Featured The Root...of Doctrinal Apostasy...what is that?

Yes.

 

Andy Stanley seems to be one that comes to mind!

 

You regularly demonstrate the root of doctrinal deviation/error in the way you tweet doctrinal assertions without supporting Scripture. You seem to be relying on what you have received as "common knowledge" on dispensational lines. You are quite unable do do as Peter advises -

15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.​

Were the Reformers, particularly Luther & the Anglicans, heretics or apostate when they persecuted the Anabaptists & others who rejected the concept of the state church which "christianised" everybody by infant & mass baptism?

 

I hold to Covenant theology, so why would I be posting as a Dispy then? I do hold to a PreMil viewpoint also still!

 

Apostasy or heresy is always a comparison of two beliefs, assuming one is correct and one in error.

 

Because of your evident lack of understanding of theology & lack of Scripture knowledge (evidenced by the fact that you (almost) never quote Scripture to substantiate what you assert).

It never occurred me that you could hold to Covenant theology.

 

I do not to the preterist or A mil version of it!

 

See also this thread
The Reformers and their Stepchildren

IMO heresy is false doctrine whereas apostacy is turning away from sound doctrine.

The focus on Israel, rather than Christ & the Church, as the fulfilment of prophecy, we see on this board is a serious heresy. But are those deceived folk "heretics" per se? Not if they preach the New Covenant Gospel of salvation by repentance & a living faith in Christ. In most cases they are teaching what they have learnt from childhood so they are not "apostate." They haven't learnt & turned from sound Covenant Theology.

The Reformers were pioneering in Scriptural interpretation, but focused on an organised church system that became a state church demanding obedience. Independent Christians, denounced as "Anabaptists" & offensive names, refused the state baptism of infants as Christian baptism. They were persecuted for hundreds of years. The Reformers were both heretics, in their adoption of infant baptism, & apostate in that they rejected the sound teaching of the Independents.

However they had enough sound teaching in the 5 "solas" to preach the New Covenant Gospel, so many were true Christians. Sadly, at the same time, many were deceived by the outworking of the practice of baptism & believed themselves to be Christians.

 

Baptist could not be apostate as they were not part of the organized church since about 3rd century, Anabaptist are not the same as Baptists

 

So you are saying only a Church like Rome qualifies as being Apostate?

 

no, but one has to be compared to any group to fall away. Paul was certainly apostate to Judiasm.

Baptist beliefs did not have part in the RCC but existed separately

 

The roman church is apostate to the scriptures

 

yes, we on this side know that , but a RCC does not believe that way