Early Church Doctrine

[Khristeeanos]

[quote="Adams son":1166b]I wonder if Jesus was an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian.

lol

That is funny.

I don't see how that's funny at all. [/quote:1166b]
It is funny because Jesus is God and is not subject to what we want Him to be subject to.

He surpasses all theology and human opinions.

To say that Jesus is either an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian is totally funny to me. He is neither. He is our Creator. I have never heard those terms before and don't have any idea what they mean.

 

[JM]

We gave a name to the Triune God, called Him the Trinity, is that 'just' our opinion? Oh, so I guess we do name theological terms using human logic. :roll:

I believe 100% in the Bible and the Bible only. I've never read any of the works of John Calvin....not one! When I was saved I read Romans 9 and accepted it at face value, no fancy twisting, just read it and believed it.

AMEN!

 

[Khristeeanos]

We gave a name to the Triune God, called Him the Trinity, is that 'just' our opinion? Oh, so I guess we do name theological terms using human logic. :roll:

I believe 100% in the Bible and the Bible only. I've never read any of the works of John Calvin....not one! When I was saved I read Romans 9 and accepted it at face value, no fancy twisting, just read it and believed it.

AMEN!

The word "trinity" never appears in Scripture, does it?

Romans 9 is talking about Israel as a nation, not individuals.

I started a thread to prove this and it got derailed into something else. My original post stands unrefuted.

 

[JM]

Why was Israel (according to your theology) elected?

 

[Adams son]

Romans 9 is talking about Israel as a nation, not individuals.

I started a thread to prove this and it got derailed into something else. My original post stands unrefuted.

Seems to happen a lot around here.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Why was Israel (according to your theology) elected?

I am not sure what you mean. My point was that the entire chapter of Romans 9 is talking about Israel, not people.

 

[evanman]

Ro 9:30 ¶ What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

This portion speaks concerning Gentiles., and if we continue in the context of the letter Paul speaks about both Jews and Gentiles. That just because the Jews reject Christ doesn't mean that God has finished with them forever.

 

[Adams son]

Why was Israel (according to your theology) elected?

If you are asking why was Israel elected to live in heaven forever and ever, they weren't. They were God's chosen people to carry out his divine mission on earth. As Paul explains, on judgment day, they will be judged just like everyone else and without any favoritism whatsoever.

 

[JM]

Why was Israel (according to your theology) elected?

I am not sure what you mean. My point was that the entire chapter of Romans 9 is talking about Israel, not people.

Israel is a group of people, so election of the nation is the election of people. :o

 

[Khristeeanos]

Why was Israel (according to your theology) elected?

I am not sure what you mean. My point was that the entire chapter of Romans 9 is talking about Israel, not people.

Israel is a group of people, so election of the nation is the election of people. :o

Yes, but it wasn't the indivuduals that are in question. It is the nation as a whole.

Before the nation of Israel had the way of salvation, and they no longer had that way. The Moasic Law was no longer a valid means of attaining salvation. That is the subject at hand, not the individuals.

 

[JM]

That's the fancy footwork I'm talking about!

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Pastor Lyndon]

Jason,

PS: The Council held to Augustine's view of total depravity and repudiated Pelagius.

Of course they did! Many errors corrupted the Church from 325 A.D. on. I would'nt trust any doctrine taught in history after 325 A.D. Any truth that was taught rose out of corruption, while before 325 A.D. (mainly during the first 2 centuries) truth was not corrupted, but in its pure, undefiled form in most all Churches.
Here is one of MANY quotes like it:

In his third book against heresies, Irenaeus wrote: “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostlesâ€Â.
According to Irenaeus, this letter to the Corinthians contains great truth and instruction from the Church in Rome, "declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles".

Such cannot be said after 325 A.D.! Many others testafy of the same, saying that all the Church taught the same gospel as it was received from the Apostles. And then they go on to clearly explain the views I previouly stated. Here are a few quotes just from Clemets letter to the Corinthians.

1 Clement 7:4
Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ and understand how precious it is unto His Father, because being shed for our salvation it won for the whole world the grace of repentance.
1 Clement 7:5
Let us review all the generations in turn, and learn how from generation to generation the Master hath given a place for repentance unto them that desire to turn to Him
1 Clement 21:1
Look ye, brethren, lest His benefits, which are many, turn unto judgment to all of us, if we walk not worthily of Him, and do those things which are good and well pleasing in His sight with concord.

2 Clement 4:5 “For this cause, if ye do these things, the Lord said, Though ye be gathered together with Me in My bosom, and do not My commandments, I will cast you away and will say unto you, Depart from Me, I know you not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.â€Â

2 Clement 5:5 “And ye know, brethren, that the sojourn of this flesh in this world is mean and for a short time, but the promise of Christ is great and marvelous, even the rest of the kingdom that shall be and of life eternal.â€Â
2 Clement 5:6 “What then can we do to obtain them, but walk in holiness and righteousness, and consider these worldly things as alien to us, and not desire them?â€Â
2 Clement 5:7 “For when we desire to obtain these things we fall away from the righteous path.â€Â

2 Clement 6:1 “But the Lord saith, No servant can serve two masters. If we desire to serve both God and mammon, it is unprofitable for us:â€Â
2 Clement 6:2 “For what advantage is it, if a man gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?â€Â
2 Clement 6:7 “For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments.â€Â
2 Clement 6:8 “And the scripture also saith in Ezekiel, ‘Though Noah and Job and Daniel should rise up, they shall not deliver their children in the captivity’.â€Â
2 Clement 6:9 “But if even such righteous men as these cannot by their righteous deeds deliver their children, with what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?â€Â

2 Clement 7:6 “For as concerning them that have not kept the seal, He saith, ‘Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be for a spectacle unto all flesh’.â€Â

There is too much to go on, all covering different arguments btween the Arminian and the Calvinists and baptists. These doline up with the scriptures in what they teach, not teaching anything differently. Just different wording that prove further the Arminian view of the scriptures. There are many better quotes than these, But I chose these because they have to do with Clement, who was mentioned as the third in the Episcipate from the Apostles, having met with them - as many other had as well, and wrote the same things in different wording. How many times should it be repeated in order to believe what they taught. It is clearly stated, which is why no Calvinist has ever been able to use early Church writings to prove their doctrines, but instead, they stand against them as irrelevant.

 

[JM]

Again, if it's Biblical it has to be historical. The date of a doctrine doesn't make it invalid, this is one of the first teachings you'll learn if you have any theological training. The Trinity is the best example. Covanant theolog is another. Both came along after Christ died, but that doesn't make them false, they are bibical doctrines.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Early church doctrine are lessons we can learn from.
But they are not God's word, they are not infallible (alas, the romanists in an uproar), and naming them popes are ludicrous.

 

[Hopeful]

Early church doctrine are lessons we can learn from.
But they are not God's word, they are not infallible (alas, the romanists in an uproar), and naming them popes are ludicrous.

What do you consider "early" church?
I consider what is written in the bible "early" church.
Anything added after that is extrabiblical.

 

[JLB]

Early church doctrine are lessons we can learn from.
But they are not God's word, they are not infallible (alas, the romanists in an uproar), and naming them popes are ludicrous.

You do understand the post you responded to is over 15 years old, right?





JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

You do understand the post you responded to is over 15 years old, right?





JLB

I'm older than that!

 

[D-D-W]

Sorry but I cannot vote for any of the options available.

I find the ECF teachings a very mixed bag. Some things were absolutely spot on, while others are miles from the mark.

 

[Butch5]

Hello All,


I am looking for a response for early Church writings and why they taught so much on views today known as Arminianism and against what later became Calvinism; and why Augustine was the first to begin to teach as he did, in which nothing close to Calvinism is found anywhere other than in Gnostic teachings. I want to know what happened to the "truth" as Calvinists claim.
Now I know that Calvinists reject early Chruch writings, because they are not scripture. And I never asked that they be accepted as such But this still does not explain the dilemna for any Historical evidence for Calvinism. If it cannot be found, then it should be considered that the first Church never believed as Calvinist claim the Bible teaches.
I am not looking for a debate on this, but only for Calvinist explanations. I want to know if I may have missed something in the Calvinist view and understanding of history. Should we trust those who came out of Roman Catholicism 1500 years after the first Church; or would we be better to trust the view of the disciple of the Apostles amd all those who lived very close to the first Church, of which history shows absolutely no disagreement on the doctrines of salvation? I know that we must trust only the scriptures! Please do not avoid the questions here! Since Arminians and Calvinist use the same bibles but come to completely different views, this makes the idea of truthing the bible alone difficult and confusing for some. Church history is only a help in determinine what the Apostles were really saying in the Bible. So what about these writings? Must we assume they all fell from truth immediately after the death of the Apostles and wrote the oppostite as the Apostles taught them?

.

 

[Bible]

The real question then is what is the teaching authority of peter and the apostles and their successors?