Replies

Nope, I'm not pretending this is personal. I used to think that. I got over feeling personal about what you guys think a long time ago. Are you saying that you believe that one can be both a believer and a heretic?

Oh, gee, It's KINDERGARTEN THEOLOGY time!!

Well, Mr. Rogers, why don't we think about this one REAL HARD. Is Romanism a serious Ecclesiological heresy (yes)?? Does that mean that ALL Romanists are necessarily UnBelievers (no)!!

So... Yes, you THIN-SKINNED, HYPER-SENSITIVE, OVERLY-PRESUMPTUOUS... (OP cools off, takes a deep breath)... "professing brother in Christ". (grumbling admission)

YES, it is possible for one to be both a Believer and a Heretic.

If Papal Romanism is not a major Ecclesial Heresy, then I don't know what it is. But if you think that damns every single Romanist Christian to Hell, then you can go damn them yourself; I'm busy right now.
Likewise, Free-Willism is the first and most fundamental of all the Soteriological Heresies -- hairetikos, "able to choose". But until I have actually accused you personally of being an Unbeliever... well, until that time, I haven't accused you personally of being an Unbeliever, have I now?

I am, together with Athanasius, quite exacting about the term FATAL HERESY which pertains to UnBelief; and I have not used that term, have I? Don't think it's because I'm shy; I do apply it to Mormonism.

But I have not, ever, applied it to you -- Have I now.

So howzabout you get off the indictment of what I have not said -- that you are an "UnBeliever" -- and return instead to what I have said:

That Free-Willism is, and has ever been, the philosophy of Heresy -- from the Sadducees through the Pelagians through the Jesuits even now to the Present Day.

That ain't personal. Deny it if you can (though I don't much rate your odds); it's history, not Personal Attack.