taking sides.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm

There another I'm unfamiliar with yet from the UK:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/heresies.php

The New Advent Encyclopedia presents info from all churches:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

My point of the first incorrect theological link was to open the discussion for the actual heresy of judaizing...but not that anyone here prescribes to that doctrine - that the Sabbath must be honored for salvation. In the discussions, I thought we might have been coming close to it in suggesting that those who honor it on Saturday are somehow closer to G-d than those who worship on Sunday.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Of all groups, the RCC! That was weird! Wonder where that came from...tee hee. I don't think this person has a real grasp of some of the faiths that he is describing. I understand where he is trying to go though. No need to apologize...you didn't write it.

NOte, it was on the very last page ....to the far right.... I don't care about that, tho. It was to demonstrate what the heresies were. And actually, it is a mortal sin to miss mass. The sabbath, albeit Sunday or Saturday evening vigil to satisfy obligation at the earliest, was taken very seriously and I think that pre-Vatican II, it was observed to the nth degree. So, in a sense, it might appear a Mosaic heresy to some (not that Mosaic law is heretical...it's not applicable to the church).

 

[divya]

In an attempt to list the heresies of the early church from a neutral ground, I haven't found any. I don't wish to list any catholic sources to appear biased. The following article's opening paragraph is one I disagree with...but it lists the heresies of the early church. Take it with a grain of salt...this is for purposes of listing the heresies, not for taking sides.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm

There another I'm unfamiliar with yet from the UK:

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/heresies.php

The New Advent Encyclopedia presents info from all churches:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm

My point of the first incorrect theological link was to open the discussion for the actual heresy of judaizing...but not that anyone here prescribes to that doctrine - that the Sabbath must be honored for salvation. In the discussions, I thought we might have been coming close to it in suggesting that those who honor it on Saturday are somehow closer to G-d than those who worship on Sunday.

Interesting...these are from Methodist and Catholic perspectives.

Relationship with God is determined by God Himself. For any of us as individuals to attempt to state whether someone is closer to God simply by whether they keep the Sabbath or worship on Sunday would not have Scriptural bases. Those earlier discussions to me are simply a matter of study, rightly dividing the Word, and conviction...

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Interesting...these are from Methodist and Catholic perspectives.

Relationship with God is determined by God Himself. For any of us as individuals to attempt to state whether someone is closer to God simply by whether they keep the Sabbath or worship on Sunday would not have Scriptural bases. Those earlier discussions to me are simply a matter of study, rightly dividing the Word, and conviction...

The reason I included them were the result of that very attitude creeping into the discussion. It was definitely implied but I'm not pointing at you. By all means, please present a proper theological link to early church heresies that are not written through catholic nor methodist means...although, New Advent is an encyclopedia of all church doctrines, not just catholic. It's like owning a bookstore and having pentecostal books when the owner is catholic. It's just an encyclopedia.

 

[divya]

The reason I included them were the result of that very attitude creeping into the discussion. It was definitely implied but I'm not pointing at you. By all means, please present a proper theological link to early church heresies that are not written through catholic nor methodist means...although, New Advent is an encyclopedia of all church doctrines, not just catholic. It's like owning a bookstore and having pentecostal books when the owner is catholic. It's just an encyclopedia.

I like the study etc. and believe that's the attitude we are suppose to take! Some may take them differently though.

Honestly, not sure of any links of early church heresies. I'd have to go through it with a fine tooth comb to see if it actually comports with Scriptures before posting it. Of course, it would likely be written from someone's perspective of some particular group. Hmmm...didn't get that vibe from New Advent. Even though the article doesn't mention denominations, it is more in accordance with Catholic beliefs. Interesting though!

 

[aribell]

The reason I included them were the result of that very attitude creeping into the discussion. It was definitely implied but I'm not pointing at you. By all means, please present a proper theological link to early church heresies that are not written through catholic nor methodist means...although, New Advent is an encyclopedia of all church doctrines, not just catholic. It's like owning a bookstore and having pentecostal books when the owner is catholic. It's just an encyclopedia.

One day it would be nice to have a discussion about the proper role of tradition in the Christian faith. At the time that the church denounced those heresies, there weren't fractioned denominations, it wasn't a "catholic" perspective, it was the perspective of the Christian church, period. I wish denominations today appreciated that.

 

[divya]

One day it would be nice to have a discussion about the proper role of tradition in the Christian faith. At the time that the church denounced those heresies, there weren't fractioned denominations, it wasn't a "catholic" perspective, it was the perspective of the Christian church, period. I wish denominations today appreciated that.

That would be interesting. I know there are definitely varying beliefs on the issue...

Different Christian groups today are likely aware of the beliefs of the majority of Christians in those days but just may not agree with them. There may be some dispute regarding the facts though. I also find that the story of the "early church" tends to revolve around those in certain regions as opposed to others. There seems to be more variation when a broader perspective is taken...

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

That would be interesting. I know there are definitely varying beliefs on the issue...

Different Christian groups today are likely aware of the beliefs of the majority of Christians in those days but just may not agree with them. There may be some dispute regarding the facts though. I also find that the story of the "early church" tends to revolve around those in certain regions as opposed to others. There seems to be more variation when a broader perspective is taken...

How do you mean? It was largely middle eastern. Do you mean the church in India founded by St. Thomas, the now-called Syriacs?

 

[divya]

How do you mean? It was largely middle eastern. Do you mean the church in India founded by St. Thomas, the now-called Syriacs?

Yea...largely non-european. However, often times that is the perspective shown...

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

I like the study etc. and believe that's the attitude we are suppose to take! Some may take them differently though.

Honestly, not sure of any links of early church heresies. I'd have to go through it with a fine tooth comb to see if it actually comports with Scriptures before posting it. Of course, it would likely be written from someone's perspective of some particular group. Hmmm...didn't get that vibe from New Advent. Even though the article doesn't mention denominations, it is more in accordance with Catholic beliefs. Interesting though!

It just presents facts. You can go there and read up about Calvinism etc. Perhaps any points of criteria by which to judge differences would be the orthodox faith, the oldest. That's why it might appear to be in more accordance with RCC beliefs. Have to start somewhere and I think that's toward earlier history. But it is a source of theological history across the board, including all theological concepts with an encyclopaedic presentation.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Yea...largely non-european. However, often times that is the perspective shown...

Of the early church? Which perspective of the early church, from it's birthplace? You want the early European perspective of the church? Which timeframe? Around which century...I'm not even sure when Europeans began converting.

Or do you mean more towards Africa? I found a link once on the Kebra Negast...been translated online.

 

[divya]

It just presents facts. You can go there and read up about Calvinism etc. Perhaps any points of criteria by which to judge differences would be the orthodox faith, the oldest. That's why it might appear to be in more accordance with RCC beliefs. Have to start somewhere and I think that's toward earlier history. But it is a source of theological history across the board, including all theological concepts with an encyclopaedic presentation.

Yes you can look up Calvanism etc. But for example, sainthood is more so catholic, for example. Also, the legal classifications are more so from a catholic perspective etc.

 

[divya]

Of the early church? Which perspective of the early church, from it's birthplace? You want the early European perspective of the church? Which timeframe? Around which century...I'm not even sure when Europeans began converting.

Or do you mean more towards Africa? I found a link once on the Kebra Negast...been translated online.

I meant that often when you read or see coverage of the early church, it has a European focus...which to me, is insufficient.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Yes you can look up Calvanism etc. But for example, sainthood is more so catholic, for example. Also, the legal classifications are more so from a catholic perspective etc.

Yes, but it's still part of the christian experience whether a breakaway denomination no longer believes in it. It's just stating facts.

But what do you mean about the non-European representation of the church...of the early church?

 

[music-bnatural-smile]

oh em geee

Judaizers...

that takes me right back to New Testament Survey.... I can't wait to go back to school

 

[divya]

Yes, but it's still part of the christian experience whether a breakaway denomination no longer believes in it. It's just stating facts.

But what do you mean about the non-European representation of the church...of the early church?

It's part of the christian experience of plenty, not all. Catholicism was the first breakaway denomination which made it its doctrine.

I mean that to give a proper representation of the early church, it must be broad. That's all.

 

[divya]

oh em geee

Judaizers...

that takes me right back to New Testament Survey.... I can't wait to go back to school

Yea... I wonder if they classify the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as "Judaizers" as well.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

oh em geee

Judaizers...

that takes me right back to New Testament Survey.... I can't wait to go back to school

'

I had to go look that up, it kinda sounded familiar. So, I looked up what they say about the RCC because I didn't have anything else to type if quickly...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: "Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?"

Answer: The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it appears that I'm damned if'n I do and am damned if'n I don't. I'm betting on "damned if'n I don't do it."
Bless their hearts. Why can't we just have "this is how x does it and this is how y does it aside from this attack stance ahahaha. I understand tho (but I totally disagree):

 

[divya]

'

I had to go look that up, it kinda sounded familiar. So, I looked up what they say about the RCC because I didn't have anything else to type if quickly...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: "Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?"

Answer: The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it appears that I'm damned if'n I do and am damned if'n I don't. I'm betting on "damned if'n I don't do it."
Bless their hearts. Why can't we just have "this is how x does it and this is how y does it aside from this attack stance ahahaha. I understand tho (but I totally disagree):

Wow...are they serious? I guess they are playing God now...

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

It's part of the christian experience of plenty, not all. Catholicism was the first breakaway denomination which made it its doctrine.

I mean that to give a proper representation of the early church, it must be broad. That's all.

I still don't comprehend, broad??? Catholic means "universal" and people often erroneously equate the Roman traditions we find in the West and Byzantine Catholic traditions of the East with something other than the church Christ instituted. When I see "catholic," I know immediately to look at the orthodox faith (not talking about denominational) which has remained the same. The crux of the faith and the tradition which is the eucharist...has remained the same. Catholic doesn't equate to "European." Having also worshipped in the Jewish faith and reading scripture, I certainly see the Jewishness of the church...the early church and those who hold the same traditions as the first. I see a timeline starting with Moses and it progresses from that point, to the first church...the orthodox of faiths....then progresses to separate denominations.

I thought you meant that someone was being left out. I know that the Ethiopian church is absolutely the closest to traditional Jewish worship, with the addition of the Christ which we know most traditional Jews do not find to have fulfilled the prophesies. Still, their worship is the most Hebraic. The Aramaeans and Chaldeans also. You mean them as well? We all have the exact same tradition...liturgies differ somewhat ...but the eucharist is the same. For those wondering what in the world are we talking about....read the Nicene Creed.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

Wow...are they serious? I guess they are playing God now...

Somehow, and maybe this is a surprise, but it's nothing new lol. We get that alllllllll the tiiiiiime Eh erplexed

 

[aribell]

I meant that often when you read or see coverage of the early church, it has a European focus...which to me, is insufficient.

'

I had to go look that up, it kinda sounded familiar. So, I looked up what they say about the RCC because I didn't have anything else to type if quickly...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: "Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?"

Answer: The most crucial problem with the Roman Catholic Church is its belief that faith alone in Christ is not sufficient for salvation. The Bible clearly and consistently states that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior, by grace through faith, grants salvation (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Roman Catholic Church rejects this. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that a person must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Catholic divergence from the Bible on this most crucial of issues, salvation, means that yes, Catholicism is a false religion. If a person believes what the Catholic Church officially teaches, he/she will not be saved. Any claim that works or rituals must be added to faith in order for salvation to be achieved is a claim that Jesus’ death was not sufficient to fully purchase our salvation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and it appears that I'm damned if'n I do and am damned if'n I don't. I'm betting on "damned if'n I don't do it."
Bless their hearts. Why can't we just have "this is how x does it and this is how y does it aside from this attack stance ahahaha. I understand tho (but I totally disagree):

You know I'm over here twitching, right? The Roman Catholic Church is not heretical! We have a "wiki-Christianity" nowadays where anyone can just put stuff out there.

It's okay, though. Jesus Himself prayed that His Church would be unified and I believe that He will bring us there. Unified in heart, mind, spirit, and strength.

 

[GV-NA-GI-TLV-GE-I]

You know I'm over here twitching, right? The Roman Catholic Church is not heretical! We have a "wiki-Christianity" nowadays where anyone can just put stuff out there.

Euro-centricity....I dunno, I can see where some see it that way. But when I see it, I see the ancient Jewish church and the modern day middle-eastern and African brethern...Greeks etc. (which I know are Euro...but it's not that kinduva Euro lol). We worship sometimes with the Ethiopian and Egyptian church...Maronites and Byzantines...and you can feel it's origins. I also make a point to my kids (ad nauseum) about its origins.

 

[divya]

I still don't comprehend, broad??? Catholic means "universal" and people often erroneously equate the Roman traditions we find in the West and Byzantine Catholic traditions of the East with something other than the church Christ instituted. When I see "catholic," I know immediately to look at the orthodox faith (not talking about denominational) which has remained the same. The crux of the faith and the tradition which is the eucharist...has remained the same. Catholic doesn't equate to "European." Having also worshipped in the Jewish faith and reading scripture, I certainly see the Jewishness of the church...the early church and those who hold the same traditions as the first. I see a timeline starting with Moses and it progresses from that point, to the first church...the orthodox of faiths....then progresses to separate denominations.

I thought you meant that someone was being left out. I know that the Ethiopian church is absolutely the closest to traditional Jewish worship, with the addition of the Christ which we know most traditional Jews do not find to have fulfilled the prophesies. Still, their worship is the most Hebraic. The Aramaeans and Chaldeans also. You mean them as well? We all have the exact same tradition...liturgies differ somewhat ...but the eucharist is the same. For those wondering what in the world are we talking about....read the Nicene Creed.

The statement was regarding the historical presentation of Christianity by many currently. That presentation often leaves out the non-European perspectives. That's all.

 

[aribell]

Euro-centricity....I dunno, I can see where some see it that way. But when I see it, I see the ancient Jewish church and the modern day middle-eastern and African brethern...Greeks etc. (which I know are Euro...but it's not that kinduva Euro lol). We worship sometimes with the Ethiopian and Egyptian church...Maronites and Byzantines...and you can feel it's origins. I also make a point to my kids (ad nauseum) about its origins.

I can see where the doctrines could be interpreted that way, too...I honestly think it's too complicated, tomes and tomes of doctrine.

I'm kinda confused about the Euro-centricity part, though.