Posted                          

quote:

---

Originbally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nicholas´ slapping of Arius´ face was the greater heresy.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does anyone accuse anyone else of heresy these days? Yes, we all criticise each other's theology: too liberal or too fundamentalist or too non-committal, to put it extremely crudely. But does the word heresy have any currency outside of discussions like this, or gentle ribbing between friendly people of different persuasions?

I don't see how Anglicans in their broad church manner, or small denominations of relatively recent vintage, or the vast number of Protestant denominations that grudgingly or willingly tolerate ecumenical diversity, can have any truck with a word like heresy. To me, the word is of little use outside of a historical RC context.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Furthermore, the vicar in question was claiming some rather special knowledge as to exactly what was needed in order to release the Holy Spirit to do his work in their meeting. That's quite a bold claim...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
With a bit of luck, the words 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' will soon be associated only with their use in history, not be considered useful today.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
With a bit of luck, the words 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' will soon be associated only with their use in history, not be considered useful today.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
How would you, anyone, describe an Anglican vicar telling his congregation that the Holy Spirit was being blocked in the spirit world from joining their church service but a triple shout-out by those present would have such power in that spirit world that the Holy Spirit would be able to get through to them.

Not an academic question - I was there - only a few weeks ago.

I'm pretty sure that, sixty years ago, that would have been considered a heresy by the wife of the then incumbent of the same church!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the CofE would have to be described as one big den of competing heresies!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, some people don't agree with the idea that our actions or faith have any impact on the extent to which God can work in a certain area. Personally, I think it's a thoroughly biblical idea but I sense from previous discussions on the Ship that perhaps I'm in a minority...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It's a controversial viewpoint which, if incorrect, gives a highly distorted picture of our relationship with God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That will only happen once our Lord returns. Until then they are quite relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
Do atheists believe in 'luck'?

---

I cannot speak for every atheist of course, but the ones I know know for certain that anything that happens which seems to be lucky is entirely due to random chance, however widely we may fling around the word luck!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

I suppose it puts a lot of power and responsibility onto our plates as Christians, saying that God intervenes only to the extent that his people trust and have faith in him. Critics would perhaps say that it elevates us to equality with or even superiority over God, to say that he is somehow limited by us. It's a controversial viewpoint which, if incorrect, gives a highly distorted picture of our relationship with God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
OK Marvin the Martian. Om projecting obviously. I feel harmed. I see harm. The absence of strong benevolence is harmful. Not neutral. Christians doing weird shit is shitty. Is substituting shit for benevolent strength. That´s some opportunity cost. Is failing to be Christian. To be evangelistic, inclusive, sound, healing, helpful, sacrificial, open, transparent, accountable. It´s succeeding at being toxic, closed, weird, uneverything in the previous sentence.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was right.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I was right.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Isaac David:
It's not just weird shit. The idea that the Holy Spirit is 'blocked' in the spirit world and needs to be 'rescued' by some activity of the congregation sounds like a pagan import and pretty close to magic.

---

What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively? It sounds to me like the sort of thing that I've always imagined goes on in those sort of churches.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Isn't the point that both positions are controversial, and both have been and continue to be held by Christians? The problem, however, cannot be resolved satisfactorily by one side having the power to designate the other heretical, thereby closing down what ought to be a continuing discussion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
both. Well, the conversation is at an impasse. But the metanarrative? You won´t see it MtM and I can´t possibly make you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Isn't the point that both positions are controversial, and both have been and continue to be held by Christians? The problem, however, cannot be resolved satisfactorily by one side having the power to designate the other heretical, thereby closing down what ought to be a continuing discussion.

---

I agree, Kwesi. With any doctrinal / practical issue, we may agree or disagree (perhaps strongly) with the position someone is espousing. That's fine, let's have the discussion. But let's have the discussion without using terms like heresy, which (ISTM) simply serve to close down conversation and put people beyond the pale of permitted viewpoints.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
Frankly, I'd say that someone who comes out with this kind of thing needs at least a good long rest and possibly psychiatric treatment. This is in the interests of his parishioners as much as it is in his own interest.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body...

---

They did what they thought best at the time, obviously. But then we are stuck with the consequences today. Perhaps we need to rehabilitate Arius.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
...how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body. End off: If you're with Arius then you're cut off. This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The thing is, given your view here, how should the Church have addressed the Arian controversy, for instance? A council was convened, the orthodox and apostolic faith was set forth, and Arius was cut off before he could infect the whole body. End off: If you're with Arius then you're cut off. This is dogmatic theology in action, but it of course requires a belief that the Church is a visible body guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

---

Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument, then perhaps it is justifiable to call that doctrine into question. If, on the other hand, one or more of those three is possible then it should be perfectly possible for the most holy people and able theologians of a generation achieve such a demonstration.

Given that the church is protected by the Holy Spirit, it follows that if the doctrine wins out, it is either correct or God considers the answer to not be something we need overly concern ourselves with.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
What sort of paganism do you think it's imported from, Isaac, or are you just using the term perjoratively?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If good isn´t done, then harm is.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Surely if a doctrine cannot be demonstrated either from scripture, from clear universal acclamation by the early church or by rational argument,

---