The following is an annotated version of 2Blessed comment from…mumble, mumble, mumble a little while ago. I’ve added my comments where I thought they would help understand what we are saying about the elect, God’s part in salvation, and our part. 2 Blessed’s comments are blockquoted. Mine are normal. Oh, and some of 2Blessed comment sections include quotes from GaryV. One of the reasons I am putting this out here as a post is because it starts the discussion I’ve been thinking about initiating, a question someone asked about a month ago. And that is: What is a heretic and what is heresy? Is infant baptism heresy? Does a denial of the sabbath make for a heresy? Does an insistance on keeping the sabbath make for a heresy?
John 6:44
44″No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.“The elect are drawn by God through his Word and His Spirit. Period. Monergism. The elect are NOT drawn by my charm………nor repelled by my harshness.I have no hand in whether anyone either IS or IS NOT elect.”
No offense TO Gary, but I think that there was a bit of misinterpretation with the entire subject of God’s Spirit drawing a person…..I see your point that “God, not man, plays the most active role in salvation”, and that the choices we make to believe in Christ can only happen in response to the urging of God’s Holy Spirit..it’s God who does the urging, and then we decide whether or not to believe…no one can believe in Jesus without God’s Help, but where from the passage did you get the idea that this means that how we present truth doesn’t affect whether a person is responsive to God’s Spirit?
(MN: If our presentation has an effect, then it’s not God , it’s God and my presentation. That means I played a role and helped God. We’re not saying you should go out of your way to be a jerk. Rather, you don’t have to beat yourself up for not getting it “exactly right”. Do your best, but recognize that it is God who draws, period. And he will use the brand new Christian as easily as he can use the 50 year pastor. )
Your statement seems to be a bit of a BROAD stroke itself……… I can tell a good bit of what’s in a person’s heart by their fruit/actions, but I cannot fully know whether they’re (or even myself) elected by God and respond to them as if I already do…….where would the point be in us being called to make our election sure if we knew that it and those of others was already set? (II Peter 1:5-11, specifically verse 11)….If our election was already sure, doesn’t seem that there’d much of an issue: I could respone in whatever manner I like. It would seem to be quite dangerous to assume part of your stance since none of us even know who the elect are and’ll never know 100% till Judgement DAY as to who truly was acknowledging Christ as Lord in their Hearts (Luke 12:8-10)
(MN: If you have believed, you are by definition of the elect. Only the elect believe. Think in terms of Lydia the maker of purple cloth. The Lord opened her heart to the things Paul said. She was elect. On the other hand, if Felix died without receiving Christ, he was not one of the elect. )
Plus, it seems that by your statement we’d have to disregard many passages that seem to indicate our actions (presentation included) have a direct effect on the response of others to the Lord, be it by acknowledgig Him in some kind of way or choosing to investigating further or choosing to curse n’ ignore Him altogether.
Salt and Light
13″You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14″You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
Colossians 4:2-6Further Instructions
2Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. 3And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. 4Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. 5Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. 6Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (THIS SHOWS THAT IT’S POSSIBLE TO OBSCURE THE MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL IF I’M NOT COURTEOUS…NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE MESSAGE MAKES SENSE, OUR ACTIONS TOWARD THEM CAN DETWEMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE LOSE OUR EFFECTIVENESS AND TURN OTHERS AWAY FROM CHRIST IF WHAT WE SAY ISN’T “TASTY”….NOT MEANING PALATABLE, FOR SALT STINGS AND THE BY ITSELF TRUTH CONVICTS STILL, BUT WHAT CAN IT DO IF IT DOESN’T ENCOURAGE FURTHER DIALOUGE?).
(MN: We are certainly to present the Gospel clearly. AFerall, if a person can’t understand what you are saying, he can’t respond. But we are not discussing clarity. )
(Gary)2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
(Gary) This Scripture is written to a pastor, and is instruction on conduct towards the congregation. It is not instruction on how to deal with heretics.
(MN: Exactly. The unsaved don’t recover. They don’t come to their senses [NASB])
Mabye it’s just me, but Wouldn’t ya have to assume that their were unbelivers (herectics included, whether they acknowledged it publically or kept it silently to themselves and within their hearts) ALREADY WITHIN the congregation/the BODY at Large and that therefore Timothy would be approached by herectics as well? Not those with the titles/platform of teachers, but members within who agreeded with wrong teachings and had questions on em? If Paul didn’t want it to be for those who were Herectics, wouldn’t he have been a bit more specific instead of simply saying what to do for those who oppose/fight against the truth (something that Herectics already do)…..Though the Word says in other places how to deal with False Teachers (Romans 16:17, 2 John 1:7-11), why is it that this shouldn’t apply to those believing in heretical teachings?
(MN: A person can’t be assused of teaching heresies unless he actually teaches heresies. This is not the same as believing something and discussing it with an elder. The sections in Timothy and Titus are talking about the layman who has gotten hold of some bad meat. Verses such as Romans 16:17 are talking about someone who actively promotes bad doctrine. )
Where did you get the distinction that it was not for Heretics simply because it was instructions on how to address the congregation?
1 Peter 3:15-17
15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.(Gary V)BTW………..1 Peter 3:15-17 is referencing those OUTSIDE of the Body, not those undermining the Body from within (heretics).
To say that it only applies to those outside the church doesn’t really seem to say much or do the passage justice….to say it only applies to unbelievers and not heretics (who are essentially unbelievers because they refuse to believe the truth) would mean that you’d have to assume that a believer is someone who has simply heard the truth and gives intellectual consent to the message or a set of creeds….or that that an unbeliever is someone outside the known church who explicitly says “I don’t believe or follow Jesus” and hasn’t heard the full deal of the gospel…
(MN:They are heretics because they teach that which is contrary to the truth as though it is the truth of Christianity. An atheist is not a heretic. He makes no claims of orthodoxy. Benny Hinn is a heretic. HE claims Christianity yet teaches doctrines that are contrary to the truth of the Bible. )
Thought Jesus made real clear that believers and unbelievers all grow up to together, SIDE BY SIDE, IN THE BODY and that it’d be often hard to tell the difference (Matthew 13:24-30)…..Muslims, like G2 said, may not be a good example, but how can you say that people like JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF CHRIST, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, CHRISTADELPHIANISM, MORMONISM, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE and so many others should be dealt with differently than those who follow people on TBN like Copeland or Fredrick price and so many others when people in these religions are considered by many as much apart of the Body as well…..and many of them believe call themselves Christians and teach EXTREMELY Herectical teachings too!!! Both those who follow the teachings of Creflo or Jakes and those in these other religions are CULTS….WHERE’S THE REAL DIFFERENCE IN HANDLING THEM AT?!!!! Heck, there was even a Mormon on TBN at one point, AND THE AUDIENCE STILL CLAPPED LIKE CRAZY!! How are you gonna say “I’m gonna come at a follower of Noel Jones/Jakes Hard because He’s preaching Oneness Pentecostal” and say to a Jehovah’s Witness follower, “You don’t know the Truth, so I be more respectful with you only” when BOTH ARE CULTS NONETHELESS!!!!….THEY’RE BOTH UNREGENERATE UNBELEIVERS (SOME WHO’VE EVEN HEARD THE TRUTH AND ARE WITHIN THE BODY ITSELF) AND WHO STILL DON’T BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH (BE IT BY DECEPTION OR PLAIN REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACTS!!!!!!! THEY BOTH INVOLVE BRAINWASHING/MANIPLUATING THEIR FOLLOWERS AND BORH HAVE AND APPLAUD FALSE TEAHCERS AND TEACHINGS THAT PROMOTE AN UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS THAT’S NOT BIBLICAL…..AND BOTH ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY DISTORT THE TRUTH AND UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN FAITH…..SOME MAY BE MORE PROMINANT IN THE SPOTLIGHT THAN OTHERS, LIKE MANY ON TBN AND IN AMERICAN CHRISTIANITYT, AND THEY MAY USE THE RIGHT WORDS, BUT THEY STILL CHANGE THE MEANINGS NONETHELESS AND DO DAMAGE…….Yeah, Jones or jakes may be taking your money and damaging lives from the T.V AND THE PULPIT, but so are all the others………AGAIN, WHERE DOES THE TEXT INDICATE THAT A DISTICTION WAS EVER MADE BETWEEN A HERECTIC AND AN UNBELIEVER????
(MN: I don’t hold any more respect for Mormon leaders than I do Noel Jones. To the degree that Mormon leaders kpresent themselvess as Christians, they are heretics. But again, an unbeliever makes no claim to Christianity. They are not sheep among the wolves. )
That being the case, wouldn’t ya have to assume that their were unbelivers (herectics included, whether they acknowledged it publically or kept it silently to themselves) Already in the congregation and that therefore Timothy would be approached by herectics as well?
(MN: No. You cannot be a private heretic. In order for the verses we tend to use to apply, you have to go public with it. And generally, within the context of this site, you generally are going to be a teacher. Again, there is the idea of PROMOTING bad doctrine, not simply believing it and keeping quiet about it. )
(Gary) OK……..you’re wrong. Please show me from Scripture where the distinction YOU just made is addressed. Where is the distinction made between someone in authority and someone NOT in authority who spreads doctrinal poison? Paul addressed the entire congregation of Crete…….
Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Tts 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tts 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;(Gary)Where is the distinction made between teachers and those not in authority?? Were they ALL teachers?? All chiefs and no Indians, so to speak?? Seems Paul had the same attitude toward them ALL, teacher or non-authoritative false teacher alike.
Again, you set up a false scenario with nary a word of Bible to support it.”
Kinda Seems that someone missed the clear distinction that Scripture made about the passage. You cannot understand the passage without properly understanding the people Paul initially was talking about. Look in verse 10, and you can cleary see he was addressing the Circumcision group, who were JUDAIZERS: Jews who deleberately TAUGHT (not initially struggled with believing) that the Gentiles had to obey all the Jewish laws before becoming Christians, and this regulation confused new Christians and caused problems in many churches where Paul had preached the good news. Paul wrote letters to several churches to help them understand that Gentile believers did not have to become Jews in order to be Christians–God accepts anyone who comes to Him in faith (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:2-7). Although the Jerusalem Council had dealt with this issue (Acts 15), devout Jews who refused to believe in Jesus STILL DELIBERTLY TRIED to cause problems in the Christian Churches
Therefore, it would seem that the passage wasn’t talking about people easily decieved/drawn into a False teachers flock, and it wasn’t talking about how to respond to someone who follows a false teacher but initially defends them when questioned (much like it’d be with someone who supports Juanita Buynum but still struggles to disregard her doctrine and acknowledge her actions for what they are because they’ve has been decieved and heavily brainwashed under her influence for years)……The “Them” who Paul was specifically warning Titus to be on the lookout for and rebuke sharply were people of influence who TEACH WRONG DOCTRINE AND LEAD OTHERS INTO ERROR!!!THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE MISGUIDED OPINIONS WITHOUT CHECKING THEM AGAINST THE BIBLE, PEOPLE WHO HAD EVIL MOTIVES AND PRETENDED TO BE CHRISTIANS JUST FOR WHAT MONEY THEY COULD GET (”DISHONEST GAIN”), ADDITIONAL BUISNESS, OR A FEELING OF POWER FROM BEING A **LEADER** IN THE CHURCH….IT WAS NEVER A MANDATE TO REBUKE THOSE WHO FELL INTO FOLLOWING THEM AND STRUGGLED TO LET GO OF THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS SINCE MANY OF THAT DAY, AS IT STILL IS NOW, ARE DECIEVED EASILY AND MAY NOT COME OUT IMMEDIATELY
(MN: I’m not real clear on what you said here so I’ll pass on commenting until you maybe clarify it. )
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending everything that G2 may’ve said. He misread some situations on his part (and, to his credit, admiitted them with apologies) that started the whole debate,….and alot of the verses he stated about love I’m still trying to renconcile with how they apply to false teachers (the I Corinthians 13 one, for example, and the one where Jesus told his disciples to love one another…..John 13:34)
It’s just that many of what he said did make sense and seemed to be intereptreted incorrectly on Gary’s part as well. Even with part of the man’s main deal of asking questions before you respond, it seemed like Gary was missing that G2 wasn’t against confronting false teachers/teachings openly to their face….CAN’T BE EFFECTIVE FOR CHRIST IF YOU DON’T BEST BELIEVE THAT JESUS AND SOME MANY OTHERS IN THE BIBLE HE DID TELL IT LIKE IT WAS, HARSH NAMES AND ALL….seems that G2 was just saying, though, that the confrontive style used by Gary and Melvin wasn’t ALL that Jesus employed to combat for the truth….even cited clear refrences in context that seemed bring the point home of the myriad of ways Jesus combated for truth ALONGSIDE with confrontation/name calling…and no one can deny that the Word says He never did what G2 was talking about at all….We don’t know about Peter or any of the OT prophets, but we do have the clear example of Jesus….and just because it wasn’t employed across the board in Scripture by the majority doesn’t mean it’ not biblical or that it’s invalid, does it??? (Think it’s in the SUPER, MEGA, MAXIE LOOONNNNGGGG NOVEL Section of “Jamal-Harrison Bryant - Creflo Wannabe”, near the bottom and right after where Mel made jest of what “G2ese” is….Really was like reading “War and Peace”)
“Again, you set up a false scenario with nary a word of Bible to support it.
(G2)Furthermore, seeing that all of the Word/it’s principles (not necessarily all the laws in them, like sacrifices for example, but the principles behind them such as living in the awareness of sin and the unapproachable Holiness of the Lord apart from the perfect sacrifice) from Genesis to Revelation, are applicable for living,
(Gary) Wrong again. All Scripture is NOT applicable to everyone. That is where you got yourself in trouble to begin with.
You post verses about relating to other believers, and contend they relate to false teachers. You cite verses relating to sinners and those with minor doctrinal differences, and contend they relate to false teachers. You cite verses that are directed to the lost, and contend that they relate to false teachers.
The first three elementary rules of Biblical interpretation are these……..
1) Determine WHO is speaking
2) Determine WHO he is speaking TO
3) Determine WHAT is the subject being addressed.”Though alot of stuff may’ve been misquotd, who says it’s enough to say that this doesn’t apply to everyone? We know the rules….but it’s not enough to say that something doesn’t apply and leave it at that. I applaud Gary for deconstructing many of G2’s arguments, but it does seem that alot of the proverbs, specifically the ones dealing with approaching dealing with Foolish people, were ignored.
(MN: But that’s the point. These pimps and pimpettes aren’t any more foolish than a sexual molestor or theif is foolish. They know exactly what they are doing. )
If Gary doesn’t think that these proverbs apply, why? Who was the book written to? Beleivers or Unbelievers or both, and why say that? G2 gave his reason, but it doesn’t seem Gary did fully. Contrary to what Gary said, I think G2 made perfectly clear that he didn’t believe that all of the PRACTICES/GUIDLINES IN the Word all apply but moreso the PRINCIPLES behind them we can learn from (ex. you really don’t necessarily follow all of the ceremonial laws like Leviticus 1:2-3 of the OT since they point to Jesus and are no longer necessary after His death/resurrection, and you don’t follow the civil law that applied to Isaraels daily living like found in Deuteronomy 24:10-11 for example since modern society is so radically different from that time and setting and all of the guidelines cannot be followed specifically……but still the principles behind the commands, like holiness and worship for God or principles of wisdom, are timeless. and should guide our conduct….principles even Jesus demonstrated by example)…..
Like it hapened before, God’s still extremely angry about the reckless leadership done in His Name now (Ezekiel 34: 1-31), and By all means, please, Warn about and Strike down the “Wolves” (Matthew 7:15-20, Acts 20:29, but why kill the sheep being preyed upon in the process? How easily are folks manipulated and, like sheep, even just plain dumb/slow at times to really see the truth and not even know their error when it’s starring them in a face cause of the work of the devil has throughly done in em, ” who has taken them captive to do His Will (II Timothy 26).?
Just my opinion on the “Fight”….Gotta Applaud both Gary and G2 for the discussion, though, and for the valid points on both sides and their desire to “Contend” for God
Heavy article…….
(2Blessed) (It does seem that alot of the proverbs, specifically the ones dealing with approaching dealing with Foolish people, were ignored.)
(MN: But that’s the point. These pimps and pimpettes aren’t any more foolish than a sexual molestor or theif is foolish. They know exactly what they are doing. )
By the way, in your opinion, why would you not call someone foolish who knows exactly what they’re doing?
Whether a person is aware of their foolishness or not, if they’re a know-it all, denying the reality of God or his need to live by His laws and resenting discipline or refusing to learn, the Word labels them as fools, does it not? And if so, are we not to adress them accordingly? (Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Proverbs 1:7)
Just trying to sew some things up still…..
(MN: I figured womeone would ask this. And in fact, I figured it would be you. The Bible does indeed say that the fool has said in his heart there is no God. And it speaks of the rich man designated a fool by God when he refuses to follow God instead of chasing after riches and taking it easy.
But speaking practically, and speaking in terms that actually match the way people think, speak and use phrases (while still staying true to the concepts in the Bible), in general, the proverbs referenced were dealing with relationships, describing wise things to do if you don’t want to screw up a relationship, whether that relationship is between friends, boss and worker, husband and wife, or father and son. They are written, primarily for those who want to do right, not those who want to do wrong.
Yes, and atheist is a fool. The bible clearly says this. However, I would suggest the atheist, who deliberately denies the existence of God, or the molester, who deliberately molests a child are not of the same class of foolish as a man who doesn’t understand why his children are rebellious or his wife won’t talk to him. It is similar to the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter. Both are homicide. Both result in the death of another human being. But clearly they are distinct in nature.
I am not rigid (or foolish) enough to write the following in a comment:
If I did that, I would start doing the very things I repeatedly asked you not to do - letting us hear you ruminate and ponder. And I see exactly no reason to do that. I want the readers to look at the issues, not get side tracked on the minutiae - as I see minutiae. And saying, for instance, that Hitler was foolish to kill 6-10 million people, or stalin was foolish to kill 20 million of his own people at best trivializes the true magnitude of the evil of these two men. Their “foolishness” in no way compares to the man who spends more than he makes every month or even the foolish people who voted Hitler into office. At least they don’t compare in a rational world any more than a jaywalker compares to a wife beater. )
MN: So GDub, why are you perping like this?
Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
Tts 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
Tts 1:12 One of themselves, [even] a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians [are] alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Tts 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
(Gary)Where is the distinction made between teachers and those not in authority?? Were they ALL teachers?? All chiefs and no Indians, so to speak?? Seems Paul had the same attitude toward them ALL, teacher or non-authoritative false teacher alike.
Again, you set up a false scenario with nary a word of Bible to support it.”
Kinda Seems that someone missed the clear distinction that Scripture made about the passage. You cannot understand the passage without properly understanding the people Paul initially was talking about. Look in verse 10, and you can cleary see he was addressing the Circumcision group, who were JUDAIZERS: Jews who deleberately TAUGHT (not initially struggled with believing) that the Gentiles had to obey all the Jewish laws before becoming Christians, and this regulation confused new Christians and caused problems in many churches where Paul had preached the good news. Paul wrote letters to several churches to help them understand that Gentile believers did not have to become Jews in order to be Christians,God accepts anyone who comes to Him in faith (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:2-7). Although the Jerusalem Council had dealt with this issue (Acts 15), devout Jews who refused to believe in Jesus STILL DELIBERTLY TRIED to cause problems in the Christian Churches
Therefore, it would seem that the passage wasn’t talking about people easily decieved/drawn into a False teachers flock, and it wasn’t talking about how to respond to someone who follows a false teacher but initially defends them when questioned (much like it’d be with someone who supports Juanita Buynum but still struggles to disregard her doctrine and acknowledge her actions for what they are because they’ve has been decieved and heavily brainwashed under her influence for years)……The “Them” who Paul was specifically warning Titus to be on the lookout for and rebuke sharply were people of influence who TEACH WRONG DOCTRINE AND LEAD OTHERS INTO ERROR!!!THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE MISGUIDED OPINIONS WITHOUT CHECKING THEM AGAINST THE BIBLE, PEOPLE WHO HAD EVIL MOTIVES AND PRETENDED TO BE CHRISTIANS JUST FOR WHAT MONEY THEY COULD GET (”DISHONEST GAIN”), ADDITIONAL BUISNESS, OR A FEELING OF POWER FROM BEING A **LEADER** IN THE CHURCH….IT WAS NEVER A MANDATE TO REBUKE THOSE WHO FELL INTO FOLLOWING THEM AND STRUGGLED TO LET GO OF THEIR FALSE TEACHINGS SINCE MANY OF THAT DAY, AS IT STILL IS NOW, ARE DECIEVED EASILY AND MAY NOT COME OUT IMMEDIATELY
(MN: I’m not real clear on what you said here so I’ll pass on commenting until you maybe clarify it. )
Basically, I was trying to say that the people Paul was advocating sharpness/harshness were primarilly in the position of a teacher/person of influence…..not people who’ve been brainwashed/easily influenced
Thanks for posting the article, by the way. It helped to answer alot of my questions…..Hopefully, more discussion will take place in the future soon.
By the way, I must confess something to you….and to GaryV as well. Balance and Riel G, Riel Adam, RC, C, MB, Cha, LZ (all who dealt with Jamal’s cussing) and many Anonoymous people who’ve been at the site recently in the past couple of months…..well, we’re all the same idenity and working for the same person…..even some of the articles by R.E.A.L and many anonymous persons…we’ll they were all by the same entity and done with the purpose of setting up interesting dialouges…..and it worked pretty welll (Believe your site has been benefited by it as well)
(MN: Don’t forget about G2, C and Double G as well. Was there particular reason you have chosen to engage in such pretense? I had asked you to send me an e-mail so we could discuss you writing some posts for the site. Now…I’m not so sure. )
Care to take the red pill and see “just how deep the rabbit hole goes?”……..
Trust Me, I know it was an error in judgement (call it temporary insanity, if you will)…..
Basically, my thinking was that people are more apt to think about something when it’s coming at them from all different kinds of angles (not just different people, but different perspectives).
If a person was responding to someone they had heard from millions of times, chances are that that person really wouldn’t care to dig into something/If a person was answer any questions.
Plus, whenever you argue an issue from all sides (abeit, playing the role of “Devil’s Advocate”), you tend to have a much more interesting ride and can go places in discussion that may’ve been closed beforehand (With the “Cussing” Discussion, most people didn’t even know about John Piper’s Mishap and that the issue was beyond what you see in Evangelical Christianity…..For Once Saved Always Saved, Most people would’ve probably never investigated Ray Comfort’s Timely Material, and most responses were simply things like “That’s not cool” but there was no meat/substance to what they were saying)
(MN: One of the things you have to avoid doing is trying to force things to happen on the site. It goes as it goes. Most of the posts will do more than enough to generate discussion. )
And, honsetly, it can be quite fun seeing people’s responses and “playing all sides of the field (much like your experiences with being contentious and saying how fun that was back in the day or in your youth.)
Either way, yes, it was wrong and I sincerly ask forgiveness. Trust was broken, God convicted me on it, and I realize that I need to confess/repent, even if there was no ill will intended at all toward you or others. Trust me, my ultimate goal was to help the site a bit, but “the ends don’t justify the means”, and If I get banned from the site on this one, so be it…..I can take that.
Whatever the Benevolent Dictator decides….
(MN: I forgive you. The rest have to decide for themselves.
So, who are you and what are we to use as a tag? )
By the way, prior to doing all of that, I was planning to confess at the end with something like “Surprise” and I was hoping you and others would get a bit of a laugh out of it at my craziness!
Don’t think my plan succedded with ya, though….Never Again…..Later.
(MN: I forgive you. The rest have to decide for themselves.
So, who are you and what are we to use as a tag? )
G² …..The mailman…….(Man, I feel like Tupac, in need of a resurrection or something)
If you want a tag, “Double G (G²)” will suffice. And my email, in case you were interested still in having me do some posts for you, is ggreaves103@comcast.net.
By the way, tell GaryV that my comments to Him and others as G2 and the comaderie that has been taking place between us was real…..(MN: Done )and I did appreciate it a bunch (the needling has officially ended)
Thank you for being merciful and forgiving….truly, you stick to your title of “Benevolent Dictatot”. Best wishes to you, GaryV, and others for still keeping a limp in the pimps.!!!!! Blessings…
I’m just tuning in here, and the reception is a bit fuzzy. Can someone turn the rabbit ears and tell me what just happened??
Proverbs 26:18-19
18 Like a madman shooting
firebrands or deadly arrows
19 is a man who deceives his neighbor
and says, “I was only joking!”
Remember that post you wrote about us not needling each other lest things break out all over again? Well….it probably feels like arrows coming at ya on your side of the street, in light of the confession that I was messing with/rousing ya, and in light of the fact that you were probably thinking that everything was fine. For that, I do apologize.
Like this commentary I read, “He that sins in jest, must repent in earnest, or his sin will be his ruin. (Pr 26:20-22)
It would of been to my benefit to do like the Word says and remember that “He who covers over an offense promotes love,
but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.”
Honestly, there were still some feelings of offense from the fight that I were a bit…raw….and although I said I’d leave the subject alone, seeing the article again weeks later made it especially tempting to go back to the fight and try to “sow up” some things that I still thought weren’t addressed.
Moreover, there were stilll some issues/questions I was wrestling with that I really wanted answered, but since I’d written so much as G2, people were tired of it and they probably wouldn’t of been anwered……hence, that’s why I wrote under all of the different personas I did…..and thankfully, my questions were partially answered, and the site seems the better for it.
Some of the concerns I wrote as “2blessed” or “Balance” were also ways of expressing my points that I wanted to raise as part of my long-awaited rebuttal you wanted me to give back in the day, which Mr.Melvin helped to give me clarity on (i.e. concerns on loving your neighbors, what to make of I Corinthians, what’s the difference between an unbeliever and a herectic, etc)….and I tried arguing it from your side as well as “Riel G” and others to see where you were coming from…..A great deal of it I agree with.
After thoroughly hearing your side on Sarcasm, and how you use “shock and awe” because it TOOK “shock and awe” to pull you out…..and that It wasn’t until you had the finger of Nathan pointed at you and heard the shout “THOU ART THE MAN…….” (though I must say that Nathan, though required to confront sin, used a great deal of tact and seasoned his words with wisdom in his presentation so that David would respond constructively before saying “You da Man!!”)…….I’m quite satisfied
The field, abiet partially, has been officially ceded….
Again, apologize for the deception and upsetting you in any kind of way…..there really was no harm intended, and I don’t wish it to come off as if I’m starting up another fight….it was still a bit foggy and I just had to get some more clarity on my side of the street.
Appreciate all the hard work (Dang, 2 jobs….Trooper) you do at the site, and know that it makes a difference.
Peace, Brah….
TO G2: You and the rest of God’s princes make this site worthwhile. I’ve been searching for the referenced Scripture for several weeks (Proverbs 26:18-19) and my patience paid off. BTW, Proverbs 26:20-22 is a new jewel to me. Thanks! His love, and mine, Beryle
Very glad to know you still consider me a blessing, Mrs.Beryle……Had no idea you were looking for the scripture I posted. By the way, the feeling is mutual: YOU MAKE THIS SITE WORTHWILE ALSO!!!!
Hugs, Kisses, and Best Blessings/Wishes!!!
Hope the reception is a bit more clearer for you now…..Don’t change the channel now, though…..Mike has returned (no offense Mr.Mike), and I think I told ya back in the day that we’d possibly be able to tag team at some point, brah……there goes the neighborhood……He, He, He)…..
Blessings….
to g2, dub g, imbalance, unriel g, and whatever other sybilish personas you may be writing under- doctors have pills to control this y’know.
and since we’re being so honest- i fess up, i’m really garyv, and gridiron. couldn’t you tell?
(Mrs.Maverick) “to g2, dub g, imbalance, unriel g, and whatever other sybilish personas you may be writing under- doctors have pills to control this y’know.”
Sadly, the pills stopped working months ago….”Terminal Craziness” or “Crazy beyond belief/control” was the diagnosis they gave me…..Besides, technically, the Lucidity was there the entire time ( felt the majority of the time as if the whole operation was a bit too “Machiavellian”, LOL)
(Mrs.Maverick) “And since we’re being so honest- i fess up, i’m really garyv, and gridiron. couldn’t you tell?”
Honestly, on any other day that comment would have seemed unsual….but in light of recent events, I’m actually considering the validity of it (LoL)…..
Appreciate the comments (hope you got a laugh from it all). Blessings…..
Kudos for the inventive way you illustrated your points. I don’t consider it deception really……because I was addressing the points rather than the person, the answers wouldn’t have differed.
Looking forward to the tag-team. I’ve got my spandex at the ready
By the way, love your editing on the titles….”Imbalance” and “Unriel G” were classic (Lol Lol Lol)…..but trust me, those masks/costumes and all the other diverse/various versions of who I am are back in the storage box for now……
Fun as it is, Gets kind of tiring having to display various manifestations of yourself…..not to mention difficult when Gods’ Spirit is pressing on ya and the fact of how much damage can come from deception/trickery regardless of what you’re seeking to accomplish or the intentions behind it (Proverbs 12:22, Proverbs 12:19, Proverbs 14:5, Proverbs 16:13). Like the Word says,
Proverbs 20:17
17 Food gained by fraud tastes sweet to a man,
but he ends up with a mouth full of gravel.
What’s gained by sin may be good to taste initially, but hard to swallow in it’s finality….funny how sin always comes with a delayed after effect….and the after-taste was pretty nasty for me….
All that to say, from here on out, “Double G (G²)” is who you’ll be contending with (and no, in case you were wondering, I don’t have multiple personality disorder……just a bit crazy and on the “far side”, though, lol)
Blessings…..
Pray for me though, ya’ll…..there’s still in me a couple of traces left of the “The Devil’s Advocate” mode that’d love to come back out again…..and Like Yoda said, “Once you start on the path of the Dark Side, forever will it dominate you” (lol)……and it’s quite a bit diffucult to entirely let go of the “Machiavellian” Style to learning/discussion………
Man, wish I had more pills at this point….or that the ones they first perscribed to me were a bit stronger……I am trying though, but the “Madness” doesn’t go way easily (LOL, Lol, LOl)….Time and Tide, I guess, and seems that only time will be way to ride this one out……
Blessings…
(MN: G2, you REALLY screw things up when you do that. Please stop. I don’t have time to have to filter the responses. And the thought that we may be discussing just so someone can make happen what they think should happen is, at best, discouraging.
I have forgiven you but I don’t think you realize just how significant your activity was. It was not and is not funny. It was not cute. It was not particularly productive. It was damaging and did not do the site a single bit of good. You, by working hard to clearly express yourself could have communicated what you wanted to communicate without doing what you did. And it would, in the long run, profited the site much more.
I have forgiven you. I assume the folks out there have also forgiven you. You keep bringing it up. Take responsibility for what you did [which really is between you and God at this point] and move on. Then we can work on the trust thing. )
(MJ) “Take responsibility for what you did [which really is between you and God at this point] and move on. Then we can work on the trust thing.”
Trust me, I DID (if I didn’t, I would’ve never confessed to it)…..and in light of all the jest that others have seemingly brought up about it (mabye I’m reading comments the wrong way, perhaps), thought I return the favor.
Besides…it was just a simple request for prayer about it since it’s still a temptation I’ll have to fight against and cannot battle alone by keeping it “Just between God and I”…..THAT IS ALL IT WAS.
Forgive me if I’m not yet realizing as you do the lack of humor/productivity in my actions, or comprehending fully the apparent level of damage you feel was done to the site……Again, my bad. Per your request, this WON’T be brought up again. Moving On it shall be…
Blessings….
Note to Mr.Melvin,
In case my posting came off in any way sarcastic, sassy or flippant, please know that it wasn’t my intention. If it did, my sincere apologies sir.
Again, Blessings….
I’m jest tryin’ ta read thru all y’all’s postings and make “since” of some of them. Instead, I think I’ll jest get me a “drank” cause it’s all gettin’ a bit fuzzy. It’ll wear off before Judge Judy comes on.
:-) 
Mav…
Comment by mrs. maverick
2007-01-31 09:17:34
to g2, dub g, imbalance, unriel g, and whatever other sybilish personas you may be writing under- doctors have pills to control this y’know.
and since we’re being so honest- i fess up, i’m really garyv, and gridiron. couldn’t you tell?
That was pretty good….had to laugh….
Okay….should’ve put a ? instead of a 2² besides the G, cause in a few ways the man’s definately a bit of an enigma at this point…..quite intriguing/entertaining, though
Kinnda like the “enigma” label…..but surely I’m not that hard to decipher, am I?
2Blessed comments raise a few good questions #1) what is heresy? Is not heresy the opinion or dorctrine contrary to a church or groups belief. Is it not true that most christians consider themselves saved based upon the Roman road to salvation.(But, was not Paul addressing Israel’s condition Rm 1:1, & not sending a general salvation messeage to the world). That is believing on Jesus with your heart & confessing with ones mouth the sinners prayer.Is not the sinners prayer a 19th century doctrine and if so, shouldn’t we consider it heresy?Just like one would for infant baptism & praying to idols or other issues.So, before we can have honest conversation on heresy, maybe we need honest discussion on salvation, who’s salvation, oneness, trinity,baptist, methodist, pentecostal all of these groups have their own concept of salvation & if you do except that ideology then you are considered a heretic to the group is this not so? Just thought I would ask.
(MN: I suspect you are making a couple of assumptions and placing something of a hairtriggered tripwire on the condition of heresy. As I said a couple of days ago, I am seriously toying with the idea of doing an posting on heresy and how it relates to the pimps. You have brought up some very good points I think definitely warrant discussion.
But to make sure I understand your comment you are saying:
1. The Sinner’s Prayer is a 19th century doctrine - should we consider it heresy
2. Using the Roman’s Road “technique” for presenting the Gospel tends to result in heresy
3. Heresy is group related
Are these pretty much what you are dealing with?
More later. )
By the way, Mr.Mike , are you the same Mike who was involved in the “Mike the Historian” saga?
Just curious…..
Mr.Mike,
Just to let you know…If and when you come back, please know that I look foward to dialouging with/hearing from you…..From the looks of things, it should be quite an trip!
Blessings….
let’s get into it (heresy)our Benevolent dictator, pop that lid and let’s see what cooking,
Here is the definition of heresy:
dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
Upon looking closer at the definition of heresy it can be argued that the concept of the word has changed. Is it possible to have dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims when it comes to God’s word? With man involved indeed it is. But with God it’s not possible.
God is not asking for an opinion. He is giving his word. Heresy, or the term heresy today, appears to have become more of a natural term, if someone disagrees with my group or the tenets established by my group even if my group is in error, is a heretic.
The term heresy today seems like a term used to coerce one into the opinion of the ruling party. Who determines what is orthodox? The definition of the word orthodox means: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion. Consider this, the Pharisees were the ruling party, they established the religious views of the people, their views were conservative and any one that disagreed with their orthodoxy was labeled a heretic. This is what’s done today when an oppressive government labels freedom fighters terrorist. the very word terrorist strikes fear in our heart, we become unsympathetic to their cause thus we turn away from them even if they are justifed in their quest.
Even if we’re being oppressed we side with our oppressor because we fear the reprisals and rejection associated with change or truth, no one wants to be ostracized no one wants to be a terrorist no one wants to be a heretic, so we cower in the face of change or truth. But is this not the Christ, is he not the greatest heretic/rebel/terrorist of our time? Surely to the orthodoxy of his day he indeed was.
Today the term heretic can be a badge of honor. Are we not to question and reject orthodox views when it refuses to line up with the word of God should it not be worn on the outside of our faith. Yes I know the scripture Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject.
I think the essences of this word has changed if Paul calls you a heretic then you are a heretic, but we no longer have Paul or the apostles for clarity, now what we have are opinions and different interpretations, uninspired men and woman telling us what inspired men meant. With so much confusion how can anyone be called Heretic, it’s your view against mine, so I’m not sure what you would call the Pimps and witches of today but I don’t think they deserve the label of heretic. Calling them a heretic can put them is a position of being perceived as freedom fighters coming to set free the captives of true biblical faith when in fact they seek to enslave them. Poping that lid.
(MN: Does anyone out there wish to address this? While I suspect he is sincere, can you identify the errors he commits in his comment? If no one else wants to comment on it [GaryV and company, give others a chance to speak up], then Riki Tiki or others can chime in In fact, I would be very happy to hear Righter’s response to this. I promise not to argue with you. )
Give me some time, and I’ll “sew” this one up for ya….would that be alright?
(Mr.Samuels) “Upon looking closer at the definition of heresy it can be argued that the concept of the word has changed. Is it possible to have dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims when it comes to God’s word?”
(Mr.Samuels) “Even if we’re being oppressed we side with our oppressor because we fear the reprisals and rejection associated with change or truth, no one wants to be ostracized no one wants to be a terrorist no one wants to be a heretic, so we cower in the face of change or truth. But is this not the Christ, is he not the greatest heretic/rebel/terrorist of our time? Surely to the orthodoxy of his day he indeed was.”
If you’re still interested in this dialouge, question: Who was in the herectical position in Jesus’s day to begin with? The Pharisees or Jesus? The ones who were considered as holding the knowledge to define what’s orthodox, or the one who made the laws and was the Word of God (John 1:1) itself to begin with to begin with?
Think about it, now, cause when Jesus came and talked about a new way to understand God’s law, He wasn’t really saying anything NEW. He was actually trying to bring people back to the original purpose (Matthew 5:17-18). He didn’t speak against the law itself that the Pharisees had set up, but rather the abuses and execeses to which it had been subjected (John 1:17)….
Notice that Jesus didn’t really challenge the orthodoxy of the Pharisees…Usually Jesus did not condemn what the Pharisees taught, but what they were–hyprocrites (Matthew 23:1-12).
As a matter of fact, at one point Jesus confirmed a bit of the righteousness of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20), for they were exacting and scrupulpous in their attempts to follow their laws…..but their righteousness wasn’t complete because they were content with obeying laws outwardly without allowing God to change their hearts……
Jesus was saying that His listeners needed a complete kind of righteousness altogether (love and obedience), not just a more intense version of the Pharisees righteousness (i.e. legal compliance, righteousness that comes from what God does in us, not what we can do by ourselves, and righteousness that’s God-centered rather than self-centered,, with reverence for Him rather than approval from people as the goal)…..
Whenever Jesus said things like “But I tell You”, He wasn’t doing away with the law or adding His own beliefs/orthodoxy. Rather, he was giving a fuller understanding of why God made the law in the first place.
When Moses, for example, said “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13), Jesus simply taught that we should not even become angry enough to murder, for then we have committed murder already in our hearts (Matthew 5:21-22)…….The Pharisees read this law and, not having literally murdered anyone, felt righteous…..They read God’s rules for living without trying to understand why He made them…..
All that to say, Jesus and His Word alone alone is what defines orthodoxy…..The reason why there’s so much confusion as to what heresy is isn’t so much because of people’s concept of the term….or even because the essence of the word has changed, as it is people not going back to what Jesus already said…….
Not a matter of opinion or whatever a group considers herectical if it’s not JUDGED viewed through the WHOLE Counsel of God first…..that’s what the Pharisees, the Real Terrorists/Herectics of their time (Mark 12:38-40) were ignoring and why there was so much mess going on (check out the postings below for more info on it)
Hope it helps…..
G (g2), My point was not from Jesus point of view but from the point of view of the Pharisees, Jesus indeed challenged their system, their orthodoxy, mind you I said “THEIR” orthodoxy and remember what the meaning is, it’s to conform to established doctrine especially in religion, Matt 16:12 is clear Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Doctrine is not necessarily truth, they had made it THEIR TRUTH thus it became the orthodox view, by challenging their doctrine their view he in fact rebelled against “their” orthodoxy thus making him a heretic, remember the definition means dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims, in their eyes his truth was doing just that, he was not seminary trained not part of the status quo he was the bastard son of a carpenter an outsider who threatened their power and authority see Mat 7:28-29.
Your point about Jesus “talked about a new way to understand God’s Law” this is and of itself was heresy to the Pharisees, remember heresy is not about truth it’s about the diversity of opinions, the people were following Jesus he spoke with authority because he spoke the truth but all the while they conspired to destroy him, why ?
Did he blaspheme God, was he a deceiver did he kill someone; no he was to them a heretic, he would not conform to the establish doctrine, Rom 12:2 and be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Orthodox does not always mean truth, and a heretic is always a heretic.
Mr.Samuels,
Mabye it’s just me, but I think that we may have 2 different definitions of what heresy is here, which is probably what’s leading to all the confusion.
I’m not certain from where your definition of heresy originates (let me know, though), but this is what I found….
The word heretic is commonly used by religious groups to indicate someone who teaches a belief contrary to the group’s doctrinal understanding, and the Greek word that is translated heretic in the KJV actually means “someone who causes division.” (i.e. uncessary division).
The NT condemns those who are heretics by THIS definition. But this does not necessarily mean that it condemns people whose understanding on a variety of biblical matters differs from some central “doctrinal statement” endorsed by any particular group.
Instead, it shows that someone who holds differing views should not use those differences as a crowbar to divide the Christian fellowship group of which he is a part into factions.
Thus a heresy as defined biblically is not just an understanding on some doctrine that differs from an officially sanctioned interpretation, but an understanding that is used to divide brethren.
When we look into Romans 14, we see that the Apostle Paul notes it’s acceptable for people in a fellowship group to have different beliefs about disputable matters, but it is not acceptable to allow these differences to cause irreparable divisions in the group.
Matthew 10:34-39
34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw–
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
It is true that Jesus did bring division and new opinions on the status quo, like you’re saying….and like you’re saying, by the definition you found, He could be considered “herectical” by those in authority who considered themselves “orthodox” in and considered Him to be stirring things up needlessly (Luke 19:45-48, John 11:45-57)
(MN: Can’t really say Jesus brought new opinions. Unless of course we can say that they are really the Ten Suggestions.)
Still, there’s no need to consider the actions of Christ or division/opinions Jesus brought as herectical seeing that He IS GOD, His division was based on commitment to God (something the Pharisees were never about)and the conflict and disagreement that will arise between those who choose the Lord and who don’t, and taking people back to what the intent of God’s Word meant
Moreover, there’s no need to say His actions were herectical because they were in line with the Promises and Word of God (Luke 4:16-37, Luke 19:28-44, John 5:15-47, John 6:32-71, John 7:37, John 8:31-47, John 8:48-59)…
And they were done not in His own authority or unique “style” but in a way that mirrored the authority God alone commisioned Him for and that reflected the character of WHO GOD THE FATHER WAS (Luke 5:17-26, John 7:10-37, John 10:22-39) and were not causing people to be divided from redemption, right living & felllowship with the Lord ….
This was something that the Pharissess doctrines were continually doing and that WOULD be considered herectical….their teachings, regardless of the “orthodox” label they had on them, were herectical because they brought division that was based on nothing else but hunger for power, money, status, spiritual ignorance, rebellion against the Heart of God and anything else but gloryfyig the Lord! (Matthew 12:22-37, Mark 15:9-10, Luke 7:29-30, John 9:13-34, etc …..)
Whether or not that they viewed themselves otherwise does not change the fact that they still were!!!……Herectical
(MN: Can’t really say Jesus brought new opinions. Unless of course we can say that they are really the Ten Suggestions.)
Bad Word Choice, perhaps.
By opinion, I wasn’t meaning that Jesus came up with new ideas/suggestions, but rather that His judgments on how to interpret what God already said in the Law (which was the original intent of the Lord anyhow) were to be considered radically different in light of how the Pharisees and many were used to viewing/teaching things.
(Mr. Samuels: “Matt 16:12 is clear Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”)
Double G (G²)) I did some research and it seemed that the Matt 16:12 verse wasn’t really dealing so much with teaching doctrine as it was with heart attitudes, and it dealt with something completely different and perhaps even more deadly…..
The surrounding context was one where the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded a sign from Heaven in order to test Him……
Previously, they’d tried to explain away Jesus’ other miracles as luck, sleight of hand, coincidence, or the use of evil power. For this they were sure would be a feat beyond Jesus’ power….
And although Jesus could’ve easily impressed them, He refused because He knew that even a miracle in the sky would not be able to convince them that He was the Messiah……
They had already decided in their hearts not to believe in Him–despite all the miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and godly character made evident in Christ already–a and anything that He did would simply be for no other reason but their appeasement.
With this in mind, one can see that this was the “Yeast” that He immediately told His disciples to be on the lookout for…..
Yeast symbolizes evil, and just as only a small amount of yeast is needed to make a batch of bread rise, so the hardheartedness of the religious/political leaders could easily permeate and contaminate the entire society, making it rise up against Jesus if encouraged.
The disciples were running this very risk of hardening their hearts so hard that even the most convincing facts and demonstrations wouldn’t impact them.
They had experienced so many of Jesus’ miracles, most recent of which was the feeding of the 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish (Mark 6:35-44), and yet here they doubted whether He could feed another large group….
For them to say “How can this little wrong of disbelief possibly affect anyone?” would be tantamount to beginning down the road of what the Pharisees and Herod did so often……
MAKING MOCKERY OUT OF THE SON OF GOD AND DENYING HIM TO THE GRAVE, DESPITE THE PRICE IT’D BE ON ONE’S LIFE!!! (Matthew 11:16-19, Mark 15:25-32, Luke 23:6-12, John 19:1-16)
(Mr.Samuels: “Doctrine is not necessarily truth, they had made it THEIR TRUTH thus it became the orthodox view, by challenging their doctrine their view he in fact rebelled against “their” orthodoxy thus making him a heretic,….”)
Please know that I agree with ya on what appears to be one of your main points….that “Doctrine isn’t necessirarily Truth”….. (Whew! Better Preach on that one, brah).
Just because something is taught/practiced does not equate to its’ being permissible in the eyes of God or correct from head to toe. Many “doctrines” are simply “tore up from the floor up”, and shouldn’t be followed, even if they have “history” to them or a large following…..
Still, rebelling against whatever’s considered the “orthodox” view of our day does not mean that we’re truly “heretical” unless the teaching we’re rebelling against was “orthodox” to begin with…..
It may appear otherwise to those who do not know how to divide the Word or to those with the titles/reputations of being “Orthodox”, as it was in Jesus’ day…but that doesn’t change the way it is….”a spade’s a spade”, regardless of how you or I see it.
Brah, the same thing that happened in Jesus’ day is still going on now in the Last!!! Ain’t “nothing new under the sun”! (Ecclesiastes 1:8-10). And it’s only going to get worse (1 Timothy 4:1-6).
Apparently we are supposed to avoid these people according to Paul (2 Timothy 3:5) when he tells us to have nothing to do with them.
Brah, how many times have we seen these verses come to pass, where those who have a teaching influence are able to put anything out there they want and it’s considered “orthodoxy” by the masses, while those who want to go back to what the Word says are shut down because those with the platforms label them “heretical”/causing needless division” or “Harming the Body”, despite the fact that they’re doing the same things they preach against…..and we in fact are the originals, the “Orthodox” ones who are truly helping the Body of Christ!!!!
We’re may be radical, but we’re not heretical! And we’re not going crazy…..Like Jesus, we’re just going “sane” in a crazy world!!!
Honestly, would it seem logical to say that we who stand against all the foolishness are at all committing “heresy”?
Does it make sense to say that those who “Bless Mess” can ever be considered “Orthodox” simply because they’re of the opinions that are believed/followed more than the minority?
Just because people believe something’s or that it’s the popular view doesn’t mean it becomes in essense an “Orthodox” view……unless, of course, we’re talking “Orthodox” by appearances only and not real substance.
Blessings…….
To G(g2) Hope this clear’s up a bit of were I’m coming from.
G2 Mabye it’s just me, but I think that we may have 2 different definitions of what heresy is here, which is probably what’s leading to all the confusion. I’m not certain from where your definition of heresy originates (let me know, though), but this is what I found….
MS: I got it from Merriam-Webber, as you can see Greek, English, it’s the same
1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standa
BLB:
1) act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city 2) choosing, choice 3) that which is chosen
4) a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
a) of the Sadducees
b) of the Pharisees
c) of the Christians
5) Dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims
G2 The word heretic is commonly used by religious groups to indicate someone who teaches a belief contrary to the group’s doctrinal understanding, and the Greek word that is translated heretic in the KJV actually means “someone who causes division.” (i.e. uncessary division).
MS: I disagree with the (unnecessary division) Question Martin Luther’s division was it unnecessary or necessary??
G2 The NT condemns those who are heretics by THIS definition. But this does not necessarily mean that it condemns people whose understanding on a variety of biblical matters differs from some central “doctrinal statement” endorsed by any particular group.
MS: Again my point is not what we understand today, but what was done and is still done today, if you disagree with the dominate religion you’re a Heretic
G2 Instead, it shows that someone who holds differing views should not use those differences as a crowbar to divide the Christian fellowship group of which he is a part into factions.
MS: G2 is this not what we have today a multitude of faiths or divisions?
G2 Thus a heresy as defined biblically is not just an understanding on some doctrine that differs from an officially sanctioned interpretation, but an understanding that is used to divide brethren.
MS all I can say is reformation, Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, William Tyndale to name a few
G2 When we look into Romans 14, we see that the Apostle Paul notes it’s acceptable for people in a fellowship group to have different beliefs about disputable matters, but it is not acceptable to allow these differences to cause irreparable divisions in the group.
MS agreed
Matthew 10:34-39
34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mothering law–
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[a]
37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
It is true that Jesus did bring division and new opinions on the status quo, like you’re saying….and like you’re saying, by the definition you found, He could be considered “heretical” by those in authority who considered themselves “orthodox” in and considered Him to be stirring things up needlessly (Luke 19:45-48, John 11:45-57)
(MN: Can’t really say Jesus brought new opinions. Unless of course we can say that they are really the Ten Suggestions.)
MS But that’s what he did, the Pharisees were in control they had corrupted what was pure, all of the burdens they imposed through out the years that build their Orthodox view’s, the same definition you’re using is the same one they used, he was causing division.
Still, there’s no need to consider the actions of Christ or division/opinions Jesus brought as heretical seeing that He IS GOD, His division was based on commitment to God (something the Pharisees were never about)and the conflict and disagreement that will arise between those who choose the Lord and who don’t, and taking people back to what the intent of God’s Word meant
MS G2 theirs no reason we would, but are you saying that they would not or could not because they know he was God???
Moreover, there’s no need to say His actions were heretical because they were in line with the Promises and Word of God (Luke 4:16-37, Luke 19:28-44, John 5:15-47, John 6:32-71, John 7:37, John 8:31-47, John 8:48-59)…
MS: You’re quoting the gospels and that’s correct, but we differ in that I’m not saying he was heretical, I’m saying they believed he was because he in fact brought division and that’s the definition of the word.
And they were done not in His own authority or unique “style” but in a way that mirrored the authority God alone commissioned Him for and that reflected the character of WHO GOD THE FATHER WAS (Luke 5:17-26, John 7:10-37, John 10:22-39) and were not causing people to be divided from redemption, right living & fellowship with the Lord ….
MS: G you’re correct, correct, and correct, remember the Pharisees the Roman Catholic Church whose dominant theory was at one time truth and any other opinion, or practice was condemned as heresy, did not Christ warn about the leaven of the Pharisees their doctrine , remember a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.
This was something that the Pharisees doctrines were continually doing and that WOULD be considered heretical….their teachings, regardless of the “orthodox” label they had on them, were heretical because they brought division that was based on nothing else but hunger for power, money, status, spiritual ignorance, rebellion against the Heart of God and anything else but glorifying the Lord! (Matthew 12:22-37, Mark 15:9-10, Luke 7:29-30, John 9:13-34, etc …..)
MS again agreed, but your defending from a position of strength, what would your belief buy you 2000 years ago but death on a cross with the label of heretic. My point is that a Heretic is not always heresy, and
Whether or not that they viewed themselves otherwise does not change the fact that they still were!!!……Heretical
G (G2) your missing my point, I will reply in a bit