Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81335 | ||
Joe Your right there always were people that tried to add to Gospel or tried to explain the unexplainable passing it off as doctrine and they were given labels. However there also always was a group that never bought into all the latest or newest teachings. They understood the Bible as having no contradictions and they looked for answers, not by providing new definitions to change the meaning of words or by inventing new doctrines. Rather they took the whole word rightly divided and based all understanding on the total overall theme not a particular passage. When doctrine did appear they realized it would be recorded and re-recorded at least twice and in most all cases three times as a witness to the truth. In the church today some look down at plain Christians as being stupid, believing feeling they need enlightenment of a particular doctrine to obtain the full understanding of the Word. Also there are others that see their prejudices as normalcy therefore they feel everyone must carry some. Society is reluctant to accept plain Christians and force labels upon them. I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic. However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant. That is the labeling that Hank and CDBJ are talking about. EdB |
||||||
2 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81358 | ||
"I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic." How do you define the word "heresy"? Please define it in such a way that historically-held Reformation theology could be considered heresy. Then please explain how modern-day Pentecostalism and pretributlational dispensationalism could not fall into that category, using the same criteria. While I hold these two things to be wrong interpretations of Scripture, I would not consider them "heresy." So, what is your criteria for slapping the "heresy" label on a particular system of doctrine? "However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant." That's news. On what points? --Joe! |
||||||
3 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Searcher56 | 81361 | ||
This topic Has been discussed before ... Use Quick Search Sctipture ... Acts 15:24; 2 Cor 11:4; Gal 1:7, 2:4; Tit 3:10-11; 2 Jo 1:10-11; Rev 2:2 ... While "heresy" doesn't appear in the Bible, these passages are used by some to identify heresy, along with Deuteronomy 13, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 1. I think it is anything that is contrary to the Bible. Both sides use the Bible to prove there point ... so is that heresy? I think it is more eisgesis (sp). Searcher |
||||||
4 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81365 | ||
"This topic Has been discussed before ..." Could you point me to a specific post where my question was answered? Specifically, where has EdB clarified what he means by heresy in such a way that historic, Reformational, Protestant theology fits; but in a way that modern Pentacostalism and pretribulational dispensationalism does not? Thanks. "I think it is anything that is contrary to the Bible." Do you not think it possible that any of your beliefs (down to the tinest detail) might be actually contrary to Scripture? Assuming that you allow yourself even the slightest margin for error, do you consider yourself a heretic? "Both sides use the Bible to prove there point ... so is that heresy? I think it is more eisgesis (sp)." I agree, but "eisegesis" was not the term that was employed. "Heresy" was. So I continue to ask, what is the line between minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy) and heresy? --Joe! |
||||||
5 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Searcher56 | 81367 | ||
Joe, 1. I choose not to spend the time to look up your specific question on heresy. People can deine it the way they want. 2. If I am shown I am in error, according to the Bibe, I must change, or I am a heretic. Unless, I have my own sounf Biblical support. 3. "Minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy)" usually is eisegesis not heresy. Tho the opposite camp would say it is heresy. Searcher |
||||||
6 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Reformer Joe | 81378 | ||
"1. I choose not to spend the time to look up your specific question on heresy." That's okay; the question was specifically addressed to someone else, anyway. Unless you are a mind-reader or actually had seen the answer somewhere in the archives, it would be impossible for you to answer. "People can deine it the way they want." If that were true, nothing could ever be definitively called heresy, and the term would be nothing more than an empty insult. "2. If I am shown I am in error, according to the Bibe, I must change, or I am a heretic." So are infant baptizers heretics? What about tongues-speakers? Those who worship on Saturdays? Those who say there will be no "Left Behind" scenario? What about those who think the Prayer of Jabez is nothing but a bunch of pop Christianity fluff? Those who say "trespasses" rather than "debts"? Those who think that tithing is biblical for today? Those who think that it is unbiblical to radically distinguish between OT Israel and the church? You likely side on one side or the other on these issues. So are you the heretic (bringing up sections of Scripture to support your position) or the one who disagrees with you (bringing up sections of Scripture to support his position)? "Unless, I have my own sounf Biblical support." So are you saying, then, that it is possible that two people in disagreement over an issue can each have at least a fair amount of biblical support? "3. "Minor doctrinal error (or even significant disagreement within Christian orthodoxy)" usually is eisegesis not heresy." It is never heresy, since "heresy" and "orthodoxy" are mutually exclusive opposites. My question, once more (for the person who used the term "heresy" in the first place) is where orthodoxy ends and heresy begins in such a way that the Protestant Reformers are heretics but dispensationalists and Pentecostals/charismatics are not. --Joe! |
||||||
7 | What constitutes "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Searcher56 | 81407 | ||
Joe, I understand the question may have been directed to someone else. But, I wanted to suggest eisegesis not heresy is the reason for the differences. Searcher PS You may need to repost your question, link it to the person and use their name. |
||||||