If that's the full extent of the context, I lean towards this being a heretical statement.
You started the dance, and I've been consistent in my position:
I want to know the context before accusing someone of heresy.
You seem to think that's wrong somehow.
Well, if that's the case, and I am not disagreeing, then I dont see how that is turning away from the Scripture. Sure, may be a misunderstanding of it (I don't know, not going back to read all his posts) but carico is deeply committed to and loves the Bible, just like you and me.
Really?
He has repeatedly questioned the salvation of those who disagree with Calvinism.
You even responded to one of his posts saying that he was wrong to do that.
He just accused me of having contempt for scripture in another thread.
Is this how we treat our brethren?
Is this what you call being committed to and loving the Bible?
No, he is not like me.
That gets thrown around alot. You think I am in error in regards to Calvinism and my undersstanding of the Scripture in that regard. But I dont think you would say I dont love the Bible.
And yes, to accuse you or others who are genuinely devoted to Christ and His Word, and then accuse them of contempt for the Scriptures because we disagree on some things, is wrong.
I do think carico is overzealous in his committment to calvinsim.
No disrespect meant. But if you are a lib, and I think you are, you fellers do get yoru panties in a ruffle a lot. I don't have a politically correct bone in my body, either with politics or religion, and when someone tries to give me one I usually smack him in the head with it. :laugh::laugh:
I know that you love the Lord.
I have seen that through your posts over the years.
Our disagreement on Calvinism does not affect my love for you as a brother.
I hope that all those on BB who have know me for the 3 years that I have been here, have seen through my posts that I love the Lord.
To be accused of contempt or to question my salvation is very hurtful to me.
It is a knife in my heart.
I probably shouldn't be so sensitive to it, but I am.
I'm usually pretty tough skinned in these debates, but not when my love for God is questioned.
That's just one place you can't go.
Thanks for your post.
I will leave it alone now.
Sorry for derailing your thread.
:wavey:
I'm not, and I don't get easily ruffled. I do grow weary, though, of some folks here using words like "liberal" to pretty much discount anyone with whom they disagree. Oh, I've been called apostate, too, but it was by a KJVOist, so ya gotta consider the source. That person got banned, if I recall.
Neither do I.
Can I get that in writing?
Oh wait, I think I just did.
It is usually prudent to know the context before accusing someone of heresy.
I don't think anoyone would disagree with that.
That said, the OP statement is a heretical statement if it's applied to people as a whole (which appears to be).
Dallas Wilard made the statement in a 2002 article which was a hypithetical conversation.
Now, should we conclude that Dallas Willard is a heretic based on this statement alone, or should we consider this body of work as a whole?
I knew that statement was by Dallas Willard the moment I read it, since I had read it on his site a year or two ago. I have been trying to alert people to him and some of the teachings he's aligning himself with. It's not too surprising he has this view since he is closely aligned with Richard Foster (no time or space here to put in my concerns with him) and both are open admirers of Catholic Thomas Keating, Thomas Merton (who loved Buddhism) and others like that.
If that is what he believes, then yes, it is heresy even if he may or may not be heretical in his other works. This brand of limited universalism is a big issue. One that is not balanced out by other more orthodox beliefs.