Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

[Bronconagurski]

First of all, I want to apologize for the sharp response earlier. There is a certain poster, not you, that rings every chime that I have. Maybe you noticed I deleted a number of my responses. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. I was a member of a PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), a moderately conservative denomination for 25 years. We said the Apostles Creed every Sunday. First of all, most said it out of memory, not giving the words a second thought. Certain phrases are not valid IMO. The phrase, I believe in "the holy catholic church" suggests a universal church. Here, in this life, the universal church means nothing. It is not an organization that carries out the work of the Lord. They never sent out a missionary, administered a baptism or the Lord's Supper, helped the poor or the sick, took up an offering, held a worship service that praised the Lord, or took up an offering. The universal church only has significance in eternity. Next, the creed says I believe "in the communion of saints." This is not a belief. Christians naturally want to be we other Christians. The rest of the creed can be found in various parts of Scripture.

Another point you made is that not every Christian sees the work of the Holy Spirit. That may be so, but they ought to. The use of creeds is up to the local church. At least we have that standard and it is not mandated across our denomination, as we are local autonomous churches. I hope this makes my position clearer in a more civil manner.

I agree that Satan's greatest feats are in the churches. The RCC is a good example, with all the ceremony that means nothing, such as transsubtitution, rosary beads, holy water, and their method for confession of sins. They thrive on creeds, and some of the Protestant churches keep them.

Thanks for you apology and is it certainly accepted. No worries. We all can be sharp at times, myself included. I do not wish to come across that way to you either.

I understand that some creeds are not scriptural nor doctrinal, so they can be the agent of Satan. But some are good. When trouble comes to my life, I will admit it is the word of God that I run to, and that the Holy Spirit brings to my mind. Just recently the enemy tried to bombard my mind with certain things that the Holy Spirit corrected with scriptures that I had memorized.

 

[Herald]

Herald, are you calling me arrogant and misinformed? Arrogant and misinformed for what reason? Because I have a different theology than you? Is it because I place the Word of God above the writings of men? Do you not know that the Roman Catholic Church uses the same line of reasoning and methods to defend their theology that Icon uses to defend his? Did you know that?

Are the commentaries, (some of which I use) inspired and or God breathed? Did you know that the writings of the early church fathers are not Scripture? Did you know that the reformed creeds are not given by God for the teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness to equip the believer for every good work?

Perhaps your comments are for another post not mine? If so, who do you direct your thoughts to?

My post was a "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of post.

Let me tell you way this aversion to secondary sources is either arrogance or ignorance (a better word than misinformed). Saturneptune believes he is able to understand the Bible because of the Holy Spirit. I agree with that. No one can truly understand scripture unless they have the Holy Spirit. But the Bible also teaches that we are to heed the words of others:

1 Timothy 1:3 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,

This was Paul's charge to Timothy. He is telling him to teach others. Now, a case can be made that we are to obey Paul, because Paul was an Apostle. But Timothy was not. What makes his words different than a commentary or confession? While we are at it, why listen to what your pastor has to say? After all, are not his words the words of a man? Imagine the unity that comes from that approach to being taught. Imagine 100 people in a church with 100 different rules of interpretation, each one claiming to have the Holy Spirit. Forget what your pastor says. Forget the fact that he probably labored hard at learning, so that he could teach others. Forget his teachers who did the same. Forget long dead theologians who wrestled with the Word, so that they could mine its truth. And if you say, "Well, I take my pastor's words and compare them to scripture", then why not do the same with any other secondary source like a creed, confession, commentary, book, or study note?

It really comes down to two possibilities:

a) Arrogance
b) Ignorance

 

[saturneptune]

My post was a "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of post.

Let me tell you way this aversion to secondary sources is either arrogance or ignorance (a better word than misinformed). Saturneptune believes he is able to understand the Bible because of the Holy Spirit. I agree with that. No one can truly understand scripture unless they have the Holy Spirit. But the Bible also teaches that we are to heed the words of others:

1 Timothy 1:3 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,

This was Paul's charge to Timothy. He is telling him to teach others. Now, a case can be made that we are to obey Paul, because Paul was an Apostle. But Timothy was not. What makes his words different than a commentary or confession? While we are at it, why listen to what your pastor has to say? After all, are not his words the words of a man? Imagine the unity that comes from that approach to being taught. Imagine 100 people in a church with 100 different rules of interpretation, each one claiming to have the Holy Spirit. Forget what your pastor says. Forget the fact that he probably labored hard at learning, so that he could teach others. Forget his teachers who did the same. Forget long dead theologians who wrestled with the Word, so that they could mine its truth. And if you say, "Well, I take my pastor's words and compare them to scripture", then why not do the same with any other secondary source like a creed, confession, commentary, book, or study note?

It really comes down to two possibilities:

a) Arrogance
b) Ignorance

Since you used my name, I will respond to your post. Well, I have lots of flaws, but arrogance is not one of them, so that must mean I am ignorant.

I am glad we agree about the Holy Spirit. I will give you this about creeds and confessions. In the Baptist faith, we are all local autonomous churches, so each church has the right to form their own creed, covenant, bylaws, whatever you want to call it. It is unique to that church. In churches with hierarchies, a creed is used by the entire denomination, the RCC, mainline Protestant and the like. If a creed is flawed, it infects the entire denomination. I showed above two small examples of flaws in the Apostles Creed. I am not so familiar with the Nicene Creed.

Even if the creeds are Scriptural, how many on Sunday morning saying them do you think are pondering the words? How many do you think it is merely a mindless chant? The one exception IMO is the 1689 Baptist Confession.

Our church dropped its old bylaws a few years ago. It had a specific reference to alcohol. The church decided it wanted an updated version, so we adopted the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. What most, especially older members do not realize, is they voted in choice in drinking, because the BFand M makes no reference to alcohol, only a vague reference to vices. In fact, years ago, the covenant said we could not even trade at a place that sold liquor. Now days, that makes it almost impossible to go out to eat.

Also, your point about the pastor's sermons is well taken. However, he insists that all have a Bible each sermon and follow him. All I can say is I wish you would come up with a third possibility. I am not the brightest bulb on the block, but never thought of myself as ignorant.

 

[DHK]

My post was a "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of post.

Let me tell you way this aversion to secondary sources is either arrogance or ignorance (a better word than misinformed). Saturneptune believes he is able to understand the Bible because of the Holy Spirit.

I am sure that if you question Saturneptune he will tell you that he uses secondary sources--Greek and Hebrew concordances, a variety of commentaries on occasion, and probably good reference works that take him back to the original languages. Most of us do. I do. But I never go back to creeds and catechisms. I haven't done that since I was a member of the RCC, or when in the Other Christians Denom. Forum to look up a Catholic doctrine in their Catechism to understand more of what I am debating.

The Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. But I am not an authority on Greek and Hebrew whereas others are. Creeds and Catechisms are not authorities on the original languages either. They are statements made by fallible men. We have an extensive statement of faith just as good as any creed. Why should I use another man's? This is not arrogance; neither is it ignorance.

Arrogance and ignorance is feeding your mind with only one source of information so that you indoctrinate yourself with only one type of teaching and remain closed to everything else.

 

[saturneptune]

I am sure that if you question Saturneptune he will tell you that he uses secondary sources--Greek and Hebrew concordances, a variety of commentaries on occasion, and probably good reference works that take him back to the original languages.

That says what I do better than I could have. Yes, I use all the above and Bible notes. My Bible is crammed full of written notes from years of sermons and Bible studies.

 

[thomas15]

My post was a "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of post.

.......

It really comes down to two possibilities:

a) Arrogance
b) Ignorance

Herald, would you say then that because you consult the historical writings and other secondary sources you don't have conditions a and/or b above?

Another question, how much weight does the Bible place on the study of the creeds?

I am sure that if you question Saturneptune he will tell you that he uses secondary sources--Greek and Hebrew concordances, a variety of commentaries on occasion, and probably good reference works that take him back to the original languages.

Ask Thomas15 the same question and he will answer yes.

That says what I do better than I could have. Yes, I use all the above and Bible notes. My Bible is crammed full of written notes from years of sermons and Bible studies.

Again agreement.

 

[quantumfaith]

What size shoe are we talking about....I wear a 10.5 (US)

 

[Jerome]

they look down on the labors of godly men from the past

They?

When confronted with numerous Baptists', including prominent 1689LBC signer Benjamin Keach's, Bible teaching that challenged the 'plurality of elders' scheme, you were quite dismissive of those godly men's labor in the Scripture, quipping in a terse reply that that they "are entitled to their plurality of errors".

 

[Iconoclast]

"But not as sharp as the Puritans."
"I would not mention Dave Hunt."

It shows your bias. It shows that you already are looking at Scripture through rose-colored eyes before you even begin your study. Things, looked at in that way, can only be interpreted one way. And in that way your mind forever remains closed.

Dave Hunt believes Calvinists are not saved.

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all--and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they "shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life" (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.[/QUOTE]

With this view he is not even credible at all.

It shows your bias. It shows that you already are looking at Scripture through rose-colored eyes before you even begin your study. Things, looked at in that way, can only be interpreted one way. And in that way your mind forever remains closed.

And yet,,,it was not long ago you said you were "not interested in looking at teaching that would offer you correction on your wrong view of the "carnal christian". Do you find that ironic? Your mind is not "closed"?

 

[saturneptune]

And yet,,,it was not long ago you said you were "not interested in looking at teaching that would offer you correction on your wrong view of the "carnal christian". Do you find that ironic? Your mind is not "closed"?

DHK's post is spot on. I started this thread, and we are not going to have a repeat of last night. It has some excellent posts, and it is going to stay that way. Please take your demeaning remarks to a thread I did not start. Adios.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK's post is spot on. I started this thread, and we are not going to have a repeat of last night. It has some excellent posts, and it is going to stay that way. Please take your demeaning remarks to a thread I did not start. Adios.

Mind your business. You removing your foul posts -----------does not change them, or who you show yourself to be. I was speaking to DHK, not you as you have a twisted agenda that you can keep.
You thought you were being slick,removing them....got it.My remarks to DHK are not demeaning...but spot on. last time I checked , you do not own the BB.

 

[The American Dream]

[/B]


Mind your business. You removing your foul posts -----------does not change them, or who you show yourself to be. I was speaking to DHK, not you as you have a twisted agenda that you can keep.
You thought you were being slick,removing them....got it.My remarks to DHK are not demeaning...but spot on. last time I checked , you do not own the BB.

Very seldom post, but do follow, and have yet to see an uplifting post of yours.

 

[DHK]

Dave Hunt believes Calvinists are not saved.

I was saved long before I heard of Calvinism. In fact when I was saved, though an adult, I did not know who the man Calvin was. He wasn't important enough to be on the scene of either Canadian or world history from our point of view.
I was saved by faith through grace, and not of works.
BTW, Luke has posted that he doesn't believe non-Calvinsits can be saved; or at least he posted "only Calvinist can be saved," which amounts to the same thing. And many others on this board have posted such things as "Calvinism is the gospel," which is again saying the same thing in different words. Thus Dave Hunt's position is not unreasonable. He refutes the tenets of the Reformed position, not Calvinism per se. Calvin did not speak English. Not even Calvin believed in TULIP, and that is ironic.

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all--and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they "shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life" (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.[/QUOTE]

That is a good quote isn't it. Study the Word. Predestination never applies to the unbeliever, but only the believer. God chooses the believer to his glory. He choose Israel. He is calling out a nation unto himself. It never refers to the "unelect." Therefore what he said is quite true.

With this view he is not even credible at all.

Think it through. Rather think the Bible through.

And yet,,,it was not long ago you said you were "not interested in looking at teaching that would offer you correction on your wrong view of the "carnal christian". Do you find that ironic? Your mind is not "closed"?

You are wrong there also.
If you had paid attention, I have said that though I am Baptist, the great majority of my library (over 2,000), are authored by Presbyterians, and even a couple of Anglicans. The greatest number of them are Calvinists. Most people do use Barnes, and others that are readily available on the internet. And most of them are Calvinists. We read with discernment. I also use some of MacArthur's material, and have even quoted from them.

Your statement is wrong.

 

[saturneptune]

You are wrong there also

If you had paid attention,

Your statement is wrong.

To sentence one-imagine that
To sentence two-it will not happen
To sentence three-imagine that

 

[DHK]

And yet,,,it was not long ago you said you were "not interested in looking at teaching that would offer you correction on your wrong view of the "carnal christian". Do you find that ironic? Your mind is not "closed"?

Let me address this one particular part of your post once again.
First look at the Scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1. Paul addresses these brethren as brethren, or Christians. They were believers in the Lord, saints in the church at Corinth. To say otherwise is a denial of Scripture.

2. He secondly describes them as "carnal." He could not speak unto them as "spiritual Christians," but rather as "carnal Christians." Why?

3. There are two reasons he gives.
a. They are not ready to eat meat. They are still on a diet of milk. In other words they hadn't grown or matured. They hadn't digested the Word that Paul had already taught them.
b. Their life did not manifest the fruit of the Spirit. They acted carnally. They were full of worldliness, specifically: envying, strife and divisions. These characteristics are not found among spiritual Christians but among carnal Christians.

The Bible teaches that there are carnal Christians.
Are you ready to be corrected on this subject?

 

[Iconoclast]

Let me address this one particular part of your post once again.
First look at the Scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1. Paul addresses these brethren as brethren, or Christians. They were believers in the Lord, saints in the church at Corinth. To say otherwise is a denial of Scripture.

2. He secondly describes them as "carnal." He could not speak unto them as "spiritual Christians," but rather as "carnal Christians." Why?

3. There are two reasons he gives.
a. They are not ready to eat meat. They are still on a diet of milk. In other words they hadn't grown or matured. They hadn't digested the Word that Paul had already taught them.
b. Their life did not manifest the fruit of the Spirit. They acted carnally. They were full of worldliness, specifically: envying, strife and divisions. These characteristics are not found among spiritual Christians but among carnal Christians.

The Bible teaches that there are carnal Christians.
Are you ready to be corrected on this subject?

The carnal christian heresy has been refuted many times as a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit.
When I offered you correction on this....you said you did not intend to look at the correction. That is your choice. I will offer it again.


You can listen-
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6709225934

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11110485122

or read-
http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/carnal.htm


or ignore it , and remain in error.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Thus Dave Hunt's position is not unreasonable. He refutes the tenets of the Reformed position,

Because Dave Hunt opposes truth does not mean he refutes anything...
opposition to truth does not equal a biblical refutation.

Could someone who believes this false gospel of Calvinism be truly saved? Fortunately, many Calvinists (you among them) were saved before becoming Calvinists. They now malign God by saying that He is pleased to damn multitudes though He could save all--and that He predestines multitudes to the Lake of Fire before they are even born. But having believed the gospel before becoming Calvinists, they "shall not come into condemnation, but [have] passed from death unto life" (Jn 5:24). Those who only know the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved, while those who are saved and ought to know better but teach these heresies will be judged for doing so.[/QUOTE]

That is a good quote isn't it.

This quote is an attack against the historic faith. I do not share your view that it is good.

Study the Word. Predestination never applies to the unbeliever, but only the believer. God chooses the believer to his glory. He choose Israel. He is calling out a nation unto himself. It never refers to the "unelect."

Calvinists teach this and I agree with it . So this issue does not change anything, nor does it help Hunt;s opposition to truth.

Therefore what he said is quite true.

Your "therefore " does not follow at all.

Think it through. Rather think the Bible through.

You are wrong there also.

To be wrong would mean that you show something that is not true,which you or Dave Hunt does not show.

If you had paid attention,

I have paid attention DHK. Do not make me go into the archives and pull out what you posted...you know exactly what you said.:thumbs:

I have said that though I am Baptist, the great majority of my library (over 2,000), are authored by Presbyterians, and even a couple of Anglicans. The greatest number of them are Calvinists. Most people do use Barnes, and others that are readily available on the internet. And most of them are Calvinists. We read with discernment. I also use some of MacArthur's material, and have even quoted from them.

Your statement is wrong.

No one questions any of this diversion. You said you were not interested in looking at what I offered even though I suggested to you you could not offer a biblical refutation of any of it. I see in your next post you repeat your view...I will offer you the remedy again. If you believe the "remedy " is in error...show it biblically. You could not do it then, and you cannot do it now.
We might not agree at the end of the day but lets be truthful at least:thumbs:


So show where it is wrong, biblically.

 

[Iconoclast]

To sentence one-imagine that
To sentence two-it will not happen
To sentence three-imagine that

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Have you ever studied out the principle contained in these verses?:wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

I am certain to be "corrected" but from the passage in Genesis 4, here is what I personally glean.

I see this as God providing an initial teaching on the concept that sin is to only be dealt with in God's eyes through the shedding of blood. Cain felt the all to familiar human emotion of rejection.

 

[DHK]

The carnal christian heresy has been refuted many times as a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit.
When I offered you correction on this....you said you did not intend to look at the correction. That is your choice. I will offer it again.

But it is evident that you cannot refute it. I can give you links to Dave Hunt too. Will you listen to them? I am not interested in your audio sermons. The Bible clearly says that these believers were carnal. Why do you deny the truth?