The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum What Heresy is the Most Dangerous?

I would have a hard time choosing one of those as well, although ecumenicism is definitely a problem of today.

I wonder if part of the problem is determining what are roots problems and what are symptoms of these root problems.

For example, couldn't you argue that Arminianism is a root of the seeker-sensitive problem and the Open Theism problem? How many Reformed seeker-sensitive churches do you know of? Or, how can one be an Open Theist who is not also an Arminian?

And isn't universalism really pluralism taken to its extreme, and isn't the emergent church seeking to find a middle way between pluralism and absolutism?

And couldn't you trace ecumenicism in part to either seeker-sensitivity or pluralism?

Liberal ecumenicism, yes, but I don't think conservative ecumenicism.

I chose the seeker sensitive/Purpose Driven baloney. What good does it do if you pack the church house out every Sunday with lost people, people who think they're saved but aren't, and people who are trying to find their spirituality or whatever? I suppose there are many that will be saved if they hang around long enough. But granting church membership to these folks and allowing them to participate in the decision making processes of the church is a horrendous error.

I chose, "New Perspective on Paul" mainly because it is a direct attack on the doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone). However, ALL of those you have listed do the same, albeit to varying degrees; some directly and some indirectly and by consequence of their respective heresy. Remember, that Sola Fide isn't to be narrowly understood in that justification is bifurcated from sanctification but rather Sola Fide includes both the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those who have been given to believe and with that new nature from which faith and repentance flows, the Holy Spirit also works sanctification; i.e., the transformation of one's life to be consistent with that profession of faith. As the Puritans rightly said, "Justification qualifies for heaven. Sanctification prepares one for heaven."

Justification: "If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired the Church has received a deadly wound and brought to the very brink of destruction. Whenever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. - John Calvin "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" p. 42

In His grace,

Be my guest, but give credit to my old DI who taught me that lifesaving truth--BullDog Dixon.

OK, but what's a DI?

Kim,

Back in the USAF in the early 70s, the DI was the drill instructor in basic training. I wonder if Joe was in the Air Force?

Army <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" /> Oh, drill instructor! (Sometimes it takes me a while to catch up, guys! Part of it's being a girl, most of it's getting old!)

Sorry I've been away for a couple of days, but I'd like to thank everyone for their participation and responses so far. I am sympathetic to those of you who felt it important (and perhaps difficult) to determine which heretical ideas are more "root" problems (more basic or causal), and which are more "fruit" problems (more symptomatic or derivative). Our Lord said that a bad tree produces bad fruit and cannot produce good fruit (Matthew 7:17-18; Luke 6:43-4), and I would agree that Arminianism (or Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism) is the bad tree or root from which most of the heresies I listed have sprouted, and as one of you asked, "how many Reformed seeker-sensitive churches do you know of?" The Reformed tradition has produced a few small but serious heresies and heretics (e.g., Harold Camping/Depart Out/Campingism, Hyper-Calvinism, Theonomy), but the Arminian tradition is the hands down winner in this department.

My hope is that this poll and the posted responses might provoke more discussion about the connections and relationships between all of these ideas, and reflection about how to address them in various contexts and circumstances (e.g., depending on which one your about to step on). I encourage everyone to say how and why they voted as they did.

I chose the seeker-sensitive movement, not because it represents or embodies in itself the most heretical or dangerous beliefs, but because of its subtlety in insinuating itself into even the most "conservative" churches and pulpits. More than the others, it masquerades most effectively as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).

More specifically, I believe the Purpose-Driven (Saddleback) model of Rick Warren is more dangerous than the older "Market-Driven" paradigm of George Barna, or even the "Seeker-Sensitive" (Willow Creek) model of Bill Hybels (there is also growing synergy between Warren and the Emergent Church movement, though some Emergent aesthetes still regard him as a Philistine). The Five Purposes appear far more biblical than all of Barnas graphs and stats, and churches believe they have more freedom to pick and choose between various levels of commitment to the model without "buying into" the whole thing. But the most basic "man-centered" presupposition has already been embraced, and it is all downhill from there as doctrinal entropy and what Alan Gomes calls the second law of theological thermodynamics kicks in.


Soli Deo Gloria,

Brad J. Hammond

Oh yes - you mentioned the Emergent Church. The heresy right up my alley. The theology behind some of it's proponents is interesting. After now reading 4 McLaren books I stumbled upon an aritcle by NT Wright. At that time I had no idea who NT Wright was, but by reading his article I clearly saw a connection with him and McLaren!! And behold NT Wright = NPP!!! Big surprise as McLaren's is so crazy with his theology, how can anyone consider him in the Christian camp?? But low and behold there he is being promoted at my very church!!! People are being blinded these days. It's amazing. Also open theism is seeping into the general Christian public through John Eldredge ("Wild At Heart"). And what about mysticism/contemplative prayer (which comes along with the Emergent Church). That has come in mainly from Richard Foster into the Protestant mainstream. Also the New Age stuff that is so popular has led so many down the wrong path. And this is interweaved into the Emergent Church/mysticism camp also.

Army huh? I would have thought you were a jar head Joe. But I suppose not. SEMPER FI! HUA!

Brad,

I didn't answer your poll because I couldn't find what I believe is the correct answer which IMHO is two-fold.

1. The root of all heresy is the failure to believe in the Word of God. To us, it is the Holy Scripture or the Reformers cry of "Sola Scriptura". All of the trouble and misery of humanity began with Adam and Eve's refusal and unbelief in the Word of God and especially the words, "Thou shalt not eat".

2. Nowadays, it it follows that heresy is the refusal of humanity to believe in the righteous mercy and redemption of God in the Gospel. This is clearly revealed in His Word.
Specifically, this is manifested in the refusal of men to believe that the righteousness of God is IMPUTED (CREDITED) to the believer by the work of Christ alone. (Justification by Faith Alone) All of the other heresies simply follow these two denials. It must be said that the two above fundamental heresies were, and still are, affirmed most horrifically by the Roman Catholic Church.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Janean
First let me say that if you've read four books by McLaren you've got a much stronger stomach than me! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> While McLaren's a self-promoting hack, N.T. Wright is a tremendous scholar, and I pray that in time he will see and repent of his errors (of course I pray that McLaren will as well). After reading McLaren's books you deserve a break --- I recommend John MacArthur's Fool's Gold, which critically addresses the New Perspective on Paul, John Eldridge, Rick Warren, and a number of other questionable teachings and trends in contemporary evangelicalism (or just curl up with something good for your soul like Bunyan, Spurgeon, or Piper). Also, if McLaren is being actively promoted at your church, I think you need to consider going to another church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/flee.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

In Christ,

Brad J. Hammond

What I'd like to know is what is it going to take to get all this realigned with Bible? I mean its going to take some kind of phenomenal revival to knock out something that looks so good, packs the pews, AND keeps the offering plates full. Look at all these new members, it can't be bad! Oh, and I'm not talking about just a plain old Spring/Fall kind that you put on the calendar and pray it works out. I'm talking about a Revival where the Holy Spirit takes the roof off the building and blows all the dirt out.

All I can think of is that something like the Reformation needs to happen again only applied to the current Protestant Church.