|
|
Post by soldierofChrist on May 22, 2018 8:32:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on May 22, 2018 12:12:04 GMT
This is proof of the arrogance of this cult! I didn't believe they say ....'our church' until I looked it up. Here is the context: "In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics. They are such on three counts: First of all because they oppose the Three Forms of Unity by their conditional theology; by their promise to all upon condition of faith. In this conditional theology that speaks of a promise to all upon condition of faith they clearly conflict with the Three Forms of Unity. Thus they are heretics. Secondly, because in this conditional theology they subscribe to the doctrine of the Three Points of 1924. It is especially the First Point to which they thus subscribe by implication. Fact is, that they make it worse. The First Point of 1924 teaches that, according to Scripture and the Confessions, there is a well-meant offer of salvation, with the intent to save, for all who hear the gospel. How twenty-five years later men could arise and teach a general conditional promise is really an amazingly sad phenomena. And it is a rather striking and noteworthy fact, that when once they have thus said something about God’s promise to all upon condition of faith, then they must also say, and did say, something about man. It is this: man must fulfill a pre-requisite act of faith to enter into the Kingdom. And thus they have again by implication subscribed to the teaching of the Christian Reformed Churches as expressed in Points II and III of 1924, which teach that man can perform good deeds, civic righteousness by virtue of common grace which restrains sin in the heart of the unregenerate man. And thus the proponents of the conditional theology are heretics and nothing less. Thirdly, because they militate against the Declaration of Principles of the Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches of 1950 and 1951.*" And the reason is because they they don't agree with the creeds. I understand the term heretic refers to disagreeing with your own church, still, the term is ugly and presupposes hell. |
|
|
|
Post by Skyfall on May 22, 2018 12:57:34 GMT
This is proof of the arrogance of this cult! I didn't believe they say ....'our church' until I looked it up. Here is the context: "In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics. They are such on three counts: First of all because they oppose the Three Forms of Unity by their conditional theology; by their promise to all upon condition of faith. In this conditional theology that speaks of a promise to all upon condition of faith they clearly conflict with the Three Forms of Unity. Thus they are heretics. Secondly, because in this conditional theology they subscribe to the doctrine of the Three Points of 1924. It is especially the First Point to which they thus subscribe by implication. Fact is, that they make it worse. The First Point of 1924 teaches that, according to Scripture and the Confessions, there is a well-meant offer of salvation, with the intent to save, for all who hear the gospel. How twenty-five years later men could arise and teach a general conditional promise is really an amazingly sad phenomena. And it is a rather striking and noteworthy fact, that when once they have thus said something about God’s promise to all upon condition of faith, then they must also say, and did say, something about man. It is this: man must fulfill a pre-requisite act of faith to enter into the Kingdom. And thus they have again by implication subscribed to the teaching of the Christian Reformed Churches as expressed in Points II and III of 1924, which teach that man can perform good deeds, civic righteousness by virtue of common grace which restrains sin in the heart of the unregenerate man. And thus the proponents of the conditional theology are heretics and nothing less. Thirdly, because they militate against the Declaration of Principles of the Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches of 1950 and 1951.*" And the reason is because they they don't agree with the creeds. I understand the term heretic refers to disagreeing with your own church, still, the term is ugly and presupposes hell. Wow if this isn't proof to the PRC people that come here, nothing will be. "Well, we're not perfect"... yes, you say you are. Your TFU (Three Forms of Unity) must be, because if you disagree you're a heretic. If this isn't the new form of Roman Catholicism nothing is. Exhibit A, as they say... |
|
|
|
Post by judeverse24 on May 22, 2018 16:42:43 GMT
You really have to pinch yourself that this is real. Little wonder that there are people who become involved and then leave when they discover the truth about them. |
|
|
|
Post by flipflop on May 22, 2018 17:32:06 GMT
With all due respect to the OP, I think that your quote is taken out of context. The first sentence of the article (which was written in 1954) states: "It is important to bear in mind that a heretic is one that opposes one or more fundamental tenets authorized by the Church to which a heretic belongs."
And then the quote:
"In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics."
The author is not arguing that anyone who does not ascribe to PR Doctrine is a heretic, but instead anyone within the PR Church who opposes these doctrines is a heretic.
I do not doubt that the PR Church has a problem with pride, but I do not think that this is "Exhibit A" evidence of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by judeverse24 on May 22, 2018 18:49:53 GMT
The author is not arguing that anyone who does not ascribe to PR Doctrine is a heretic, but instead anyone within the PR Church who opposes these doctrines is a heretic.  Well that's good news. I'm sure all those Arminians out there will sleep a lot easier in their beds tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by judeverse24 on May 22, 2018 18:56:20 GMT
Few hiccups here. I was trying to edit something.  Cleaned it up for you.
The Admin Team |
|
|
|
Post by soldierofChrist on May 22, 2018 19:35:46 GMT
With all due respect to the OP, I think that your quote is taken out of context. The first sentence of the article (which was written in 1954) states: "It is important to bear in mind that a heretic is one that opposes one or more fundamental tenets authorized by the Church to which a heretic belongs." And then the quote: "In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics." The author is not arguing that anyone who does not ascribe to PR Doctrine is a heretic, but instead anyone within the PR Church who opposes these doctrines is a heretic. I do not doubt that the PR Church has a problem with pride, but I do not think that this is "Exhibit A" evidence of that. Hi flipflop There is a problem with the first sentence as well. The authority does not rest within the church. The church is to determine what IS fundamental orthodox doctrine by means of SOUND exegesis. PRCA have not done so due to their Rationalistic way introducing logic which supplants the word of God. And so for them they reject TWMO and common grace and ANYONE anywhere inside or out of their organisation who does not stand with them in these two things (and others) IS an heretic! This is what PRCA believe and that is why they started their own denomination. Likewise you have answered this by what you have said when you say that they refer to anyone within who opposes these doctrines is a heretic. How do you justify that from Scripture? PRCA are talking about what THEY consider to be fundamental NOT what is necessarily fundamental according to Scripture determined by sound exegesis. |
|
|
|
Post by judeverse24 on May 23, 2018 0:02:03 GMT
Few hiccups here. I was trying to edit something. Cleaned it up for you.
The Admin TeamThank you very much, Admin Team.  |
|
|
|
Post by freefromprc on May 23, 2018 0:33:00 GMT
With all due respect to the OP, I think that your quote is taken out of context. The first sentence of the article (which was written in 1954) states: "It is important to bear in mind that a heretic is one that opposes one or more fundamental tenets authorized by the Church to which a heretic belongs." And then the quote: "In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics." The author is not arguing that anyone who does not ascribe to PR Doctrine is a heretic, but instead anyone within the PR Church who opposes these doctrines is a heretic. I do not doubt that the PR Church has a problem with pride, but I do not think that this is "Exhibit A" evidence of that. Point taken, and you are correct that the article is simply defining the term heretic. The word heretic refers to a person who is a member of a church (any church) who does not agree with the doctrines of that particular church. They are then a heretic. But here is the disturbing part....why would this exact wording be used in the Beacon Lights, which targets young people? Here is the phrase again: "In the light of that definition it must be emphasized that those who will not submit to the teaching authorized by our Church are heretics ". This is a tricky way to define a heretic to a young person. The article is written with a distasteful slant that is designed to make young people believe that it is the PR church or you are hell bound. Add to that the fact that young people are already indoctrinated to believe that the PRC is the only true church. It is fear tactics again, making young people afraid to question the doctrines of the PRC lest they earn the title of heretic. Disgusting actually. |
|
Well that's good news. I'm sure all those Arminians out there will sleep a lot easier in their beds tonight.