Whats your most "heretical" (controversial) theological belief?

[SkyWriting]

That God has already heard your future prayers and answered them.

 

[SkyWriting]

That the only pain in Hell is self-inflicted.

 

[SkyWriting]

That God does not experience time.

 

[SkyWriting]

That you must treat and think of your gay neighbors as if they were the neighbors God talk about so much.

 

[SkyWriting]

That you must respect others the same as you'd wish people to respect you.

 

[Andrew Jeremiah]

• I think annihilationism is the best way of understanding the Bible passages about hell.
• I don't hold to biblical innerancy and think defending it is a waste of time

Also, this is not a debate thread.

That every Christian must now go and preach Jesus because of Matthew 28:19-20.

Now we're all apostles.

We are all thumbs in the Body of Christ!

Woo Hoo!

 

[Blade]

Wow.. well reading some of these posts. I think one should define what "heresy" means before Christ and right after. Not what you personally feel or believe like or dislike. Not even close to what it means.

 

[PaulCyp1]

The Church Jesus Christ founded has no heretical beliefs. He made sure of that when He promised its leadership "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Unless He was a liar, everything His Church teaches is true. The definition of "heretical" is "contrary to the truth", and the definition of "truth" is whatsoever His Church teaches.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't believe in a trinity. I believe in a septinity. Hebrew tradition holds to seven god-heads, not three, and even as far forward as the Revelation itself, we hear about the seven spirits of God.

Congratulations, I think you have created a new heresy. That's not easy to do since there are so many.

 

[mark kennedy]

A lot of these concepts are very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

One of my "heretical" beliefs is that Adam and Eve were not the only human beings on earth in their day. What exactly that means, I am not sure. Maybe other people were created separately. Maybe there were other primates abiding in the earth at that time, progressing biologically and intellectually into the form we call modern humans, and Adam was the singular point on some evolutionary spectrum where God breathed life and awareness into him, and at that point created "man" as distinct from the other animals - distinct from the primate relatives he descended from.

I think this because Genesis seems to casually mention the existence of other people (Genesis 4:14-15). It doesn't specify who they are or where they came from, but it clearly alludes to their existence, and also does not explicitly say that Adam and Eve were the only people on earth (Genesis 2:18 only says he is alone). Furthermore, it goes into great detail to list Adam's and Eve's progeny... Cain, then Abel, and finally Seth after Abel's death (Genesis 4:1-2,25). It seems to make a point of saying that Seth replaced Abel. This would be strange to specify if Adam and Eve had been producing other sons and daughters in the meantime. So I do not think they were. Look at all the care taken to record the births of Adam's and Eve's grandchildren (Genesis 4:17-20,26); is it really likely that there were more offspring, not mentioned? If they really were marrying close relatives, why is there not even one mention of an overlap in the lists of Adam's and Eve's progeny, and the listed wives? Also, if they had been producing more children that Genesis just fails to mention, did they not tell any of them about Cain? These unnamed offspring wouldn't just happen to cross paths with him and murder him (as Cain feared). Also, the daughters probably would not have stumbled upon him and married him, oblivious to the fact he was their parents' firstborn son. That makes no sense. After all, Cain was having children before Adam and Eve had Seth, yet the Bible mentions no other birth to Adam and Eve prior to Seth (Genesis 5:4). So I don't think it was siblings that Cain was worried about getting murdered by (Genesis 4:14), nor do I think he married a sister (or niece) produced by his parents or Seth (Genesis 4:17). There must have been other people.

I know it is an orthodox belief that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters that were never named in the Bible, and they went on to inbreed - mitigated by initial genetic purity - to create the entire human race. But when I read the Bible, it doesn't sound like Genesis is implying that. There is also this cryptic verse suggesting that Adam and his descendants were separate from other humans on earth that were genetically similar enough to interbreed (Genesis 6:1-4).

That's not really a heresy, it's just not consistent with the text. The Bible, Old and New Testament, are clear that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Strangely, inbreeding was permissible in the time of Adam and Eve and well into the time of Abraham. It has something to do with the gene pool, it didn't create the genetic mutations it does in this day and age. It's not heresy to believe Adam and Eve were a part of a larger community. It's just not Biblical.

 

[Anguspure]

• I think annihilationism is the best way of understanding the Bible passages about hell.
• I don't hold to biblical innerancy and think defending it is a waste of time

Also, this is not a debate thread.

That idea the penalty for sin for death is pretty controversial in a Christian world dominated by Greek ideas about the nature of mankind and spirit.

I have also learnt an explanation for trinity that riles many. But this is more because people have not heard the explanation before and tend not to listen out of a fear of cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps the most controversial thought that I hold however is that the Church is the body of Christ that we are in fact a family that should be living in close day to day relationship with one another, supporting one another and building one another up. I have not found any Christian in the area that I live that agrees with this or wants to live like this, they all prefer a formal meeting once a week and perhaps an organised Bible study during the week (as long as it's not school holiday time) as the sum total of community involvement, it seems.

 

[Anguspure]

Congratulations, I think you have created a new heresy. That's not easy to do since there are so many.

It is only heresey when it becomes devisive. Holding interesting thoughts about God is not in itself heresy.

 

[TuxAme]

I try not to hold to anything that could be considered "heretical", even in quotation marks.

But, I'd say my most "controversial" belief is the belief that there is only one true Church.

 

[A_Thinker]

The Church Jesus Christ founded has no heretical beliefs. He made sure of that when He promised its leadership "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Unless He was a liar, everything His Church teaches is true. The definition of "heretical" is "contrary to the truth", and the definition of "truth" is whatsoever His Church teaches.

One church taught LIMBO ...

 

[Anguspure]

I try not to hold to anything that could be considered "heretical", even in quotation marks.

But, I'd say my most "controversial" belief is the belief that there is only one true Church.

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4)
Isn't it funny how things that have been made plain by the Apostles later on become controversial.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is only heresey when it becomes devisive. Holding interesting thoughts about God is not in itself heresy.

Whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, the surest road to heresy is denying the Trinity. It's been a definitive element of Christian apologetics from the beginning and will continue to endure.

 

[Call me Nic]

Whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, the surest road to heresy is denying the Trinity. It's been a definitive element of Christian apologetics from the beginning and will continue to endure.

Agreed. The Pentecostal teaching of the oneness heresy has been creeping more and more into Baptist churches, which is mind blowing.

 

[TuxAme]

One church taught LIMBO ...

"Taught" isn't a good word. Individuals may have talked about it, but it was never defined as doctrine.

Of every thing one can nitpick, why choose something that isn't even official teaching?

 

[Anguspure]

Whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, the surest road to heresy is denying the Trinity. It's been a definitive element of Christian apologetics from the beginning and will continue to endure.

Interesting thoughts only cause division when the pride of either the person thinking them, or the person who becomes privy to the thought causes a relational breakdown.

If we have a different thought then we should be humbly open to correction and in any case submit ourselves to one another, in the Spirit of Love for the sake of unity in the body.
When we receive an interesting thought we should be gentle and humble in our desire to correct the person.

IMO crying "heresy" at every different thing, especially on topics that are so exccedingly difficult and not clearly understood as Trinity (and who among us truly understands anyway) is itself heretical because it commonly causes division in the body.

 

[dreadnought]

• I think annihilationism is the best way of understanding the Bible passages about hell.
• I don't hold to biblical innerancy and think defending it is a waste of time

Also, this is not a debate thread.

I believe heaven is what our lives turn into when we repent of our sin.