Are full blown Pretierism and Pelagianism heresies then?

[JesusFan]

Heresy is any opposition to any "orthodox" belief. Some orthodox beliefs themselves are heresy. Even though that would be an oxymoron to the simple definition of orthodoxy. The only view that is "orthodox" is Scripture itself. Yet we have many claims of at least two branches of the church at odds with each other's "orthodox" views.

Heresy is not just being against a single view. The fact any church member was declared a heretic was based on not accepting the whole body of what was taught. It would be like breaking just the simplest OT law is breaking the whole Law. Those put to death as a heretic in the majority of examples were more saved than their accusers. Jesus pointed that out when He told them, "those without sin should cast the first stone".

Only those trying to maintain mental control over other individuals would put people to death. That is not how the redeemed operate. Obviously God has instilled even in wicked humans the will to live as long as possible in the flesh. Those without hope, have given up. Those who deem it necessary to kill other humans only do it out of selfish personal reasons. Definitely not because they are acting from God's direct orders.

The only time God gave His chosen people the order to kill every last human on earth, was to remove those wicked nations out of the Promised Land, so the nation of Israel would not follow after their wickedness. And then Israel still was not able to complete that order. It was not because those nations were part of Israel and started to introduce heretical doctrine. Sin was not supposed to take hold in Israel and those who broke the law were to be condemned to death.

The NT church was not to be in bondage of such a law of death. The heretics were to be removed from membership, but never was the death penalty ever instituted. If such a one broke the civil law, they were to be handed over to the civil authorities. The point is when a corrupt church becomes orthodox, even the truth can be deemed a heresy.

It is ironic when those who do not except free will, ask for people's free will opinion.

Have not full blown pel and pret though been defined as heresy by the historical church though?

 

[timtofly]

Have not full blown pel and pret though been defined as heresy by the historical church though?

Have the definitions changed?

How many preterist were there in the first century prior to 70AD?

Modern preterism is from a historical perspective. One that is 1900+ years removed from a particular event. Proving they existed and called a heresy in the first century, is like proving there were several other arks built and not just the one Noah was on.

 

[canadyjd]

Full pel deny that we need to have the Holy Spirit enabling us to receive jesus as their Lord! we can do that ourselves

I doubt most that “hold” that view have thought about it much and studied the issue even less.

The way the gospel is often presented, as Christ wringing His hands, hoping, pleading, begging the sinner to “make the decision” to come to Christ for salvation can certainly give folks the impression they were making the decision on their own.

That doesn’t negate the influence of God Holy Spirit in bringing that person to salvation, whether they understand it or not.

Allow for spiritual growth. Don’t be quick to declare “heretic” concerning such matters of conscience.

peace to you

 

[JesusFan]

I doubt most that “hold” that view have thought about it much and studied the issue even less.

The way the gospel is often presented, as Christ wringing His hands, hoping, pleading, begging the sinner to “make the decision” to come to Christ for salvation can certainly give folks the impression they were making the decision on their own.

That doesn’t negate the influence of God Holy Spirit in bringing that person to salvation, whether they understand it or not.

Allow for spiritual growth. Don’t be quick to declare “heretic” concerning such matters of conscience.

peace to you

I am just using that term against both theologies, as have them not both been defined as being heresy proper?

 

[canadyjd]

I am just using that term against both theologies, as have them not both been defined as being heresy proper?

Certainly. Those that have opposing views are often quick to label the opposing view as heresy. Church history is full of professing Christians slaughtering one another for “heresy” that is a matter of conscience.

Scripture tells us that each should be convinced in their own minds. Nothing about killing other Christians that disagree.

Not saying you support such things. Just that calling someone a heretic lays the foundation for further action instead of discussion.

How open to discussion is anyone going to be when we begin the conversation by calling them a heretic?

peace to you

 

[JesusFan]

Certainly. Those that have opposing views are often quick to label the opposing view as heresy. Church history is full of professing Christians slaughtering one another for “heresy” that is a matter of conscience.

Scripture tells us that each should be convinced in their own minds. Nothing about killing other Christians that disagree.

Not saying you support such things. Just that calling someone a heretic lays the foundation for further action instead of discussion.

How open to discussion is anyone going to be when we begin the conversation by calling them a heretic?

peace to you

Are there any doctrines that you would classify as being heresy then?

 

[Lodic]

They deny the future second coming and a physical bodily resurrection, so is heresy!

I can understand that argument. However I view this as a difference in viewpoints. FP doesn't deny the diety of Jesus, and it doesn't deny salvation by grace through faith.

 

[canadyjd]

Are there any doctrines that you would classify as being heresy then?

Of course. There are essentials to the Christian faith, mostly centered on the person and work of Jesus.

Essential:

Jesus is fully God and fully human: Jesus died in the cross for our sins, according to the scripture. Jesus was buried and raised from the dead, according to the scripture. Jesus was seen by more than 500 people after His resurrection. Jesus ascended into Heaven and will return for the saints. There will be a resurrection and judgment of all peoples. Salvation is by faith, not works. The proclamation of the gospel is the God ordained means by which the children of God are brought to salvation. Scripture is God’s inspired record and communication to His children and is finished/complete by the end of the 1st century. No new revelation.

That’s a good start, off hand.

peace to you

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I doubt most that “hold” that view have thought about it much and studied the issue even less.

The way the gospel is often presented, as Christ wringing His hands, hoping, pleading, begging the sinner to “make the decision” to come to Christ for salvation can certainly give folks the impression they were making the decision on their own.

That doesn’t negate the influence of God Holy Spirit in bringing that person to salvation, whether they understand it or not.

Allow for spiritual growth. Don’t be quick to declare “heretic” concerning such matters of conscience.

peace to you

If it quacks and waddles like a duck blah blah

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now how about Arianism. I personally have seen an uptick in that. IE Jesus was not God but evolved into it. Or something denying Jesus triune personage.

 

[canadyjd]

Now how about Arianism. I personally have seen an uptick in that. IE Jesus was not God but evolved into it. Or something denying Jesus triune personage.

Clear heresy. Again, I try not to declare any professing Christian as “saved” or “unsaved” simply because I cannot discern whether or not God Holy Spirit indwells them.

The best I can do is say what teach/believe or how they “walk in Christ” is or isn’t consistent with scripture or accepted doctrine.

peace to you

 

[Reformed]

The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines heresy as, "A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church. Such a view is thus regarded as wrong and potentially dangerous for faith." Typically the term "heresy" is only used in the case of serious errors. Is full Preterism a heresy? Yes. I believe it to be so. Does being a Preterist imperil a person's faith. No. However, it is serious false teaching and often one false teaching begets another. It could lead a person into Christological heresy and that is playing with fire.

 

[Revmitchell]

I

The way the gospel is often presented, as Christ wringing His hands, hoping, pleading, begging the sinner to “make the decision” to come to Christ for salvation can certainly give folks the impression they were making the decision on their own.

This is a false caricature of the view of other people. It is beneath you and quite uncommon from you. I am surprised.

 

[canadyjd]

This is a false caricature of the view of other people. It is beneath you and quite uncommon from you. I am surprised.

I didn’t speak of anyone’s views.

I spoke of how the gospel is presented to unbelievers. From the unbelievers point of view, some of the hymns of invitation present Christ as pleading for them to “make the decision”.

Peace to you

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn’t speak of anyone’s views.

I spoke of how the gospel is presented to unbelievers. From the unbelievers point of view, some of the hymns of invitation present Christ as pleading for them to “make the decision”.

Peace to you

Uh you did not call anyone specific out but you did speak of others views. Please don't play this word game. And your caricature is not only wrong, it misrepresents others, and is childish.

 

[canadyjd]

Uh you did not call anyone specific out but you did speak of others views. Please don't play this word game. And your caricature is not only wrong, it misrepresents others, and is childish.

I made a point about how unbelievers view the way the gospel is presented. I’m not playing any word games.

I have respect for you, so I’m not going to continue.

thanks for the conversation

peace to you