Why do protestants have such varied understanding of what the Bible say's and actually means?

[BrianH]

You’re right, the Montanists were not in communion with Rome and were considered heretics.

I studied church history at a ATS seminary alongside just a few Catholics. Do not break out a quote from…how long ago…to try to substantiate old scholarship about a group. The Montanists were charismatics but had a Trintarian Baptism. This research is how old?
Do you have any books or is all this garbage internet based?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrians are heretics???
Someone better tell the Pope that!!!

Why are you saying that I, myself, called the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Orthodox heretics? I was referencing the list schaik provided.

 

[BrianH]

Why are you saying that I, myself, called the Oriental Orthodox or the Assyrian Orthodox heretics? I was referencing the list schaik provided.

You specifically said that the only split was the Great Schism. Lets be honest. Real honest. Either you had a brain lapse or have never studied world history. Both those groups predate the Great Schism. That is common knowledge.
Here is my point again. There are several groups that go back to the Apostles. That is just a fact.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I studied church history at a ATS seminary alongside just a few Catholics. Do not break out a quote from…how long ago…to try to substantiate old scholarship about a group. The Montanists were charismatics but had a Trintarian Baptism. This research is how old?
Do you have any books or is all this garbage internet based?

Garbarge internet based? Why the hostility? I pulled that from my notes on heresies in my computer Bible program. Use the encylopedia or faith search features on these forums to search Montanists if you like.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You specifically said that the only split was the Great Schism. Lets be honest. Real honest. Either you had a brain lapse or have never studied world history. Both those groups predate the Great Schism. That is common knowledge.
Here is my point again. There are several groups that go back to the Apostles. That is just a fact.

Brian, I just got off a 24 hour shift on the ambulance this morning. I am not in the mood for personal attacks, or ad hominem worded statements, because you disagree with my opinions, or beliefs. If that’s your ‘mood’ for today, it’s best I don’t communicate with you until you can find your normal charitable tone.

Edited to add: all Churches, no matter the age, were of the one Apostolic Church prior the the great schism. With apostolic succession, they can all show lineage back to the Apostles. When one wants to claim it’s individuality, is another story.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, I just got off a 24 hour shift on the ambulance this morning. I am not in the mood for personal attacks, or ad hominem worded statements, because you disagree with my opinions, or beliefs. If that’s your ‘mood’ for today, it’s best I don’t communicate with you until you can find your normal charitable tone.

The Oriental Othodox and Assyrian Church of the East being prior to the Great Schism is not a personal opinion or belief…its history. Common knowledge.
I will only converse with people who would know that

 

[BrianH]

Oriental Orthodoxy refers to the faith of those Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus. They rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Hence, these Oriental Orthodox Churches are also called Old Oriental Churches or Non-Chalcedonian Churches. These churches are generally not in communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches with whom they are in dialogue for a return to unity.[1]

The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the rest of the Church occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal of Pope Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus is in two natures: one divine and one human. Pope Dioscorus would accept only “of or from two natures” but not “in two natures.” To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism, which expressed itself in a terminology incompatible with their understanding of Christology. Founded in the Alexandrine School of Theology it advocated a formula stressing the unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations.

 

[BrianH]

Garbarge internet based? Why the hostility? I pulled that from my notes on heresies in my computer Bible program. Use the encylopedia or faith search features on these forums to search Montanists if you like.

Because it is garbage. Your source…is garbage. I do not have to search it, I own close to a hundred history books Prodigal. None of them are this old I guess…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oriental Orthodoxy refers to the faith of those Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus. They rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Hence, these Oriental Orthodox Churches are also called Old Oriental Churches or Non-Chalcedonian Churches. These churches are generally not in communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches with whom they are in dialogue for a return to unity.[1]

The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the rest of the Church occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal of Pope Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus is in two natures: one divine and one human. Pope Dioscorus would accept only “of or from two natures” but not “in two natures.” To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism, which expressed itself in a terminology incompatible with their understanding of Christology. Founded in the Alexandrine School of Theology it advocated a formula stressing the unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations.

As I said, if you truly believe that you should be a member of that Church if you think them right over the Catholic Church that has existed since the beginning.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because it is garbage. Your source…is garbage. I do not have to search it, I own close to a hundred history books Prodigal. None of them are this old I guess…

Not all of the people on these forums attended the same seminary as you did. So I guess the rest of us ‘ignorant’ people should just refrain from communicating with you. You have the infallible collection of books, none without the possibility of error.

Thanks for the charitable tone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Oriental Othodox and Assyrian Church of the East being prior to the Great Schism is not a personal opinion or belief…its history. Common knowledge.
I will only converse with people who would know that

Then you need to find an Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Orthodox forum. They will ‘know’ what you prefer to ‘know’.

 

[BrianH]

As I said, if you truly believe that you should be a member of that Church if you think them right over the Catholic Church that has existed since the beginning.

Truly believe what? Listen, I am in no mood to give history lessons. It appears, and if I am wrong, show me where. That certain Catholics are not aware that there were schisms prior to the Great Schism. If that is the case, some people have no business typing on the internet. They need to read some more before they feel they know history well enough to correct other people…who were RIGHT

 

[BrianH]

Then you need to find an Oriental Orthodox or Assyrian Orthodox forum. They will ‘know’ what you prefer to ‘know’.

That answered my question.

 

[larkin31]

Oriental Orthodoxy refers to the faith of those Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Ephesus. They rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Hence, these Oriental Orthodox Churches are also called Old Oriental Churches or Non-Chalcedonian Churches. These churches are generally not in communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches with whom they are in dialogue for a return to unity.[1]

The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the rest of the Church occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal of Pope Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus is in two natures: one divine and one human. Pope Dioscorus would accept only “of or from two natures” but not “in two natures.” To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism, which expressed itself in a terminology incompatible with their understanding of Christology. Founded in the Alexandrine School of Theology it advocated a formula stressing the unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations.

Thanks for posting this, Brian. Although it is beyond my knowledge of Christian history, it is pretty clear that what Prodigal (and others do) is simply define certain dogmatic debates and breaks as heretical and others not, all the while erecting an elaborate interpretation to try to be able to state that there has been only one Catholic interpretation and only one true church from the start. We are not in the “apologetics” forum, but we are sure getting a load here. It is clear that Catholics have been in debate and disagreement over interpretation and dogma from the beginning (thus the work of Paul). Some groups even split off far before the Protestant Schism, which is not surprising, since–from your post–it appears that groups will even argue over prepositions.

As a teacher of grammar and rhetoric, I love it! (except for the damnation threats, etc).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Truly believe what? Listen, I am in no mood to give history lessons. It appears, and if I am wrong, show me where. That certain Catholics are not aware that there were schisms prior to the Great Schism. If that is the case, some people have no business typing on the internet. They need to read some more before they feel they know history well enough to correct other people…who were RIGHT

Last post to you today. I need some rest.

I am aware of ‘schisms’ prior to the great schism. John 6:66 tells us of those who left Him and walked with Him no more. Paul wrote about others. Because they ‘schismed’ does not make the one Church wrong, or those who schismed right. That’s my point.

I am surprised at your uncharitable tone today. If that’s the best you have to offer, you should consider your own advice about typing on the internet.

You don’t feel like giving a history lesson? Because why? Is it too much for people to reject your ‘slant’ of history? History is like scriptures, without the traditions of the Church, it’s very subject to be misinterpretated.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks for posting this, Brian. Although it is beyond my knowledge of Christian history, it is pretty clear that what Prodigal (and others do) is simply define certain dogmatic debates and breaks as heretical and others not, all the while erecting an elaborate interpretation to try to be able to state that there has been only one Catholic interpretation and only one true church from the start. We are not in the “apologetics” forum, but we are sure getting a load here. It is clear that Catholics have been in debate and disagreement over interpretation and dogma from the beginning (thus the work of Paul). Some groups even split off far before the Protestant Schism, which is not surprising, since–from your post–it appears that groups will even argue over prepositions.

As a teacher of grammar and rhetoric, I love it! (except for the damnation threats, etc).

I think it best if we stick to the topic, which is not about me.

This is an apologetic forum, whether you’ve noticed it or not. It is that way because all are invited to participate here and Catholics are not going to give up their faith based on other opinions. We choose to follow the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It’s called FAITH.

 

[larkin31]

… History is like scriptures, without the traditions of the Church, it’s very subject to be misinterpretated.

I would amend this statement this way: history is like scriptures, every person and institution reads the past with a slant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I would amend this statement this way: history is like scriptures, every person and institution reads the past with a slant.

Yes…I prefer to follow those ‘apostolic’ teachers as opposed to the more modern teachers though. They have a much more reliable source, as promised in scriptures.

 

[larkin31]

I think it best if we stick to the topic, which is not about me.

True, but you even brought up what kind of day you are having, and what your mood is like…

but the topic is schism and church debate, which go back to the beginning, and members of the church have indeed disagreed and not been of one mind. This is no surprise, of course.

 

[larkin31]

Yes…I prefer to follow those ‘apostolic’ teachers as opposed to the more modern teachers though. They have a much more reliable source, as promised in scriptures.

This claim is shared among many groups; it tends to satisfy.