Evangelicals who do not study church history are doomed to repeat the errors of Gnosticism, Ebionites, Marcionism, Manicheanism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Arianism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostalism, Scientology, Apocalyptic cults, Emergent churches … and Rob Bell … and Brian McLaren

*

Untrained pastors are caught by surprise when a new cult arises…

*

*

Tags: , , , , ,

4 Comments on “Evangelicals who do not study church history are doomed to repeat the errors of Gnosticism, Ebionites, Marcionism, Manicheanism, Montanism, Monarchianism, Sabellianism, Novatianism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Roman Catholicism, Arianism, Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Way International, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostalism, Scientology, Apocalyptic cults, Emergent churches … and Rob Bell … and Brian McLaren”

  1. reyjacobs June 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM #

    “Evangelicals who do not study church history are doomed to repeat the errors of Gnosticism, Ebionites, Marcionism, Manicheanism, etc.”

    And so are those who do study it. Study it, and then you know where the ideas come from, and still find them compelling. Don’t study it, and you come up with them on your own and think you’ve discovered something new. Either way, these ideas just naturally repeat over and over again because every last one of them is in Scripture somewhere. The problem is that Scripture is not consistent.

    You say the Trinity is orthdodox Christology, blah blah blah and Adoptionism is heresy. Yet the gospel of Mark teaches adoptionism in the Baptism narrative.

    You say the idea Jesus was born of the virgin Mary is orthodoxy. Yet, Jesus himself both in Matthew and Luke says John the Baptist is the greatest man ever born of a woman (implying He Himself was NOT born of a woman).

    You say orthodoxy would have Jesus’ body derived from Mary and the Valentinian idea that he just passed through Mary as a sort of portal (i.e. Mary was the archangel Michael impersonating a woman but was really a transdimmensional portal through which Jesus came to earth from heaven, already having a body) that’s crazy heresy! Yet in John 6, Jesus says “I am the bread that came down from heaven…and the bread I will give is my flesh” — in other words, I brought my body down from heaven, I didn’t derive it from any woman’s womb.

    And Paul teaches so many Gnostic ideas its not funny. Jesus came “in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh” not actually in real flesh then, Paul says. Or again, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven” so no bodily resurrection of the flesh then! Or “it is sown a natural body, raised a SPIRITUAL body” — so the resurrection is spiritual not physical.

    Its all in the Bible.

    • Nicholas Voss June 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM #

      @reyjacobs:
      The smart thing for you to do is repent from these demonic ideas and pray that the Lord would deliver you from your ignorance. You will not need to engage me in a debate. Since I do not deem you qualified to participate in intellectual discourse, I will not respond to the amateurish, foolish notions that come flying out of your head.

      • vs1023 June 20, 2013 at 3:10 PM #

        Nick . . . I’m disappointed in your reply. It’s intellectually lazy and doesn’t reflect well on Christ. As a traditionally orthodox Christian, I mostly agree with your post (didn’t watch the video though and Roman Catholicism certainly falls within the bounds of Orthodoxy . . . I haven’t read enough Rob Bell or Brian Mclaren to judge either way), but rj makes some excellent points that deserve engagement (even if he is just trying to pick a fight and takes some things way too literally.)

        My sense is that Evangelical’s tendency to try to defend the Bible as fact instead of as truth leads to all kinds of misunderstandings. The point of the Bible isn’t that every word of the Bible is factually accurate, but that it provides truths that shape the identity of the people of God across history. As the church interacted with both these ideas and the Spirit of the Living God, they came to several doctrinal commitments, and, as a member of that same community I trust their judgment even as I study the situations those commitments arose out of with other people in order to understand why they are important.

        The Bible is a vital part of Christianity, but it is not our only source of community forming truth. Of course, this leaves us with some difficult work to do in defining the objective facts (i.e.: the resurrection, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. . .) but a turn toward history and tradition coupled with the careful study of the Bible on its own terms can go a long way here.

        Rj and others of a similar bent, keep asking hard questions and pay no mind to those who won’t engage them, but remember (as it seems you’re aware) that Christianity is far more than just the Bible.

      • Nicholas Voss June 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM #

        I’m “intellectually lazy?” And you haven’t watched the video or studied the works of Rob Bell or Brian McLaren? LOL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: