Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

[righteousdude2]

Heresy is...

It is a priviledge, not a right, to post on this board. That is a given. There are established rules to follow. That means that members follow them and that they are fairly enforced by moderators and administrators.

The reason that the line between heresy and a difference of opinion be clearly defined, and understood by everyone, is that crossing that line, once or however many times is determined to be justified, can and does result in banishment. It seems to be that line is quite undefined, in fact, the line itself is defined by a difference of opinion, that changes from situation to situation like the waves of the sea.

So where does one draw the line between difference of opinion of heresy?

...in the eyes [the heart and mind, too] of the beholder.

There are going to be differences of opinions and especially differences in interpreting the Scripture. However, Heresy is the same as the now "Infamous RACE card." It seems to be played when another believes they are about to lose the argument or feels they can't win the other over to their way of thinking. :smilewinkgrin:

I know there will be those who disagree with me on this, so let me say, save your fingers the energy of typing a response, because I am dead set on this opinion, and it has been set in the cement of my hard headed mind, supported by tons of American made rebar. :smilewinkgrin::applause:

 

[saturneptune]

...in the eyes [the heart and mind, too] of the beholder.

There are going to be differences of opinions and especially differences in interpreting the Scripture. However, Heresy is the same as the now "Infamous RACE card." It seems to be played when another believes they are about to lose the argument or feels they can't win the other over to their way of thinking. :smilewinkgrin:

I know there will be those who disagree with me on this, so let me say, save your fingers the energy of typing a response, because I am dead set on this opinion, and it has been set in the cement of my hard headed mind, supported by tons of American made rebar. :smilewinkgrin::applause:

Of course there are more, but there are two main areas that the word or concept of heresy seems to arise. One area is the Calvinism-free will threads. They are either started as a thread on that subject, or, in the case of this thread, a poster redirects the original intent of the thread to that subject. This thread is an excellent example. The longer it goes on, the more vicious the posts get. The exact word might not be heresy or heretic, but, as here, is always implied. Phrases such as "you believe false doctrine" or "you are not interested in the truth" or "your beliefs are arrogant" might as well say the same thing.

The other area is KJVO. In fact, a thread was just shut down over this very issue. The word that came out in that thread was idol worship or idolator.

I guess what amazes me are the two groups that participate this the most. One are those who are pastors or other leaders, using these kinds of phrases. They probably have some type of college or seminary, and get up before a congregation every Sunday to preach.

The other group, as the case in this thread, is the self taught person, which in a sense I am, but some of them think the bright light shone down from heaven, and all the sudden they are blessed with perfect knowledge and doctrine.

These are the two groups that sling terms similar to heretic around the most. And yes, I do agree, evidentally they did not learn well, because it is a sign they cannot hold a theological argument or have any common sense.

 

[thomas15]

Hello Thomas,

I would prefer to move forward, but am being pulled back. Truth is important in a public forum, and in private life. An examination of this thread will reveal the sequence of events as they have unfolded.
Sometimes these issues of truth have to be hashed out, before progress can take place.

Icon,

When your many cut and paste responses are boiled down to their essence, I find that your actual baseline is a reformed theology that gets it's authority from writings other than the Holy writ. Notice that i didn't say you don't quote scripture, you do. But those scriptures do not always really back up the point that you are trying to make. Then other times there are other Scriptures that conflict with what you think the Bible teaches. When someone points this out, rather than consider what is being said, you completly dismiss their response and pile on more cut and paste. This gets tiresome after a while. No one is going to check out the endless supply of links you provide designed to educate us on where we are wrong. Hard to believe but most of us are well beyond the level of popular writers posting on the internet.

No one (other than those who already agree with you) is fooled by the massive amounts of stuff you put in your responses. You employ the RC Sproul method of winning the arguement, overwhelm your opponent with excessive verbage and attempt to win by default. Well that only works a few times and now some are looking past the fluff and manufactured righteous indignation and you don't like it. Well time to grow up Icon, this is a Baptist discussion board, not a Presbyterian wading pool.

Calvinism thinks that it has it totally correct. No one has it totally correct. Personally I tend more in the direction of Calvinism but browsing the Calvinist onclave called the putitan board I see a lot of personal arrogance while discussing of all things the DoG. What irony! I also see where theological arguements are settled by the WCF or some creed/confession, not the Bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thomas 15,

Good post with much to discuss. I will start a new thread in general discussions about it.

 

[Herald]

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 know I am ignorant about a great many things. The word is often used a pejorative, although it simply means, "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular."

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.

I agree with much of what you said here. Each Baptist church is able to choose for themselves. Not just a creed, but if any belief is flawed it could inject error into the church. You wrote this about the Apostles creed:

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.

First, there is a universal church consisting of all true believers. It transcends denominations. This phrase condemns the Roman Catholic Church which taught "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", outside of the church there is no salvation. Of course the church they were referring to was the Roman Catholic Church. So this phrase does mean something, and something important. "Communion of the saints" confesses the great truth of 1 Corinthians 1:2:

[2]*To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
(1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV)

So, the Apostles creed is scriptural, even though it is not scripture.

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.

This is a subjective statement. How many people on the Lord's Day tune out the sermon? How many would rather be playing golf? How many think the hymns are mindless chants? The only person you can speak about in this regard is yourself.

FWIW, the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith are not recited in our worship service. We read scripture, pray, sing hymns, and preach the Word.

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.

It seems that your church did not perform its due diligence before changing its doctrinal statement.

Also, your point about the pastor's sermons is well taken. However, he insists that all have a Bible each sermon and follow him.

We should all be like the Bereans.

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.

I addressed the word "ignorant" earlier. Perhaps I could have used a more polite word such as "misinformed."

 

[saturneptune]

Herald,
So, you define the universal church, and I can see its purpose in eternity. Would you please tell me one thing the universal church has done on this earth to carry out the work of the Lord?

As far as "the communion of saints," that is not a belief, that is a fact. Any Christian wants to fellowship with other Christians, and this is one of the means that God speaks to Christians, through other Christians, sometimes collectively.

Just a question, have you ever been a Presbyterian? I was one for 25 years, and a conservative one at that. My Dad and Granddad were deacons and elders. Have you ever had a Presbytery tell you who you can call as pastor, what you can do with your building, and many other day to day functions a NT Baptist church conducts? Also, do you consider a Presbyterian church to be a New Testement church?

 

[saturneptune]

Icon,

When your many cut and paste responses are boiled down to their essence, I find that your actual baseline is a reformed theology that gets it's authority from writings other than the Holy writ. Notice that i didn't say you don't quote scripture, you do. But those scriptures do not always really back up the point that you are trying to make. Then other times there are other Scriptures that conflict with what you think the Bible teaches. When someone points this out, rather than consider what is being said, you completly dismiss their response and pile on more cut and paste. This gets tiresome after a while. No one is going to check out the endless supply of links you provide designed to educate us on where we are wrong. Hard to believe but most of us are well beyond the level of popular writers posting on the internet.

No one (other than those who already agree with you) is fooled by the massive amounts of stuff you put in your responses. You employ the RC Sproul method of winning the arguement, overwhelm your opponent with excessive verbage and attempt to win by default. Well that only works a few times and now some are looking past the fluff and manufactured righteous indignation and you don't like it. Well time to grow up Icon, this is a Baptist discussion board, not a Presbyterian wading pool.

Calvinism thinks that it has it totally correct. No one has it totally correct. Personally I tend more in the direction of Calvinism but browsing the Calvinist onclave called the putitan board I see a lot of personal arrogance while discussing of all things the DoG. What irony! I also see where theological arguements are settled by the WCF or some creed/confession, not the Bible.

Boy, do you have this guy nailed, and in a calm manner. This guy brings out everything negative in me, even with the Holy Spirit. I have not seen anything like it since joining seven years ago.

 

[saturneptune]

Thomas 15,

Good post with much to discuss. I will start a new thread in general discussions about it.

I can hardly wait.

 

[Herald]

Herald,
So, you define the universal church, and I can see its purpose in eternity. Would you please tell me one thing the universal church has done on this earth to carry out the work of the Lord?

Keeping saints from error is a great work of the Lord.

As far as "the communion of saints," that is not a belief, that is a fact. Any Christian wants to fellowship with other Christians, and this is one of the means that God speaks to Christians, through other Christians, sometimes collectively.

It is both. I believe in the communion of the saints. That is confessing a belief. Since that belief is true it is also a fact.

In the Apostles creed "communion of the saints" is not talking about fellowship the way you are. Fellowship (koinonia) has a far deeper, intimate meaning.

[1:1]*That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—[2]*the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—[3]*that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [4]*And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

(1 John 1:1-4 ESV)

The fellowship John is writing about is nothing less than having an intimate relationship with he Father, through the Son. This is the communion of the saints the Apostles Creed is confessing. Instead of the Roman Catholic dictum, "Outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation", we confess, "Outside of Jesus Christ there is no salvation."

Just a question, have you ever been a Presbyterian? I was one for 25 years, and a conservative one at that. My Dad and Granddad were deacons and elders. Have you ever had a Presbytery tell you who you can call as pastor, what you can do with your building, and many other day to day functions a NT Baptist church conducts? Also, do you consider a Presbyterian church to be a New Testement church?

I think I know what is motivating all your push back on creeds and confessions. You are having a hard time forgetting your Presbyterian roots. While I was never a Presbyterian, my ancestry (on my father's side) goes all the way back to John Knox. So, while I am not a Presbyterian, I am not exactly ignorant of Presbyterian beliefs and practice.

We owe quite a bit to Presbyterianism. Men like Samuel Rutherford, John Knox, and Matthew Henry wrestled with the scripture to preserve and disseminate its truths. They opposed the error of the papacy, just as our Baptist forefathers did. I disagree with Presbyterian sacramentology and ecclesiology. There is a reason I am a Baptist. As to whether Presbyterian churches are New Testament churches, my answer is "yes." I believe their ecclesiology is in error, but they possess all the functions of a Christian church. Most Presbyterians would say the same about us.

 

[Herald]

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?

I am not sure what you are asking here. By conditions do you mean presuppositions?

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

We are required to study scripture (2 Timothy 2:15). Secondary sources can aide our understanding. Unless, of course, you believe that you do not need such help because you are perfect in your understanding.

 

[saturneptune]

Herald,
The issue of the universal church and local church is another thread. That is my fault. On the definition of a NT church, I suppose it depends on how you see it. Does a church that sprinkles infants qualify? Does a church that has a hierarchy like the RCC that controls the local church qualify? Do not we believe that a mark of a Baptist church is that the local church administers the ordinances. (not sacraments)

One of the basic differences is the RCC looks at the church as a visible, universal church. Protestants look at it as an invisible, universal church. Baptists look at it as a local, visible church. They really have nothing in common. I will say this. If there was no Baptist church to worship at, I would go to a conservative Presbyterian.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

You and others are hung up on Calvin.We are not discussing him.

Where is the line between heresy and difference of opinion. I am not hung up on Calvinism, but many are--you more than me. Check the number of posts that I have made, and the number of posts you have you made. Proportionately very few of mine have been on Calvinism. Proportionately, the greater percentage of yours has been on Calvinism. So tell me, who is hung up on Calvinism?
I have a difference of opinion with you.
You probably think that I believe in heresy.
What is the truth? You tell me where you draw the line.

Calvinism is the overall teaching. You have stated your view,We do not agree on much.If someone is not teaching what is known as calvinism they have a defective gospel.

Now what you just said is heresy.
Calvinism is a system of theology. It is not the gospel. The gospel I preach has nothing to do with Calvinism, and neither is it defective. What you said is very insulting. To equate Calvinism to the gospel is heretical. Calvinism is "another gospel" for it is a system of theology put forth by a man, not the Scriptures. In conclusion, for 1500 years people never had Calvinism, and could not be saved--a logical conclusion from your post.

Thankfully God is sovereign and will save All that The Father gives to the Son, despite weak teaching that abounds.

Calvinists like to quote partial Scriptures, bits and pieces, like you just did. Quote the whole thing:

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
--Lot's of room for free will in there, but you won't see that because your eyes have been shut by a 16th century theologian who plagiarized a fourth century heretic.

The other errors discussed lead to heresy that the Op was getting at. You have still avoided the links as I knew you would. If you want to offer things from your man dave hunt, start a new thread and have at it.

We can start another thread. Be my guest. I just referred to the title of this thread. You can answer to it.

Ps.... I would go to many a biblical Presbyterian church who hold to scripture, than many false and compromising baptist churches who turn from the historic faith. Some who compromise truth to say they get along with tares do no favor to the Cause of God and truth.

Then you have no reason to remain a Baptist do you?
You know as well as I do that you don't have to go to a liberal Baptist church just as you wouldn't have to go to a liberal Presbyterian church. Thus your point is moot; just another red herring. But if your saying you would rather go to a conservative Presbyterian church rather than a conservative Baptist church then why are you still a Baptist? Go ahead. Join the Paedobaptists! It is just another heresy to add to the list. Or in your mind is it just a difference of opinion. You can answer to that. That is what the OP is all about. IMO, it is heresy. The mode of baptism is important.

I am a baptist however,who holds the biblical teaching that is described as Calvinism. the Ot saints were ...calvinists...before calvin was born.That is what you do not grasp .

Again, because you take your Calvinism too far I would label that more than just difference of opinion but heresy. It goes beyond TULIP, beyond what Calvinism taught. There is no Calvinism in the OT. You have pushed it too far. You have put Calvin's Institutes in front of your eyes and cannot see anything else.

 

[Herald]

On the definition of a NT church, I suppose it depends on how you see it. Does a church that sprinkles infants qualify? Does a church that has a hierarchy like the RCC that controls the local church qualify? Do not we believe that a mark of a Baptist church is that the local church administers the ordinances. (not sacraments)

Do not get hung up on the word "sacrament." A sacrament is simply a sign or symbol of a divine reality. The reason Baptists use the word "ordinance" is to separate ourselves from the Roman Catholic Church and it's use of the word.

Every church has some error, just as every Christian has some error. We do not have perfect knowledge. When we get to glory we are going to find out just how wrong we were in many areas. At its core those Presbyterians churches that preach the Gospel are true churches.

One of the basic differences is the RCC looks at the church as a visible, universal church. Protestants look at it as an invisible, universal church. Baptists look at it as a local, visible church. They really have nothing in common. I will say this. If there was no Baptist church to worship at, I would go to a conservative Presbyterian.

I think the 1689 LBC does a good job of explaining the invisible church:

1689 LBC 26.1, The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

 

[Herald]

Calvinism is a system of theology. It is not the gospel.

Well, not according to good ole' C.H.S.:

"The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

 

[DHK]

Well, not according to good ole' C.H.S.:

"The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

First notice Spurgeon's exact words:
"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism."

There is a difference between a conviction and opinion. The above was simply an opinion expressed by him. You will find the exact opposite opinion in some of his other writings. Spurgeon was a man; not God. His writings, as any other's are fallible.

It is not Spurgeon I am concerned with. My authority is the Word of God. What is yours?

 

[Herald]

First notice Spurgeon's exact words:
"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism."

There is a difference between a conviction and opinion. The above was simply an opinion expressed by him. You will find the exact opposite opinion in some of his other writings. Spurgeon was a man; not God. His writings, as any other's are fallible.

It is not Spurgeon I am concerned with. My authority is the Word of God. What is yours?

I was just being cheeky. I do not like "gotcha" moments. I just could not resist having a bit of fun.

 

[Herald]

DHK,

But in all seriousness, I think Spurgeon believed (and I agree), that a gospel that focuses on God's sovereignty in salvation is the Gospel. I think that is why the debate on this topic results in such passionate response from participants on both sides. Said another way, if the purity of the Gospel was not so important, we would not be discussing it ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

 

[DHK]

I think the 1689 LBC does a good job of explaining the invisible church:

1689 LBC 26.1, The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Your weakness of looking at creeds and confessions hinders your ability in debate.
Look at the facts of Scripture instead of man-made definitions instead.
First, the Greek word that is translated "church" is ekklesia.
The word ekklesia has only one meaning: "assembly" or "congregation."
Second, it is impossible to have an unassembled assembly or a universal assembly. The two terms juxtaposed together are a contradiction. In fact they make a fairly good oxymoron don't they? Like "pretty bad," "open secret," "larger half," "clearly confused," universal church, unassembled assembly, invisible church, etc. All of the above are oxymorons. But the last three don't make sense for they contradict each other.

An assembly assembles and is therefore always a local church.
Paul went on three different missionary journeys and established about 100 local churches but there is no such thing as a universal church in the Bible.
Every epistle that Paul ever wrote was written either to a local church or to a pastor of a local church.
There are seven literal local churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation, chapters two and three. Jesus addresses the pastors of each one.
Jesus addresses certain institutions that are ordained institutions of God in the Bible: 1. the family; 2. Government; 3. the local church.

There is no purpose of a universal church. It has no officers: pastor, deacons, etc.
No meeting place, no building, no gatherings, no reason for existence.
It is entirely esoteric, metaphysical, existential, in its make-up.
It is a concept not found in the Bible.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

But in all seriousness, I think Spurgeon believed (and I agree), that a gospel that focuses on God's sovereignty in salvation is the Gospel. I think that is why the debate on this topic results in such passionate response from participants on both sides. Said another way, if the purity of the Gospel was not so important, we would not be discussing it ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.

In all seriousness Calvinism has nothing to do with the gospel.
I am not a Calvinist, and have quite a good grasp of the gospel, thank you very much. To say otherwise is quite insulting.
To even imply that one has to have even the slightest knowledge of Calvinism in order to be saved is nonsense, if not heresy. It leads to a gospel of works, not a gospel of grace. We are saved by grace through faith; not by Calvinism.

 

[Jerome]

Founders 'Ministries' head Tom Ascol in the Florida state paper:

Ascol cited a statement by British Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Calvinism is the Gospel.” While Spurgeon’s other preaching made clear he did not equate the five points of Calvinism with the Gospel itself, Ascol said, “And though I would have never said it that way either, [in the past] I would have been content to just throw it in the face of people who didn’t agree with Calvinism and let them grapple with it. But now I want to be more gracious about that.” Ascol credited spiritual growth—“God exposing pride in me”—and friendships with “good, godly men” for his change in attitude.