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

[mark kennedy]

• 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.

Annihilation is not a heresy, it's an alternate reading of the text. What's more inerrancy is not the same thing as immutability and certainly worth every consideration no matter where you land in the spectrum views. To reject that particular view is not heresy, it's simple unbelief. Heresy is when you embrace, teach a false doctrine to the point where you go after sound doctrine and prosecute it as if it were a crime. The essence of heresy is that it's an indictment of the gospel.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh and btw, I don't know if they are heresy but I have some unconventional views that are rejected by many Christians. I think Song of Solomon is simply a wedding song written by Solomon for a couple being married in his court. The groom I suspect is his son, or at least Judean. I subscribe to an old earth cosmology and believe the sun, moon and stars were created in Genesis 1:1, not the fourth day and believe me, that does not go over well with certain creationists. I believe every Christian who is mature is just as authoritative in matter of faith and Peter or any Pope, that Mary can't hear prayers and that there is no such thing as a Vicar of Christ.

Even in a Protestant context, I'm a Calvinist who believes that even God can't determine what you decision concerning Christ will be until you actually make it. While that is not remotely heretical many Calvinists feel strongly that it's an affront to God's sovereignty and omnipotence.

I further believe that there are things in the Bible that don't belong there, small sections but never the less, don't belong. I think the Bible while a miracle, indeed God's very word, but contains a number of errors and even an occasional contradiction, which is an inevitable effect from human handling.

To this day I struggle with the deity of Christ, I believe it, don't get me wrong, but it's a very difficult doctrine to maintain. I believe if you don't struggle with the testimony of Scripture your not thinking, but inevitably the believer will cry out, Lord I believe, help me in my unbelief. It's been my experience that God is perfectly willing to help you work through you doubts if you can believe the one who makes the promise if faithful. I don't know how the new Jerusalem can be 1500 miles high, wide and tall, it just seems ridiculous but I believe with all my heart, believers will one day inhabit this place and present themselves to the risen Christ there in power and glory.

It's not heresy to struggle with some of the doctrines of the Christian faith, it's perfectly natural. That's why I believe it's a miracle when someone responds in faith to the gospel, it must be a miracle because the natural mind rejects such a thing. The very idea that God would come to us a man and that we would crucify him, is simply outrageous, but never the less exactly what happened.

 

[A_Thinker]

I'll say mine is view that when Christ said he wanted his Church to be One, he didn't mean to be united under one unified ecclesiastical body. He meant we should recognize and embrace each other as sisters and brothers in Christ and be nice to each other. Yes, and even to share communion with each other.

I'll wager that He knew the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of men.

Regardless of your position, history has demonstated that such power attracts those that really have no regard for Christ or His true teachings, ... but simply for the power that comes with such positioning. And that power has, inevitably, led to attacks upon the very people of God themselves.

Perhaps that is why He said, in addition to His wish for Christian unity, ... that no christian should LORD over othr christians ... as occurs in the world, but, rather, that we should be SERVANTS, one of another ...

Matthew 20

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

John 21

20 Having turned, Peter saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, (the one who also had reclined on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it who is betraying You?”) 21Therefore having seen him, Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”

22 Jesus said to him, “If I desire that he remain until I come, what is it to you? You follow Me!” 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brothers, that this disciple would not die. But Jesus had not said that he would not die, but, “If I desire him to remain until I come, what is it to you?”

 

[frater_domus]

Not sure how controvertial this is, but I believe that the biblical is inerrant in its spiritual truth, but seeing as it was written by humans, one may find factual inconsistencies and influences of the times the authors were living in.
In short, I believe in spiritual inerrancy, not literal inerrancy.

 

[mark kennedy]

Not sure how controvertial this is, but I believe that the biblical is inerrant in its spiritual truth, but seeing as it was written by humans, one may find factual inconsistencies and influences of the times the authors were living in.
In short, I believe in spiritual inerrancy, not literal inerrancy.

That's not unreasonable, it sounds perfectly normal to me. It is at least unique and the spiritual message can come through with flying colors if you let it. A guy off the street tells you the gospel, not perfectly but from a sincerer faith, that is enough. So what happened during the Exodus, during the time of the Gospels and Acts, is there any other source for those things? While imperfect I honestly believe those testimonies are true and that is the difference between faith and simple unbelief.

 

[PaulCyp1]

There are no controversial beliefs in the Church Jesus founded. He guaranteed that all the teachings of His Church would be true. We believe Him. Controversies develop among those who have abandoned His Church and therefore have no authoritative source of truth. They claim the Bible is their source, but have no authoritative source of interpretation, as demonstrated by the thousands of conflicting denominations. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

[dqhall]

That's not unreasonable, it sounds perfectly normal to me. It is at least unique and the spiritual message can come through with flying colors if you let it. A guy off the street tells you the gospel, not perfectly but from a sincerer faith, that is enough. So what happened during the Exodus, during the time of the Gospels and Acts, is there any other source for those things? While imperfect I honestly believe those testimonies are true and that is the difference between faith and simple unbelief.

What one person defined as heresy, another defines as fact. People attached their own meanings to the word so that it is not absolute. Same with the words good and bad. People defined them differently.

There is truth in the Bible, that is why I read it much. I read mainly the New Testament these days having a familiarity with Old Testament books from previous studies.

I used to subscribe to Biblical Archaeology Review and did research in the nation's largest library, university and seminary libraries too. I studied antiquities, Exodus, Exodus theories, ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian inscriptions translated into English. I think Exodus is errant. To some this is heresy, but for me it is sanity. That is not to say God is less than miraculous either. I believe in miracles.

 

[danbuter]

Someone forget to tell that to the apostle Peter (2 Pet 3:15,16).

I'm just saying that if Paul knew his letters would be saved and then included in the Bible, he'd have written them differently.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Millage varies depending on who the audience is. To some Catholics, just being a Protestant is heresy. To some Arminians, Calvinism is heresy. To some liberal Christians believing in Biblical inerrancy is heresy. To some OEC and TE, being a YEC is heresy. So in the Western world today, being a Protestant, Calvinist, Biblical inerrantist, and YEC (at least three strikes against me), I suspect that I am in a minority among Christians, and many might view some of my views as heresy, while it would be just the opposite in times past.

 

[A_Thinker]

There are no controversial beliefs in the Church Jesus founded. He guaranteed that all the teachings of His Church would be true. We believe Him. Controversies develop among those who have abandoned His Church and therefore have no authoritative source of truth. They claim the Bible is their source, but have no authoritative source of interpretation, as demonstrated by the thousands of conflicting denominations. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

You see ... this is what I feel leads to the massacres/inquisitions we've seen in the history of the church.

The proclamation of one group's version of the TRUTH, ... with no allowance for other interpretations.

There is no question that some of the beliefs, tenets, and doctrines of the Catholics did not exist in the time of the early church (i.e. were developed over the early centuries), ... so why would the church so adamantly insist on belief in such today ?

 

[GUANO]

The Torah is not a book documenting historical facts.

*cowers*

 

[Thedictator]

• 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.

Teaching that Jesus Christ is not the son of God and that Christ did not die on the cross, is the worst heresy one can believe.

 

[Micah888]

Annihilation is not a heresy, it's an alternate reading of the text.

That is incorrect. It is a MAJOR DEPARTURE from Bible truth.

 

[Micah888]

The Torah is not a book documenting historical facts.

Then why would the Gospels be historical facts, and why would Christ treat the Torah as historical facts?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

That hell is something other than a literal, eternally burning lake of fire.

I believe it's real, and I believe Jesus Christ died to save us from it. I just don't know exactly what it is, and I certainly don't want to find out firsthand. I don't think human language can adequately describe it. The imagery of being on fire forever is probably the most horrifying idea people can grasp, and God really wants to communicate to us, "Hell is a place you don't want to go."

 

[frater_domus]

That's not unreasonable, it sounds perfectly normal to me. It is at least unique and the spiritual message can come through with flying colors if you let it. A guy off the street tells you the gospel, not perfectly but from a sincerer faith, that is enough. So what happened during the Exodus, during the time of the Gospels and Acts, is there any other source for those things? While imperfect I honestly believe those testimonies are true and that is the difference between faith and simple unbelief.

I may even go as far as to say that it won't do anything to my faith knowing whether certain things in the OT happened or not. It is the moral of the story, the spiritual meaning, that I care about, not historic facts. While it may come across as ignorant if I say 'I do not care', but, being pragmatic as I am, I am focusing on what I can learn to become a person that is more pleasing to God than I used to be.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is incorrect. It is a MAJOR DEPARTURE from Bible truth.

I'm familiar with the proof texts, I strongly disagree.

 

[AFrazier]

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.

 

[Christianpariah]

* i believe that using yoga stretches as part of a workout is ok as long as I do not seek to worship any other god before the one true God

 

[akmom]

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).