Subject: Dake's Annotated Bible |
Bible Note: To all who have read, responded, or thought about responding but didn't, I have misled you. I shall tell you what I did, why I did it, and what you should think about. I quoted a portion of a book, by Robert M. Bowman. Formerly with CRI. www.equip.org I did, exactly what he did. He quoted a portion of a book by Walter Martin former president of CRI which the bible answerman, Hank Han. replaced. He told his coworker to analize this statement. And pass judgement. Heretical or Orthedox. The response, "That's heresy" to which he replied, "That's Walter Martin". His coworker began to back off, and Mr Bowman said, "rightly so". His point was, those who pass judgement based upon what someone else has claimed heresy, cannot tell what heresy is for themselves. They are therefore blindly following PHD's ADD's etc. One person was only able to cut and paste responses completely against Ken Copeland and the faith people. But not one thing was said about the statement. I learned to cut and paste in kindergarden. Has he know thoughts of his own? I chose the name Ken Copeland precisely because of the reaction it would get. It got exactly what I knew it would. A predjudiced response. If you thought that it was heresy, you should know that the Christian Research Institute's former president, WROTE IT AND DID NOT CONSIDER IT HERESY. It wasn't very polite of me to deceive you like that, but I hope you will think from now on before you base your opinions on some books you read. I've studied the subject a good deal. Heresy is a very serious charge. The history of heresy hunting goes back several years. It began because some people seriously opposed healing and prosperity. To prove those two subjects heretical, one must prove the source is heretical. Charismatic Christians tend to be the flackiest group of fruitcakes in the church. They are labeled right along side the "heretical doctrines" of health and wealth is a popular book about the chaos amongst charismatics. And the flaky guys side with the same guys that thinks their nuts. Sad, sad, sad. I seriously doubt that the majority of people at this forum are capable of judging what is and what isn't heresy. I think my test proved my point. The fact is, in the Bible, every time there was a charge of heresy, the heresy was stated in plain lanquage so all could read and understand. Many of the goofy doctrines floating about the body of Christ are not heresy. It's just a mess, to paraphrase Robert Bowman. You should stick to major doctrinal issues to determine heresy. NOT DOES GOD HAVE A BODY, WHAT WAS THE EXACT NATURE OF CHRIST'S POSITION ON THE EARTH ETC. EXACTLY WHERE DID HE GO WHEN HE DIED. AND THE LIKE. Was He born of a virgin? Was He God manifested in flesh? Did he die for our sins and then was resurrected? Is He in a flesh and bone body in heaven? Is salvation by faith alone? Listen if you want to talk heretical...Would it be heretical to say that something in addition to faith is necessary for salvation? Baptism, works? Just something to think about. |