What is Heresy?

[Josheb]

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.

That would be an example of the OT informing the NT and the NT explaining the OT (who the first Adam was in relationship to the last Adam), not the other way around.

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

No, it does not. Hebrews 11 explains the original, true meaning of the Tanakh. The Jews had made a muck of it. Tanakh did not mean what the Jews thought it meant and that had to be explained to the early Church, many of whom were former Jews. The entire book of Hebrews does that. Chapter 11 explains how the righteous live by faith (not adherence to the Law) and are made complete in the ecclesia = something the OT hadn't fully reveal. Because it had not then been fully revealed it had to be subsequently revealed and explained.

Dispensational Premillennialism Judaizes the interpretation of the New Testament and that fact is being demonstrated right here, right now, in this thread.

Keep in mind I do agree that the NT explains a lot of the OT.

Yes, but it does not appear you understand what that means.

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

The Book of Enoch is pseudepigraphic. It does not explain anything.

 

[CrowCross]

The hermeneutic had not been around for a long time. Darby invented it.

You can't prove that. The best you can say is that Darby popularized it.

Prove it.

I already have. You simply dismissed it for the wisdom of men.

Irrelevant. You haven't presented anything here in this thread proving the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic was not invented by Darby.

Are you saying the rapture isn't in the bible?

 

[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

“After that state”? Do you realize it is not an experience with a date on it in our lifetime?

 

[EarlyActs]

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

Then at what point can you find this pattern elaborated in the letter to Hebrews, but fail to treat departure from the pattern as Hebrews does? The letter considers it an egregious departure.

Heb 6:6??? To re-crucify Christ? Isn’t that the superlative, the actual apostasy that is warned against so earnestly?