Apparently when the puritanboard isn’t debating which level of hell Rich Lusk and Mark Horne will be in, they spend time wondering whether or not Jonathan Edwards was heretical. I guess even Edwards didn’t fully understand justification. Surely God will have mercy on him, though; Edwards didn’t have the help of internet-equipped laymen.
storefront:
read in 2012:
The Elegance of the Hedgehog| Barbery
Give Them Grace| Fitzpatrick
The Underdog| Zusak
The Shaping of a Life| Tickle
Hippie Boy| Ricks
Compassion, Justice & the Christian Life| Lupton
The Fault in our Stars| Green
Bonhoeffer| Metaxas
Creation Regained| Wolters
in the middle of:
}
-
Do you laugh or do you cry?
I don’t get the obsession with rooting out heresy in others (as opposed to in doctrine, theology, &c.). Aren’t we all inevitably heretics in one way or other? Welcome to Why We Need Jesus, example 1.0! Anglicans do tend to err on the other side of the spectrum, though, I guess, and that’s probably not necessarily any better.
NNGggguhhhh! That’s just…just…is there something more pathetic than pathetic?
It’s one thing to show where a person’s theology is in error. Even serious error. It’s another to claim it to be heresy. People apply the term way to broadly nowdays I think.
You know, I’m not sure I even know the correct definition of heresy. I really only ever hear it used on teh Intarweb.