ECT Similarities between MADists and Marcionites.

[MAD Max]

His, and his followers' beliefs were very similar to MAD beliefs, but the early church condemned this wrong view as heretical.

Nang claims that those who opposed Marcion were the early “church”.

The main objections from these early “church” critics (according to the link she endorses) were:

1. Marcion teaches salvation by faith apart from works

“Most Protestants are utterly unaware that Paulinism, in particular faith alone doctrine, previously threatened to overwhelm Jesus’ salvation doctrine and destroy it.”
“The Jerusalem church’s response is directly reflected in our New Testament. As Augustine noted in 413 A.D. in his treatise Faith and Works, the epistles of James (the first bishop of Jerusalem), Jude (the second bishop of Jerusalem), and Second Peter were specifically written to destroy “faith alone” doctrine as inferred from Paul’s epistles.

“Tertullian in rebuttal to Marcion conceded that the ceremonial law of the old testament was abrogated, but the moral commandments in the Law remained. To this end, Ter*tullian taught repentance and obedience remained absolutely essential to salvation.”


2. Paul is a false prophet – the apostle of heretics; an apostate

“A prominent leader of early orthodox Christianity was Tertullian. In 207 A.D. Tertullian in Against Marcion rebutted Marcion by attacking Paul. He questioned whether Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, saying a self-serving claim, as Paul made of being an apostle of Jesus, does not suffice. Tertullian suggested Paul was a false prophet. He also called Paul the "apostle of the heretics."

“The Jerusalem church previously replied to anti-Law and faith-alone doctrine by saying Paul was an apostate and did not represent true Christianity.
As Professor James Dunn notes: “The most direct heirs of the Jewish-Christian group*ings within earliest Christianity [i.e., the early Jerusalem church] regarded Paul as the great apostate, an arch enemy,”

Now everyone knows that Nang believes men are saved by works and that Paul is a heretic. She agrees with Tertullian that man is not saved by faith alone but also by obedience to the moral Law.

As the writer of her linked article affirms:

“As surprising as all of this may be to you, what I’m about to tell you is even more bizarre. There was a religious group labeled as here*tics by the early Christians, who strongly dis*puted the church’s stance on salvation and works [i.e., that salvation depended on works]. Instead, they [i.e., the heretics] taught man is totally depraved. That we are saved solely by grace. That works play no role in salvation. And that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it.... (Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up, supra, at 66.)”

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Anyone who tried to follow Paul's doctrine consistently was marginalized pretty quickly not long after his death. Just look at what the so called early church fathers taught...salvific power of water baptism, endure or burn, etc. Grace as Paul preached it was GONE. Still is, mostly.

2 Timothy 1:15 (KJV)

:up:

 

[Nang]

Nang claims that those who opposed Marcion were the early “church”.

The main objections from these early “church” critics (according to the link she endorses) were:

1. Marcion teaches salvation by faith apart from works

“Most Protestants are utterly unaware that Paulinism, in particular faith alone doctrine, previously threatened to overwhelm Jesus’ salvation doctrine and destroy it.”
“The Jerusalem church’s response is directly reflected in our New Testament. As Augustine noted in 413 A.D. in his treatise Faith and Works, the epistles of James (the first bishop of Jerusalem), Jude (the second bishop of Jerusalem), and Second Peter were specifically written to destroy “faith alone” doctrine as inferred from Paul’s epistles.

“Tertullian in rebuttal to Marcion conceded that the ceremonial law of the old testament was abrogated, but the moral commandments in the Law remained. To this end, Ter*tullian taught repentance and obedience remained absolutely essential to salvation.”


2. Paul is a false prophet – the apostle of heretics; an apostate

“A prominent leader of early orthodox Christianity was Tertullian. In 207 A.D. Tertullian in Against Marcion rebutted Marcion by attacking Paul. He questioned whether Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, saying a self-serving claim, as Paul made of being an apostle of Jesus, does not suffice. Tertullian suggested Paul was a false prophet. He also called Paul the "apostle of the heretics."

“The Jerusalem church previously replied to anti-Law and faith-alone doctrine by saying Paul was an apostate and did not represent true Christianity. As Professor James Dunn notes: “The most direct heirs of the Jewish-Christian group*ings within earliest Christianity [i.e., the early Jerusalem church] regarded Paul as the great apostate, an arch enemy,”
Now everyone knows that Nang believes men are saved by works and that Paul is a heretic. She agrees with Tertullian that man is not saved by faith alone but also by obedience to the moral Law.

As the writer of her linked article affirms:

“As surprising as all of this may be to you, what I’m about to tell you is even more bizarre. There was a religious group labeled as here*tics by the early Christians, who strongly dis*puted the church’s stance on salvation and works [i.e., that salvation depended on works]. Instead, they [i.e., the heretics] taught man is totally depraved. That we are saved solely by grace. That works play no role in salvation. And that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it.... (Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up, supra, at 66.)”

Well, you think wrong. I did not write this article. I merely posted it to give evidence of gnostic thought that is similar to MAD Tteachings.

I believe regenerated souls are justified by faith alone. I believe the gospel of grace taught by Paul.

 

[MAD Max]

Well, you think wrong.

No, I'm just responding to your own words, when you plainly said:

...the early church condemned this wrong view

Now you are backtracking from what you clearly said. Either you believe that Tertullian and Augustine were representatives of the "early church", or you lied. Which is it?

 

[Nang]

No, I'm just responding to your own words, when you plainly said: Now you are backtracking from what you clearly said. Either you believe that Tertullian and Augustine were representatives of the "early church", or you lied. Which is it?

You need to investigate the subject further. Read some more of the early church history so that you can understand the events.

Gnosticism was a big problem within the early days of the church, and it is proving to also be a strong delusion in these latter days as well.

 

[MAD Max]

You need to investigate the subject further. Read some more of the early church history so that you can understand the events.

You make a false and unqualified assumption about what I know or do not know. I simply responded to what you actually said. I am qualified to judge your claim based on your own words.

You said that those who opposed Marcion were "the early church", and those in the "early church" affirm that Paul was a "false prophet", and "apostate" and the "apostle to the heretics".

They also stated that man is saved by faith and works.

Either you believe these men are in fact "the early church", or they are wrong about Maricon. Which is it?

You are running away from your original statement. Would you like to retract it, or are you going to continue your attempt to hide from the truth?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You make a false and unqualified assumption about what I know or do not know. I simply responded to what you actually said. I am qualified to judge your claim based on your own words.

You said that those who opposed Marcion were "the early church", and those in the "early church" affirm that Paul was a "false prophet", and "apostate" and the "apostle to the heretics".

They also stated that man is saved by faith and works.

Either you believe these men are in fact "the early church", or they are wrong about Maricon. Which is it?

You are running away from your original statement. Would you like to retract it, or are you going to continue your attempt to hide from the truth?

:up:

Welcome aboard MAD Max.

 

[musterion]

I like the cut of his jib.

 

[heir]

You make a false and unqualified assumption about what I know or do not know.

She does that a lot.

On a more positive note, Welcome to TOL!

 

[Nang]

You make a false and unqualified assumption about what I know or do not know. I simply responded to what you actually said. I am qualified to judge your claim based on your own words.

You said that those who opposed Marcion were "the early church", and those in the "early church" affirm that Paul was a "false prophet", and "apostate" and the "apostle to the heretics".

They also stated that man is saved by faith and works.

Either you believe these men are in fact "the early church", or they are wrong about Maricon. Which is it?

You are running away from your original statement. Would you like to retract it, or are you going to continue your attempt to hide from the truth?

You are attempting to obfuscate the purpose of the OP.

I referred to occurances in the early churches (that were eventually corrected by faithful men) . . . I was not defining the early church; nor offering apology for any errors historically found therein.

The article is my warning (not my testimony) that Gnosticism is still alive and well in the post-modern church; as similarly seen in MAD beliefs.

 

[steko]

You make a false and unqualified assumption about what I know or do not know. I simply responded to what you actually said. I am qualified to judge your claim based on your own words.

You said that those who opposed Marcion were "the early church", and those in the "early church" affirm that Paul was a "false prophet", and "apostate" and the "apostle to the heretics".

They also stated that man is saved by faith and works.

Either you believe these men are in fact "the early church", or they are wrong about Maricon. Which is it?

You are running away from your original statement. Would you like to retract it, or are you going to continue your attempt to hide from the truth?

"Bust th' deal, face th' wheel!" - Auntie Entity

Welcome to TOL!

 

[MAD Max]

You are attempting to obfuscate the purpose of the OP.

Not in the least, though it is now obvious to everyone else that you refuse to stand behind your own words. Can we expect this as a common practice from you?

I referred to occurances in the early churches (that were eventually corrected by faithful men)

Are those "faithful men" named Tertullian and Augustine? . . .

I was not defining the early church

Again, what you said when you linked your article was:

the early church condemned this wrong view

You did, in fact, call those who critiqued Marcion's views "the early church". His critics in that article are Tertullian and Augustine who reject salvation by faith alone and consider Paul to be a "false prophet"; an "apostate" and "the apostle to the heretics".

You linked this article and referenced these critics as "the early church". You either agree with them, or you lied when you said that they are "the early church".

Nothing else is in play here. I have not affirmed or denied my views about Maricon, and will not discuss with the likes of you, my views on that matter, until we can get passed the fact that you lack any credibility when it comes to your own words.

 

[musterion]

Max, just so you know...when cornered Nang is not unknown to play the 'You big brutish male!" card. Be advised.

 

[Tambora]

Nice job, MAD Max.
(Love the name.)

I laughed when reading the article Nang posted about MAD doctrine being heretical because it was similar to Marcionism.
Especially since the same article made the same accusation about Calvinism (which she is a staunch supporter of).

Further down the page in the same article, a paragraph is titled:
Marcionism Similar to Calvinism/Lutheranism

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Things similar to marcionism.

 

[Stripe]

Hi max. :wave:

 

[Nang]

Nice job, MAD Max.
(Love the name.)

I laughed when reading the article Nang posted about MAD doctrine being heretical because it was similar to Marcionism.
Especially since the same article made the same accusation about Calvinism (which she is a staunch supporter of).

Further down the page in the same article, a paragraph is titled:
Marcionism Similar to Calvinism/Lutheranism

Note: my disclaimer in the OP regarding this particular silliness.

It is interesting to me with what and how you MADists choose to confuse the subject and warning of the OP.

There is plenty of info online regarding the Gnosticism of the Marcionites, that was deemed heretical, if any readers are concerned about your sect being similar.

No one has to stop with this one article, nor consider it exhaustive on the subject.

Souls who love Truth, will search for truth, and take warnings of false teachings seriously. I trust the Lord and His leading in this regard, despite your attempts to defend your wrong MAD beliefs.

 

[MAD Max]

Note: my disclaimer in the OP regarding this particular silliness.

And yet you posted the link and endorsed it as "the early church". Are you now going to retract your "silliness"? Are you going to swallow your pride and admit that you were wrong for endorsing those as "the early church" who consider Paul a "false prophet"; an "apostate", and "the apostle to the heretics".

It is interesting to me with what and how you MADists choose to confuse the subject and warning of the OP.

The opening post (and your link) reveals that you try to use manipulative tactics and lies as a smear campaign against things you don't understand. Your credibility to speak about theology and abhorrent doctrines has been declined.

There is plenty of info online regarding the Gnosticism of the Marcionites, that was deemed heretical, if any readers are concerned about your sect being similar.

I have not seen anyone defend Marcion, but your strawman argument has been found to be made by one that is in want of a brain.

You deny the "early church's" link of Marcionism to Calvinism and, but accept their link to Gnosticism. You reject "the early church's" belief's concerning Paul and salvation by faith, yet you arrogantly refuse to admit that you were wrong for endorsing them as authoritative on this topic.

No one has to stop with this one article, nor consider it exhaustive on the subject.

Really? You've already lost all credibility on this article, so why should we believe you on any article.

Souls who love Truth, will search for truth, and take warnings of false teachings seriously.

We have. I made the "truth" known to all that those who you called "the early church" deny salvation by faith and consider Paul an apostate. You have yet to retract your statement that they are "the early church".

I trust the Lord and His leading in this regard, despite your attempts to defend your wrong MAD beliefs.

I see no evidence that you know the Lord. So far, all I've seen is that you will not admit your allegiance to those who claim salvation by works and call Paul an apostate. Men who believe that do not know the way of salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Marcion denied the deity of Christ. Considered that the God of the OT was inferior. He was wrong.

Just because Hitler believed that the world is not flat does not mean that everyone that agrees with that is bound to all of Hitler's ideology, and it is quite immature for you to make these kind of leaps.

 

[Nang]

And yet you posted the link and endorsed it as "the early church". Are you now going to retract your "silliness"? Are you going to swallow your pride and admit that you were wrong for endorsing those as "the early church" who consider Paul a "false prophet"; an "apostate", and "the apostle to the heretics".

The opening post (and your link) reveals that you try to use manipulative tactics and lies as a smear campaign against things you don't understand. Your credibility to speak about theology and abhorrent doctrines has been declined.

I have not seen anyone defend Marcion, but your strawman argument has been found to be made by one that is in want of a brain.

You deny the "early church's" link of Marcionism to Calvinism and, but accept their link to Gnosticism. You reject "the early church's" belief's concerning Paul and salvation by faith, yet you arrogantly refuse to admit that you were wrong for endorsing them as authoritative on this topic.

Really? You've already lost all credibility on this article, so why should we believe you on any article.

We have. I made the "truth" known to all that those who you called "the early church" deny salvation by faith and consider Paul an apostate. You have yet to retract your statement that they are "the early church". I see no evidence that you know the Lord. So far, all I've seen is that you will not admit your allegiance to those who claim salvation by works and call Paul an apostate. Men who believe that do not know the way of salvation in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone.

Marcion denied the deity of Christ. Considered that the God of the OT was inferior. He was wrong.

Just because Hitler believed that the world is not flat does not mean that everyone that agrees with that is bound to all of Hitler's ideology, and it is quite immature for you to make these kind of leaps.

I pointed out Gnostic similarities between MADists and Marcionites; not identical theologies, . . . but thank you for sharing your opinions.

 

[MAD Max]

I pointed out Gnostic similarities between MADists and Marcionites; not identical theologies, . . . but thank you for sharing your opinions.

I pointed out that you believe that those who teach Paul was an apostate, and that salvation is by works, are to be considered "the early church (the Body of Christ).