Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn
Here we go again,
From heresy to unsound doctrine and the perennial question: "What church would Paul use if he wrote a check 2000 years ago!...
|
Hi Shawn,
At first I didn't understand your post either, but after reading it several times I think I understand what your saying. You didn't want to appear to be a defender of the LSM style definition of the local ground, but you didn't agree that the teaching was "heresy" so you wanted to speak up about that without being misunderstood.
Words are difficult things. In the sense that you and I typically think of the word heresy (which causes us to think of some horrible thing akin to saying Jesus didn't resurrect or worse...). I agree with you on this. That said, the meaning of the Greek word heresy is "a choice, a party, or a disunion." Wouldn't you say that definition fits with the ground of locality teaching (LSM style)?
I am not advocating using the word "heresy," mainly because we don't think of it in the way the Greek defines it. I'm just explaining why I think the word was mentioned in the context of this discussion. Gal. 5:20 defines "heresies" as one of the works of the flesh. Most of the time this Greek word is translated "sects" in the N. T. One thing is pretty clear and that is that those that adhere to the ground of locality teaching as a fundamental for Christian oneness, are sectarian. Maybe we should use the word "sect" instead of heresy.
Oh yes, good morning!
Thankful Jane