What is Heresy?

[EarlyActs]

N.T. Wright Is Wrong on Imputation by Thomas Schreiner
Came up fine on my google search

I wrote a page on it mostly in favor of Schreiner in #207. It ends asking is there an article where Wright responds. So I'm already past that obstacle and await your response to 207.

 

[CrowCross]

Dispensational Premillennialism is not identical to Historical Premillennialism. Not all premillennialisms are the same.

It doesn't have to be.

Then again not all Dispensational Premillennialism views are as you present them to be.

 

[JesusFan]

It doesn't have to be.

Then again not all Dispensational Premillennialism views are as you present them to be.

Just as not all holding to Covenant theology views all points the same

 

[JesusFan]

N.T. Wright Is Wrong on Imputation by Thomas Schreiner

Yes, I agree with Schreiner that Wright has missed the sense. I believe I heard him speak on this, and the etymology of justification was Roman, and there is the sense that the Caesar was nepotistic. That means that a dubious person was 'justified' (thumb up from Caesar) if Caesar so decided, apart from the person's character. Capriciously. That is the only angle I can see that would favor Wright, in its focus on God being the only true 'Caesar' who can do that. But we know that crediting draws upon outside resources, as in Lk 17. Luther called this alien.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Ezek 18. In the normal sense, the only 'sin-debt' credit a person has is their own righteousness. That is the moral sense Wright is missing, so that in the NT, the moral accomplishment of Christ (his life, Rom 5B) can be credited. Btw, Islam prohibits any mention of imputation.

We know that to do so is considered scandalous from Rom 5's progression about the ungodly person.

But language and human communication, and even Biblical passages are not always as complete as we would like. Even Biblical passages do not always contain the qualifier would know is meant, and we wish was there. As you may know, this led Jefferson to reduce the sayings of Jesus to the non-miraculous and non-hyperbolic.

My go-to example of incompleteness is Gen 1:16's dangling '...and the stars also.' This is a huge statement, and I operate a creation journal about this, on the basis that 'kavov' (distant stars) are not the local 'shama-raqiy' (heaven-firmament), and are not even the subject of Gen 1.

So has Wright responded specifically to Schreiner? That would be helpful to see.

And my next question for Wright is about the objective genitive, for ex., Gal 2:20. Should it read 'by faith in the Son of God' (in which 'pistis' is subjective, ie, the believer's faith amount), vs. 'by the reliability of the Son of God' (in which 'pistis' is the perfect accomplishment of Christ). There are other important instances.

In that case, that's two strikes.

I would think he would have a huge problem with Rom 5B, too, because some of those 'righteousnesses' must be the 'doing' of Jesus (--Luther).

I mean, are we really supposed to think that Jesus was a wild youth the rest of the time? Instead we know from Mk 3 about his family that he was very much settled in the usual customs of Judaism, because it is after the divine commissioning and anointing that the family seeks to collect him for being controversial or scandalous.

Think very clear that NT Wright form the start has misunderstood what Pauline Justification refers to, as the Apostle was indeed using that phrase to represent how Individual sinners are brought via justification into a saving and justified state to a Holy God by the Cross of Christ

 

[JesusFan]

That is correct.

Dispensational Premillennialism is not identical to Historical Premillennialism. Not all premillennialisms are the same. ALL you were asked to provide is three precepts from the Dispensational Premillennialist hermeneutic and prove the hermeneutic pre-existed Darby.

Irrelevant. What was requested was three precepts from the Dispensational Premillennialist hermeneutic and proof that hermeneutic existed prior to Darby. That has not happened.

It would be nice if, at least on occasion, you would acknowledge the facts in evidence. I posted the DP hermeneutic and provided two means within DPism by which that content can and should be acknowledged and confirmed.

"Yes, Josh, that is a fair and accurate presentation of Dispensational Premillennialism's hermeneutic."​

How hard is that to do?

I do not see them holding to heresy, just wrong in certain of their views and understandings

 

[Josheb]

It doesn't have to be.

Then again not all Dispensational Premillennialism views are as you present them to be.

Hermeneutic.

Prove the DP hermeneutic existed prior to Darby.

 

[Josheb]

I do not see them holding to heresy, just wrong in certain of their views and understandings

Define heresy.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of heresy is "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine," and "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice." The definition provided by Theopedia is "teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation."

Dispensational Premillennialism teaches...

• a different Christology,
• a different soteriology,
• a different ecclesiology,
• a different eschatology,

The first two bullet points are core doctrines. There can be no contrary doctrine, dissent or deviation regarding those two doctrines. To do so is the definition of heresy. The differences it teaches are wholly irreconcilable with everything historically taught within orthodox Christianity over the course of the last wo millennia. Dispensational Premillennialism is different, and irreconcilably different. The differences are not always obvious, but they are real. When the truth about what is taught is revealed the common response is an attempt to change the topic. denial.

Evidence of pretribulationism surfaces during the early medieval period in a sermon some attribute to Ephraem the Syrian, but more likely the product of one scholars call Pseudo-Ephraem, entitled Sermon on The Last Times, The Antichrist, and The End of the World.
It doesn't have to be.

Then again not all Dispensational Premillennialism views are as you present them to be.

Or ad hominem.

You simply dismissed it for the wisdom of men.

Or denial.

Then again not all Dispensational Premillennialism views are as you present them to be.

It happens in every thread in which Dispensational Premillennialism is the topic, or in which Dispensationalists participate. This very Board is filled with threads demonstrating these practices. None of those three responses comes anywhere close to addressing the problem specified, the specific point of heresy.

Dispensational Premillennialism compromises core Christian doctrine.

The departures from core historical, orthodox doctrine are radical. There is a complete lack of accountability within Dispensational Premillennialism, and it inevitably leads to a dissociated, delusional way of living. Furthermore, they do not practice what they preach with any consistency, and no other theology propagates the number, nor the severity of false teachers found within Dispensational Premillennialism.

I do not see them holding to heresy, just wrong in certain of their views and understandings

The evidence proves otherwise. Since its inception, Dispensational Premillennialism has been treated with respect, as if it falls within the pale of orthodoxy, BUT from the beginning there has also been an effort by leaders within the Church to have Dispensationalist leadership examine its teachings and practices, specifically for the purpose of correction and reform.

They have been ever-hearing but never-understanding.

 

[JesusFan]

Define heresy.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of heresy is "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine," and "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice." The definition provided by Theopedia is "teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation."

Dispensational Premillennialism teaches...

• a different Christology,
• a different soteriology,
• a different ecclesiology,
• a different eschatology,

The first two bullet points are core doctrines. There can be no contrary doctrine, dissent or deviation regarding those two doctrines. To do so is the definition of heresy. The differences it teaches are wholly irreconcilable with everything historically taught within orthodox Christianity over the course of the last wo millennia. Dispensational Premillennialism is different, and irreconcilably different. The differences are not always obvious, but they are real. When the truth about what is taught is revealed the common response is an attempt to change the topic. denial.

Or ad hominem.

Or denial.

It happens in every thread in which Dispensational Premillennialism is the topic, or in which Dispensationalists participate. This very Board is filled with threads demonstrating these practices. None of those three responses comes anywhere close to addressing the problem specified, the specific point of heresy.

Dispensational Premillennialism compromises core Christian doctrine.

The departures from core historical, orthodox doctrine are radical. There is a complete lack of accountability within Dispensational Premillennialism, and it inevitably leads to a dissociated, delusional way of living. Furthermore, they do not practice what they preach with any consistency, and no other theology propagates the number, nor the severity of false teachers found within Dispensational Premillennialism.

The evidence proves otherwise. Since its inception, Dispensational Premillennialism has been treated with respect, as if it falls within the pale of orthodoxy, BUT from the beginning there has also been an effort by leaders within the Church to have Dispensationalist leadership examine its teachings and practices, specifically for the purpose of correction and reform.

They have been ever-hearing but never-understanding.

Do men such as MacArthur, Ryrie and other deny that we are saved by the Cross of Christ, that Died death was as a Psa atonememt? Do they deny the original scriptures were inerrant and inspired? Do they deny that the Lord Jesus will hve a Second Coming? Do they hold to baptismal regeneration?
You can disagree with them, but they were fellows Brothers in the Lord jesus, and not heretics such as would be JW, Mormons, Sda, Rome etc

 

[JesusFan]

Hermeneutic.

Prove the DP hermeneutic existed prior to Darby.

By same token, "prove" that Amil was the dominent eschatology held in the churches before Augustine made it popular

 

[Josheb]

Do men such as MacArthur, Ryrie and other deny that we are saved by the Cross of Christ, that Died death was as a Psa atonememt? Do they deny the original scriptures were inerrant and inspired? Do they deny that the Lord Jesus will hve a Second Coming? Do they hold to baptismal regeneration?
You can disagree with them, but they were fellows Brothers in the Lord jesus, and not heretics such as would be JW, Mormons, Sda, Rome etc

Relevance?

Do men such as MacArthur, Ryrie and other deny that we are saved by the Cross of Christ, that Died death was as a Psa atonememt?

What they claim about themselves and what they teach to others are often two completely different matters. I believe I have already covered the dualist, two-pronged soteriology Dispensational Premillennialism teaches (one means of salvation for the Jews of the millennium and another means of salvation for everyone else (so why am I being asked a question I have already answered many times in many threads?).

Do they deny the original scriptures were inerrant and inspired?

Just because orthodox Doctrine A is affirmed does not mean orthodox doctrine B or C are also affirmed. I provided a list of specific doctrines that are compromised in Dispensational Premillennialism's teaching. Why are you ignoring what was posted and trying to change the topic?

Do they deny that the Lord Jesus will have a Second Coming?

Yes. They deny Jesus will have A second coming. They have Jesus coming and going multiple times for multiple purposes and those times and purposes are much different than what Christendom has historically taught within the pale of orthodoxy. For example, ONLY DISPENSATIONALISTS SEPARATE THE RAPTURE FROM THE SECOND COMING and then they try to qualify that coming to remove Christians from the earth by saying he doesn't actually touch foot on the planet when that coming occurs. Furthermore, as I have already recounted, their view of the Second Coming compromises how both Jesus and the kingdom of God are defined.

Do they hold to baptismal regeneration?

Just because orthodox Doctrine A is affirmed does not mean orthodox doctrine B or C are also affirmed. I provided a list of specific doctrines that are compromised in Dispensational Premillennialism's teaching. Why are you ignoring what was posted and trying to change the topic?

You can disagree with them, but they were fellows Brothers in the Lord jesus, and not heretics such as would be JW, Mormons, Sda, Rome etc

False equivalence.

If they believe in a Jesus different than the one taught in scripture then they are not saved, and they are not the authentic Christians' brother s and sisters. Logic is your friend. A little bit of dog poop in the brownie mix still makes the brownies inedible. Thet fact that they are less adulterated than the cults is not a reason for affirmation. @CrowCross may be an actual Christian because of his differences with Dispensational Premillennialism, not in spite of them. He's open about his dissent from what DPism teaches soteriologically. He disputes what I say about that teaching but if what I say is true he openly says, "That is bad. That is not a correct, scriptural view of salvation." That is very common among Dispies. When the teachings are exposed, it is common for self-identifying Dispies to say, "That's not what I believe." It is the shared experience of most, if not all the former Dispies in this forum. We learned Dispensational premillennial teachings, thinking we were learning truth, but upon deeper examination of those teachings, of historical, orthodox doctrine, and most importantly, a more exegetical and thorough study of scripture we all came to the alarming realization what we learned is NOT what scripture teaches. We were deceived. Richard Fitzpatrick was a devout Christian and a devoted subscribed to Dispensational Premillennialism. His teachers deceived him and his following them cost him dearly. Most Dispies are not that foolish, but most Dispies aren't that committed, either. No one within Dispensationalism ever held Camping accountable and no one within Dispensationalism sought reforms despite ALL the futurist prognosticators in the entire history of Dispensational Premillennialism making false predictions (they have a 100% fail rate).

Brothers in Christ do not deceive the sheep.

Bad doctrine is preached every day around the world on Christian radio.





How about you start engaging the specifics of what I posted and stop trying to change the subject to justify a personal belief in neglect of the facts already posted? If and when you do that, I will provide you with all the information necessary to objectively and fairly judge Dispensational Premillennialism. Everything I'll post can be verified with your own due diligence. You will not have to take my word for anything I post.

 

[Josheb]

By same token, "prove" that Amil was the dominent eschatology held in the churches before Augustine made it popular

Nope. That would be off topic and irrelevant. Eschatology was unsettled during the ECF era. Most were premillennial by todays measures but none of them ever articulated a formal eschatological viewpoint that existed as doctrine. That is part of the problem. If we had a formal statement from the apostles, no debate would not exist. The problem with Dispensational Premillennialism is that it denies what EVERYONE within orthodox Christianity agrees upon during the entire the last two millennia. For example, although the ECFs did have views about the future of the Jews they did not hold the nation of Israel was relevant to Christian eschatology. In point of fact, eschatology wasn't considered a core or primary doctrine until the 19th century. Dispensationalism disputes both positions. Dispensationalism chronically Judaizes Christian eschatology. The ECFs did not separate the rapture from the Second Coming. They did not constantly make predictions when event X or event Y would happen in their lifetime, and they repudiated those who did. Dispensationalists chronically do the former and entirely ignore any and all correction when they do so. The ECFs' ecclesiology was that those in whom God works are the Church and never espoused God has two people as the doctrine of ecclesiology. These and other agreed upon aspects of Christian eschatology have common ground among the Historic Premil, the Amils, the Postmils and the Idealists. ONLY DPism disagrees. ONLY DPism disputes with and departs from what Christians have always believed, always taught in those specified aspects of eschatology.

The definition of heresy is any belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine; teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation. That is the specified topic of this op and the ops specifically asks about Dispensationalism. So..... how about you start engaging the specifics of what I posted and stop trying to change the subject? If and when that happens, I will gladly provide all the information necessary to objectively and fairly judge Dispensational Premillennialism. Everything I'll post can be verified with your own due diligence. You will not have to take my word for anything I post.

 

[JesusFan]

Relevance?

What they claim about themselves and what they teach to others are often two completely different matters. I believe I have already covered the dualist, two-pronged soteriology Dispensational Premillennialism teaches (one means of salvation for the Jews of the millennium and another means of salvation for everyone else (so why am I being asked a question I have already answered many times in many threads?).

Just because orthodox Doctrine A is affirmed does not mean orthodox doctrine B or C are also affirmed. I provided a list of specific doctrines that are compromised in Dispensational Premillennialism's teaching. Why are you ignoring what was posted and trying to change the topic?

Yes. They deny Jesus will have A second coming. They have Jesus coming and going multiple times for multiple purposes and those times and purposes are much different than what Christendom has historically taught within the pale of orthodoxy. For example, ONLY DISPENSATIONALISTS SEPARATE THE RAPTURE FROM THE SECOND COMING and then they try to qualify that coming to remove Christians from the earth by saying he doesn't actually touch foot on the planet when that coming occurs. Furthermore, as I have already recounted, their view of the Second Coming compromises how both Jesus and the kingdom of God are defined.

Just because orthodox Doctrine A is affirmed does not mean orthodox doctrine B or C are also affirmed. I provided a list of specific doctrines that are compromised in Dispensational Premillennialism's teaching. Why are you ignoring what was posted and trying to change the topic?

False equivalence.

If they believe in a Jesus different than the one taught in scripture then they are not saved, and they are not the authentic Christians' brother s and sisters. Logic is your friend. A little bit of dog poop in the brownie mix still makes the brownies inedible. Thet fact that they are less adulterated than the cults is not a reason for affirmation. @CrowCross may be an actual Christian because of his differences with Dispensational Premillennialism, not in spite of them. He's open about his dissent from what DPism teaches soteriologically. He disputes what I say about that teaching but if what I say is true he openly says, "That is bad. That is not a correct, scriptural view of salvation." That is very common among Dispies. When the teachings are exposed, it is common for self-identifying Dispies to say, "That's not what I believe." It is the shared experience of most, if not all the former Dispies in this forum. We learned Dispensational premillennial teachings, thinking we were learning truth, but upon deeper examination of those teachings, of historical, orthodox doctrine, and most importantly, a more exegetical and thorough study of scripture we all came to the alarming realization what we learned is NOT what scripture teaches. We were deceived. Richard Fitzpatrick was a devout Christian and a devoted subscribed to Dispensational Premillennialism. His teachers deceived him and his following them cost him dearly. Most Dispies are not that foolish, but most Dispies aren't that committed, either. No one within Dispensationalism ever held Camping accountable and no one within Dispensationalism sought reforms despite ALL the futurist prognosticators in the entire history of Dispensational Premillennialism making false predictions (they have a 100% fail rate).

Brothers in Christ do not deceive the sheep.

Bad doctrine is preached every day around the world on Christian radio.





How about you start engaging the specifics of what I posted and stop trying to change the subject to justify a personal belief in neglect of the facts already posted? If and when you do that, I will provide you with all the information necessary to objectively and fairly judge Dispensational Premillennialism. Everything I'll post can be verified with your own due diligence. You will not have to take my word for anything I post.

You still have yet to show though that they are teaching heresy, as it seems to be that you just dislike their entire eschatological outlook and understanding.
Again, where have they stated a jew gets saved right now in a different way from a gentile? That one is saved by either the Law or by the grace of the Cross as you seem to be implying on these postings?
I do not agree at all with much of their understandings, but on the questions such as who is Jesus, what is the Gospel, they agree with us who hold to differing viewpoints.

 

[JesusFan]

Nope. That would be off topic and irrelevant. Eschatology was unsettled during the ECF era. Most were premillennial by todays measures but none of them ever articulated a formal eschatological viewpoint that existed as doctrine. That is part of the problem. If we had a formal statement from the apostles, no debate would not exist. The problem with Dispensational Premillennialism is that it denies what EVERYONE within orthodox Christianity agrees upon during the entire the last two millennia. For example, although the ECFs did have views about the future of the Jews they did not hold the nation of Israel was relevant to Christian eschatology. In point of fact, eschatology wasn't considered a core or primary doctrine until the 19th century. Dispensationalism disputes both positions. Dispensationalism chronically Judaizes Christian eschatology. The ECFs did not separate the rapture from the Second Coming. They did not constantly make predictions when event X or event Y would happen in their lifetime, and they repudiated those who did. Dispensationalists chronically do the former and entirely ignore any and all correction when they do so. The ECFs' ecclesiology was that those in whom God works are the Church and never espoused God has two people as the doctrine of ecclesiology. These and other agreed upon aspects of Christian eschatology have common ground among the Historic Premil, the Amils, the Postmils and the Idealists. ONLY DPism disagrees. ONLY DPism disputes with and departs from what Christians have always believed, always taught in those specified aspects of eschatology.

The definition of heresy is any belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine; teaching or practice which denies one or more essentials of the Christian faith, divides Christians, and deserves condemnation. That is the specified topic of this op and the ops specifically asks about Dispensationalism. So..... how about you start engaging the specifics of what I posted and stop trying to change the subject? If and when that happens, I will gladly provide all the information necessary to objectively and fairly judge Dispensational Premillennialism. Everything I'll post can be verified with your own due diligence. You will not have to take my word for anything I post.

As a reformed Baptist like myself though, if used that very logic of yours here brother, I would end up stating those subscribing to infant baptism teach another Gospel and had heretical theology. I do NOT say its that, just wrong per my understanding of what the scripture teaches, but we are still one in Christ
And Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur loved each other as brothers in Christ, they were able to disagree, but not threw heretics labels on each other despite defenses in some of their theology

 

[Josheb]

You still have yet to show though that they are teaching heresy...

That is untrue. Have you read the posts in this thread? Have you read the threads to which I linked you?

 

[Josheb]

As a reformed Baptist like myself though, if used that very logic of yours here brother, I would end up stating those subscribing to infant baptism teach another Gospel and had heretical theology. I do NOT say its that, just wrong per my understanding of what the scripture teaches, but we are still one in Christ.

Hogwash. I have been very specific in my posts and periodically linked the readers to evidence in the words of leading Dispensationalists speaking for themselves about Dispensationalist teachings (and not second-hand reports of critics).

And Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur loved each other as brothers in Christ, they were able to disagree, but not threw heretics labels on each other despite defenses in some of their theology

I am not R. C. Sproul. You're also wrong. Sproul said the "bargain basement" Dispensationalism implies God has different ways of saving people throughout history. He observed if a person read the Scofield Bible from the bottom up (commentary notes first) an "unhealthy" understanding of the gospel was promoted. Furthermore, JMac is an atypical Dispensationalist. He's neither representative of, nor a valid measure of Dispensational Premillennial teachings because the rest of his theology was largely Reformed. JMac is a hybrid. When he's teaching n the nature of God, the covenants and the covenantal structure of scripture, justification, and a host of other topics he's generally Reformed but only when it comes to eschatology does he go awry and that is how he gets into trouble. IIn one teaching he'll teach salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, but when he starts preaching on the end times salvation of the Jews he preaches salvation by works.

And..... you've once again tried to change the subject and make this conversation about how brothers treat one another and NOT the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism.

• What is the orthodox doctrine on Jesus? What is orthodox Christian Christology? Put it in as few words as you can but answer the question asked, please.
• What is the orthodox teaching on salvation? Are works believed to save in orthodox Christian doctrine?
• What is the orthodox teaching in ecclesiology? Does God have two peoples in orthodox Christian doctrine?
• What are the common views held by all the accepted Christian eschatologies? Do any of them beside Dispensational Premillennialism separate the rapture from the second coming? Do any of them think modern Israel is relevant to Christian eschatology (beside DPism)?
• Which Christian theology (beside DPism) produces and promotes false prognosticators?

Tell me, @JesusFan, what are the correct answers to those questions?

And Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur loved each other as brothers in Christ, they were able to disagree, but not threw heretics labels on each other despite defenses in some of their theology

Read through this thread and find the place where I called @CrossCrow a heretic. He was treated with respect with every post and not once was he personally labeled or denigrated.

And Dr Sproul and Dr MacArthur loved each other as brothers in Christ, they were able to disagree, but not threw heretics labels on each other despite defenses in some of their theology

You do understand you are not showing me the respect you say I should show Dispensationalists, yes?


How about you practice what you preach and engage what I have actually posted about Dispensational Premillennialism? I have stated four specific areas in which Dispensational Premillennialism's teachings are demonstrably contrary to and irreconcilable with orthodox Christian doctrine: 1) Christology, 2) soteriology, 3) ecclesiology, and 4) its elevation of the otherwise minor doctrine of eschatology to a prominent position by which Christianity should be defined. Pick one and discuss it relevant to this op, and relevant to what I have already posted. Pick something specific and prove me wrong, if you prefer. Either way, show me the same respect you think I should show Dispensationalism.

 

[CrowCross]

Hermeneutic.

Prove the DP hermeneutic existed prior to Darby.

Dude, I already have. Here.

NEXT

 

[Josheb]

Dude, I already have.

NEXT

Post prove otherwise.

 

[CrowCross]

• a different Christology,
• a different soteriology,
• a different ecclesiology,
• a different eschatology,

The first two bullet points are core doctrines.

 

[EarlyActs]

Think very clear that NT Wright form the start has misunderstood what Pauline Justification refers to, as the Apostle was indeed using that phrase to represent how Individual sinners are brought via justification into a saving and justified state to a Holy God by the Cross of Christ

Has he responded to Schreiner?