View Single Post
Old 10-05-2017, 02:56 AM   #24
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,978
Default Re: The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation?

Originally Posted by 1689er View Post
So I have been following this closely and I'm just going to say some things here that some people may or may not appreciate. Firstly let's start with who Christian is according to the Bible.

The Apostles Creed is the admittance of God is Savior and Lord and truly God and his gospel testimony in its plain simplicity. It also is highlighting the importance of God's Church. The Holy Catholic Church it says. Catholic merely means Universal. So God In His Infinite Wisdom has instituted the Universal Church as the communion of Believers across the Spectrum. If anybody believes these things to be true generally speaking they will be Christian. This is a very Broad and simplistic confession.

There are some notable things that are missing from this Creed. The big one is the nature of God in three persons. This is remedied in the next confession.

This Creed is a little different in that it explains the nature of God the Father God the son and God the Holy Spirit as God from God, not being created but rather preexisting. But it doesn't quite spell it out.

The anastasian Creed is clear and concise. Any man who disagrees with these is in the deception of the devil and believing a lie.

The Christians are trinitarian, believing in God is three persons separate and Jesus Christ is one person. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin died for our sins and it through him we receive forgiveness and him alone.

Ask for anybody claiming to have an authority on Truth the only truth is the truth that Jesus Christ proclaimed, and as he said so himself he is a fulfillment of the law and Prophets. He is the Messiah that was promised in the Old Testament and witnessed by the books we now know in the Old Testament., the New Testament is the history of the Apostles Ministry and their confessions and thoughts, and are the inspired word of God. The 66 books of the Protestant Bible are held to be 100% inerrant, divinely given.

No such people who believe in Jesus and the Bible can be called christless. This is in no way Bible worship or false piety that we have confessions and creates that are based solidly in scripture and we believe the words of God's Own truth. Anybody who says otherwise himself is a heretic. Anybody who claims do you have a very specific Church or view of scripture not held by the majority of other Christians is himself a heretic. Anybody who claims to have a special Revelation from God that is not in accordance with scripture or 6 to add or remove from spiritual truth of the Bible, that was given to them and them alone is himself a heretic.

Furthermore any persons who look at the plain truth of scripture and it's clear unambiguous meanings and reject the truth for a lie are Heretics. There are people who believe in things that are not quite biblical and these beliefs are called heterodox. It is possible to believe in heterodoxy rather than Orthodoxy which is the mainstream accepted forms of belief of the Bible and its interpretation. anybody who reject God's truth for selfish reasons in plain rebellion of scripture is a heretic.

I think many Christians believe in the Creeds first and the Bible second. They presume that the Creeds are the foundation for the Christian life and the Bible, such as this poster has indicated. They think that if they believe certain things, and agree with all the Creeds, that they are not a heretic. Well I will show this view to be wrong, from the bible, towards the end of this post, and show how the Bible defines the word heretic or heresy.

There are a few things to realize about the Creeds. Firstly, at the time the Nicene Creed (AD 325) , 7 books we have in our bibles today were not Canonical. It wasn't until A.D. 397 that the Council of Carthage determined that the 7 books should be part of the Bible.

Secondly, the Creeds are a result of the pagan Emperor, Constantine, deciding about what Christians should believe about the nature of God and so forth. Protestants unquestionably accept these teachings as if they were Catholics themselves, but I think during the Reformation they had bigger things to worry about than arguing or defining the nature of God, like trying to not get caught by Catholics and making the bible available for all people.

Regarding this poster's statement that those who disagree with the "majority of other Christians"are heretics, I have these questions:

1) Roman Catholicism at 1.2 billion people, is "the majority of other Christians". Should we be Catholics?
2) The Reformation itself would not have happened if Luther, Calvin etc agreed with the majority of Christians. This definition of heresy does not seem right ot me.

The term heresy, for centuries, meant those who disagreed with the teachings of the "true church", the Roman Catholic church. In this sense, Luther, Calvin etc were considered heretics for not staying with the Catholic church's teachings.

However the term heresy was redefined by the Reformers, as this poster has also done, to mean those who disagree with the majority. In that sense, those who did not agree with Luthers teachings were called heretics. Those who disagreed with the Church of England were heretics. Those who rejected Calvin's teachings were called heretics. Obviously, the term heresy became relative to whoever laid the charge of heresy at others. So when someone says "heresy" we must ask the question - in relation to what? Common sense tells us that if God is true, never changing, and if absolute truth exists, then heresy cannot be a relative thing, there must be an absolute definition of heresy, and I will show that the bible provides an absolute definition of the word in two verses:

Galatians 5:19-21a says, "And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, faction, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, carousings..." The Greek word for "parties" is hairesis which literally means heresies, and means various schools of opinions, or sects.

Titus 3:10 uses the same word hairesis meaning factious man, or one who is inclined to dissension.

So we can see that according to the Bible, that 1689er 's definition of heresy, though standard in Protestantism, is wrong and not scriptural. A heretic is not one who "disagrees with the majority", but one who separates into parties, dissension, schools of opinions or sects.

So in this biblical sense, the Catholic useage of the word, as any who break away from the "true church", is more correct and biblical than the Protestant use of the word which defines it as a thing relative to the majority of opinion. This is ironic given that the Protestants claim to be "Sola Scriptura".

But actually if we go back to a time before Catholicism, when all believer in the city were considered to be "the church", and not those who held to Roman Catholic teachings or otherwise, then the true biblical definition of a heretic and heresy is clear - a heretic is one who separates into a party, sect, even a denomination. The real heretics are those who separate from "the church", and it is nothing much to do with what they believe about the nature of God and such or whether or not they agree with the majority.

What this biblical definition shows is that a person could believe in all the Creeds, yet be a heretic if they are a divisive person like described by "I follow Paul" (1 Cor 3:4). Note that I did not use the term "the true church" because it is a nonsensical argument - in God's eyes there are only two types of people - believers and unbelievers. Believers are the church, and unbelievers are not. The so-called denominational churches are more correctly, organized sects, as they are cuts/divisions in the church which did not exist in the time of the apostles.

Anyone who wishes to be a "noble berean" can search Galatians 5:19-21a and Titus 3:10 in Greek for themselves, and see the true meaning of the word heretic according to the Bible. Even if they disagree with it on the basis of its implication regarding the local church/Lee/Nee and the teachings on the one church per city, it should hopefully be clear that a heretic is not those who disagree with the majority.
Evangelical is offline   Reply With Quote