Did the fall away in the Anglican Church come because they corrupted the word of God with the new versions?

This isn't so, especially in the Latin sphere. The Latins also had the Donatist church in North Africa, which viewed the Roman Catholic church as Manichaean, where many of its bishops were ex-Manichaeans, including Augustine. There were three Roman religious denominations in Africa, at least until Manichaeanism was proscribed at the end of the 4th century: Donatism, Catholicism and Manichaeanism. There was also a montanist element in the 3rd century and various flavors of Latin gnosticism, e.g. Marcion and Valentinus. The Catholics won out in the end, because Catholicism was in political favor at Rome. There was also Priscillianism, which was an extreme Trinitarian version of Catholicism, which eventually influenced Catholicism, and also Encratism made inroads into the "Catholic" theology of various writers such as Cyprian and perhaps Augustine.

Then Rome was subdued by the Arians in the 5th century. To pretend that the Catholics were the only party in the Roman Church in the first few centuries of Christianity would be a mistake. I doubt if Catholicism, seen as a unique religious brand, even existed prior to the 4th century; and it wasn't always politically dominant.
You seem to equate His one Church [Catholic] with the heresies that followed....circumcisers, gnosticism, montanism, sabellianism, arianism, pelagianism, nestorianism, etc.

** look to my signature to stay on the right path
 
You seem to equate His one Church [Catholic] with the heresies that followed....circumcisers, gnosticism, montanism, sabellianism, arianism, pelagianism, nestorianism, etc.

** look to my signature to stay on the right path
I have signatures turned off, so if you want me to see it, you'll have to quote it directly.

It seems to me that the Roman "Catholic" Church in the 5th century was doctrinally altered from the Roman church in the 1st century. By the 5th century it had been subject to many heresies. Some it had resisted (crude forms of gnosticism), some it would give into (mariolatry, hyper-trinitarianism verging on Sabellianism per the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7).

Nestorianism, which essentially prioritized the human side of Christ over the divine side, is subject to so much propaganda today that I doubt the truth will ever be known, except to academics.

Pelagianism is also subject to much propaganda such that it is difficult to discover the truth. It seems that there were hyper-pelagians that were genuinely heretical, but semi-pelagians who were much less so, if at all.

One problem for the Catholics lies in is its proximity to Manichaeanism. Some in the Catholic hierarchy were ex-manichaeans, including Augustine. Due to his influence, it possible to see a manichaean influence, especially in the idea of elite and a laity.
 
I have signatures turned off, so if you want me to see it, you'll have to quote it directly.
1 Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. [One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, No Divisions, No Other Gospel, One Shepherd]
It seems to me that the Roman "Catholic" Church in the 5th century was doctrinally altered from the Roman church in the 1st century. By the 5th century it had been subject to many heresies. Some it had resisted (crude forms of gnosticism), some it would give into (mariolatry, hyper-trinitarianism verging on Sabellianism per the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7).
Same Church with the same promises by Christ. No expiration date as well.
One problem for the Catholics lies in is its proximity to Manichaeanism. Some in the Catholic hierarchy were ex-manichaeans, including Augustine. Due to his influence, it possible to see a manichaean influence, especially in the idea of elite and a laity.
Augustine was a Catholic Bishop of Hippo.
 
1 Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. [One Church, One Faith, One Baptism, No Divisions, No Other Gospel, One Shepherd]
May be it is a big problem for Roman Catholicism, that it has these "doctors of the church" who are seen to usurp the apostles. And the Catholics did implicitly excommunicate a fair number by their creeds. Isn't that what is a creed meant to do - break the unity of the church? But to engage in philosophy about Gods begetting Gods to do it? That much is wrong. If you're going to have a creed, you want something like the Apostle's creed, not the Nicene creed. Don't forget that persecution in the RCC started in the 4th century when it allowed Priscillian and others put to be put to death for "heresy." The anathemas of Jerome on those who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary were vicious. IMO the lamb-like character of the church dissipated as the years went by.

Same Church with the same promises by Christ. No expiration date as well.
Yet the doctrinal purity had gone. E.g. the "spiritual" prioritization given to the unmaried. It never figured in the gospel. The encratic heresy so prevalent after Tatian, wasn't ever a feature of the early church, nor mariolatry etc. Were the promises only for the unmarried and virgins?

Augustine was a Catholic Bishop of Hippo.
But even amongst the Catholics, some secretly continued practising and were convicted of manichaeanism, and some remained influenced by it. Don't forget that the manichaeans pretended to espouse Jesus as the Son of God. And Priscillian was another Catholic bishop who was suspected of manichaeanism/gnosticism.
 
Last edited:
May be it is a big problem for Roman Catholicism, that it has these "doctors of the church" who are seen to usurp the apostles.
not usurp... they were the successors [hands laid on them].
And the Catholics did implicitly excommunicate a fair number by their creeds. Isn't that what is a creed meant to do - break the unity of the church? But to engage in philosophy about Gods begetting Gods to do it? That much is wrong. If you're going to have a creed, you want something like the Apostle's creed, not the Nicene creed.
I have no problem with the Nicene Creed.
The anathemas of Jerome on those who rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary were vicious.
Heresy needs to be dealt with.... There is only one Church that binds/looses on us.
 

Incredible headline. Since there is no split until the celebration of sexual immorality by the progressives, it is the progressives who are splitting the church
 

Incredible headline. Since there is no split until the celebration of sexual immorality by the progressives, it is the progressives who are splitting the church
Replace "split" with "destroy".
 
The LBGTQI religion is based in law-worship, not God worship. One who worships the law in distinction to God has the mark of the beast.
CofE politics cannot change the fact that the biblical outlook is utterly hopeless for those who do unrighteous acts. Deut 25:16 "For all that ..... do iniquity, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." Eze 33:13 ".... for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it." In the LXX and the New Testament, the Hebrew word for iniquity (ʿevel) becomes the Greek word "ἀδικία". 1 Jn 5:17 "All "ἀδικία" is sin." Of the workers of ἀδικία, Jesus said in Luke 13:27 "[on the day of judgement] he will say, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you workers of inquity!’"
 
Back
Top