Go Back   Christian Guitar Forum > Deeper Issues > Theology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-27-2017, 09:25 AM   #16
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinn View Post
I think we can all tell each other our beliefs without others accusing us of anything. If someone came on to the forum not believing in the trinity, I would allow them to express what they believe then I would express what I believe without saying theirs is heretical, even if I may think it is.
I guess I don't hold such a negative view of the word as some might. I don't view so much as an accusation as a statement of fact. I also think it doesn't apply when discussing things that clearly fall into the realm of opinion.

Of course, the tone and attitude of the one using the word makes a difference.

__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Unread 01-27-2017, 09:39 AM   #17
and you were wondering??
Administrator
 
Uptown Thrunk's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2004
Location: In the bedrock of Being.
Posts: 14,713
paid
It seems to me that Bill's use of the word was completely orthodox (lol).

He wasn't using it as a slur against a person, but as a statement about how he thinks the view would fall in regards to orthodox views.

It would be nice to hear a bit more from Bill about how it leads to certain historical heresies, which ones these are, etc.

I know Bill has done a lot of work on ancient heresies, so it may be interesting to hear a bit more.

Personally, if someone accused me of holding a heretical position, I wouldn't consider it a slur. I would want to hear them out a bit more and invite a dialogue about the particulars of what I think and how it may fit or lead to deviations from orthodoxy.

Just my two cents.
__________________
Hello! Come visit my blog! http://taylormweaver.wordpress.com/

Yes... I am the official "Knight Who Will Write Something On Derrida".
Bask in the wonderful glory.

"outside of a dog a book is a man's best friend... inside a dog it is too dark to read."
-groucho marx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon_Hunter View Post
Taylor, you just got drive-by theologied.
Uptown Thrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 09:43 AM   #18
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uptown Thrunk View Post
It seems to me that Bill's use of the word was completely orthodox (lol).

He wasn't using it as a slur against a person, but as a statement about how he thinks the view would fall in regards to orthodox views.

It would be nice to hear a bit more from Bill about how it leads to certain historical heresies, which ones these are, etc.

I know Bill has done a lot of work on ancient heresies, so it may be interesting to hear a bit more.

Personally, if someone accused me of holding a heretical position, I wouldn't consider it a slur. I would want to hear them out a bit more and invite a dialogue about the particulars of what I think and how it may fit or lead to deviations from orthodoxy.

Just my two cents.
That says what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

FWIW...I have been told I held heretical views in the past. After much discussion, I discovered I actually did. I don't any longer. Well...I don't THINK I do.

__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 09:50 AM   #19
Illegal Immigrant
 
Austinn's Avatar
 

Joined: Mar 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leboman View Post
That says what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

FWIW...I have been told I held heretical views in the past. After much discussion, I discovered I actually did. I don't any longer. Well...I don't THINK I do.

Ok, my fault. I misinterpreted it and took it differently than I should have.
__________________
"He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan
Austinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:02 AM   #20
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinn View Post
Ok, my fault. I misinterpreted it and took it differently than I should have.
That's understandable. It can be a very loaded term.
__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:03 AM   #21
Illegal Immigrant
 
Austinn's Avatar
 

Joined: Mar 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 409
Also, a more acceptable word (by Arminians) for what I am trying to say is Conditional Election, which I do not believe in although I believe in most of the Arminian articles.
__________________
"He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan
Austinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:13 AM   #22
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
I honestly gave up trying to figure this out years ago. That doesn't mean I think we should stop having civilized discussions about it. I just don't believe we can know 100% exactly how God works this out.

I think it's like two people looking at the same coin. One sees "heads" and insists that is what makes up the coin. The other one is seeing "tails" and insists the opposite. They're still looking at the same coin. The two sides appear diametrically opposed to one another but they are the same thing seen through different eyes.

That's probably an imperfect analogy but my mind is imperfect most of the time.
__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:17 AM   #23
Illegal Immigrant
 
Austinn's Avatar
 

Joined: Mar 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leboman View Post
I honestly gave up trying figure this out years ago. That doesn't mean I think we should stop having civilized discussions about it. I just don't believe we can know 100% exactly how God works this out.

I think it's like two people looking at the same coin. One sees "heads" and insists that is what makes up the coin. The other one is seeing "tails" and insists the opposite. They're still looking at the same coin. The two sides appear diametrically opposed to one another but they are the same thing seen through different eyes.

That's probably an imperfect analogy but my mind is imperfect most of the time.
That's a great analogy. I can really understand what your saying. I guess it's hard for some people (including me) to just accept that we'll never understand. . .
__________________
"He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan
Austinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:22 AM   #24
Psychic theo-philosopher
 
athanatos's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 2,978
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinn View Post
I think we can all tell each other our beliefs without others accusing us of anything. If someone came on to the forum not believing in the trinity, I would allow them to express what they believe then I would express what I believe without saying theirs is heretical, even if I may think it is.
I agree that we can discuss without throwing the heresy charge around.

If you believe something that entails heresy or associated with, neither of those things mean you're simply a heretic. It may mean you haven't worked out the implications or logical conclusions of the view you espouse. That said, without actually discussing it first, I have little reason to think you actually hold anything like heresy.

Bill: Can you give him a chance to express himself without telling him what he's espousing a heretical view? Give him a chance to think out loud. If he's affirming a heresy, we can discuss what he actually claims in light of Scripture and creeds, instead of pre-judging what you think the view entails.
__________________
my glob

They want to stop the ones who want
Prosthetic foreheads on their heads
But everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

We Want a Rock, They Might Be Giants

Hidden?
athanatos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:26 AM   #25
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
I agree that we can discuss without throwing the heresy charge around.

If you believe something that entails heresy or associated with, neither of those things mean you're simply a heretic. It may mean you haven't worked out the implications or logical conclusions of the view you espouse. That said, without actually discussing it first, I have little reason to think you actually hold anything like heresy.

Bill: Can you give him a chance to express himself without telling him what he's espousing a heretical view? Give him a chance to think out loud. If he's affirming a heresy, we can discuss it in light of Scripture and creeds, instead of 2017 CGR Council.
But...but...I wanted to chair The Council.

__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 10:46 AM   #26
Illegal Immigrant
 
Austinn's Avatar
 

Joined: Mar 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
I agree that we can discuss without throwing the heresy charge around.

If you believe something that entails heresy or associated with, neither of those things mean you're simply a heretic. It may mean you haven't worked out the implications or logical conclusions of the view you espouse. That said, without actually discussing it first, I have little reason to think you actually hold anything like heresy.

Bill: Can you give him a chance to express himself without telling him what he's espousing a heretical view? Give him a chance to think out loud. If he's affirming a heresy, we can discuss what he actually claims in light of Scripture and creeds, instead of pre-judging what you think the view entails.
Thank you athanatos
__________________
"He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan
Austinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 11:17 AM   #27
Psychic theo-philosopher
 
athanatos's Avatar
 

Joined: May 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 2,978
paid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinn View Post
Conditional Sovereignty of implies that God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel.
This seems to be the Molinist view. Isn't that what Bill believes?

Quote:
Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will.
Interesting, because that seems at tension with what Arminius and Molina would've thought. Bill posted the Articles of Remonstrance. In them the faith was explicitly wrought by the Holy Spirit.

Here it is again:
Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Now, this isn't an infallible document like the word of God, nor is it a creed like the Nicene creed. But recognize that popular Arminianism in the English speaking world tends not to agree with this 3rd Article, and it's a common "Arminian" view even if Arminius would've found it wrong.

Quote:
It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation.
If that's true, how is it really God electing? A friend of mine calls this a "divine tagback" -- you may have tagged God (chose God), but God can win tag because he can tag you back ahead of time. Crude analogy, but it does raise the question: How can this be called divine election of man and not just God's recognition of human election of God?

Quote:
Or in other words, God is sovereign in every way, except that he cannot control us or our choice to come to him. His election is by foreknowledge instead of predestination.
And i'm sorry that I thought this was an Arminian view.
Why is God not sovereign in this way? It's definitely an interesting thought to consider. I'm genuinely asking, why hold this? This seems like a very particular place to say God isn't sovereign. Where in the Bible would it suggest this? (Are you familiar with passages that might suggest the opposite?)
__________________
my glob

They want to stop the ones who want
Prosthetic foreheads on their heads
But everybody wants prosthetic
Foreheads on their real heads

We Want a Rock, They Might Be Giants

Hidden?
athanatos is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 11:23 AM   #28
Old School
Administrator
 
Leboman's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Geezerville
Posts: 55,893
Although I have not delved deeply into the concept, I probably lean towards the Molinist view. I blame William Lane Craig.
__________________
Nothing (Without You)
Granville Center Church of Christ Sermons
YouTube
My German is pre-industrial and mostly religious.
Leboman is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 11:36 AM   #29
Illegal Immigrant
 
Austinn's Avatar
 

Joined: Mar 2014
Location: VA
Posts: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by athanatos View Post
This seems to be the Molinist view. Isn't that what Bill believes?


Interesting, because that seems at tension with what Arminius and Molina would've thought. Bill posted the Articles of Remonstrance. In them the faith was explicitly wrought by the Holy Spirit.

Here it is again:
Article III ó That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing."

Now, this isn't an infallible document like the word of God, nor is it a creed like the Nicene creed. But recognize that popular Arminianism in the English speaking world tends not to agree with this 3rd Article, and it's a common "Arminian" view even if Arminius would've found it wrong.


If that's true, how is it really God electing? A friend of mine calls this a "divine tagback" -- you may have tagged God (chose God), but God can win tag because he can tag you back ahead of time. Crude analogy, but it does raise the question: How can this be called divine election of man and not just God's recognition of human election of God?


Why is God not sovereign in this way? It's definitely an interesting thought to consider. I'm genuinely asking, why hold this? This seems like a very particular place to say God isn't sovereign. Where in the Bible would it suggest this? (Are you familiar with passages that might suggest the opposite?)
I do not actually hold to this view. I was only expressing this to say that many do hold to this, and I would disagree. There are scriptures that I believe suggest God's election goes much farther than simply foreknowledge.
Also, those claiming to be Arminian come in all different forms. Some would disagree with conditional election (as I assume Bill is saying), and others do not. But the concept of conditional election was founded in Arminianism.
__________________
"He hath given me rest by his sorrow, and life by his death." ~John Bunyan
Austinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-27-2017, 02:06 PM   #30
Tired of being attacked
 
BillSPrestonEsq's Avatar
 

Joined: Jun 2001
Location: Beaverton, Or
Posts: 40,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinn View Post
I think we can all tell each other our beliefs without others accusing us of anything. If someone came on to the forum not believing in the trinity, I would allow them to express what they believe then I would express what I believe without saying theirs is heretical, even if I may think it is.
Yours is actually something rejected as a formal heresy over a thousand years ago. It is quite frankly a heresy that the church knew of and rejected. It is the correct term for Pelagianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism (I apologize I said the wrong one, as I totally conflated Arius and Pelagius, because I was being an idiot on that.) I bring it up, because it is quite serious, and it needs to be addressed, and using the correct, historically defined terms for Pelagianism is pretty critical and needs to be delineated. I say this, largely because I am always encouraging research. And one needs to know when approaching Arianism that it is outside the pale as it is very appealing to modern folks as it was to those over the centuries. I don't apologize for describing a heresy as a heresy.


Conditional Sovereignty as you are describing it is not something Arminianism would hold. Never has. I would disagree with Athanatos, that the 3rd article of remonstrance is required for Arminianism since the remonstrances are the defining characteristics of the Arminian view. It is much akin to trying to be a Calvinist while denying total depravity.

I would state that if you disagree with the remonstrances, (except that I believe since point 5 is ambiguous, that one could respectfully take any position on perseverance as long as one respects other points of view from scripture.) then you are by definition, not Arminian as the remonstrances are the defining document

Austinn: You can't say Arminianism takes all forms and reject its defining characteristics historically. Just because someone calls themselves that does not mean they actually hold to an Arminian position.
__________________
For this I will be judged.


My Life.

Last edited by BillSPrestonEsq; 01-27-2017 at 02:46 PM.
BillSPrestonEsq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2