Naming names

[JJB]

After reading the article/thread about the PCUSA going astray with their "new" definition of the trinity, it brought this topic to mind.

How should we as Christians respond to such awful news? Do we sit back, shake our heads and tsk-tsk? Do we call people who are going astray on the carpet?

In the private arena it seems clear: we approach one another out of brotherly love to attempt to get them back on track. Matthew 18:15-20 anyone?

What about the public counterpart such as this new definition? Are there scriptures that address issues such as "naming names" of those who are leading others astray?

Richard Halverson wrote:
There are times when tolerance is not a virtue, but weakness. There is certainly no virtue in being tolerant if one holds no convictions, and it is not uncommon for the man who believes nothing, who speaks the most of tolerance, to be the most intolerant of one who really believes something. Jesus’ absolute intolerance of sin and error was in no way inconsistent with His love for men, even the sinner or the liar.

Martin Luther said:
I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth.

Sir Walter Scott said:
Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.

What does the bible tell us in this regard?

 

[Tonks]

We need the guy in the pointy hat to start tossing out anathemas.....

The broader question is why are there Christian groups out there that assent to this and say "hey, not a bad idea...."?

 

[JJB]

We need the guy in the pointy hat to start tossing out anathemas.....

The broader question is why are there Christian groups out there that assent to this and say "hey, not a bad idea...."?

That's a good question. It goes hand in hand with "What is the biblical response to leading flocks astray?"

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

If they will not adhere to the warnings, let them be as the Publican and the Tax collector to thee.

Forgive me....

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

We need the guy in the pointy hat to start tossing out anathemas.....

Where's Torquemada when you need him, eh? LOL

The broader question is why are there Christian groups out there that assent to this and say "hey, not a bad idea...."?

A strong possibility is that the devil has infiltrated that camp, and it's his workers who are creating their own religion thorugh these actions.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

After reading the article/thread about the PCUSA going astray with their "new" definition of the trinity, it brought this topic to mind.

How should we as Christians respond to such awful news? Do we sit back, shake our heads and tsk-tsk? Do we call people who are going astray on the carpet?

In the private arena it seems clear: we approach one another out of brotherly love to attempt to get them back on track. Matthew 18:15-20 anyone?

What about the public counterpart such as this new definition? Are there scriptures that address issues such as "naming names" of those who are leading others astray?

Richard Halverson wrote:
There are times when tolerance is not a virtue, but weakness. There is certainly no virtue in being tolerant if one holds no convictions, and it is not uncommon for the man who believes nothing, who speaks the most of tolerance, to be the most intolerant of one who really believes something. Jesus’ absolute intolerance of sin and error was in no way inconsistent with His love for men, even the sinner or the liar.

Martin Luther said:
I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth.

Sir Walter Scott said:
Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.

What does the bible tell us in this regard?

The Apostles and the early Church didn't have a problem naming names. I think they considered it a neccessary virtue and requirement in protecting the flock from ravaging wolves.

 

[freespiritchurch]

This post was unnecessarily rude...deleted and restated.

 

[eoe]

It is not hoity-toity to defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Even if the people that are attempting to alter it are nice.

The thing that we need to be cautious of is using too wide a brush on this. The PCUSA has not adopted this as an official stance and I am sure that a good number of them will go ballistic over this.

 

[Tonks]

Before you get all hoity-toity, consider how many people who you consider to be true Christians would be completely incapable of producing an orthodox explanation of the Trinity in the first place.

Be that as it may I seriously doubt that any of them would refer to the Trinity as "Mother, Child, and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend."

I consider the Presbys Christian - however if this is to be permissible one begins to have serious issues

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Before you get all hoity-toity, consider how many people who you consider to be true Christians would be completely incapable of producing an orthodox explanation of the Trinity in the first place.

We are not talking about new Christians in this instance, nor those who are unfamiliar with what Scripture teaches.

This pertains to those who are trained, ordained in a denomination, and who are responsible for the truth, and who willing teach heresy.

I guess then you would have been against the Church pronouncing Sabellius a heretic and Modalism as rank heresy as well, eh?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Before you get all hoity-toity, consider how many people who you consider to be true Christians would be completely incapable of producing an orthodox explanation of the Trinity in the first place.

Me thinks that those who throw the first hoity toity stone should consider the glass walls around them.

 

[JJB]

The Apostles and the early Church didn't have a problem naming names. I think they considered it a neccessary virtue and requirement in protecting the flock from ravaging wolves.

2 Timothy has quite a list of names. It wasn't a problem for Paul. We will often mask our self-idolatry behind a false “love” that has no reconciliation with Bible truth.

Phil 3:17-21

 

[Willtor]

Before you get all hoity-toity, consider how many people who you consider to be true Christians would be completely incapable of producing an orthodox explanation of the Trinity in the first place.

We're not talking about the laity, here. These are ordained ministers. Who should know the origins of sound doctrine better?

 

[MoodyBlue]

I can see that many people are terribly threatened by change of any kind. This group of Presbyterians is seeking ways to challenge their members, to give them new ways to consider the awesome nature of God. The article mentions their consideration of a variety of names for the trinity that could be used as an alternative (but not replacement) of the traditional names. I don't see how any of this makes them less Christian than those of a more conservative viewpoint.

 

[Tonks]

I can see that many people are terribly threatened by change of any kind. This group of Presbyterians is seeking ways to challenge their members, to give them new ways to consider the awesome nature of God. The article mentions their consideration of a variety of names for the trinity that could be used as an alternative (but not replacement) of the traditional names. I don't see how any of this makes them less Christian than those of a more conservative viewpoint.

Calling the Holy Ghost the "Womb" in order to consider the nature of God is, frankly, preposterous. I'm willing to bet that Calvin is rolling in his grave. [edit - and John Knox as well]

 

[JJB]

Calling the Holy Ghost the "Womb" in order to consider the nature of God is, frankly, preposterous. I'm willing to bet that Calvin is rolling in his grave. [edit - and John Knox as well]

Not to mention the names God chooses for Himself. Doesn't sound like any in the article. Who are we to give God another name?

 

[edie19]

After reading the article/thread about the PCUSA going astray with their "new" definition of the trinity, it brought this topic to mind.

How should we as Christians respond to such awful news? Do we sit back, shake our heads and tsk-tsk? Do we call people who are going astray on the carpet?

In the private arena it seems clear: we approach one another out of brotherly love to attempt to get them back on track. Matthew 18:15-20 anyone?

What about the public counterpart such as this new definition? Are there scriptures that address issues such as "naming names" of those who are leading others astray?

Richard Halverson wrote:
There are times when tolerance is not a virtue, but weakness. There is certainly no virtue in being tolerant if one holds no convictions, and it is not uncommon for the man who believes nothing, who speaks the most of tolerance, to be the most intolerant of one who really believes something. Jesus’ absolute intolerance of sin and error was in no way inconsistent with His love for men, even the sinner or the liar.

Martin Luther said:
I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth.

Sir Walter Scott said:
Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.

What does the bible tell us in this regard?

I shared, via e-mail, the news article with my pastor. He responded much as I expected:

"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides
an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership,"(news article)

I think the same was said by Aaron when he introduced the golden
calf! (Pastor David)

"One reason is that language limited to the Father and Son "has been
used to support the idea that God is male and that men are superior to
women," the panel said." (news article)

Since my earliest days I have been in the Christian church. Never
once have I heard such an argument advanced. What grievous
foolishness. (Pastor David)

I grew up PCUSA, that's where I started my Christian walk, where I was first exposed to the Gospel message and the doctrines of grace. This truly breaks my heart. Having been instrumental in writing the Scots Confession which includes"

We confess and acknowledge one only God, to whom only we must cleave, whom only we must serve, whom only we must worship, and in whom only we must put our trust: who is eternal, infinite, immeasurable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, invisible; one in substance, and yet distinct in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; by whom we confess and believe all things in heaven and in earth, as well visible as invisible, to have been created, to be retained in their being, and to be ruled and guided by his inscrutable Providence, to such end as his eternal wisdom, goodness, and justice has appointed them, to the manifestation of his own glory

​

I can't help but wonder what John Knox would have to say about the church he loved.

edie

 

[edie19]

Quote

Originally Posted by: Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Before you get all hoity-toity, consider how many people who you consider to be true Christians would be completely incapable of producing an orthodox explanation of the Trinity in the first place.

We're not talking about the laity, here. These are ordained ministers. Who should know the origins of sound doctrine better?

If you would be so good as to edit your post - AWC didn't (and wouldn't) make the original post you're attributing to him.

edie

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I can see that many people are terribly threatened by change of any kind. This group of Presbyterians is seeking ways to challenge their members, to give them new ways to consider the awesome nature of God. The article mentions their consideration of a variety of names for the trinity that could be used as an alternative (but not replacement) of the traditional names.

Hi Moody.

I don't want to debate, but do you not believe that there is such a thing as heresy?

 

[Willtor]

If you would be so good as to edit your post - AWC didn't (and wouldn't) make the original post you're attributing to him.

edie

Whoops, sorry. I copied the text from the text he quoted. Fixed.