Featured Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

Thanks for you apology and is it certainly accepted. No worries. We all can be sharp at times, myself included. I do not wish to come across that way to you either.

I understand that some creeds are not scriptural nor doctrinal, so they can be the agent of Satan. But some are good. When trouble comes to my life, I will admit it is the word of God that I run to, and that the Holy Spirit brings to my mind. Just recently the enemy tried to bombard my mind with certain things that the Holy Spirit corrected with scriptures that I had memorized.

 

My post was a "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of post.

Let me tell you way this aversion to secondary sources is either arrogance or ignorance (a better word than misinformed). Saturneptune believes he is able to understand the Bible because of the Holy Spirit. I agree with that. No one can truly understand scripture unless they have the Holy Spirit. But the Bible also teaches that we are to heed the words of others:

1 Timothy 1:3 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,

This was Paul's charge to Timothy. He is telling him to teach others. Now, a case can be made that we are to obey Paul, because Paul was an Apostle. But Timothy was not. What makes his words different than a commentary or confession? While we are at it, why listen to what your pastor has to say? After all, are not his words the words of a man? Imagine the unity that comes from that approach to being taught. Imagine 100 people in a church with 100 different rules of interpretation, each one claiming to have the Holy Spirit. Forget what your pastor says. Forget the fact that he probably labored hard at learning, so that he could teach others. Forget his teachers who did the same. Forget long dead theologians who wrestled with the Word, so that they could mine its truth. And if you say, "Well, I take my pastor's words and compare them to scripture", then why not do the same with any other secondary source like a creed, confession, commentary, book, or study note?

It really comes down to two possibilities:

a) Arrogance
b) Ignorance

 

I am sure that if you question Saturneptune he will tell you that he uses secondary sources--Greek and Hebrew concordances, a variety of commentaries on occasion, and probably good reference works that take him back to the original languages. Most of us do. I do. But I never go back to creeds and catechisms. I haven't done that since I was a member of the RCC, or when in the Other Christians Denom. Forum to look up a Catholic doctrine in their Catechism to understand more of what I am debating.

The Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. But I am not an authority on Greek and Hebrew whereas others are. Creeds and Catechisms are not authorities on the original languages either. They are statements made by fallible men. We have an extensive statement of faith just as good as any creed. Why should I use another man's? This is not arrogance; neither is it ignorance.

Arrogance and ignorance is feeding your mind with only one source of information so that you indoctrinate yourself with only one type of teaching and remain closed to everything else.

 

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?

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

Ask Thomas15 the same question and he will answer yes.

Again agreement.

 

What size shoe are we talking about....I wear a 10.5 (US)

 

They?

When confronted with numerous Baptists', including prominent 1689LBC signer Benjamin Keach's, Bible teaching that challenged the 'plurality of elders' scheme, you were quite dismissive of those godly men's labor in the Scripture, quipping in a terse reply that that they "are entitled to their plurality of errors".

 

Dave Hunt believes Calvinists are not saved.

 

Mind your business. You removing your foul posts -----------does not change them, or who you show yourself to be. I was speaking to DHK, not you as you have a twisted agenda that you can keep.
You thought you were being slick,removing them....got it.My remarks to DHK are not demeaning...but spot on. last time I checked , you do not own the BB.

 

Very seldom post, but do follow, and have yet to see an uplifting post of yours.

 

I was saved long before I heard of Calvinism. In fact when I was saved, though an adult, I did not know who the man Calvin was. He wasn't important enough to be on the scene of either Canadian or world history from our point of view.
I was saved by faith through grace, and not of works.
BTW, Luke has posted that he doesn't believe non-Calvinsits can be saved; or at least he posted "only Calvinist can be saved," which amounts to the same thing. And many others on this board have posted such things as "Calvinism is the gospel," which is again saying the same thing in different words. Thus Dave Hunt's position is not unreasonable. He refutes the tenets of the Reformed position, not Calvinism per se. Calvin did not speak English. Not even Calvin believed in TULIP, and that is ironic.

 

Let me address this one particular part of your post once again.
First look at the Scripture:

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

1. Paul addresses these brethren as brethren, or Christians. They were believers in the Lord, saints in the church at Corinth. To say otherwise is a denial of Scripture.

2. He secondly describes them as "carnal." He could not speak unto them as "spiritual Christians," but rather as "carnal Christians." Why?

3. There are two reasons he gives.
a. They are not ready to eat meat. They are still on a diet of milk. In other words they hadn't grown or matured. They hadn't digested the Word that Paul had already taught them.
b. Their life did not manifest the fruit of the Spirit. They acted carnally. They were full of worldliness, specifically: envying, strife and divisions. These characteristics are not found among spiritual Christians but among carnal Christians.

The Bible teaches that there are carnal Christians.
Are you ready to be corrected on this subject?

 

The carnal christian heresy has been refuted many times as a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit.
When I offered you correction on this....you said you did not intend to look at the correction. That is your choice. I will offer it again.


You can listen-
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6709225934

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11110485122

or read-
http://www.peacemakers.net/unity/carnal.htm


or ignore it , and remain in error.

 

DHK

Because Dave Hunt opposes truth does not mean he refutes anything...
opposition to truth does not equal a biblical refutation.

 

Have you ever studied out the principle contained in these verses?:wavey:

 

I am certain to be "corrected" but from the passage in Genesis 4, here is what I personally glean.

I see this as God providing an initial teaching on the concept that sin is to only be dealt with in God's eyes through the shedding of blood. Cain felt the all to familiar human emotion of rejection.

 

But it is evident that you cannot refute it. I can give you links to Dave Hunt too. Will you listen to them? I am not interested in your audio sermons. The Bible clearly says that these believers were carnal. Why do you deny the truth?