Posted on 03/24/2014 12:58:22 PM PDT by metmom
If someone believes that people who denied the denied the divinity of Christ were the “actual Christians of the Bible,” then that person is actually the victim of duping.
Find it incomprehensible that the referenced site makes no mention of the earliest bible manuscripts, including the Uncials, the various Codexes and Tatian’s Diatesseron.
http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/oldest-bible-manuscripts.html
That's the claim by your religion when in reality they were only guilty of not bowing to your religion...
That’s what the Arius and his followers actually believed, independent of what the Catholic Church contributed.
If I am called a heretic for being lumped in with the Albigensisans, then I wear the badge proudly.
Amen brother!
I’ve been reading an updated version of the 1599 Geneva Bible. I like the way it reads, although I have to go back to the KJV for clarification on words that seem odd to the ears of a 21st century citizen.
No, I was asking for specificity. I'm not surprised that I'm not getting a straight answer. If you want to say Albigensians are "Christians," then there's also a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
Holy cow, talk about a statement full of falsehoods. Let's take this one at a time.
A. Matthew 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Peter = translated from Petros, meaning a piece of rock or stone.
Rock = translated from Petra, meaning a mass of rock, a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground, a large stone.
What Jesus is saying is, "Peter, you are a small stone, but upon this large rock, ME, I will build my church." So Peter could never be the person upon whom the church was built upon.
B. Peter was the first Pope????
You don't know your history very well.
1. Peter was never in Rome. In Paul's letter to the church in Rome, Romans, he never once mentions that Peter was in Rome.
2. Paul the Apostle says that he was appointed "a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." 2 Timothy 1:11.
3. According to Galatians 2:7-8 Paul says he was the Apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. It says, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.
Peter never left Judea! How could he ever become the Pope? The first pope was actually Constantine, though he never accepted the title and it wasn't until he was on his dead bed that he was even baptized.
C. Christianity flourished for 1500 years?!?!?!?!?
True Christianity, and true Christians, were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years. That period of time wasn't called "The Dark Ages" for nothing. Sure, the RCC flourished, but only as long as the masses were kept in "the dark" about the true nature of Jesus Christ.
All in all, your statements show an ignorance of true Church history. It's definitely a one-sided viewpoint and doesn't take into account the millions of people who were killed because they wouldn't bow the knee to the Popery.
They’ll believe any and everything their religion tells them...
Gotta love that made-up phony history.
Why don't you actually do some research FOR ONCE before shooting your mouth off? Educate yourself on what Pelagians believed, and why the Catholic church condemned their errors, for example.
Hint: they didn't believe in salvation by grace ("thru faith without works" or any other way), which is why they wouldn't be recognized as orthodox by Baptists, or Catholics, today.
I have done that and here is some of your religion's take on it...
The value of Christ's redemption was, in his opinion, limited mainly to instruction (doctrina) and example (exemplum), which the Saviour threw into the balance as a counterweight against Adam's wicked example, so that nature retains the ability to conquer sin and to gain eternal life even without the aid of grace. By justification we are indeed cleansed of our personal sins through faith alone (loc. cit., 663, "per solam fidem justificat Deus impium convertendum"), but this pardon (gratia remissionis) implies no interior renovation of sanctification of the soul.
Most allegations against Pelagius are just that, allegations...
The gravest error into which he and the rest of the Pelagians fell, was that they did not submit to the doctrinal decisions of the Church.
Pelagius, having won the good-will of the assembly by reading to them some private letters of prominent bishops among them one of Augustine (Ep. cxlvi) — began to explain away and disprove the various accusations. Thus from the charge that he made the possibility of a sinless life solely dependent on free will, he exonerated himself by saying that, on the contrary, he required the help of God (adjutorium Dei) for it, though by this he meant nothing else than the grace of creation (gratia creationis).
Of other doctrines with which he had been charged, he said that, formulated as they were in the complaint, they did not originate from him, but from Caelestius, and that he also repudiated them. After the hearing there was nothing left for the synod but to discharge the defendant and to announce him as worthy of communion with the Church. The Orient had now spoken twice and had found nothing to blame in Pelagius, because he had hidden his real sentiments from his judges.
The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done.
In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith.
At last Zosimus came to a halt. By a rescript of 21 March, 418, he assured them that he had not yet pronounced definitively, but that he was transmitting to Africa all documents bearing on Pelagianism in order to pave the way for a new, joint investigation. Pursuant to the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:
Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
This article is so all over the place, quoting manuscripts that don't exist I don't know how any of you could have an honest debate about Pelagius...
Augustine and other bishops had to explain to one pope what (his version of) the doctrine meant... That pope decided against Augustine...Augustine then had more influence with the next pope...
That next pope according to the article sent word to ALL of the bishops that they had to sign a paper claiming they agreed with the pope or he would remove them from office...
But one thing remains clear...Pelagius believed in salvation by faith without works AND, he was far closer to the truths of the bible than the rest of your religion...
I would say that it's you who is running his mouth...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.