Heretical Church Fathers

[Saint Nicholas]

I'm confident that all those who subscribe to this forum would agree that the Doctrine of Purgatory, is a complete denial of the Gospel. As our brother Paul the Apostle in Galations 1:6-9 taught. In fact, Paul repeated twice his Anethema, on those who would promulgate a false gospel. Should we not do the same?

Augustine of Hippo and some of his contemporaries, and later followers, all continued down the road of perdition. It is quite obvious to me at least, that Augustine had no clue at all to what constitutes the True Gospel of Grace Alone, with all of it's true Soteriological implications.

It amazes me, in that how most Potest-ANTS, rally around Augustine, and even go so far as to defend this man.

I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, went to Parochial schools, attended Cathedral Latin high school, and also considered entering the Novitiate. As a then Roman Catholic, I defended the doctrine of Pugatory using the writings of Augustine, and other early Roman Catholic churchmen.

I was also taught as a Roman Catholic in our High School theology classes, that we were not to consider non-catholics as heretics and infidels anymore. We were to consider them as Seperated Brethren, as a result of Vatican II "s ecumenical dialogue.

The Papacy has done a wonderful job at deceiving most of the non-Roman catholics in the world.

I laugh every time when some brainwashed protestant, and evengelical, tries to defend the ECT1, ECT2 accords, The World council of Churches, The National council of churches, and all attemps to unify themselves visibly with Rome.

Below is a link that is helpful to see what Augustine, and others under the Anethema of Paul taught.

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm

In defense for the Blood of the Martyrs, killed by the Roman Catholic anti-Christian church.

Nicholas

[wildboar]

There is a good deal of dispute over whether or not Augustine taught the doctrine of purgatory. See the following: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...purgatory.html

There is some textual evidence to suggest that the doctrine of purgatory was inserted into Augustine by a later editor.

However, even if Augustine did subscribe to some doctrine of purgatory I see know reason why we should ignore everything he said. Purgatory is certainly a big error but if for instance the Bible he was using included the books of Maccabees I can see why he would hold to a belief in some form of purgatory. If we were consistent in only reading what those who have written who have written nothing in error we would stop reading anything we ourselves have written.

[lionovjudah]

However, even if Augustine did subscribe to some doctrine of purgatory I see know reason why we should ignore everything he said. Purgatory is certainly a big error but if for instance the Bible he was using included the books of Maccabees I can see why he would hold to a belief in some form of purgatory. If we were consistent in only reading what those who have written who have written nothing in error we would stop reading anything we ourselves have written.

Chuck, this issue was brought to light and echos Hanko in his article "A plea for confessions" I can utilyze the same sentiments with the fathers of the church. replace "creeds/confessions with fathers and the crux is the same

The creeds are one of the fruits of that work of the Spirit. To deny the usefulness of creeds[fathers] and their place in the church is to deny that the Spirit of truth has worked in the church of the past, or at least to deny that His work has any relevance for the church today. By so doing the church today cuts herself off from the church of the past, denying the fundamental unity of the church in all ages. This is one of the great weaknesses of the church today, that she has no ties to the church of the past - does not know the history and lessons of the past, nor the battles the church has fought, nor God's faithfulness to His church through all the ages. She tries to stand completely on her own against the forces of evil, instead of seeing herself as part of that great "army with banners" that is "fair as the moon, clear as the sun" (Song 6:10).

Not only that, but by cutting herself off from the church of past, the church today says in effect that every generation must start all over in its searching of the Scriptures and pursuit of the truth. Thus she sets herself an impossible task - a task that is either set aside as too great so that there is little knowledge of the truth in the church, or which leaves her no time for other things.
This is well-stated by the Presbyterian author, G.I. Williamson:

The Bible contains a great wealth of information. It isn't easy to master it all - in fact, no one has ever mastered it completely. It would therefore be foolish for us to try to do it on our own, starting from scratch. We would be ignoring all the study of the Word of God that other people have done down through the centuries. That is exactly why we have creeds. They are the product of many centuries of Bible study by a great company of believers. They are a kind of spiritual "road map" of the teaching of the Bible, already worked out an proved by others before us. And, after all, isn't this exactly what Jesus promised? When he was about to finish his work on earth, he made this promise to his disciples: "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). And Christ kept his promise. When the Day of Pentecost came, he sent his Spirit to dwell in his people. The Holy Spirit was poured out - not on individuals, each by himself, but on the whole body of Christian believers together ( Acts 2). And from that time until this, he has been giving his church an understanding of the Scriptures. It is no wonder that the church expressed itself from very early times through creeds (p. 3).4

He adds:

And right here we see one of the most important things about a creed that is true to the Bible - it remains true down through the ages. It does not need to be changed again and again, with each generation, because it deals with things that are unchanging. Thus, an accurate creed binds the generations together. It reminds us that the church of Jesus Christ is not confined to one age, just as it is not confined to any one place. In other words, there is a unity in what Christians have believed, right down through the ages. Just think of it: when we confess our faith together . . . we join with all those believers who have gone before us. Does not this demonstrate that there is indeed just one Lord and one true faith? (p. 3).

[Robert R. Higby]

The usefulness of creeds is usually interpreted in an all-or-nothing fashion; that is the problem. If we judge all creeds by the rule of the apostolic gospel and edit the dross out of them accordingly, I have no problem with using ANY of them in corporate worship or as eloquent statements of our faith.

[Saint Nicholas]

[quote=wildboar;48906]There is a good deal of dispute over whether or not Augustine taught the doctrine of purgatory. See the following: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...purgatory.html

There is some textual evidence to suggest that the doctrine of purgatory was inserted into Augustine by a later editor. ( So that's your answer Chuck . You guys have been in bed with Augustine so long that instead of admitting he taught a False Gospel, now you guys try to sanitize his writings, by claiming he never said such things. The Neo-Nazis of our day do the same thing with Hitler. They claim the Holocaust was just a myth and it never happened.

However, even if Augustine did subscribe to some doctrine of purgatory I see know reason why we should ignore everything he said. ( That's an over rationalization on your part Chuck. How about me saying " even if Charles Taze Russell did subsrcribe to some form of false doctrine I see no reason why we should ignore everything he said")Purgatory is certainly a big error ( A big error is surely an understatement. It is a complete denial of the Gospel !!) but if for instance the Bible he was using included the books of Maccabees I can see why he would hold to a belief in some form of purgatory.( You have to be joking. What utter nonsense. Your argument is frivolous. I and many other Ex-Roman Catholics possess a Catholic bible, and we do not teach Purgatory. Only a false teacher who knows not the True Pristine Gospel of Grace Alone, Through Christ Alone, Saved by an Imputed Righteousness Alone, would teach such a blasphemy.) If we were consistent in only reading what those who have written who have written nothing in error we would stop reading anything we ourselves have written.( Wrong again Chuck. Christians read alot of books, articles, etc. I have read alot of books and teachings from, The Mormons, The Roman Church, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, and other false churches, However, I do not try to defend them as true christians. Your non-sequitor style of debate is patently obvious to me. I have debated with many Romanist priests and jesuits in the past, they are masters of the non-sequitor approach. quote]


In defense for the blood of the Martyrs killed and tortured by the Papal Antichrist,

Nicholas

[Brandan Kraft]

but if for instance the Bible he was using included the books of Maccabees I can see why he would hold to a belief in some form of purgatory

That is a foundational difference between me and reformed people. Reformed people say the Gospel is true because it's in their Bible. I say the Bible is true because the Gospel is in it! I and others on this forum judge the scriptures by the Gospel alone and reformed folks judge the Gospel by the received text. There is no excuse for believing something falsely because it has been inserted falsely into the bible. One must judge all things by the Gospel, and that includes false additions to what we call a bible.

[Mrs. Gill]

Good point Darth reformed resmormed
This is not said enough
We musth judge everything by gospel....all writings..

[wildboar]

St. Nicholas:

I never said for sure whether Augustine did or didn't teach the doctrine of purgatory. Patristic textual criticism is something I'm not even a novice in. I do know that some have questioned the genuiness of this text. I do know that there are other writings by other church fathers that were transmitted in various forms and some which almost everybody agrees have been added to. We don't have the same amoung of mss. support for many of the church fathers' writings that we do for the NT. We find a number of insertions and deletions throughout the NT in numerous localized text even though the vast majority of mss overall seem to have been carefully copied and reflect what was originally written. People were not as careful with the writings of the fathers as they were with the NT writings and were more likely to modify them in order support some point they were trying to make. It is also easier to modify a document from a church father and get away with it since they were not part of the regular liturgy of the church. The Western Church, especially in the middle ages seemed to be more willing to modify Biblical texts for their own purposes so it would not surprise me if they created this text and inserted into Augustine.

All that being said, perhaps Augustine did teach some form of a doctrine of purgatory. It's not going to keep me up at night. It's not something that is central to his thought. Augustine did not invent the doctrine of purgatory, it was commonly held by people in his day. You are comparing you own situation in which you happen to have a catholic Bible in your house but probably have a good number of other Bibles in your house to Augustine who probably had access to a handfull of local Latin texts. The whole lightswitch approach is unrealistic. People do not wake up one day and have every error purged from their head. Augustine made a huge contribution to theology and to the church's understanding of predestination. I doubt that had you been alive at that time you would have gone half as far as Augustine did. We can only go further because we stand upon his shoulders.

I certainly disagree with Augustine on a great number of things, but it is very naive to go searching around and find some false teaching and then declare that such and such person is automatically damned. Have you never written anything false?

[wildboar]

That is a foundational difference between me and reformed people. Reformed people say the Gospel is true because it's in their Bible.

I never said that. But the Bible is one of the ways by which we learn the Gospel. The Apostolic message certainly preceded the writing of the NT and the Gospel can still go forth to people and people can still believe the Gospel who do not have access to any Bible at all. But the Bible is God's Word and I'm not going to disparage that. I suppose you could say that Paul's statement that all Scripture is God-breathed is not part of the "real Bible" but then you would just have your subjective inner light. It is far too easy to read something in the Bible, not like it, and then say it must not be part of their "real Bible." Feminists, homosexuals, cult leaders, and dispensationalists do it all the time.

[Saint Nicholas]

[quote=wildboar;48986]St. Nicholas:

I never said for sure whether Augustine did or didn't teach the doctrine of purgatory. Patristic textual criticism is something I'm not even a novice in. I do know that some have questioned the genuiness of this text. I do know that there are other writings by other church fathers that were transmitted in various forms and some which almost everybody agrees have been added to. We don't have the same amoung of mss. support for many of the church fathers' writings that we do for the NT. We find a number of insertions and deletions throughout the NT in numerous localized text even though the vast majority of mss overall seem to have been carefully copied and reflect what was originally written. People were not as careful with the writings of the fathers as they were with the NT writings and were more likely to modify them in order support some point they were trying to make. It is also easier to modify a document from a church father and get away with it since they were not part of the regular liturgy of the church. The Western Church, especially in the middle ages seemed to be more willing to modify Biblical texts for their own purposes so it would not surprise me if they created this text and inserted into Augustine.

All that being said, perhaps Augustine did teach some form of a doctrine of purgatory.( Yes, I totaly agree) It's not going to keep me up at night.(Me neither) It's not something that is central to his thought.( Correct. It was not central to his thought. Purgatory was the logical outcome of his false theology of GRATIA INFUSA. Augustine taught that a sinner could MERIT his salvation by cooperating with enabling grace. If a sinner dies and is not inherently sinless, he could atone for venial sins in purgatory.) Augustine did not invent the doctrine of purgatory,(He sure taught it) it was commonly held by people in his day.(You are correct. Pure Pagan Mysticism) You are comparing you own situation in which you happen to have a catholic Bible in your house but probably have a good number of other Bibles in your house to Augustine who probably had access to a handfull of local Latin texts.(No excuse. If he had the old testament, the 4 Gospels, and even some of the epistles of Paul. There still would be no warrant for him teach salvation by GOOD works) The whole lightswitch approach is unrealistic. People do not wake up one day and have every error purged from their head.(I agree, however were talking about a false gospel here Chuck. Not weather we should have Christmas trees or not) Augustine made a huge contribution to theology and to the church's understanding of predestination.( Oh, really. In upcoming posts I will show you by his teachings that he has a totaly different view of predestination than what we at Predestination Network embrace)I doubt that had you been alive at that time you would have gone half as far as Augustine did.( How do you know that Chuck? You and I could have been birds or dogs by the will of God. He does not owe us human existence.) We can only go further because we stand upon his shoulders.(The Roman Church surely did not go further, but sunk deeper and deeper in error. Instead of standing on the word of God Alone Sola Scriptura, they made the fatal error of standing on the patristic fathers. And the protestant and non Roman churches today are making the same mistake. They make the church the final authority, not the Bible.

I certainly disagree with Augustine on a great number of things,( I'm glad to hear that) but it is very naive to go searching around and find some false teaching and then declare that such and such person is automatically damned.( I did not say that Chuck. Perhaps God in his infinite mercy may have delivered him from promulgating a false gospel. It is the apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who places purveyors of false gospels under Anethema) Have you never written anything false?( Yes I have. And God granted me repentence and I have recanted of my heretical teachings of the past. Have you found any writings of Augustine where he repented of his false teachings ? I have not.

For the love of the True gospel of Christ,

Nicholas

[katoikei]

Have you found any writings of Augustine where he repented of his false teachings ? I have not.

I think if you do a little search you will find that St. Augustine published something a called his retractions. I have been trying to get hold of it for a very long time. It is something certainly apologetes prefer not to discuss. My conviction is that there is much that Augustine retracted.

[Saint Nicholas]

[/color]

I think if you do a little search you will find that St. Augustine published something a called his retractions. I have been trying to get hold of it for a very long time. It is something certainly apologetes prefer not to discuss. My conviction is that there is much that Augustine retracted.

Thanks for your response Eric. You are correct. Augustine in his later and more mature years, critiqued his own writings, and further developed his thought, however he never retracted "GRATIA INFUSA". You will find NOTHING in all his writngs that teaches an Imputed Righteous. or to put it in other words an Alien and Extrinsic Righteousness.

That is why we as believers should judge ALL writings, including my own, by the Gospel and nothing but the Gospel. It is the Gospel that even inteprets our eschatalogical views.

Nicholas

[katoikei]

Thanks for your response Eric. You are correct. Augustine in his later and more mature years, critiqued his own writings, and further developed his thought, however he never retracted "GRATIA INFUSA". You will find NOTHING in all his writngs that teaches an Imputed Righteous. or to put it in other words an Alien and Extrinsic Righteousness.

That is why we as believers should judge ALL writings, including my own, by the Gospel and nothing but the Gospel. It is the Gospel that even inteprets our eschatalogical views.

Nicholas

Augustine certainly was a deep thinker and far ahead of his time, but he never seemed to really get Paul. I guess that is the problem with most.

I hope you are going to explain to me what you mean by 'alien and extrinsic righteousness.' You can email me anything that you cannot link or put up.

Peace, Nicolas.

[wildboar]

Thanks for your response Eric. You are correct. Augustine in his later and more mature years, critiqued his own writings, and further developed his thought, however he never retracted "GRATIA INFUSA". You will find NOTHING in all his writngs that teaches an Imputed Righteous. or to put it in other words an Alien and Extrinsic Righteousness.

Gratia is grace not righteousness. What have you read by Augustine that makes you so certain of what he taught and never retracted? Have you read his retractions?

[wildboar]

His retractions can be purchased here: Amazon.com: Fathers of the Church: Saint Augustine : The Retractions (Fathers of the Church): Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine: Books

Oh, really. In upcoming posts I will show you by his teachings that he has a totaly different view of predestination than what we at Predestination Network embrace)I doubt that had you been alive at that time you would have gone half as far as Augustine did.( How do you know that Chuck? You and I could have been birds or dogs by the will of God. He does not owe us human existence.) We can only go further because we stand upon his shoulders.(The Roman Church surely did not go further, but sunk deeper and deeper in error. Instead of standing on the word of God Alone Sola Scriptura, they made the fatal error of standing on the patristic fathers. And the protestant and non Roman churches today are making the same mistake. They make the church the final authority, not the Bible.

Well, I'm really not concerned if he contradicts the predestination network since I'm not going to make the predestination network my pope. I think it's very foolish to think that the church only became more erroneous. Have you read all the writings of the church in order to make this determination? There were various views within the RC on the relationship between Scripture and tradition all through the middle ages and it wasn't until the Council of Trent that an official position was taken on it.

[katoikei]

There were various views within the RC on the relationship between Scripture and tradition all through the middle ages and it wasn't until the Council of Trent that an official position was taken on it.

Ah, the divine providence and preservation of the Spirit of Truth in revealing to His saints the written word of TRUTH, as spoken by the Godhead.

[Saint Nicholas]

[quote=wildboar;49015]His retractions can be purchased here: Amazon.com: Fathers of the Church: Saint Augustine : The Retractions (Fathers of the Church): Saint, Bishop of Hippo Augustine: Books



Well, I'm really not concerned if he contradicts the predestination network since I'm not going to make the predestination network my pope.( Me neither.) I think it's very foolish to think that the church only became more erroneous.( Oh really?....Prayers for the dead and making the sign of the cross. Both began 300 years after Christ 310. Wax candles introduced into the church about 320. Veneration of angels and dead saints about 375. The mass, as a daily celebration, adopted about 394. The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term,"mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus in 431. Priests of Rome began to dress differenty from their laity in about 500 The doctrine of Purgatory was promoted by Gregory the Great about the year 593. The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory the first, about 600. The Papacy is of pagan origen. The title of Pope or universal Bishop was first given to the bishop of Rome by wicked emporor Phocas, in the year 610. This he did to spite bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed the title "pope". Kissing of the pope's feet began in 709. It has been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The temporal power of the popes began 750. Worship of the cross, of images and relics was authorized in 788. Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the pagan roman priests, was authorized in 850. The veneration of St. Joseph began in 890. The Baptism of bells was instituted by pope John XIV. Canonization of dead saints, by Pope Jogn XV. Fasting on Fridays was imposed during the man-made Roman tradition of Lent. 998. The Mass was further developed as a sacrifice, and made obligatory in the 11th century. The celibacy of the Roman Catholic pagan priesthood, was decreed by pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII, in the year 1079. The rosary, or prayer beads was intoduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090, copied from the Hindus and Mohammedans. The Inquisition of heretics was instituded by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus our Lord never taught the use of force to spread the Gospel. The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began in the year 1190. The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by pope Innocent III, in the year 1215. Confession of sins to a Roman pagan priest, at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III, in the Laterin Council, in the year 1215. The adoration of the Wafer (HOST), was decreed by pope Honorius in the year 1220. The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the index of forbidden books by the council of Valencia in 1229. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk, in the year 1287. The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the council of Constance, in 1414. The teahing of Purgatory was proclamed as a Dogma of faith by the Council of Florence in 1439. The Doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed 1439. There are no such things as Sacraments. It is an invention of Roman Mystics. The Ave Maria 1508. The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that TRADITION of the CHURCH is of EQUAL in authority with the Bible, and is binding on the conscience of men to believe for any hope of salvation. The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent in 1546. The creed of pope Pious IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles. The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by pope Pius IX in the year 1854. In the year 1870 after Christ, pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. Pope Pius X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "modernism", all the discoveries of modern Science which are not approved by the church. In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the public school system. In 1931 the same pope Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God". In the year 1950 "The Assumption of Mary" was proclaimed as dogma by Pope Pius XII. So you see Chuck, you are dead wrong!. The church has become more erroneous.Have you read all the writings of the church in order to make this determination?( NO, however the ones I have read were enough to make me vomit. Why should I then consider to read ALL the poison.) There were various views within the RC on the relationship between Scripture and tradition all through the middle ages and it wasn't until the Council of Trent that an official position was taken on it.(Wether something is "official" or "unofficial" is a straw man. If something is wrong, it is wrong by essence.[/quote]

Nicholas

[katoikei]

Nicholas,

I enjoyed your early references to William Webster's work and wondered where you are obtaining your information from. (sources) Also it is mainly because you have tweeked the ears of certain members of my family who were once part of RCC.

I found the William Webster has a great series of real audio from tape lectures that are used as syllabus for Whitfield Theological Seminary in Lakeland, Florida, titled: Roman Catholic Tradition , It's roots and evolution.

I have over the years enjoy the work of ex-Catholic priest, Richard Bennet, who has plenty of written and audio material to make one aware of what is going on a grass roots level in the Catholic Church. He has interview with ex-nuns, and priests, but so far no Popes.

[wildboar]

Nicholas:

Copying and pasting from sites on the internet is not research. The info presented isn't even accurate. You vomiting doesn't prove anything either. See a doctor. The fact of the matter is that the Protestant position on Sola Scriptura was the general position of the church until the 12th century and even after that was debated until the council of Trent.

Pope Pius X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "modernism", all the discoveries of modern Science which are not approved by the church. In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the public school system.

This is a bad thing? Are you even reading these things before you copy and paste them? I don't see how condemnation of the public school system somehow is a demonstration of apostacy.

In 1931 the same pope Pius XI reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God".

Mary is the mother of God. Jesus is God. Mary was Jesus mother. Sorry Eutychus.

Latin was used as the language of the church in the Western church from the beginning because guess what--they spoke Latin. It is true that later on as a language it was venerated in ways that it should not have been just as the language of the KJV is venerated by some Protestants today.

But anyhow, none of these things have anything to do with what you were posting about. If you claim that somebody always taught something and never retracted it you have a responsibility to make good on your claim or retract your claim. If you just continue to make these accusations without proof you are nothing more than a slanderer. I know it makes some people feel cool to accuse everyone before them of being a damnable heretic but it doesn't even have the benefit of being sophomoric to do so since there is not even an appearance of knowledge behind it.

[lionovjudah]

Mary is the mother of God. Jesus is God. Mary was Jesus mother. Sorry Eutychus.

English translation

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Eutychus

I hope this name does not get you a red card chuck!!