BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

Christian Heresies

sermonindex Jul 18, 2009

This is good to know!


Christian Heresies

[url=http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm]Christian Heresies[/url]

Christian Heresies
| Menu | A | D | E | G | M | N | S |
Heresy is the rejection of established beliefs of a religious body, or adherence to "other beliefs." The word "heresy" comes from the Greek word hairesis or choice. The Greek word is a neutral term.

A number of Christian beliefs were declared heresy in the early centuries of the church. Some beliefs declared heresy (Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism) are still maintained by Christian churches today, the largest being the Coptic Church. Additionally the Roman Catholic Council of Trent declared Protestantism heresy (a council's rulings that Protestants obviously do not accept).
________________________________________
Apollinarianism-- Jesus fully God -- partially or incompletely human--
Appollinaris' (c. 350) views of Christ's nature were condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Arianism-- Jesus less than God -- more than human--
The Arian controversy began in Alexandria, Egypt about 318 AD. Arius (c. 250-c. 336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. Arius disagreed with the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria's idea of the Trinity. Arius thought that Alexander was confusing the Son with the Father, who stressed the divinity of the Logos and also his exact likeness with the Father. Arius argued that Jesus, the Logos, was a "creature" who was "begotten" of the Father, who was "unbegotten." Arius, like Origen, believed that the Father was the only true God. The Nicene Creed was written to respond to Arianism.
See also:
Arianism (Ecole Glossary)


Docetism-- Jesus wholly divine -- his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real--
This heresy emerged in about 110 C. E. The term "docetism" is derived from the Greek word dokesis, "to seem." Ignatius warned the church of Smyrna of the danger of this new heresy.
"Docetist" was first used to identify a particular group in Serapion's condemnation of the Gospel of Peter (c 190 CE). Eusebius reports that Serapion forbade use of the Gospel of Peter on the basis of its docetism.(Eusebius, EH VI.xii).-- from Docetism by A. K. M. Adam
Donatism--personal holiness of individuals validates a church office--
Donatism, named after its leader Donatus the Great, was a form of North African Christianity that glorified martyrdom ("cult of the martyrs"). The Donatist controversy emerged about 311 but its origins were in the times following Diocletian's first edict against Christians (February 24, 303). The emperor commanded their churches to be destroyed and their Sacred Books burned.He outlawed Christianity.
Anyone who apostasized during that time by giving up the Sacred Books, by delivering sacred objects, or betraying other Christians to the government authorities were called a traditor. The Donatist schism began around 311 when a Caecilian, a man who opposed the cult of the martyrs, was irregularly elected bishop of Carthage, after the equally disliked (by the Donatists) Mensurius died. The Donatists argued that Caecilian's ordination was invalid because one of the men who ordained him was a traditor. When Constantine recognized Caecilian, the Donatists appealed. Ultimately, at Constantine's referral, a bishop's council that met in Arles, Gaul (314) rejected the Donatists' argument that a morally unworthy clergyman could not perform valid ecclessial actions. A schism then occurred with the Donatists claiming that they were the only true church. Later Augustine of Hippo (354-430) also spent a great deal of energy fighting Donatism. The schismatic African church remained into the seventh century, when both it and Roman Catholicism were overcome by the Islamic religion.
See also:
Donatists (Catholic Encyclopedia)


Ebionite-- Jesus regarded as prophet rather than divine Word of God--
Ebionites originally were a first century Jewish-Christian sect. They emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings. Most considered him to be a man, not God. Later use of this term refers to anyone who minimizes the divinity of Christ.
Encratite--sexual continence required for salvation--
The word "Encratite" comes from the Greek word enkrateia, meaning "continence." It is a name applied to several early Christian sects, most of which were Gnostic. Encratites were ascetics who refrained from alcohol, animal products, and sex. Their ascetic practices were not heteretical but rather the theology upon which their continence was based.

The name of Tatian (c. 120-173 CE), who edited a complilation of the gospels called the Diatesseron is associated with this heresy. Around 172, Tatian became a Gnostic of the Encratite sect. Tatian reinterpreted the story of Adam and Eve and Christian documents such as 1 Corinthians 7:3-6 to support the idea that humans must abandon sexual intercourse in order to regain the Spirit of God that had been lost because of Adam and Eve's fraility. People were to be married to God, not to each other.

Eutychianism-- Christ has but one nature, divine--
Named after Eutyches of Constantinople, who with Chrysphius, and Dioscoros tried in 433 to make the 12 Anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria the standard of orthodoxy and "do in" the "inspired man" Christology of Antioch. A goal was to make Alexandria, instead of Constantinople, the second most powerful see in Christendom (next to Rome). From Cyril, Eutyches argued that Christ was one nature after the union. (See also Monophysitism and Nestorianism.)

Gnosticism-- dualistic worldview, gnosis is Greek for "knowledge"--

Gnostics did not share all the same beliefs; 13 papyrus volumes of Gnostic texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt in the middle of the 20th century. They have given invaluable insight into this diverse movement. According to the Gnostic Society Archives, "Gnosticism is the teaching based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions."

Manichaeism-- Dualistic religion (good vs. evil, etc.) founded in Persia (Iran) by Syriac-speaking Manes (215-75 A.D.) --
This belief system is a blend of Gnostic Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.
Marcionism-- Rejection of the Old Testament and differentiation between a superior God of goodness and a God of justice, the Creator God of the Jews--
Marcion proposed the first canon based on the "Western text": it consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles; however he deleted any references in these that appeared to approve of the Old Testament and the Creator God of the Jews. He also made other changes to the materials. His proposal helped to spur others to respond with other canons that retained the Hebrew scriptures and did not reject Christianity's Judeo-heritage.

Monarchianism--Undivided unity and sovereignty (monarchia) of God--
This viewpoint flourished in the 3rd century among eastern and western Christians.
•\tDynamic Monarchianism
Jesus a human who became a God--
•\tModalistic Monarchianism
Argued that the Trinity is one God with different modes of divine action rather than distinct persons.

Monophysitism--Jesus was a God with human attributes; he had one (mono) dominant nature: divine--
Monophysitism was popular in Palestine, Egypt, and Antioch. The fourth church council Chalcedon declared this belief to be heresy in 451. Descendents of the groups declared heretical still exist today: they are the Oriental Orthodox churches, who accept the first three church councils but not the fourth Their biblical canons are also different from the Roman Catholic Church. These churches, who are in ecumenical dialogue concerning the split of the church, prefer to be called "non-Chalcedonian." The Oriental Orthodox churches include:
•\tThe Coptic Church of Egypt
•\tThe Ethiopian Orthodox Church
•\tThe Syrian Orthodox Church
•\tThe Armenian Orthodox Church
•\tThe Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Church

A web page about the Coptic Church says: "The Coptic Church has never believed in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon! " An Ethiopian Orthodox Church web page says:
The Ethiopian Church belongs to the group of Orthodox Churches wrongly termed "Monophysite" but which prefer the epithet "Non-Chalcedonian." The other members of this family are the Coptic, Armenian, Syrian and Indian Churches. Together with the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Orthodox Church they comprised the One Church for four centuries until the division arose on account of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which insisted that Christ had the two natures of humanity and divinity.

The Oriental Orthodox churches have been responsible for the preservations of a number of ancient manuscripts that might otherwise have been lost. The Ethiopian Orthodox church has the largest Christian canon.
(See also Monothelitism; Eutychianism; and "Nestorius".)

Monothelitism--
Jesus's acts expressed one divine-human energia instead of two cooperating wills--
A Christology proposed in the 7th century by the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria in an attempt to unify the Eastern church which had be split by the monophysite controversy. The Maronite Church in Syria today holds to this monthelite view.

Montanism-- An apocalyptic movement emphasizing revelation named after its leader Montanus--
Called "the New Prophecy" by its followers, Montanism, which began about 170 A.D., emphasized prophecy, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and a strict moral code. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, were leaders who delivered messages while in states of ecstasy. It announced that Jesus was about to return. It spread to Asia Minor, Antioch, Syria, and Rome. In the East, the Book of Revelation was initially rejected because it was considered to be tainted by Montanism. In the West, the Book of Hebrews was reject for similar reasons.

Nestorianism--
Refers to theology of Nestorius of Antioch, who became Bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D.
Nestorius believed that Mary was mother only of the human Jesus, not the divine Logos and in the Antiochine "two-nature" Christology. Cyril of Alexandria (who had the female Platonist philosopher Hypatia murdered in 415) first attacked his doctrines in a letter in 428. In his third letter to Nestorius (430), Cyril attacked Nestorius' Christology and demanded that he agree with Cyril's 12 Anathemas, which condemned the Antiochine theology of two natures. Nestorius was to agree that the Word of God suffered in the flesh (not that only the human part of Jesus suffered).

Politics became heaviest at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Nestorius' strongest supporters, John of Antioch and other Syrians were delayed because of weather. Nestorius himself was given military protection because of danger to his person at the hands of the monks related to Memnon, bishop of Ephesus and strong supporter of Cyril. Nestorius' views were misrepresented --he was accused of teaching that Christ was only a human being-- and he was excommunicated. Four days later, the Syrians arrived and condemned Cyril and Memnon. Then the Roman delegates of Pope Celestine arrived and deposed John of Antioch.

In short, the situation was a mess and the bad feelings and actions did not end at Ephesus. (See a church history book for more information.) In 435, Nestorius, who continued to insist on his innocence, was exiled to the Egyptian desert.

Certain bishops in Syria agreed with Nestorius and founded a new church. There still is a small Nestorian church based in Iran, whose New Testament canon is the smallest of Christian churches (22 instead of 27 books)
(See also Monophysitism; Eutychianism; and "Nestorius".)
Top

Sabellianism-- See Modalistic Monarchianism--
Sabellius originated this theory of the Trinity, which flourished in the 3rd century.
Top

For Further Study
Encyclopedia of Early Church History -- articles from the Ecole Initiative including information about these heresies:.
•\tThe Arian Controversy (Chronology)
•\tDocetism
•\tMonarchianism

[url=http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm]Christian Heresies[/url]

sermonindex Jul 18, 2009

Montanism-- An apocalyptic movement emphasizing revelation named after its leader Montanus-- Called "the New Prophecy" by its followers, Montanism, which began about 170 A.D., emphasized prophecy, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and a strict moral code. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, were leaders who delivered messages while in states of ecstasy.[b]It announced that Jesus was about to return[/b] . It spread to Asia Minor, Antioch, Syria, and Rome. In the East, the Book of Revelation was initially rejected because it was considered to be tainted by Montanism. In the West, the Book of Hebrews was reject for similar reasons.
Hmm, the spirit of Montanism is still alive in the majority of main stream churches today, they are still saying that "Jesus could come back at any moment".

Interesting history lesson Brother, very good.

I wonder if the state of Montana gets their name from this group?

sermonindex Jul 18, 2009


As ususal, Deepthinker, you are dead wrong:

[b]Montanism-- An apocalyptic movement emphasizing revelation named after its leader Montanus-- Called "the New Prophecy" by its followers, Montanism, which began about 170 A.D., emphasized prophecy, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and a strict moral code. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, were leaders who delivered messages while in states of ecstasy.It announced that Jesus was about to return . It spread to Asia Minor, Antioch, Syria, and Rome. In the East, the Book of Revelation was initially rejected because it was considered to be tainted by Montanism. In the West, the Book of Hebrews was reject for similar reasons.

Deepthinker posts:
Hmm, the spirit of Montanism is still alive in the majority of main stream churches today, they are still saying that "Jesus could come back at any moment".

Interesting history lesson Brother, very good.

I wonder if the state of Montana gets their name from this group?

[/b]

Montanism took place in 170 A.D. [b][u]Israel was no longer a nation.[/u][/b] [color=990000][b]The Believing Church has always known that for all of of the Prophecises, found throughout the Old Testament, and the New Testament in regards to the return of Jesus Christ to this Earth REQUIRED THAT ISRAEL BECOME A NATION AGAIN.[/color][/b]

That happened in one day on May 14th, 1948. This one day event, prophesized in Isaiah 66:8 started the time clock ticking again.

Isaiah 66:8
8. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day?[u] or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.[/u]

[color=990000]It is the first time in history that a nation that had been totally been dispersed in 70 A.D., and then again in 135 A.D. would keep their identity as a separate people group, with their same language (Hebrew) and WITH THEIR SAME RELIGION, and at the same time become a Nation again. They became a nation again at the same place where they were a nation 2000 years before!!! This has never happened before, ever. The reason? Because God is control of History.[/color]

Whatever or whoever is providing you with your "information" is not of the Holy Spirit. How do I know that? Because you continue to speak in error and ignorance of God's Word.


Sincerely,

Walter



DeepThinker wrote:
Montanism-- An apocalyptic movement emphasizing revelation named after its leader Montanus-- Called "the New Prophecy" by its followers, Montanism, which began about 170 A.D., emphasized prophecy, direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and a strict moral code. Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, were leaders who delivered messages while in states of ecstasy.[b]It announced that Jesus was about to return[/b] . It spread to Asia Minor, Antioch, Syria, and Rome. In the East, the Book of Revelation was initially rejected because it was considered to be tainted by Montanism. In the West, the Book of Hebrews was reject for similar reasons.
Hmm, the spirit of Montanism is still alive in the majority of main stream churches today, they are still saying that "Jesus could come back at any moment".

Interesting history lesson Brother, very good.

I wonder if the state of Montana gets their name from this group?

sermonindex Jul 19, 2009

Whatever or whoever is providing you with your "information" is not of the Holy Spirit
You've thrashed me quite a bit lately brother, perhaps your right.

You seem to have the right answers. I won't taint your threads with any more of my foolishness.

Keep up the good work. God Bless :-)

C
ceedub Jul 19, 2009

Deepthinker,
He could've nailed you on your 'Montana' error as well, but he didn't.

J
Jimotheus Sep 3, 2009

Waltern Greetings:

You neglected to mention one more: CALVINISTIC FATALISM.

I
imnowhere Sep 4, 2009

Jimotheus wrote...



Waltern Greetings:
You neglected to mention one more: CALVINISTIC FATALISM.

Everybody! Jimotheus has an important anouncement? According to Jimmy, these men were/are all heretics...

Charles Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
George Mueller
William Carey
John Knox
Martin Lloyd Jones
B B Warfield
George Whitefield
Jonathon Edwards
A W Pink
John Bunyan
Wycliffe
Zwingli
John MacArthur
Augustus Toplady
John Owen
Horatius Bonar
John Piper
The Puritans
John Newton
The Huguenots
Noah Webster
Augustine
William Tyndale
Charles Hodge
Loraine Boettner
RL Dabney...

and too many others to write.

Thank you Jim, for pointing out that all of the greatest theologians of the church age were but heretics. You must be one fine theologian to sit over this type of scathing judgement.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.toc.html


A
ADisciple Sep 4, 2009

The Believing Church has always known that for all of of the Prophecises, found throughout the Old Testament, and the New Testament in regards to the return of Jesus Christ to this Earth REQUIRED THAT ISRAEL BECOME A NATION AGAIN.

That happened in one day on May 14th, 1948. This one day event, prophesized in Isaiah 66:8 started the time clock ticking again.

Sigh. I will just go on record as one in "the believing church" who does not believe that Isa. 66.8 was fulfilled in 1948.

The "holy nation" is born when "Zion" travails. And Peter makes clear who this "holy nation" is (1 Pt. 2.9). It includes (according to the apostle Peter, if his view carries any weight) both Jew and Gentile, those who at one time "were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" (1 Pt. 2.10).

But... sigh. I'm sure what I've just posted will, sadly, cause some to see, and no doubt post, red.

AD

I
imnowhere Sep 4, 2009

Jimotheus, you haven't replied. What should we do with the teaching of all these 'Calvinistic heretics'?


Charles Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
George Mueller
William Carey
John Knox
Martin Lloyd Jones
B B Warfield
George Whitefield
Jonathon Edwards
A W Pink
John Bunyan
Wycliffe
Zwingli
John MacArthur
Augustus Toplady
John Owen
Horatius Bonar
John Piper
The Puritans
John Newton
The Huguenots
Noah Webster
Augustine
William Tyndale
Charles Hodge
Loraine Boettner
RL Dabney...

and too many others to write.

L
Logic Sep 4, 2009

A heretic is not anyone who has a diferent Christian theology which can be argued by either side.

A heretic is one who preaches another Jesus and "another Gospel" (2Co 11:4, Gal 1:6-7) or damnable theology than the One from the Holy Scriptures which can not be argued by either side.

The list of men may have a form Christian theology which I despize, but I may call them brothers, because they have the same Jesus as I do (as far as I know).

J
Jimotheus Sep 4, 2009

Greetings in the name of the Lord:

Forgive me if I failed to communicate successfully in my reply to this topic. I did not mention any particular preacher by name past, or present. And I did not call any of these fine gentleman mentioned above, heretics.

I will say this; just because an army popular well-known and celebrated preachers from the past, present, or future joint hand-in-hand on a particular theological tradition and doctrine does not make that doctrine (or doctrines) true. Only the Holy Bible is the objective eternal truth by which all doctrines and traditions are judged and shall be judged.

Question: Is it possible that so many fine gentleman mentioned above could in fact be dead wrong? Just a simple question to ponder.

L
Leo_Grace Sep 4, 2009

[b]Jimotheus asked[/b]

Question: Is it possible that so many fine gentleman mentioned above could in fact be dead wrong? Just a simple question to ponder.

The obvious answer is yes, because there are just as many fine gentlemen (popular well-known and celebrated preachers and theologians from the past and present) who prescribe opposing doctrines. They are all mere men.

Too many distinguished scholars have dissected the faith rather than lived it. Too many have tried to analyze, rationalize, and categorize something beyond all human understanding --- resulting in disagreements, divisions, and denominations. They have chopped the body of believers into separate pieces, with the esteemed theologians of each disparate group acclaimed as "giants of the faith" by their followers.

Where in all these is the lordship of Christ? Where is the unity of the Spirit? Might it be that these "giants" missed something important?

Only the Holy Bible is the objective eternal truth by which all doctrines and traditions are judged and shall be judged.

I doubt that doctrines or traditions will even be mentioned on the day of judgment --- they are just not that important. It will be our lives and our deeds as evidence of our faith that will be judged, and we will all be placed where we belong without further discussion.

K
Koheleth Sep 5, 2009

s ususal, Deepthinker, you are dead wrong:

One thing I can always count on when I come to SermonIndex--gentle and loving interaction. Ahh, feel the breeze! It's always good to feel so refreshed.

He could've nailed you on your 'Montana' error as well, but he didn't.

And why not? Let's stomp 'em all. Oh, and God bless you, too.

K
Koheleth Sep 5, 2009

You neglected to mention one more: CALVINISTIC FATALISM.

Everybody! Jimotheus has an important anouncement? According to Jimmy, these men were/are all heretics...

Here we go. Had to do it. Just had to. It's like ice cream in the freezer. It's like a warm shower on a cold day. It's like a fast ride in a cool car. I just couldn't control myself! I had to do it!

I think given the relative focus on Calvin and anti-Calvinism on this site, there is a very sober question of why there is so little focus on Jesus. This was a perfectly normal and neutral thread with historical information. Why thumb your nose at the site moderators and continue to hijack these threads with Calvinism? Very few here actually appreciate this type of activity, in case you didn't notice. Although so few like it, I have a theory why it continues. There is a sick, sadistic, demented pleasure that is derived in warping every discussion this way. It is controlling, it is inconsiderate, it is divisive, it is unwelcome by most, and you should know better since you know how to type but I know my words will fall on mostly deaf ears.

L
Laviver Sep 5, 2009

Not sure where Jimotheus was coming from originally BUT I think now that you were thumbing all Calvanists with this statement. Otherwise, your statement could have stood despite imnowhere's list of great theologians. Why? Because none of those men were fatalists. Fatalism refers more toward hyper-calvanism, which is error, as some of those great theologians (like Spurgeon) used to teach against. I like by the way, how Augustine is on the Calvanist list. Classic.

sermonindex Sep 5, 2009

What should we do with the teaching of all these 'Calvinistic heretics'?


Charles Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
George Mueller
William Carey
John Knox
Martin Lloyd Jones
B B Warfield
George Whitefield
Jonathon Edwards
A W Pink
John Bunyan
Wycliffe
Zwingli
John MacArthur
Augustus Toplady
John Owen
Horatius Bonar
John Piper
The Puritans
John Newton
The Huguenots
Noah Webster
Augustine
William Tyndale
Charles Hodge
Loraine Boettner
RL Dabney...

I choose not to read any Calvinist authors or to listen to any Calvinist preachers. 99% truth is still falsehood. I can't stand that Calvinist stuff anyways. It makes me so upset. I just can't fit Calvinism into my Bible, and I wouldn't want to. I really believe that limited atonement is another gospel. And I just heard from MacAuthurs Church, when I went there, that God has eternally decreed every event, even every sinful event, so that He get's "all the glory".... Saying God is the author of sin does not give Him any glory! Sin does not glorify God, obedience does. God is glorified by an obedient people, not a sinful people. And I especially do not listen to any preachers who say, "we are all sinners" and "you can't be perfect" or "you can't stop sinning" or "we all sin every day". If I hear a preacher say that he sins every day, he has nothing to offer his congregation and he might turn out to be the next Jimmy Swaggard or Ted Haggard.

I really enjoy reading the writings of:

John Wesley,
John Fletcher,
William and Catherine Booth,
George Fox,
Albert Barnes,
Adam Clarke,
Charles Finney,
Leonard Ravenhill,
E. M. Bounds,
Duncan Campbell,
Michael Brown,
Paris Reidhead, etc.

K
Koheleth Sep 5, 2009

I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Calvin,” and “I am of Arminius,” and “I am of Wesley,” and “I am of Spurgeon,” and “I am of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? None of those men were crucified for you, were they? Or were you baptized in the name of someone besides Christ? Christ sent men to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (from 1 Cor. 1:11-17)

Where is our focus?

sermonindex Sep 5, 2009

Whew, yea hey Koheleth your right there is a cool breeze in here.

I agree that Christ is not suppoased to be divided. A divided body wouldn't get very far would it? I also know that we must discern error and call it what it is and then if need be divide from it.

When we do divide we must not do it quickly. Be longsuffering instead. I speak as one who has failed at this in the past and probably will fail at it in the future.

J
Jimotheus Sep 5, 2009

Greetings imnowhere:

My encouragement to you, Sir/Ma'am is to read the New Testament, God's inspired word, and change accordingly.

Secondly, the Church of God is built upon the apostles and prophets of the Holy Bible: not on any of the names of these fine gentleman you mentioned above. Once agian, I never mentioned any of these individuals by name, and I certainly did not call any of them "heretic." It would seem to me, Sir/Ma'am, that you are attempting to insert this into my mouth as a "straw-man", but if you go back and read what I have written, you will see that I never used this word, nor mentioned any of the names posted in your reply.
I think it may help to mention that I have been blessed by the writings and sermons of many of the names mentioned in your post. I have some of their sermons in writing and some reprinted material from these men in my own library. I have gleaned much wisdom and eternal truth from most of the names mentioned above. Many of them had a soberity and a solemn earnest concerning the holy things of the Lord not seen in our generation of preachers today. So, I (as I'm sure you have) benefited from the writings, preachings, and ministries of these men (and there were godly women also). I thank God for all of the truths that have been propounded by these who seem to be pillars to many of the Saints of God today.
Having said thus, let me also say this: Just because these men (and the women of God) have been a blessing to the Church for decades (some, for centuries) does not, I repeat, does not make CALVINISTIC FATALISM true. I believe a qoute from Bro. Lawrence Vance is fitting at this point:

[i][b]"Although Calvinists go out of their way to distance themselves from fatalism, they are in essence teaching the same thing. When a philospher believes "what ever will be will be" it is called determinism. When a stoic believes "what ever will be will be" it is called fate. When a Moslem believes "what ever will be will be" it is called fatalism. But when a Calvinist believes "what ever will be will be" it is called predestination." [/b][/i]

J
Jimotheus Sep 5, 2009

Greetings to all:

With all due respect to the moderators of Sermonindex.net, and to all else: I have notice that there are many a topics, and subjects that are discussed and should be discussed among those who profess to be Christian. But I am detecting that certain topics (one in particular that I won't mention lest I be accused of "hijacking" or hating) seems to be taboo in a general sense on Sermonindex. I have read of many subjects on a variety of issue that are effecting THE CHURCH discussed on this site and have read some pretty strong replies concerning many things. However, I do not remember anyone whining about any contraversial topic I have read. I do not remember anyone saying that, "this" or "that" should not be discussed for the sake of "unity." Forgive me if I am mistake, but when it comes to particular beliefs that are at the heart and soul of many who visit Sermonindex.net there seems to be a hue and cry of foul-play if something to the contrary is mentioned.
If some who may have read any of my replies and were offended by them, I just want to say that it is not my intention to offend though I obviously have offended some. But I have not attacked anyone personally, nor have I called anyone names. those who may disagree with me is no reason that I should call their character into question. They may be expressing honest concerns. I welcome that, but I hope that this can be recipricated as well. For this time though I will excuse myself, brethren and simply read all the other replies to this thread without making any further comment. God Bless you.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 46 posts