My Dad’s preaching was about the Bible as far as I remember. He did not teach only Baptist were right, of course he didn’t say it was wrong either. He was first Bible and then Baptist. He didn’t teach legalism in any form. He like Jerry Falwell as well as he liked J. Frank Norris. He never spoke ill of Billy Graham whom he knew personally when Billy was just a teenager) Dad focused on the truth rather than pointing out all the false teaching. He was simple in his preaching but a smart preacher and person as I remember.
Christian doctrine was not establish in 1611, the King James Version translation of the Bible is not a Christian doctrine. I don’t believe its a Christian heresy to believe that if you read from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASV, you are reading heresy nor that you are preaching Christian heresy if you quote from a translation other than then the KJV.
Live and learn about these things. We lived in a square box most of our lives about what we are suppose to believe. Every time I read from the NASV I look around to see if my Dad is here. Its not the kind of Bible translation that is so important as much as the interpretation of the text that is important
there seems to be a variety of bandwidth within FV. Why a new denomination? Because all the other denominations (see earlier posts) which have rejected FV teaching won’t allow covenant theology to be talked about in the way FV does without calling it heresy.
hERESY IS A TERM USDED FOR AN UNACCEPTABLE DOCTRINE. WHAT IS A HERESY TO ONE GROUP MAY NOT BE HERESY TO ANOTHER.
THEOTOKOS refers to the person who gives birth to a god.
Aphthartodocetism and monophysitism in the 6th century
Aphthartodocetism is a 6th century Christian heresy related to, but more extreme than the Monophysite heresy. Aphthartodocetism held that the body of Christ was incorruptible and that Christ’s sufferings were therefore entirely voluntary. The heresy was supported by Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, and the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/heresies/g/Aphthartodocet.htm
Monophysite n Christianity, one who believed that Jesus Christ’s nature remains altogether divine and not human even though he has taken on an earthly and human body with its cycle of birth, life, and death. One holding the doctrine that Christ has a single inseparable nature that is at once divine and human rather than having two distinct but unified natures.
The Christological position called monophysitism asserted that in the person of Jesus Christ there was only one, divine nature rather than two natures, divine and human, as asserted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the development of the doctrine of the person of Christ during the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries, several divergent traditions had arisen. Chalcedon adopted a decree declaring that Christ was to be “acknowledged in two natures, without being mixed, transmuted, divided, or separated.”
This formulation was directed in part against the Nestorian doctrine—that the two natures in Christ had remained separate and that they were in effect two persons—and in part against the theologically unsophisticated position of the monk Eutyches, who had been condemned in 448 for teaching that, after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature and that, therefore, the humanity of the incarnate Christ was not of the same substance as that of other human beings.
Monophysitism (from the Greek monos meaning ‘one’ and physis meaning ‘nature’) is the christological position that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. There are two major doctrines that can undisputedly be called monophysite:
Eutychianism holds that the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the Divine, “dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea”.
Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human “living principle” but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or “thinking principle”, analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day.
The churches that until the mid-20th century had been traditionally classified as monophysite, those of the so-called Oriental Orthodox communion, have always disputed the label, preferring
the term miaphysite (from the Greek mia, “single,” and physis, “nature”) to identify their shared view that both divinity and humanity are equally present within a single nature in the person of Christ and describing their traditions as “non-Chalcedonian.”
These Oriental Orthodox churches—the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Syriac Orthodox Partriachate of Antioch and All the East, the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church—have since resolved almost all of their Christological disputes with the Roman Catholic Church, the major Protestant churches, and Eastern Orthodoxy and have been generally accepted by those traditions as essentially orthodox in their doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ.
TWO NATURES OF JESUS: http://www.theopedia.com/Two_natures_of_Jesus
The two natures of Jesus refers to the doctrine that the one person Jesus Christ had/has two natures, divine and human. In theology this is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union, from the Greek word hypostasis (which came to mean substantive reality). Early church figures such as Athanasius used the term “hypostatic union” to describe the teaching that these two distinct natures (divine and human) co-existed substantively and in reality in the single person of Jesus Christ. The aim was to defend the doctrine that Jesus was simultaneously truly God and truly man.
One of the clearest passages in Scripture concerning the two natures of Jesus comes from John 1 (see on John 1). The Word (i.e. Jesus) “was with God, and the Word was God.” Moreover, the Word took on human flesh (John 1:14). Luke’s gospel also says that Jesus “increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52).
Two minds and wills, or one?”Some conclude that when Jesus took on his human nature he possessed two minds, a human mind and a Divine mind, with the human mind responsible for Jesus’ knowledge rather than the Divine mind.
Others hold that Jesus had one mind but while in his mortal body he chose to have a subconscious mental part that was inaccessible to the conscious mind and then, after his resurrection, his humanity became dominated by the Divine so his subconscious became accessible.”
^^ For an example of the “two minds view”, see The Logic of God Incarnate, by Thomas Morris. For the “divided mind” view, which speaks of “two systems of belief [in one mind] to some extent independent of each other”, see Richard Swinburne’s Christian God, p. 201^^. For a critique of these, see “The Inclusion model of the Incarnation: Problems and Prospects”, by Tim Bayne^^.
The view that Jesus only has one will is called Monothelitism.