How would you define heresy and Acceptable theology then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
I use tradition and Scripture to identify heresies. The traditionally recognized heresies keep reviving such as Modalism (Oneness movement), Arianism (Jehovah’s Witnesses), Gnostic Docetism (Christian Science), etc. In addition, that which denies or defies biblical doctrine such as Name-it-and-claim-it theology, and the witchcraft-like practices of the Prosperity Gospel are without doubt heretical.
Some people see the Charismatic Movement as a revival of the Montanist heresy, but I'm not so sure.
In days past, the word heresy was used to describe those theological errors so serious that it would deprive one of salvation. I for one would go much further than that.
"Error" is Error and all error can be serious. Error can be small but it always grows larger. Error is always bad, and it is to be avoided. But there are some errors that are so huge that they really are cutting us off from God, because we have so misunderstood Him and His truth. And that’s what heresy classically was used for in the church.
What he said.
I am not sure either, however the evils of modern-day Pentecostalism sure look familier to the Montanist movement of the third century A.D.
When you study the history of the church, it is obvious that there is a kind of a pendulum which swings back and forth in the church from one extreme to the other.
It is the pendulum between rationalism, which makes man’s reason the final arbiter of truth, and mysticism, which makes feelings the final arbiter of truth. Anyone looking at the Pentecostal church of today would be blind if they did not see and admitt that fact. The Pentecostal doctrine is totally comprised of emotionalism and feelings reguardless of what the Scriptures say.
Both, rationalism and mysticism have in common that they abandon the Scriptures as the authority of all faith and life and in that process "add to what the Scriptures actually say".
The one puts reason in Scripture’s place; the other puts feelings there.
As a result we see a cult that distorts the Word of God completely beyond what is accepted as heretical.
When would you say 'error' rises to the level of earning someone martyrdom status?
NEVER!
Martyrdom, in the Christian world, refers to the suffering of death by an individual due to their unwavering faith in Jesus Christ.
All of the Apostles died in that fashion. In the early Christian church, martyrs were revered as the ultimate witnesses to the truth of the Gospel, having sealed their testimony with their blood.
So, you are asking me that if a person who preaches, or teaches a gospel other that what Jesus and His apostles did, would be called a martyr? NO.
They would be called a heretic, or a false prophet, or worse!
That is why I make a distinct between "classic" Pentecostal theology, such as AOG, as while disagree with their views on the Person and work of the Holy Spirit, to me the theology of WoF and Prosperity/Dominion would push into Heresy beyond misunderstands and bad theology into outright heresy
many times its tacannot hold to hyper form, not Hyper Dispy Etc
Wasnt a Famous Early Church Father for a time part of that cult?
Dispensationalism is simply a system of biblical interpretation that recognizes a distinction between the church (i.e., the body of Christ) and Israel.
Dispensationalism carries with it the idea that, throughout the history of redemption, God has given man specific revelation and commands and that man is tested with respect to his response to God’s revelation in a specific time frame.
Dispensationalism is not a nasty word as some have thought these days.
Yes.
I think you might be referring to Tertullian. Yes he was a Montanist for a time.
I do not see it as heresy, but would see Hyper Dispy, theology that seems to make only Pauline epistles applying to us for today, as very bad
Yes, that was the ECF remembered for a time as being part of that "charismatic group"
Actually, I was thinking of Calvin's approval of Servetus' martyrdom.
Essentially, when does 'error' rise to the level of justifying the taking of another's life?
IMHO......that event was a dark day for Calvin. I am glad I am not going to judge Calvins actions.
Never should the church be involved in such an event. The New Testament church was never designed to double as a civil government.
The Government was given the sword to use again criminals, but not the church, for if we were to start up to be part of killing off heretics in churches, who decides that, and hw many would be killed off?
I agree. I would only say to you that the word "Dispensation" is a technical term for the administration of TIME.
It carries with it the teaching that throughout the history of redemption, God has given man specific revelation and commands and that man is tested with respect to his response to God’s revelation. Therefore, dispensations (Time frames) are different administrations in the eternal outworking of God’s purpose and plan.
Having said that, the greatest problem with ultra-dispensationalism is not its teaching about when the church began but the many other errors that come from its approach to Scripture. For example, at the heart of most forms of ultra-dispensationalism is the belief that Paul preached a different gospel from what the other apostles taught.
Other false doctrines common in some forms of ultra-dispensationalism include...........
1. Soul sleep.
2. Annihilationism.
3. Still others proclaim a brand of universalism that grants salvation even to Satan himself.
Without a doubt, whatever name ultra-dispensationalism goes by, it is a dangerous error that almost always leads to other, even worse errors.
H. A. Ironside, who was a strong dispensationalist himself, wrote a good booklet outlining some of the dangers of ultra dispensationalism. In it he says that he has .........“no hesitancy in saying that ultra-dispensationalism’s fruits are evil".
Amen to that!