tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post861755217547815919..comments2023-10-29T04:50:42.136-05:00Comments on Nick's Musings: HeresyNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08949332361786422769noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-65628219040590979682008-01-24T01:13:00.000-06:002008-01-24T01:13:00.000-06:00I would also vote to keep the word.In defense of "...I would also vote to keep the word.<BR/><BR/>In defense of "heresy" I would concur with all of Chip's points. Also the pack rat in me hates to throw anything away while it still has use. Unless you have some method of disposing of false doctrine and teachers of the same, "heresy" and "heretic" will still have utility.Matt Brinkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03770347694244303719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-26623997922214222602008-01-23T17:48:00.000-06:002008-01-23T17:48:00.000-06:00Fair enough, Chip. Although, when a word is abuse...Fair enough, Chip. Although, when a word is abused to this level, in order to redeem it, it must be put to death for a period of time before it is resurrected, in my humble opinion.<BR/><BR/>As for the divisiveness, Jesus was talking about those in the kingdom vs those who were not in the kingdom, whereas this word is often used to divide those in christianity, when the division over the issue is totally bogus. If the word was used properly, i suppose the divisiveness wouldnt be that big of a deal, but as i have argued, that is not the case.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949332361786422769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-30974655251468323712008-01-23T16:02:00.000-06:002008-01-23T16:02:00.000-06:00Though I seldom use the word myself, I won't agree...Though I seldom use the word myself, I won't agree that it ought never to be used.<BR/><BR/>1. Heresy is not too strong when you are talking about error being promulgated as truth, particularly as saving truth. Any gospel other than the gospel of grace through faith in Jesus Christ is heresy.<BR/><BR/>2. The word has no meaning only to those who use it loosely to castigate those with whom they disagree. In the context of scripturally-based, well-reasoned argument, it may have just as precise a meaning as that which the New Testament writers and church fathers intended when they used it.<BR/><BR/>3. The word is indeed divisive. But haven't you read that Jesus himself said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn<BR/>'a man against his father,<BR/>a daughter against her mother,<BR/>a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law&mdash<BR/>a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'" <BR/>Wherever the truth is upheld, division is bound to occur because some people love "darkness rather than light."Chip Burkitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00817016103778281416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-6935928009578045242008-01-21T23:46:00.000-06:002008-01-21T23:46:00.000-06:00I would disagree with the article than...the engli...I would disagree with the article than...the english is a TRANSLITERATION of the Greek...there is no differece between the two. <BR/><BR/>And I would agree that there is quite a difference between pluralism in America 2008 and that which the apostles encountered in the first century AD, except there was more acceptance of "more than one path" in the time of the Apostles. Syncretism abounded and bulstered pluralism. Consider Paul's sermon at Mars Hill...pluralism was actually convenient in his conveying of the gospel (the altar to the unknown god). <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, there is nothing new under the sun of the apostle Paul and the preacher, Tony Campolo.natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03212790581679016617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-64892722087269589082008-01-21T21:45:00.000-06:002008-01-21T21:45:00.000-06:00Hi Nate,Not according to the article I referenced....Hi Nate,<BR/><BR/>Not according to the article I referenced. Heresy does not appear in english translations, and though that Greek word that the word comes from would have been used earlier, the term was not made popular until Iraneus in the 2nd century. I guess I could have been more clear, as the article says <I>It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church.</I><BR/><BR/>And certainly the biblical writers were not out of line to the terms they did, you could tell that was not my point. They did call people false prophets, an idea that dates back to the OT. But, I think you would agree that the first generation of aposteles is quite different from 21st century pluralistic America. That was my context of my point.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/>NFNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949332361786422769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19645714.post-66312971644814599562008-01-21T21:11:00.000-06:002008-01-21T21:11:00.000-06:00nick, you have many valid points, but I think your...nick, you have many valid points, but I think your word study is lacking. 2nd century? Acts 15:5 "harieseos." That is the root of the word. The good doctor used it to refer the Pharisees. In the BAGDT lexicon of the New Testament, one of the definitions given as would apply in the NT setting is, "false party or teaching." The word entails connotive element of divisiveness...isn't that what deviation from the truth does...DIVIDES?<BR/><BR/>Or what about 2 Peter 2:1 (haireseis)? Were the writers of the NT wrong in using a "divisive" word?natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03212790581679016617noreply@blogger.com