Warning Label for Non-Christian Stuff

DominicM said:

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. 

"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)

Rosie Perera said:

"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 [:)]

Chris myers said:

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 said:

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.

Tom Rach said:

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?

George Somsel said:

Tom Rach said:

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/

Alexander Longacre said:

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. 

Tom Rach said:

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.

Tom Rach said:

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.

George Somsel said:

Tom Rach said:

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.

Mike Pettit said:

Chris myers said:

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]

DominicM said:

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."

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

DominicM said:

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

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 said:

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 said:

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.

David Ames said:

[[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 said:

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.

Super Tramp said:

Why not differentiate by denominations and doctrine?

Good question! [Y]   Why not? [^o)]

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.