The Church in Sardis prefigures the Protestant Reformation?

[Evangelical]

Try as some (just Ohio I think ) might, to claim that I use some sort of fallacy to explain the term heresy, the fact is I have only used the Bible and the Bible alone to define the term.

The way the Bible defines heresy is I believe the way God defines heresy, and not as man has defined heresy (in relation to man-made Creeds, Confessions etc).

In short, the Bible defines heresy as denial of who Christ was and what Christ did (the gospel), and those who stir up divisions in relation to the denial of Christ.

The early church faced two main types of heresy - gnosticism and Judaism. Gnosticism was heretical mainly because of its denial of the person of Christ - that Christ did not come in the flesh. The book of 1 John combats this heresy. Judaism was heretical mainly because of its denial of what Christ did on the cross - by claiming that grace through faith alone was insufficient. The book of Galatians combats this heresy. Gnosticism was more than just a theological threat - the production of many "gnostic gospels" such as gospel of Judas etc could well have derailed the church if not for the works of the early church fathers. The church fathers themselves, had a variety of strange opinions and ideas themselves, but they weren't considered heretics because they held to the teaching of the apostles regarding the person and work of Christ. For example, some believed in infant baptism, which some Christians today may consider heretical. We should remember that the Creeds were written to combat these serious threats to the Church, and not meant to be a "catch-all". We can see that none of these early church concerns pertain to a theological argument about the Trinity. People who "disagree with the Trinity" does not even rate a mention in the Bible, meaning it was not seen as important by the Apostles.

A complete list of verses pertaining to heresy is found here:

https://www.openbible.info/topics/heresy

A quick review of these verses show clearly that heresy is defined as:

1) denial of Christ in the flesh, another Jesus, or another gospel (2 Peter 2:1-22 , Galatians 1:8-9etc). - this is heresy by denying the person of Christ or the gospel which pertains to the work of Christ.
2) Wicked works of the flesh, (2 John 1:11, Gal 5:19)
3) Division and rebellion (1 Samuel 15:23 and verses I quoted in previous post). This denotes divisions or schisms in "the church".

Points 1) and 2) should be obvious as to their application - anyone denying Christ and claiming to be a Christian is a heretic.

Point 3) is trickier because it is coupled with our view of "the church". The misapplication of point 3) by Catholics, Protestants and Reformers was to claim to be "the church" and thereby claim that those who disagree with them are heretics. In this way, Catholics viewed Luther as heretic, Luther viewed Catholics as heretic, and Church of England viewed both as heretic (a rather entertaining history and origin with King Henry VIII etc). There was also some heresy dynamic going on between Calvinists and others.

It does not make much sense that any group can claim to be "the church" and claim others to be heretics. If that were the case, I could start a new church tomorrow and claim others are heretics if they do not accept my new church's Creed or Confession. The definition of heresy in relation to the Creeds or the Trinity etc is more strictly, theological heresy and the Bible is relatively silent about that. It is not biblical heresy and in God's eyes maybe isn't heresy at all. God is mainly concerned with what we believe about Christ.

Some, may think of the Reformation as a noble act of God, a single, well defined event that gave us Christianity in its purest form. However the reality was that the Reformation was a mess, a flurry of activity as people tried to break from the Catholic church, complicated by the involvement of governments, politics, and kings (King Henry etc). None of these groups decided to sit down together and agree on the biblical definition of heresy - they were too busy calling each other heretics and killing them for it.

I personally believe that during the time of Constantine, genuine believers were outcast or even killed as heretics simply for not agreeing with the dogmatic definition of the nature of God, known as the Trinity or the Nicene Creed, as defined. While the Creeds served their purpose in resolving obvious heresies such as gnosticism and Judaism which deny the person or work of Christ, I believe the early church had a wide variety of opinions about the nature of God which may not have disqualifed them as heretics according to the biblical definition (points 1),2),3) above).

[Evangelical]

While the Reformers themselves contributed much and were used by God to restoring or recovering God's truth to Christianity such as salvation by faith alone, these were not perfect men. In many cases, they were crude, vulgar and violent men and they retained a number of unbiblical beliefs, such as that in church only the priest or pastor can function and the laity cannot. I don't really care about the type of person they were, as I understand that it was common for men to be vulgar and violent in the 16th Century, even Christians - it was a matter of survival or culture. However to retain the dated beliefs that not every member can function is one reason I do not follow the Reformers or the Reformed churches, in particular, Calvinism and Lutheranism. The concept of the "lay preacher" is thought to originate with Arminianism and the work of John Wesley. Although Luther believed in the priesthood of all believers "every man is a priest", this did not seem to carry through to the church services. Today, a Lutheran church service is still very much like a Catholic one, with one notable difference being doing more standing than sitting (I have even observed Lutherans wearing fitness apparel to church and carrying water bottles, as all that standing and sitting must constitute some form of physical workout).

This post by Frank Viola shows the attitude of Luther towards other reformers and the Anabaptists.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...fmartinluther/

It explains Luther's views on a Christian's right to stand up and speak in a church meeting:

The Anabaptists believed it was every Christian’s right to stand up and speak in a church meeting. It was not solely the domain of the clergy. Luther was so opposed to this practice that he said it came from “the pit of hell” and those who were guilty of it should be put to death.

In addition, Luther felt that if the whole church publicly administered the Lord’s Supper it would be a “deplorable confusion.” To Luther’s mind, one person must take on this task—the Protestant pastor.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankvi...dTWBJCxWljM.99

The poster who seems stuck in the 1689 era may do well to proclaim the virtues of the Reformation in terms of giving us access to the bible and the various truths it recovered. But in church they might find the pastor telling them to shut up and wait until the end of the service if they want to say something or even shout a holy Amen during the prayer time.

In this sense, there is not much difference between a Catholic Priest who does not allow a church member to function, and a Lutheran Priest who does not allow a church member to function.

This is one reason why we in the local church view the Reformed churches as sub-par according to the truth of the Bible and why the Reformation was not the be all and end all of what God wanted to accomplish.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It explains Luther's views on a Christian's right to stand up and speak in a church meeting:

The Anabaptists believed it was every Christian’s right to stand up and speak in a church meeting. It was not solely the domain of the clergy. Luther was so opposed to this practice that he said it came from “the pit of hell” and those who were guilty of it should be put to death.

In addition, Luther felt that if the whole church publicly administered the Lord’s Supper it would be a “deplorable confusion.” To Luther’s mind, one person must take on this task—the Protestant pastor.

Evangelical, did you read what you just posted?

All of the evangelical church appreciates Martin Luther's ministry, but Nee/Lee distort history by claiming Luther was a MOTA (Minister of the Age) and they too are 20th century MOTA's in succession to Luther. How absurd is that, knowing what you now know about Luther?

The exaltation of Luther in the Recovery supersedes that of the entire body of Christ. I have been to Lutheran churches, and they speak less about Luther than Lee did. Lee used Luther to exalt himself as MOTA.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, did you read what you just posted?

All of the evangelical church appreciates Martin Luther's ministry, but Nee/Lee distort history by claiming Luther was a MOTA (Minister of the Age) and they too are 20th century MOTA's in succession to Luther. How absurd is that, knowing what you now know about Luther?

The exaltation of Luther in the Recovery supersedes that of the entire body of Christ. I have been to Lutheran churches, and they speak less about Luther than Lee did. Lee used Luther to exalt himself as MOTA.

If the Recovery speaks more about the Reformers such as Luther than the Lutheran churches, then perhaps the Recovery is the true continuation of the Reformation .

What is the condition of the Reformation today? Probably Luther would turn in his grave if he knew about the plans for shared mass between Catholics and Lutherans. Not to mention the acceptance of gay marriage by the Lutheran Church of Norway and churches in Germany. For example, the Evangelical Church in Germany (German: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, abbreviated EKD) is a federation of twenty Lutheran, Reformed (Calvinist) and United (Prussian Union) Protestant regional churches and denominations:

In the year 2000, the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) passed the resolution Verantwortung und Verlässlichkeit stärken, in which same-gender partnerships are supported.[8] In November 2010, EKD passed a new right for LGBT ordination of homosexual ministers, who live in civil unions.[9] Most churches within the EKD allowed blessing of same-sex unions.[10]


If the Reformed churches weren't pandering to Catholics and the world during the Reformation, they seem to be doing it now.

I can't really blame 1689er for wanting to go back to 1689, since the Reformed churches today seem to be going against everything Luther and the Reformation represented. It's a shame really that these churches even bear Luther's name, I personally don't think he would stand for any of it. Luther might even stand with Lee and say how degraded they are.

The irony is that people like 1689er are holding fast to Confessionals and doctrines from 400 years ago, meanwhile the churches which have their origins in the Reformation and which bear their founder's names, are supporting the cause of homosexuals. It only shows that the Reformation today is virtually nonexistent.

[Ohio]

I see you changed your mind about what a heretic is.

Good idea, since acc. to your definition, W. Nee was also a "heretic" by forming a school of opinion and breaking away from first the Methodists and later the exclusive Brethren.

And btw don't be too hard on those Lutherans. Your own sordid history gives you little ground for criticism. Now what would your own leader think about now sharing the bed with the "Bible Answer Man?"

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see you changed your mind about what a heretic is.

I never "changed my mind" about anything that is your straw person. Division is just one aspect of heresy and I am smart enough to know that division is not the only definition of heresy, otherwise I'd have to agree that Luther, Calvin and NEe were heretics by that definition wouldn't I. However I only presented one of a number of aspects and that is something which seems beyond your comprehension, that a person can post one aspect of a matter as necessary to prove a point. It does not mean I ignore all of the other aspects or claim that is the only definition of heresy.

However disagreement with the majority or disagreement with the Creeds/Confessions, as ancient as they may be, are never said to be heresies in the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the Recovery speaks more about the Reformers such as Luther than the Lutheran churches, then perhaps the Recovery is the true continuation of the Reformation .

What is the condition of the Reformation today?

I see you're the voice of Christian probity and rectitude. But where was that voice when Witness Lee installed admittedly 'unspiritual' son Philip as feudal lord? Where was that voice in the Young Galileans affair? Where was that or any other voice when Lee kept mauling scripture at whim?

The Lord's Recovery is a gulag archipelago, a spiritual mausoleum, a ring of vassal client states. I would take my faith elsewhere.

What got recovered here? Oriental feudalism? "We do what we are told", said Ray Graver, in transmitting Philip Lee's demands.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Where was the voice of Christian reason when Lee mauled scripture at whim?

Depending on perceived need, Witness Lee could say that the center of the universe was either humanity, or the altar of the temple, or the throne of God, or the tree of life. His own logic trains would lead him hither and yon, and we were supposed to follow.

I say again, What got recovered, here?

There's a "paper recovery" of the items supposedly recovered in the LC - the "truths" - then there's the reality that members endured day by day. At best, the place is a perpetual spiritual kindergarten where people aren't allowed the room to breathe, to move, to grow, to find their destiny in Christ.

[Drake]

-1

Aron, I see you quoting yourself so allow me to chime in so you can engage in a real dialogue about these matters with someone other than just yourself.

"At best, the place is a perpetual spiritual kindergarten where people aren't allowed the room to breathe, to move, to grow, to find their destiny in Christ."

Fortunately we have you to enlighten, water and nourish us, provide fresh air, and guide us to find our destiny in Christ. From your posts I don't recognize any of those essentials in you or in your teachings but no doubt you do.

To my observation the victim/oppressor paradigm you live in demonstrates you are stuck. Really stuck. Perhaps being stuck prevents you from actually experiencing all the essentials you describe. I don't know for sure because I am not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I just know that when you talk about forgiveness it rings hollow because you have not forgiven. Though you talk about growth I cannot find spiritual maturity in your expounding of scripture. You speak of freedom yet you appear to be the most bound. What destiny in Christ do you propose to lead others to? Is that destiny what the modern reformed churches promote today?

If you have found life, peace, and your destiny in Christ I am very happy for you. It just doesn't seem like it from what I read. Your description of the Lord's Recovery is, in so many ways, completely foreign.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Try as some (just Ohio I think ) might, to claim that I use some sort of fallacy to explain the term heresy, the fact is I have only used the Bible and the Bible alone to define the term.

The way the Bible defines heresy is I believe the way God defines heresy, and not as man has defined heresy (in relation to man-made Creeds, Confessions etc).

You did not use the Bible to define heresy, you used word etymology to define it. This is what you said in your post:

Common sense tells us that if God is true, never changing, and if absolute truth exists, then heresy cannot be a relative thing, there must be an absolute definition of heresy, and I will show that the bible provides an absolute definition of the word in two verses:

Galatians 5:19-21a says, "And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, faction, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, carousings..." The Greek word for "parties" is hairesis which literally means heresies, and means various schools of opinions, or sects.

Titus 3:10 uses the same word hairesis meaning factious man, or one who is inclined to dissension.

Since you got caught in error by my post, you altered your definition to include your exclusive and errant etymological definition of heresy with the prevailing orthodox definition of heresy.

This is such a common ploy of LSM -- once exposed as being outside of the mainstream, they quickly attempt to attach themselves to orthodox Christianity, which they otherwise regularly condemn.

Folks, I have watched LSM do this for 40 years.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You did not use the Bible to define heresy, you used word etymology to define it. This is what you said in your post:
Since you got caught in error by my post, you altered your definition to include your exclusive and errant etymological definition of heresy with the prevailing orthodox definition of heresy.

This is such a common ploy of LSM -- once exposed as being outside of the mainstream, they quickly attempt to attach themselves to orthodox Christianity, which they otherwise regularly condemn.

Folks, I have watched LSM do this for 40 years.

This is your typical style to attack the intentions of the poster rather than offer up your own alternatives. I cannot see you attempting to define the word heresy according to the Bible?

If I'm using the meaning of the original Greek word how is that not using the Bible to define it? The original word in Greek means heresies. A number of English versions translates the word in Galatians 5:19-21a as "heresies". One notable version which does that is the English Revised Version which is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version. So either way, in English or Greek, I am correct about its meaning.

Cambridge bible commentary says:

heresies] Rendered rightly ‘sects’ by Wiclif, Tyndale, and Cranmer, and also in the Rhemish N. T. The Vulgate has ‘sectæ’. It means the formation of ‘distinct and organized parties’—a further development of ‘divisions’; see 1 Corinthians 11:18. It is applied to the Sadducees, Acts 5:17; to the Pharisees, Acts 15:5; to the Nazarenes, Acts 24:5.

I actually did not "alter my definition" at all. In my first post I only defined it using two verses. In my later post I expounded and included many more verses.

Anyone can see that my first post relates to point 3) in my second post without any alteration of its meaning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This is your typical style to attack the intentions of the poster rather than offer up your own alternatives. I cannot see you attempting to define the word heresy according to the Bible?

Typical style attack? I only schooled you in Linguistics 101.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Typical style attack? I only schooled you in Linguistics 101.

I cannot see anything in your post that could be perceived to be a schooling in Linguistics. You only stated that I used word etymology to define heresy and not the Bible. This is despite the fact that I was using the bible word for word and from the original Greek too. At least, I was using the Bible's etymology. Anyway the fact that various bible versions render the word as heresy proves I was not making a etymological argument. I was making a biblical argument based upon the meaning of the word in question from the original Greek. It should be clear that the word translated as heresies in the Bible has little to do with acceptance of certain Creeds or Confessions from Nicea circa 300 AD or even 1689. And why would they? Given that these Creeds and Confessions came years after the bible was written.