I was just referred to as a heretic over at the World Magazine Blog, where I frequently comment. The topic in the open thread for the day was hymn / song lines that are theologically suspect, or just plain wrong. I commented on the one the plagues me most: "Above All." This is a mostly good song, but the idea of what is "above all" changes throughout the song, there is no consistency. By the last line we proclaim "you took the fall and thought of me above all." Suddenly the one singing is "above all" - at least above all in the mind of Christ as He died on the cross. Of course, we know that the thought of Christ on the cross was obedience to the will of the Father to please and glorify Him. (Heb. 5.8; Phil 2.8; Eph 5.2 "to please His Father).
However, the heretic arrow came when I further commented that another concern with this song, or any like it, gives the impression that Christ was thinking of every person singing this song, as if Christ died for every person in the world.
NOW... there you see where the heretic shot came. I hold to a particular redemption perspective of the atonement. According to someone code named "Duck" that makes me, along with Spurgeon, Calvin, most all Baptists until around 1800, and many others (including modern teachers like James White, John MacArthur, John Piper) all heretics.
It is not my intent to necesarily spark a debate on the extent of the atonement, though I am open to that. My larger question for the time is simply this: What are the qualifications for a teaching to be considered a heresy? And when do we label one a heretic?
Incidently, my friend Curtis Richardson, sent me a link to a scary Jack-Hyles type site that calls MacArthur a heretic. Read if you dare!
Anyway, Grace to You my friends! Grace to you ALL!
14 comments:
Grace to you all? LOL so much for your particular redemption veiw!
A heritic is anyone who departs from what the world of God says. Or adds or takes away from what it says. Or claims their interpration is the same thing as what the word says.
If makes you feel better I've called unbiblical in my ministry at Kent state for defending the doctrine of predestination. Even after showing chapter and verse.
I was called a false teacher for saying Abraham was justified by faith.( also at Kent)
Lastly at a particular campus ministry event I once was called something that kinda rhymes with "heretic" for showing a fellow student that she could not lose her salvation. I was actually called this word by some else at while I had the Bible open showing the Biblical support for eternal security.
I think I was once even "witnessed to" once somebody found out I was a Baptist and did not practice certain "spiritual gifts".
So anyway if you are being called a heretic you are doing a good job!
I also look at the website that Curtis found. That was rediculous! It is clear that they have some sort of agenda. It was just silly.
Anyway. Keep your heresy up!
-John
Brother Reformer,
Ouch! It almost hurt to say those two words together, but it is the truth. The strongest reformer "in Christ" and the most staunch dispensationalist "in Christ" are brothers and that ought not cause pain, not to much anyway. Our diferences are important, but our unity in the Spirit is unbreakable.
The theological issue at hand that of particular redemption is a hot one. One of which I have been on both sides of the fence. I know the many forced arguments, and I understand the logic of each. Iwould not be quick to lable one or the other a heretic for that one issue I would not lable A.W. Pink nor Jack Hyles heretic for that only. However when someone goes to the extreme and bigins to condemn in the stongest way others who have and hold a varying opinion based on biblical understanding that person who is of his own opinion has become a heritic (see Vine's dictionary).
I find it almost humerous that those who choose to believe that God makes people believe are so opposed to those who by God's eternal decree and sovriegn control have a difering approach. Contrast with those who by God's sovreignty condemn others who decide to believe another way.
Look at both sides of the coin you two!
I didn't quite follow that one J.Wendell. I never called anyone a heretic. I was called a heretic and I reported that MacArthur was called a heretic.
I would certainly not call one who holds to a general redemption a heretic. Inconsistent, perhaps, but not heretical.
My point was simply that I was amazed one would call me a heretic for holding to particular redemption.
Where does one draw the line of "unity?" Doctrines of Grace, Hermenuetic, Eschatology, etc...?
Don't let it bother you, Reformer. Duck has a way of overstating his very skewed perspectives on everything from theology to perceived social ills. This does not diminish you but simply lowers his credibility quotient.
Brother Reformer,
That is a very scary link, lined with links to one of the two preachers I previosly eluded to as heretical. Again, not because of his position on the atonement, but because of his condemnation of others
So, this has become a slander thread where one can bash the person "code-named" Duck?
I never called you a heretic, Reformed. And I pointed that out to you in a subsequent post on the Worldmagblog thread. But you did not respond to that. Instead, you came here and spread the falsehood that I did, and richard d jumps right on the bandwagon, making an ad hominem attack.
Shame on you. If you wish to engage in a substantive discussion and debate then come on over and do so. But running away and spreading falsehoods elsewhere is a true example of lowering one's "credibility quotient."
Thanks for visiting "Duck." So reporting my thoughts on a discussion, including facts, at MY OWN BLOG "lowers my credibility quotient." Please , all take note of that.
As to the accusation... let me be clear. In the process of discussing the extent of the atonement with about 5 or 6 others, "Duck" makes this broad statement... QUOTE... "Christ died for everyone. Yes, some reject this truth; there have been heresies throughout the life of the church."
So, clearly, he did not call ME a heretic directly; rather he directly implied that those who reject unlimited atonement fall into the catgory of "heresies throughuot the life of the church."
I stand corrected, the shot was made across the bough, not at me directly. I do however, reject the unlimited atonement of CHrist, which was clearly stated in the discussion. So the shot was directed primarily at Richard D and myself!
And as far as seeing follow up cmments... that discussion on the "Whilred Views" thread for 7/13 went on for 3 days. I almost never look at the posts after the day they are posted. Sorry, I have other things to do than spend three days on one thread at WorldMag Blog.
Glad you stopped by though Duck, I hope you read some of my other posts. They will confirm to you that I am a heretic that denies "the truth of unlimited anotment."
There have been, and still are heretics in the multifasited camps, even within Lapsarian thought. Further, let me state (so no one gets confused) that I don't believe you guys (i.e. Duck nor Reformer)are heretics. I am certain that A.W. Pink and Jack Hyles were! Having said that, I don't think I will see either of them in heaven... they will be much closer to God's throne than I. Muse
"And as far as seeing follow up cmments... that discussion on the "Whilred Views" thread for 7/13 went on for 3 days. I almost never look at the posts after the day they are posted. Sorry, I have other things to do than spend three days on one thread at WorldMag Blog."
Well, almost never...in this case you did. You didn't begin posting on that thread until the 2nd day. You asked me two questions, one being: "You really believe that one who hold to particular redeption is teaching heresy?" (sic)
Thereafter richard d and tj jumped in on the issue, I answered your questions, and a discussion on this very issue continued. In the 8th post after your question I answered by stating that I did not call you a heretic. Moreover, you should have known from the beginning that I didn't call you a heretic, nor did I call particular atonement a heresy. It was nothing but a red herring in that discussion, and hereon it morphed into slander.
So please don't try to imply that you did not see my response, posted the morning of July 14th before you published your slanderous comments here in the late afternoon of July 14th. No, posting facts does not lower your credibility quotient. Posting misleading and false statements does.
J. Wendell
WOW! That is bold. I like bold, you know that. But to call someone a heretic is a very strong, divisive statement. Sometimes we need to divide, but we should be careful.
Jack Hyles was an extremest, no doubt. But I have never heard him called a herestic. Perhaps you could elaborate further so as not to be slanderous.
Likewise, in my extensive reading, I have never heard Pink called a heretic. Again, so as to avoid slander, perhaps who you substantiate your claim of heresy in the teaching of Pink.
I look forward to clarification. If in deed, you can substantiate such claims, your preceeding comments will remain. But if there can be no substantiation of such a claim, in the sake of truth and integrity, I will havwe to delete your previous two posts.
I have never deleted a post yet from my BLOG. You can disagree with me all you want. I like that in fact. That is why I have a Blog. But unsubstantiated claims such as "heresy" cannot stand. J. Wendell, you are a well read and well studied man; please exlain why you would use such an extreme label on these two men.
DUCK, perhaps we can have a continues discussion on the extent of the atonement. However, the present debate is not productive at all. We have both have presented the "quotes" and "details." We are not seeing the same thing. I do not care to discuss this further.
NOTE: If anyone cares to read the discussion in question, go to World Mag Blog, scroll to the archives at the bottom, click on July 13. Find the "whirled views" thread for that day. Enjoy the reading. Much is drivel, but DUCK, RICHARD D., and a few others provided substance.
As to the original post here, what constitutes heresy?
You are right, Reformer, using that word "heretic" is rather strong. But here is my thinking: I understand the word to mean 'of one's own opinion', therefore I categorize such extreme views (as the two afore mentioned gentleman) 'heretical'. It seems that they go to the scripture with an opinion, and impose that opinion on the text. That is why I use the word that means 'of one's own opinion'. (See Vine's dictionary). But, you could be right, we should not throw that word around so ligtly. Go ahead and delete if it makes you feel better. God bless!
It is not about what "makes me feel better"... I just want to avoid unsubstantiated claims. With that definition, I understand, though still don't concur, from where you come.
You are right, we should not throw that word around too lightly. We should work on a common definition. There is room for diversity of opinion in this universal church; and I would posit, there is also some latitude for diversity of opinion within a local church.
Thanks for your thoughts. Keep them coming. You have a sharp mind, much like Rose, and you help me clarify my thinking. I appreciate that.
Grace to you!
On the Doctor Oz show the other day the whole program was on, "What would Jesus eat", I have another question, "What would Jesus blog?" It seems in my limited travels around the blogsphere most of these blogs are just a platform to express one's own thoughts and interpetations, and often in an antagonistic way. As sinful creatures we all enjoy attention and want respect, our 15 minutes of fame if you will, and the blog world is a good place to feed this sinful craving. Mullins Musings, this title alone exsemplifies my point by placing the emphasis on how the individual's thoughts have some significance, at least in his own mind. Back to the original question, "what would Jesus blog?", or Paul for that matter? I suppose it would depend on the audience, but when our Lord or Paul addressed believers it was always with love and grace, but when the message was directed to those who loved the preeminence such as Diotrephes or the pharisees it is a sharp rebuking.
Thanks for stopping by.
I'd be happy to dialogue with you on the subject if would like to come out of hiding. Why would you post anonymously?
As you may have noticed the post on which you commented in 7 years old. We are presently using this blog for a discussion of 1 Peter, that we may encourage one another to love and good works! Feel free to come to the current post and participate ... Entourage one another on to love and good works. But no hiding behind anonymity... Please.
Post a Comment