Featured I have to know. What changed Billy's mind (Graham)

Hey, thanks for the information! I believe I can get the hang of it. I'm not great with technology, including typing. :laugh:

 

Have fun. :thumbs:

 

To be clear but brief, I believe a heresy is a doctrine that causes harm to a local church, as per the Baptist distinctive of the autonomy of the local church, and also considering that the term "heretic" occurs in instructions to a pastor as a danger to the local church in Titus 3:10, and the church at Corinth was instructed that heresies will cause divisions (1 Cor. 11:19) and the local church at Rome was instructed to avoid people causing divisions and offenses (Rom. 16:17).

I believe this is a fair, Biblical definition. Definitions other than this tend to be based on church history or the polity of denominations.

 

Wouldn't some teachings qualify as heresy in a universal sense, as a danger to ALL autonomous local assemblies? (JW doctrine for example)

 

I go by the usage of the word in the NT, in which heresy is false doctrine that causes division. That would include the JW doctrine, which divides churches on purpose since they target members of good churches, trying to break them away from their churches. So I can see your point here. But I would probably use the term "false doctrine," or in 1 Tim. 4:1 you have the term "doctrines of devils" for something that is heresy in a universal sense. But then such heresy would almost always divide a church wouldn't it? (Just thinking through the keyboard here.)

 

To me it is a waste of time and effort and not wise to make judgement calls on who will be saved and who will not. That is totally up to God and I do not pretend to know all that God will do in his reaching out to people. We are taught that through our lives, our actions and beliefs we are to bring the Kingdom of God to earth, not worry about heaven.

Live the life now, God will take care of the after-life. That is not up to us.

 

The point is unless you are going through Jesus Christ, you will not be saved. And it's well past time folks stopped opening the door for people to believe that any other way is possible.

 

Zaac, my reply here is not to begin an argument, but a question that has puzzled me for a long time.

Do any of us know how many paths lead to and through Jesus. I am sure that the tradition I grew up in, the Southern, Protestant, Baptist path is not the only path that leads to Him.

I am convinced that none of know to what extent God will reach out to his children.

 

Hey CTB. I wasn't looking for an argument. raying: My comment was simply to say that we need to stay on message and not give people cause to believe that salvation comes any other way but through Christ. Everybody's path TO Christ might be different. But in order to be saved, the path has to go through Him.

Billy Graham has made a lot of missteps as sinful men are prone to do. But there shouldn't be any confusion coming from the Saints about the path to salvation going through Jesus Christ.

 

Are you part of the Godhead?

I thought not.

God will do what is right. Of that I am sure.

 

I don't have to be part of the Godhead to know what the Godhead says. And as much as folks may want otherwise, on this issue GOD has spoken. If you do not proceed through Jesus Christ there will be no salvation.

What you think is irrelevant. Let's deal with what Scripture says.:thumbs:

Then you should be equally sure that what He says He will do is what' s right.

 

Zaac, I realized you were not looking for an argument. I just wanted to be sure you realized that I was not arguing with you ... just posting a question that I have mulled over for a long time. I will probably mull it over as long as I live.

 

I know CTB. And you haven't said anything unBIBLICAL. There are many paths to Christ. But Christ is the ONLY path to salvation.:thumbs:

 

Well, I think I was too harsh with you, so I'm sorry for that.

But I am dealing with what scripture says, specifically Romans 2. Now I know people will disagree about what that chapter means, but many throughout the history of the church have interpreted it as I and some others on this thread do.

I believe God is merciful and just, far more so than you or I or anyone else could ever be.

But let me say before someone falsely charges me with something I don't believe: I do not hold that any religion is just as good as another. I believe in the deity of Jesus and that He as God's unique son is the supreme revelation of God to man, being the very image of God.

Thought I'd better get that out there before the charges of heresy started flying. And they may start yet.

Anyway, be blessed.

 

The problem is never in scripture. The problem or problems always come from interpretation.

Two asides:

Language, of course, is also always a problem. I was talking with a Baptist pastor from Nigeria recently. He said the passage 'washed as white as snow' has no meaning in his native language. No one in his area has ever seen snow. So they change the verse to: 'washed whiter than sheep's wool's.

Years ago I heard a missionary say that where they worked no one had ever seen sheep which meant calling Jesus the Good Shepherd had no meaning. However the people there had pigs ... so Jesus became the Good Pig Keeper.

 

NP Thomas. :1_grouphug:
I pray that God continues to be just as merciful as He wants to be as I absolutely hate the thought of anyone spending eternity separated from Him in the Lake of Fire.

But from a truth perspective and what He has given us, it has to be through Jesus Christ. So much so that He is making Himself known to thousands upon thousands via dreams.

 

As a Bible translator, I have to say there is no need for such subterfuges as this. But to avoid side-tracking this thread I'll open a thread in the Bible translations forum. Join me there if you are interested.

 

Just to reiterate: while some inclusivists and some universalists do not believe all must come through Christ, many believe just exactly that. They simply do not limit God on the where/when/how side.

And while some of them do not hold to a literal hell, many do and believe it is currently quite full. These people believe that Jesus did indeed go and preach to those in "hell", a very negative abode of the dead, win them to faith, and lead them in triumph to paradise to await resurrection. They believe that He will do the same thing again at the close of the church age.

Now, personally, I wouldn't bet my salvation or anyone else's on that.

But I have to admit, the doctrine of hell as currently held by most Baptists and evangelicals came on the scene after Constantine and thanks to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

John, to the early Hebrew Sheol was just the place of the dead. Nicer for some, worse for others, but not great for anyone. That is why so many of our modern english Bibles often translate it as grave.

Hades comes from greek thought, and is indeed a less nice place of the dead, but probably not what we think of as Dante's Inferno type hell.

Gehenna was the word for the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. When Jesus used it, He very well may indeed have used it as a METAPHOR for hell, but it isn't a word that directly translates as hell.

Tartarus or tartaroo--agreed, more hellish.

But you are absolutely correct that there was not a directly translatable word I know of in the Scripture in koine Greek that means uncontrovertably a firey place of everlasting torment.

We have to read that into scripture to read it out of it. Which doesn't mean there is not a firey hell, but does mean we have to work a bit more to prove it than just quoting the KJV.

 

I seriously doubt you have any proof of this. The Catholic church makes broad claims of being the first church yet anyone who has read the Bible knows better. Lazarus and the rich man for starters. Revelation settles the matter of Hell
MB