For quite sometime, I have studied the effects of heretical doctrines and the role they’ve played in the shaping of the various church systems we see today. I have concluded that as the writer of the Ecclesiastes stated “The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done that which shall be done: and no new thing under the sun.” Understanding this small passage I have found no new conceptual interpretation of the Deitism of Jesus Christ that has not been reconstituted, over and over again incorrectly. Either intentionally or in honest discernment, many people throughout history have been victims of incorrect doctrinal practices that have led them to “questionable ends”. I believe the lord is grieved distinctively and wishes to clarify the Gospel of the church.

 

The established Gospel was originally brought to the descendants of Abraham in relation to the promise God established with the sons of Noah, Shem and Japeth and even Canaan to some extent. It was Abraham who looked for the promise in his generation as noted in the book of Hermas, and in the letters of Irenaeous in his treatise to Marcion, a proprietor of the Marcionite heresy.

 

Let us begin to explore just what is a Heresy. When one denotes a particular belief as a heretical doctrine in these days, it stirs up an understanding that those practicing the fore mentioned doctrine are in some way evil, vile and repulsive creatures fit for hell and damnation. But it is actually an established position of contrary belief to the original and proposed belief of a particular religion. There are heresies in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism.  Heresy as follows”… has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point-of-view of a position within a sect that has been previously defined as "orthodox””, Orthodox is defined as “straight-thinking”. It is also noteworthy to mention that a person, by the merits of kath-holic beliefs, can only commit heresy if they are baptized. 

 

In Christianity, which is our chief religious belief in the world today, we have the established historical Church in the form of “Catholicism” or “World church”. This world church has its historical roots in the preaching and teaching of the apostles and the disciples of these apostles, in how they drew upon the teaching, and life of Jesus Christ, also “who” they believed him to be based upon loose translations of apostolic characterizations. The apostles while being Jews themselves, having great insight into the Old Testament scriptures, and the customs established within it, knew full well, who Jesus claimed to be, the Messiah, or GOD WITH US, Emmanuel. The problem was how god applied himself with us. This was not clarified to any one mans acceptance. So the gentile churches who had more of a kinship with “gods mingling with humans” drew upon they’re own perspectives of how this could have been accomplished.

 

We have a mixture in the early church of Judean Christians, and it’s traditional understanding of GOD, Yahweh, and his interactions with they’re forefathers and Grecian philosophical beliefs struggling to comprehend this phenomenon both vying for a singular truth. Since there were already in the world outside Jewish belief, many concepts of Gods, and chief gods, it was naturally difficult for individuals to absorb the true interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. Even many Jews had a difficult time with them, And with very few literal translations available, the early churches established were left with pastors, established by the apostles or their disciples, who had very little to refer back to in regards to written doctrinal standards of belief. So, as the congregations grew larger, so to the “opposition” to the belief structure.

While the apostles did all they could to stem the tide of confusion within the church they had begun, it was the disciples of the disciples that eventually began to create doubts in the minds of the church. Many doctors, teachers and men of high caliber began to examine this new Christianity and develop from it their interpretations of the core belief structure, Thus, prompting the disciples in the various regions of the area of Palestine, North Africa, Saudi Arabia and such to consolidate the messages into literary books that could be followed and adhered to. I want to go into the beliefs that coagulated the church into a mass of believers that coherently established a certain truth on the gospel.

 

The first problem the new church faced even during the time of the apostles where, by accounts of the Kath-olic church were:

The Circumcisers

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. In conversion, they recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

**But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become an adoptee of the law without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.**

(An adoptee of the law)

Next we have an awesome new heretical belief structure that threatened to wipe conventional truth out of the box, and that is the belief of Gnosticism.

 

Gnosticism

Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against earlier Christian teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

While on it’s own merit, this belief is far fetched at most, it was a very prevalent belief because it allowed a certain level of liberty in ones life, and left the business of holiness completely up to the will of god to decide. Elements of this belief structure can be found today in many forms of new doctrines that do not cite a certain level of adherence to a practice or ritualistic belief. That is to say, one can be saved simply by realizing that while you are in the flesh you will sin, and are unable to change that path, but when you shed the nature of the flesh, you are then made whole by the love of god, that will immediately reconcile your sins. Gnosticism can be summed up as a belief in human salvation attained more so in death rather than in life. While the church maintained that salvation was obtained in life, and in the death of the flesh is realized more clearly.

 

Next we have,

Montanism

Montanus began his career preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia (millennialism). There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit). One of the things I noticed was that many Pentecostal leaders state that they also speak on behalf of the lord, versus what many non-pentecostal churches state as an inspirational literal message, attained through study or attained knowledge.

  

Clarity, A belief structure of Montanus was not one that was outright wrong, it was the application and the accusation the practices placed on the catholic churches at the time. The followers believed whole heartedly in the same principles as the Pentecostal movements of today believe in, however the level of aestheticism was much greater then than now, but that same condemnations by the two are still placed in stark contrast to the existing catholic and fundamental churches. One will find that the restrictions the Montanists placed on themselves is in fact in resemblance to the earlier churches began by the apostles, but also an over zealousness in their application to the church. It’s the condemnation of others that causes the rebuffing of the practice.

 

Next

 Sabellianism

The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality

Considered a heresy because, it greatly contradicted the established belief of the Catholic church. If God acted in accordance to the words of the old and new testaments in this manner it would tend to invalidate the established doctrine of trinity. And the Trinitarian doctrine was already established centuries prior to Sabellious as the official language of belief. It is the source of Modalism.

 

Thus far we can see that the formation of the church is being influenced by many different forms of truth and incorrectness thus thrusting a shaping of the gospel into light. We see that A Judean form of worship, while it has it’s merit, it is the base of gospel for the gentile church, but is not practical practice in its administration unto salvation, we see the various beliefs in gnosticism as men grapple with trying to understand the Christ phenomenon.   We see the Holy ghost recognized in men, teaching and prophesying to no end, as stark beliefs in how the holy ghost is to be obtained and is administered unto the members of the church. We also see a contrary, very noteworthy, point to the established practice of the gospel in the challenge to trinity in Sabellianism.

Continuing forward

Arianism

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.  

 

** Arianism was indeed very confusing and while it mimicked established gospel the main difference was that the immaculate birth did not occur as it did. And like the gnostical doctrines of prior centuries, the concept that Jesus was made divine at his baptism or sometime later rather than in birth, the first redundant belief.

 Pelagianism

Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. This was a direct contradiction to the upheld Gnostic integration that “all matter is evil” concept which was allowed to develop in the church through certain acceptance of Gnostic doctrine. Since many early church fathers were at one time Gnostic themselves, it was seen as a direct contradiction to those early church establishers who developed the doctrine of the church. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.

*Every man has the ability to determine his or her own destiny by the choices they make in life. By living a good life one can obtain salvation even without the process established by the church.  This opened the door for pagans who were grafted into the roman army to receive rights and acknowledgments of service including recognition by the church.

 Semi-Pelagianism

After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.

*This takes god out of the equation and places man as the sole ruler of his own fate, while recognizing that God has the power to grant a person grace initially, it can be retained without gods intervention.

This is the first step into moving away from the restrictive nature of the churches teachings. That each member is under subjection to a papal figure and  doctrine directed to them not completely for them.

Nestorianism

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply.

 

* While I agree with Nestorius in the concept that Mary was the vessel alone in which God exacted his prophecy, Mary was simply the person assigned to care for the infant stage of god in the flesh. Does she deserve a special place in the communal role of the kingdom? No more so than anyone else who obeys the spirit of god, for even though she carried Jesus in her womb that alone did not solidify her salvation. She along with the apostles had to receive the holy ghost on the day of Penticost.

 Monophysitism

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

 

Now from what I can gather, and keep in track, the main gist of so many different doctrinal perspectives lies on one thought…who was Jesus Christ. Was he Fully MAN, being SON of MAN or fully divine as the SON of GOD?

Clarifying the two poles, one must be aware, that the nature of the being is in question not the specific office of the being, that is define by the nature of the created being, so Sense Jesus considered himself both, SON of MAN and Son of God it is safer to say, he was Flesh, sinful and Holy, Sinless. The animal sacrifices were created in the same manner so to speak. They are sinless because they perform the word of god in their actions constantly, and sinful because of the sin of the flesh, all flesh. Most people never really wonder about the nature of animals to god, but there is a reason for animal sacrifice. And a reason why, pagan, animal sacrifices are reviled by god.  

 

Curcumsirers = Jesus was the messiah (god with man, divine) in this interpretation one surmises that Jesus was GOD wrapped in flesh. Being both sinful, and sinless.

 

Gnosticism = Jesus was simply MAN, born sinful and made divine either at his baptism or sometime thereafter. Since all flesh is sinful, nothing born from man can be divine but must be inspired through knowledge or some other means approved by the divine entity greater than the man himself. As this is the base of Trinitarian thought, Jesus Christ was a man who was made divine through the practice of Gnostic ritualistic baptism. Shown his approval by god in the form of the dove or sprit which ascending from heaven to alit upon him at his baptism. Therefore, Jesus cannot be god himself but an approved messenger of god himself.

Montanism = That Jesus was God, as the apostles stated, and that the PARACLETE (Holy ghost) was the most important agent to man in the salvation process.

Differences between the catholic church and montanism:

• The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.

• The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying and speaking in tongues, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in mainstream Catholicism at the time and since.

• The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the Catholic view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.

• The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hæreses", xlviii, 4).

• A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin, church discipline, and apocalyptic living than in mainstream Catholicism. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage. They practiced extreme ascetecism and abhorred the catholic priests for their debauchery lifestyle.

   

Sabellianism = Jesus and God were not two separate persona’s but one singular persona. But in relation to salvation they exist in three persons but not in complete objectivity. belief that the three persons of the Trinity are merely different modes or aspects of God, rather than three distinct persons.

 

Arianism = Jesus was made by God, not that he was god, but that he was a separate entity all together, both divine and human.

 

Pelagianism = Jesus was born both divine and man, but that mere men are born neutral with the ability to define their own destiny of righteousness or unrighteousness by virtue of their works. This will allow for the spreading of the gospel among pagans who performed the will of the empire justly being able to obtain salvation even without repentance.

 

Semi-Pelagianism = Humans can of their own desire, reach out to god, and once obtained, can keep it through their own works without grace from god.

 

Nestorianism = Denied Mary mother of Jesus and exclaimed role somewhat on par of holy queen, and that she was only a vessel used by god to be carried within. So they believed that JESUS was God incarnate. But that Jesus and God were two separate people, one human and one divine.

 

Monophysitism = Held to the belief that Jesus was only one being, both human and divine, both man and God himself in the flesh.

 

Even as I have up to now comprised they’re chief heretical doctrines thus far they denote major upheavals in the propogation of the gospel of Christ. Many of the disparities are based on philosophical differences or inter-cultural practices amongst the church. As we continue, I would like to note that we are moving further away from the root gospel of the original disciples and apostles and into more state kingdom like business of the catholic church.

 Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)

This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the proposed belief’s in the Biblical passages wherin God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14). This definition comes from the catholic churches protective belief in holding ICON’s as instruments of praise and worship.

 

In actuality the creation of ICONS as forms of worship is not a practice God commanded the followers to perform, being used in the example given in Exodus 25:18-20 but he’s talking about creating the place of repentance and reception of the law and a place to commune with god within the temple. Not a cross that one can look upon and feel they are communing with god, not a small trinket or large statue but a specific place that god will commune with the nation of Israel to provide them a source of stability as well the passage in 1 chronicles. Concerning the images of Christ, the usage of Numbers is odd, as it pertains to the transgression of the word of God unto the children of Israel and concerns a serpent of brass and the salvation provided by looking upon it. This is not in any form the same as Icon worship practiced at this time. It is noteworthy to mention that it is only considered a heresy by them who view it as an acceptable practice.

 

Catharism (11th Century)

Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead. (Gnostic and zoarostrian beliefs)
They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty. Catharism is similar to the concepts of Mormonism and Jehovahs witnesses of today.

Protestantism

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.

When studying the many different denominations one stands in awe of the many stupefied scriptural differences among them, and the many points wherein each tends to fall into agreement upon. All having a basic reference derived from the scriptures, yet, the present problem in churches today is that they can’t agree upon basic truth. One says Jesus is trinity the other says he is only one, another acknowledges both separately and independently and others agree with nothing.

  Jansenism

Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

 

In accordance with the historic Roman Catholic Church, one can see that in their mind any belief structure contrary to the mired inconsistencies of its own growth was considered a heretical doctrine. They have finally conquered their members, in maintaining they’re hold over the gospel. While it is absolutely without doubt the root of the church in physical form, it is not the singular body of faith.

The Three questions

 

So lets say that one wishes to discern the belief structure of any one particular person. I think there are only three questions one needs to ask any one person.

 

•  
  1. Is man (as beings of flesh) born evil, innocent or neutral in relation to holiness and sinfulness? (not that they have a recognition of either pole of understanding).
  2. Was Jesus born a man of flesh, god incarnate, or a distinct divine being created by god.
  3. Does a man have control over his own soul or does God control a mans destiny?

These three questions seem to pin most people into expressing theyre belief structure along the lines of Catholicism, Protestantism or Montanistic, or Catharism.

 

By outlining the following points of each faith one can discern a persons underliying understanding of the gospel and begin to target the vulnerable and real issues facing people today.

 

Kath-olic	Montanist	Protestantism	Gnostic	Catharism
TrinitarianFather, Son and holy spirit are three distinct persons acting as one being	Sabellianism There is one god that works in three modes.	Self rule, PelagianismTrinity structure, but relinquishing rights over scripture to each person.	All flesh is evil.	Philosophical in nature. un-beholden to any doctrinal reference.
Inffalibility of the priesthood. Once saved, if lost can be reclaimed.	Once saved always saved, and that once/if fallen away unable to return.	Once saved always saved. Belief is faith and that is all that is required	God alone has the ability to save as he wills, Jesus performs the will of the father.
Baptism is in the name of each member forming GOD, the father, the son and the holy ghost	Baptism is made in the manner of the apostles, in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST.	Baptism is in the trinity formulae as established by the Katholic church.	There is no baptism, simply a belief in Gods existence	To each theyre own design of salvation

 

All in all, there are only 3 types of Christian belief structures that differ one from another. They are: Trinitarian, Sabellianism and Palagianism while gnosticism has it’s place in historical context it is really way off base from established doctrine to actually rival the other 3. so I wont include it in established versions only as a reference point for many of today’s existing churches I.E..church of scientology, Mormon,and Jehovahs Witnesses.

 

Trinitarians must first resign themselves to determine which facet of Trinitarian they wish to believe in. And this furthers sows dissension amongst them because of the mannerisms attached to the belief structures they chose.

•  
  1. Economic Trinity: pushes towards a belief in the father of…son of…and spirit of, in example the father of Jesus, the son of God, spirit of god.
  2. Ontological trinity (essential): pushes toward a hierarchical system approach, in which God rules over the son, who is above the holy spirit.

 

Of the two types there is a commonality, in that the three persona’s of God are approached on an individual basis, in such that God is separated from the Son who is separated from the holy ghost, yet having the same “desire” of operation for creation. While the other says that GOD, the unknown entity consists of

 the father alone, his son alone and the holy spirit alone. How they coexist is a mystery, but that they do, is a known.

 

Both versions of Trinitarian doctrine are incomplete, and by design the proprietors of the doctrinal stance recognize it. It has become an acceptable hole, leaving one to close it with faith in what is presented as believed upon, and that is counted towards they’re faith.

 

In Sabellianism, there is no open door, it is a closed loop. The work of salvation begins and ends with God alone, the father is God, the son is God and the Holy spirit is God. The belief is one that states:

 God became incarnate in flesh yet retained his Fathership, becoming both father and son in his creation, and performing the will of the father in Flesh, so called Son of man, descended into hell, and ascending to heaven thereafter. And then sharing the gift of his work in the form of the Holy spirit, who then provided the intercession for man to God. That man does not speak for god on his behalf, but that God alone communicates through his spirit with man.  

This is indeed a reflective position held by the apostles, but in it’s application does not allow for obvious differences in applicable grace. It is combated by the statement that Jesus denied that he was the father, But that he performed the work of the father. Those who believe in sabellius, do not contradict this position, rather they state that God, as the role of God created and established laws for the creation, The Son of God, which performs the will of God while operating in the flesh. does not defy the law of god and that the Spirit of god, or the Paraclete, comforter, shekinah, is the means that god uses to tie the regenerated fleshly mind to God. Therefore, God does speak out of those who receive his law. Now are they prophets, yes, anyone that speaks the direct will of god is a prophet, are they different from apostles? Yes in the mannerism of the desired will being proclaimed.

 

In its application, grace is applied to the individual, and yet once sin occurs the original belief held that grace was revoked in some manner. How then could one be reclaimed?  Original Sabellianism, stated only that Once saved, a person cannot release himself from gods love, therefore no one could be removed and no one could removed himself who truly received the holy spirit. The ecstatic practice of speaking in tongues was the proof of the reception of the holy spirit.

 

Protestantism, or Pelagianism, states that man can come to god of his own desire, without the intervention of the church, save that man has the desire to please god and do that which is just and good, private judgment in which man has the power to judge himself.

 

Pelagianism in European churches gave way to the great schism, in which the protestants broke from the catholic church, and developed into so many different beliefs they can barely be counted today. Everyone defines they’re own self styled belief structure.

The Christian today

 

Unfortunately, today the church is fractured along lines of separation so ingrained into its members, it’s too difficult to relinquish. While, Racial and Economic differences, are two major sticking points to the fracturing of true church doctrine. You have the Catholic Church defining the church belief structures, and regardless of the two divisions of trinitarianism all those who adhere to the adopted belief, maintain an inkling of allegiance to it. This includes the churches of the reformation and those that branched out. Also those churches that have turned toward Sabellianism “economic trinity” are just as fractured as the others.

                        Gnostic Entities

 

Now lets investigate the extremely off base doctrines of Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witness. These are two very Gnostic belief structures, that tend to borrow from protestantism, zoarostrianism, arianism and basic Gnostic beliefs to define something not quite correct, and not all entirely incorrect. In defying the doctrine of trinity, they have set themselves against the catholic church, but they cannot defend they’re belief structure against the montanist belivers, so they incorporated a bit of it to justify themselves in their belief of “speaking in tongues” to some extent. Yet they are adamant that God does not impart his salvation in this sign, yet they and many others forget:

Ezekiel 24:25 Also, thou son of man, shall it not be in the day when I take from them their strength, the joy of their glory, the desire of their eyes, and that whereupon they set their minds, their sons and their daughters, 24:26 That he that escapeth in that day shall come unto thee, to cause thee to hear it with thine ears?

24:27 In that day shall thy mouth be opened to him which is escaped, and thou shalt speak, and be no more dumb: and thou shalt be a sign unto them; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

 

Those who are ESCAPED shall show the sign of their release by speaking the words of gods will that it shall be heard. This is addressed to the Jews, of all flesh and it is the only sign provided by god to which they know the prophecy of Ezekiel would be seen. Does this mean that everyone that doesn’t speak in tongues is not saved?

 

The prophecy of what was to come, has fulfilled itself and all who received the grace of God have received it. The apostles proposed a certain manner of obtaining salvation, that is different from the essential Trinitarian formulae or Gnostic formulae or Pelagianistic or protestant belief structure. It is more in line with Sabellianism, Pentecostal, Montanist doctrines, and Judean core belief structures. To answer, I am not God and have no power over a gourd within a desert to save it from a worm (reference Jonah). So I cannot say that any man has not received salvation. Yet I will say that Irenaus should not have stated that men can be saved without the blessing of the holy ghost evidenced in the speaking of tongues. That was a mistake I think that has come back to corrupt the church rather than assist it. I understand why what was said was said. But I don’t agree.

 

The commonalities amongst the major belief structures of today vs those of the past.

 

One of the most intriguing points I’ve noticed is that many doctrinal beliefs that pull together peoples into one type of church or another have their roots in an already proposed belief structure. That belief structure in basic context forms the pillar of belief for that particular church, such as Jehovahs witnesses via Arianism or Mormons and Gnosticism or Pentecostals and Montanists. The process always remains the same yet subtle immersions are incorporated to validate their church to the masses.

 

The following church houses hold to the corresponding heretical directions.

________________________________________________________________________

Jehovah Witnesses – Arianism, Protestantism

Mormons –  Protestantism, Trithieism, Nestorianism

Baptist – Protestantism, Nestorianism

Pentecostal – Sabellianism, Montanism, Protestantism, monism, patri-passion

Catholic – Trinitarianism, Nestorianism, Athanasianism

 

These are the chief Households of Christian faith in the world today, and in these houses, many people find solace, continuity and self legitimacy in their faith. Who can say which is right and which is wrong? History is the only one that can differentiate amongst them and our future is the only judge. While they all tend to share from one another in their evolution of doctrines, there is still only one chief household of faith pertinent to the salvation of mankind. That is the doctrine established by the original apostles. While it is highly debated as to what exactly are the teachings of the apostles, be they literal translations or allegorical examples of faith, they stand as the truth of the church. And while the Catholic church holds the rights in articles to these documents, it has lost the foundational right to exclusively hold them as their holy right, thus making it the authentic yet dead to that church.

 

Am I a catholic hater? NO god forbid, I seek truth, and in seeking truth the inevitable facts by which men have faltered come to life, am I a Protestant hater? No, God forbid, but in all truth confusion born of those believers actions have fostered a false sense of confirmation into the salvation process. I cannot by any means dictate the pattern of truth as I find them, because my sense of research dictates that I don’t.  I am a Pentecostal, I believe in the apostles doctrinal approach to salvation, I believe that the apostles spoke in the law “shekinah” in receiving the authority to operate in the will of God, just as the other 200+ people in that room did. I believe that The Montanist should not have been discerned as heretical by the church but embraced for the truth they were captured in as the once staunch catholic literalist found “Tertullian” and that Sabellious was on the right track. I believe that the church has an obligation to present the facts of its position and not back down on the process of salvation. I believe that it is God who dispenses salvation and not based upon our desire alone, but upon his own judgment firstly. Being saved and are saved are two separate states of being.

 

                        04/04/2006

A closer look at “The Trinity”

Once again I find out more and more concerning the gospel of Christ, I fear the lord is grooming me as a Shepard. My flesh fears but my heart and mind drive me to know more of Christ and expound on what I know and clarify areas of teaching that are too confusing to me. One such area was the basic usage of the Trinitarian doctrine and the role it plays in the formation of Christian life.

 

The trinity is an established doctrinal thesis in the church that defines the completeness of the godhead. There are two manners in which this doctrine is perceived as truth, yet while one is the adopted form of gospel belief the other is recognized as being legitmate yet not adopted, even a force to be considered. This means that there is enough truth to directly affect the adopted version of the formulae and it would be dangerous to challenge it based upon it’s ability to alter the adopted versions truth. And to maintain legitimacy within the church it is better to recognize and not condemn vs condemn and run the risk of altering the adopted.

First lets look at the adopted version of trinity or “essential trinity”. It is defined as Ontological or as being the one GOD as a family of three personalities each one being co-equal and co-eternal.

 

It is illustrated as such:

GOD

Comment | 0 Trackbacks comments Add comment Add comment Topic Text (Required) Your name (Required) Your email address (if any) Your personal page (if any) search Menu Main Albums Send us a story! Summary-Directory Admin Categories The War room [7] General thoughts of life!! [4] Holy spirit, Holy Ghost, Paraclete [3] Gnosticism [2] General [4] archives December 2008 June 2008 May 2008 November 2007 September 2007 « September 2007 » Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa             1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30             Meta RSS 0.90 RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0 Atom 0.3 Valid XHTML Links General Powered by LifeType, hosted by New Technologies.