- This topic is empty.
- Posts
TO ALL:
Mike and Kathi have been shoving the church fathers down our throats a lot lately. I am convinced that they do this because they lack solid scriptural support for their beliefs. So they must show that they have company in their beliefs. But Mike and Kathi often give fragmented quotes from the fathers out of context. Thanks to faithful watch dogs like WJ they are not getting away with it.
Mike and Kathi have forgotten that faith is personal and that it is a matter of conscience. The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience.
The Heaven Net philosophy is that we are not subject to the traditions of men:
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
Note the points in Heaven Net's statement:1. Shun all man made doctrines
2. Share what God has put in your heart and mind and put it in the hearts and minds of others.
3. Test all doctrinesYet Mike and Kathi are trying to put the fear of man in us by their insinuations, “You don't agree with the fathers. Therefore, you do not have truth.” They are trying to bind our consciences.
Mike should especially stop doing this because he is a Heaven Net representative by virtue of his office as Moderator. But when we give Mike an argument from the scripture he replies with fragments from the fathers and imposes on our consciences what he thinks they taught.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,02:35) TO ALL: Mike and Kathi have been shoving the church fathers down our throats a lot lately. I am convinced that they do this because they lack solid scriptural support for their beliefs. So they must show that they have company in their beliefs. But Mike and Kathi often give fragmented quotes from the fathers out of context. Thanks to faithful watch dogs like WJ they are not getting away with it.
Mike and Kathi have forgotten that faith is personal and that it is a matter of conscience. The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience.
The Heaven Net philosophy is that we are not subject to the traditions of men:
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
Note the points in Heaven Net's statement:1. Shun all man made doctrines
2. Share what God has put in your heart and mind and put it in the hearts and minds of others.
3. Test all doctrinesYet Mike and Kathi are trying to put the fear of man in us by their insinuations, “You don't agree with the fathers. Therefore, you do not have truth.” They are trying to bind our consciences.
Mike should especially stop doing this because he is a Heaven Net representative by virtue of his office as Moderator. But when we give Mike an argument from the scripture he replies with fragments from the fathers and imposes on our consciences what he thinks they taught.
the Roo
Who is the “mike” you speak of? Is that T8?Quote (martian @ Aug. 17 2010,04:49) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,02:35) TO ALL: Mike and Kathi have been shoving the church fathers down our throats a lot lately. I am convinced that they do this because they lack solid scriptural support for their beliefs. So they must show that they have company in their beliefs. But Mike and Kathi often give fragmented quotes from the fathers out of context. Thanks to faithful watch dogs like WJ they are not getting away with it.
Mike and Kathi have forgotten that faith is personal and that it is a matter of conscience. The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience.
The Heaven Net philosophy is that we are not subject to the traditions of men:
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
Note the points in Heaven Net's statement:1. Shun all man made doctrines
2. Share what God has put in your heart and mind and put it in the hearts and minds of others.
3. Test all doctrinesYet Mike and Kathi are trying to put the fear of man in us by their insinuations, “You don't agree with the fathers. Therefore, you do not have truth.” They are trying to bind our consciences.
Mike should especially stop doing this because he is a Heaven Net representative by virtue of his office as Moderator. But when we give Mike an argument from the scripture he replies with fragments from the fathers and imposes on our consciences what he thinks they taught.
the Roo
Who is the “mike” you speak of? Is that T8?
MikebollRoo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,10:35) TO ALL: Mike and Kathi have been shoving the church fathers down our throats a lot lately. I am convinced that they do this because they lack solid scriptural support for their beliefs. So they must show that they have company in their beliefs. But Mike and Kathi often give fragmented quotes from the fathers out of context. Thanks to faithful watch dogs like WJ they are not getting away with it.
Mike and Kathi have forgotten that faith is personal and that it is a matter of conscience. The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience.
The Heaven Net philosophy is that we are not subject to the traditions of men:
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
Note the points in Heaven Net's statement:1. Shun all man made doctrines
2. Share what God has put in your heart and mind and put it in the hearts and minds of others.
3. Test all doctrinesYet Mike and Kathi are trying to put the fear of man in us by their insinuations, “You don't agree with the fathers. Therefore, you do not have truth.” They are trying to bind our consciences.
Mike should especially stop doing this because he is a Heaven Net representative by virtue of his office as Moderator. But when we give Mike an argument from the scripture he replies with fragments from the fathers and imposes on our consciences what he thinks they taught.
the Roo
JackI don't know about the fear part for I do not feel any fear. But it is obvious that when they make the statement that the Forefathers agree with them more than us then that is a false statement.
They don't even believe in the Trinity yet use Trinitarian misquotes to back their beliefs.
The early Fathers like Ignatius called Jesus their God and considered the the Holy Spirit as a third person. They fully understood that Jesus was co-equal with the Father, yet they were not Polytheist.
There seems to be some ambiguity among the Fathers over the begetting issue and hence the “Arian Heresy”. The Niceen Creed cleary states that it was anathema to say there was a time that the Son was not, that in itself tells us that they could not have believed Jesus was a God begotten from another God as in procreation.
The Niceene Creed wasn't enough to head off the Heresy so they put together the Athanasian Creed which completely seperates the heretical teaching that Jesus is another God begotten by God as a seperated God or who had a beginning.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**.
It is clear that the Trinitarian Forefathers agree with us and not with them.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,06:22) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,10:35) TO ALL: Mike and Kathi have been shoving the church fathers down our throats a lot lately. I am convinced that they do this because they lack solid scriptural support for their beliefs. So they must show that they have company in their beliefs. But Mike and Kathi often give fragmented quotes from the fathers out of context. Thanks to faithful watch dogs like WJ they are not getting away with it.
Mike and Kathi have forgotten that faith is personal and that it is a matter of conscience. The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience.
The Heaven Net philosophy is that we are not subject to the traditions of men:
Quote The site contains content resulting from a thirst and passion for truth, so some of the content may seem controversial to some religiously bound people. The idea is to do God's will and shun all man-made tradition which is founded in the fear of man. This site is simply about sharing what God has put in our hearts and minds and putting those same things into the hearts and minds of others. There is no problem testing all doctrines, (even so-called sacred ones).
Note the points in Heaven Net's statement:1. Shun all man made doctrines
2. Share what God has put in your heart and mind and put it in the hearts and minds of others.
3. Test all doctrinesYet Mike and Kathi are trying to put the fear of man in us by their insinuations, “You don't agree with the fathers. Therefore, you do not have truth.” They are trying to bind our consciences.
Mike should especially stop doing this because he is a Heaven Net representative by virtue of his office as Moderator. But when we give Mike an argument from the scripture he replies with fragments from the fathers and imposes on our consciences what he thinks they taught.
the Roo
JackI don't know about the fear part for I do not feel any fear. But it is obvious that when they make the statement that the Forefathers agree with them more than us then that is a false statement.
They don't even believe in the Trinity yet use Trinitarian misquotes to back their beliefs.
The early Fathers like Ignatius called Jesus their God and considered the the Holy Spirit as a third person. They fully understood that Jesus was co-equal with the Father, yet they were not Polytheist.
There seems to be some ambiguity among the Fathers over the begetting issue and hence the “Arian Heresy”. The Niceen Creed cleary states that it was anathema to say there was a time that the Son was not, that in itself tells us that they could not have believed Jesus was a God begotten from another God as in procreation.
The Niceene Creed wasn't enough to head off the Heresy so they put together the Athanasian Creed which completely seperates the heretical teaching that Jesus is another God begotten by God as a seperated God or who had a beginning.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**.
It is clear that the Trinitarian Forefathers agree with us and not with them.
WJ
Keith,I am not saying that I feel fear. I am saying that what Mike and Kathi are doing is fearmongering to me. I have experienced a whole lot of this in my denomination because of my stance on Preterism. I am told things like, “You are out of accord with the fathers and the creeds” and, “You would have been burned at the stake.”
My daughter is an intern at her church. She mentors high school aged girls. She loves the Lord and she loves people. And the kids love her. But her boss has displayed a lot of anomosity toward her for a year now. Finally, last week on the Cherokee Missions trip she came right out and asked him why he doesn't like her. He answered saying, “Because you are a Preterist.”
Mike thinks that I dislike the fathers. I do not dislike the fathers. It's just that my faith is in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men. Mike is being hypocritical too for the creeds do not anathematize me. The creeds anathematize him. The creeds may anathematize me on my Preterist beliefs. But Mike is anathematized on the Person of our Lord Jesus.
I have a big beef with the “established” church. Yet I continue to worship at the “established” church and serve the Lord in whatever capacity I can. I am censored because of my Preterist stance so my opportunities to serve are limited.
I have said many times here that I don't give a hoot what the fathers say. I know that Mike and Kathi take them out of context. Others here aren't buying their views that the fathers were really Arians. And even if they are right in their interpretation of the fathers I still don't give a hoot! I want scriptural arguments from them. I welcome their beating me over the head with scripture. But I disdain it when they beat me over the head with their interpretation of the fathers when the fathers anathematized THEM.
Kathi especially has tried to make it look as if you and I do not have truth because we don't concur with what she thinks the fathers taught. THIS IS FEARMONGERING! And Mike is bound by the philosophy of Heaven Net because he is a moderator. He ought to be encouraging all to delve into the scriptures and not trying to make them look like they don't have truth if they don't concur with his thoughts on what the fathers taught. This is why Mike and Kathi have only each other and that people who are against you and me on the Trinity are siding with you and me on this issue.
The Westminster Confession says that we are under conscience in matters of faith.
Jack
Keith said:
Quote There seems to be some ambiguity among the Fathers over the begetting issue and hence the “Arian Heresy”. The Niceen Creed cleary states that it was anathema to say there was a time that the Son was not, that in itself tells us that they could not have believed Jesus was a God begotten from another God as in procreation.
Keith,Yeah and Mike's hero Eusebius SIGNED the creed which anathematized those who say that there was a time when Jesus was not. If a candidate for Governor of a state says that he is against the death penalty, then after he is Governor he SIGNS a bill legalizing the death penalty, then he either was insincere or he changed his mind or he caved into pressure. Either way it means that what the Governor said before he signed the bill doesn't count.
Eusebius wrote a letter of apology to those he anathematized. So it is possible that he caved into pressure.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,07:19) Yeah and Mike's hero Eusebius SIGNED the creed which anathematized those who say that there was a time when Jesus was not.
Oh, you must have missed the post where I quoted his letter to his Diocese after signing the Creed. The one where he says he asked about all the crap in the anathema, and was told to only promote the creed using nothing but scripture. He told them there is nothing in scripture that says “there was a time when he wasn't” or any of the other things the anathema said, so he had never intended on ever teaching that, and never would, so therefore he was cool with it.It's actually quite hilarious. I'll find it tomorrow and bring it over for you.
mike
I couldn't wait.
Here's a part of what Eusebius wrote to the members of his Diocese after the Nicene Council. After making it abundantly clear that the “one in essence” and the anathema was force fed down their throats by the Emperor, he seems to be explaining away the anathema that he was forced to sign off on,
And as to the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
9. Moreover to anathematize “Before His generation He was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html
Did you notice how he immediately distanced himself from the part of the Creed that he knew wasn't true?
Just for kicks, let's see what he said about the “one in essence” and how it was explained to him by the Emperor,
……but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed moreover that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, ………
On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “of the essence of the Father,” and “one in essence with the Father.” Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence.On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us,
There is a lot more of Eusebius' letters at this site. There's this little tidbit……
Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord is a creature. “This offspring,” he says, “did He first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the perfect handy-work, δημιούργημα, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, ἀρχιτεκτόνημα, of the Wise,”
……..and lots more.
What do you think about my “hero” now Jack?
mike
Just one more time!
Since then no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once He was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,01:17) Here's a part of what Eusebius wrote to the members of his Diocese after the Nicene Council. After making it abundantly clear that the “one in essence” and the anathema was force fed down their throats by the Emperor, he seems to be explaining away the anathema that he was forced to sign off on,
Do you have any proof he was forced? And if he was then how can you put trust in a man that caves to pressure?WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,01:17) Here's a part of what Eusebius wrote to the members of his Diocese after the Nicene Council. After making it abundantly clear that the “one in essence” and the anathema was force fed down their throats by the Emperor, he seems to be explaining away the anathema that he was forced to sign off on,
Do you have any proof he was forced? And if he was then how can you put trust in a man that caves to pressure?WJ
Keith,Exactly!
It can be only one of the three things I mentioned. Eusebius was either insincere or he changed his mind or he caved into pressure. The letter of apology seems to suggest that Eusebius caved into pressure.
That Mike imposes Eusebius on our consciences is therefore all the more unacceptable.
Jack
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:22) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,01:17) Here's a part of what Eusebius wrote to the members of his Diocese after the Nicene Council. After making it abundantly clear that the “one in essence” and the anathema was force fed down their throats by the Emperor, he seems to be explaining away the anathema that he was forced to sign off on,
Do you have any proof he was forced? And if he was then how can you put trust in a man that caves to pressure?WJ
I am open to Mike's “forced” theory if he provides documentation which indicates that Eusebius was forced. It would mean that Eusebius caved into pressure.
Jack
Mike,
You say that I misunderstand what you and Kathi are doing. Do I really? What do you think is the reason that Shimmer said that the discussion about the fathers “disturbed” her and that she had to pray for peace about it? Could her conscience have been afflicted by your insinuations that those who do not hold to the father's beliefs, that is, what you think they believed have truth?
I have lived it man! You and Kathi need to go back and study your posts. You both are bullying people with the fathers. I cite the fathers only to counter your understanding of them. But you and Kathi are beating people over the head with your fragmented quotes from them.
Roo
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:22) Do you have any proof he was forced? And if he was then how can you put trust in a man that caves to pressure? WJ
Yeah Keith,Just Google the Nicene Creed. Historians generally agree that Constantine crammed the creed down their throats. He didn't want a disruption among his subjects. And although he couldn't have cared less about Christianity, he wanted the argument over with and done.
The fact that later councils changed the “one in essence with the Father” to “we consider the Son to be of LIKE essence of the Father”…and… “we call the Son LIKE the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach” should be enough to explain that to you.
And what about the words I quoted? Constantine “advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them”? The man who could say “off with his head” was “advising” all of those present to “consent”.
And while I don't admire Eusebius for caving in, I also don't admonish him, for I wasn't there. And as it turns out, he immediately set out making sure his Diocese knew those words in the anathema weren't scriptural and they would never have to use or teach them because they were assured they only had to promote this creed using scriptural words. So in the end, maybe it was God's plan to have him alive and still able to teach his Diocese and others.
Doesn't that even garner an “oh, that stinks to know this” response from you guys? I've been saying for months that the actual Creed was scriptural, it's just that the anathema is not. And you guys prefer to cling to the anathema. It's good to know the one who was actually credited with writing the creed itself also thought the anathema was unscriptual.
And what about the “one in essence with the Father” part? Did you see how it was explained to Eusebius and the others who thought it sounded unscriptural?
Accordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not however a part of His essence.On this account we assented to the sense ourselves, without declining even the term “One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us,
What…….no comment? It had to be explained that it meant the Father was of one essence and the Son was of another before they would agree to it. And they did, even though the wording is odd, because they wanted peace.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,01:59) I cite the fathers only to counter your understanding of them. But you and Kathi are beating people over the head with your fragmented quotes from them.
I cite the fathers only to counter your understanding of scripture itself. You assert “monogenes” didn't mean “only begotten”. They counter you assertion. You assert Jesus was “appointed” God's Son after he was raised. They counter your assertion.Kathi and I have never used the fathers OVER scripture itself. You just won't accept what scripture says, so the fathers are an added boost, if you will.
You don't have to believe what they believed, but why won't you accept that they had a better understanding of what the Greek words really meant than you?
mike
Mikeboll said:
Quote I cite the fathers only to counter your understanding of scripture itself.
Boom! This is EXACTLY what I have been saying. Thanks for proving my point Mike! You are saying that if I don't believe the church fathers then I don't believe the scriptures. I have suffered this form of persecution as a Preterist.TO ALL:
Mike and Kathi are twisting tne words of the fathers to mean what they mean and then saying, “If you don't believe the fathers then you don't understand the scriptures.” If you don't agree with the church fathers as they understand them then you don't believe the scripture. Mike said so. This is fearmongering. I have suffered this form of persecution for several years as a Preterist and so I know what fearmongering looks like and Mike just validated my complaint.
Mike:
Now go to the “Eusebius the Preterist” thread I started. Eusebius taught the Preterist view of prophecy and of Christ's second coming. You reject Preterism Mike. Therefore, you must mot believe the scriptures Mike!
Thanks again for proving my complaint Mike!
Roo
And once again (big surprise), you don't actually answer to the point Jack.
You assert “monogenes” didn't mean “only begotten”. They counter you assertion. You assert Jesus was “appointed” God's Son after he was raised. They counter your assertion.
Kathi and I have never used the fathers OVER scripture itself. You just won't accept what scripture says, so the fathers are an added boost, if you will.
You don't have to believe what they believed, but why won't you accept that they had a better understanding of what the Greek words really meant than you?
Will he answer? I doubt it.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
