Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

[DHK]

1) I believe in Scripture alone as the basis of doctrine.

3) Total Omniscience is the only view of divine knowledge allowed to be advocated on this forum. This governmental compulsion dictate of doctrine represents the same thinking that gave us the dark ages and the Baptist distinctive which advocates those that govern should not dictate doctrine.

4) Yes, if the cumulative history of the church taught a consistent doctrine, then yes it should not be rejected out of hand.

These two statements contradict each other.
Your statement about "total omniscience" It is the orthodox doctrine taught through the ages even throughout the OT. It is your view that is totally unorthodox and without merit both in the OT, the NT, and in history. Thus you have contradicted yourself.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Psalms 139:1 [SIZE=-1]To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.[/SIZE] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

These two statements contradict each other.
Your statement about "total omniscience" It is the orthodox doctrine taught through the ages even throughout the OT. It is your view that is totally unorthodox and without merit both in the OT, the NT, and in history. Thus you have contradicted yourself.

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Psalms 139:1 [SIZE=-1]To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.[/SIZE] O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2 Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
3 Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
5 Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

If the view was indeed the view held in the past, their would be evidence of it. Instead, we find recent revisions to the statements of faith, revising the statement to agree with total omniscience. However, if you look at the prior statements, they are ambiguous. Therefore you are using faulty logic to claim as doctrine what was in fact never accepted explicitly.

What can be found is God is omniscient, all-knowing, but you will not find statements that God knows the future exhaustively.

Your problem is that you have no explanation as to how, if God's knows the future exhaustively, how any other outcome than the foreknown outcome is possible. Therefore you say folks can freely choose to seek God and trust in Christ, but have no rational explanation in light of total omniscience. Therefore the use of governmental authority to defend your view.

Heresy is a term used by those wielding governing authority to suppress alternate views. And if the views cannot stand up to biblical study, the quicker the sword is unsheathed.

 

[saturneptune]

The issue is the use of the word heresy on this board, and who decides what is heresy to require someone to be banned. That is what is needed, a defined line, not someone's theological opinion.

 

[OldRegular]

1) I believe in Scripture alone as the basis of doctrine.

5) The key is not to make a list of what are mistaken views, but to make a list of what are the views that we believe the bible teaches, such as the Trinity, Jesus is God Almighty, Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died on the cross, and arose on the third day.

You have omitted the Scriptural teaching of the Omniscience of God!

Psalms 147:5. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.

John 16:30. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

 

[OldRegular]

What can be found is God is omniscient, all-knowing, but you will not find statements that God knows the future exhaustively.

It appears you are chasing your tail. If God is omniscient then He is omniscient. And He does know the future! Otherwise He is not God! And there is Scripture to support His knowing the future. Just what do you think prophecy is?

But then there are some who want to make a god in their own image, sort of a demigod!

 

[DHK]

If the view was indeed the view held in the past, their would be evidence of it. Instead, we find recent revisions to the statements of faith, revising the statement to agree with total omniscience.

I am very skeptical of what you just said.
We had a Charismatic on the board who declared that early Christians changed all the statements of faith for 1900 years. They spoke in tongues in the first century and then they started "this biblical practice" again in 1905. The church abandoned it and was in darkness for 1900 years.

Do you believe that?
I don't think you do. But your statement is along the same line of reasoning. Give evidence that the orthodox teaching of the omnipotence of God was somehow changed in history. Who changed it? When? Where? Give the facts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Concur

God's all knowingness (past, present, and future) is one of His basic attributes. How different creeds and confessions deal with His omniscience borders on irrelevancy to a Baptist. This as the primary Baptist distinctive is The Bible is our only rule for faith and order. Creeds and confessions are ,informative at best. They are most certainly not normative or regulatory.

I am very skeptical of what you just said.
We had a Charismatic on the board who declared that early Christians changed all the statements of faith for 1900 years. They spoke in tongues in the first century and then they started "this biblical practice" again in 1905. The church abandoned it and was in darkness for 1900 years.

Do you believe that?
I don't think you do. But your statement is along the same line of reasoning. Give evidence that the orthodox teaching of the omnipotence of God was somehow changed in history. Who changed it? When? Where? Give the facts.

 

[saturneptune]

God's all knowingness (past, present, and future) is one of His basic attributes. How different creeds and confessions deal with His omniscience borders on irrelevancy to a Baptist. This as the primary Baptist distinctive is The Bible is our only rule for faith and order. Creeds and confessions are ,informative at best. They are most certainly not normative or regulatory.

Amen to that. Everyone tries to meld together Baptist with things that do not fit, like creeds and chants. If that is ones idea of worship, then join the Catholic or a mainstream Protestant church.

To me, heresy is a statement that is against the true nature of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Things like opinions about heaven, hell, KJV, Calvinism, Creation, end times, etc is not heresy.

Creeds are filled with error, and even if they were not, saying them Sunday after Sunday produces a congregation of parrots, not a local church worshiping the Lord.

 

[salzer mtn]

In my search of truth of doctrines, whether it be Calvinism or Arminianism i ask this one question, what i believe, does it give God all the glory or does it give man all the glory. Does what i believe share the glory God of with man. If a person will apply this question to his heart it makes it easier to understand truth from a lie.

 

[psalms109:31]

Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory


Thessalonians 2:14
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 5:1
[ To the Elders and the Flock ] To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

We should praise God for what He has given us the ability to do within our free agency.

If God gave me the ability to fly by will, God gets the glory for without Him we could not in the first place. I am sorry for those who try to take the glory for what God has given him the ability to do. Don't let man make you ashamed or guilty for doing what God gave you the ability to do and you can still give Him all glory. Why make the one suffer for those that abuse it.

 

[Iconoclast]

God's all knowingness (past, present, and future) is one of His basic attributes. How different creeds and confessions deal with His omniscience borders on irrelevancy to a Baptist. This as the primary Baptist distinctive is The Bible is our only rule for faith and order. Creeds and confessions are ,informative at best. They are most certainly not normative or regulatory.

Then again;

5. Baptists used catechisms extensively and with much spiritual profit
until the past century. This objection itself demonstrates the sad
departure of some Baptists from their own doctrinal distinctives and
practice, and the ignorance of some modern Baptists concerning their
own history and spiritual heritage. Following are some of the more
well–known catechisms written and used by Baptists:
• Henry Jessey, Particular Baptist, A Catechism for Babes, or Little
Ones, 1652.
• Hercules Collins, Particular Baptist, The Orthodox Catechism
(adapted from the Heidelberg Catechism), 1680.
• Thomas Grantham, General Baptist, St. Paul’s Catechism (based
on the six principles of Hebrews 6), 1687.
• Benjamin Keach and William Collins, The Baptist Catechism,
1693.
• The Philadelphia Baptist Association of Particular Baptists
published a catechism appended to their Philadelphia Confession
of Faith, 1742.
• William Gadsby, Gospel Standard Baptist, published a catechism
entitled The Things Most Surely Believed Among Us, 1809.
• C. H. Spurgeon published A Baptist Catechism (compiled from
the Westminster Shorter Catechism and Keach’s Baptist
Catechism), 1855.
• The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
published two catechisms: the first by J. P. Boyce, A Brief
Catechism of Bible Doctrine (1864) and the second by John A.
Broadus (1892). The latter work was jointly published by both the
Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist
Publication Society.
OBJECTION TWO: Have not catechisms introduced error into the thinking
of many?
ANSWER:
1. This may be true, but the fault lies not in the use of a catechism per se,
but in unscriptural presuppositions and religious traditions which have
been superimposed upon the Word of God.
21
2. A catechism is true and useful only as it accurately communicates the
truth of Scripture.
3. Ideally, evangelizing through catechizing leads to a credible profession
of faith.
4. A catechism should be a preservative of the truth and not an introduction
into error. A given catechism is only as good, true or accurate as the
doctrinal and theological presuppositions of its author. As the very
Word of God itself must be approached with consistent presuppositions,
so must any religious literature, including a catechism.
OBJECTION THREE: There is a great danger in departing from biblical
language both in wording and form.
ANSWER:
1. There is always a danger in departing from Scripture in both doctrine
and practice. This is true in any type of preaching or teaching.
2. The best preventive from such a departure has been the use of concise,
comprehensive statements that accurately and consistently declare the
truth of Scripture—Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms—if they are
doctrinally sound and accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture.
3. There is a need for concise and consistent doctrinal or theological
propositions and summaries. The word “form” in 2 Tim. 1:13 refers to
a distinct outline or summary of Divine truth. A given theological
proposition or statement is necessarily more concise than any given
verse of Scripture because—if true or faithful to and consistent with the
Word of God—it is based upon the analogy of faith [the total, self–
consistent teaching of the Word of God as it bears upon any one given

From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R. Downing

 

[saturneptune]

Heresy is a serious word. Those who use it in relation to Calvinism, free will, Creation, end times, KJVO, Landmarkism, heaven, hell, covenant vs dispy, etc, etc are theological nut cases. Also, slinging around the word heresy on such subjects demeans and degrades the nature and character of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[thomas15]

Then again;
............

From A Baptist Catechism with Commentary...by W.R. Downing

Someone upthread made the point that the creeds and so forth are a guide and are good but scripture is the final authority. It seems as Baptist this is the perferred position. It also seems as if you would not agree because as a general rule you seem to put lot of faith in historical documents.

 

[Iconoclast]

Someone upthread made the point that the creeds and so forth are a guide and are good but scripture is the final authority. It seems as Baptist this is the perferred position. It also seems as if you would not agree because as a general rule you seem to put lot of faith in historical documents.

Thomas,

The wise and Godly men who put together the statements always list scripture as the only rule of faith and practice;

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )

2._____Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomen, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation

All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
( 2 Timothy 3:16)

3._____ The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
( Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2 )

4._____ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
( John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)

._____The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40)
7._____All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )

9._____The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
( 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16)

10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.


( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23)

So...in light of this i find the objection of some baptists and others to be quite foolish and unlearned. I do not think anyone on this board can improve upon what these men say here as it is scripturally clear.

 

[Herald]

It is an arrogant and misinformed person who believes they are the final word on the interpretation of scripture. I am not going to allow my friend, Iconoclast, to be misrepresented. He is does not believe that the writings of men trump scripture. He understands that creeds and confessions are lesser documents. The same goes for commentaries and the notes in study bibles. There is a tendency among some to swing the pendulum so far the other way they that they look down on the labors of godly men from the past. Many of these godly men are dead, but some preach from your pulpits each Lord's Day, or teach in bible colleges and seminaries. They labor hard at rightly understanding the Word of God. To the extent that their words (written or spoken) are true to scripture, they should be heeded. It is foolish for those who are deceived by their own ego to think that they are masters of biblical interpretation.

I consult the writings of learned men often. Why? Because as smart as I may think I am, I am really not. I am a finite person. I sometimes need to read a different opinion on a passage. When I reference the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith I am encouraged that my understanding of scripture is not alone. There are others who have gone before me and done much of the theological heavy lifting. That is the value of creeds, confessions, commentaries, and other thoughtful opinions of men. The alternative is a church full of people with their own private interpretations. That is a recipe for chaos.

 

[Iconoclast]

It is an arrogant and misinformed person who believes they are the final word on the interpretation of scripture. I am not going to allow my friend, Iconoclast, to be misrepresented. He is does not believe that the writings of men trump scripture. He understands that creeds and confessions are lesser documents. The same goes for commentaries and the notes in study bibles. There is a tendency among some to swing the pendulum so far the other way they that they look down on the labors of godly men from the past. Many of these godly men are dead, but some preach from your pulpits each Lord's Day, or teach in bible colleges and seminaries. They labor hard at rightly understanding the Word of God. To the extent that their words (written or spoken) are true to scripture, they should be heeded. It is foolish for those who are deceived by their own ego to think that they are masters of biblical interpretation.

I consult the writings of learned men often. Why? Because as smart as I may think I am, I am really not. I am a finite person. I sometimes need to read a different opinion on a passage. When I reference the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith I am encouraged that my understanding of scripture is not alone. There are others who have gone before me and done much of the theological heavy lifting. That is the value of creeds, confessions, commentaries, and other thoughtful opinions of men. The alternative is a church full of people with their own private interpretations. That is a recipe for chaos.

I cannot even begin to recount the many times trying to struggle and work through many scripture passages, and then open up some puritan or reformer and learn that they were already taught the correct passage of scripture to open up the other section so easily.
To despise these learned men is tragic. I only regret that I cannot squeeze in more reading to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.:wavey: Everyone of them to a man, prized the scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

The writings of historical dead theologeans make interesting reading, but so do comic books. The Bible is the only source of knowing and understanding Christianity. There is no excuse for any true Baptist putting any stock in creeds or chants. A parrot can do that.

 

[DHK]

I cannot even begin to recount the many times trying to struggle and work through many scripture passages, and then open up some puritan or reformer and learn that they were already taught the correct passage of scripture to open up the other section so easily.
To despise these learned men is tragic. I only regret that I cannot squeeze in more reading to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.:wavey: Everyone of them to a man, prized the scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice:thumbs::thumbs:

Puritan or reformed? But that is the problem isn't it? What about John Wesley? Dave Hunt? and others such as them.

 

[saturneptune]

For those who cannot limit the word heresy to the fundementals of the faith and the nature of the Trinity, and expand it to Calvinism, free will, KJVO, hell, heaven, and other ridiculous issues based on your opinion, let me suggest some situations that come closer to heresy than your concepts.
1. Gossip or overlooking gossip
2. Having the mindset of a Pharisee
3. Thinking you are always right and never listening, always talking
4. Stuffing your fat gut during every pot luck
5. Never going on visitation, or it has been decades since you told someone the Gospel
6. A deacon trying to run the church or being more concerned about church politics than Christ
7. Worship of Calvin
8. Worship of elders
9. Repeating creeds
etc
etc
etc

 

[saturneptune]

Puritan or reformed? But that is the problem isn't it? What about John Wesley? Dave Hunt? and others such as them.

What does that have to do with the line between heresy and opinion?