Early Christians on Entertainment

[Just Another User]

So today I'll be arguing with Early Christian sources (c.100-325AD) many forms of entertainment were forbidden. I hope this one serves to have a practical change in our lives. This is a small part of the "Separation of the World" beliefs which was the Early Churches main doctrine. This view; like the other Early Christian posts; was a universal teaching and you won't find a contradiction in the first 300 years of the church. The following quotes will be in chronological order.

I'm not claiming that entertainment is always wrong obviously. I'm not even claiming that secular entertainment is always wrong too. In fact, the early Christians were fine and even promoted to an extent with men and women keeping fit (for the sake of keeping fit) and having fun provided it was wholesome. I am claiming that we should be very careful with what we watch no matter if it's fiction or not. (another side note is that swearing, or cussing isn't inherently wrong and we have too much of a high view of it.)

If you're in a rush you can just look at the quotes and not some description of the passage and the context behind the writers.

Without further a do.


Tatian:

Address to the Greeks (c.160 AD)

"they utter ribaldry in affected tones, and go through indecent movements; your daughters and your sons behold them giving lessons in adultery on the stage."

Tatian was a mid 2nd century Christian and a disciple of Justin Martyr who was the first apologist of the church. His other work the "Diatessaron" (meaning harmony) was the first ever Gospel harmony and was used for hundreds of years in the East. Sadly, Tatian would become a Gnostic after Justin's death but it would appear that Irenaeus of Lyons won him back to Orthodoxy.

In this work Tatian is stating that many foul practices are encouraged and taught in the theatre. They were avoided because quite simply they promote ideals that a Christian should never stand for. If we as Christians are never supposed to even think about lust to someone we desire then how could we watch something which outrights supports it? Fiction or not these are performances which are promoting things we must reject.

Theophilus of Antioch:


Theophilus to Autolycus (168 AD)


"But neither may we see the other spectacles, lest our eyes and ears be defiled, participating in the utterances there sung. For if one should speak of cannibalism, in these spectacles the children of Thyestes and Tereus are eaten; and as for adultery, both in the case of men and of gods, whom they celebrate in elegant language for honours and prizes, this is made the subject of their dramas"

Theophilus was a mid 2nd century Christian who was bishop of Antioch which was considered a very important place in Pre-Nicean Christendom. He was the seventh bishop of that city (which had the like of Ignatius and arguably Paul as leaders) and was considered a very important Christian by his contemporaries and early Christian scholars.

As you see, back then many grievous sins were not only shown but promoted in a jokingly and sometimes positive way. Is this much different than the shows that we see today? Minus the cannibal part, you'd be hard pressed to find much difference between them in respects to the shows. Christians didn't want to become defiled and thus departed from sinful shows when they knew of their existence.


Athenagoras:


A Plea For the Christians (177 AD)


"For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles."

Athenagoras is quite an unknown early Christian who's work A Plea For the Christians was a letter written to Marcus Aurelius to try and give justice to his fellow brothers and sisters in faith.

As much as this quote can be used for pacifism as it can for being against certain types of entertainment. Christians despised seeing sin and clearly got upset seeing death. They fought just seeing gladiators or men fight as a heinous sin let alone committing it themselves. I understand that a real death done in a violent promoting way is different to seeing a death of fiction on the TV but nevertheless the point stands that seeing death may defile as Theophilus put it.

Clement of Alexandria:


The Instructor Book 3 (195 AD)


Let spectacles, therefore, and plays that are full of vulgar language and of abundant gossip, be forbidden. For what base action is it that is not exhibited in the theatres?

Clement of Alexandria was a late 2nd century early 3rd century Christian who developed and popularised the Alexandrian thought of Christians. The Instructor is a part of his great trilogy which was very popular in the Church. It can give us a good look into the early church's beliefs and behaviours.

As you see, anything full of vulgar language (which didn't mean swearing for the record) or promoting gossip could never be watched. The Early Christians believed that it only fed the beast of sin within you to watch the shows. Since sin must be controlled they could not watch such things. You see they didn't take things like this as a small issue but something where you could actually get kicked out of the church if you began promoting it (and disciplined if you went)

Minucius Felix:


The Octavius (c.200 AD)


"In the scenic games also the madness is not less, but the debauchery is more prolonged: for now a mimic either expounds or shows forth adulteries; now nerveless player, while he feigns lust, suggests it; the same actor disgraces your gods by attributing to them adulteries, sighs, hatreds; the same provokes your tears with pretended sufferings, with vain gestures and expressions."

Minucius Felix was the writer of the Octavius. A dialogue between a Christian and a Pagan. The topics brought up range from, why are Christians poor if God supports them to why do Christians act "holier than thou" to Pagans.

Felix references just before about the other games (gladiator matches etc) and clearly states that their sin in many worse in worse. They could never support anything with adultery because their King and Messiah and his Apostles taught directly against it. Look at that passage and again could that not be applied to today? With those emotions being shown?

Tertullian:


All following quotes are from The Shows (c.200 AD)


Chapter 16


"Since, then, all passionate excitement is forbidden us, we are debarred from every kind of spectacle, and especially from the stadiums, where such excitement presides as in its proper element. See the people coming to it already under strong emotion, already tumultuous, already passion-blind, already agitated about their bets... there is the united shout of a common madness... And the result accordingly is, that they fly into rages, and passions, and discords, and all that they who are consecrated to peace ought never to indulge in. Then there are curses and reproaches, with no cause of hatred; there are cries of applause, with nothing to merit them."

Tertullian was a Early Chrisitan living in Carthage and probably wrote more works than any other Early Christian. He had a major influence in the West and there was a sect of Christians named after him that survived right into the 4th century.

In many ways does this just match modern day too? No cause for hatred yet football ( or soccer for some) teams lashing out against each other just for being born in a different place. Or people being overjoyed by someone they've never met doing someone quite simple. The only thing in common is the badge that they both wear. Think of the mob mentality when we see such things live. It can be sickening.

Can a Christian who follows the way of peace indulge in such madness and such perverseness? We can lose what makes us Christian if we're not careful.

Chapter 17

(best quote on the issue)
"But if we ought to abominate all that is immodest, on what ground is it right to hear what we must not speak? Why, in the same way, is it right to look on what it is disgraceful to do? How is it that the things which defile a man in going out of his mouth, are not regarded as doing so when they go in at his eyes and ears--when eyes and ears are the immediate attendants on the spirit--and that can never be pure whose servants-in-waiting are impure? You have the theatre forbidden, then, in the forbidding of immodesty... What you reject in deed, you are not to bid welcome to in word."

If we cannot speak it how it any way should we listen to it? We as Christians should never want to associate with sin in any forms. If we reject adultery we shouldn't be happy with statements on it. If we reject striking back we shouldn't support when someone does it. Our deeds and our words should match not contradict. As Tertullian says, lets flee from sin or it very well defile us when we see or hear it. A virtuous life is commanded of us not one of sin an shame.


Chapter 21


"The father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter's ears from every polluting word, takes her to the theatre himself, exposing her to all its vile words and attitudes"

Isn't this ironic and doesn't it match many of our brothers and sisters in faith today? Some parents try so hard to take care and prepare their child for a world of sin only to take them to places that strongly supports it. If we regard sin as wrong lets not be blind to the sinful ways of the theatres, TV shows and films.

Chapter 25


"Seated where there is nothing of God, will one be thinking of his Maker? Will there be peace in his soul when there is eager strife there for a charioteer? Wrought up into a frenzied excitement, will he learn to be modest?... And when the athletes are hard at struggle, will he be ready to proclaim that there must be no striking again? And with his eye fixed on the bites of bears, and the sponge-nets of the net-fighters, can he be moved by compassion?"

When we look at and enjoy sinful things can we in anyway support the tenets of the faith given to us by Christ? Can we in any way live out the life commanded to us of the Sermon on the Mount all those years ago? God hates a hypocrite so if we say one thing but act differently we only bring his name down.

Novatian:


Can't Remember the Book (c.250 AD)


"how idle are the contests themselves; strifes in colours, contentions in races, acclamations in mere questions of honour; rejoicing because a horse has been more fleet, grieving because it was more sluggish, reckoning up the years of Cattle, knowing the consuls under whom they ran, learning their age, tracing their breed, recording their very grandsires and great-grand-sires!"

Novatian was a Roman Presbyter in the mid 3rd century and wrote many works. Sadly, after the Decian persecution (248-250) Novatian did break away from the church and started the first schism in the church.

When we say that the early Christians lived in different times, does this sound out of the ordinary today? I think this sounds exactly like modern sports. Maybe they don't live too differently from us after all.


Cyprian:


Epistle 1 of Cyprian (c.250 AD)


"In the theatres also you will behold what may well cause you grief and shame... Things which have now ceased to be actual deeds of vice become examples. In the mimes, moreover, by the teaching of infamies, the spectator is attracted either to reconsider what he may have done in secret, or to hear what he may do. Adultery is learnt while it is seen; and while the mischief having public authority panders to vices, the matron, who perchance had gone to the spectacle a modest woman, returns from it immodest"

Cyprian was a disciple of Tertullian and the bishop of Carthage during the Decian Persecution and the Novitanism crisis between 248-258AD. He wrote over 80 Epistles and lead the African bishops in the Synod criticising the schism for it's rigorism on baptism and lapsis and Rome for it's lax decision on those baptised by the schismatics (as well as Pope Stephen calling himself Bishop over Bishops which was unheard of before).

If deeds of vice become examples for you and me is it then a good and holy thing to do? If we're supposed to do everything for the Glory of God, if something is constantly promoting sin, how can we in anyway watch it? Such shows and shape and change our behaviour to change us into those that do not serve Christ but serve the flesh. if someone returns immodest how could this be a good thing to partake in?

Lactantius:


The Divine Institutes (c.305 AD)


"so that they who come for the sake of beholding the spectacle now themselves exhibit more of a spectacle, when they begin to utter exclamations, to be thrown into transports, and to leap from their seats. Therefore, all spectacles ought to be avoided"

Lactantius was a early 4th century Christian who eventually became the religious adivsor to Emperor Constantine.

As you see, the shows began to turn people into those who couldn't control their bodies or minds. They became slave to their desires when they saw such things. Think about the decadence and drunkenness linked to shows that promote sin. They're closely linked. If we begin to lose ourselves to our flesh they as Lactantius says, we should avoid it like the plague.

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless someone has made a claim that early Christians encouraged gratuitous entertainment, I'm not sure what purpose this serves.

 

[Just Another User]

Unless someone has made a claim that early Christians encouraged gratuitous entertainment, I'm not sure what purpose this serves.

Hello, Resha Caner. What this post serves is the position that looking at something that promotes sin or causes you to sin shouldn't be watched. This can range from a show showing adultery not in a negative light to women/men being shown in an attractive way. Now where I live, there's no disciple on these issues and thus we watch the same things as the non-Christians. I was trying to establish through early-christian sources that they universally thought that many things that we watch (I speak as a member of the human race here rather than a Christian) are sinful and should be avoided.

Since the church is the pillar and support of the truth, the early Christians where closer to the Apostles and they certainly show greater fruit than we do today, I think it's important to know what they think on issues. You may not deal with this issues where you live or you may disagree with the conclusions I've drawn from the Early Christians to apply today. It's completely fine to disagree.

 

[FireDragon76]

Greek theater could emcompass entertaiment that was more akin to modern day burlesque, so I don't see this as applicable necessarily.

How can it be a sin to watch something on TV or at the movies? The Bible itself deals with many unsavory subjects, is the Bible sinful to read?

 

[Resha Caner]

... looking at something that promotes sin or causes you to sin shouldn't be watched.

I agree.

However, it appears what you're going for here is an argument from authority. So, you must first establish why your sources have authority. They have authority in terms of history - what people of that time thought. But do they have moral authority?

... we watch the same things as the non-Christians ...

It is a common error to think Christians are morally superior to non-Christians.

I was trying to establish through early-christian sources that they universally thought that many things that we watch (I speak as a member of the human race here rather than a Christian) are sinful and should be avoided.

There's no such thing as a universally held belief among early Christians. They were just as fallible and just as diverse as we are. You're cherry-picking, i.e. picking quotes that support the position you've already decided upon.

... they certainly show greater fruit than we do today.

Again, I disagree. Don't idolize people. They're just people. Don't start creating golden ages where they didn't exist. This is how the RCC ended up with dogma about the Immaculate Conception, Divine Assumption, etc.

Though God's Word may be perfect, the people referred to in God's Word were not perfect. Only God is perfect.

To end, let me ask you this: Why does it matter if people make good or poor choices with respect to entertainment?

 

[Just Another User]

I agree.

However, it appears what you're going for here is an argument from authority. So, you must first establish why your sources have authority. They have authority in terms of history - what people of that time thought. But do they have moral authority?

Well several things. First they lived closer to the time of the Apostles and thus would have a greater understanding of what they meant. The church was united back then compared to the divided nature of centuries to come. The first actual split in the church occurred in the 250s but that was due to behaviour rather than doctrine. They also demonstrated better lives than we did so we should also listen to them for this too. Many things that they taught was among all the works pre-Nicaen or very many of them and we should wonder why, why these many truths are diminished or no longer taught.

It is a common error to think Christians are morally superior to non-Christians.

May you explain further? Clearly we Christians are told to live greater lives than those who are non-Christians. I'd be hesitate to say morally superior but nevertheless, we've told to live righteous and holy lives.

There's no such thing as a universally held belief among early Christians. They were just as fallible and just as diverse as we are. You're cherry-picking, i.e. picking quotes that support the position you've already decided upon.

Show me a quote/s that supports going to the theatres pre 325AD. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't one. I'm careful to use phrases such as that. I'll agree they're just as fallible as you and me (I'm not quoting them as a Second Bible) but they certainly weren't as diverse.

Again, I disagree. Don't idolize people. They're just people. Don't start creating golden ages where they didn't exist. This is how the RCC ended up with dogma about the Immaculate Conception, Divine Assumption, etc.

Well this is hilarious and mistaking what I said. I'm certainly not idolising anyone but I think anyone with some honesty can see that they were more united than us, clearly more spirit bearing and lived closer to the Apostles. Therefore I think it's imperative that we at the very least listen to them. They certainly believed in the faith once for all handed to God's people and fleeing from the world which included fleeing from some forms of entertainment appeared to be one of them.

Ironically, the doctrines you say here actually developed for the most part after 325AD and thus the early Christians wouldn't be guilty of them (again for the most part). I certainly wouldn't follow anything that contradicts the scriptures that they taught and I do think the odd thing that the odd writer wrote does go against scripture. I'm fine admitting this.

Though God's Word may be perfect, the people referred to in God's Word were not perfect. Only God is perfect.

Jesus is God's word not the Bible.

To end, let me ask you this: Why does it matter if people make good or poor choices with respect to entertainment?

Well we've told to obey Christ are we not? Aren't we told to sow to the spirit to reap eternal life? Aren't we told to add to our faith? Aren't we told to flee from the sinfulness of the world? Aren't we told to love Christ's commandments to stay on his vine?

Maybe some forms of entertainment aren't actually sinful and I'm overreacting. That's fine. What I am saying is that they're clearly teachings in the New Testament which suggest that it's important to live our lives as closely to Christ's teachings as possible. If some forms of entertainment are against him, then we should stop it.

 

[Resha Caner]

First they lived closer to the time of the Apostles ...

Yes.

... and thus would have a greater understanding of what they meant.

No. By this logic, the Gnostics against whom the Apostle John preached understood Christianity better than you. The Jewish Sanhedrin understood it better than you. Pontius Pilate understood it better than you.

They understood the culture better - the context of the times - their personal circumstances, but proximity does not equate to understanding. Rather than just saying it, you'll have to prove to me how proximity produces understanding.

The church was united back then compared to the divided nature of centuries to come.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean it was without error. James, Peter, Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Mark ... they all had their spats and disagreements. Again, it's not the people we look to. It's God's Word (and FYI, the technical term is the Greek work "logos" that incorporates ideas of both the person of Jesus and Scripture. It's not a direct and literal translation meaning his person alone).

May you explain further? Clearly we Christians are told to live greater lives than those who are non-Christians. I'd be hesitate to say morally superior but nevertheless, we've told to live righteous and holy lives.

Righteous and holy, yes. But "greater"? Mmm. Not sure I like that word. "Greater" could mean rich, famous, powerful, etc. One thing it definitely doesn't mean is "superior", and whether you intend it or not, that's the attitude that comes through in your post.

Well this is hilarious and mistaking what I said. I'm certainly not idolising anyone but I think anyone with some honesty can see that they were more united than us, clearly more spirit bearing and lived closer to the Apostles.

Laugh all you want. You're begging the question. You're laying praise on these people with nothing to support it. In my book that means you're idolizing them.

Ironically, the doctrines you say here actually developed for the most part after 325AD and thus the early Christians wouldn't be guilty of them (again for the most part).

I don't know why 325 AD is such a magic date for you, but these doctrines didn't suddenly pop from nowhere. They developed slowly over a long period of time, and stem from glamorizing saints. Once the acts of saints are adored apart from Christ, the idea creeps in that the holiness of these saints came from their nature rather than Christ. It is such attitudes that lay the groundwork for the dogma I mentioned.

If you want to see a careful study of such gradual shifts, try Jaroslav Pelikan's From Luther to Kierkegaard.

Therefore I think it's imperative that we at the very least listen to them.

Of course. I respect many of the church fathers. Their insights into Scripture are invaluable. But they are not infallible. Some of what they say is in error, and you agree that is the case. What, then, are you using to judge whether it is in error?

Show me a quote/s that supports going to the theatres pre 325AD.

There are a thousand different details involved in this question, such that I don't even know where to begin except to say that a total ban on all theater is just ridiculous. It would mean the Christmas play where little Johnny and Susy dress up as Joseph and Mary is sinful - that when Jesus ate with sinners and was present for their entertainment, he sinned - a whole host of other ridiculous outcomes.

On the flip side, to claim we can make allowances by defining what constitutes "Christian theater" is pretentious, pietistic nonsense.

I've already agreed with you that entertainment which promotes sin or causes you to sin should be avoided. I'm not sure what else you want.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter what some ancient person thought about theater. They said all kinds of weird things. Cyprian, whom you quoted, said that if anyone disagrees with a bishop, he is not part of the church. Augustine said women are of "small intelligence." Justin Martyr apparently believed Satan didn't blaspheme until after Jesus' incarnation. The list goes on.

Well we've told to obey Christ are we not? Aren't we told to sow to the spirit to reap eternal life? Aren't we told to add to our faith? Aren't we told to flee from the sinfulness of the world? Aren't we told to love Christ's commandments to stay on his vine?

Indeed. And if that is your answer - we do it because God commanded it - I'm fine with that. I would have said a little more, but I'm fine if that's your answer.

Yet what I was leading up to is the question: What happens if we don't do these things?

 

[Just Another User]

No. By this logic, the Gnostics against whom the Apostle John preached understood Christianity better than you. The Jewish Sanhedrin understood it better than you. Pontius Pilate understood it better than you.

They understood the culture better - the context of the times - their personal circumstances, but proximity does not equate to understanding. Rather than just saying it, you'll have to prove to me how proximity produces understanding.

This the Gnostics never respected the Apostles and directly went against them so this argument is mute. Obviously what I was referring to was those that respected the Apostles and Christ.

Proximity doesn't directly produce understanding but due to being closer, they understood the language and culture and many of them were taught by the Apostles. By being taught by the Apostles we can find out how they understood many of the passages of the Bible. I guess the only argument on could use for the proximity to direct produce understanding would be a chinese whispers argument.

Possibly, but that doesn't mean it was without error. James, Peter, Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Mark ... they all had their spats and disagreements. Again, it's not the people we look to. It's God's Word (and FYI, the technical term is the Greek work "logos" that incorporates ideas of both the person of Jesus and Scripture. It's not a direct and literal translation meaning his person alone).

I won't deny there were disagreements. We're only human after all. Nevertheless, they clearly were more united than us as since Jesus said that the world would know we were from God because we where united, I think this is quite important.

Righteous and holy, yes. But "greater"? Mmm. Not sure I like that word. "Greater" could mean rich, famous, powerful, etc. One thing it definitely doesn't mean is "superior", and whether you intend it or not, that's the attitude that comes through in your post.

I'll concede this and I apologise if that's how you saw that.

Laugh all you want. You're begging the question. You're laying praise on these people with nothing to support it. In my book that means you're idolizing them.

They are considered worthy of praise due to showing great fruit. Reading Pliny's letter to Trajan I think can demonstrate this. Seeing how they fled from the world was brilliant. They were against all forms of violence against everyone whereas the world was full of blood. They gave up all their possessions whereas the world loved to gain more and more. They loved neighbour and enemy alike whereas the world hated their enemy. They cared for the poor like they were long lost friends whereas the world was cruel and forget about them. They lived and dressed modesty whereas the world was full of scandal. Their food was mostly simple and fasted regularly whereas the world loved luxury and many were gluttons. They would refuse to worship anything if it looked like an idol whereas the world loved such objects.

Now I'm sure you'd probably disagree with some of them and you'll probably see that some of them are held by most Christians. All I'm saying is that in many ways, compared to the world and even Christians, they lived different lives.

I don't know why 325 AD is such a magic date for you, but these doctrines didn't suddenly pop from nowhere. They developed slowly over a long period of time, and stem from glamorizing saints. Once the acts of saints are adored apart from Christ, the idea creeps in that the holiness of these saints came from their nature rather than Christ. It is such attitudes that lay the groundwork for the dogma I mentioned.

If you want to see a careful study of such gradual shifts, try Jaroslav Pelikan's From Luther to Kierkegaard.

Usually scholars use 325AD due it being an important date in Christianity by being the first largest council and is either arbitrarily used or used to demonstrate the Christians finally getting power with the state (arguably early as 313AD). We do see glamorising of saints in the mid 300 and even the pagan Emperor Julian mentions this. We also do see some growing respect for Mary in the late 3rd century but again it wasn't anything major to say the least.

I'll concede that there were some groundwork of the doctrines supported by the future Roman Catholic church but for the most part

Sounds like an interesting work. I'll see if I can ever get the time to read it!

Of course. I respect many of the church fathers. Their insights into Scripture are invaluable. But they are not infallible. Some of what they say is in error, and you agree that is the case. What, then, are you using to judge whether it is in error?

Well usually we'd either see what all the other early Christians were teaching at the time or we'd see if their comments were directly contradicting scripture ( which is a lot easier than trying to prove a doctrine).

Another way to decide what's error is if it produces fruit or not.

There are a thousand different details involved in this question, such that I don't even know where to begin except to say that a total ban on all theater is just ridiculous. It would mean the Christmas play where little Johnny and Susy dress up as Joseph and Mary is sinful - that when Jesus ate with sinners and was present for their entertainment, he sinned - a whole host of other ridiculous outcomes.

Well who's arguing against this? I made sure I said I was fine with many forms of entertainment including Christian or non-Christian entertainment. I made sure I wrote this for someone writing something as ridiculous as this. Now they probably would have been fine with Christian entertainment but since that simply didn't exist in the early church, they were completely against it.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter what some ancient person thought about theater. They said all kinds of weird things. Cyprian, whom you quoted, said that if anyone disagrees with a bishop, he is not part of the church. Augustine said women are of "small intelligence." Justin Martyr apparently believed Satan didn't blaspheme until after Jesus' incarnation. The list goes on.

Well of course they made mistakes. Again I'm not claiming they're infallible. Nevertheless, when we see them teach something universally or mostly held we must wonder why this was the case. For example, the early Christians quite literally thought that Christ was begotten.

Indeed. And if that is your answer - we do it because God commanded it - I'm fine with that. I would have said a little more, but I'm fine if that's your answer.

Yet what I was leading up to is the question: What happens if we don't do these things?

Well what happens when we commit sin and don't repent or we don't flee from the world?

 

[Resha Caner]

First, let me back up a bit. Some of my rhetoric may have been too aggressive, so I'm reminding myself not to lose the forest for the trees. As I've noted, we agree in principle on your purpose - though we may disagree on details.

You've hit on 2 topics of interest to me (history & entertainment), and I enjoy discussing those. I have a purpose related to each of those. First, I don't think your use of history as moral authority is working, and I'm trying to explain why. Second, one of my hobbies is film making, so I'm always interested in trying to find common ground between my tastes and the tastes of others.

This the Gnostics never respected the Apostles and directly went against them so this argument is mute. Obviously what I was referring to was those that respected the Apostles and Christ.

I think you mean moot. Further, this is an appeal to purity (no true Scotsman). Again, saying something in an Internet post doesn't make it true. In a discussion between people who disagree, it doesn't produce agreement. To reach agreement we have to find common ground, and that often means citing sources we both accept. So, I'm not aware of any sources indicating early Gnostics disrespected the Apostles. Rather, because of what was attributed to the Apostles in the gospels of Peter, Phillip, Thomas, etc., it seems they held the Apostles in high esteem. It wasn't until Gnostics were declared heretics and pushed out of the church that animosity arose, and even then it wasn't directed at the Apostles, as most had died by then.

Proximity doesn't directly produce understanding but due to being closer, they understood the language and culture and many of them were taught by the Apostles. By being taught by the Apostles we can find out how they understood many of the passages of the Bible.

Yes, I agree. But note the authority here is Scripture, not the Church Fathers. So, when they wander from commentary on Scripture, they are out of their arena. I have the same quibble with scientists who wax poetic on philosophy. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but it is only that. The celebrity gained from cool science stuff does not make them a philosophical authority.

I won't deny there were disagreements. We're only human after all. Nevertheless, they clearly were more united than us as since Jesus said that the world would know we were from God because we where united, I think this is quite important.

You need to drop the "clearly" stuff. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

I'll concede this and I apologise if that's how you saw that.

Thank you.

Another way to decide what's error is if it produces fruit or not.

Sorry, but that sounds like prosperity gospel to me.

Well of course they made mistakes. Again I'm not claiming they're infallible. Nevertheless, when we see them teach something universally or mostly held we must wonder why this was the case. For example, the early Christians quite literally thought that Christ was begotten.

But only by cherry-picking do you arrive at this claim of "universality". The contention I noted among early Christians shows debate over all kinds of issues was alive and well. I'm not sure you've wrapped your head around what you're doing. Stacking up a series of quotes from people who lived in different areas in different times who never knew each other would be like me quoting Prez Trump on theater, finding a similar quote from the mayor of Mexico City from a century ago, and then claiming everyone who lived in North America had a similar attitude about the theater.

You would need to understand the context of each and every quote, show how they're connected, and then demonstrate that the Christians of the day listened to them and acted upon their advice before those quotes would have any relevance to this discussion.

Well what happens when we commit sin and don't repent or we don't flee from the world?

That's what I'm asking you.

 

[Just Another User]

First, let me back up a bit. Some of my rhetoric may have been too aggressive, so I'm reminding myself not to lose the forest for the trees. As I've noted, we agree in principle on your purpose - though we may disagree on details.

I have no problem with you. You've conducted yourself perfectly fine.

I think you mean moot. Further, this is an appeal to purity (no true Scotsman). Again, saying something in an Internet post doesn't make it true. In a discussion between people who disagree, it doesn't produce agreement. To reach agreement we have to find common ground, and that often means citing sources we both accept. So, I'm not aware of any sources indicating early Gnostics disrespected the Apostles. Rather, because of what was attributed to the Apostles in the gospels of Peter, Phillip, Thomas, etc., it seems they held the Apostles in high esteem. It wasn't until Gnostics were declared heretics and pushed out of the church that animosity arose, and even then it wasn't directed at the Apostles, as most had died by then.

Indeed I certainly failed to spell!

I can assure you that Gnostics certainly disrespected the Apostles. Many of their works show secret hidden knowledge given to Mary Magdalene and secret knowledge to Judas to the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas respectively. In Against Heresies (written c.180 AD and it actually the best source we have for early Gnostic's beliefs along with the works themselves) , Irenaeus' main argument is that Gnosticism and it sects which ranged from Marcionites to Valentinans didn't derive their teachings from the Apostles and therefore claimed that the Apostles were either ignorant, disobeyed or weren't enlightened enough. This is the origin of the Apostolic succession which is misused by some to say the very least. The Apostles being left out of some points, is for the most part consistent with all Gnostic works.

On you're point about the Gospel of Thomas, I think most scholars would assume that the work was written around the late 2nd to mid 3rd century and only a minority say before 150AD. It would therefore been written after Gnosticism was driven out of the Church which probably occurred during the early 2nd century. Nevertheless, I'm personally against calling it a Gnostic gospel to a degree since it lacks the themes of Gnosticism that we see if other Gnostics works and Irenaeus' and other's descriptions. Nevertheless, it was found along with other Gnostic works so I'd be hesitant to conclusively affirm that it's not a Gnostic text. Still this is the exception in respects to directly or indirectly insulting the Apostles rather than the rule.

Yes, I agree. But note the authority here is Scripture, not the Church Fathers. So, when they wander from commentary on Scripture, they are out of their arena. I have the same quibble with scientists who wax poetic on philosophy. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but it is only that. The celebrity gained from cool science stuff does not make them a philosophical authority.

I'm in agreement.

You need to drop the "clearly" stuff. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

That's my own language rather than trying to create an argument! I can tell you that the only split in the early church which is pre 325AD (again this is my range of expertise and is arbitrary to a small degree. May be more accurate to say early 4th century as that's when the church and state became one.) were the Novatianists.

Novatianists only differed on one doctrine and that was the acceptance of believers who fell away during persecution. They agreed on everything else at least in the first few decades. In other words, the "lapsi" weren't allowed back into the church. This was contrasted with the quite lax practice of acceptance by bishop at Rome of the time (I forget his name but he's the one before Pope Stephen). Novatian didn't like this new Pope and allowed himself to be elected as an Anti-Pope.

Both were contrasted with the Middle ground approach by Cyprian and probably most other bishops. Interestingly, Despite Rome being the closest Apostolic church, all African bishops went to a Synod in Carthage (Cyprian's bishop seat and about 80 of them for that matter) unanimously went against Pope Stephen's lax approach and Novatian's strictness and declared to put it crudely, a case by case bases ranging from some time of hard repentence, to years away from communion to not allowing communion until the person was on their deathbed. They also all agreed that they didn't like Pope Stephen forcing other bishops; who had all inherited the keys to heaven as Cyprian said; to listen to him and his weird actions that were foreign to the church at the time lead to hima acting like "bishop of bishops" as the council's declaration said. Sorry for the Ramble then just a real interesting point of history

Other doctrines developed over time but this was just stricter rules of pre-existing ones.

The Novatianists only existed due to coming out of the biggest Persecution of the Christian world at that time, the Decian Persecutions (248-250AD) as well as the first Empire Wide Persecution. A very slow fall of the moral standards since the late 2nd century (nothing too major to state that the church had fallen away but still notable to a degree) as well as many other fantastical and unlikely scenarios. To put it shortly, in took nearly 200 years to see the first major split in Christianity. In fact many early christian writers between the Novatian crisis to the Diocletian Persecutions beginning in 303AD, genuinely felt that the end times were near due to the fracture in the church along with moral standards slowly slipping. They took Christ's words seriously when he said the church will be united and this will be an indicator of the Father sending Jesus.

I've talked all about this just to show how united they were until then and how big an important this split was. I could probably write a long post on the events leading up to during and after this momentous event. I cannot overstate enough how much of a big moment this was. To a large extent this may have been the watershed moment that lead to so many people either rightfully or unrightfully breaking away from each other. Even after the fact, the church was still quite united. We wouldn't see the bitterness of two factions go head to head until after the council of Nicea when the Arians and Semi Arians went against the Orthodox and Modalists. Actual violence occurred between both sides. Look at us now. We can hardly say we're united.

Sorry, but that sounds like prosperity gospel to me.

Fruit is completely righteous acting. Nothing to do with the obtaining of wealth. In fact, looking for wealth or not sharing all your possessions with others and giving to the poor is a lack of fruit and should be condemned. What I mean is that if one doctrine produces fruit compared to another, they we should probably accepted the former if they are mutually exclusive.

But only by cherry-picking do you arrive at this claim of "universality". The contention I noted among early Christians shows debate over all kinds of issues was alive and well. I'm not sure you've wrapped your head around what you're doing. Stacking up a series of quotes from people who lived in different areas in different times who never knew each other would be like me quoting Prez Trump on theater, finding a similar quote from the mayor of Mexico City from a century ago, and then claiming everyone who lived in North America had a similar attitude about the theater.

On your point of about different cultures doesn't really work in the Roman Empire times simply because everyone wanted to be a Roman. I'm certainly willing to concede that there were cultural differences but there were some things that seemed to be consistent throughout the Empire. This is due to the fact that along with the gladiator fights, the theatres seems to transcend culture. This may be due to the fact that both institutes mentioned were introduced and upheld by Romans but also that many of them

Interestingly, I try to tell you where everyone lived/wrote their respective works. Tatian lived in the East, then the Rome with Justin and then back to the East. Theophilius lived in well Antioch. Athenagoras lived in Greece. Felix wrote in Rome. Tertullian wrote in Carthage in North Africa. Clement of Alexandria wrote in Alexandria in Egypt. Novatian wrote in Rome. Cyprian wrote in Carthage. Lactantius came from Numidia and wrote in Nicodemia which is in Asia Minor.

I can assure you, there's many issues on the early Christians that I can be accused of cherry-picking. One of them could arguably be Communion. Not that they didn't believe in the Real Presence (because everyone did believe in it) but if I went further and said that they all followed some form of proto-transubstantiation. Most probably followed something along the lines of Sacramental Union or the Eastern Orthodox view but I'd be incorrect in saying that "all" support the two former views because some to appear to support something closer to transubstantiation such as Hippolytus. Therefore, when I made my Early Christians on Communion I was careful by stating that they all followed the Real Presence and not delving much deeper than that except some personal conjecture at the end.

On the issue of entertainment though all writings that we have are in agreement in rejecting them.

Interestingly Another one were there's division between sources would be wealth to a small degree. Again they all agreed that sharing all your possessions were important and that it was better to be voluntarily poor but they differed on the actual intrinsic moral value of possessions and money. Everyone before 205 agreed that wealth and possessions were actually intrinsically bad. However, when Clement of Alexandria wrote "Who is the Rich Man that Might be Saved" in or around 205AD he said that wealth and possessions were intrinsically neutral on their own. I believe this eventually became the stance of the church. He would agree we should share all our possessions, constantly give to the poor in secret and to be in voluntary poverty to either help other Christians that need our material wealth or to get away from sin.

Even of some aspects of the Trinity we do not get full agreement due to the fact that the Alexandrian school of Christians saying that Christ was unbegotten whereas the rest of the church argued that he was begotten before time began (not created obviously since that only came about when the heretic Arius started causing trouble in the early 4th century). They were never deemed as heretics for this view(except Origen hundreds and hundreds of years later after his death due to being tortured for the faith). In fact Origen despite having some of the wackiest beliefs throughout the Ante-Nicean period was probably the most respected teacher of the 3rd century and one of his works, Against Celsus, is probably the most important apologetic work of all time.

You would need to understand the context of each and every quote, show how they're connected, and then demonstrate that the Christians of the day listened to them and acted upon their advice before those quotes would have any relevance to this discussion.

I probably should have like what I've done with some of the other early Christian quotes and gave some context behind the quotes but quite simply it's a lot of effort. If were to edit this when I get the time, I'd probably do something like that.

That's what I'm asking you.

All I'm saying is that if someone "knows" (yes it's a loaded term) that they're committing a sin and do nothing about it, I would certainly worry about their future.

 

[Resha Caner]

In Against Heresies (written c.180 AD and it actually the best source we have for early Gnostic's beliefs along with the works themselves) , Irenaeus' main argument is that Gnosticism and it sects which ranged from Marcionites to Valentinans didn't derive their teachings from the Apostles and therefore claimed that the Apostles were either ignorant, disobeyed or weren't enlightened enough.

Against Heresies is a polemic, and so must be read with care. We know what Irenaeus thought about the Gnostics, but not necessarily what the Gnostics thought about the Apostles. But I don't have the whole thing memorized, so maybe you're familiar with a passage I am not. Is there a place where Irenaeus quotes a Gnostic work which directly defames the Apostles?

As we historians classify things, Against Heresies is a secondary source (what a court of law would call "hearsay"). The writings of the Gnostics themselves would be the primary source (what a court of law would call "testimony") - the point being that unless you have a primary source calling the Apostles ignorant, you can't claim Gnostics thought the Apostles were ignorant. Rather, Against Heresies only supports claims with respect to Irenaeus' opinions. It is a legitimate claim that Irenaeus was offended by what the Gnostics said and considered it a distortion of Apostolic teaching.

As it happens, I agree with Irenaeus. Gnosticism is a distortion. But we can't create strawmen and put words in Gnostic mouths.

I can tell you that the only split in the early church which is pre 325AD (again this is my range of expertise and is arbitrary to a small degree. May be more accurate to say early 4th century as that's when the church and state became one.) were the Novatianists.

You're referring to formal splits of formal organizations. I am not. Jesus did not institute any formal organizational structures. There's nothing wrong with having such things, but don't confuse unity with formal declarations. Don't confuse paper charters of earthly institutions with the spiritual unity of a Christian community. Earlier I gave the LCMS as an example of this. I once had someone vehemently arguing that since I am an LCMS member and because they found a YEC statement on an LCMS website, that I must be YEC. Someone who read something on the Internet knows my mind better than I do? Oy veh! Not only did that person not understand me, they didn't understand the LCMS.

I note once again my comments on what it would take to make your argument convincing. But I'll also admit skepticism that you could ever find the sources to pull it off. Because, additionally, if you're going to argue from formal positions, then I would have to note quoting Church Fathers is not a statement of formal position. You would need a quote from a Council regarding theater to establish that.

Fruit is completely righteous acting. Nothing to do with the obtaining of wealth. In fact, looking for wealth or not sharing all your possessions with others and giving to the poor is a lack of fruit and should be condemned. What I mean is that if one doctrine produces fruit compared to another, they we should probably accepted the former if they are mutually exclusive.

Though you've not said it, this smells very judgmental - and by that I mean judgement of whether someone is Christian or not ... saved or not. Judgement of a fellow Christian's acts is fully justified in terms of governing the civic life of the Church. It has absolutely no place in theology. Determining one's theology based on whether or not I think the outcome was good is fraught with danger.

On your point of about different cultures doesn't really work in the Roman Empire times simply because everyone wanted to be a Roman.

I don't think you understand the Roman Empire very well. The empire had a high level of diversity. (*I'll specifically point you to the passage stating, "As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them, since they believed that preserving tradition promoted social stability. One way that Rome incorporated diverse peoples was by supporting their religious heritage ..." Further, some groups (ironically this includes the Jews) rejected Roman culture and always bore Roman rule under protest).

All I'm saying is that if someone "knows" (yes it's a loaded term) that they're committing a sin and do nothing about it, I would certainly worry about their future.

I would too, though it is rare for someone to wantonly sin. Usually they justify their actions in some way. But pleading for them to change their entertainment choices is pleading for a change in the symptoms rather than the causes. The point I was leading to is that their entertainment choices cannot be directly tied (by us) to their eternal state.

Regardless, the question that has been a long time coming is: What types of film do you like?

 

[Just Another User]

Against Heresies is a polemic, and so must be read with care. We know what Irenaeus thought about the Gnostics, but not necessarily what the Gnostics thought about the Apostles. But I don't have the whole thing memorized, so maybe you're familiar with a passage I am not. Is there a place where Irenaeus quotes a Gnostic work which directly defames the Apostles?

Yes it's a polemic but it's also a careful explanation of that faith. We also know from certain finds and through their own sources that he was pretty much spot on with most issues. I don't think you're claiming this but considering most historians make the claim that Gnosticism peaked around 200AD, Against Heresies had to be based on evidence to actually combat the growing movement. It would be unlikely that anything would be made up too since we also know that Irenaeus frequently accounted Gnostics (and thus we can assume that it's unlikely that his arguments are based on rumours).

On your point about Irenaeus I cannot recall if he directly quotes Gnostics works but we know his answers to be accurate. I don't think any human has the ability to memorise the entire Against Heresies! Nevertheless I'll quote you a section of Book 1 chapter 31.

"They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things (in reference of a previous description), and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas" As you'll see, what we know as the Gospel of Judas matches this description perfectly.

Another quote by Irenaeus is:

"This wisdom each one of them alleges to be … of his own inventing … They object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the elders, but even than the apostles because they have discovered the unadulterated truth."

As we historians classify things, Against Heresies is a secondary source (what a court of law would call "hearsay"). The writings of the Gnostics themselves would be the primary source (what a court of law would call "testimony") - the point being that unless you have a primary source calling the Apostles ignorant, you can't claim Gnostics thought the Apostles were ignorant. Rather, Against Heresies only supports claims with respect to Irenaeus' opinions. It is a legitimate claim that Irenaeus was offended by what the Gnostics said and considered it a distortion of Apostolic teaching.

I'll cite some Gnostic sources now.

The Gospel of Mary (sometime in the 2nd century):

"When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior. Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman. Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them. Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you."

Gospel of Judas (c.150 AD):

[]= not originally in the text, just assumed to be due to damage.

"The secret account of the reflation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover"

Jesus said to them, "How do you know me? Truly say to you, no generation of the people that are among you will know me."

"(referring to the Apostles) But their spirits did not dare to stand before [him], except for Judas Iscariot . He was able to stand before him, but he could not look him in the eyes,
and he turned his face away."

Gospel of Thomas (c.175 AD) I know I said that I don't personally think Thomas is a Gnostic work but I think I'm in a minority position. I was certainly had heavily Greco-Roman influences.

"These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke. And Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down."

The Gospel of Phillip (early 3rd century)

In reference to Mary Magdalene

"[Jesus] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?"

"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

Pisitis Sopha (3rd-4th century but it's a total guess)

"And Jesus said to his disciples: "I am come forth out of that First Mystery, which is the last mystery, that is the four-and-twentieth mystery." And his disciples have not known nor understood that anything existeth within that mystery;"

"And Jesus had not told his disciples the total expansion of the emanations of the Treasury, nor their orders, how they are extended"

"And he had not told his disciples: "I have gone forth out of such and such regions until I entered into that mystery, and until I went forth out of it"

For this cause then the disciples thought there is nothing within that mystery

All of that is literally from the first chapter.

You're referring to formal splits of formal organizations. I am not. Jesus did not institute any formal organizational structures. There's nothing wrong with having such things, but don't confuse unity with formal declarations. Don't confuse paper charters of earthly institutions with the spiritual unity of a Christian community. Earlier I gave the LCMS as an example of this. I once had someone vehemently arguing that since I am an LCMS member and because they found a YEC statement on an LCMS website, that I must be YEC. Someone who read something on the Internet knows my mind better than I do? Oy veh! Not only did that person not understand me, they didn't understand the LCMS.

However, spiritual unity of a Christian Community is exactly what the early church was. Though it was of course still an earthly institution to a degree due to the fact that it was on the Earth, their literally was only one church you could be apart of. The reason we have the distinction nowadays is because of the many divides.

Though you've not said it, this smells very judgmental - and by that I mean judgement of whether someone is Christian or not ... saved or not. Judgement of a fellow Christian's acts is fully justified in terms of governing the civic life of the Church. It has absolutely no place in theology. Determining one's theology based on whether or not I think the outcome was good is fraught with danger.

Explain to me how it sounds judgmental? I literally don't know a single person who disagrees with me here. If one doctrine produces ungodliness then we shouldn't have it. If it produces unrighteousness then how can it be from God? It's as simple as that. Now the debate would be fully on what constitutes as godliness.

I have no judgement whatsoever and you're trying to create someone here who doesn't exist. I frankly couldn't care what doctrines you hold. All I care about is someone trying to serve God and I assume that's everyone too. I won't judge someone because I don't know their situation or experience or their journey in Christ and I certainly won't say I'm a better man than anyone else. I'm just as wicked and sinful as the next man without the Spirit and God's grace.

I don't think you understand the Roman Empire very well. The empire had a high level of diversity. (*I'll specifically point you to the passage stating, "As the Romans extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them, since they believed that preserving tradition promoted social stability. One way that Rome incorporated diverse peoples was by supporting their religious heritage ..." Further, some groups (ironically this includes the Jews) rejected Roman culture and always bore Roman rule under protest).

I didn't know. Thank you. I would prefer you to send a scholarly article on the issue if you have the ability to do so. I don't doubt that I'm completely wrong here just that I'd rather here it come from the horse's mouth.

I would too, though it is rare for someone to wantonly sin. Usually they justify their actions in some way. But pleading for them to change their entertainment choices is pleading for a change in the symptoms rather than the causes. The point I was leading to is that their entertainment choices cannot be directly tied (by us) to their eternal state.

Sure I totally agree. But nevertheless, we are judged by our works and thus it's imperative that we flee from all sin.

Regardless, the question that has been a long time coming is: What types of film do you like?

I don't know what type of films I like anymore, if any. I'm not saying that all films are sinful that's ridiculous I just don't know if I personally feel comfortable watching most things anymore.

This isn't something I've always held. Very new actually. I hardly went out looking for it I actually probably tried to deny it for a while. I just know that many of the things I personally watched I feel were very sinful.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes it's a polemic but it's also a careful explanation of that faith.

You're conflating what the Gnostics said with conclusions made by non-Gnostics ... but it seems you've already crossed the Rubicon.

Explain to me how it sounds judgmental? I literally don't know a single person who disagrees with me here.

Well, now you know at least one.

Now the debate would be fully on what constitutes as godliness.

And so it becomes a human exercise to decide what is and is not proper theology, and those who do not adhere to your human-derived theology are not Christian ... as opposed to my position that theology comes from revelation alone, and what has been revealed to us is God's Word (no judging of human action required).

I didn't know. Thank you. I would prefer you to send a scholarly article on the issue if you have the ability to do so. I don't doubt that I'm completely wrong here just that I'd rather here it come from the horse's mouth.

Read anything about the Roman Pantheon. There must be thousands of articles on how the Romans incorporated foreign cultures and the resulting diversity. But, if you want me to cite something specific, you can start here: The Incorporation of Foreign Cults by the Romans: A Study of the Cults of Juno Sospita, Aesculapius, and the Magna Mater

Sure I totally agree. But nevertheless, we are judged by our works and thus it's imperative that we flee from all sin.

??? Not sure you understood me, so not sure you actually agree. For what purpose are we judged? It's kinda hard to be a witness to the unbeliever when you're frantically doing all that judging and fleeing.

I don't know what type of films I like anymore, if any. I'm not saying that all films are sinful that's ridiculous I just don't know if I personally feel comfortable watching most things anymore.

I see. So for you personally, all dramatic presentations feel sinful.

 

[Just Another User]

You're conflating what the Gnostics said with conclusions made by non-Gnostics ... but it seems you've already crossed the Rubicon.

I think I've given ample evidence to support those claims from their own sources. I think the evidence lines up nicely and the scholars that I've read at least on this point would agree. Irenaeus even mentions the Gospel of Judas by name I believe in Book 3 and it's likely it was the same work.

And so it becomes a human exercise to decide what is and is not proper theology, and those who do not adhere to your human-derived theology are not Christian ... as opposed to my position that theology comes from revelation alone, and what has been revealed to us is God's Word (no judging of human action required).

Human derived theology? Not at all. I will admit that I've explained it poorly but was I was trying to articulate was what is righteousness based on passages in the bible e.g. the Sermon on the Mount. If for example keeping the Sabbath leads to said godliness compared to not keeping it, probably means that we should. When I said the debate goes to what constitutes godliness would be a way for people to avoid the NT.

Obviously if something is rejected in the NT we should also reject it but it's easier to see rejection than it is to see what the Bible supports.

??? Not sure you understood me, so not sure you actually agree. For what purpose are we judged? It's kinda hard to be a witness to the unbeliever when you're frantically doing all that judging and fleeing.

You've lost me here. I was stating that we will be judged for our works by Christ and thus we should flee from sinfulness. I do agree that it's a change of heart that's the root of the issue. Fleeing from sin is also a constant thing to the best of my knowledge so I don't know what you refer to there either. And who am I judging? You've made this claims several times and all I've stated is that some sins are bad and need to be avoided unless that person's future become's uncertain. That isn't judgement. What is judgement is when you judge a person for such sins which I have not.

I see. So for you personally, all dramatic presentations feel sinful.

At least try to read what I put and stop trying to create someone that's not there. I said most. I've also mentioned many times especially for someone such as yourself that I don't have a problem with all types of entertainment. I was just saying that personally, I haven't got a clue what I like.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think I've given ample evidence to support those claims from their own sources.

I understand you think your case is sufficient. I doubt, however, you've understood why I think it's insufficient.

You've lost me here. I was stating that we will be judged for our works by Christ and thus we should flee from sinfulness. I do agree that it's a change of heart that's the root of the issue. Fleeing from sin is also a constant thing to the best of my knowledge so I don't know what you refer to there either. And who am I judging? You've made this claims several times and all I've stated is that some sins are bad and need to be avoided unless that person's future become's uncertain. That isn't judgement. What is judgement is when you judge a person for such sins which I have not.

Part of the misunderstanding may be that I find your statements vague. I'm never quite sure what you're talking about. Are you talking about justification or sanctification? Do you even distinguish the two? Do you even use such terms? You use poetic terms like "fruit" but never ground them in anything. I understand the Bible also uses those terms, but it doesn't disassociate them the way you do.

You gave the example of "keeping the Sabbath", and how it may or may not lead to "godliness". What does this "godliness" mean to you? I have no idea how you reflected on keeping the Sabbath last week and concluded, "Yep. That made me godly. Check the box. Task completed." Maybe I don't understand because there is no such concept, no such process in Lutheranism of judging that something made me godly. In Lutheranism holiness (sanctification) doesn't work that way.

At least try to read what I put and stop trying to create someone that's not there. I said most. I've also mentioned many times especially for someone such as yourself that I don't have a problem with all types of entertainment. I was just saying that personally, I haven't got a clue what I like.

That was my impression. If I'm wrong ... shrug ... OK. I'm not trying to create anything. I'm trying to understand what you've said. Whether you know or don't know, it sounds like you're avoiding all of it. While that makes me sad for you, it's not for me to say. If you feel like that's what you need to do, then that's what you need to do.

What, then, do you feel God has called you to do? What talent has he given you?

P.S.

... I've explained it poorly ...

Oh, don't worry about that. Whether it's you, me, or both of us, the only task here is to understand each other and have a productive conversation.

 

[LW97Nils]

"Entertainment" is a word first created in the 19th century. As for video games, I gave up on them entirely and now regret having spent so much money on them. Not judging Christians who play video games either.

I do sincerely doubt that the OP's point is to show what sin is and what not. Merely that there is certain media that will make it harder for you to obey God. Like if you have stuck a certain song in your head.

Also, the point is to not live for entertainment, which is biblical. It is great to have influences, but we must control what masters our lives. See 1 Corinthians 6:12. We always must ask "would Jesus listen to that?" If not, we should not consume it. Consumerism is a false way.

 

[LW97Nils]

Everyone before 205 agreed that wealth and possessions were actually intrinsically bad. However, when Clement of Alexandria wrote "Who is the Rich Man that Might be Saved" in or around 205AD he said that wealth and possessions were intrinsically neutral on their own. I believe this eventually became the stance of the church. He would agree we should share all our possessions, constantly give to the poor in secret and to be in voluntary poverty to either help other Christians that need our material wealth or to get away from sin.

I don't think that was the position, except for under the gnostics who believed everything material was bad. Only that we must see our possessions as something that doesn't belong to us and that we must always be prepared to give them up.

"Then the whole multitude of the country of the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again. Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying, Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him." Luke 8:37-39