J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And is there any Scriptural proof to suggest so?
Actually, yes it does.False Christians need no defining.
The Apostle Paul wrote of false teachers. Peter told Simon Magus he had no share in the ministry.false Christian” can mean anything— the Church doesn’t call people “false Christians”.
So do you agree with this?“false Christian” can mean anything— the Church doesn’t call people “false Christians”.
That’s kind of what I meant by using the word suggesting, but that’s fine.No. That’s what I’m asking.
The issue is that term ‘false Christian’ is not attested within Scripture. One can read of false prophets ψευδοπροφήτης pseudoprohetes, false teachers ψευδοδιδάσκαλος pseudodidaskalos, false brothers ψευδάφελφος, false apostles ψευδαπόστολος pseudapostolos and even false messiahs ψευδόχριστος pseudochristos, but not a false Christian ψευδοχριστίανος pseudochristianos.If you will remember this was in response to “the Church declares no one a false Christian”
οἱ ψευδοχριστιανοὶ, οἱ τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ καθαρὰν Χριστοῦ Ἐκκλησίαν, τράπεζαν ἠλισγημένην ἀποκαλέσαντες, οἱ μὴ εἰδότες διαφορὰν ἁγίου καὶ βεβήλου, καθαροῦ καὶ ἀκαθάρτου.
St John is really using pseudochristianos as a pejorative to heighten his rhetoric, not necessarily as an strictly defined label that is applied to persons possessing x, y and z characteristics.“The false Christians, who [ridicule] the holy and pure Church of Christ, who defile the altar with their disparagements, and who are ignorant of the difference between holiness and profanity, between purity and impurity.”
Neither is the term Trinity and yet here we are.The issue is that term ‘false Christian’ is not attested within Scripture.
It would be far better if you could engage more helpfully with your fellow users, many of whom made insightful posts, rather than making brief commentary which, while perhaps seemingly pungent and witty from your perspective, nonetheless appears cryptic and flippant to others.Neither is the term Trinity and yet here we are.