Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

[Jerome]

If only more Calvinists would follow Spurgeon's advice and stick to "the Gospel, and nothing else".

He expanded on this "and nothing else" idea later in his ministry:

"It is one thing to believe in the Doctrines of Grace, but quite another thing to accept all the encrustations which have formed upon those doctrines and also a very different matter to agree with the spirit which is apparent in some who profess to propagate the pure Truth of God."

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

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.

I said Calvin.....the man Calvin.....not calvinism.

Now what you just said is heresy.
Calvinism is a system of theology. It is not the gospel.

The good news is about God's covenant salvation made known to the Church. calvinism is the accurate teaching of that salvation....that is good news to me my friend!
salvation is written about in all 66 books...not just the 4 spiritual laws tract, or the romans road.

The gospel I preach has nothing to do with Calvinism, and neither is it defective.

If it has nothing to do with God's covenant love and mercy that is calvinisms root teaching,it is greatly defective. Thankfully God is sovereign and can use many means to have his word save sinners.

What you said is very insulting

.

To believe what millions have believed and do believe is not heresy.as you and your friend Dave Hunt say...that is insulting...but I do not get hung up on weak arguments from silence.

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.

This tells me you do not understand it correctly.it is the teaching of scripture ...all 66 books.

In conclusion, for 1500 years people never had Calvinism, and could not be saved-

-

God always has saved His elect.....hope you do not mind me using the word ...elect....:wavey: The people God saved knew then and know now that he is in control of all.He is Lord of all

a logical conclusion from your post.

That is an illogical conclusion from your lack of understanding of the teaching.....I say lack of understanding because you offer caricatures and not the actual teaching.

Calvinists like to quote partial Scriptures, bits and pieces, like you just did

.

this is another falsehood....


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.


yes go down to verse 44also while you were at it, or all the way to 65 calvinism everywhere/

--Lot's of room for free will in there

,

As you look at the passage you see irrresistable grace...not the false philosophical idea of free will....which denies the fall.

but you won't see that because your

I know what the teaching is.

eyes have been shut by a 16th century theologian who plagiarized a fourth century heretic.

your opinion

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

start one DHK...whatever topic you want...i will participate,,,bring out your best verses ,study helps, sermons...i will not hide like an ostritch....if you have truth that i do not have ...offer it.:thumbs:

Then you have no reason to remain a Baptist do you?

I go to a baptist church because I am a baptist.

Again, because you take your Calvinism too far I would label that more than just difference of opinion but heresy

.

You say what you want but you have not shown or offered anything! I showed you twice now that your false idea of the carnal christian hersey is unbiblical and a denial of the biblical teaching of sanctification but you do not want to look???? or did you listen to the sermons and read the link,and cannot answer???/its ok dhk i understand:wavey:

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.

that is where we differ and speak of two different things...I see the teaching called ....calvinism...from Gen 1:1 to rev 22.....

 

[DHK]

I said Calvin.....the man Calvin.....not calvinism.

And so?
Calvin--Calvinism;
Augustine--Augustianism. No difference.

The good news is about God's covenant salvation made known to the Church. calvinism is the accurate teaching of that salvation....that is good news to me my friend!

If this is your idea about salvation and telling the plan of salvation or evangelizing others, I would never be able to work with you. My purpose is to tell the unsaved about the Christ that can save; but you want to tell them about a "covenant salvation"!! Christ did not teach that; neither did Paul.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

It does not say:
For whosoever shall enter into a covenant shall be saved.

If this is the "Calvinistic gospel" it is not true. It won't save. It doesn't have the good news of salvation.

salvation is written about in all 66 books...not just the 4 spiritual laws tract, or the romans road.

Yes, I can use all 66 books as well. Whatever gave you the idea I was confined to a tract? Don't post in arrogance and ignorance. Oh? Did someone else already say that?

If it has nothing to do with God's covenant love and mercy that is calvinisms root teaching,it is greatly defective. Thankfully God is sovereign and can use many means to have his word save sinners.

The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant. One does not have to be a covenant theologian or be in that camp in order to be saved. That is absurd. If that is your root teaching then it is a false teaching. The root teaching of the gospel is that he died for sinners like me, took the penalty of my sin upon himself, and because he was fully man and fully God at the same time was able to satisfy fully the demands of God. Conquering sin, hell, and death he rose again after being buried for three days and three nights, he now sits on the right hand of the God the Father. All who come to him as a sinner. believing in that propitiatory sacrifice, calling upon His name as Savior, shall be saved and granted eternal life and forgiveness of sin.
That is the gospel. It has nothing to do with Calvinism; nothing whatsoever.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

To believe what millions have believed and do believe is not heresy.as you and your friend Dave Hunt say...that is insulting...but I do not get hung up on weak arguments from silence.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
And he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world.
--Those are not Hunt's words, but the inspired words of God.
Christ died for all, that all would be saved. All have a free will, that is the ability to make the choice to be saved or not. Otherwise God would be lying wouldn't he? He gives man the choice to believe or not to believe.

This tells me you do not understand it correctly.it is the teaching of scripture ...all 66 books.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Calvin arrived on the scene more than 1500 years after that was written.

God always has saved His elect.....hope you do not mind me using the word ...elect... The people God saved knew then and know now that he is in control of all.He is Lord of all

Yep, something Calvin could never do! :smilewinkgrin:

That is an illogical conclusion from your lack of understanding of the teaching.....I say lack of understanding because you offer caricatures and not the actual teaching.

I understand and teach the Bible, not Augustinianism.

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.

yes go down to verse 44also while you were at it, or all the way to 65 calvinism everywhere

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
--Nope I don't see it there either.
Jesus clearly declares his omniscience. That has nothing to do with Calvinism. Every Christian believes in these basic attributes of God: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. What? You think you have a claim on the attributes of God??
Then verse 65 follows up starting with therefore. Jesus would know who would come to him and who would not. As a man he limited his omniscience. As a man he depended upon his Father who he willingly submitted himself. Funny, how you guys ignore context.

As you look at the passage you see irrresistable grace...not the false philosophical idea of free will....which denies the fall.

The concept of irresistable grace ignores the totality of the entire teaching of Scriptures. You have nothing to boast of.

I go to a baptist church because I am a baptist.

Then post like one. :smilewinkgrin:

You say what you want but you have not shown or offered anything! I showed you twice now that your false idea of the carnal christian hersey is unbiblical

You haven't even come close. Look back at the posts. You didn't prove a thing. Denial is not proof.

and a denial of the biblical teaching of sanctification but you do not want to look???? or did you listen to the sermons and read the link,and cannot answer???/its ok dhk i understand

You have to account to three doctrines and you haven't done that.
1. You have denied the doctrine of sanctification, for denying "the carnal Christian" leaves no room for spiritual growth or sanctification.
2. You have denied 1Cor.3:1-3 which clearly states there are carnal Christians. You need to account for that, especially verse three.
3. You cannot prove Lordship salvation from the Scriptures. There is a difference between salvation and discipleship. You cannot draw the distinction.

that is where we differ and speak of two different things...I see the teaching called ....calvinism...from Gen 1:1 to rev 22.....

Not even Calvin believes that.:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK....this last post is truly astounding....It deserves the new thread that you requested.

 

[thomas15]

I can hardly wait.

Well the wait is over and we are rewarded with........(drum roll).......you guessed it......more cut n' paste!!!! (cymbal crash)!

yea!

 

[Herald]

Your weakness of looking at creeds and confessions hinders your ability in debate.

Let us look at your comment for a moment. Would you consider it a hindrance in ability to debate to:

Study the original languages in which the Bible was written?
Be well read?
Attend college or seminary?
Be mentored by mature men of God?
Be open to instruction?
Be willing to check your exegesis and conclusions against other men to make sure you are not standing all alone in your interpretation?

You draw a conclusion about me that is purely subjective. I suppose you assume that just because I subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace that I am attached at the hip to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Forget that I said on this board that the I studied the confession exhaustively and was in no rush to attach my name to it. Forget that I said on this board (many, many times) that I consider the Word of God to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice; the only arbiter in said matters. Forget these things because you obviously have, and to restate them again will obviously fall on deaf ears.

Look at the facts of Scripture instead of man-made definitions instead.

Oh, you mean man-made definitions like the "Trinity"? I suppose you do not believe in that because the word is not in the Bible.

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 local 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.

According to you and your ecclesiology. There are many people on this board, including those who disagree with my soteriology, who disagree with you. You sound more like a member of the Plymouth Brethren than a Baptist.

 

[thomas15]

According to you and your ecclesiology. There are many people on this board, including those who disagree with my soteriology, who disagree with you. You sound more like a member of the Plymouth Brethren than a Baptist.

What is clear as day to anyone with even a smiggen of objectivity is that many of the reformed here on this board consider themselves to be the true elite thinkers and that others (like myself) who are not reformed are simply unread and ignorant. In my opinion the reformed among us tend to exhibit the attitude that the only reason anyone would not be reformed is a lack of serious study into the matter. This is the only logical reason why (the reformed) repeat the same thing over and over again. I can almost hear them cry "they (the non-reformed) didn't hear us the first 1000 times but maybe 1001th time will be the charm".

You mention the Plymouth Brethern as if it were a 4 letter word. I don't see where you or anyone else have been breaking out the tar and feathers when the reformed parrot the Presbyterian line on this Baptist discussion board. Perhaps I'm wrong, if so accept my appology ahead of time.

 

[Herald]

What is clear as day to anyone with even a smiggen of objectivity is that many of the reformed here on this board consider themselves to be the true elite thinkers and that others (like myself) who are not reformed are simply unread and ignorant. In my opinion the reformed among us tend to exhibit the attitude that the only reason anyone would not be reformed is a lack of serious study into the matter. This is the only logical reason why (the reformed) repeat the same thing over and over again. I can almost hear them cry "they (the non-reformed) didn't hear us the first 1000 times but maybe 1001th time will be the charm".

You mention the Plymouth Brethern as if it were a 4 letter word. I don't see where you or anyone else have been breaking out the tar and feathers when the reformed parrot the Presbyterian line on this Baptist discussion board. Perhaps I'm wrong, if so accept my appology ahead of time.

Your apology is accepted.

 

[DHK]

Let us look at your comment for a moment. Would you consider it a hindrance in ability to debate to:

Study the original languages in which the Bible was written?
Be well read?
Attend college or seminary?
Be mentored by mature men of God?
Be open to instruction?
Be willing to check your exegesis and conclusions against other men to make sure you are not standing all alone in your interpretation?

I agree with all of the above. That is why I am willing to put forth my convictions, in my own words, supported by Scripture, and backed up with reference material only when necessary. I don't see any need to resort to the creeds and catechisms of others.

You draw a conclusion about me that is purely subjective. I suppose you assume that just because I subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace that I am attached at the hip to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

This is a debate forum. Where you stand is actually irrelevant. Why do you stand where you stand is important. Back it up with Scripture, not with a confession.

Forget that I said on this board that the I studied the confession exhaustively and was in no rush to attach my name to it. Forget that I said on this board (many, many times) that I consider the Word of God to be the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice; the only arbiter in said matters.

This is both a Baptist forum and a debate forum. Being a Baptist forum, the first of all Baptist distinctives is that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. We all should be in agreement on that one point. Being a debate forum you should be able to take that Bible and support your beliefs from it.

Forget these things because you obviously have, and to restate them again will obviously fall on deaf ears.

If you truly believe that you shouldn't be here. Debate is not for you.

According to you and your ecclesiology. There are many people on this board, including those who disagree with my soteriology, who disagree with you. You sound more like a member of the Plymouth Brethren than a Baptist.

Certainly others disagree with me. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with what the Bible says. Your calling me names doesn't help any. What saith the Scriptures? If you are unable to refute my position with the Word of God, then be silent concerning it and just don't comment. Or at least politely disagree, and end it at there. But may I remind you again, it is a debate forum. If you are not willing to debate various topics why are you here?

 

[thomas15]

Your apology is accepted.

eh Herald, you forgot to turn on the "End of Joke" sign!
Do try to be more careful in the future!

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Difference of opinion would be like I hold to cal, I hold to Arm or other

Heresy is stating that unless you hold to my view, NONE can get saved by God!

Heresy is basically either saying JUST my views are the right one, or esle distort/twist doctrines of the Bible essential to Christianity, such as denying jesus Deity, atoning death, resurrection etc!

 

[Herald]

I agree with all of the above. That is why I am willing to put forth my convictions, in my own words, supported by Scripture, and backed up with reference material only when necessary. I don't see any need to resort to the creeds and catechisms of others.

So, you exclude creeds and catechisms as reliable reference material. To you, what makes up acceptable reference material?

This is a debate forum. Where you stand is actually irrelevant.
Why do you stand where you stand is important. Back it up with Scripture, not with a confession.

I have been doing that throughout my tenure on this board.

This is both a Baptist forum and a debate forum. Being a Baptist forum, the first of all Baptist distinctives is that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. We all should be in agreement on that one point. Being a debate forum you should be able to take that Bible and support your beliefs from it.

Gratias tibi ago, magister.

If you truly believe that you shouldn't be here. Debate is not for you.

It was a criticism of YOU. Not the board.

Certainly others disagree with me. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with what the Bible says. Your calling me names doesn't help any.

What name? I said you sound like a Plymouth Brethren in your ecclesiology. If you think that is calling you a name then your skin is thin indeed.

What saith the Scriptures? If you are unable to refute my position with the Word of God, then be silent concerning it and just don't comment. Or at least politely disagree, and end it at there. But may I remind you again, it is a debate forum. If you are not willing to debate various topics why are you here?

Are you for real, or do you just enjoy pontificating? Go back through a month's worth of my posts and look at how I argue from scripture. With all due respect, I do not have to answer to you.

 

[Herald]

eh Herald, you forgot to turn on the "End of Joke" sign!
Do try to be more careful in the future!

Oh, I am sorry. I thought my reply was a natural response to the comic routine you started in your previous post.

 

[saturneptune]

Herald,
For what it is worth, I see a distinct difference in your tone and the one poster I consider the main culprit of the problems in this and other threads. I really did not like the word ignorant, but you do not persist in a degrading and demeaning tone every time you write something.

I thought about what you said about the Presbyterian church. Although I am a Baptist due to baptism, local church autonomy, etc, the Presbyterian church does have a lot of solid doctrine. I think my memory of the First Presbyterian Church could have influenced my attitude towards creeds and confessions. I can remember looking around the congregation and seeing many just standing there saying nothing, or some that were saying it, they looked like robots. It also had a definite effect on my opinion of elder rule. I recall elders being elected on the basis of social status in the community, not spiritual maturity. Most of those elected had no business leading others spiritually. In reality, in past decades, there has been the same problem in Baptist churches with some boards of deacons who thought they "ran the church." That is only because the congregation allowed it. Today, for the most part, deacons have returned to their intended roll, a servent.

 

[Herald]

Herald,
For what it is worth, I see a distinct difference in your tone and the one poster I consider the main culprit of the problems in this and other threads. I really did not like the word ignorant, but you do not persist in a degrading and demeaning tone every time you write something.

I thought about what you said about the Presbyterian church. Although I am a Baptist due to baptism, local church autonomy, etc, the Presbyterian church does have a lot of solid doctrine. I think my memory of the First Presbyterian Church could have influenced my attitude towards creeds and confessions. I can remember looking around the congregation and seeing many just standing there saying nothing, or some that were saying it, they looked like robots. It also had a definite effect on my opinion of elder rule. I recall elders being elected on the basis of social status in the community, not spiritual maturity. Most of those elected had no business leading others spiritually. In reality, in past decades, there has been the same problem in Baptist churches with some boards of deacons who thought they "ran the church." That is only because the congregation allowed it. Today, for the most part, deacons have returned to their intended roll, a servent.

Friend, I know I can come on a bit too strong. I try to temper that, but at times I fail. Contrary to what a certain moderator believes, I do not call people names; although suggesting you may be ignorant was a step over the line. I apologize for that.

Our church has elder rule. Congregational votes are needed on certain things, but the spiritual duties of the church are vested in the elders. Elders are appointed on the basis of fulfilling the scriptural requirements of an elder. Elders are not appointed based on social standing. We also have deacons. The deacons are responsible for the physical aspects of member care.

 

[DHK]

So, you exclude creeds and catechisms as reliable reference material. To you, what makes up acceptable reference material?

I was raised a Catholic; memorized catechetical material by rote, and found it did little good. It doesn't teach one to think.
As far as the various Creeds and Catechisms are concerned of what value are they? Perhaps they have some. I would rather go to a trustworthy commentary, encyclopedia, concordance, etc., and look up the definition from a trusted source where I know the author has taken the word from the original languages. A definition from a Creed or Catechism, no matter how respectable it may be, I have no idea how trustworthy it may be. I would rather use the Scriptures or those people that use Scriptural definitions.

I have been doing that throughout my tenure on this board.

Then my position, whatever it is, should not offend you. Simply refute it.

What name? I said you sound like a Plymouth Brethren in your ecclesiology. If you think that is calling you a name then your skin is thin indeed.

Instead of equating me to other denominations refute what I said.
Would you like me to keep comparing you to a Creedal Presbyterian?
Is it not better that I show you the inconsistencies of your theology instead of just giving you a denominational title to compare yourself to?

Are you for real, or do you just enjoy pontificating? Go back through a month's worth of my posts and look at how I argue from scripture. With all due respect, I do not have to answer to you.

No you don't. You don't have to debate at all for that matter.

 

[Herald]

I was raised a Catholic; memorized catechetical material by rote, and found it did little good. It doesn't teach one to think.
As far as the various Creeds and Catechisms are concerned of what value are they? Perhaps they have some. I would rather go to a trustworthy commentary, encyclopedia, concordance, etc., and look up the definition from a trusted source where I know the author has taken the word from the original languages. A definition from a Creed or Catechism, no matter how respectable it may be, I have no idea how trustworthy it may be. I would rather use the Scriptures or those people that use Scriptural definitions.

So, your's is a matter of preference. I can respect your choice. You may have no idea how "respectable" a creed or catechism may be, but somebody else may. I do not have a copy of the 1689 LBC under my pillow at night, but when I do refer to it, I do so because I have tested it and consider it to be "respectable."

Then my position, whatever it is, should not offend you. Simply refute it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Instead of equating me to other denominations refute what I said.
Would you like me to keep comparing you to a Creedal Presbyterian?
Is it not better that I show you the inconsistencies of your theology instead of just giving you a denominational title to compare yourself to?

How about an admission that I was not calling you names?

If you want to compare me to a creedal Presbyterian, that is fine with me. But I think you really mean confessional Presbyterian. Most Reformed Presbyterians would say that they subscribe the Westminster Confession of Faith, not the Westminster Creed of Faith. Plus, creeds and confessions are two separate things.

You may try to show me the inconsistencies of my theology, but so far you have done an abysmal job.

No you don't. You don't have to debate at all for that matter.

Neither do you.

 

[righteousdude2]

Let Me Make Myself Perfectly Clear...

......as I said before, the line in the sand between "Heresy and Difference of Opinions" rests 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.

Look at all the cyber space chewed up over this issue and no one who has contributed to this has made one single dent in the "armor" of the others who differ with them.

I do not hold to any particular teaching. Be it Billy Graham; Schweitzer; Luther; Calvin; the Pope; Benny Hinn; Jack Hayford, Joel Osteen; Pat Robertson; Kenneth Hagan; Spurgeon; Francis Schaeffer; Dietrich Bonhoeffer; John Wesley; Karl Barth; Roger Williams; Richard Hooker; or any of the others listed on this site: http://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-famous-theologians/reference?page=1

When it comes to theology, understanding the Scripture, and interpreting the Word of God I relay solely upon the Holy Ghost, Jesus told me [and you] in the following texts:

John 15:26 (NKJV) - “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. and John 16:13 - "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."

Jesus even told us that it is the Holy Ghost who will change us from the inside out! SEE: Matthew 3:11-12 - “I’m baptizing you here in the river, turning your old life in for a kingdom life. The real action comes next: The main character in this drama—compared to him I’m a mere stagehand—will ignite the kingdom life within you, a fire within you, the Holy Spirit within you, changing you from the inside out. He’s going to clean house—make a clean sweep of your lives. He’ll place everything true in its proper place before God; everything false he’ll put out with the trash to be burned.” and in Mark 1:7-8 - "As he preached he said, “The real action comes next: The star in this drama, to whom I’m a mere stagehand, will change your life. I’m baptizing you here in the river, turning your old life in for a kingdom life. His baptism—a holy baptism by the Holy Spirit—will change you from the inside out.”

It is quite apparent, at least to me, that my real understanding of the Word of God is going to come at the whisperings of the Holy Ghost within my mind and heart.

I am not opposed to anyone going to cemetery, ah, I mean seminary, for an advanced, enhanced learning experience. However, I have talked with seminary grads who told me that they never once picked up a Bible, nor had a need to read from the Bible, while in seminary. I don't know if this is true, but I have to believe those who told me this, because I can't see why they'd prefabricated this.

For me, and for me alone. I solely trust the in filling power and presence of the Holy Ghost to enlighten me when it comes to the Scriptures that He [the Holy Ghost] gave to man to write down in the first place. Plus, we were told that the Holy Ghose wouldn't be speaking on HIs own authority or of His doings, but rather on behalf of Jesus Himself!

In closing, I know there will be those who disagree with me on the above, 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.

raying: Jesus is my number-one teacher, and the Holy Ghost is the impetus of my faith and understanding of ALL things spiritual! :applause:

It should be noted that in Jesus limited time on earth, he was declared a "Heretic" by the Pharisees; Sadducees; Essenes; Herodians; Zealots; High Priest, Chief Priests, Priests, and Levites and Scribes. This was a considerable number of highfalutin folks with years of theological knowledge under their robe belts. However, Jesus proved them all wrong, and He didn't have been semenary, doctrines, or even a Bible to pull and out show them their errors in interpretation.

He was, is, and always will be God. The author of Scriptures then and what would soon become the Old and New Testaments, thus I'd have to say that I'd trust Him before I'd begin to trust the leanings and teaching of any learned man on earth. SELAH!

 

[Herald]

When it comes to theology, understanding the Scripture, and interpreting the Word of God I relay solely upon the Holy Ghost, Jesus told me [and you] in the following texts...It is quite apparent, at least to me, that my real understanding of the Word of God is going to come at the whisperings of the Holy Ghost within my mind and heart.

Sir, I am not trying to change your mind. I am simply using your comments to prove a point.

If Joe says that he is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, and Bob says that he is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, and Sally says she is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture (I can go on by adding fifty more names); what does it say about correctly understanding scripture if everyone comes up with a different interpretation? You cannot have a hundred different interpretations and all hundred be right. Who is going to be the first one to admit that they may be wrong? Is anybody going to volunteer to be the first one raising their hand? Not likely.

 

[righteousdude2]

I Hear Ya...

Sir, I am not trying to change your mind. I am simply using your comments to prove a point.

If Joe says that he is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, and Bob says that he is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture, and Sally says she is relying only on the Holy Spirit to understand scripture (I can go on by adding fifty more names); what does it say about correctly understanding scripture if everyone comes up with a different interpretation? You cannot have a hundred different interpretations and all hundred be right. Who is going to be the first one to admit that they may be wrong? Is anybody going to volunteer to be the first one raising their hand? Not likely.

In the case you present, the correct interpretation will always be MINE! :laugh:

In a true sense, we already have this scenario. We have tons of people on this board who claim through theology, to have the correct interpretation, thus we have some heated discussions all by the name of debates.

I think, and this is my opinion, that in the past, when I've conducted Bible studies, and come across those who read things differently, that sitting down and discussing the differences is the place to start.

Of course, there are going to be variances in opinions of interpretations, but the large gaps between those on this board are an example of too much intellectual or academic crunching! No one will ever know who is right. In fact, I hold to the idea that we'll just have to wait until we get to heaven to settle the many debates and misunderstandings developed on earth.

Until then, most of us agree on the need to be born-again, water baptised, and infilled by the Holy Ghost. So that is a good starting point, in my mind. As for once saved, well that is where Luther and Wesley, and others come in, and theology begins to get ugly.

As for me: I've been saved [once and forever] by His Grace, baptised and filled with the Holy Ghost, and from here; I don't lose too much sleep over the differences between what brother "A" and brother "B" and brother "C" and what the rest of the world hold to, or not hold to. I figure we are all doing our best, and in the eyes of God, that is all we can do.I have my faith, and that is really all that matters to me. The other clutter in my mind and yours and others will all be washed away when we see glory closing in.

I think that if we have a good working knowledge and firm grasp on the gift of salvation, we have all we need to determine the difference between cults, false teaching and the rest of the devils' works to deceive mankind. Most of the kooks in our world start messing with the way to salvation; the trinity and who Jesus is [the son of God], and when they mess up in these precepts, red flags go up, and I walk away.

Trying to talk with hard headed cultists is usually a waste of time [not that I won't try], as they have their minds made up, like we do. This is where we dust off those sandals, and go after those who really need saving.

Thanks for asking my opinion. I hope it makes sense, as it works for me!

BTW - I know I'm wrong, and I'm not too proud to not admit it. I am a work in progress, and He is the potter. I am forever being broken and reshaped, and that is just fine with me, because I know it's His way!