← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 11702 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2004-01-02
2004-01-02 02:41 | User Profile
[Many well-meaning people are involved in this dangerous outgrowth of dispensationalism heresy.]
Charismatic Revival [url]http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/charismatic_revival_s_rose_e.htm[/url]
2004-01-02 14:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill][Many well-meaning people are involved in this dangerous outgrowth of dispensationalism heresy.]
Charismatic Revival [url]http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/charismatic_revival_s_rose_e.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Interesting article, although sort of limited to an orthodox ecclesiastical perspective with lots of occultish speculations.
I'm an outsider, but it was my understanding that there are really two movements here. The "Pentacostal's" movement was the original one, while the "Charismatic's" from the start were more open to theological and socially liberal influences such as neoorthodoxy, roles of women, etc.
2004-01-02 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Interesting article, although sort of limited to an orthodox ecclesiastical perspective with lots of occultish speculations.
I'm an outsider, but it was my understanding that there are really two movements here. The "Pentacostal's" movement was the original one, while the "Charismatic's" from the start were more open to theological and socially liberal influences such as neoorthodoxy, roles of women, etc.[/QUOTE]
I think at their foundations, both are based upon emotionalism and dispensationalism. Ovid Need describes the 1800s movement from which these came. In fact, the whole dispensational movement is characterized as very heavy on a spiritual/emotional experience ("tongues", being "filled with the spirit"). Leadership is based not on theological training, but personal charisma, speaking skills, and force of character.
This movement is easily identified by the propaganda-style pulpit preaching characterized by stringing together Bible versus, irrespective of their context, to support heretical dispensational doctrines or teachings. The Pentecostal/Charismatics/dispensationalists are noted for their disdain of both tradition and rational theology.
I have also noticed that these churches are often ran essentially by women. Yes, they will have men as preachers, and in some cases they seem merely figureheads - women run the choir, Sunday school, youth groups; organize church functions; the congregations are about 60% women. Easy pickings for any guy looking for a wife, but you still have to deal with their heresy.
2004-01-02 16:13 | User Profile
When I was a teenager, my friend invited me to one of their churches. It was the typical shallow sermon, followed by some emotional songs just before the offering with the usual exhortations to dig deep. Then it came. "Now praise the Lord, no longer in English!"
Guys, was I freaked. People started babbling everywhere, then the Pastor said "Now hug 4 people" I thought it odd that he had to say it in English, but my friend went over to a big line in front of some cute girls. Then an overweight Mexican girl tried to hug me, I ducked under her arm, jumped the pews in front of me, and hightailed it out the back door.
2004-01-02 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Interesting article, although sort of limited to an orthodox ecclesiastical perspective with lots of occultish speculations. [/QUOTE]
It's been done, probably more to our understanding, by Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute in his book [u]Counterfeit Revival[/u]. Following are some free papers/excerpts they have published on their site:
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/DP244-1.htm]The Counterfeit Revival: Part One[/url]
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/DP244-2.htm]The Counterfeit Revival: Part Two[/url]
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/DP244-3.htm]The Counter Revival: Part Three[/url]
[url=http://www.equip.org/free/DP244-4.htm]The Counter Revival: Part Four[/url]
One thing I would note is that there are many charismatic denominations that are well-within Christian orthodoxy. Some are not even dispensationalists, so I'm not sure why wild bill would label them as outgrowths of dispensationalist heresy. Nevertheless, the above links outline some movements that have moved outside orthodoxy and are certainly worthy of monitoring.
2004-01-02 20:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] One thing I would note is that there are many charismatic denominations that are well-within Christian orthodoxy. Some are not even dispensationalists, so I'm not sure why wild bill would label them as outgrowths of dispensationalist heresy. Nevertheless, the above links outline some movements that have moved outside orthodoxy and are certainly worthy of monitoring.[/QUOTE]
Can you identify these non-dispensational Charismatics? Seriously, I have never heard nor read of any.
Back months ago I personally called practically every church in my area that would answer a phone. When I asked if they believed in pre-millenialism, pre-trib rapture, and the other heretical doctrines of dispensationalism, the pastors reacted like I was crazy for even assuming there was anything else. In the end it got down to ONLY three churches that were NOT dispensational: Presbyterians, Catholics, and Orthodox.
The Methodists may be hit or miss. My grandmother is a Methodist and she believes most of the dispensational nonsense, although I don't think dispensationalism is the official Methodist doctrine.
2004-01-02 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Back months ago I personally called practically every church in my area that would answer a phone. When I asked if they believed in pre-millenialism, pre-trib rapture, and the other heretical doctrines of dispensationalism, the pastors reacted like I was crazy for even assuming there was anything else. In the end it got down to ONLY three churches that were NOT dispensational: Presbyterians, Catholics, and Orthodox. [/QUOTE]
wild bill,
Check out the nice chart at [url=http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm]FiveSolas.com[/url]. Premillennial does not necessarily mean dispensational and vice versa. As you can see, many of the earliest church fathers held premillennial eschatological views.
2004-01-02 21:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill] The Methodists may be hit or miss. My grandmother is a Methodist and she believes most of the dispensational nonsense, although I don't think dispensationalism is the official Methodist doctrine.[/QUOTE]
It's not. Although I saw a copy of "Left Behind" in our church bookstore not too long ago; the volunteer running the store said it was full of good Christian values. Hmm...
2004-01-02 21:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]It's not. Although I saw a copy of "Left Behind" in our church bookstore not too long ago; the volunteer running the store said it was full of good Christian values. Hmm...[/QUOTE]
Someone needs to educate that person. People should be aware of this destructive heresy.
-
2004-01-02 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Someone needs to educate that person. People should be aware of this destructive heresy. [/QUOTE]
Can you define heresy as you are using it here, wb?
2004-01-02 21:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]wild bill,
Check out the nice chart at [url=http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm]FiveSolas.com[/url]. Premillennial does not necessarily mean dispensational and vice versa. As you can see, many of the earliest church fathers held premillennial eschatological views.[/QUOTE]
But how many churches actually are pre-millennialist and not dispensational?
I ask since I've always read that pre-millennialism was never widespread until pre-millennial dispensationalism took over. I know that Orthodoxy has always been amillennial and Ovid Need claims that post-millennialism was the most widely accepted among US Protestants until dispensationalism.
Need argues that the main problem with premillennialism is it tends to make people passive while they wait for Christ to return and straighten out the world.
According to my readings, Pre-millennialism was never accepted in the early Church. Some accepted it, but I think it was eventually denounced by the Church around the year 400.
-
2004-01-02 21:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Can you define heresy as you are using it here, wb?[/QUOTE]
I'm using it in general terms, not from a strictly Orthodox perspective. Basically, any doctrine that radically upsets traditional Christian teaching as has dispensationalism, is a heresy.
I think here's the tip-off for why amillennialism has fallen out of favor as taken from the escatology table you linked to:
"In addition, amillennialism suffered greatly from the failure of Reformed and Luthern writers to defend the position against the likes of Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler and Hal Lindsey, who has labeled the position as 'demonic and heretical,' and the root of modern anti-semitism."
-
2004-01-02 23:59 | User Profile
I consider heresy "that which will keep a man outside the Kingdom". Another definition is lack of substantial conformity to the ecumenical councils. Clearly there are fine Christians among the Fundamentalists, and I would say that Dispensationalism is a false teaching rather than a heresy.
Remember that traditionally heresies had to do with the nature of Christ.
2004-01-03 01:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]I consider heresy "that which will keep a man outside the Kingdom". Another definition is lack of substantial conformity to the ecumenical councils. Clearly there are fine Christians among the Fundamentalists, and I would say that Dispensationalism is a false teaching rather than a heresy.
Remember that traditionally heresies had to do with the nature of Christ.[/QUOTE]
Speaking as an Orthodox, I have a found various definitions of heresy. For example, in the Cathechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church, both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are unhesitantly denounced as heresies. Now, this book is not the "official" handbook of the Church. OTOH, I have read Bishops and other learned Orthodox folks say that Protestantism and Catholicism are merely incorrect teachings, and all Orthodox are obligated to pray for the followers of these. And you can find everything in between those extremes.
The problem with dispensationalism is that it rejects the very foundational doctrines of Christianity and substitutes a Jewish doctrine. IMHO, this clearly moves it into the area of heresy.
This is different situation from that of traditional Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy which share many fundamental doctrines. All, for example, reject pre-millennialism. Also the dispensationalists reject the Church as inheriting the prophesies of Israel which is known as "replacement theology" - as the Jews have labeled it. With dispensationalism, we have Jewish/Israel exchanged for the Christian Church. This is a serious heresy which totally undermines traditional Christian theology.
-
2004-01-07 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Speaking as an Orthodox, I have a found various definitions of heresy. For example, in the Cathechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church, both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are unhesitantly denounced as heresies. Now, this book is not the "official" handbook of the Church. OTOH, I have read Bishops and other learned Orthodox folks say that Protestantism and Catholicism are merely incorrect teachings, and all Orthodox are obligated to pray for the followers of these. And you can find everything in between those extremes.
The problem with dispensationalism is that it rejects the very foundational doctrines of Christianity and substitutes a Jewish doctrine. IMHO, this clearly moves it into the area of heresy.
This is different situation from that of traditional Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy which share many fundamental doctrines. All, for example, reject pre-millennialism. Also the dispensationalists reject the Church as inheriting the prophesies of Israel which is known as "replacement theology" - as the Jews have labeled it. With dispensationalism, we have Jewish/Israel exchanged for the Christian Church. This is a serious heresy which totally undermines traditional Christian theology.
-[/QUOTE]
Thank goodness it is not just me. Thank you thank you.
I started coming out of dispensationalism a year and a half ago, when i started seriously wrestling with doctrine.
I have read that Scofield the man that popularzied Dispy-ism was in the pay of one Samuel Untermeyer, a Zionist. Not sure if that is true or not.
When i first came back to the Lord, i was hanging out at one of the biggest Rapturite christian message boards on the internet...i nearly got kicked off a few weeks ago for daring to question the CHOSEN status of the Jews...got called every name in the book. It was an eye-opening education all right. They told me that espousing the view that the church was now the chosen of God was "a doctrine straight out of the pit of hell".. I had to ask msyelf why this outrageous response.
Now you all probably also know that there are some strange connections between the christian right wing Dispy televagelists and the Jewish establishment..
Did you guys hear about that Bill signed into law in 1991 by George Bush Sr. pertaining to "Education Day"?: It formally recognizes the talmudic noachide laws, AND RABBI SCHNEERSON. Run a google search on Public Law 102-14. One of the noachide laws prohibits blasphemy/idolatry, note that means everyone who worships Jesus as the Son of God is committing idolatry according to the jewish people.
I apologize if you all have heard of this before.
2004-01-07 18:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Dagmar] Law 102-14. One of the noachide laws prohibits blasphemy/idolatry, note that means everyone who worships Jesus as the Son of God is committing idolatry according to the jewish people.
I apologize if you all have heard of this before.[/QUOTE]
HEY! This is key material! -- more is needed every day.
It's the return of Khazar Jews, IMHO.
After mass "conversion" of the extremely barbaric Khazars of the old Causasus c. 750 a.d. -- "here's your YHWY, Johnson; like it or not; it goes with His territory".. what a sight that day must have been! The Day The Khazars Found The Lord And Became (later, Polish) Jews! (not a drop of Abraham's blood in their veins, had to go back to Noah, and Japheth, to get a link to what was declared to be their history, hence the "noachide" "laws").
Well, their political system was pretty simple. Advanced for its day, maybe. "Real" (scholarly, haute couture) JEWS ON TOP (a trickle of old diasporas -- amazing where trhey keep turning up, even in Jefferson Davis' cabinet) (I'm getting this mainly from The Thirteenth Tribe (keywords), by Arthur Koestler, but it's available in other OD references elsewhere) CONSCRIPTEES BELOW -- with an individual titled "Kagan Bet" (number two banana -- the one with the gun) bestowing law and order on the Conscriptees, who have been properly prepared by real agitprop not to go around sinning by killing each other, only enemies. Now, these Khazars are so degraded as presursor humans they have turned their jooggiesitzum on even the ones among Schneersonians who may have a glimmer of something of the old spiritualine, to use the Zion some may still remember, somewhere within, as a scam. It's in our two Perle/Pearl handled pistollas (Richard = Khazar Bet wannabe; Daniel = stock-of-Jesse lambskin.) It is an absolutely merciless "morality". They aren't Semites (=descendants of Shem), so it isn't anti-Semitic to Name the Jew = Detritus. They just go by that name, because it "works for them."
2004-01-07 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]HEY! This is key material! -- more is needed every day.
It's the return of Khazar Jews, IMHO.
After mass "conversion" of the extremely barbaric Khazars of the old Causasus c. 750 a.d. -- "here's your YHWY, Johnson; like it or not; it goes with His territory".. what a sight that day must have been! The Day The Khazars Found The Lord And Became (later, Polish) Jews! (not a drop of Abraham's blood in their veins, had to go back to Noah, and Japheth, to get a link to what was declared to be their history, hence the "noachide" "laws").
Well, their political system was pretty simple. Advanced for its day, maybe. "Real" (scholarly, haute couture) JEWS ON TOP (a trickle of old diasporas -- amazing where trhey keep turning up, even in Jefferson Davis' cabinet) (I'm getting this mainly from The Thirteenth Tribe (keywords), by Arthur Koestler, but it's available in other OD references elsewhere) CONSCRIPTEES BELOW -- with an individual titled "Kagan Bet" (number two banana -- the one with the gun) bestowing law and order on the Conscriptees, who have been properly prepared by real agitprop not to go around sinning by killing each other, only enemies. Now, these Khazars are so degraded as presursor humans they have turned their jooggiesitzum on even the ones among Schneersonians who may have a glimmer of something of the old spiritualine, to use the Zion some may still remember, somewhere within, as a scam. It's in our two Perle/Pearl handled pistollas (Richard = Khazar Bet wannabe; Daniel = stock-of-Jesse lambskin.) It is an absolutely merciless "morality". They aren't Semites (=descendants of Shem), so it isn't anti-Semitic to Name the Jew = Detritus. They just go by that name, because it "works for them."[/QUOTE]
Hi there...I found a website that has MASSIVE information. Now i may not agree with everything this fellow says, and that is okay...his website is a treasure trove of information on this particular bent.
[url]http://www.samliquidation.com/lordjesus.htm[/url]
Discernement is required of course..you have to scroll down the page to get to the main menu. I think you might find some of it very interesting.
There has been a massive Judaization (sp??) of christiainity in the last 100 years...there is a new movement afoot to take christianity back to it "Hebrew Roots"..some of these sects deny the divinity of Jesus Christ..I am very ashamed to admit that i almost fell for this deception. (hey the pharisees did not interpet scripture correctly the first time, in fact Jesus had to open the disciples eyes to scripture concerning Him...so why would the phariesees of today get it right this time?)
They May be trying to usher in their "Mossiach" (guess who?)...Scarier is the fact that their talmudic law calls for the decaptitation of any gentile who violates noachide law...
Forgot to add... It could well be that the Idumeans, (if you look at the greek wordd for Jews in the NT) actually designates EDOMITES..SO SOME OF THESE PEOPLE MAY BE EDOMITES...ALTHOUGH in documentation ( kept in the former USSR) supposedly the Khazar king Bulan boasted about his people being directly descended from JAPHETH..(son of Noah)..
Now you know how the dispensationalists are allways talking about how the jews in Jerusalem are going to be attacked by Gog and Magog fulfilling prophecy? Guess what? Many of the Khazarite jews may in truth BE Gog and Magog.. Ironic, no?
2004-01-07 19:09 | User Profile
I suspect many what some perceive as "anti-Christian" attacks are caused by the ugly judeazation and liberalization of many American churches. Wouldn't it be stunning if all the atheists/gnostics here joined the Eastern Orthodox church and then proceeded debating from that angle :lol: