What is Heresy?

[Tim TP]

From another thread

Are you saying you don't believe in the flood because science doesn't agree? Are you saying you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ because science cant' disprove it?

Why believe in the Resurrection of Christ and not the flood?

People have in previous ages been burnt to death (lots of millions) over this sort of question.

I might be seeing it wrongly, I am after all not a Christian. What does and what does not constitute saying unacceptable things in Christianity these days?

 

[Mr.Bride]

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted(warped) and sinneth, being condemned of himself.
Titus 3:9-11
The KJV study notes say heresy literally means "choosing one's own ideas", but now refers to that which is untrue.

 

[Dodo_David]

People have in previous ages been burnt to death (lots of millions) over this sort of question.

I might be seeing it wrongly, I am after all not a Christian. What does and what does not constitute saying unacceptable things in Christianity these days?

Tim, that is an excellent question, and if you were to ask ten different Christians the same question, then you'd probably get ten different answers.

For the purpose of this website, the essentials of the Christian faith are expressed in this site's Statement of Faith.

 

[aspen]

Heresy is subjective.

 

[Dodo_David]

Heresy is subjective.

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.

 

[Apocalypticist]

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.

 

[aspen]

I do not deny absolute truth; I do question human ability to recognize it. I believe the word heresy is a human word used to identify others who do not share the same doctrine.

We are all heretics in some manner because who are not omnipotent so the word loses it's meaning pretty quickly.

 

[rockytopva]

I do not deny absolute truth; I do question human ability to recognize it. I believe the word heresy is a human word used to identify others who do not share the same doctrine.
We are all heretics in some manner because who are not omnipotent so the word loses it's meaning pretty quickly.

"To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine but to kill a man." - Michael Servetus before being toasted by John Calvin

Yes... We are all heretics in the eyes of some other Christian of different doctrine.

 

[horsecamp]

one can be a orthodox Christian and yet hold some false doctrines..

a heretic would be guys like brig young or Joe smith..

THOSE OF A DIFFERNET GOSPEL..

CALVIN WAS NOT A HERETIC he just wasn't a fun guy to be around if you ever questioned what he said..

..
SERVETUS ended up dead proof of that. .

"To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine but to kill a man." - Michael Servetus before being toasted by John Calvin

see how obnoxious this guy was .. even arguing over how Calvin decided to defend doctrine

 

[Dodo_David]

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.

The actual word in the Greek texts is μονογενὴς (monogenēs).

William Tyndale was the first person to translate John 3:16 from Greek to English, and this is how he translated the verse:

"For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe." (Quote Source)

For an explanation of the meaning of "monogenēs", click here.

 

[rockytopva]

So... John Calvin toasts Michael Servetus and then utters these words...

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin

I just wonder if his soul is not in hell pondering those words.

 

[Mungo]

Heresy
…..In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative….
(catholicreference.net)

 

[Dodo_David]

Heresy
…..In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative….
(catholicreference.net)

Thankfully, being a member of the Roman Catholic Church is not a requirement of the Christian faith. ^_^

A person can be a saved, baptized, born-again, going-to-Heaven Christian without ever belonging to the Roman Catholic Church.

The universal Church includes Messianic Jews, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Oriental Orthodox Christians and Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics. No one person or group within the universal Church has authority over all groups.

Thus, a Christian is not engaging in heresy just because that Christian rejects something that the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Apocalypticist]

The actual word in the Greek texts is μονογενὴς (monogenēs).

William Tyndale was the first person to translate John 3:16 from Greek to English, and this is how he translated the verse:

"For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe." (Quote Source)

For an explanation of the meaning of "monogenēs", click here.

It doesn't make a difference. Adam was called God's son in the Bible. If monogenes translates in the way the false translations translate it then John is at odds with the rest of the Bible. I know John too well to say that he did not understand this basic teaching.

God has many sons.

But go ahead and use an error-filled translation if that's what you want to do.

So... John Calvin toasts Michael Servetus and then utters these words...

"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin

I just wonder if his soul is not in hell pondering those words.

I believe you're right Rocky. Calvin was a devil himself.

 

[Dodo_David]

When it comes to determining which English translations of Bible verses are correct or not correct, the standards for the comparison are the ancient Hebrew texts (for the Old Testament) and the Koiné Greek texts (for the New Testament).

No English version is the standard for comparison.

If an English version of the Bible were unusable because it contained a flawed translation of a verse, then the KJV would be unusable because it contains its own flawed translations of verses.

Although I may use a particular English version when citing a Bible verse, I don't imply that the version is the only version to be used.

Being that no English version is the final authority, I use several English versions to learn what the Bible teaches.

 

[Apocalypticist]

Your methodology is wrong however. The early part of Genesis refers to the sons of God. Your translation directly contradicts that by saying God has an 'only son'. If what you mean is the King James translation has errors, sure it does. Inerrancy only applied in the original manuscripts. We have no originals today... therefore an 'inerrant' translation is a myth, at least in the sense we refer to it today.

 

[Dodo_David]

Your methodology is wrong however. The early part of Genesis refers to the sons of God. Your translation directly contradicts that by saying God has an 'only son'. If what you mean is the King James translation has errors, sure it does. Inerrancy only applied in the original manuscripts. We have no originals today... therefore an 'inerrant' translation is a myth, at least in the sense we refer to it today.

Apocalypticist, are you claiming that God the Father has more than one Son who is divine?

 

[Apocalypticist]

Apocalypticist, are you claiming that God the Father has more than one Son who is divine?

No. I'm saying He has one begotten Son, incarnated after the flesh. But He has others who He has called 'son' but only in spirit.

 

[Dan57]

To me, heresy is more of a religious thing, it is often attached to the traditions of men or specific religious doctrine rather than fundamental biblical teachings. An example is when the Pharisees found fault with the disciples for eating without first washing their hands. This was not a violation of any of God's laws, but transgressed the tradition of the pharisees. Christ was also condemned for healing on the Sabbath. So imo, being called a heretic is often a case of religious infighting. As rockytopva wrote; "We are all heretics in the eyes of some other Christian of different doctrine".

 

[aspen]

If we were all knowing, we would be able to see heretics clearly, but we are not. I think we need to leave it up to God to correct doctrine - I also think He can change hearts despite doctrinal error. The fact is, people are wrong about doctrine whether we call them on it or not - it is up to God to prepare their hearts for correction.