What is Heresy?

[JesusFan]

For example? It may be that he is referring to an important result but not defining it.

I would also say that anyone thinks justification is an experience is unreliable. It is certainly a knowledge of what God accomplished historically and preemptively but not an individual experience. Notice this from Is 53: By his experience, my servant will justify many.

In Is 53 , justification is thus made a synonym for all of its salvation terms: chastisement that pacifies, atonement, etc.

Pauline Justification per the Bible refers to HOW we as sinners can get justified before and by a Holy God, NOT talking about after that state, so Wright is reading this doctrine wrongly

 

[JesusFan]

Is that heresy, or not?

No, at least to me, as that would be their understanding of the passage by a strictly literal prophetic approach to the scriptures, so could be a wrong view, but not heretical

 

[JesusFan]

I asked, "Is it heresy or not?" because if the statement is not heresy then it's off-topic. This op is specifically about heresy and the op asks specifically about Dispensationalism. I think we can all agree there are some things with Dispensational Premillennialism that are taught correctly. It's their heretical content that is the subject of this discussion.

I read you, @JesusFan, saying "That is what the Bible states...." but I do not think that is correct. Would you mind showing me (and @Arial) where the Bible states national Israel shall be reborn as a nation unto Yahweh right at the Second Coming event? Or perhaps clarify that statement if the statement isn't what you meant? I am asking for where the Bible states that, not where such a thing can be inferred from what is stated.

Just saying that there are bible passages that speak to that issue, and how you understand them to a great extent will be based if one is a holding to a Dispy premil or Covenant Amil, but neither viewpoint would be heresy

• saiah 66:8: "Shall a nation be born in one day?" This verse is widely interpreted as a prophecy fulfilled by the re-establishment of Israel in 1948, which was declared a sovereign state in a single day after the British Mandate ended.
• Ezekiel 37: The vision of dry bones coming together and being covered with flesh is seen as a metaphor for the Jewish people's return to their land and the re-establishment of the nation, which was prophesied to happen after a period of great weakness and despair.
• Ezekiel 36: This chapter includes God's promise to "take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land," which is viewed as a prophecy about the return of the Jewish people to Israel from across the globe.
  • Other prophecies: Additional verses in both the Old and New Testaments speak of Israel's regathering and restoration, which are seen by many as fulfilled in the modern era. This includes prophecies about the land being made fruitful again and the ingathering of Jewish people from all over the world.

 

[JesusFan]

In the Bible church I was raised in, the “Roman’s Road” was well known, but no one ever expounded Rom 3B or Gal 3-4 or Acts 13 on justification .

Wrights expression ‘so much as…’ is a relative connection , in relating an initial individual decision about Christ to the solving of conflict between Jewish and non-Jewish believers, Wright is right to say justification makes that basis of membership clear.

Maybe a good study task would be to compare how many verses are spent on the doctrine proper (Rom 3B) compared to its effect as the basis of fellowship in ch 4, 9, 10, 15, Gal 3-4. Or its protective function for believers against the spiritual slavery of the law. For life.

In Phil 3 you have yet another use: to ward off the fellowship-destroying belief about justification in Judaism. That is, the use of justification to Paul there is still not ‘how does a person become a Christian’ as much as how does Judaism’s ‘garbage’ ruin your fellowship as believers? Which I suppose is an enslavement theme again.

Either way, this very different from a trite formula that sets up an individual decision to be a Christian. Which is all that mattered to the Romans Roadsters and their list:
1:16
3:20
6:23
10:9

To agree to those is good, but it is not at all the totality of Paul’s concern in Romans.

Wring denies Psa view of the atonement and also imputation, so would not regard him as being at all good in these areas

 

[JesusFan]

Because dipsy is a derogatory term used by those who mock dispensationalism. Guys like you want to claim it's only "shorthand"....I see no harm.
As I have told you before... It has the connotation of one being a "dip" or a dippy person meaning "the image of a head that is ‘not screwed on’ and thus moves up and down like a bird dipping its beak"

Then again I'd rather be dippy than one who "aligns with the coven".

Hey, far as I know, none of us here are'Warlocks or witches per"Coven"

 

[EarlyActs]

Pauline Justification per the Bible refers to HOW we as sinners can get justified before and by a Holy God, NOT talking about after that state, so Wright is reading this doctrine wrongly

Or is he just applying it. If you read Gal 3 you will not find much on the ‘theology’ of it either but about the impact of it—or lack thereof.

 

[EarlyActs]

Wring denies Psa view of the atonement and also imputation, so would not regard him as being at all good in these areas

Do you have a reference where he defines imputation?

 

[EarlyActs]

Gal 3:10-13 are the redemptive doctrine proper but then it’s right back to including gentile believers apart from the law, and not being as enslaved as in their pagan days.

 

[Carbon]

Do you have a reference where he defines imputation?

Look him up? It’s public knowledge

 

[EarlyActs]

Just saying that there are bible passages that speak to that issue, and how you understand them to a great extent will be based if one is a holding to a Dispy premil or Covenant Amil, but neither viewpoint would be heresy

• saiah 66:8: "Shall a nation be born in one day?" This verse is widely interpreted as a prophecy fulfilled by the re-establishment of Israel in 1948, which was declared a sovereign state in a single day after the British Mandate ended.
• Ezekiel 37: The vision of dry bones coming together and being covered with flesh is seen as a metaphor for the Jewish people's return to their land and the re-establishment of the nation, which was prophesied to happen after a period of great weakness and despair.
• Ezekiel 36:This chapter includes God's promise to "take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land," which is viewed as a prophecy about the return of the Jewish people to Israel from across the globe.
  • Other prophecies: Additional verses in both the Old and New Testaments speak of Israel's regathering and restoration, which are seen by many as fulfilled in the modern era. This includes prophecies about the land being made fruitful again and the ingathering of Jewish people from all over the world.

The question would then be the pattern of NT usage of OT. If Christs body is the temple (Jn 2) and ‘an hour is coming and is now here’ Jn 4 and Christ is our paschal Lamb, and the believers are the living temple, Eph 2, do you see a pattern forming?

 

[EarlyActs]

Look him up? It’s public knowledge

True but there might also be something the member is doing that is awry. So it’s good to know where his reference comes from.

 

[EarlyActs]

Tracing Atonement Through the Story of Scripture - N.T. Wright Online

Find the rejection of the atonement if you can.

 

[CrowCross]

Hey, far as I know, none of us here are'Warlocks or witches per"Coven"

OH, I'm SORRY ....did my abbreviation of the term "Covenant Theology" generate a bad impression?
Forgive me for being such a dippy person.

NEXT

 

[JesusFan]

The question would then be the pattern of NT usage of OT. If Christs body is the temple (Jn 2) and ‘an hour is coming and is now here’ Jn 4 and Christ is our paschal Lamb, and the believers are the living temple, Eph 2, do you see a pattern forming?

I am not disagreeing with you, but do not think their understanding rises to the level of being heresy

 

[JesusFan]

Tracing Atonement Through the Story of Scripture - N.T. Wright Online

Find the rejection of the atonement if you can.

From a reknown and respected NT scholar
earn.ligonier.org/articles/wright-wrong-imputation

 

[Josheb]

No, at least to me, as that would be their understanding of the passage by a strictly literal prophetic approach to the scriptures, so could be a wrong view, but not heretical

See Post 174. If it's not heresy, then it's not germane to this op. This thread is not a symposium on Dispensationalism. It's discussion regarding what qualifies as heresy and, more specifically, how is Dispensationalism heretical. This op reports,

"As many probably already know..... Dispensational premillennialism is not typically treated as a heresy, even if it's in opposition to a classical doctrine. That got me wondering: Are there other issues—especially ones that might appear more peripheral to some—that would actually be considered heterodox or even heretical by historic, conservative Christian standards?"​

Dispensationalism is not typically treated as heresy in modern futurist circles but outside that arena Dispensationalism is viewed in much different ways, and it has been viewed as contrary to established doctrine since its inception. Even the early Brethren had problems with Darby and, as a consequence he excommunicated them! and formed his own sect (The Extreme Brethren)! Just imagine someone within the Anglican/Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. denominations attempting that kind of behavior.

"Y'all aren't part of the pure Church. Y'all are just as corrupt as the rest of Christendom. I'm going to start my own sect and call it the Extreme Presbyterians."​

I don't care what sect of Presbyterian he's coming from the PCUSA, PCA, EPC, etc. - NONE of them are going to put up with that dross. That guy is out on his backside and if he tries to (mis)appropriate the Presbyterian label he'll find the General Assembly has filed suit and he'll end up in court.* Dispensationalists ignored that nonsense and approved of Darbyism.




* He has a First Amendment legal right to do so in the US but, ecclesiologically speaking, such behavior is apostate heresy.
.

 

[Josheb]

The question would then be the pattern of NT usage of OT.....

Exactly.

Only Dispensationalists think the Old Testament speaks for itself in discontinuity from the New Testament, and the only reason they think that is because of the man-made hermeneutic Darby invented. Everyone else in Christendom going all the way back to the first century and the practice of the apostles understands a very, very, very simple concept:

The New Testament explains the Old Testament.

The OT informs the NT, but the NT explains the OT. Or, in another wording, the newer revelations explain the prior revelations. So when God says God is going to build His temple it is very understandable why the original Jewish audience would mistakenly think God was talking about a building made out of rocks but the minute the newer revelation is spoken it becomes instantly apparent the Jews misunderstood what God was saying. Instantly.

God does not dwell in houses built by human hands.

It is very dumb to think otherwise, and it always was dumb to think that way. That is the way the pagans thought. God is not pagan.

All of which is evidence of heresy within Dispensationalism.

 

[CrowCross]

that is because of the man-made hermeneutic Darby invented.

Darby invented it? The truth had been around for a long, long time. Darby didn't invent it.
In fact I presented a paper from Liberty University that showed just that.

 

[CrowCross]

The OT informs the NT, but the NT explains the OT.

Sometimes the OT explains the NT.

An example would be creation. The bible speaks of the first man Adam. Well, what does that mean? Who is that Adam??? Well, go read Gen 1&2. There the OT explained the NT.

As I mentioned earlier the OT explain why the NT contains Heb 11. @Carbon didn't like that.

Keep in mind I do agree that the NT explains a lot of the OT. Isaiah 53 is an example.

Then in the OT you have Gen 6....and the book of Enoch explains that in Enoch 6. @Arial didn't like that.