That's wonderful. I never knew that about you. Forgive me for not asking sooner... Plenty... I knew that I would always be my dads son. But I also feared him because I knew he loved me, he'd correct me so I behaved. The same with my Heavenly Father, I know how much He loves me and there is no way after all the chastisements I've been through that I'll go against what He wants me to do. I fear my God. Let me ponder on the rest you've said and get back with you're points. OK?
I have a very narrow definition of "heresy" which is the same context (as I understand) in which the Bible uses it ... the proliferation of false Christs and imposters. So while some of our understanding here may be unorthodox, I certainly do not consider any of it heretical, because at the end of the day it's the real and true Jesus who binds us together, as far as I can tell. People often throw the word "heresy" around as if everything unorthodox, and even things taught in error based upon misunderstanding, are heresy. They're not. Not by a long shot. I understand the political powers-that-be wearing religious garb and hiding behind religion love(d) to use "heresy" as a reason to commit their vile deeds of putting people to death they didn't like and who were a threat to their power games (and the Catholic Inquisition certainly isn't the only disturbing example we have of this), and by so doing took the liberty to ever-widen the application of that word as it suited them ... but I make it a point to always take the narrower, biblical stance. Which gives us freedom to lay our understandings out there and discuss them, without being falsely accused of being something we're not. I'm well aware that some of my views are unorthodox, while many others aren't. They're certainly not heretical, according to my understanding of how the biblical authors used that term.
It's not the first time I've been called a heretic and probably not the last. Really, I don't mind. Orthodoxy is often defined by the larger group, whereas, my group until the 1500-1600's, has always been a minority. Therefore, many of our views were seen as unorthodox. The RCC tried to wipe out the Waldensian and Paulitian brethren all through the dark ages because of their refusal to accept dogmas and such that were made orthodox by them. Hence my love of Baptist history.
Just to be clear, no one called The Parson a heretic. We were discussing whether it is proper to make a distinction between the corporeal portions and non-corporeal portions of the human being. In doing so, I was pointing out, perhaps not to well, that the essence of the gnostic heresy (that Jesus was not fully human) was their belief and insistence that "flesh" was sinful and that "spirit/soul" was not; that one could commit, in particular sexual sin and that only the flesh sinned while the rest of the person/Christian remained pure. I was not implying that The Parson is a heretic. When I call someone a heretic, you'll know it. And it usually gets me in hot water...
Not so sure it's so wonderful! It just is what it is. No more wonderful to me than someone that can fix cars, which, now that I think about it, is much more wonderful since I can't do it!
The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is 3 persons, and 1 substance or essence (depending on if you're Greek or Latin - take your pick). What the tripartite view suggests is that human beings are 1 person and 2 substances, one of which is expressed twice (spirit and soul). The orthodox historical view - not just 'mainline RCC / Protestant' - is that human beings are bipartite-composites, or in my namesake's words, a synthesis. That is, we're flesh and spirit in one nature, neither of which can be separated from the other and the result still be considered properly human. The idea that man is flesh and spirit and soul, as a reflection of the Godhead, misunderstands the teaching of the Godhead that's being appealed to as proof. It's an analogy that doesn't work. Soul and spirit do indeed refer to the same spiritual substance, and are indistinguishable except for the kind of technical language you might read in Paul. It's the same technical language when you read of the body, heart, and mind. Obviously, this is not a tripartite division, and the same is true when speaking of the spirit/soul. Our souls are not sinless, or else we as wholes would be sinless. There is no Gnostic division in our nature; no literal flesh that is at war with literal spirit: this is imagery for competing desires within our one, composite nature, that Christ has redeemed. We still struggle with sin for the same reason that Adam, pre-fall, struggled with sin -- faith is of the utmost difficulty. If my soul is sinless, then I have an excuse to sin in the flesh -- it is left unredeemed.
Aw quit that. You're stealing a lollipop and laughing about it. Being a preacher means you've given into a call and not missed it. If a call, then that means you're trying to be obedient to the Almighty. That my brother is "wonderful"!!!
I know many that would humbly disagree with that view. But I am glad you used the term Godhead. I've never been able to define the nature of God as trinity as it has pagan roots. Not dissing you buddy. Maybe I'm too literal sometimes.
Who or what is "your group"? Just curious ... I know that you're a grace kind of preacher who tends to interpret the Bible quite literally, but not much more beyond that. My church used to be Baptist until pastor got an understanding of grace. We had to divorce ourselves from the Baptist Church because we could no longer agree with some of their major tenets, from what I understand. Although you can still tell the Baptist mentality from the way they continue to interpret certain parts of Scripture, as well as oozing the Bible from every pore of their being. Also, food.
I'm from the old Missionary Baptists here in the states who came from the old Anabaptists of Europe sister. A very far cry from those who call themselves Southern Baptists and Fundamentalist Baptists. My group, or sect if you will, is the one that the Mennonites and Amish came out of. (please don't blame us for that! it just happened...) We're the group that Sir Isaac Newton mentioned saying: "The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy." or Ulrich Zwingli said: "The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time." Some of the German Baptists share our history too I believe. And food is good too!!! Especially fried chicken.
The roots of Free Will Baptists share those roots as well. And for those poor, endarkened and misguided souls that have not experienced the divine, the Hebrew word for "fried chicken" is "manna."
I'm aware of Anabaptists but not in detail because I learned that stuff eons ago in high school back when the dinosaurs were still roaming Earth and made it a point to quickly forget because I was quite over school at that point. Will clear some cobwebs and go check it out, thanks!
It'll be an interesting study for you although your reference material should be pre 20th century for the most part. Obfuscation is often a problem even more magnified in the 20th/21st centuries.
Europe has such a rich religious heritage. It's really quite incredible. Of course it also has a bloody heritage. It's really quite horrific. That's normally the reason I have to take breaks when I study history, including Church history. It's just too violent and disturbing. On that note, I really do not believe that Jesus endured the wrath of God on man's behalf. Rather, He endured the wrath of man. Because God have mercy, we can be utterly wrathful and vile creatures that do godawful and horribly gruesome things to one other. If God strikes you dead, you go fast. God doesn't torture people. People torture people, with enthusiasm and abandon. Which is probably the major reason I refuse to buy into "eternal conscious torment in fire" because gruesomeness for its own sake is a people thing, not a God thing. It's vile, evil, and there's never a good reason for it. Yes, I did just read up on the history of the Waldensians and what all went down in France. God have mercy. Excuse me while I go throw up now ...
No worries. I take to the view that God isn't incapable of influencing society - even 'pagan' society - towards a particular end; and, the rather incredible development of philosophical thought in Greece especially, acted as preparation for the kind of thinking we would need during and after the incarnation, resurrection, etc. In that sense we end up at the terribly misunderstood phrase, 'all truth is God's truth' (not to say that all values are true truth). But, my other point about the Godhead re: Genesis 1 in light of our constitution as humans would still stand. Unless you're conceiving of God as 1 person expressed as 3 parts, the appeal to God's nature doesn't justify the view that we're tripartite.