Really excellent post from 'Against Heresies'.

Gryphonette · #1 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 09:58 AM

Heresy tastes like Turkish Delight

Especially this point:

1. We should never be satisfied with the sound of well known words and phrases. We need to be satisfied that the meaning of those words are filled with biblical content and established historic (confessional) use. It is all well and good hearing that someone believes in the substitutionary nature of the atonement and justification by faith, but history is littered with examples of teachers who meant by those terms quite different ideas. Orthodox words are the passports of heretics that enable them to move freely, and without suspicion, among churches.

Reformed Musings · #2 (**permalink**) 12-11-2007, 04:30 PM

Anne,

Would you just like to skip the middle-man and write my blog for me?

lwadkins · #3 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 06:07 AM

Theological terms are coined to serve as shorthand (if you will) to express concepts and so be communicated, in a systematic context, quickly. The point made by the post from "Against Heresies" as posted above by Anne points out the weaknesses of such terms.

It is in fact disingenuous to use these terms, coined to express historic doctrines, and fill them with "personal reinterpretation." Those who use the terms thusly are well aware of their felonious use. This is what allows the FV folks to claim, ad nauseam, that others have misunderstood them.

A great reminder from "Against Heresies" and Anne that we take care in understanding how others are using the historic doctrinal terms.

Gryphonette · #4 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 08:21 AM

There's quite a bit of such re-definition going on these days, with that darling of the FV, N.T. Wright, having led the way almost a decade ago when he wrote Jesus and the Identity of God, which includes this observation by him:

"After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word 'god' itself. The portrait has been redrawn."

Stephen · #5 (**permalink**) 12-13-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

There's quite a bit of such re-definition going on these days, with that darling of the FV, N.T. Wright, having led the way almost a decade ago when he wrote Jesus and the Identity of God, which includes this observation by him:

"After fifteen years of serious historical Jesus study, I still say the creed ex animo; but I now mean something very different by it, not least by the word 'god' itself. The portrait has been redrawn."

Thank you sister for sharing this. This greatly disturbs me, because even though I disagree strongly with N.T Wright, he has done some great work in the area of N.T. Studies and has stood solid on the resurrection, inspite of the fact that the Anglican church has become more apostate. I do not think he has departed from orthodoxy on the diety of Christ or the resurrection but what does he mean by the word "god." You always need to raise your antenna when someone makes a statement like this.