Who and what is a heretic?

[pastorables]

his take was efven though they didn't accept anyone else as Christian, they still taught salvation through the Blood of Christ, and that was all that was needed.

Maybe that's too simple for some folks, I don't know. But I think the pastor had a point.

Mike,

I have some very good Pentecostal (Jesus only) friends and I believe they are truly Christian to the best of their understanding.

Concerning your statement however, I believe their doctrine holds water baptism to be just as essential to salvation as Blood atonement. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong.

pa

[Pastor Bill]

Gerald, part of this may be the fact that "pentecostals" don't have a centralized governing structure the way these other examples have (as the RCC & Baptists were used)

Looking to our denomination, I although I have not heard it addressed at GA (we have had some bigger problems to address IMHO) I have heard it preached (and preached it myself) in our local congregations, and I have heard our SO preach on it as well as talked about it with some of our state leaders. Since I am in KY with you, I don't think the regional thing is the issue, your local church may be caught up further than most, or those you are associated with in that area, but it's not as big of a problem overall. I'll admit I have heard a few things here and there that leaned that way, but I've also noticed that those have been downplayed more and more, and the substance of state meetings has pushed in the other direction when opportunity arises.

[Jennifer Smith]

But since we're batting this around: can you say with 100% certainty that Jakes et al will go to hell because they misunderstand the Trinity?

I think therein lies the difference. A oneness view of God does not negate the person or work of Christ and does not invalidate the faith of one who believes in Him. Some beliefs (whether explicitly or implicitly) actually serve to deny the Lord that bought us.

Pastorables is correct in saying many oneness pentecostals believe in baptismal regeneration.

Many, but not all, oneness pentecostals believe that the act of baptism in the Name of Jesus only, in addition to their legalistic form of holiness, are requirements for salvation. So possibly they are trusting in salvation through works, in which case some of them may not be truly saved. But, I cannot make that judgment, only God can. And, I do not understand TD Jakes to be of this very dogmatic variety of oneness pentecostals. I honestly do not know enough about his teachings or beliefs to affirm this without a doubt, but I am fairly certain he is more balanced, at least concerning holiness, in his teachings.

[Mike Vande]

Pastorables is correct in saying many oneness pentecostals believe in baptismal regeneration.

So does the Church of Christ, but they are not usually excluded from the pale of orthodoxy over it. What's the difference?

[pastorables]

Pastorables is correct in saying many oneness pentecostals believe in baptismal regeneration.

So does the Church of Christ, but they are not usually excluded from the pale of orthodoxy over it. What's the difference?

Due to their views on the relationship of baptism to salvation, the churches of Christ are often regarded as holding to baptismal regeneration. This is actually a misconception, for, in reality, they do not believe the Holy Spirit regenerates or operates on the soul of man in a direct way. In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the Scriptures which inform men what God has done and what they must to do in order for salvation to occur.

[Mike Vande]

Due to their views on the relationship of baptism to salvation, the churches of Christ are often regarded as holding to baptismal regeneration. This is actually a misconception, for, in reality, they do not believe the Holy Spirit regenerates or operates on the soul of man in a direct way. In Restoration theology, the agency of the Holy Spirit in salvation is viewed strictly in His inspiration of the Scriptures which inform men what God has done and what they must to do in order for salvation to occur.

Weird. I never knew that about the C of C's theology, but then, I was never a member. My grandmother, a lifelong member, never seemed to believe that way. She was very pleased when I was baptised, but she knew it wasn't in a C of C.
I wonder which C of C group they are referring to? There are several that call themselves by that name, with theologies ranging from so breathtakingly liberal that they are noncreedal, to so narrowly conservative they can look through a keyhole with both eyes at the same time...
tupdate: I visited the Wikipedia and looked at the article you quoted, and it seems to be talking about the C of C I am familiar with. However, it says "citation needed" after the part about the current office of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure if that means the guy who wrote it knows it but can't find any quote from C of C materials to back it up, or if he's speculating without foundation. I have asked some of the C of C members in my family about it, and a guy I know is gonna ask a C of C pastor about it. I will let you know what they say.

[pastorables]

I will let you know what they say.

Great. You can't take everything on Wikipedia as the gospel truth, although I have found several things to be reputable.

pa

[MacUser]

don't have a centralized governing structure

I know this isn't directly on topic.. but related none the less in the pocketbook.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/ ... 6977.shtml

[Pastor Bill]

don't have a centralized governing structure

I know this isn't directly on topic.. but related none the less in the pocketbook.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/ ... 6977.shtml

Same principles, except that many will get stirred up more over the finances than the doctrine.

I don't mean this as a slam against independent churches, many have amazing accountability set up, but those that don't tend to run into errors, and whether it's doctrinal or financial, it's not fair to judge all by those failures. Unfortunately the most visible are often the errors more than those that are doing it right.

[paul]

first let me say: I do not condone any misuse of funds that is set apart for ministry. Nor do I question that some abuse finances.

I just find it amusing that a Senator is calling for an investigation of mis-use of funds. You know the senators who have mistresses on the side, who's name are found in little black books. Who for the most part are multi-millionaries. Who hide most of their money in off-shore bank accounts to avoid taxes.
Remember the old saying: like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Shellie]

I'm with you on this one, Paul. I'm in no way defending any minister.

However, I find it preposterous that a senator CAN call for an investigation. If that is the case, a preacher should be able to call for an investigation into the senator's income and taxes.

[DaJudge]

first let me say: I do not condone any misuse of funds that is set apart for ministry. Nor do I question that some abuse finances.

I just find it amusing that a Senator is calling for an investigation of mis-use of funds. You know the senators who have mistresses on the side, who's name are found in little black books. Who for the most part are multi-millionaries. Who hide most of their money in off-shore bank accounts to avoid taxes.
Remember the old saying: like the pot calling the kettle black.

Oh, that is so true Paul. Just off the top of my head I can think of sitting US Senators who:

Was a member of the Ku Klux Klan (Robert Byrd- West Virginia)

Killed a girl by driving drunk off a pier and leaving her to drown while he went to think of an alibi to cover it all up (Teddy Kennedy)

Illegally directed her staff to go through confidential FBI files of her opponents to dig up dirt on them (Hillary Clinton)

Has repeatedly taken illegal campaign contributions for Chinese Communists (Hillary again)

The televangelists being investigated are, in my opinion, crooks. However, I find it laughable that these pillars of moral authority in the Senate are the ones doing the investigating.

[dolfan]

Shellie, I'm with you ... to a point. It enrages me that the Senate would pick this fight, but for a different reason maybe than yours. I don't have a problem with responsible, reasonable oversight of things the legislative branch has power to regulate. And, clearly, the Senate has power to regulate interstate commerce, which is exactly what these specific televangelists are conducting.

What I have a problem with is the justification for it: taxes. The whole notion that government subsidizes religion by exempting church revenue from taxation and somehow supports religion by automatically lumping churches into not-for-profit status makes me mad. When you or I earn money, it is your money, or my money, not the gov'ment's. When they take our money, it is a confiscation not a contribution, a seizure, not a gift. By electing not to confiscate private money of certain organizations, such as churches, the government treats that election as an exemption which, itself, is a form of regulation. It is by any reasonable view of it a control of the state over the church, plain and simple.

[Gerald Creasy]

Yet isn't it a pitiful statement when the drunkards, racists and manslaughters have to step in to bring these guys into check when the "Righteous" will not?

[Poimen]

I posted this recently over at Actscelerate. I thought it might be a nice addition to this thread. I hope it is okay to resurrect it this way. I figured starting a new thread on the same basic theme might appear a bit insulting.

---------------------

2 Peter 2:1

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Today, depending on the context of it's use heresy is a relative term.

Historically it has referred to anything out of step with the creedal statements, especially of Nicea and Chalcedon.

However, Biblically it was very specific -- anything that was different from or in opposition to the teaching of Christ and His apostles. It also carries with it (in some instances at least) the notion of factionalism (is that a word).

People tend to come up with varied ideas and perspectives on all sorts of things. But, looking from the Scriptural source heresy was when they held a notion to the point of being beyond correction and or separating from the body of believers and faith at large.


Peter uses descriptive terminology that I find insightful when he speaks of those who would "bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." All heresy, that is error in teaching or belief, is bad. Yet, some heresy is so corrupt that it is said to be damnable. That is it causes the one who teaches it and those who believe such to be damned -- lost. These heresies are false teachings, views, or distinctives that deny the Lord Jesus.

Denial need not be explicit, but can be in principle or premise as well. These may say they serve our Lord Jesus, but their teaching would counter His person and/or work in such a way as to make Him an insufficient Savior. These things would by their very nature then serve to deny the Lord. These are damnable. Those espousing them are under penalty of coming divine judgment, or of swift destruction as the AV puts it. These (damnable teachings) should be condemned, taught against, exposed, and corrected -- so that others are not deceived by them, and those who are may be restored to essential and biblical orthodoxy.

The question then is...

What aspects of Christology are absolutely necessary?

That is to ask, what things must be accepted about the person and work of Christ to validate His message and the effectiveness of His sacrifice?

Or IOW, what things are essential requirements for Jesus to meet in order to qualify for us to be saved by Him?