Don't worry about offending me either as I live for a lively discussion-I love this stuff, it's good for the church, and I do not offend easily (I have been accused of being as thick skinned as an armadillo). I might start toying with you though. I'll try not to.
I am indeed not a pastor nor a theologian (avowed complementarian here
). This does not mean I am ignorant of Christian teaching. The errors of such men are so obvious, one does not need any more than that. They certainly are no smooth deceivers like the Arians. I do agree that in general people with degrees should know more than I do, however you may go to any liberal mainline church and see that education can not save you. I also think we have to agree there are pastors out there who must have gotten their doctorate in divinity out of a CrackerJack box-I know I've met a few.
Anyway I certainly do have a reason for calling these guys heretics quite confidently. Simply that there are errors which have been declared heresies almost from the onset, and I do not believe it is unfair to call the people who adhere to them heretics. Irenaeus would have called them heretics. Athanasius would have called them heretics. Augustine would have called them heretics.
Using the term heretic, by the way, is not necessarily another way of saying "you're mean and I don't like you." Some people do use it this way, but I think it is rather presumptuous to assume that I am one of them. A heretic is anyone who diverges from the orthodox teachings of Christianity and yet still insists that they are a Christian. (bold for emphasis) The over use of the term in eras past is no reason to completely abandon it, for it certainly fits for some.
Anyway, it boils down to this: the Bible, the Apostles' and the Nicene creed have been the foundation of all orthodox ecumenism. That is, regardless of other issues, all christians throughout history agree to the tenents set forth in these creeds (with some equivocation on interpretation of the 'decended into hell' statement) which clarify Apostolic teaching of the bible. (so you see we agree on much more than simply "the death of Jesus for sins")
Now, of all of those doctrines, anyone know which are the two oldest, most attacked and most loudly defended throughout history? The two that have been the 'make or break' for most people denounced as heretics through the ages?
The Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.
Mormons are not considered christian because they deny those two doctines. JWs are not considered christians because they deny them.
Is this surprising? For anyone who thinks Hinn and Copeland are okay, it must be, for I have personally heard them teach positions on these doctrines that are absolutely not orthodox and I don't see how that could escape anyone.
Copeland, as I mentioned, is as close if not closer in theology to a Mormon than he is to a Christian. That condemnation comes from what I have heard him say myself. (If it makes any difference to the more experiential among us, I also received what I would describe as an affirmation from the Spirit on that. This only happened to me twice in my life, once when hearing Hinn and then with Copeland.) I was truly shocked that anyone would teach such outright lies and still say they were christians-and people believed them! (yes I was much younger and less jaded then
)If that doesn't seem like a big deal, think of it this way; even with the great divergence among Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant, they all agree that those who deny these doctrines after having learned them can not be christians. These must surely be vital teachings as we must all know how much all three groups like to fight with one another! There is no incarnation, no imputation, no resurection; nothing in the Christian view works without them.
Now with all that said, should we turn around and embrace those who blatantly deny them? Will we undo all the work the Church fathers did on our behalf and refuse to preserve the faith they fought so hard to keep intact? Are we going to welcome the Mormons, JW's, Christian Scientists et al into fellowship, or do we at least still agree that they are heretics? If Copeland is not, then I think we have been uncharitable to them.
Please think about that before becoming so offended on these teachers' behalf. Ask yourself if you are willing to be consistant and welcome the Mormons. If not, why not? What then is it about Mormons you don't like?
Everything else is minor. Worship style: beside the point. Position on miracles: beside the point. Whether some nice people admire them: beside the point.
The most important doctrines of the Christian faith; now there is the point. These guys deny them-that does not just mean I'm labelling them heretics-It means they are heretics.
ETA: If anyone has evidence that they have repented of these false teachings and begun to promote orthodox views, I would be most happy to say they are heretics no more. The repenting of the former views never seems to come in my experience.
As an aside, the bible is indeed the final authority (looks like we are all good Protestants here in that regard) but it is unrealistic to assume that all interpretations are correct. One must understand what the author was actually trying to say, his background and audience, to get a full meaning of the text. They did not write thinking, "okay there are 60 correct ways of taking this, some of which are contradictory, but that 's alright."
Especially in the case a great philosopher and logician like Paul; when he built an argument like Romans, he was building one argument. We may disagree on what that is, but one or both of us is wrong. I learned that the hard way, and through much prayer and thought.
Also Pat Robertson does not seem to be a heretic; he is just a very foolish man. I personally reserve the term 'heretic' only for those whom I have heard preach heresy (imagine that) and refuse rebuke. Stupid ideas are not necessarily heretical, they are just stupid.
