Ancient Christian Witness

Tradition 1 "Scripture is the authority, but it must be interpreted according to the apostolic regula fidei. As noted by G.L. Prestige, "The voice of the Bible could be plainly heard only if its text were interpreted broadly and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic creed and the evidence of the historical practice of Christendom." In a number of historical studies, the church historian Heiko Oberman describes the characteristics of this early patristic position. As he explains, this one source concept of "tradition" has two primary qualities: 1. The immediate divine origin of tradition togther with the insistence on a clearly circumscribed series of historical acts of God in the rule of faith or the rule of truth. 2. The rejection of extra-scriptural tradition. For the sake of clarity, Oberman terms this "single exegetical tradition of interpreted scripture 'Tradition I'."

" In the 1980s and early 1990s, a controversy erupted among dispensationalists which came to be referred to as the Lordship Salvation controversy. On one side of the debate were men such as Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie who taught a reductionistic phrase justification by faith alone and removed it from its overall theological context. Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions. Repentance, sanctification, submission to Christ's Lordship, Love, and perseverance were all said to be unnecessary for salvation. Advocates of this position claimed that it was the classical Reformation position taught by Martin Luther and John Calvin. On the other side of the debate was John MacArthur who argued that these men were clearly abandoning the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. In addition to the books written by the primary dispensationalist participants, numerous Reformed theologians wrote books and articles criticizing this alteration of the doctrine of sola fide. A heated theological controversy began which continues in some circles even to this day. Ironically, a similar drastic alteration of the classical Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura has occured over the last 150 years, yet this has caused hardly a stir among the theological heirs of the Reformation, who have usually been quick to notice any threatening move against the Reformed doctrine of justification. So much time and effort has been spent guarding the doctrine of sola fide against any perversion or change that many do not seem to have noticed that the classical and foundational Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has been so altered that is virtually unrecognizable. In its place Evangelicals have substituted an entirely different doctrine. Douglas Jones has coined the term solo scriptura to refer to this aberrant Evangelical version of sola scriptura."

"These Radical Reformers insisted that not only was Scripture the sole infallible authority, but that it was the sole authority altogether. Secondary authorities such as the Church, the regula fidei, and the fathers were considered irrelevant at best. All that was necessary, according to these men, was the individual and his Bible. Each individual had the right to interpret the Scripture by himself and for himself."

"Finally a word must be said about the rationalist wing of the Radical Reformation. there were a number of men at this time who so elevated the role of reason and the right of the individual to interpret Scripture apart from the communion of saints and the ancient rule of faith that they rejected several aspects of traditional orthodox theology. Faustus Socinus, for example, rejected the doctrines of the diety of Christ, the Trinity, the atonement, original sin, predestination, and the resurrection of the body. It would certainly be an oversimplification to argue that all of these various men and movements shared a common understanding of scriptural authority. It wouldbe grossly unfair, for example, to suggest that either Conrad Grebel or Menno Simons shared the theological views of Socinus or Servetus. Not all of these men were anti-Trinitarians. And not all of these men were apocalyptic revolutionaries. What they did have in common, although to varying degrees, was a radicalization of the principle of sola scriptura and a rejection of tradition in any form. As Mcgrath explains: the magisterial Reformers adopted a positive approach to tradition, particularly the testimonia patrum, whereas the radicals, the fathers were an irrelevance in whatever manner seemed right to him or her. Unlike the magisterial Reformers, who had sought to maintain a continuity with the ancient patristic Church, the radicals believed that they could do theology without reference to what the Church had confessed in the past. They believed that the magisterial Reformers had not gone far enough in their use of the sola scriptura principle. According to the radicals, the magisterial Reformers may have done away with many of the scholastic theological accretions, but they wrongly insisted on adhering to the creedal formulations of ancient Christianity. Building on Oberman's terminology, Alister Mcgrath refers to the Anabaptist concept of Scripture and tradition as "Tradition - 0 a view which allows no role whatsoever to tradition. This is in contrast to "Tradition I", the position of the magisterial Reformers, a position which allowed for a traditional interpretation of Scripture."

The Problem of Heresy for Protestantism "Heresy" is one of the most ominous terms in the vocabulary of Christendom. The Christian usage of the word can be traced back to the New Testament itself, where it is used to designate a sect, faction, or grouping (see, for example, Acts 24:5; 28:22). Similarly, the great Jewish historian Josephus applies the term (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea in his day: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Esenes. At this stage, the term did not have the strongly negative associations that later developed; these, however, were not long in emerging. By the second century, "orthodoxy" and "heresy" were emerging as significant ideas. The term "heresy" was used to designate deficient, and potentially vulnerable, understanding of the Christian faith that were to be rejected. The identification of heresy was seen as a corporate judgment by the church that rested on a consensus that such views were unsatisfactory, fallacious, and misleading. Yet it is essential to appreciate that heresies were ultimately unacceptable interpretations of the Bible. This can be seen by considering the fourth-century movement known as Arianism, widely seen as the most important early Christian heresy. Arius and his followers held that Jesus of Nazerath could not be regarded as divine in any meaningful sense of the word. He was "supreme among God's creatures, "but a creature nonetheless. This doctrine was severely criticized by writers such as Athanasius of Alexandria for undermining the internal coherence of the Christian faith. Yet both Arius and Athanasius based their ideas on substantially the same biblical texts, which they interpreted in different ways. The essence of heresy can therefore be located in flawed biblical interpretation. But who decided which biblical interpretations are flawed and which are orthodox? If all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible as they see fit, how can heresy be identified. let alone combated? If the Bible alone is the supreme rule of faith, how can any authority beyond that text be recognized as its authoritative interpreter? It is at this point that the distinctive approach of Protestantism encounters a seemingly formidabled obstacle, in that it seems to undermine the very idea of an authoritative interpretation of the Bible-in other words, the notion of orthodoxy. This already significant problem was made acute by the unusual social and intellectual conditions of the sixteenth century, catalyzed by the spirit of inguiry of the Renaissance. This era of science and intelectual restlessness was marked by a determination to explore new options and reevaluate old ones. Some of these were local heterodoxies, whose ideas had little impact at the time, even though they may have caused frissons of intellectual anxiety. Among those, we may include the Italian village miller Domenico Scandella from the mountain village of Montereale, who took the view that the world arose from chaos, just as "cheese is made out of milk, and worms appeared in it, and these were the angels." A surge of alternative viewpoints emerged, posing a powerful challenge to the religious and political stability of late Renaissance Europe. The authorities, political and religious, did what they could to limit their impact by branding such ideas as magic or heresy. Among these new movement, of course, was Protestantism itself-or perhaps we should say, many of the various tributaries that flowed into its vortex. From its outerset, Protestantism was branded as a heresy by the Catholic church. Protestants responded with indignation, retorting that they had recovered orthodoxy from its medieval distortions. What was Protestantism if not the recovery of the orthodox faith of the early church? Yet Catholics had little difficulty in arguing that, while Protestantism might be perfectly capable of recovering earlier biblical interpretations, it lacked the means to determine whether it had retrieved was orthodox or heterodox. And lacking any such capacity to discriminate between such interpretations, Protestants were obligated to repeat the judgments of the Catholic church on these matters. In their turn, Protestants argued that, since they were committed to restoring the authentic teaching of the early church, this naturally extended to its views on orthodoxy and heresy. In the end, the arguments were not decisive. However, the debate highlighted the potential danger for Protestantism arising from competing biblical interpretations. Who had the right to decide which were orthodox and which heretical? This led to a further difficulty as divisions emerged within Protestant constituencies. Itself partly a consequence of the intellectual ferment of the Renaissance, Protestantism found that it could not check this innovative and critical tendency within its own ranks. It had merely been relocated, not neutralized. One particular difficulty was the rise of anti-trinitarianism in Italian Protestant circles, a movement that rapidly gained a following in northern Europe. For Juan de Valdes and others, the doctrine of the Trinity was simply not to be found in the Bible, nor could it be defended on biblical grounds. Protestants who were faithful to the Bible not only were therefore under no obligation to accept this doctrine but had a responsibility to challenge it as a distortion of biblical truth. Forced out of Italy by the Inquisition, many anti-trinitarians settled in the independent republic of the Grisons in southeast Switzerland, where their influence upon Reformed Protestantism began to grow. In this case, Protestantism was able to deal with such heterdox trends by appealing to the consensus of faith of the church, as set out in the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Christianity as a whole had declared such teachings to be heretical; Protestantism thus endorsed this pattern of traditional teaching and, in doing so, rejected anti-triniterianism as heretical. But what of other dissident voices within Protestantism that urged teachings that had never been declared heretical in the past by the church as a whole but were nevertheless regarded with intense animosity within certain sections of the movement?" [5] pages 227-229

I don't know, you tell me:
http://holyculture.net/forum/showthr...solo+scriptura

and

http://holyculture.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38844



It seems to me that you only like partial bits of history, here and there only when it agrees with full-preterism or will help someone believe in full-preterism. You don't seem to like it when it goes against full-preterism.

You won't even use it to see that maybe your exegesis or interpretation went wrong somewhere. You will stick with a certain group of people from a certain tradition (mostly Reformed protestant) and play hop scotch with their writtings. Only picking partial stuff from each one like some sort of jigsaw puzzle or salad bowl mix. Then you will rearrange those different pieces and put them together to form some historical bases for full-preterism.

You will ignore what John Gill had to say about the Image of God and man because it goes against the foundation of full-preterism and so you will point to Gordan Clark believing that the Image of God in man was just his soul/spirit.(a gnostic view by the way) You won't stick with Clark when it comes to his views about our Resurrection, the 2nd advent, and his chillistist/pre-mill views......I could be wrong about him being pre-mill.

And so, your plumbline is full-preterism. You will look at history with that bias/bent/angle//presup. And you will pick and choose accordingly.

You will do this with everything.......including the WCF.


Nuff said? You don't adhere to the WCF! I don't know if you still do, but at one time you use to claim to be Reformed....while still being a full-pret. But full-preterism....shoot even certain forms of partial preterism.....destroys the foundation of the WCF. It totally destroys it. And so, why are you quoting a Reformed protestant document/confession of faith, when you are not even Reformed yourself?


The jig is up Neb! We all know you only pick and choose what you want from it, and so why can't everybody.....who is not a Reformed protestant.....do the same?

Why are you the onlyone who is allowed to pick and choose what you like from the WCF? Why can't all of us nonReformed do it? If we are allowed to do what you do, then I bet you, that we all will pick and choose different things that we like.


Why is that irrational? You don't embrace the WCF period! You are not Reformed! You can't go around playing hop scotch with everything.....taking them out of there original context and into the foriegn context of full-preterism!

I know what you are doing! I knew it last year because I do the samething when it comes to those who still follow David Bercot's ministry. I pick and choose what I like from him to get them to eventually become what I am today.


You ain't fooling anybody Neb! You and I both do the samething.....we just do it with diffferent groups of people. The only difference is I am honest about it. The followers of David Bercot that I talk to all know I am trying to convert them to EO. (not that I can for ultimately it's the Holy Spirit that converts someone) It's no secret! What I do is not on the hush hush with them.

But you won't tell Reformed protestants, and other protestants what you are doing. You quote their stuff to make them think you are Reformed. But you're not!

Is this how you got Brandon? Hmm?







ICXC NIKA

__________________
Synergy My Blog The Brotherhood

Originally Posted by Poetik What I'm saying is this---> We know about the past from records, but the records we do have certainly doesn't mean that's the whole of history.

Take for instance some of the great wonders of the world. Some archaeologists are still baffled because according to our "RECORDS" the ancient peoples did not have the intelligence or the technology to do it (obviously they did)! Just because we don't have records that they did not have the know-how, tech, etc. doesn't mean they didn't.

I'm not saying we can't know the past as in "Oh, we'll never know"... what I'm saying is, we can't know it in it's entirety.

I've read the discussion. The gist of it is, "Did the Apostles do a lousy job of making sure that Truth was promulgated or have cats been missing for some 2,000 years" The argument is that because kats have been saying the same thing for 2000 years then that means that there is some validity to it (and I understand that). My point, however, is that cats like Polycarp, Augustine, Athanasius, etc. (although they may have been great men), did not constitute what every single Christian thought.

Let's say that in the year 4000, some kats want to study about what Christians in the 2000s thought... but wait... they can only find a HANDFUL of primary sources from Reformed pastors... but they find a GANG of information from WOF. The people in 4000 AD then conclude that WOF movement was what the majority of what Christians thought---which may have not have been the case.

Never said he did. My point is, I can name a lot of kats from the WOF who all say the same thing, but that doesn't mean anything.

I can name a lot of kats from Reformed theology, but that doesn't mean anything.

How many people believed in something or how many prominent teachers who taught something doesn't mean a lick of anything. What is important is---> IS WHAT THEY TAUGHT TRUE?

History may not be on shaky ground, but it definitely isn't concrete.

See that's my point. When it says that everyone did what was right in their own sight, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone was. It just means that the bulk of kats did. Who were they... we don't know a whole lot of 'em. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Just because the history books says the majority believed X, it means just that... the "majority" (not all). But even the majority is based on records. I'm not saying history is completely in disarray... what I'm saying is that there's a margin of error. It's not so black and white.

Read any history book and there's a lot of speculation going on. Scholars and PhDs, etc try their best to articulate or interpret the info but that even they have to concede that they don't fully know.

We know because of records. But the records doesn't constitute as a majority. They can give us a gateway into the key players and who did what or believed what, they can't tell us certain things. Sometimes they can't tell us key information, either.

I'm not saying we can't know anything. We can't know everything, we can't know everyone, we don't know every view.

Every Calvinist didn't agree with everything Calvin said, Every Pentecostal didn't agree with William Seymour. They were just like us. We're here on a forum discussing our differences, just the other believers in the past did before us. Nothing has really changed except for the technology, but essentially we're doing exactly they were doing.

They called kats heretics just like we do. They got into discussions about the Bible just like they did. They weren't so black and white, just like we aren't. So if we're going to form an argument for or against a certain position, while history can be a tool in guiding us, it can't be the only form of evidence.

What frustrates me sometimes is that when guys try to articulate their point, they appeal to the Scriptures. But when someone challenges them, they appeal to Church history. But church history is ambiguous at times.

It's funny and saddening to me that two Christians can go to two different "Christian" colleges, take classes in Greek and Hebrew, and after they obtain their PhDs, they have two completely different views. LOL

As seen from the Theo forums of Holyculture.net

Quote:

Originally Posted by king neb Rick just got done saying that we don't even "know" who wrote the athan. creed! Lol. So even you guys admit that there are unknownables in history.

History is not an infallible guide.

I'll stick with clark's brilliant analysis on history anyday.

Also, I never said that the apostles did a lousy job, jnorm. Perhaps you should read it again.

Lastly, how do you account for various millennial positions, salvation positions, free will debates, and every other schism that occurred early on in the church?

You want to accuse me of saying that the Holy Spirit did a lousy job, but then want to turn right around and speak of this "orthodox faith" that adheres to three opposing eschatological views.

And then Rick tries to cover it up as though these serious differences did not exist. If amill is the biblical view, "where was the spirit" when premillennialism and postmill showed up?

Where was this "leads into truth", inspired 3rd century classroom of yours

My explanation is quite simple. THE standard, the ONLY INFALLIBLE standard for what constitutes "Christianity" is the word of God, period. What John, Jim, or any 2nd, 3rd generation "bishop" does with that text has no more weight than what Rick of 2010 does with it.

What does the TEXT say....God, via his revelation, determines "orthodoxy", not some majority vote by a bunch of people who arbitrarily decide what is "important" or not.

Did you get a chance to first read what the topic was really about?


Do you know what the topic was about? Is it your view that all the listeners, readers, and hearers of the Apostles quickly forgot, misread, mis-understood, fell away, or had amnesia?

Scripture says:
1.Jude 1:3
"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints."

But how could this be if the Apostles did a lousy job? How can the Faith be handed to the next generation of believers if they all fell away? If they all mis-understood? If they all fell into error or quickly somehow had amnesia?


Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

How can anyone in the generations after the Apostles be approved if they all were led astray, fell into error, mis-understood, fell away, or had amnesia?


Scripture says:
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.


The "you" in this verse is "plural". Thus communal/community/church/gathering...etc.

How can the Holy Spirit lead the Church into all truth if all quickly fell away, fell into error, misunderstood, had amnesia? How?


In John Chapter 17, Jesus not only prays for his disciples, but he also prays for those who would believe in Him through them:

John chapter 17:
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."


If we can believe in Jesus's prayer for His disciples, then why can't we also believe in His prayer for those who would believe in Him through His disciples?

If all were to fall away, be led astray, mis-understand, fall into error, or have amnesia, then how can they all be one with the Apostles, Jesus and the Father?




If there is no real way to know what the past was like then how can you even say this? For how do you know? How can you know?


I don't think anyone was claiming this. But since you brought this up. I will say:

How do we know what John Calvin tought? How do we know what Reformed protestantism is?

How can we know if noone can truely know anything about the past? How can we know that John Calvin was a real person? How can we know if the teachings of calvinism was truely passed on faithfully to the next generation of calvinists?

How can we know if no one can really know what the past was like?

What I am arguing is......surely we can know!



How can it prove your point when the word of faith pastors didn't even exist back then? Are you trying to tell me that Creflo was preaching from 70A.D. to 200A.D.?

Are you telling me that Kenneth Copeland, Haggin, and Price were preaching and pastoring churches from 70A.D. to 200A.D.?

Saint Polycarp was a friend as well as a disciple of Saint John the Apostle.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html
Qoute:
"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles."
Saint Irenaeus 180 A.D. Adv. Haer., III.3.4.



Saint Ignatius was also a disciple of Saint John the Apostle

Saint Clement of Rome may have known Saint Paul.....I have to review in order to make sure. And so these great men of God are in a totally different category than modern word of faith pastors my friend. I am insulted and a little angry that you would group them together.



They had some disagreements back then. If you read them you would of known that. And in regards to the nature of the Resurrection, yes, they did fight against the gnostics of their day, who like modern full-preterists and liberals (some liberals deny not only the virgin birth, but also a physical resurrection) denied that the resurrection was physical.


If you notice from the quotes below, the word "resurrection" is in reference to the whole person, and not just the spirit/soul alone. Therefore, the word historically.....in 2nd temple judaism and onward.... had a certain meaning. Now I know that in modern times, due to playing around with the meaning of words from the Biblical text, that the word can mean more than one thing, but in 2nd Temple judaism and onward....it meant a specific thing. And even in the Bible, in an Apostolic hermenuetical context, I believe it meant a "physical rising of the body".....since the Apostles are also part of the 2nd Temple Jewish tradition/context.

But in reference to the next generation of christians, they knew exactly what the belief was.....for their enemies tought it.

"You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called christians, but who do not admit this. For they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham....and say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven. Do not imagine that they are Christians." Justin Martyr 160 A.D.

"[The Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.....Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death." Ignatuis 105 A.D.


"[The Gnostics] possess no proof of their system, which has but recently been invented by them. Sometimes they rest upon certain numbers; sometimes, on syllables; and still other times, on names." Irenaeus 180


"[The Gnostics] ....are very anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection that was firmly settled before the appearance of our modern Sadducees. As a result, they even deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh....For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it is once determined that Christ's flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them that our flesh must by all means rise again. For it has already risen in Christ." Tertullian 210 A.D.


"The Apostle directs a similar blow against those who said that [B]"the resurrection was already past."[/b] Such an opinion do the Valentinians assert" Tertullian 197 A.D.


"On the otherhand, they say that carnal men are instructed in carnal things. Such "carnal men" can be recognized by their works and their simple faith. For they do not have perfect knowledge [gnosis]. The Valentinians say that we who belong to the church are such carnal persons. Therefore, they maintain that good works are necessary for us. Otherwise, it would be impossible for us to be saved. But as to themselves, they hold that they will be entirely saved for a certainty-not by means of their conduct, but because they are spiritual by nature." Irenaeus 180 A.D.



So some secret knowledge unknown to the known christian historical record.....until now? When I was arguing with Eternal, I mentioned this idea, and Kingneb denied that this was his view. His view is an organic development modal. You would have known this if you read the first post of the thread......as well as some of the later posts.

The Aposltes tought openly, and it was up to their hearers to hold on to what was tought. The Apostles didn't teach openly to one group of disciples/followers only to teach the opposite in secret to another group that nobody knows of. Some of the men you and I mentioned above was actually discipled by an Apostle. And so, the issue is about holding on to what was passed on. It's either they were wrong about our Resurrection from the grave or they were right about it. If they were right, then Kingneb, Brandon, Sam Frost, full-preterism, protestant liberals.....and ancient gnosticism were all wrong.

If the ancient christians were wrong, then the ancient gnostics, Kingneb, Brandon, Sam Frost, liberal protestants, and full-preterists were all right.

Also, I would like to add that muslims, pagans, liberals, and even some atheists will make similar claims about what they want to believe in and what they feel was "true christianity".

For the Muslims, they feel that Jesus never died on the cross, and the only "real" historical evidence they have in their favor are by some ancient gnostics. They also believe that what Jesus tought was what muhammad tought, but it was corrupted by later christians, but there is no historical evidence to support such a thing, and so they too can claim some secret wisdom or knowledge or total apostasy theory.

For some atheists, and pagans, they think Jesus never existed. There is no ancient historical evidence in known history for such a claim.

In the mid to late 18 hundreds the German highercritical/philosophical naturalistic scholar Bruno Bauer invented the argument that Jesus never existed. The idea is less than 150 years old. It was a naturalistic reconstruction of history. But with your argument, one can say, noone can truely say that such a claim is new for we don't know what every single person tought from the 1st century to 1850 A.D.

One could also say that we don't know if there were christians who tought that Jesus didn't exist and that it was all a myth. We don't know if they wrote anything or if they kept it to themselves or passed it along in secret.....until 1850 A.D.




I'm sure there are liberal protestants, nonbelieving jews, agnostics, and atheists saying the samething about the "historical Jesus" and finding his bones in a grave somewhere....thus historic christianity being thrown out the window because you'd then have actual proof.

The truth is, such a thing will never happen, for if you were familiar with the writtings of early christians, then you would already know that the belief about our Resurrection from the dead that full-preterists and some liberals hold to was already tought by the ancient gnostics. And so, whatever they will find ....will be a gnostic work......just like the Gospel of Thomas, Barnabus....etc. are gnostic works......and so modern Archaeology already found it. But guess what?

The early christians wrote about those works and they told us that they were writtin by the gnostics......their enemies.....long before modern Archaeology dug it up. Infact, some thought that the early christians were lying about those books and the early gnostics......that is......until they found those books.




Antiquity is not on shaky ground. What makes something on shakyground is "speculation"...."assumption"......etc.

If you are not speculating, then how can it be on shaky ground? Science keeps changing because of inherit "speculation"....assumptions in their predictions. And this is one of the reasons why the theory/philosophy of "falsification" was formed.



What you have to prove is that every individual jew.....including the lead/head prophet of the time was unfaithful. I believe Scripture talking about God having a Remnant.

In order for you to be correct, there either can be no Remnant, or the Remnant can't be known.....can't be visible or known in real recorded History until centuries later.


Can we know what Calvinism is? Can we know what Calvin tought and what the next generation of Calvinists tought? Or is it impossible to know?

Can we know what John Wesly tought and what the next generation of Methodists tought?
Or is it impossible to know?

Can we know what what the early Azusa street Pentacostals tought and what the next generation of Pentacostals tought? Or is it impoosible to know?


You seem to be advocating some type of agnosticism when it comes to this.



Parts of it are new while other parts of it are old. This is why I call it neognostic

The same is true when it comes to modern Arianism and modalism. There are parts of JWism that is the same as ancient Arianism, and their are parts that are a little bit different. There are parts of Oneness Pentacostalism that are the same as ancient modalism/Sabellianism, and there are parts that are a little different.

And so heresies have a tendency to mutate/change/evolve.







ICXC NIKA