Heresies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dokimas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ralphinal said:
If we look at this logically, it is impossible for Jesus to have taught anything incorrect. Therefore, everything that he teaches in the Gospels is correct and anything opposed to it is heretical.

Now, we must look at what is taught in the rest of the Bible. If the other works have incorrect teachings in them, we should discard the lot. We have no way to verify what is and is not correct in them. However, if we take the two statements by Jesus that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all TRUTH (i.e. no heresies) and that hell would not prevail over the Church (i.e. no heresies would be taught), then we can say that the NT contains no heresies. But, since the faith is founded on the teachings and very existence of Jesus Christ, anything in the Bible must be understood based on what Jesus himself taught (in other words, if we think that John or Paul are saying something different, we need to hold to what Jesus said and understand the others based on that).

So, we have a Bible that contains no heretical teachings.

Is there any reason to think that the protections from Jesus applied only to the First Century Church? If yes, then it is possible that heresies have entered the faith. If not, then we should be able to compare that which the Church teaches to that which is opposed and say there is heresy. I would like to say that if heresies entered the Church, we have the same issue that we have with the Bible: there is no way to be sure what should be kept and what should not be kept.

Now, if you say that we should only keep that which is in the Bible, we run right into the verse in John where he says that not everything Jesus said or did is in the Bible. Further, Paul says that we should hold fast to that which we were taught by word of mouth or by letter. We get into a possible situation where there are some things that are not recorded that may be important to the faith.
Click to expand...
There is mention in the Bible (NT) of heresies going around in the churches of the 1st century. Heresies have always invaded the church. Why do you think it is different now or for the last 15 centuries?
 
wisdomseeker said:
very well said. let’s take for example: Jesus said: “This is my Body, take and eateth it…
This is my Blood take and drinketh…” for 2000 years the CC says this is the True Body and Blood of Christ which we partake.

protestants denies this. and i ask the question can someone 2000 years later pick up the Bible and know for sure what Jesus meant by these Words?

:highprayer::byzsoc:
Click to expand...
Unless you are claiming that protestant belief about communion is heresy, then your comment may better fit on the thread about communion.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
First, what do you mean by “local church.” Is there more than one church founded by Jesys Christ? And where in the verse does it say “local church?”

I think it means exactly what it says… take it to the church. (Not “a” church or “a local church”) The verse implies there is only one church to resolve such conflicts… the church founded by Jesus Christ.

I agree the passage does not say take the brother to a religion. But such rhetoric confuses the point. The authority to resolve the issue lies in *the *church referenced in the bible verse, not simply “a” local community of believers who profess the name of Jesus. If such were the case, we would have had a christianity that looked a lot like protestantism dating from the beginning. Instead, we had a single church authority, and those who accepted that authority (i.e. the teaching of the Apostles and their successors) throughout the different communities established from the beginning.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...

As one reads the NT, especially Acts and the letters to different churches, it is obvious that there where many churches founded. The original disciple/apostles including Paul, tried to keep doctrine pure and that seemed to be a struggle. So when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesis, it was to a local church. Sure it had information to be gleaned to all churches. All these churches together makes up the universal church that Jesus founded, catholic with a little ‘c’ not the CC with a big ‘C’.​

My guess is that the name of the church Jesus founded is the Body of Christ.
 
Dokimas said:

As one reads the NT, especially Acts and the letters to different churches, it is obvious that there where many churches founded. The original disciple/apostles including Paul, tried to keep doctrine pure and that seemed to be a struggle. So when Paul wrote to the church at Ephesis, it was to a local church. Sure it had information to be gleaned to all churches. All these churches together makes up the universal church that Jesus founded, catholic with a little ‘c’ not the CC with a big ‘C’.​

My guess is that the name of the church Jesus founded is the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Interesting interpretation, but some fuzzy definitions. I think Jesus founded one Church, because He never said otherwise. You are using the term “church” loosely here, to refer to a specific community of believers that is part of that one Church. I have no reason to disbelieve the writer meant when he said when he wrote “take it to the church” because, as you say, there is only one Church. As a practical matter, one would take a dispute between two brothers to the representative of that one church with authority to resolve the difference, i.e. a bishop.

Yes, of course the Church had troubles from the beginning keeping everyone in line with correct doctrines. Nothing is new under the sun. But the point is clear that what is being referred to is not simply having the local members come together, but to have an authority weigh in on a matter of contention between two members.

The universal church is what it is. Punctuation makes no difference. You don’t need to guess. Just look for the marks: One, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Peace,
Robert
 
Dokimas said:
Thanks for your comments. Let me see if I understand… you think that those of us who don’t accept the CC as our authority is in heresy?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that. But determining heresy naturally brings the idea of an Authority to mind.
 
Dokimas said:
Unless you are claiming that protestant belief about communion is heresy, then your comment may better fit on the thread about communion.
Click to expand...
here is from the Council of Trent.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.*

**St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES.” **

"He who does not believe the Son, makes Him a liar."
1John 5:10
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Interesting interpretation, but some fuzzy definitions. I think Jesus founded one Church agreed, because He never said otherwise Agreed. You are using the term “church” loosely here** Let me be more specific - the church Jesus founded has all those that have trusted in Jesus and His sacrificial death on the Cross**., to refer to a specific community of believers that is part of that one Church. I have no reason to disbelieve the writer meant when he said when he wrote “take it to the church” **Are we to take it to Rome? That’s the seat of your church. If not, then you are saying take it to the local church in actuallity. **because, as you say, there is only one Church. As a practical matter, one would take a dispute between two brothers to the representative of that one church with authority to resolve the difference, i.e. a bishop (or pastor).

Yes, of course the Church had troubles from the beginning keeping everyone in line with correct doctrines. Nothing is new under the sun. But the point is clear that what is being referred to is not simply having the local members come together, but to have an authority weigh in on a matter of contention between two members.

The universal church is what it is. Punctuation makes no difference. You don’t need to guess. Just look for the marks: One, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
 
wisdomseeker said:
here is from the Council of Trent.

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.*

**St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans, 6:2, 106AD
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of Our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. THEY WHO DENY THE GIFT OF GOD ARE PERISHING IN THEIR DISPUTES.” **

**“He who does not believe the Son, makes Him a liar.” **What does this have with communion?****1John 5:10
Click to expand...
Now please show me the teaching in the Bible. At least there we can find common ground.
 
graceandglory said:
I didn’t say that. But determining heresy naturally brings the idea of an Authority to mind.
Click to expand...
The Bible is an authority. The Holy Spirit is the Authority. Local churches have church leaders, they have some authority.
 
Dokimas said:
Now please show me the teaching in the Bible. At least there we can find common ground.
Click to expand...
although we are not solo Scripture, it is all there. the Church has been defending the Teachings of our Lord and the Apostles for Centuries against heretical theology.
do you even know what are heresies? do you care?
 
Dokimas said:
There is mention in the Bible (NT) of heresies going around in the churches of the 1st century. Heresies have always invaded the church. Why do you think it is different now or for the last 15 centuries?
Click to expand...
Because in the First century, there were Apostles that people listened to. Today, no one wants to hear that they are wrong.
 
Dokimas said:
The Bible is an authority. The Holy Spirit is the Authority. Local churches have church leaders, they have some authority.
Click to expand...
If a local church teaches that Jesus was not 100% true man and 100% true God, or that there is no Trinity but a Duality, are they wrong in doing so?
 
wisdomseeker said:
although we are not solo Scripture, it is all there. the Church has been defending the Teachings of our Lord and the Apostles for Centuries against heretical theology.
do you even know what are heresies? do you care?
Click to expand...

I care. Teach me from the Bible, please.​

 
ralphinal said:
Because in the First century, there were Apostles that people listened to. Today, no one wants to hear that they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Does that include the CC faithfuls like yourself (I’m guessing you are a catholic)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top