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?

 

[EarlyActs]

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

Can you try again, and I'll look for others by him on that term. The page was not found. I dropped the 'earn' and that was 404.

 

[Carbon]

Can you try again, and I'll look for others by him on that term. The page was not found. I dropped the 'earn' and that was 404.

You found nothing yet? It's hard to believe you're even looking.
To start, try looking at his teaching on the role of works in final justification.

That there should be enough. If not, it's a start anyway.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

 

[Josheb]

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

Nice try. The claim disputed is that Darby invented the hermeneutic used in Dispensational Premillennialism. You claimed that is not the case. The onus is on you to prove the hermeneutic was used prior to Darby and the development of Dispensational Premillennialism. Dispensational Premillennialism did not exist prior to the early to mid-1800s. There were people who wrote about dispensations but they never separated dispensations from the covenants, and they never held the Bible to be discontinuous. There were people who wrote about dispensations and some of them were premillennial, but they were Historic Premillennialists, not Dispensational Premillennialists. People like Isaac Watts were Reformed-minded Covenant Theology subscribers that would have argued against Darbyism with every breath. I question whether you can even list the precepts of the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic. Most articles by Dispensationalists on Dispensational Premillennialist hermeneutic focus of the grammatico-historical method but that is not the whole of the DP hermeneutic.

List three of the basic the hermeneutic precepts (i've just given you one of them) and show us three examples of any mainstream, orthodox theologian using the hermeneutic Dispensational Premillennialists use and the matter will instantly be resolved. I'll openly state I my post was incorrect and I will never post that mistake again.

Of course, everyone here knows no such proof will be posted because you do not answer questions when asked to do so.

 

[EarlyActs]

You found nothing yet? It's hard to believe you're even looking.
To start, try looking at his teaching on the role of works in final justification.

That there should be enough. If not, it's a start anyway.

When a person wants an exact thing read, I try to find it, and there was a typo (earn for learn) and I had to go another way.

So now, what is your article on this about Wright on works in final justification, and what is final justification?

Do you have an article in which he responds to Schreiner?

 

[CrowCross]

The claim disputed is that Darby invented the hermeneutic used in Dispensational Premillennialism. You claimed that is not the case.

I have shown Darby didn't invent it.
As an example I present the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
5 The sermon was written some time between the fourth and sixth century. The
rapture statement reads as follows:

Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare
ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from
the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? . . . For all the saints and
elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are
taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world
because of our sins.​

---------------------------------------------------------------
The above came from this article with several other examples.

I don't really intend to debate you on this FACT anymore as historical proof has been provided to you.

 

[Josheb]

I have shown Darby didn't invent it.
As an example I present the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
5 The sermon was written some time between the fourth and sixth century. The
rapture statement reads as follows:

Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare
ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from
the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? . . . For all the saints and
elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are
taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world
because of our sins.​

---------------------------------------------------------------
The above came from this article with several other examples.

I don't really intend to debate you on this FACT anymore as historical proof has been provided to you.

First of all, that is a second-hand report of a pseudepigraphic source. It's not an actual example of a hermeneutic existing prior to Darby. Pseudo-Ephaem is pseudepigraphic. It's not scripture. It's not orthodox, either. This is one of the problems within Dispensational Premillennialism: they try to justify the theology using outlying points of view and extra-scriptural sources. In other words, they lie. They say Person A and Person B said X, Y, and Z but they never tell you Person A and B were heretics and X, Y, and Z were either outlying positions or heresies. That quote from Pseuo-Ephream also does not provide a hermeneutic. That quote is simply a position statement. It says absolutely nothing about how the author arrived at that position.

All you proved was some faker writing in the 500s AD was premillennial. You did not prove he is a legitimate source anyone should consider valid and you did not prove he was dispensational or dispensationally premillennial. You have not, therefore, proven Darby hermeneutic existed prior to Darby. Do you understand what a hermeneutic is? I asked you to provide just three of the precepts of the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic. As expected, that request was ignored. No one can prove the existence of a specific hermeneutic if they do not know what that hermeneutic is.




Please give us any three of the basic, necessary precepts of the Dispensational Premillennial hermeneutic and then provide proof that hermeneutic existed prior to Darby.


If you do not do so in the next post, I will post the DP hermeneutic myself and ask you again to provide proof Darby was not the who invented that hermeneutic. Beat me to the post by showing you know what you're talking about (the precepts of the DP hermeneutic) and then post proof of its existence prior to Darby.