How should a "Christian" deal with "heretics"?

[cvanwey]

Maybe you should look into geology studies and see if there is evidence for a flood.

You've virtually addressed nothing I have brought forth. The biggest being that the claimed flood is not just some mundane claim, benign from investigation or inquiry. From my estimation, if the flood did not happen, which comes from the very same big book of truth which also claims a resurrection, and the flood is verified not to have happened like the claim from the book, then why is the claim of a resurrection still deemed perfectly credible?

Also, I need clarification for your suggestion? You are aware I can go to specific sites to make Biblical claims fit right? (i.e.) like AiG or the Creation Institute. Please clarify which sources you deem credible and why, assuming you think a flood really happened? Which geological studies, directing towards a Biblical flood claim, are (you) referring to and why?

 

[Par5]

Well, this one I hadn't heard before... and I have been involved in these circles for some decades now.

I fear I could not present them adequately... they seem to be very convoluted, and his uses some concepts the I am not familiar with. I don't want to misrepresent him.

Basically he seems to think that two different deities created two different "earths", one of which was Adam's. This "world" was destroyed in the Flood, some remains sunk in a sea in our world in the Ararat Mountains, from which Noah went down to start civilization by interbreeding with the other "people" that God created on this world.

His "facts" about the scientific and archeological background - which he claims support him - are already way off... but I was rather amused by his strange interpretation of the biblical texts.


If you feel so inclined, take a look at this thread and look for the discussion between Aman777 and the others, starting at post #67.

I took the time to read through the posts starting at number 67, and I think the reason why no other Christians weighed in is simply that they were getting more embarrassed by the minute by the nonsense Aman777 was spouting.
While it is true to say that his comments were very often a source of amusement and ridicule, it is also sad to realize that religious belief can distort someone's mind in that way.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I was speaking about Noah and the flood claim, not Moses

Furthermore, we are not speaking about an erroneous or mundane claim here. We are talking about a catastrophic claimed event....

But let's compare the two - (1. Noah's flood vs 2. a resurrection):

1.

(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did Noah's flood actually happen (yes or no)?
Did the flood accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main premises and points of the OT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to rid the world of evil. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the OT is vastly askew.

2.


(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did the resurrection happen (yes or no)?
Did the resurrection accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main points of the NT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to provide salvation. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the NT is vastly askew.



If the claims to a human exterminating flood, commanded by God, is false, which lies within the very same book as the claim of a resurrection, why is a 'resurrection' deemed more credible than any other claim? Especially when Bible passages state that 'all scripture is God breathed', which highlights the OT specifically, and even more prevalently?



If there actually is 3.3 billion Christians, than it is safe to say that all 3.3 billion 'believe' in a resurrection claim. Otherwise, they are not 'Christians', by definition. So why is this not the case for a flood claim? I'll tell you why...... Because it is perfectly acceptable to state you do not agree with a flood claim, and still possibly be saved

Please answer the question in red below:

But is it intellectually honest to state you believe in a resurrection, even if the evidence does not seem to follow as such, just like the many whom don't believe in a flood claim, because the evidence does not follow as such?

Your making a false equivalence trying to compare the flood with the resurrection.

I can claim the flood never happened and still go to heaven/be saved/be a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says I have to believe in the flood to be saved.

On the other hand, salvation itself hinges on belief in the resurrection. That's a key issue of belief and would thus be a "dangerous" teaching to run around telling people it never happened.

So I think you have to understand the importance of various biblical beliefs to understand whether or not they demand an answer or whether or not as can be brushed off as mere disagreement. ..

 

[Freodin]

Your making a false equivalence trying to compare the flood with the resurrection.

I can claim the flood never happened and still go to heaven/be saved/be a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says I have to believe in the flood to be saved.

On the other hand, salvation itself hinges on belief in the resurrection. That's a key issue of belief and would thus be a "dangerous" teaching to run around telling people it never happened.

So I think you have to understand the importance of various biblical beliefs to understand whether or not they demand an answer or whether or not as can be brushed off as mere disagreement. ..

I think the problem here is: how far can you divert from the "real" Christianity and still be considered "saved"?

It is all stories in a book. Stories that are there for a reason. Stories that some - quite a lot of, in fact - people think are "literally the Word of God". Not something humans told... but the revelations of a divine, infallible beings.

So where do you draw the line what you "need" to accept, and what not? If someone believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not "factual", but a "metaphorical truth"... would that be so different from a "factual" in contrast to a "metaphorical" floods?

If someone told you that, if there are "untrue" stories in the Bible, you could not accept as fact any of them... how would you counter that position?

If someone insists that you need to take every single word in the texts "literally" (and in the way they think it is meant), and their weird and often demonstrably false claims cause unbelievers to reject Christianity... how would you defend the "truth" in this case.

Of course you can sit back and declare that this isn't your problem, because you believe something different... but then: whose problem is it?

 

[ToBeLoved]

You've virtually addressed nothing I have brought forth. The biggest being that the claimed flood is not just some mundane claim, benign from investigation or inquiry. From my estimation, if the flood did not happen, which comes from the very same big book of truth which also claims a resurrection, and the flood is verified not to have happened like the claim from the book, then why is the claim of a resurrection still deemed perfectly credible?

Also, I need clarification for your suggestion? You are aware I can go to specific sites to make Biblical claims fit right? (i.e.) like AiG or the Creation Institute. Please clarify which sources you deem credible and why, assuming you think a flood really happened? Which geological studies, directing towards a Biblical flood claim, are (you) referring to and why?

I think your being a little rude here.

Respectfully, I owe you no explanation of what I believe or why.

Your thinking that these questions are in any way related to the OP is way off. Please start a new thread. It is not fair to derail another’s thread by going off topic.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think the problem here is: how far can you divert from the "real" Christianity and still be considered "saved"?

It is all stories in a book. Stories that are there for a reason. Stories that some - quite a lot of, in fact - people think are "literally the Word of God". Not something humans told... but the revelations of a divine, infallible beings.

So where do you draw the line what you "need" to accept, and what not? If someone believes that the resurrection of Jesus was not "factual", but a "metaphorical truth"... would that be so different from a "factual" in contrast to a "metaphorical" floods?

If someone told you that, if there are "untrue" stories in the Bible, you could not accept as fact any of them... how would you counter that position?

If someone insists that you need to take every single word in the texts "literally" (and in the way they think it is meant), and their weird and often demonstrably false claims cause unbelievers to reject Christianity... how would you defend the "truth" in this case.

Of course you can sit back and declare that this isn't your problem, because you believe something different... but then: whose problem is it?

First off, there are things you can divert from and still be considered saved. There is a bare minimum requirement for salvation to be considered a Christian.

No one has all knowledge overnight, we all as Christians are in varying stages of learning, so some are more knowledgeable than others, and some just haven't gotten there yet in their understanding and this must all be taken into consideration.

Bare minimum belief for salvation is seen in the thief on the cross, and spelled out in the Bible otherwise. We must believe in our heart in Jesus in truth; (in His Life, Death, and Resurrection) followed by confessing with our tongue His Lordship..

That's it... if you honestly believe those things and acknowledge He is Lord over you, you are officially a baby in Christ.

You don't have to believe anything else for salvation.

Yet, most people don't get to that point of belief in a bubble, there is usually much examination to get to belief.

First, to believe Jesus was a living being whom people claimed was the Messiah of the Jews, who was killed by Romans by crucifixion yet three days after death rose bodily from the dead, you'd likely also believe the biblical accounts, and give much credence to the Bible having basis in fact.

Which of course, usually means you can't believe the new testament to be a fictional story book and still be saved..

Yet - it doesn't mean its necessary to salvation to have ever even read the Bible..or believe in the Bible itself. It's not scripture we need faith in, in the end, it's the person of Jesus.

Therefore if an Angel of God comes to someone and tells them Jesus is real, is the Messiah who lived, was killed via Roman crucifixion, and rose bodily from the grave 3 days later, then they may have come to faith outside of biblical evidence and need to do some catch up on canon..

There is a learning curve for all of us, and a bare minimum requirement to belief and salvation and what our understanding is when we get to a saving knowledge of Christ will vary...

We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, we help people learn if we have the knowledge to do so. Its why we dont jump up and down screaming heretic all that often.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You've virtually addressed nothing I have brought forth. The biggest being that the claimed flood is not just some mundane claim, benign from investigation or inquiry. From my estimation, if the flood did not happen, which comes from the very same big book of truth which also claims a resurrection, and the flood is verified not to have happened like the claim from the book, then why is the claim of a resurrection still deemed perfectly credible?

Also, I need clarification for your suggestion? You are aware I can go to specific sites to make Biblical claims fit right? (i.e.) like AiG or the Creation Institute. Please clarify which sources you deem credible and why, assuming you think a flood really happened? Which geological studies, directing towards a Biblical flood claim, are (you) referring to and why?

Maybe you should concentrate on what YOU believe and why and not worry about others beliefs.

We all share on CF when we like to, but your thinking someone owes you an answer or needs to spend their tinne defending their faith to you is odd considering this threads OP.

Their are Life Science type sub forums here where you can discuss these things with people interested in discussing them.

God bless you.

 

[RDKirk]

Per the forum's rules, you cannot assert that someone is not a Christian, regardless of their beliefs. Which already is... weird. But understandable.

Well, actually you can, given that the forum uses the elements of the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds to identify Christianity. Someone who explicitly denies those elements can be singled out as not a Christian in these forums.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Amazing. Christians come to the apologetics forum with no intention of defending their faith. It's in the definition!

Definition of APOLOGETICS

 

[Freodin]

First off, there are things you can divert from and still be considered saved. There is a bare minimum requirement for salvation to be considered a Christian.

No one has all knowledge overnight, we all as Christians are in varying stages of learning, so some are more knowledgeable than others, and some just haven't gotten there yet in their understanding and this must all be taken into consideration.

Bare minimum belief for salvation is seen in the thief on the cross, and spelled out in the Bible otherwise. We must believe in our heart in Jesus in truth; in His Life, Death, and Resurrection, followed by confessing with our tongue His Lordship..

That's it... if you honestly believe those things and acknowledge He is Lord over you, you are officially a baby in Christ.

You don't have to believe anything else for salvation.

Yet, most people don't get to that point of belief in a bubble, there is usually much examination to get to belief.

First, to believe Jesus was a living being whom people claimed was the Messiah of the Jews, who was killed by Romans by crucifixion yet three days after death rose bodily from the dead, you'd likely also believe the biblical accounts, and give much credence to the Bible having basis in fact.

Which of course, usually means you can't believe the new testament to be a fictional story book and still be saved..

Yet - it doesn't mean its necessary to salvation to have ever even read the Bible..or believe in the Bible itself. It's not scripture we need faith in, in the end, it's the person of Jesus.

Therefore if an Angel of God comes to someone and tells them Jesus is real, is the Messiah who lived, was killed via Roman crucifixion, and rose bodily from the grave 3 days later, then they may have come to faith outside of biblical evidence and need to do some catch up on canon..

There is a learning curve for all of us, and a bare minimum requirement to belief and salvation and what our understanding is when we get to a saving knowledge of Christ will vary...

We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, we help people learn if we have the knowledge to do so. Its why we dont jump up and down screaming heretic all that often.

I fear you don't get my point.

You are here telling me what I do and do not need to "believe" in order for you to consider me a Christian.
That's fine and dandy and your prerogative.

But I want to know what you would tell the other person, who also tells me what I do and do not need to believe in order to be considered a Christian.

Remember: I am an unbeliever. I have no more reasons to accept their word over yours, or vice verse.

But this person might give me some very good reasons to reject his claims, all of his claims, and thus in addition your claims as well.

Do you simply not care about having your message distorted?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Amazing. Christians come to the apologetics forum with no intention of defending their faith. It's in the definition!

Definition of APOLOGETICS

CF is an interesting place in that on this sub forum aetheists seem to flock and challenge someone’s faith.

But overall, in Christianity most people who do apologetics, don’t do it to talk with aetheists, but do it to increase their own knowledge of the Bible and to discuss theology with other Christians.

This is one of the sub forums that I’ve always thought was a little backwards here.

So to simplify for you, apologetics is usually a teaching type thing. People who love apologetics don’t necessarily even like talking with aetheists because they don’t even usually have good Bible knowledge to be a foundation for talking apologetic.

I do understand though that your only real world exposure to apologetics is what you see here on CF.

Not being a Christian you have very limited exposure to any IRL type of scenarios.

Hence my lack of interest in defending my faith to you. One cannot have a good conversation on the Bible and theology with someone who has no idea what is in the Bible.

See what I mean.

I mean even from an aetheist perspective their is geological evidence for a flood. But somehow instead of looking at that since an aetheist wants to talk science they then want to not research their own position that their wasn’t a flood.

 

[Freodin]

CF is an interesting place in that on this sub forum aetheists seem to flock and challenge someone’s faith.

But overall, in Christianity most people who do apologetics, don’t do it to talk with aetheists, but do it to increase their own knowledge of the Bible and to discuss theology with other Christians.

This is one of the sub forums that I’ve always thought was a little backwards here.

Oops, and here I was and thought that I tried to bring you folks here to "discuss theology" with other Christians.

And instead I get a lot of answers explaining to me why Christians do not need to do that.

(And just a friendly reminder: it is "atheist", not "aetheist." Using the correct terms is simply a sign of respect.)

 

[Hazelelponi]

I fear you don't get my point.

You are here telling me what I do and do not need to "believe" in order for you to consider me a Christian.
That's fine and dandy and your prerogative.

But I want to know what you would tell the other person, who also tells me what I do and do not need to believe in order to be considered a Christian.

Remember: I am an unbeliever. I have no more reasons to accept their word over yours, or vice verse.

But this person might give me some very good reasons to reject his claims, all of his claims, and thus in addition your claims as well.

Do you simply not care about having your message distorted?

Okay..I'm not sure I'm understanding you here.

The OP is dealing with how we would deal with heretics and you keep talking about (nonheretical) simple differences of opinion.

My idea of you as an unsaved person learning about God and Salvation from two opposing viewpoints is singular. God is in control - not me. Its my job to share the Gospel with you in truth, its not my job to make you understand it, or even convince you im right. That's all God.

 

[Freodin]

Okay..I'm not sure I'm understanding you here.

The OP is dealing with how we would deal with heretics and you keep talking about (nonheretical) simple differences of opinion.

My idea of you as an unsaved person learning about God and Salvation from two opposing viewpoints is singular. God is in control - not me. Its my job to share the Gospel with you in truth, its not my job to make you understand it, or even convince you im right. That's all God.

That's... convenient.

Say, in order to post in this certain subforum, you had to go to a special process.
Why did you do that?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Oops, and here I was and thought that I tried to bring you folks here to "discuss theology" with other Christians.

And instead I get a lot of answers explaining to me why Christians do not need to do that.

(And just a friendly reminder: it is "atheist", not "aetheist." Using the correct terms is simply a sign of respect.)

I’m just saying that apologetics overall as a interest to Christianians is about understanding the Bible more deeply.

CF IMHO is a little backwards to what apologetics is IrL.

Also, about the misspelling of atheists, Apple’s spellcheck seems to be ok with the way I wrote it. Maybe it’s spelled both ways. I don’t know. I don’t use that word often. So no disrespect intended.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's... convenient.

Say, in order to post in this certain subforum, you had to go to a special process.
Why did you do that?

Because there was a thread I wanted to post in..

As far as "convenience", I have no ability to change your heart or your mind.. I'm just a person much like yourself. All I can do is share with you my own understanding and answer questions to the best of my ability.

The core of you, your heart and mind, well that is all God's purview. There may be a reason your not a Christian today that I'm not privy to. Maybe abused by overzealous parents have turned you from God and God is working with you on deeper levels and all God wants of me is to periodically remind you of something..

I don't know.

Maybe coupled with that there is a subject matter God desires you to know every argument to prior to becoming saved so you can provide an answer to others like you after He brings you to a saving knowledge of Him.

I don't know what God has in mind, so it's my job only to do the part God gave me to do, and leave the rest in His quite capable Hand..



I'm not too worried about heretics influence over you because I have absolute faith in God.

 

[cvanwey]

Your making a false equivalence trying to compare the flood with the resurrection.

I can claim the flood never happened and still go to heaven/be saved/be a Christian. There is nothing in the Bible that says I have to believe in the flood to be saved.

Nope. If you read my response, you would see you are saying the exact same thing as I. Which is...

- You must believe in a resurrection for a chance to enter heaven.
- You are not required to believe in a flood claim to enter heaven.

So I asked if it is intellectually honest to continue believing in a flood claim, while using the same methodology, investigation, and logic, when evaluating both claims, and concluding one is false while one is true? Because quite frankly, the Bible asserts both events happened. So if one did not happen, who's to say the other did? And in this case, there exists nothing outside the Bible to actually study for regarding the claim Christians are obligated to continue believing (i.e. resurrection), if one wants to call themselves a Christian. The Bible is the claim. The external evidence for a flood claim does not correlate with such a claim. And a resurrection claim bares little/no external corroborated first hand accounts, (which is required to even begin to validate such a type of claim).

On the other hand, salvation itself hinges on belief in the resurrection. That's a key issue of belief and would thus be a "dangerous" teaching to run around telling people it never happened.

So I think you have to understand the importance of various biblical beliefs to understand whether or not they demand an answer or whether or not as can be brushed off as mere disagreement. ..

I understand, do you?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Nope. If you read my response, you would see you are saying the exact same thing as I. Which is...

- You must believe in a resurrection for a chance to enter heaven.
- You are not required to believe in a flood claim to enter heaven.

This is where you not understanding Biblical theology really falls short.

There is really nothing in the Bible that says one needs to believe in the ressurection to go to heaven. That statement on it's own is not a statement any Christian would ever use because we all know why the ressurection is important.

However, belief in the ressurection itself does not determine a Christian.

The ressurection is important because God is perfect and to dwell with God, we must also be perfect in the afterlife.

Jesus came to earth as God and man to atone for sin. And the ressurection is important because the Father ressurected Jesus. The Father ressurecting Jesus shows the Father ACCEPTED Jesus as the Messiah and the perfect atonement for sin.

Since as sinful people, we need perfect atonement for our sin, which is through Christ, the Father accepting Jesus atonement is important and that the Father raised Christ from the dead.

That is why the ressurection is importatant.

But your premise that what defines a Christian is belief in the ressurection is not correct.

What the premise should be or your argument ( I will help you even form it so you can argue it better) is whether Jesus was God and man and whether the Father raised Christ up in ressurection as the permanant atonement for sin.

That's the argument you should fight for if you want to hang your hat on something.

 

[cvanwey]

I think your being a little rude here.

Respectfully, I owe you no explanation of what I believe or why.

Your thinking that these questions are in any way related to the OP is way off. Please start a new thread. It is not fair to derail another’s thread by going off topic.

I feel it's rude to avoid the entire post. Yes, you are not obligated to answer at all. Maybe you should have instead done that? To respond, and address absolutely nothing the post provides demonstrates avoidance. If you owe me nothing, don't respond

I stated from the get-go, that such a comparison IS possibly off topic.

Furthermore, I already know what you believe. You are labeled a Christian. My point actually ties back into the OP however.... The resurrection is the ONLY event in which someone whom labels themselves a Christian must own and believe. Everything else is up for grabs, with no apparent responsibility, obligation, or even consequences. So it remains quite convenient how belief in a resurrection seems universal, as opposed to something which can actually be investigated, like a human killing flood claim.

But thanks for your suggestions. However, since you are not the OP-er, or a moderator, I will continue accordingly. As I feel the observations actually do correlate back to the OP. I'm just using two large comparative examples to demonstrate the point.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nope. If you read my response, you would see you are saying the exact same thing as I. Which is...

- You must believe in a resurrection for a chance to enter heaven.
- You are not required to believe in a flood claim to enter heaven.

So I asked if it is intellectually honest to continue believing in a flood claim, while using the same methodology, investigation, and logic, when evaluating both claims, and concluding one is false while one is true? Because quite frankly, the Bible asserts both events happened. So if one did not happen, who's to say the other did? And in this case, there exists nothing outside the Bible to actually study for regarding the claim Christians are obligated to continue believing (i.e. resurrection), if one wants to call themselves a Christian. The Bible is the claim. The external evidence for a flood claim does not correlate with such a claim. And a resurrection claim bares little/no external corroborated first hand accounts, (which is required to even begin to validate such a type of claim).



I understand, do you?

Okay.. so your wanting to argue or debate theological points of doctrine unrelated to the topic of the OP in this thread?

How do your questions tie into the thread topic of how Christians deal with heretics?

Because this is what I'm having a hard time understanding... what your asking specifically related to heresy, in a thread about heretics..

I have to go until this evening, but perhaps you can clarify your questions and show how it relates to the OP, that is likely where I'm having a difficult time with.