Heresy then?
It’s a biblical interpretation framework based on giving theological significance to the order of the books in the Bible, ignoring previous history of theology and history of the formation of the Bible.
Theology is one the oldest sciences, it has Method; Dispensationalism throws it away and does it’s own thing.
The question I think is the Protestant vs Catholic orthodoxy versus orthopraxy. Discarding works. Often not caring about following rules - you just tearfully apologize and say you’ve talked about it with Jesus. Jim Baker is the name that springs to mind immediately, but if you asked me to compile a list of similar hypocrites it would be encyclopedic level work.
A big thing too is that practice and theology have never been married. If Christ has been the Church’s bridegroom - I can’t think of any Church that can really claim to have been faithful. Certain types of people just get their sins overlooked. Trump exemplifies that - the Mark Driscoll disgustingly misogynistic style pastors that haunt every small town in the Midwest, where rape is an inconvenience and “WIVES SELL PUSSY FOR LIFE” in the words of “Yeezus.”
The Catholic Church exemplifies this in its failure to adequately address the sexual abuse crises and at times active cover up (what did Jesus say about millstones?) There’s also the Magdalene Laundries, the burning of basically all Mayan literature, and so on…
So blah blah blah - the point being - when have the people being called Christian really cared about what the darn book even says? We talk here as if Christianity is not for them more of a weird ethnocultural idea, with something akin more to our most primitive instincts to group and out group?
“Christianity” that I have interacted with has always been this strange distortion. This post Scofield and Darby distortion. So many atheists think the gotcha on the rules matters to many of them - it doesn’t.
But I think there’s a difference between corrupt hypocrites not practicing a “reasonable” theology, and a corrupt theology supporting a corrupt practice.
There are those that care, but the nature of actually following it means doing it quietly and without seeking recognition.
Sure, call it heresy. But the Pope called Martin Luther a heretic, too, and yet that didn’t stop people from believing that he might have been on to something.
If someone believes something deeply, whether or not it is batshit crazy, who am I to tell them they’re wrong? If it is that bonkers, I will just write them off as a crackpot and let them be.
Agree. But, is dispensationalism really “pseudo-theology” if people believe it?
Heresy then?
It’s a biblical interpretation framework based on giving theological significance to the order of the books in the Bible, ignoring previous history of theology and history of the formation of the Bible.
Theology is one the oldest sciences, it has Method; Dispensationalism throws it away and does it’s own thing.
The question I think is the Protestant vs Catholic orthodoxy versus orthopraxy. Discarding works. Often not caring about following rules - you just tearfully apologize and say you’ve talked about it with Jesus. Jim Baker is the name that springs to mind immediately, but if you asked me to compile a list of similar hypocrites it would be encyclopedic level work.
A big thing too is that practice and theology have never been married. If Christ has been the Church’s bridegroom - I can’t think of any Church that can really claim to have been faithful. Certain types of people just get their sins overlooked. Trump exemplifies that - the Mark Driscoll disgustingly misogynistic style pastors that haunt every small town in the Midwest, where rape is an inconvenience and “WIVES SELL PUSSY FOR LIFE” in the words of “Yeezus.”
The Catholic Church exemplifies this in its failure to adequately address the sexual abuse crises and at times active cover up (what did Jesus say about millstones?) There’s also the Magdalene Laundries, the burning of basically all Mayan literature, and so on…
So blah blah blah - the point being - when have the people being called Christian really cared about what the darn book even says? We talk here as if Christianity is not for them more of a weird ethnocultural idea, with something akin more to our most primitive instincts to group and out group?
“Christianity” that I have interacted with has always been this strange distortion. This post Scofield and Darby distortion. So many atheists think the gotcha on the rules matters to many of them - it doesn’t.
It’s like arguing with a Dallas Cowboys fan.
Yes, certainly!
But I think there’s a difference between corrupt hypocrites not practicing a “reasonable” theology, and a corrupt theology supporting a corrupt practice.
There are those that care, but the nature of actually following it means doing it quietly and without seeking recognition.
Sure, call it heresy. But the Pope called Martin Luther a heretic, too, and yet that didn’t stop people from believing that he might have been on to something.
If someone believes something deeply, whether or not it is batshit crazy, who am I to tell them they’re wrong? If it is that bonkers, I will just write them off as a crackpot and let them be.