Faith of our Fathers

Faith of our Fathers

This forum is purely educational. I realize it will not be without controversy. It is primarily for those of you who are history buffs on the subject of the early church fathers.

I realize there will be differing opinions, primarily those from a Baptist as well as a Catholic perspective; but that's why I created this forum. I, too, would like to sort out the heretics from those who represent our Baptist heritage.

WE WILL BE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ON THIS FORUM. NO FOUL LANGUAGE OR BAD ATTITUDES, OR YOU'LL BE ANATHAMA! This is not primarily a forum to discuss doctrine, although, out of necessity, doctrine will have to be discussed in order to identify what these church fathers believed.

Gentlemen (or gentlepersons for you politically correct), start your engines! If referencing a web site, please use the URL.

home sweet home

by (no login)

increase adsense income
website traffic
Search engine marketing
click fraud
consolidate loan
horse breeds airline tickets
cheap tickets
cheap airline tickets
mesothelioma facts
mesothelioma | real estate investing course-REI course-Smallville DVD Smallville episode guide Smallville episodes home inspector directory-home inspection directory Smallville WB Smallville Season business directory huntersville real estate Huntersville homes Home buying course Repo home list Repo Homes Inode real estate investing course bank repo - real estate license - Buy Direct TV buy directv Dish TV rochester beach volleyball football ticket packages- superbowl packages- super bowl ticket packages- maxim super bowl party- maxim superbowl party- playboy super bowl party- playboy superbowl party- face value football tickets- face value tickets

Posted on Apr 16, 2005, 7:05 PM
from IP address 216.193.201.60

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Glen

by Ghunt (no login)

I would be interested in seeing your defense of Sola Scriptura from the Bible (i.e. where does it say in scripture that the Bible is the sole rule of faith). Also could you define SS for me. Thanks.

Posted on Jun 19, 2001, 4:13 PM
from IP address 206.9.231.250

Respond to this message

Return to Index

The chicken or the egg?

by (Login GlenMorris)
Forum Owner

We all know the chicken came first, because God made it so. But it becomes a little more tedious when we try to sort out who's a true believer and who's the heretic. The important issue is who were the handlers and translators of the early Scriptures. The Catholics brag on having the oldest manuscripts, that they were reliable. I don't believe that for a second. I'm a Textus Receptus man myself, and that men like Origen were one of the first corrupters, which led to Wescott and Hort, which led to the Douay, which led to all the other perverted "bibles" we have today.

Posted on May 30, 2001, 9:34 AM
from IP address 12.84.8.177

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Yes but Origen was a heretic

by Ghunt (no login)

Or was he a Baptist. They claim all the other heretics of the early Church. Donatists, Paulians, etc. etc.. Of course they give no consideration why these groups arose. But they opposed the authorities of the Catholic Church so therefore they must have been Baptists. Doesn't matter that the Paulians (note the name) said that only the books written by Paul were legitimate, the rest were by the devil. Didn't know you guys reject the Old Testament. If the roots of your Church are the Paulians then you must. Or is it that there writings were all destoryed but we know they were Batpists and the Catholics just twisted what they were.

Posted on May 30, 2001, 4:36 PM
from IP address 206.9.231.32

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Yes but Origen was a heretic

by Ghunt (no login)

Or was he a Baptist. They claim all the other heretics of the early Church. Donatists, Paulians, etc. etc.. Of course they give no consideration why these groups arose. But they opposed the authorities of the Catholic Church so therefore they must have been Baptists. Doesn't matter that the Paulians (note the name) said that only the books written by Paul were legitimate, the rest were by the devil. Didn't know you guys reject the Old Testament. If the roots of your Church are the Paulians then you must. Or is it that there writings were all destoryed but we know they were Batpists and the Catholics just twisted what they were.

Posted on May 30, 2001, 4:37 PM
from IP address 206.9.231.32

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Origen

by (Login GlenMorris)
Forum Owner

Regarding Origen, Catholics primarily regard him highly. So, since I am a Baptist, I will primarily find things he believes with which I disagree.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm for example.

Posted on May 30, 2001, 6:40 PM
from IP address 12.84.9.114

Respond to this message

Return to Index

True enough

by Ghunt (no login)

Origen wasn't too bad. He was a bit of a universalist and Augustine clubbed him upside the head a bit for it in City of God. But mostly he is well respected. But what my post was trying to get at is where did all the Baptists come from?

Let the games begin.

Posted on May 31, 2001, 4:58 PM
from IP address 206.9.231.32

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Taking it from the top, or is that the bottom?

by (no login)

The key to unraveling this mess goes all the way back to Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, not John the Baptizer, not John the Catholic. Origen, was a Catholic. See the following links which verify my statement: http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/origen.htm
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ORIGEN.HTM
These are only a couple of, no doubt, hundreds or thousands of links relating to Origen. Baptists believe Origen not only was not a Baptist, but that he was not a true Christian, contrary to what Catholics believe (that's another discussion).

Jesus said that there would be tares AMONG the wheat. That means that at First Baptist Church of Hammond, there are unbelievers, conforming to, looking like, talking like, and living like "born-again" Baptists, but they have never had a born-again experience demanded by Jesus in John Chapter 3. We are not born again by baptism, as Catholics believe, we are "...born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever." I Peter 1:23. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 That's how Catholic monk Martin Luther got "saved." His faith in Christ came by reading the Word of God in Romans 1:17: "The just shall live by faith." That's why the Devil is attacking the Word of God with all these new "versions." And that's why we fundamentalists are so fanatical about the old King James Bible. That's why fundamentalists reject Origen's "scriptures."

Jesus had His Judas. Origen's writings reflect his Catholic personality. It is also important to recognize those with whom he associated. Origen was a protege' of Clement of Alexandria, Egypt.

Here's a very informative site defending the King James Bible. http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/kjvbook2.html

Posted on May 31, 2001, 9:10 PM
from IP address 12.84.0.32

Respond to this message

Return to Index

So if Origen was so goofy

by Ghunt (no login)

Why didn't Augustine condemn more than his heresy on Universalism? Generally you are right he was a protege
or Clement of Alexander which by what you have written clearly says to me that Catholism was around in the first century Century. Though I see no evidence that Clement was a Universalist. I would also contend the minus the Universalism Clement is a protege or Iranesus, Ignatius of Antioch (A disciple of John by the way), Jerome, Pope Damasus, Augustine, Justin Martyr, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius X, John Paul II. Do we have any arguement here so far. I would contend that he is a protege of Peter but we can agree to disagree on that one for now.

You say:
The key to unraveling this mess goes all the way back to Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, not John the Baptizer, not John the Catholic. Origen, was a Catholic. See the following links which verify my statement: http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/origen.htm
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ORIGEN.HTM
These are only a couple of, no doubt, hundreds or thousands of links relating to Origen. Baptists believe Origen not only was not a Baptist, but that he was not a true Christian, contrary to what Catholics believe (that's another discussion).

I say:
So John the Baptist means that John was a Baptist? That is an extremely weak arguement even if I were objective in all of this. Did he believe in Sola Scriptura? Hint: He died long before the book of revalations was written.

You say:
Jesus said that there would be tares AMONG the wheat. That means that at First Baptist Church of Hammond, there are unbelievers, conforming to, looking like, talking like, and living like "born-again" Baptists, but they have never had a born-again experience demanded by Jesus in John Chapter 3. We are not born again by baptism, as Catholics believe, we are "...born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever." I Peter 1:23. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 That's how Catholic monk Martin Luther got "saved." His faith in Christ came by reading the Word of God in Romans 1:17: "The just shall live by faith." That's why the Devil is attacking the Word of God with all these new "versions." And that's why we fundamentalists are so fanatical about the old King James Bible. That's why fundamentalists reject Origen's "scriptures."

I say:
That's why Peter says:
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

Go ahead tell me all about what the word for means here, I have heard it before. Well it really shouldn't say for ......fill in the rest.
That's why Noah was saved through the waters as a forshadowing of Baptism.

That's why Martin Luther had to insert the word alone in Romans 3 when in James it says not by faith alone.

You say:
Jesus had His Judas. Origen's writings reflect his Catholic personality. It is also important to recognize those with whom he associated. Origen was a protege' of Clement of Alexandria, Egypt.

I say:
They also reflect that Catholism existed at the time of Origen regardless of whether he was declared a heretic for his universalist writings or not. We certainly don't take his writings as scripture. By the way lets not throw out the whole bunch of apples just because one is bad. In the garden of eden there was truth in Satan's statements. Adam and Eve knew good from evil when they partook of the fruit. Problem is they did die.

You say:
Here's a very informative site defending the King James Bible.

I say:
I am not much interested in the KJV. It is corrupt. Your websites about the Jesuits in Hellywood give an indication of the ridiculous things you lead people in to solely to promote your agenda against the Catholic Church. Tell me, wouldn't it be better if you protestants sat around developing theology instead of trying to tear down something that has stood the test of time. It is kind of like tearing down Mt. Everest. "the gates of Hell shall not prevail!"

Posted on Jun 1, 2001, 1:06 PM
from IP address 206.9.231.32

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Followup

by (no login)

I am marking each comment, yours GH, and mine, GM.

GH. Why didn't Augustine condemn more than his heresy on Universalism? Generally you are right he was a protege or Clement of Alexander which by what you have written clearly says to me that Catholism was around in the first century Century. Though I see no evidence that Clement was a Universalist. I would also contend the minus the Universalism Clement is a protege or Iranesus, Ignatius of Antioch (A disciple of John by the way), Jerome, Pope Damasus, Augustine, Justin Martyr, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Pius X, John Paul II. Do we have any arguement here so far. I would contend that he is a protege of Peter but we can agree to disagree on that one for now.

GM. I can't answer all the fine points you have addressed, that's why I started this forum. It is primarily for my education. If anyone else can learn from it it will be their bonus. I have not studied Ignatius, but if he was a disciple of the Apostle John, he should be alright, but even protege's can go bad. Jerome, if I recall correctly, was not of the Baptist persuation. To summarize the above, I see your list as a mix of Catholic as well as those of Baptist persuation. I hope to sort it out. I am making a comparison chart and listing those who are most likely of Catholic persuation and those of Baptist.

GH. You say:
The key to unraveling this mess goes all the way back to Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, not John the Baptizer, not John the Catholic. Origen, was a Catholic. See the following links which verify my statement: http://shell5.ba.best.com/~gdavis/ntcanon/origen.htm
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ORIGEN.HTM
These are only a couple of, no doubt, hundreds or thousands of links relating to Origen. Baptists believe Origen not only was not a Baptist, but that he was not a true Christian, contrary to what Catholics believe (that's another discussion).

I say:
So John the Baptist means that John was a Baptist? (that's what we believe, although some may not) That is an extremely weak arguement even if I were objective in all of this. Did he believe in Sola Scriptura? Hint: He died long before the book of revalations was written. GM. Perhaps he died before the Book of Revelation was written, that is irrellevent, but he had the OT. Jesus referred to it during His earthly ministry: statements like "it is written," "that it might be fulfilled," references to Moses, David, "in the prophets," several references to Esaias, etc.

GH. You say:
Jesus said that there would be tares AMONG the wheat. That means that at First Baptist Church of Hammond, there are unbelievers, conforming to, looking like, talking like, and living like "born-again" Baptists, but they have never had a born-again experience demanded by Jesus in John Chapter 3. We are not born again by baptism, as Catholics believe, we are "...born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever." I Peter 1:23. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Romans 10:17 That's how Catholic monk Martin Luther got "saved." His faith in Christ came by reading the Word of God in Romans 1:17: "The just shall live by faith." That's why the Devil is attacking the Word of God with all these new "versions." And that's why we fundamentalists are so fanatical about the old King James Bible. That's why fundamentalists reject Origen's "scriptures."

I say:
That's why Peter says:
Acts 2:38
Peter said to them, "Repent, (GM. Repentence merely means for a person to change their mind about whom they are trusting for salvation) and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (KJ says "for the remission of sins); and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (KJ: Ghost). GM. This command was given to adults. An infant cannot "repent." He has no knowledge of right or wrong. The Greek word baptizo (sp?) means to immerse. Jesus was baptized (immersed) IN the Jordan RIVER. Did Jesus need to be saved? No. Was Jesus "sprinkled" as an infant? No. He was setting an example that those who believe in Him for salvation are showing that their old life is buried in Christ and that they are risen to a new life of service: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4). Right after Jesus was Bapized, He began His earthly ministry. Babies just get their heads wet. Baptism is merely an act of obedience. A baby who is sprinkled has not repented, his parents are making this "baptism" decision for him, and "renouncing the works of the Devil" for him, and the infant (like myself) never remembers if it even really happened. All through the NT, baptism always refers to those who have decision making ability. Babies do not.

GH. Go ahead tell me all about what the word for means here, I have heard it before. Well it really shouldn't say for ......fill in the rest. GM. If you "have heard it before," then there is no need for me to be redundant.
GH. That's why Noah was saved through the waters as a forshadowing of Baptism. GM. Noah was saved FROM the water. Those who were "baptized" by the flood died and went to Hell because they refused to listen to God's warning preached by Noah!

GH. That's why Martin Luther had to insert the word alone in Romans 3 when in James it says not by faith alone. GM. The book of James talks about a CHRISTIAN'S lifestyle before men. It does not refer to getting saved by works. James 2:24 does state: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." Yes, faith in Christ justifies me before God, and works justifies me before men. I Samuel 16:7 states: "But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance (David's), or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart." God sees my heart. You cannot see my heart, but you can see my lifestyle. That's why all the references in James to the Christian's lifestyle. Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Why? Because they were "Christ-like." Their lives reminded the citizens in Antioch of that Man they had heard about in Jerusalem. You are not going to be too impressed with what I believe if it doesn't show in the Christ likeness in my lifestyle. That's called hypocrisy; and that's what Jesus criticized in the Pharisees. They said they believed in the Scriptures, but they didn't live them.

GH. You say:
Jesus had His Judas. Origen's writings reflect his Catholic personality. It is also important to recognize those with whom he associated. Origen was a protege' of Clement of Alexandria, Egypt.

I say:
They also reflect that Catholism existed at the time of Origen regardless of whether he was declared a heretic for his universalist writings or not. We certainly don't take his writings as scripture. By the way lets not throw out the whole bunch of apples just because one is bad. In the garden of eden there was truth in Satan's statements. Adam and Eve knew good from evil when they partook of the fruit. (GM. Adam knew that eating the fruit was wrong, it was Eve who was deceived: I Timothy 2:14: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."). Problem is they did die.

Posted on Jun 1, 2001, 8:41 PM
from IP address 12.84.2.17

Respond to this message

Return to Index

Create your own forum at Network54

Faith of our Fathers