With the exception of the other "H" word (hell), there is no more serious word in Christianity than: heretic.
While our beloved church fathers did not fear to label a heretic, we do. And rightly so. To label someone a heretic is to label them anathema; damned.
Disagreeing over non-essentials (spiritual gifts, communion, modes of baptism, etc.) is a healthy in-house debate that allows us to "agree to disagree" while maintaining fellowship. Disagreeing over essentials (such as the five solas) is another issue.
To be clear, if a teacher distorts the character and nature of God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, or does not esteem the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God, we cannot be in fellowship with that person. They are indeed, anathema.
It has never been more difficult to determine when someone distorts these glorious doctrines. Today's emergent movement speaks a different English language. Black is purple and orange is wet.
Asking an emergent leader like Doug Pagitt to define justification is like nailing honey to a tree. Still, I gave it a try. Pastor Pagitt makes it as clear as he is able that there is no real hell and God will deal with good Buddhists and Muslims the same way He will deal with Christians.
Attached you will find an edited four minute version of our fifteen minute Way of the Master Radio "conversation." Would you please listen to it and answer the question, "Is this heresy?"
Like Jude, we are called to defend the faith given once for all time. Are Doug Pagitt's comments orthodox, aberrant (bad, but not damning) or flat out heresy?
Please click the Feedback button below and share your position. Please be pithy. Simply answer: "Orthodox," "Aberrant" or "Heresy," and then explain why in one clear sentence.