1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Line Between Heresy and Difference of Opinion

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by saturneptune, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    11,154
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Heresy is...

    ...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. :smilewinkgrin:

    I know there will be those who disagree with me on this, 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. :smilewinkgrin::applause:
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Of course there are more, but there are two main areas that the word or concept of heresy seems to arise. One area is the Calvinism-free will threads. They are either started as a thread on that subject, or, in the case of this thread, a poster redirects the original intent of the thread to that subject. This thread is an excellent example. The longer it goes on, the more vicious the posts get. The exact word might not be heresy or heretic, but, as here, is always implied. Phrases such as "you believe false doctrine" or "you are not interested in the truth" or "your beliefs are arrogant" might as well say the same thing.

    The other area is KJVO. In fact, a thread was just shut down over this very issue. The word that came out in that thread was idol worship or idolator.

    I guess what amazes me are the two groups that participate this the most. One are those who are pastors or other leaders, using these kinds of phrases. They probably have some type of college or seminary, and get up before a congregation every Sunday to preach.

    The other group, as the case in this thread, is the self taught person, which in a sense I am, but some of them think the bright light shone down from heaven, and all the sudden they are blessed with perfect knowledge and doctrine.

    These are the two groups that sling terms similar to heretic around the most. And yes, I do agree, evidentally they did not learn well, because it is a sign they cannot hold a theological argument or have any common sense.
     
    #102 saturneptune, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013
  3. thomas15

    thomas15 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    34
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Icon,

    When your many cut and paste responses are boiled down to their essence, I find that your actual baseline is a reformed theology that gets it's authority from writings other than the Holy writ. Notice that i didn't say you don't quote scripture, you do. But those scriptures do not always really back up the point that you are trying to make. Then other times there are other Scriptures that conflict with what you think the Bible teaches. When someone points this out, rather than consider what is being said, you completly dismiss their response and pile on more cut and paste. This gets tiresome after a while. No one is going to check out the endless supply of links you provide designed to educate us on where we are wrong. Hard to believe but most of us are well beyond the level of popular writers posting on the internet.

    No one (other than those who already agree with you) is fooled by the massive amounts of stuff you put in your responses. You employ the RC Sproul method of winning the arguement, overwhelm your opponent with excessive verbage and attempt to win by default. Well that only works a few times and now some are looking past the fluff and manufactured righteous indignation and you don't like it. Well time to grow up Icon, this is a Baptist discussion board, not a Presbyterian wading pool.

    Calvinism thinks that it has it totally correct. No one has it totally correct. Personally I tend more in the direction of Calvinism but browsing the Calvinist onclave called the putitan board I see a lot of personal arrogance while discussing of all things the DoG. What irony! I also see where theological arguements are settled by the WCF or some creed/confession, not the Bible.
     
  4. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    2,305
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Thomas 15,

    Good post with much to discuss. I will start a new thread in general discussions about it.
     
  5. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    I know I am ignorant about a great many things. The word is often used a pejorative, although it simply means, "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular."

    I agree with much of what you said here. Each Baptist church is able to choose for themselves. Not just a creed, but if any belief is flawed it could inject error into the church. You wrote this about the Apostles creed:

    First, there is a universal church consisting of all true believers. It transcends denominations. This phrase condemns the Roman Catholic Church which taught "extra ecclesiam nulla salus", outside of the church there is no salvation. Of course the church they were referring to was the Roman Catholic Church. So this phrase does mean something, and something important. "Communion of the saints" confesses the great truth of 1 Corinthians 1:2:

    [2]*To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:
    (1 Corinthians 1:2 ESV)

    So, the Apostles creed is scriptural, even though it is not scripture.

    This is a subjective statement. How many people on the Lord's Day tune out the sermon? How many would rather be playing golf? How many think the hymns are mindless chants? The only person you can speak about in this regard is yourself.

    FWIW, the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith are not recited in our worship service. We read scripture, pray, sing hymns, and preach the Word.

    It seems that your church did not perform its due diligence before changing its doctrinal statement.

    We should all be like the Bereans.

    I addressed the word "ignorant" earlier. Perhaps I could have used a more polite word such as "misinformed."
     
    #105 Herald, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013
  6. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Herald,
    So, you define the universal church, and I can see its purpose in eternity. Would you please tell me one thing the universal church has done on this earth to carry out the work of the Lord?

    As far as "the communion of saints," that is not a belief, that is a fact. Any Christian wants to fellowship with other Christians, and this is one of the means that God speaks to Christians, through other Christians, sometimes collectively.

    Just a question, have you ever been a Presbyterian? I was one for 25 years, and a conservative one at that. My Dad and Granddad were deacons and elders. Have you ever had a Presbytery tell you who you can call as pastor, what you can do with your building, and many other day to day functions a NT Baptist church conducts? Also, do you consider a Presbyterian church to be a New Testement church?
     
  7. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Boy, do you have this guy nailed, and in a calm manner. This guy brings out everything negative in me, even with the Holy Spirit. I have not seen anything like it since joining seven years ago.
     
  8. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    I can hardly wait.
     
  9. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Keeping saints from error is a great work of the Lord.

    It is both. I believe in the communion of the saints. That is confessing a belief. Since that belief is true it is also a fact.

    In the Apostles creed "communion of the saints" is not talking about fellowship the way you are. Fellowship (koinonia) has a far deeper, intimate meaning.

    [1:1]*That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—[2]*the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—[3]*that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. [4]*And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

    (1 John 1:1-4 ESV)

    The fellowship John is writing about is nothing less than having an intimate relationship with he Father, through the Son. This is the communion of the saints the Apostles Creed is confessing. Instead of the Roman Catholic dictum, "Outside of the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation", we confess, "Outside of Jesus Christ there is no salvation."

    I think I know what is motivating all your push back on creeds and confessions. You are having a hard time forgetting your Presbyterian roots. While I was never a Presbyterian, my ancestry (on my father's side) goes all the way back to John Knox. So, while I am not a Presbyterian, I am not exactly ignorant of Presbyterian beliefs and practice.

    We owe quite a bit to Presbyterianism. Men like Samuel Rutherford, John Knox, and Matthew Henry wrestled with the scripture to preserve and disseminate its truths. They opposed the error of the papacy, just as our Baptist forefathers did. I disagree with Presbyterian sacramentology and ecclesiology. There is a reason I am a Baptist. As to whether Presbyterian churches are New Testament churches, my answer is "yes." I believe their ecclesiology is in error, but they possess all the functions of a Christian church. Most Presbyterians would say the same about us.
     
    #109 Herald, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2013
  10. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    I am not sure what you are asking here. By conditions do you mean presuppositions?

    We are required to study scripture (2 Timothy 2:15). Secondary sources can aide our understanding. Unless, of course, you believe that you do not need such help because you are perfect in your understanding.
     
  11. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    Herald,
    The issue of the universal church and local church is another thread. That is my fault. On the definition of a NT church, I suppose it depends on how you see it. Does a church that sprinkles infants qualify? Does a church that has a hierarchy like the RCC that controls the local church qualify? Do not we believe that a mark of a Baptist church is that the local church administers the ordinances. (not sacraments)

    One of the basic differences is the RCC looks at the church as a visible, universal church. Protestants look at it as an invisible, universal church. Baptists look at it as a local, visible church. They really have nothing in common. I will say this. If there was no Baptist church to worship at, I would go to a conservative Presbyterian.
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    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.
    Now what you just said is heresy.
    Calvinism is a system of theology. It is not the gospel. The gospel I preach has nothing to do with Calvinism, and neither is it defective. What you said is very insulting. 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. In conclusion, for 1500 years people never had Calvinism, and could not be saved--a logical conclusion from your post.
    Calvinists like to quote partial Scriptures, bits and pieces, like you just did. 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.
    --Lot's of room for free will in there, but you won't see that because your eyes have been shut by a 16th century theologian who plagiarized a fourth century heretic.
    We can start another thread. Be my guest. I just referred to the title of this thread. You can answer to it.
    Then you have no reason to remain a Baptist do you?
    You know as well as I do that you don't have to go to a liberal Baptist church just as you wouldn't have to go to a liberal Presbyterian church. Thus your point is moot; just another red herring. But if your saying you would rather go to a conservative Presbyterian church rather than a conservative Baptist church then why are you still a Baptist? Go ahead. Join the Paedobaptists! It is just another heresy to add to the list. Or in your mind is it just a difference of opinion. You can answer to that. That is what the OP is all about. IMO, it is heresy. The mode of baptism is important.
    Again, because you take your Calvinism too far I would label that more than just difference of opinion but heresy. 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.
     
  13. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Do not get hung up on the word "sacrament." A sacrament is simply a sign or symbol of a divine reality. The reason Baptists use the word "ordinance" is to separate ourselves from the Roman Catholic Church and it's use of the word.

    Every church has some error, just as every Christian has some error. We do not have perfect knowledge. When we get to glory we are going to find out just how wrong we were in many areas. At its core those Presbyterians churches that preach the Gospel are true churches.

    I think the 1689 LBC does a good job of explaining the invisible church:

     
  14. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Well, not according to good ole' C.H.S.:

    "The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    First notice Spurgeon's exact words:
    "I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism."

    There is a difference between a conviction and opinion. The above was simply an opinion expressed by him. You will find the exact opposite opinion in some of his other writings. Spurgeon was a man; not God. His writings, as any other's are fallible.

    It is not Spurgeon I am concerned with. My authority is the Word of God. What is yours?
     
  16. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    I was just being cheeky. I do not like "gotcha" moments. I just could not resist having a bit of fun.
     
  17. Herald

    Herald New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    27
    DHK,

    But in all seriousness, I think Spurgeon believed (and I agree), that a gospel that focuses on God's sovereignty in salvation is the Gospel. I think that is why the debate on this topic results in such passionate response from participants on both sides. Said another way, if the purity of the Gospel was not so important, we would not be discussing it ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.
     
  18. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Your weakness of looking at creeds and confessions hinders your ability in debate.
    Look at the facts of Scripture instead of man-made definitions instead.
    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 universal 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.
     
    #118 DHK, Jan 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2013
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    In all seriousness Calvinism has nothing to do with the gospel.
    I am not a Calvinist, and have quite a good grasp of the gospel, thank you very much. To say otherwise is quite insulting.
    To even imply that one has to have even the slightest knowledge of Calvinism in order to be saved is nonsense, if not heresy. It leads to a gospel of works, not a gospel of grace. We are saved by grace through faith; not by Calvinism.
     
  20. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Founders 'Ministries' head Tom Ascol in the Florida state paper:

     
Loading...