Reading Genesis 1-3, implied is the first heresy proposed by the devil, taught convincingly by Eve, and obeyed by Adam.
How did this come about and how does every heresy follow this pattern.
We begin with Adam who created first by God in Genesis 2 and given the commandment.
Genesis 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.
Only after this does God make eve from Adam's side.
When we hear this commandment spoken by Eve to the serpent she says Genesis 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die."
Now GOING BY THE TEXT ALONE (yet not sola scriptura), Adam was the only one who heard the commandment so it must have been he that spoke it to her. Adam is the first prophet. Yet, there is that added part "don't touch it even." Now here is not the place to get into the legitimacy of Adam adding to the rules that God set down. He very well may have had the authority to do that. Jesus told us to fast, but the Church says what days, how, and for how long and She can do that because Jesus gave her that authority. So let's say that Adam has that authority to put a type of (verbal) wall around the tree so as to ensure the safety.
But look what happens, Eve begins listening to another voice (the devil's) and believes that the NEW message she is now receiving is true and the old one is false. She then becomes a prophet for the devil and begins preaching his message. We know this because Genesis 3:17 "And to Adam he[God] said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife,"
When was that? When did he listen to his wife? There is some conversation that is lost to us.
She does this because she thinks that the message is good. But by believing this message and rejecting the original one she is suggesting that Adam is in fact a false prophet who represents a false god.
ALL OF THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME SOMEONE LEAVES THE CHURCH.
The Church is the legitimate authority given to us by Jesus through the Apostles and passed on by apostolic succession until our day. The members believe the message that the Church proposes for belief. Yet one day an outside voice suggests to someone. "the church is holding you back with xyz, if you follow me I will really free you and teach you the truth."
The Church is the legitimate authority given to us by Jesus through the Apostles and passed on by apostolic succession until our day. The members believe the message that the Church proposes for belief. Yet one day an outside voice suggests to someone. "the church is holding you back with xyz, if you follow me I will really free you and teach you the truth."
So they leave and we can see by the fruit that it produces that it only leads to ruin and division.
Ecclesiastes says as much when it says there is nothing new under the sun.
6 comments:
You imply that believing a new message and rejecting the original one is what happens every time someone leaves the Roman Catholic Church.
However, what if I believe in the original message of salvation through Christ alone, and reject the new messages of papal infallibility, indulgences, infused righteousness, Mary as mediatrix, the treasury of merit, the mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, purgatory, prayets for the dead, the cult of the saints, et al.?
If I am to believe in the original message of the gospel and reject these new teachings, then I am left with no choice ...I must leave the Roman Catholic Church!
Drew,
Thank you for your comment. What you are assuming is that the list that you gave, are new teachings. Now we don't find most of those terms in the Bible, but we do find the teachings. Might I suggest some teachings you "might" hold on to (I don't know your background). You most likely believe in the Trinity, or that those 27 books that make up the New Testament are inspired. Neither the term Trinity nor an inspired list are located in the New Testament. Yet they are believed. Maybe I shouldn't assume, I don't even know if you will reply to this.
If you are interested in an actual conversation. Please feel free to write me at catholic4areason@gmail.com or call (I hate typing) 859-866-7885
Anyway. I would say that if yu are going to believe the original message of the gospel, then those teachings would be included in that message and that they are just as new as the Gospel itself. To accept what you believe to be the gospel message and yet reject what the apostles have passed on is contradictory.
This is why we need to obey the Holy Spirit when He said - Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions you were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thesssalonians 2:15. We need to hold on to what was written (the Bible) and what was passed on orally as well (its interpretation).
Peace
Thanks for the reply, Dan. You are correct to say to believe the gospel message but reject what the apostles have passed on would be contradictory. However. This doesn't mean that the new teachings are included in the original gospel message. Paul, for example, taught that salvation is by God's grace through Christ alone, and that any other gospel is anathema. No where does he (or the other NT authors) put conditions on the gospel which would render faith in Christ alone insufficient for salvation. Rejecting purgatory, papal infallibility, or Marian devotion is not the same as rejecting the original gospel message because neither Christ nor the apostles taught any of these. To bind anyone's conscience to the point where rejecting these new teachings would mean a loss of salvation is antichristian.
As for the doctrine of the Trinity, any study of church history will show that it is rooted in scripture, and was taught to uphold the divinity of Jesus as it was revealed in scripture. The Trinity reflects no extra biblical revelation or extraordinary vision. Unlike the new teachings, it can be clearly extrapolated from the NT (regardless of what the Arians said).
Regarding the canon of the NT, that was a tradition which was generally held everywhere by everyone, despite the fact that 7 of its books were disputed. The adoption of the NT canon was an organic development, and the decrees of the synods of Rome, Caryhage, and Hippo in the 4th century merely affirmed what was generally believed. This is a far cry from some papal decree. Moreover, no where in these 27 books are we taught to pray to saints, obey a bishop as if he were Christ Himself, or pay indulgences to minimize time spent in purgatory.
I appreciate your thoughts, Dan. Nonetheless, I cannot agree with you. Please remember that leaving the RCC doesn't mean joining some anti-Catholic baptist/charismatic church which rejects the efficacy of infant baptism, or the Real Presence of Christ in the Euchsrist. I'm quite familiar with contemporary apologists like Hahn, Sungenis, and Matatics. When I was Catholic, I read them all, but found their arguments lacking.
Drew,
Thank you for responding so quickly and intelligently. Clearly, you have studied and done your homework. Do you believe that the apostles while they passed on their writings, also passed on the interpretation of those writings as well?
I would reply that I think those doctrine listed are rooted in Scripture and I wouldn't consider them "extra biblical" I see their roots in the Old Testament and them budding in the New Testament and flowering throughout Church history. I don't mind talking about them, one at a time though.
May I ask which tradition you follow now?
When you say, "No where does he (or the other NT authors) put conditions on the gospel which would render faith in Christ alone insufficient for salvation." What kind of conditions are you talking about?
When you say, "Rejecting purgatory, papal infallibility, or Marian devotion is not the same as rejecting the original gospel message because neither Christ nor the apostles taught any of these." - If these were taught by the apostles, but someone rejected them, would they be violating Luke 10:16?
I still hate typing (859-866-7885) if you want. Thanks for talking to me. If you should call I am curious of your thoughts about the saints.
Hey Dan. I do plan on calling you. I’ve enjoyed our little exchange and believe a live conversation on the phone can be fruitful. I just wanted to address your last post before calling…
I believe the apostles passed on their writings. However, I do not believe they passed on the interpretations of their writings any more than we are exchanging the interpretations of our own writings in this forum. We are exchanging our writings, the apostles passed on their writings; proper interpretation is left to the informed and honest reader. What I mean here is that, like anyone who sends a written message, the apostles wrote as clearly as the spirit allowed and passed their writings on. There was no need to pass on an interpretation of their own writings as well, since they wrote all the spirit guided them to write, which was sufficient.
As for the writings of the OT, yes, inasmuch as scripture shows, interpretations of the OT were passed down through the church. We see this in the use of the Psalms in Paul, the use of Leviticus in Hebrews, and in the use of Isaiah in Matthew. Of course, even a cursory study of early church history will show interpretations of the OT in post-apostolic writers such as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch. However, even the interpretations of those so noble were not held in the same esteem as those writings which came to be known as the NT canon. Thus, as helpful as the interpretations of the early church may be, they are not necessarily binding on all believers in all places for all time.
You state that you don’t consider certain doctrines as extra-biblical, and see their roots in the OT. Would you honestly say this is true of doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary? A doctrine which emerged from the tradition of the Dormition of Mary, which to this day is not considered dogma even in the Orthodox Churches, and which was declared as binding on the Catholic faithful in 1950? Seriously?
As for my tradition, I am a Confessional Lutheran (LCMS).
Concerning conditions placed on the gospel which Catholics must believe in order to be saved, the Assumption (mentioned above) is one. Others would include purgatory, papal infallibility, salvation by works, and indulgences (among others). As I’m sure you know, the Catholic Church holds that anyone who knowingly rejects its teachings de facto excommunicates himself. Look up what Trent said about sola fide and you’ll see what I mean.
Finally, you ask “If these were taught by the apostles, but someone rejected them, would they be violating Luke 10:16?” I find that question irrelevant because the apostles clearly did NOT teach the things I mentioned in the paragraph above. So what IF they taught these? They did not, so there’s no need to speculate “what if”. It would make as much sense to speculate whether we’d be violating Luke 10:16 if the apostles taught that the earth was flat and we rejected it. In other words, it’s a moot point because all the apostles taught, which we need to believe unto salvation, is found in scripture alone. However, to add to what the apostles taught as if they did teach such things, although they did not, puts one in violation of more than simply Luke 10:16.
Anyway, thank you for reading, and I hope to call you soon. Take care….
Post a Comment