Is there a final authority?

[agedman]

When is something so unorthodox that it can be a heresy?

When does the pastor/teacher publicly denounce a view or thinking does not conform to Scripture?


For example:

To the Papist, any Protestant Church is heretical.
To the Protestant, the denial of ”Scriptures alone” is heretical - used to be.

To the Baptist, baptistim is a picture, but to the Church of Christ it is a must to attain.

To the Amillinialism folks, literal is in the eye of interpretation, to the classic premillennielist, literal is agreement with Scripture as stated.


So is heresy a matter of tolerance, or is there “true meat on the bones” to the term?

If one takes the Scripture as the final authority, what fellowship is there with those that would take the Scripyures less than literal, or cling to a tradition?

When is ecumenical good?

A lot of facets are impacted by how one stands in the matter of what is heretical.

 

[David Kent]

Well a lot of thing some people consider heresy are nothing more than different interpretations of prophecy. Which they then promote to being a bible doctrine.

 

[agedman]

Well a lot of thing some people consider heresy are nothing more than different interpretations of prophecy. Which they then promote to being a bible doctrine.

So, in your statement above, is there a final authority?

 

[David Kent]

A lot of facets are impaOffline KJVcted by how one stands in the matter of what is heretical.

I would say when it differs from the bible teaching on Salvation in Christ. Baptismal regeneration for instance.
Some Historicists take the following verse the following verses to be the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration

• Revelation 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
• Revelation 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

 

[David Kent]

So, in your statement above, is there a final authority?

No but if a teaching on salvation differs from or undermines bible teaching, it wiil not save. As in some baptist churches around here teach "Accept Jesus". Lent classes, and the Anglican Church has masses and confessions.

 

[Yeshua1]

So, in your statement above, is there a final authority?

Yes, God Himself has declared that His word, the Bible, would be that!

 

[Yeshua1]

No but if a teaching on salvation differs from or undermines bible teaching, it wiil not save. As in some baptist churches around here teach "Accept Jesus". Lent classes, and the Anglican Church has masses and confessions.

Heresy would be not issues such as the timing aspect of the Second Coming event, but on those cardinal truths that must be upheld. We can disagree on exactly what atonement view fits the Cross best, but we all must agree tht only the Death of Jesus deals with the sin issue, as an example!

 

[TCassidy]

So, in your statement above, is there a final authority?

Yes. Their own minds. What the bible says means nothing. What they say it means is the final authority.

 

[David Kent]

Yes. Their own minds. What the bible says means nothing. What they say it means is the final authority.

Are you talking about me?

 

[agedman]

Are you talking about me?

No, actually, he is probably posting about me.

 

[TCassidy]

Are you talking about me?

I am talking about all those who refuse to take God at his word, and believe He says what He means and means what He says. I am talking about all those who "spiritualize" away the word of God.

 

[Salty]

Yes. Their own minds. What the bible says means nothing. What they say it means is the final authority.

I agree - but then again - it is a matter of interpretation:

Church of Christ will quote Act 2:38
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," KJV
(bold - my emphasis)

Taking that verse a step further - does that mean COC does not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 

[TCassidy]

Taking that verse a step further - does that mean COC does not baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

The phrase "in the name of" is a statement of authority. "Stop in the name of the Law." Nobody thinks the cop's name is "Law." It is a statement of authority. Jesus said "All authority has been given to me, you go, therefore, and . . . " Whether we baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or in the Name of Jesus we are baptizing with His authority.

The more important part of that verse is the way the so-called "Church of Christ" does not know what "for the remission of sins" means.

For does not mean "to get." It means "because of."

I got a ticket for speeding. Which came first, the ticket or the speeding?

I got a medal for valor. Which came first, the medal or the valor?

I got baptized for the remission of sins. Which came first the baptism or the remission of sins?

Their false church, false, gospel, and false baptism is what happens when we don't take God at His word, just the way He inspired it.

 

[Salty]

....The more important part of that verse is the way the so-called "Church of Christ" does not know what "for the remission of sins" means.
For does not mean "to get." It means "because of." ...
Their false church, false, gospel, and false baptism is what happens when we don't take God at His word, just the way He inspired it.

TC - Then why do you suppose COC does not consider the explanation you gave? Any ideals?

One other point - I was talking to a COC minister - who told me that every salvation experience in the NT included baptism.

(mind you I am not condoning the COC! but this is an interesting discussion)

 

[TCassidy]

TC - Then why do you suppose COC does not consider the explanation you gave? Any ideals?

Because it would invalidate their exclusivist doctrine.

The truth has a way of doing that.

One other point - I was talking to a COC minister - who told me that every salvation experience in the NT included baptism.

The thief on the cross?

 

[David Kent]

I am talking about all those who refuse to take God at his word, and believe He says what He means and means what He says. I am talking about all those who "spiritualize" away the word of God.

Oh I understand now.

Like those who say "Christ is coming to the air" rather than we meet him in the air.
Like those who say Generation does not mean generation
Like those who say the 70 weeks prophecy is about Antichrist when he is not mentioned.
Like those who say Revelation has to be read literally when it says it is signified
Like those who say the temple was not completely destroyed

 

[Salty]

The thief on the cross?

His answer to that was that the man died before Christ died and ressurection- thus under the OT law - and baptism was not needed.

 

[TCassidy]

His answer to that was that the man died before Christ died and ressurection- thus under the OT law - and baptism was not needed.

So why were all those people baptized before the cross? And did they have to be baptized again after the cross?

 

[TCassidy]

Like those who say "Christ is coming to the air" rather than we meet him in the air.

Who would that be?

Like those who say Generation does not mean generation

Nobody has said generation does not mean generation. But several who are proficient in NT Greek have said that γενεά (genea) cannot be slavishly translated as "generation" but sometimes can mean "race" or "family" (even your pathetic Strongs says that!).

Like those who say the 70 weeks prophecy is about Antichrist when he is not mentioned.

Who says that?

Like those who say Revelation has to be read literally when it says it is signified

Yes, there are parts of Revelation that are signs. But the signs are literal signs.

Like those who say the temple was not completely destroyed

It wasn't. The western wall is still there. Of course, the prophecy was not referring to the entire temple mount, but we all already know that, don't we?

 

[Yeshua1]

TC - Then why do you suppose COC does not consider the explanation you gave? Any ideals?

One other point - I was talking to a COC minister - who told me that every salvation experience in the NT included baptism.

(mind you I am not condoning the COC! but this is an interesting discussion)

That just shows to us that water baptism was tied into believers as something that should be done once saved, but was not part of them getting saved.
The stumbling block will always be adding to Grace of the Cross, as adding anything extra needed to save us is teaching another and false Gospel!