Posted on 07/24/2007 2:24:56 PM PDT by MarkBsnr
I have seen a number of, usually more liberal, Christians, for instance, wander over to Origen or Pelagius or Nestor, often citing their own personal interpretation of Scripture as justification.
A LOT of so-called Christians really just like the Christian label and not the actual dogmas of Christianity. They believe whatever they fell is Christian and if you point out that their belief is actually heresy; a.) they did not know and b.) once they know they still won’t care.
Gnosticism is also present in many of the liberal mainline denominations.
Thanks for the post.
Good post. I think many of the early church patriarchs (Augustine, Polycarp, etc.) would not recognize many of the practices of todays churches including Roman Catholocism. As a side note, there is an interesting article entitled “What is Wordliness” posted by Banner of Truth which explains Paul’s battle with certain gnostics who attempted impose man’s standards of holiness (do not touch, do not taste-Colossions 2) on the first century church. That same tendancy is still alive among certain sects today.
As a Mormon, I more or less agree with this point.
Arianism — 4th Century Perhaps the most significant heresy faced by the Church, Arianism (named after Arius) taught that, as the Son of God, Christ was created by God the Father. Arius thus denied the Trinity by teaching that Jesus is less than fully divine.
I doubt many Mormons would agree that Jesus is less than fully divine.
Pelagianism — 5th Century Pelagius, a Welsh monk, taught that humanity does not inherit original sin, and that salvation is earned by following the example of Christ. Grace is not necessary; instead, humans overcome the sin they gradually develop by using God’s grace to assist them in perfecting themselves and thus earning salvation.
Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ atoned for original sin; therefore, original sin is not inherited. That part I can agree with.
However, I would not say that salvation is "earned." It is true that we must follow the example of Jesus Christ; but it is only though God's grace that we may be perfected and receive the gift of eternal life. (Some have said that Mormons are "semi-Pelagians.")
I would give this post 1.75 out of 3 for its discussion of Mormonism. Not bad, considering how often Mormonism is mischaracterized on these threads.
Very good; I wanted information to be delivered, not attacks.
With regard to the point about Jesus’ divinity, would it be more accurate to represent LDS doctrine as: Jesus was a creation of God; Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT, the man/God of the new and is now fully divine?
We had a deacon in our parish in Oklahoma who was a Church History instructor. He like to say, “You can’t keep a good heresy down!”
There have been almost 2,000 years of Christianity, so every misunderstanding has already been around by now.
You’re always so reasonable, Logophile! Of course, Catholics believe Mormons are in error, and Mormons believe Catholics are in error, or we’d all believe one or the other. That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss our different beliefs in a pleasant and informative way.
Logophile: As a Mormon, I more or less agree with this point.
What is the Mormon definition of subordination of the Son to the Father? Do Mormons believe in reincarnation?
Logophile: Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ atoned for original sin; therefore, original sin is not inherited. That part I can agree with.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity teaches that original sin is not inherited, but for a different reason than the one you give.
(1) Jesus was a creation of God;
Mormonism does not teach creation ex nihilo. We believe that the elements and all spirits are eternal, having neither a beginning nor an end. Creation is the act of organizing preexisting elements.
Thus we believe that Jesus is not a creation. He is eternal, without beginning or end.
What is unique about Mormonism is that it teaches that the spirits of all men are also without beginning or end.
(2) Jesus is the Jehovah of the OT,
Mormons would agree.
(3) the man/God of the [New Testament]
Yes.
(4) and is now fully divine?
Absolutely.
Thanks, Tax-chick. I have always found you to be reasonable, informative, and pleasant.
Yes, we can discuss our differences; we should not minimize those. At the same time, we should not exaggerate them either. It is important to recognize the similarities that do exist.
Not long ago, I attended a Roman Catholic mass with my in-laws. The service was obviously very different from an LDS sacrament meeting. Yet as I listened to the priest, I heard him say things that I recognized. The more I listened, the more familiar it sounded.
It has been my experience that when Christians read the Bible together, particularly the Gospels and Acts, we find much we can agree on. The more we delve into history, philosophy, and theology, the less we can agree. There is a lesson there, I think.
I think you're right, although I'm not sure how I'd word the lesson ... maybe it's "We're all gonna die!" :-).
I like to read the histories of persecuted Christians, because it reminds me that most of what we think is "important" really isn't.
Thanks for the post Mark.
**Modern Groups: Seventh-Day Adventists; followers of Herbert W. Armstrong. **
Glad to know this one.
Good quote!
Deacon John Donnelly, St. Benedict’s Church, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma.
** Yet as I listened to the priest, I heard him say things that I recognized. The more I listened, the more familiar it sounded.**
Find out more. Be on one of the Catholic ping lists.
bump
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)
Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
I know it is not a heresy - but Arminianism is rampant in the church. I believe this is an aberration, is really bad theology. Charismatics, Methodists, Salvation Army, Nazarenes, for instance, hold that it is possible to lose “eternal life” through one’s own actions. The big question: what is the definition of “eternal?”
Basic logic tells me that this makes no sense. Which is it?
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.