Heresy, Heretics, and Hurt feelings...oh my

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There seems to be confusion regarding the difference between heresy and a heretic.

A heresy is a doctrine that is held by someone at variance with the established religious beliefs.

A heretic is someone who believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of a religion to which he claims to belong.

The difference should be obvious. A heresy is not always a fundamental departure from established or orthodox doctrine. But a heretic believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of a religion he claims to belong to.

For example, I am a SBC member (Southern Baptist). Our church believes in the doctrine of eternal security. Several of our members believe this is wrong, and instead hold that one can be saved and forfeit their salvation. The idea is a heresy to our established belief (it is at variance with established SBC doctrine). In terms of SBC doctrine, it is a heresy (and the one holding the belief will probably not be permitted to teach it, if they are allowed to teach at all). BUT it is not a belief that is contrary to the fundamental tenets of SBC faith (we also believe in “soul liberty” and these persons remain in good standing in our church).

So a heresy is more than a disagreement (it is a belief in variance with established religious belief). But it is not necessarily enough to depart from the framework of foundational belief (the holder of the heresy may or may not be a heretic, depending on the fundamental tenets of the organization).
 

07-07-07

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
1,083
668
113
Rust Belt
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Eternal Security is heresy; the notion that one is still saved after committing willful sin without repentance is not Biblical. A notorious modern-day false teacher of this damnable doctrine is Charles Stanley. Here are his own words.

 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Eternal Security is heresy; the notion that one is still saved after committing willful sin without repentance is not Biblical. A notorious modern-day false teacher of this damnable doctrine is Charles Stanley. Here are his own words.

I disagree (of course). The reason I disagree is that salvation points to those who will be saved "on that day". People who are saved are saved.

I think you may be confusing knowing we are saved (at any given time) with actually being saved (on that day).

I say this because "eternal security" has nothing to do with willfully sinning after "being saved".
 

07-07-07

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
1,083
668
113
Rust Belt
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I say this because "eternal security" has nothing to do with willfully sinning after "being saved".

Giving over to sin (willfully), is selling your soul back to satan. It takes godly sorrow to work repentance to get back your Salvation. The notion, however, that one need not forsake ALL sin is not Biblical; many hold to a once-saved always-saved mentality to reassure themselves that they will still inherit eternal life.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Giving over to sin (willfully), is selling your soul back to satan. It takes godly sorrow to work repentance to get back your Salvation. The notion, however, that one need not forsake ALL sin is not Biblical; many hold to a once-saved always-saved mentality to reassure themselves that they will still inherit eternal life.
I agree that many do take the doctrine of eternal security as a security in sin. They are wrong. But their error has no bearing on the doctrine itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am a little surprised that so many people don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the term "Heresy" is NOT a belief against God, Christ, or Christianity….. but, simply something that runs counter to the accepted ideas and notions (Orthodoxy) of a particular and specific 'religious' organization.

Almost any religion you can name, and even just some Denominations, swear that "those others" are Heretics!
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
There seems to be confusion regarding the difference between heresy and a heretic.

A heresy is a doctrine that is held by someone at variance with the established religious beliefs.

A heretic is someone who believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of a religion to which he claims to belong.

The difference should be obvious. A heresy is not always a fundamental departure from established or orthodox doctrine. But a heretic believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of a religion he claims to belong to.

For example, I am a SBC member (Southern Baptist). Our church believes in the doctrine of eternal security. Several of our members believe this is wrong, and instead hold that one can be saved and forfeit their salvation. The idea is a heresy to our established belief (it is at variance with established SBC doctrine). In terms of SBC doctrine, it is a heresy (and the one holding the belief will probably not be permitted to teach it, if they are allowed to teach at all). BUT it is not a belief that is contrary to the fundamental tenets of SBC faith (we also believe in “soul liberty” and these persons remain in good standing in our church).

So a heresy is more than a disagreement (it is a belief in variance with established religious belief). But it is not necessarily enough to depart from the framework of foundational belief (the holder of the heresy may or may not be a heretic, depending on the fundamental tenets of the organization).
Hi John, ....that is such confusing, contradictory and incompatible nonsense. I don't know where to begin refuting the OP?
A heretic, by definition, is one who believe a heresy. You cannot have a heretic without a heresy. Both words are derived from the same root, unorthodox belief. Heresy is an unorthodox belief, as in not in line with the truth. And, a heretic is one who either devised the heresy, believes and professes it, or both. They cannot be separated, for one is contingent upon the other, obviously.

Secondly, the concept of heresy and soul liberty are fundamentally incompatible. You either have established heretical doctrines that are not in accordance with a denominations statement of faith, or, you allow the individual believer to simply follow his conscience, despite the antagonism with other congregants beliefs.
But, as a denomination, to call a principle heretical, then allow a person of the same faith to believe it, without imposing either rebuke, correction or dismissal, is, at a minimum, hypocritical, and ultimately, chaotic.
At best, the only way to reconcile a doctrine that is deemed contrary to God's Word, and to still allow an adherent to accept it without imposing a caution, would be because the heresy is not mortal, but venial. Excuse the Catholic verbiage, but this makes more sense as to what you are trying to say, rather than having two opposing principles as part of the organization's creed i.e. one can accept a heresy, but not be a heretic at the same time????

For example, in 1517, was Martin Luther a heretic (according to the Church that he belonged to)?
Or, are you saying that only denominations that accept soul liberty, can have this perceived, but acceptable, dichotomy?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marks

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
I am a little surprised that so many people don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the term "Heresy" is NOT a belief against God, Christ, or Christianity….. but, simply something that runs counter to the accepted ideas and notions (Orthodoxy) of a particular and specific 'religious' organization.

Almost any religion you can name, and even just some Denominations, swear that "those others" are Heretics!
That's not true. Every organisation that deems a doctrine as heretical, does so with the conviction that it is against God given truth, universally speaking. In other words, no one has ever classified a biblical tenet as heretical, only in the context of their own denomination. They always do so according to what they believe that God has established as incontrovertible truth, and correct understanding.
 
Last edited:

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
That's not true. Every organisation that deems a doctrine as heretical, does so with the conviction that it is against God given truth, universally speaking. In other words, no one has ever classified a biblical tenet as heretical, only in the context of their own denomination. They always do so according to what they believe that God has established as incontrovertible truth, and correct understanding.
the dunning-krueger thing, yeh
 

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's not true. Every organisation that deems a doctrine as heretical, does so with the conviction that it is against God given truth, universally speaking. In other words, no one has ever classified a biblical tenet as heretical, only in the context of their own denomination. They always do so according to what they believe that God has established as incontrovertible truth, and correct understanding.
Uh...…. That's exactly what I just said. What do you mean, "That's not true."?
 
Last edited:

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Uh...…. That's exactly what I just said. What do you mean, "That's not true."?
Oh, sorry, I see your point, ...I think after reading the OP, then yours (and seeing that you liked his post), it appeared that you were coinciding with JC's view, that one can separate a heretic from his heresy??? Meaning, that you were saying, according to the Church, a heresy is not in defiance to God, although a heretic is (JC's view). And that this was by design, that is, the denomination was aware that their 'heresy' did not necessarily have God's approbation (I know, sounds absurd, ...but what is JC talking about?).
But rather, you're saying that any denomination's definition of heresy, is entirely subjective, and not necessarily in accordance with God's idea of heresy. And that, this is not by design, for they are all convinced that they each have the divine truth and that the others don't, to the point of calling each other heretics. In that, I agree.

...whereas I believe that JC is saying that it is by design? Because he stated that believing in an established SBC heresy, does not makes one necessarily a heretic, because SBC also accept the principle of soul liberty.
Which, I have no idea how to reconcile those two principles?

Sorry again, for the misunderstanding, ...but, I'm not sure that your view is in agreement with JC???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willie T

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hi John, ....that is such confusing, contradictory and incompatible nonsense. I don't know where to begin refuting the OP?
A heretic, by definition, is one who believe a heresy. You cannot have a heretic without a heresy. Both words are derived from the same root, unorthodox belief. Heresy is an unorthodox belief, as in not in line with the truth. And, a heretic is one who either devised the heresy, believes and professes it, or both. They cannot be separated, for one is contingent upon the other, obviously.

Secondly, the concept of heresy and soul liberty are fundamentally incompatible. You either have established heretical doctrines that are not in accordance with a denominations statement of faith, or, you allow the individual believer to simply follow his conscience, despite the antagonism with other congregants beliefs.
But, as a denomination, to call a principle heretical, then allow a person of the same faith to believe it, without imposing either rebuke, correction or dismissal, is, at a minimum, hypocritical, and ultimately, chaotic.
At best, the only way to reconcile a doctrine that is deemed contrary to God's Word, and to still allow an adherent to accept it without imposing a caution, would be because the heresy is not mortal, but venial.
That is the difference, not whether a heresy is permitted, but a heretic is not????

For example, in 1517, was Martin Luther a heretic (according to the Church that he belonged to)?
Or, are you saying that only denominations that accept soul liberty, can have this perceived, but acceptable, dichotomy?
It is confusing, but not contradictory. It is the language (words have meaning).

I am saying that one can believe a doctrine that is rejected by the group to which he belongs (a heresy) without himself being rejected by the group he belongs for holding that belief (a heretic). This depends on the group, I suppose.

For example, most Christians (historically) would consider the belief that God separated from Christ as a heresy. Theologically the dualism in that idea is too great a dichotomy with the nature of Christ to logically coexist with orthodox faith. But people holding the idea may do so without being a heretic (in terms of Christianity in general).
 
Last edited:

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It is confusing, but not contradictory. It is the language (words have meaning).

I am saying that one can believe a doctrine that is rejected by the group to which he belongs (a heresy) without himself being rejected by the group he belongs for holding that belief (a heretic).
But this can only work provided the denomination accepts both, the establishment of heretical beliefs (heresy), and Soul Liberty?
Which again, such antagonistic principles within the same creed, can only lead to hypocrisy and chaos.

In other words, at what point is the line drawn between accepting a heresy, and becoming a heretic?
You, conveniently, chose a doctrine that is venial, in order to make your point (OSAS vs required perseverance).
But what about infant baptism, legalism, or universalism (not required to accept Christ)? Would a congregant be denounced as a heretic if he were to accept any of those principles (assuming that the SBC does not accept these at a creedal level)?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But this can only work provided the denomination accepts both, the establishment of heretical beliefs (heresy), and Soul Liberty?
Which again, such antagonistic principles within the same creed, can only lead to hypocrisy and chaos.

In other words, at what point is the line drawn between accepting a heresy, and becoming a heretic?
You, conveniently, chose a doctrine that is venial, in order to make your point (OSAS vs required perseverance).
But what about infant baptism, legalism, or universalism (not required to accept Christ)? Would a congregant be denounced as a heretic if he were to accept any of those principles (assuming that the SBC does not accept these at a creedal level)?
As a Baptist I would say "infant baptism" is a heresy. Baptist doctrine holds that the only baptism is "believer's baptism" and not for salvation.

At the same time a few years ago a Baptist pastor (I think in TX) performed infant baptism (according to the Calvinist tradition, not "for salvation" but being baptized into the church).

The pastor held what us a heresy to Baptist Theology. But he was not considered a "heretic".

A lot goes into how people holds these vires.

For example, I could believe God separated from Christ in terms of redemption while believing it impossible that Christ separated from God in terms of the divine nature. The former is a heresy, I would not be a heretic (I would just be inconsistent in my belief).
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
As a Baptist I would say "infant baptism" is a heresy. Baptist doctrine holds that the only baptism is "believer's baptism" and not for salvation.

At the same time a few years ago a Baptist pastor (I think in TX) performed infant baptism (according to the Calvinist tradition, not "for salvation" but being baptized into the church).

The pastor held what us a heresy to Baptist Theology. But he was not considered a "heretic".

A lot goes into how people holds these vires.

For example, I could believe God separated from Christ in terms of redemption while believing it impossible that Christ separated from God in terms of the divine nature. The former is a heresy, I would not be a heretic (I would just be inconsistent in my belief).
But again, you're using venial principles to make your point. As in, dietary laws, observance of certain days and festivals, Church attire, etc... which would never disqualify one from a denomination (worth mentioning), irrespective of the establishment of Soul Liberty or not ....for, i think that most denominations have an implied Soul Liberty principle, to one degree or another.

So then your point is, by design, a denomination defines belief in a heresy as not necessarily grounds to be rejected from the Church, but a heretic, who is someone that accepts a heresy, must be ostracized from the Church?

You got me????
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I am a little surprised that so many people don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the term "Heresy" is NOT a belief against God, Christ, or Christianity….. but, simply something that runs counter to the accepted ideas and notions (Orthodoxy) of a particular and specific 'religious' organization.

Almost any religion you can name, and even just some Denominations, swear that "those others" are Heretics!
This of course depends on the heresy.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But again, you're using venial principles to make your point. As in, dietary laws, observance of certain days and festivals, Church attire, etc... which would never disqualify one from a denomination (worth mentioning), irrespective of the establishment of Soul Liberty or not ....for, i think that most denominations have an implied Soul Liberty principle, to one degree or another.

So then your point is, by design, a denomination defines belief in a heresy as not necessarily grounds to be rejected from the Church, but a heretic, who is someone that accepts a heresy, must be ostracized from the Church?

You got me????
The difference is probably more in terms of theology rather than denomination (with baptism I was referring to baptist theology - not a Baptist denomination).

What I am saying is not as hard as you are making it.

1. Christian faith holds that Jesus IS God.

2. Believing God separated from Jesus is a heresy (, a departure from Christian belief).

3. Many believe thus heresy without believing Jesus ceast being God.

4. These people hold a compromised faith, but are not heretics (they are inconsistent in what they affirm, not departing from Christianity in what they deny).
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The difference is probably more in terms of theology rather than denomination (with baptism I was referring to baptist theology - not a Baptist denomination).

What I am saying is not as hard as you are making it.

1. Christian faith holds that Jesus IS God.

2. Believing God separated from Jesus is a heresy (, a departure from Christian belief).

3. Many believe thus heresy without believing Jesus ceast being God.

4. These people hold a compromised faith, but are not heretics (they are inconsistent in what they affirm, not departing from Christianity in what they deny).
But again, your proof is based on a compatible principle.
I do not belief that Jesus is God, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about 'separated' this, or 'ceased' to be that ...and I'm 200% sure that neither do you.
But, either way, understanding some of the logistics of the Jesus' atoning sacrifice, is not contingent upon salvation, but rather, just accepting the fact that it happened, and it's worth, is necessary.
So, again, these are incidental principles that don't exclude someone from the Church of God, similar to dietary laws, sabbath, etc....

But, maybe that's all that you are saying. The Church accepts certain doctrines and principles as heretical, but feels that belief in some, will not disqualify you from salvation. That's fine, my only point is that, again, I would have defined the terminology different, as in, more like a venial heresy, or a mortal heresy. Not, that you can belief in a heresy, and not be a heretic.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But again, your proof is based on a compatible principle.
I do not belief that Jesus is God, so I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about 'separated' this, or 'ceased' to be that ...and I'm 200% sure that neither do you.
But, either way, understanding some of the logistics of the Jesus' atoning sacrifice, is not contingent upon salvation, but rather, just accepting the fact that it happened, and it's worth, is necessary.
So, again, these are incidental principles that don't exclude someone from the Church of God, similar to dietary laws, sabbath, etc....

But, maybe that's all that you are saying. The Church accepts certain doctrines and principles as heretical, but feels that belief in some, will not disqualify you from salvation. That's fine, my only point is that, again, I would have defined the terminology different, as in, more like a venial heresy, or a mortal heresy. Not, that you can belief in a heresy, and not be a heretic.
I see your point but disagree (probably because of a difference in backgrounds).

I cannot charatize heresies as venial or mortal (a heretic has to do with his or her relationship to accepted belief, not to God).