What is Heresy?

[Carbon]

Are you saying baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Of course not, if that's what I was saying, you wouldn't be asking me if that's what I was saying.

 

[Carbon]

Are you saying baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Baptism, the meaning of this washing with water, signifies and seals a spiritual fact or relationship, namely, union with Christ and membership in his body, the church.
This sign or seal (baptism) presupposes the existence of that which is signified or sealed. Hence, baptism is the sign and seal of a spiritual reality which is conceived of as existing.
Keep in mind, where the reality is absent, the sign or seal has no efficasy.

 

[CrowCross]

Thats all it is? Just to show "others" that we have been baptized and burried? A sign? Really?

Are you saying baptism is a requirement for salvation?

Of course not, if that's what I was saying, you wouldn't be asking me if that's what I was saying.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You were posting as if the act of water baptism seals you in some way.

 

[CrowCross]

Baptism, the meaning of this washing with water, signifies and seals a spiritual fact or relationship, namely, union with Christ and membership in his body, the church.
This sign or seal (baptism) presupposes the existence of that which is signified or sealed. Hence, baptism is the sign and seal of a spiritual reality which is conceived of as existing.
Keep in mind, where the reality is absent, the sign or seal has no efficasy.

Thanks for going into more detail.

 

[JesusFan]

Most of us Reformed-minded members are former Dispies.

Well, stick around and I will gladly persuade you to that position. I wrote six ops on the problems inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism but this one HERE is the most damning as far as heresy goes. Any theology that teaches a different Christology, a different soteriology, a different ecclesiology that is irreconcilable with both whole scripture and 2,000 years of orthodox, historical Christian thought, doctrine, and practice is heretical. Any questions or comments you have can be posted in that thread and I'll gladly reply.

And, JF, thank you for your well-mannered discourse in all the recent threads where we've traded posts.

Think we should also take into account that Dispy theology has been expanding and changing past dew decades, as many of them realised some problems inherit with say the Scofield version of it, and now are in to the less stricter views, and also think that Covvant theology during same time period also had had some modifications and changes to it
Dispensational viewpoints

• Traditional Dispensationalism: This view emphasizes a strict distinction between Israel and the church, viewing them as two separate peoples of God with distinct destinies—Israel's is earthly, and the church's is heavenly.
• Revised Dispensationalism: A less rigid version that emerged in response to criticisms of the strict dualism in traditional dispensationalism.
• Progressive Dispensationalism: This view acknowledges continuities alongside the discontinuities between Israel and the church. It sees aspects of Christ's kingdom as being already realized, even while maintaining a future role for national Israel.

Non-dispensational viewpoints

• • Covenant Theology: This perspective emphasizes the unity of God's people throughout the Old and New Testaments and sees the church as the spiritual fulfillment of Israel. It typically views the Old Testament promises to Israel as having been transferred to the church.
  • Progressive Covenantalism: This is often seen as a middle ground that accepts multiple covenants but views them as progressively revealing one unified redemptive plan. It holds that each covenant should be understood in its own context while being connected to a larger, unified plan of salvation.
  • Theonomy (or Reconstructionism): This view advocates for the application of Old Testament civil law to the present day and is often contrasted with dispensationalism and covenant theology.

 

[Josheb]

Think we should also take into account that Dispy theology has been expanding and changing past dew decades, as many of them realised some problems inherit with say the Scofield version of it, and now are in to the less stricter views, and also think that Covvant theology during same time period also had had some modifications and changes to it
Dispensational viewpoints

• Traditional Dispensationalism: This view emphasizes a strict distinction between Israel and the church, viewing them as two separate peoples of God with distinct destinies—Israel's is earthly, and the church's is heavenly.
• Revised Dispensationalism: A less rigid version that emerged in response to criticisms of the strict dualism in traditional dispensationalism.
• Progressive Dispensationalism: This view acknowledges continuities alongside the discontinuities between Israel and the church. It sees aspects of Christ's kingdom as being already realized, even while maintaining a future role for national Israel.

...................

An effort to improve a theology does not mean heresy has been corrected. I very much appreciate the Progressive Dispies' efforts at reforming DPism but they're not actually addressing the problems. I might even say the Progressive effort has exacerbated some the problems given the rise of the debate over continuity that has ensued. All three viewpoints still assert what are, at best, problematic Christology, faulty soteriology, a radically different ecclesiology, and an entirely different eschatology that leads to a delusionally dissociated life among the adherents. Taking into account efforts to change is a pat on the back of heretics holding on to their heresy while they try to persuade critics their heresy is okay. "Look guys, we're trying to make changes" is meaningless when the changes do not actually fix the problems. Patching a hole in the boat with gauze instead of a sponge doesn't work.

The orthodox Christology in Christendom is that Jesus is God. Those three words, "Jesus is God" have necessary conclusions given the assertions of whole scripture. A God, for example, that is not almighty is not actually a God. S/He/It might be a superior lifeform, a god among other gods, but not God. The minute "almighty" is asserted that become determinative to theology and doctrine. It's not logically possible to have a sovereign King over all that is a God and not have him ruling EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALWAYS. Therefore, every time a Dispensational Premillennialist says Jesus is not king of the earth right now, core Christian belief is being contradicted. There is no "expanding and changing" that fixes that problem until the "right now" is discarded in its entirety and replaced with Jesus is always and everywhere almighty sovereign God.

The same exact problem exists as long as the two-peoples ecclesiology of Dispensational Premillennialism adulterates soteriology. Salvation is by grace alone. It is not, never was, and cannot be by works. Logically, the finite can never reach the Infinite. A god that could be reached by finite effort of sinful, finite creatures is not a God. Therefore, no effort at expanding and changing, nor effort to reform will matter until the corrupt ecclesiology and corrupt soteriology are discarded and replaced with orthodoxy.

Over the course of the last two hundred years, scores, if not hundreds, of Christian leaders have tried to get Dispensational Premillennialism to correct its heresies. Scripture has some harsh words for those who do not respond to sound correction but perhaps the most daunting is found in Titus...

Titus 3:9-11 ESV
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless, as for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

That should motivate - drive - change toward orthodoxy. I am reminded of the cult The Local Church. They had several points of heresy, and they resisted the efforts of Christian leaders from various sectarian povs to get them to reform their doctrines. Eventually they changed and what was once considered a cult has since been brought within the pale of orthodoxy. Doctrinal correction might take a decade or two, but it does not take 200 years. Even with an institution as large as the RCC doctrines could be corrected sooner than later, especially when measured by and in submission to soundly exegeted scripture.

I would venture to say that the problems inherent in DPism are begetting newer, worse, greater problems because the early DPists were Reformed in their soteriology, but we are witnessing an increase in Pelagianism under the guise of Traditionalism and Provisionism.* It's not happening among those holding to the Reformed/Covenant Theology or the classic eschatologies. It potentially serves to foment a great paradox: the false teachers the modern futurists are constantly claiming will come.....

....are the modern fuuturists!














* Many remain Reformed and many among them remain monergistic but this is changing right now as we discuss the topic of heresy.
.

 

[EarlyActs]

One of the emphases of the term 'hairetizo' (to divide) is on it's impact, not its doctrine. So even on a minor matter, it seeks a division over a unity; the Gospel is not 'big' enough to preserve unity.

Imagine a Judaizer reading a copy of the Acts 15 letter and saying, 'the Gospel is great, but this one here is just as important, and if you don't mandate it, I will start another church here in town, maybe even named after the item.' That's what a 'heresy' was, so of course the major departures are mistaken, too.

This is why we see the 'encouraging' report back about the letter; the apostles did not fracture nor make a new law, they just demonstrated the sensibility of preserving things that would express honor to Christ. 'You will do well if you follow these.'

 

[CrowCross]

Traditional Dispensationalism: This view emphasizes a strict distinction between Israel and the church, viewing them as two separate peoples of God with distinct destinies—Israel's is earthly, and the church's is heavenly.

I have a problem with this as I see heaven will be on earth. For both the christians as well as the converted Jews.

 

[CrowCross]

It's not happening among those holding to the Reformed/Covenant Theology or the classic eschatologies. It potentially serves to foment a great paradox: the false teachers the modern futurists are constantly claiming will come.....

I see a large anti-semetic movement coming from this strange theology. I do not see the church's role as one who has replaced the Jews but see the Jews as fulfilling the promise's of God and becoming christians.

 

[Josheb]

I have a problem with this as I see heaven will be on earth. For both the christians as well as the converted Jews.

Will heaven also be in heaven? Aren't converted Jews Christians?

 

[CrowCross]

Will heaven also be in heaven?

Yup...why not?

The earth will be restored to its Eden like conditions....and God will dwell among His people.

Aren't converted Jews Christians?

Yes.

 

[JesusFan]

An effort to improve a theology does not mean heresy has been corrected. I very much appreciate the Progressive Dispies' efforts at reforming DPism but they're not actually addressing the problems. I might even say the Progressive effort has exacerbated some the problems given the rise of the debate over continuity that has ensued. All three viewpoints still assert what are, at best, problematic Christology, faulty soteriology, a radically different ecclesiology, and an entirely different eschatology that leads to a delusionally dissociated life among the adherents. Taking into account efforts to change is a pat on the back of heretics holding on to their heresy while they try to persuade critics their heresy is okay. "Look guys, we're trying to make changes" is meaningless when the changes do not actually fix the problems. Patching a hole in the boat with gauze instead of a sponge doesn't work.

The orthodox Christology in Christendom is that Jesus is God. Those three words, "Jesus is God" have necessary conclusions given the assertions of whole scripture. A God, for example, that is not almighty is not actually a God. S/He/It might be a superior lifeform, a god among other gods, but not God. The minute "almighty" is asserted that become determinative to theology and doctrine. It's not logically possible to have a sovereign King over all that is a God and not have him ruling EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALWAYS. Therefore, every time a Dispensational Premillennialist says Jesus is not king of the earth right now, core Christian belief is being contradicted. There is no "expanding and changing" that fixes that problem until the "right now" is discarded in its entirety and replaced with Jesus is always and everywhere almighty sovereign God.

The same exact problem exists as long as the two-peoples ecclesiology of Dispensational Premillennialism adulterates soteriology. Salvation is by grace alone. It is not, never was, and cannot be by works. Logically, the finite can never reach the Infinite. A god that could be reached by finite effort of sinful, finite creatures is not a God. Therefore, no effort at expanding and changing, nor effort to reform will matter until the corrupt ecclesiology and corrupt soteriology are discarded and replaced with orthodoxy.

Over the course of the last two hundred years, scores, if not hundreds, of Christian leaders have tried to get Dispensational Premillennialism to correct its heresies. Scripture has some harsh words for those who do not respond to sound correction but perhaps the most daunting is found in Titus...

Titus 3:9-11 ESV
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless, as for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

That should motivate - drive - change toward orthodoxy. I am reminded of the cult The Local Church. They had several points of heresy, and they resisted the efforts of Christian leaders from various sectarian povs to get them to reform their doctrines. Eventually they changed and what was once considered a cult has since been brought within the pale of orthodoxy. Doctrinal correction might take a decade or two, but it does not take 200 years. Even with an institution as large as the RCC doctrines could be corrected sooner than later, especially when measured by and in submission to soundly exegeted scripture.

I would venture to say that the problems inherent in DPism are begetting newer, worse, greater problems because the early DPists were Reformed in their soteriology, but we are witnessing an increase in Pelagianism under the guise of Traditionalism and Provisionism.* It's not happening among those holding to the Reformed/Covenant Theology or the classic eschatologies. It potentially serves to foment a great paradox: the false teachers the modern futurists are constantly claiming will come.....

....are the modern fuuturists!














* Many remain Reformed and many among them remain monergistic but this is changing right now as we discuss the topic of heresy.
.

I once was a stauch Dispy, and never heard a sermon, nor read any books that stated there was another way to get saved apart from the Cross of Christ?