Dodo_David said:
I disagree.
The Bible gives specific teachings that are a must for those who profess faith in Messiah Jesus.
First of all, people have to place their faith in the Jesus of the Bible, instead of in a fake Jesus.
Some people do promote a fake Jesus.
For example, the Bible reveals that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the same God in essence.
Yet, there are people who claim that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three separate Gods in essence.
The Bible reveals that Jesus had a Heavenly Father only prior to Jesus being conceived.
Yet, there are people who insist that Jesus had a Heavenly Mother prior to him being conceived.
John 3:16 (ESV) says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son ..."
Yet, there are people who insist that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers, both sons of heavenly parents.
Then there are the people who deny the deity of Jesus and insist that he is an archangel.
It doesn't directly declare that. That was something a Catholic council decided it said in the 300s.
The ESV is wrong too. The KJV teaches that God sent his 'only BEGOTTEN' son so you're using an errant translation. Only begotten =/= only. They are very different ideas.
Up until the times of Athanasius and Arius I'm not aware that the Trinity was ever taught in the form that we know it as today. The early fathers taught subordinationist Trinitarianism. The Catholic councils declared in the 300s subordinationism anathema.
But if you study what the earliest fathers taught it had nothing to do with the Trinitarianism of the 300s on.
I think there are things much more at stake then the divine essence and substance.
Where I draw the line is Christ's sinless life, His humiliating and excruciating death, and His resurrection. And of course, Christ is the only-begotten of the Father.
Those to me are peculiar to Christianity and without these, there is NO Christianity.
I can't add anything else to it because nothing in the Bible suggests to me otherwise.
I define heresy as extraordinary error. If you profess to be equal with Christ, if you say that Christ did not really die but the apostles took him away and let Him recover... that is what to me is a heresy.
Someone disagreeing on what could very objectively be called valid grounds for disagreement cannot be heretical.
And also, I think heresy a lot of times will include someone knowingly teaching against the Bible, which is graver than some one teaching against it without knowledge.