Again, IT IS NOT THE CORRECTNESS OF MY POSITION THAT IS IN
QUESTION IN MY POSTING. RATHER, IT HAS TO DO WITH THAT WHICH
PROVIDES US WITH A FOUNDATION FOR CONTINUED FELLOWSHIP IN THE FACE OF
DISAGREEMENTS THAT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
"HERESY" IN THE MIND OF AT LEAST ONE PARTY? i DO Believe YOUR POSITION TO BE ONE OF
HERESY. YOU BELIEVE THE SAME ABOUT MY POSITIONS. DO WE ALLOW (IN OUR TEACHINGS ) EACH OTHER
TO BE IN THE FAMILY OF GOD -- BY WHAT RULE OF CONDUCT WOULD WE
DISALLOW THE MORMONS FROM BELING IN THAT SAME FAMILY?
I will make no effort at all to restate my doctrinal position on
the eternal Sonship of Christ because that
is not my issue at this time. To enter the debate, once again,
with those who have never been persuaded
by anything that I have presented as doctrine on this forum (which is
just fine, by the way) is to move away from that which I am sincerely
questioning.
If I read Miller correctly, heresy is admissible as long as
it is not divisive. Actually, perhaps he is saying that debatable issues are not "heretical" until they are divisive. I am thinking
(and might very well change my mind) that heresy has to do with content.
BUT the definition of heresy is not the issue, or is it???
Please refer to the opening comment in
this post. I want to stick to that issue.
JD
JD; I am wanting
your scriptural foundation for why my position is "heretical" in your words. That is, if
your
opinion is founded upon God's Word. From what I can gather this
"eternal Son" doctrine came from the early
heretick hunters. Do you see
yourself as one of them? I don't know what other problems Arius had but IMO they
should have left well enough alone because vengeance belongs with God and
Jesus is well able to take care of
His Church. The rcc magisterium became the fruit of their system and
you are propagating their doctrine. jt
Judy, it is not the correctness of my position that is in view in my
posted concern. Deegan and Shields have clearly put me in the
camp of Satan. to disagree with their view of the
biblical message is apparently the deciding factor, although
they do not agree with each other.
Their confusion with
personal interpretation and biblical
truth is obvious. You, on the other
hand, are not so confused. You actually have a doctrinal system
for your denial -- a d octrinal opinion that is heretical in my opinion. Why should I
not act upon that belief? How do I include you in the
family of God and NOT our Mormon participants? that is
the question.
JD
