About
This blog started as a small and feeble attempt to rid myself of words and thoughts that needed expressed. It was my feeble attempt to do something for the Kingdom of God. It has grown beyond my original intentions. I will focus on doctrine, on helps, and of course on bringing you news that interest me. You might call me a heresy hunter, and that is fine, but I want to stand guard against the wickedness of this world.
I am not afraid to call those that promote a false doctrine out. We need people of courage to fight against those that are using Christianity for a cloak to cover their sins. Since the Apostles who contended with Simon Magus, the Church has seen people that would use Christ to gain earthly riches. I have no tolerance for a purposed delusion, such that is sweeping Florida. I have no patience for those that defend these vipers and I will not shrink from you not nor shirk my duty in telling you that you are glorifying idols and defending the devil’s religion.
Think not that I will mince my words. I have challenged better people than you. What is wrong is wrong and I tolerate not laxness nor do I care about ‘feelings’ when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Err against it forcefully, and you err against me.
I am not a oneness pentecostal. I am fully The Church of Jesus Christ.
Pentecost is the Greek word for the Hebrew holiday. It was a day. It is not a Church. If the Church truly belongs to Christ, then His name is is only His bride and His body. Apostolic is an adjective created after the Apostles. It is difficult at best to believe that the Apostles would have stood for calling the Church something after themselves.
For the doctrine go HERE
******Comment Policy******
Generally, all comments will be allowed. Comments featuring vulgar speech/words will not be. Links to sites deemed vulgar will be de-linked. (Sites to other denominations, etc… will not be touched. You have the right to remain anonymous, as I am not threatened by the unknown. You may throw what you want at me, as I am not threatened by either the Truth, as I will accept it, or by evil I have a shield and can withstand such things.
Comments are that are deemed ’spam’ such as those that are posted under a post and have absolutely nothing to do with that particular post will be deleted. If you comment to a post, please comment about that post. If you want to leave general comments, please go to the Discussion page.
If you an non-English speaking/writing visitor, and you wish to leave your comment, please feel free to do so. I will do my best to have it translated.
Si vous un visiteur non-anglophone/écriture, et vous souhaitez laisser votre commentaire, sentez-vous svp libre pour faire ainsi. Je ferai mon meilleur pour le faire traduire.
Se voi un ospite scrittura/non di lingua inglese e voi desiderano lasciare il vostro commento, ritenga prego libero di agire in tal modo. Farò il mio meglio per farlo tradurre.
英語を話さないまたは執筆訪問者、およびあなたあなたのコメントを残したかったらそうすること自由に感じなさい。 私はそれを翻訳してもらうように全力を尽くす。
Εάν εσείς ο μιλώντας/γράφοντας επισκέπτης ενός μη-Άγγλου, και εσείς επιθυμεί να αφήσει το σχόλιό σας, παρακαλώ να αισθανθεί ελεύθερο να κάνει έτσι. Θα κάνω το καλύτερό μου να το μεταφράσω.
如果您非英文或文字访客和您希望留下您的评论，请如此做。 我将做我的最好安排它被翻译。
Si usted un visitante no hispanohablante/de la escritura, y usted desean dejar su comentario, sienta por favor libre de hacer tan. Haré mi mejor para hacerlo traducir.
Wenn Sie ein nicht-Englisch sprechender/Schreibensbesucher und Sie Ihre Anmerkung lassen möchten, fühlen Sie bitte sich frei, so zu tun. Ich tue mein Bestes, um es übersetzen zu lassen.
Если вы non-Английский визитер говорить/сочинительства, и вы желаете выйти ваш комментарий, то пожалуйста чувствуйте свободно сделать так. Я сделаю мое самое лучшее для того чтобы иметь его быть переведенным.
agapeton
Oneness Pentecostalism has no real history, no Creedal support, and is not a real Christology. Sadly, this is true speech.
irishanglican
6 May 08 at 1:38 am
I simply cannot understand your ignorance of the issue. First, I am not oneness pentecostal. Second, who cares about creeds? The only creed that I know is that Jesus Christ is Lord (Joel 2:32). But, I don’t want to go beyond what is written. As far as history is concerned, the Trinity doctrine was conceived in opposition to what many call Modalism, meaning that we came first.
Polycarp
6 May 08 at 11:15 am
Great site! Very scholarly and accurate presentation of pure doctrine. I just started a blog about a month ago and it just happens to be designed like this one. I guess true Monotheist minds think alike. :)
My blog is evduanewilliams.wordpress.com
I pray that God continues to bless your ministry.
Ev. Duane Williams
9 May 08 at 7:46 am
“As far as history is concerned, the Trinity doctrine was conceived in opposition to what many call Modalism, meaning that we came first.”
It doesn’t mean that at all. It merely means that the Trinitarian doctrine was codified, that is, clearly defined, when the heretical ideas of modalism arose.
LJ
14 Jun 08 at 2:32 pm
Not sure what page you pulled the quote from…
LJ, I appreciate your comment, but you need to read your history of the development of the Trinity. It is a doctrine clearly seen as one developed and foreign to the Apostles and the Bible that they produced. It was developed through schism and politics of the Church.
Modalism was the true and historic doctrine of the Church. Even Rome knows that.
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 8:32 am
Polycarp,
Not to get you and I go’in again, but for the sake of history, one must read JND Kellys classic book: Early Christian Doctrines. His book is in it 5th edition I believe. He is with the Lord now. (RIP) This book puts to silence your bad history and theology. READ IT!
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 9:50 am
Irishanglican,
I was a’ wandering when you might stop by again. For the sake of doctrine, you must read the Bible and notice that the doctrine of the Trinity was not in it. And then you must start to read actual history books, say some by the Catholic Church which state that the doctrine of the Trinity has been developed.
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 12:47 pm
Polycarp,
I read and love the Holy Scriptures! And I would be in agreement that the “dogma” of the Trinity has developed, but from the nature and truth of the “Apostles doctrine/teaching” (Acts 2:42). Again, JND Kelly’s book is a classic, you would have to dimnish yourself mentally to deny its validation!
Also, you cannot make the R. Catholic Church the boogie-man! The Eastern Orthodox Church has similarity, but it is also its own tradition (good word and way). As my own Church, Anglican. Like all hard-line “fundamentalists” you are really a reductionist, at best. I think I have stated the worst as you may know.
Father Robert
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 1:25 pm
*diminish..ya know I can’t type right..lol
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 1:40 pm
I never attempted to make Rome the boogie man. Rome, however, is the hold of the history of the development of the Trinity doctrine.
Taking calling name is no way to address the issues.
Can you provide a scriptural basis Church councils that establish and develop doctrine? Or Scriptural basis for Tradition over Scripture? The three denominations that you mentioned all support doctrinal development and tradition over scripture.
Robert, it seems to me that you main goal in life is to argue, but you do so with no valid points and with no evidence.
Please provide some.
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 1:50 pm
Polycarp,
READ JND Kelly’s book…PLEASE! Then maybe we can at least debate. And I have learned with you, you simply cannot “exegete” scripture! Just writing down Greek words, means little if you cannot give some interpretive measure from them. And historical theology does matter also!
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 2:01 pm
Historical development of theology does not matter.
I exegete just fine, just not like you want it to come out. Perhaps your method is wanting in the Truth department?
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 2:33 pm
Polycarp,
Now you have finally admitted one of your biggest weakness - “Historical development of theology does not matter?” Was there any development in any NT doctrine (to your mind)? Do you believe in theology at all? And do you believe in the hypostatic-union of Christ? And that Christ has two natures (God & Man) in one person?
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 3:02 pm
What I believe is that you have a very free grasp on the things that you say. I also believe that you know full well that the Trinity doctrine developed over time, but you deem it necessary to use other words so as to hide the dishonesty of those that seek to supplant the truth. I also believe that Church Councils were made up of men doing the Emperor’s bidding, and was in themselves something akin to 19th century political parties.
I also believe that you lurk waiting for arguments, knowing, fully, that those things that you espouse could not fill a blog, and that although cyberspace is filled with inconsequential items any way, those things would put it over the top therefore you seek only to put pithy comments to hide the fact that with all of your education you lack the one thing that you need, the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 8:15 pm
Polycarp,
You have once again evaded my questions theological. And your assessment historically lacks just that, the historical proof. I have not seen one piece of historical theology from you, but that’s right there isn’t any (for you, as you stated). And you forget (though I know you don’t like the fact, that I was a seminary professor). I can write and speak in few words, at least I try to. This was Calvin’s ability. But I know you are Arminian, most Pentecostal people are.
And it is the fact I think of being so heterodox, i.e. unorthodox in the established faith. That causes you real problems. You just have opinions, and almost no theology proper. Sorry, but this is my conviction based on my theology and views of history. And mine are real, historical and can be given some historical sense. Though I am feeble I admit, even with my so-called education (which again seems to bother you?) It is not really personal, but you have made it so in your mind. It is called ad hominem, when you cannot attack the issue, you attack the man or person.
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 8:53 pm
My goodness, someone else that likes to bloviate!
Honestly, now you are going to attack my Arminianism? Is that another tactic to deflect from you lack of doctrinal support for the Trinity? You say that you have theology proper, yet your theology is found only in history books and philosophical defenses of what is supposedly the Christian faith. Proper theology begins and ends with the Scriptures themselves.
You have yet to show one shred of evidence and yet you seem to think that you have? I have posted my theological reasoning, and yet all you have done is to shout into cyberspace, ‘You are wrong and I will show you’ then, nothing. Seems to me that your lack of evidence speaks volumes of your doctrine.
All you do is to attack, and yet no more than a few weeks ago, you swore this blog off. Seems to me that your words are as honest as your doctrine, Robert.
Polycarp
16 Jun 08 at 9:48 pm
Your right Poly, I should not proceed with your ad hom. So I will leave, but say hi to Duane for me.
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
16 Jun 08 at 10:11 pm
Leave? Again, after the attacks on me? Well, I guess we will see how long it lasts this time.
Polycarp
17 Jun 08 at 7:43 am
Poly, we will call it even. You are not gonna change me, and I am not gonna change you. If any change takes place? It will be the work of God in “metanoia” - a transformation of the mind!
One thing we can agree on, this Todd B. is a fool and impostor! Hopefully most of the souls will just pass along through his deception. We have such in Great Britain, but they are more “spiritist” like.
Fr. Robert
irishanglican
17 Jun 08 at 5:15 pm
Fr. Robert, on this I agree. I will also agree that I believe that you can be an invaluable resource on the Orthodox and early Church Councils.
Todd B. is the latest in a long line of such people, always seeking to pervert the gospel.
I don’t understand how people can so willingly give themselves over to such a fraud.
Polycarp
18 Jun 08 at 8:05 am
Simon Magus was a true soldier. He traveled with a female spiritual companion and could fly. SM was a Sethian and rejected the false salvationist doctrine that was being promoted in the name of the fictional historic Jesus. SM came from a long lineage of Pagan Gnostics dating back to Plato and Pythagoras. The literalists perverted the Godman myth and obliterated all reference to Sophia (though early Christians worshipped her).
johnnypeepers
9 Jul 08 at 2:08 pm
Oh, wow, a Gnostic. I though Rome obliterated you fellows a while back?
Polycarp
9 Jul 08 at 2:12 pm
Gnosticism, the heretical movement of the early Christian centuries that emphasized that salvation was through a secret gnosis or knowledge. Originating as a perversion of both Jewish and Christian truths, it developed into an independent phenomenon. The principal patristic sources of information about Gnosticism come from the Church Fathers, such as Justin the martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertullian, and Epiphanius. We also should note that “gnosis” is an immediate knowledge of spiritual truth without the mediation of churches or other institutions or rituals. Besides the full-blown aspect, as we see in the above quote (Johnnypeepers). Is there not some gnostic nature to many independent type Christians today? Yes, this is a question.
Fr. Robert
PS Poly I am hardly on “holiday”. Long story…
Johnnypeepers - There are both Jewish..Hasidic’s that love the wisdom or sophia of God. And of course the Wisdom Lit. and books, etc. Plus the E. Orthodox have a place for doctrine of sophia. But the early orthodox Christian’s did not “worship” sophia.
Fr. R.
irishanglican
9 Jul 08 at 5:49 pm
Well, if no holiday, then I hope that all is well.
(Sidebar here, but have you picked up the Orthodox Study Bible?)
I believe that many so-called independents have a form of gnosticism within themselves, but a very limited form, but then again, some ‘associated’ members do as well. If we are not careful, we begin to worship the gnosis more than the reality or action. Knowing about God is not the same as knowing God, if I am making myself plain here.
Polycarp
9 Jul 08 at 6:19 pm
Polycarp,
Yes I have the Orthodox Study Bible. It uses the Septuagint for the OT text. Interesting, but not my blank choice for sure on the Text of the OT. Though this is the text the Jews used in Jesus time, and no doubt the early first century church to some degree. But, often St. Paul quotes the Hebrew, and very freely too (in his NT Letters).
Agree as to “knowledge”…as St. Paul says: “knowledge (alone) puffs up”. We are simply nothing without the Spirit of God!
I am here visting my elderly “mum”! God Bless her!
Fr. R.
irishanglican
9 Jul 08 at 8:18 pm
I like the use of the Septuagint in NT Studies, and really enjoy having the OSB on hand, however, the NETS is the preferred choice, but since it does not have a NT attached to it, it is cumbersome in Church.
Polycarp
10 Jul 08 at 7:46 am
Praise the Lord! This is great! Where are you saints located. I am also The Church of Jesus Christ.
Evangelist Cole
11 Jul 08 at 8:45 pm
That is great to here. My particular congregation is located south of Charleston, West Virginia. Where are you?
Polycarp
11 Jul 08 at 8:51 pm
I am glad to hear that you think it important to call attention to false doctrine. I was wondering what you think of Hank Hanegraaff’s commmentary on the Church of Christ, which I will copy and paste for you here. It is on CRI’s website, http://www.equip.org.
Churches of Christ - Perspecitve
Perspective CP0604
IS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST A CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
Some Christians believe that the Church of Christ promotes non-biblical teachings and practices. Is the Church of Christ a Christian church?
The Church of Christ movement originally arose in the hopes of promoting unity among all Christians, but it eventually ended up separating itself from other Christian groups. Although the Church of Christ movement is basically Christian, it’s difficult not to categorize certain factions as aberrant because of some of their more extreme doctrines and practices.
Of all its beliefs, the Church of Christ movement is perhaps best known for its view that water baptism is absolutely essential for salvation. This is no doubt a “sub-biblical” view of baptism. Acts 10:44-48, for example, records that Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved) before they were baptized. Water baptism is certainly a normal part of becoming a Christian and a member of the church; nevertheless, it’s still possible to be saved without having been baptized — especially when circumstances make baptism very difficult if not impossible (cf. Luke 23:39-43). Now, some of the more extreme factions within the Church of Christ movement go even further, and argue that anyone who views baptism differently from them is not a Christian and is, therefore, lost — even if that person has been baptized!
There are also reports that heavy-handed tactics are employed by a number of more extremist groups within the Church of Christ. The Boston Movement, for example, which evolved from a similar movement at the Crossroads Church of Christ, is probably the most well-known of these authoritarian groups. Both movements were rejected by the mainline Churches of Christ. This particular group goes so far as to say that other segments of the Church of Christ movement are non-Christian and will face eternal damnation.
And so, while the Church of Christ movement is orthodox in many of the essentials of the faith, it is plagued with a very loud segment whose views are so extreme that developing any type of Christian fellowship with them becomes almost an impossible task. But remember, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water; there are many within the Church of Christ movement who are committed Christians.
On the Church of Christ, that’s the Bible Answer Man Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
For more information on this topic, please consult our Web site at http://www.equip.org; write to us at P. O. Box 8500, Charlotte, NC 28271-8500; or contact us using the other information listed above.
We also recommend the statement “The Churches of Christ, the Christian Churches, the Disciples of Christ” (DC600), which addresses various beliefs within the Church of Christ, and the article “At What Price Success? The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement,” by James Bjornstad (DC615).
andrealudwig
19 Jul 08 at 10:40 am
Andrea, I have dealt with the CoC and find a good many of them to be extremist, indeed. Not all of then, but more then a few here in Appalachia. I would have to disagree with Hank’s take on the beginning of the CoC - they were formed by the Stone-Campbellite movement in the 1830’s as part of the restorationist movement, seeking to restore the New Testament Church.
Their view on Baptism is the historical view on baptism, although many Protestants don’t believe it to be so.
Polycarp
19 Jul 08 at 10:45 am
Check out my blog at djmmusings.blogspot.com
D. J. Markham
21 Jul 08 at 3:00 pm
Are you LDS? You sound a lot alike in some areas.
JLFuller
26 Jul 08 at 9:17 am
JL, have you actually read this blog? Any at all? Or did you just read ‘The Church of Jesus Christ’ and automatically assume Mormon? Honestly, reading comprehension is a good skill to master.
Polycarp
26 Jul 08 at 9:54 am
All of the above arguing is good if you have Jesus Christ in your heart, mind, and soul.
Otherwise it is empty semantics.
suppose
13 Aug 08 at 3:26 pm
Suppose, I believe that if you examine some of the other pages and comments, you will see where our discussion has carried us. We have to first start with Christ and then grow in grace.
Besides, it is not so much arguing between some of us, but strenuous fellowship.
Polycarp
13 Aug 08 at 3:31 pm
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ARE SAYING
cja
17 Aug 08 at 10:54 pm
WHY?
Polycarp
17 Aug 08 at 11:17 pm
What about Easter?
There are book references, and I remember seeing these and other references when my step-father was a Christian minister back in the 1970s. Nearly all of the Christian festivals were originally pagan festivals that were adopted and Christianized by the early Church Fathers into “nicer” things so that the Christian converts could keep on doing their original festivals while looking like they were Christians. The early Church Fathers hated Jews so much that they purposely made these festivals to be as “counterpoints” to the Biblical feasts that the Jews celebrated and as proof that the Church was so much “better” than the Jews and the synagogues. It was also during this time that the Church began to kill Jews and other “non-believers”, which lasted for many centuries.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and imports a goddess of the Saxons, or rather, of the East, Estera, in honor of whom sacrifices being annually offered about the Passover time of the year (spring), the name became attached by association of ideas to the Christian festival of the resurrection, which happened at the time of the Passover …. So the present German word for Easter, Ostern, is referring to the same goddess, Estera or Ostera.”
– Excerpted from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Originally the spring festival in honor of the Teutonic goddess of light and spring known in Anglo-Saxon as Eastre. As early as the 8th century the name was transferred by the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian festival designed to celebrate the resurrection of Messiah. In A.V. (authorized Version) it occurs once (Acts 12:4), but is a mistranslation.”
– Excerpted from The Westminster Dictionary of Bible
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” The word Easter is of Anglo origin, and is supposed to be derived from
Eostra, the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April.”
– Excerpted from Barnes’ Notes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Although Easter is a Christian festival, it embodies traditions of an ancient time antedating the rise of Christianity. The origin of its name as lost in the dim past; some scholars believe it is probably derived from Eastre, Anglo-Saxon name of a Teutonic goddess of spring and fertility, to whom was dedicated Eastre month, corresponding to April. Her festival was celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox, and traditions of the festival survive in the familiar Easter bunny, symbol of the fertile rabbit, and in the equally familiar colored Easter eggs originally painted with gay hues to represent the sunlight of spring.
Such festivals, and the myths and legends which explain their origin, abounded in ancient religions. The Greek myth of the return of the earth-goddess Demeter from the underworld to the light of day, symbolizing the resurrection of life in the spring after the long hibernation of winter, had its counterpart, among many others, in the Latin legend of Ceres and Persephone…. The universality of such festivals and myths among ancient peoples has led some scholars to interpret the resurrection of Christ as a mystical and exalted variant of fertility myths.”
– Excerpted from Funk and Wagnalls Standard Reference Encyclopedia, vol. 8, 1970
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PASCHA (Greek letters), mistranslated “Easter” in Acts 12:4, A.V., denotes the Passover (R.V.). The phrase “after the Passover” signifies after the whole festival was at an end. The term Easter is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast, but was not instituted by Christ, nor was it connected with Lent.
From this Pasch the Pagan festival of Easter was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt Pagan festivals to Christianity. See PASSOVER.
– An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vine, 1966, pp.14-15
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
See the image of the rabbit in the moon (a commonality to many cultures of a sacred animal to the moon deity, such as in the ancient Mediterranean and Near East)
http://www.calendersign.com/en/am_hare_hedgehog.php
P. S. It should also be noted that the early Church Fathers also brought in the Mediterranean festivals of the fertility goddesses, such as Ishtar and Asthoreth, to coincide with the new Christian festival of Easter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Catherine
4 Sep 08 at 9:54 pm
Catherine, what is this about? What is your point?
Polycarp
4 Sep 08 at 9:57 pm
Catherine, please keep the comments short and pithy.
Polycarp
4 Sep 08 at 10:00 pm
I scanned all the comments and the article. The Truth is sorely lacking in all of these. God the Father, God the Son and God, the Holy Spirit are all one…hence, the Trinity. That is our God and Creator, whether we can understand the concept or not.
It isn’t “my” church or “your church”. Christ intended only one and it is revealed in Scripture well enough that a 4th grader could understand it. Christ is the head of it and it was established in Acts 2. It is not a man-made organization. Christ died for it and purchased it with His own blood. It would be wise to study the Scriptures…instead of world history or commentaries.
denimgirl32
20 Sep 08 at 1:24 pm
What are you talking about? Lots of words, little sense.
Polycarp
20 Sep 08 at 9:06 pm