Warning Label for Non-Christian Stuff

[Y]

Matthew C Jones

Have made a warning label, which I put on the first page of the document, which may be useful to some of you

Interesting. I personally have no problem with adding labels to works we create as Personal Books, Many people consult with trusted friends and Pastors when they seek out books to read. Our local Bible college puts these type of labels in books they deem heretical or contain doctrinal error.

All that being said I do not want Logos making judgemental calls on what resources are trustworthy.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348821#Comment_348821

I do not want Logos making judgemental calls on what resources are trustworthy

[Y] That is why I a six point Calvinist[;)] want to see this make it into production ASAP. [<:o)]

Right: Let the reader beware! Logos should let the reader decide in their own mind if something is "Heresy"

As far as personal books, if someone want to put a warning in some PB, so be it, some of us may look upon it as badge of honer or a "selling point" . [:D]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348838#Comment_348838

"Yesterday's heretics are today's saints." (think of all who were burned at the stake or otherwise dispatched for their supposedly heretical views whom we now revere)

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

-- Edwin Markham (1852-1940)

Chris Myers

Only a weak faith will be threatened by reading a book.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348844#Comment_348844

"Yesterday's heretics are today's saints." (think of all who were burned at the stake or otherwise dispatched for their supposedly heretical views whom we now revere)

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

-- Edwin Markham (1852-1940)

Thanks for sharing this Rosie [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348821#Comment_348821

All that being said I do not want Logos making judgemental calls on what resources are trustworthy

True 99% of time, but in some cases like Koran, and future Islamic studies collection I strongly disagree..

I am not saying use it or that anyone should, I am just saying here it is if you chose to, and if you did you could add the reason for adding the label, which may help if it got shared in the future, but as I say is optional

Only a weak faith will be threatened by reading a book.

true, but we are all at different points in our spiritual journey, I would rather pre-warn, than be responsible for accidentally leading someone into error

Alain Maashe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348845#Comment_348845

Only a weak faith will be threatened by reading a book.

True, but again, I know a few ex-believers that said the same thing.

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1Co 10:12)

Chris Myers

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348948#Comment_348948

True, but again, I know a few ex-believers that said the same thing.

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1Co 10:12)

I think we should allow plenty of room and time for the Holy Spirit to work. A faith structure that can be so easily destroyed might be better off being torn down and rebuilt on what the individual finds to be a more intellectually honest foundation. The entirety of scripture is filled with cycles of creation, sin, judgment, repentance, and redemption. So are the lives we all lead.

Mike Pettit

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348845#Comment_348845

Only a weak faith will be threatened by reading a book.

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should do that very thing, it is all too easy to veer into antinomianism.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348954#Comment_348954

True, but again, I know a few ex-believers that said the same thing.

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. (1Co 10:12)

I think we should allow plenty of room and time for the Holy Spirit to work. A faith structure that can be so easily destroyed might be better off being torn down and rebuilt on what the individual finds to be a more intellectually honest foundation. The entirety of scripture is filled with cycles of creation, sin, judgment, repentance, and redemption. So are the lives we all lead.

Agreed. Alain, I wonder whether those ex-believers you know were believing in the real thing?

Graffiti seen on a library carrel: "If you're running away from a false idea of God, are you getting farther from God or closer?" (or something to that effect)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348838#Comment_348838

That is why I a six point Calvinist want to see this make it into production ASAP.

Is that meant to be a joke or did I miss something in my theological education? 6 point?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348994#Comment_348994

You can be 6 point or 7 point

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348994#Comment_348994

That is why I a six point Calvinist want to see this make it into production ASAP.

Is that meant to be a joke or did I miss something in my theological education? 6 point?

A Joke, It may Not a Good One, but it is Still a Joke. [:D]

Got it off of this site: http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/the-6-point-calvinist/

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348997#Comment_348997

You can be 6 point or 7 point

I thought only bucks could have that many. [:D] OK, what is a 6 point or a 7 point Calvinist? Amend my education.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348997#Comment_348997

You can be 6 point or 7 point

Yep, just found that out searching for the source of my 6 point remark.

Search: 6 point Calvinist and you get lots of hits.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349000#Comment_349000

George here is a web site (blog) that talks about the 6 point view.

http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2007/11/14/6-point-calvinism-the-atonement-question/

The seven point view is talked about here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349006#Comment_349006

The seven point view is talked about here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

Some rather suspect theology there. Read Lorraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination where he speaks of efficacious grace. It is not a simple desire on God's part but an actual undertaking to perform.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349008#Comment_349008

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

Do sure what piper said because I don´t have his book. The link shows Matt´s view of what "Piper says".

Would you recommend Boettner´s book?

http://www.logos.com/product/6242/the-reformed-doctrine-of-predestination

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349019#Comment_349019

Would you recommend Boettner´s book?

Yes. Boetner was the book I read before transferring to Calvin.

THE Westminster Confession states the doctrine of Efficacious Grace thus:—"All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.

"This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it."

And the Shorter Catechism, in answer to the question "What is effectual calling?" says, "Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the Gospel."

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932.

To hold otherwise is more of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349024#Comment_349024

[....]

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932.

To hold otherwise is more of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view.

George, I've heard and read of the 6th and 7th, Basically it is just a play on the first 5. Don't take it too seriously....there are just 5. I have read your reference.....even have a copy, was good reading...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349008#Comment_349008

The seven point view is talked about here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-does-piper-mean-when-he-says-hes-a-seven-point-calvinist

Some rather suspect theology there. Read Lorraine Boettner The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination where he speaks of efficacious grace. It is not a simple desire on God's part but an actual undertaking to perform.

I don't think there's anything suspect about it at all. Points 6 and 7 are derived from the first five points. We can beg to differ on the theology but it's actually very well defended from Scripture.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349047#Comment_349047

[....]

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932.

To hold otherwise is more of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view.

George, I've heard and read of the 6th and 7th, Basically it is just a play on the first 5. Don't take it too seriously....there are just 5. I have read your reference.....even have a copy, was good reading...

[Y][Y][Y]

Better put than I had done

Shawn Drewett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/348958#Comment_348958

Only a weak faith will be threatened by reading a book.

Just because we can do something does not mean that we should do that very thing, it is all too easy to veer into antinomianism.

[Y]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349024#Comment_349024

Would you recommend Boettner´s book?

Yes. Boetner was the book I read before transferring to Calvin.

To hold otherwise is more of an Arminian or semi-Pelagian view.

I started a little lighter by reading RC Sproul Books before going to Calvin.

Thanks George [:)]

Jim

Have made a warning label, which I put on the first page of the document, which may be useful to some of you

I don't really know what kind of book you are thinking of using this on but after reading this thread here's one of my thoughts: (BTW while I only recognize your name from this forum, I don't know you personally so my comment is not about you, but a general reaction to the idea)

If I came across a book with this label, it would be very unlikely that I would bother reading it for two reasons.

a) It immediately warns me that the author is a poor writer. If he has to slap a label like this on his work then he is likely to be incapable of making his points through a valid persuasive argument and he lacked the effort or ability to present his "heretical" material in a way that makes clear either what he thinks of the material or to teach people how to analyze it critically. I would be highly skeptical that such a book would be worth reading.

b) The label smacks of presumption. Who determines what is heretical? Perhaps you think your label would only apply to let's say the fundamentals of reconciliation with God, (like you might be quoting Buddha or Mohammed) but others might see its use quite differently. The jokes about Calvinism in this thread illustrate my point. What about people who just happen to drop in and read them or don't get the inside references - like me?

All, in all, make your writing persuade people effectively and forget the label. Even if you are just publishing a compendium of thought for reference, at least introduce it effectively and perhaps suggest critical questions people should ask themselves as they read.

BTW did you notice this in the news this week: "Dante’s Divine Comedy has been condemned as racist, homophobic,
anti-Islamist and anti-Semitic. The classic work should be removed from
school curricula, according to Gherush 92, a human rights organisation
which acts as a consultant to UN bodies on racism and discrimination."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349321#Comment_349321

BTW did you notice this in the news this week: "Dante’s Divine Comedy has been condemned as racist, homophobic,
anti-Islamist and anti-Semitic. The classic work should be removed from
school curricula, according to Gherush 92, a human rights organisation
which acts as a consultant to UN bodies on racism and discrimination."

Better get your copy before it is banned! [;)] At least they are not calling for a book burning party yet. [:D]

http://www.logos.com/es/producto/9918/the-harvard-classics-vol-20-the-divine-comedy-by-dante

Calvin Habig

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349321#Comment_349321

Thanks Jim. I have been wanting to reply to this thread, but haven't know how to say anything without being inflammatory. You said exactly what I feel.

Cal H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349321#Comment_349321

I think we are at cross-purposes here:

Am am only using it myself on prepublished public domain stuff, I am not using it on anything I author myself, should I ever be fortunate to do so will not hide behind a label but subject ti to peer review.

Most of the stuff I attach it to concerns cults and other world religions

Re Dante, why should we be surprised.. Thankfully the Lord is coming back... Maranatha!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349344#Comment_349344

Am am only using it myself on prepublished public domain stuff, I am not using it on anything I author myself, should I ever be fortunate to do so will not hide behind a label but subject ti to peer review.

Most of the stuff I attach it to concerns cults and other world religions

Getting back to your original post.

Yes your sticker will be useful as we compile our own books made out of PD material.

Books we find on the internet and would like to include in our own PRIVATE personal Lib.

The sticker you produced is fine and will be used by others just as everyone has a right to label and sort any book on their home book shelf into categories.

I got a "Special" place for my copy of the Koran and similar items.

Thanks for making it and I am sorry that we got off track (o hijacked) your thread. [:$]

Tomas

Jim

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349344#Comment_349344

Thankfully the Lord is coming back... Maranatha!

Amen to that brother.

Is it possible to provide an introduction to the material that gives readers ideas about how to read it critically? Perhaps some questions to think about as one reads or suggestions of works that provide a different point of view. That would make publishing it an educational experience for the body of Christ and allows you to edify the rest of us. Regardless of your intentions I think the label approach will lead to misuse/abuse by others as has happened with Dante's work.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349356#Comment_349356

Yeah, you are likely right, thats a good suggestion, which i touched on adding the reason it got buried by the flood of posts, am looking into the best way of dealing adding the "Educational bits" be-it inline notes or footnotes on the original text inside the PB or just a few words on the title page

However, I wont even be releasing any of these titles via forums, so is likely a mute point

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349356#Comment_349356

Dominic,

I am curious what Books YOU have written and have had published that I can get so I can put YOUR sticker on?

It really seems that this stems from a form of bias that has developed over the years. But just so I understand you correctly - would you read the Koran or the Torah or the Book of Mormon or the I-Ching so that you could better deal with them?

In some respects I agree with Jim:

a) It immediately warns me that the author is a poor writer. [...]

b) The label smacks of [...]

But it comes down to our own spiritual understanding: What you may call Heresy another may call Truth(vice-verse)

Etc., etc., Blah blah..........

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349364#Comment_349364

Just checked back on this thread..........Looks like it got de-railed. I've already given my 2 cents but want to add just one more penny.

If someone feels compelled to place warning labels on every Personal Book they compile in Logos that is fine with me. Personally, I would not read an edition compiled by someone so opposed to the author. It defeats the whole purpose of going to the source. (How can you trust they did not edit the work?) Also, I never ask the patron at the next table what salad dressing I should choose.

We need to respect each other enough to allow different study pursuits. [C]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349617#Comment_349617

I never ask the patron at the next table what salad dressing I should choose.

Maybe the analogy for proponents of such a label would be the menu at an Asian restaurant (or chili-con-carne), which will tell "spicey, hot, very hot" and people can make more informed decisions - kind of "you have been warned". After all, tolerance for this kind of food is an acquired taste, and some may delight in a meal others can't stand.

Nevertheless, I personally share the reservations about who is to decide about a "heresy" badge - some would put it on the catechism of the catholic church, others on Calvin's institutes, others on both...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349686#Comment_349686

Maybe the analogy for proponents of such a label would be the menu at an Asian restaurant (or chili-con-carne), which will tell "spicey, hot, very hot"

There's not really any completely objective scale for things like this. One person's "very hot" is another person's "mild-to-medium." Depends on whether you grew up in Maine or Texas, or what Christian tribe you hang out with. The seminary down the street from us considers Regent College and all its faculty (most of whom are published authors in Logos) to be ultra-conservative fundamentalists, whereas there's a seminary in Florida which parted ways with a Regent College faculty member who appeared to espouse a view they thought was beyond the pale in the liberal territory. Same guy; viewed as conservative/fundamentalist by one group of people and liberal/heretical by another.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349686#Comment_349686

Nevertheless, I personally share the reservations about who is to decide about a "heresy" badge - some would put it on the catechism of the catholic church, others on Calvin's institutes, others on both...

AND quote a) It immediately warns me that the author is a poor writer end quote

No writer would put that label on their own work but it would get put on the works of others.

Is there any resource that all would agree that it should not get the label?

[[Also: would a book on the four ways that something is understood get three labels as only one of the four ways can be right - or maybe four as someone knows a fifth way]]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349693#Comment_349693

Is there any resource that all would agree that it should not get the label?

Good thought experiment. Maybe a child's ABC book? Naw, I'm sure someone could come up with some controversy even in that: maybe it's got a picture of a dinosaur in it for the letter D, and they think there's no such thing as dinosaurs.

[[Also: would a book on the four ways that something is understood get three labels as only one of the four ways can be right - or maybe four as someone knows a fifth way]]

It doesn't have to be that only one way is right (or they're all wrong). It can be possible that more than one of several ways of understanding something is right. They might be different ways of viewing something which are not mutually contradictory. For example, all of these statements could be true at the same time, since none of them implies the necessity of "this is the only way of viewing it": The Lord's Supper is a meal of remembrance. It is a sign of the new covenant. It is for spiritual nourishment. It is for thanksgiving ("eucharist"). It is an anticipation of the heavenly banquet. See, it could be all of those things. Yet there are books that describe multiple understandings of the Lord's Supper. It might just be that there isn't only one right way to view it.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349697#Comment_349697

Somehow, I read the original post a bit differently than most in this thread. While it is true that I would never use the label, I saw Dominic's post as simply offering the graphic to those who would use it. For those to whom it would be useful, a simple thank you should suffice.

For the rest of us, a little humor should handle the situation. Reproduce the label as follows:

red = non-Christian
blue = non-Jewish
green = non-Moslem
yellow = non-Hindu
purple = non-Buddhist
mauve = non-Deist
orange = non-scientific
violet = non-artistic ....
white = acceptable

Now imagine a large University library with students with the enthusiasm that only the young can display. They are running around the library slapping their stickers on all "offensive" books and covering all "incorrect" labels with white labels. The stacks of labels gets thicker and thicker until the width added by the stickers expands to the point the books don't fit on the shelves. They start spilling over into the aisles, the study cubicles, the elevators trapping the students on the upper floors. .... feel free to expand on the image as far as you would like. .... but for the sake of Suzzallo library I will refrain. I would rather teach critical thinking than participate in the destruction of a library.

Seriously, however, I can imagine small group situations where I would be willing to label something as non-Christian. People take small steps towards critical thinking as they grow mentally. Where they are on that journey matters. It may be easier to warn them in advance rather than dissuade them by logic afterward.

So Dominic I give you a sincere thanks but no thanks and hope you understand that some will find your graphic useful even if they have not explicitly thanked you on the forums.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349945#Comment_349945

So Dominic I give you a sincere thanks but no thanks and hope you understand that some will find your graphic useful even if they have not explicitly thanked you on the forums.

same here

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/350375#Comment_350375

So Dominic I give you a sincere thanks but no thanks and hope you understand that some will find your graphic useful even if they have not explicitly thanked you on the forums.
same here

I would say "Me too" but DominicM started me wondering what would happen after my death if the recipient of my library didn't know a heretic from a saint........... I would be devastated to be responsible for their misleading. This needs much preponderance. Thanks for bringing it up.

We always have the option to group things in collections. Why not differentiate by denominations and doctrine?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/350378#Comment_350378

Why not differentiate by denominations and doctrine?

Good question! [Y] Why not? [^o)]

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/349344#Comment_349344

Re Dante, why should we be surprised.. Thankfully the Lord is coming back... Maranatha!

Peace, Dominic! ... and Joy in the Lord!

Maranatha! Indeed! Yes! Thank you for all your very helpful and positive contributons to these Logos Forums.

Many appreciate you greatly, methinks! *smile*

Psalm 139:17-18

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/350378#Comment_350378

We always have the option to group things in collections. Why not differentiate by denominations and doctrine?

I do so, so that they can be separate sections in the Bible Guide/Exegetical Guide. However, I am deliberately subjective e.g. Anglican materials are divided between Anglo-Catholic and non-Anglo-Catholic. An Anglican/Episcopalian would be amused at where I put authors. It has much more to do with where I want the book to appear than the actual stance of the author.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/350390#Comment_350390

We always have the option to group things in collections. Why not differentiate by denominations and doctrine?

I do so, so that they can be separate sections in the Bible Guide/Exegetical Guide. However, I am deliberately subjective e.g. Anglican materials are divided between Anglo-Catholic and non-Anglo-Catholic. An Anglican/Episcopalian would be amused at where I put authors. It has much more to do with where I want the book to appear than the actual stance of the author.

There are also authors who are transdenominational, and it's hard to put a single label on them. Tagging is a good option, because you can have multiple tags for someone who fits into multiple categories. I have collections for various theological positions, but some authors defy categorization and either show up in multiple collections or none (at least none of the "position" based ones). They might show up still in topical collections, in which case I don't care what denominational perspective they come from, as long as they have something to contribute on that particular topic, be it Arts or Philosophy or whatever. I use the star rating system to put lower value on those who come from a perspective I really can't usually stomach. But I have very few of those in my library. Most of them are hidden (or I never bought them in the first place), but I keep a few around as representatives of their perspective, in case I need to look up what the "----s" think about such-and-such.

Mike Childs

Heresy is a word that should be reserved for teaching that is completely outside the boundaries of Christian faith, such as denying the deity of Christ or the resurrection of our Lord. It is not a Word that should be used just for teaching outside our particular tradition or beliefs.

Only a complete fool believes his/her tradition has a monopoly on truth.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/352458#Comment_352458

Heresy is a word that should be reserved for teaching that is completely outside the boundaries of Christian faith, such as denying the deity of Christ or the resurrection of our Lord. It is not a Word that should be used just for teaching outside our particular tradition or beliefs.

Only a complete fool believes his/her tradition has a monopoly on truth.

This is interesting:

I know some Muslims, Catholics, Presby, Mormons, LDS, SDA, Baptists, Reformed, Protestant Rrefromed, Evan. Free, Reformed Evan. Free, Episcopalian, Luthren, Plymouth Brethren that would disagree.

Why, even Jesus stated that HE was the Way and the Truth, "...NO man comes to the Father EXCEPT through Me." Surely you are not counting Him as a fool are you?

But you did use the word "tradition", something that the Pharisee's and the Sadducee's were proud of....much like many today.

[no need to reply unless you feel compelled to, just an observation that I felt compelled to reply to]

Thanks.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/352464#Comment_352464

Wow.. thought this thread had died naturally.

Kinda wish I'd never posted it now, didnt realise it would prove so offensive/confusing

Maybe the thread can go back to sleep again, and we can get back to our respective ministries..