What is Heresy?

[Apocalypticist]

"Saint Augustine once said that 'not all error is heresy' and was followed shortly by Pope Celestine I who cautioned that 'not every error betrays godlessness'.

Political Intrigue in the Establishment of the Identity of Jesus and Mary by James H. Boykin, p. 5

These are helpful ground rules. Many question the integrity or honesty of the person who disagrees with them doctrinally, or whether they are even saved at all.

But it should be noticed by the intellectually superior that generally when a person advocates for error it is because they deeply believe in its veracity. In their minds, they are doing the will of God, and it is you who are impeding the work.

None of this is tenable. People have been burned and killed for too long on account of personal matters or dogma. We need to stop accusing people of 'blasphemy', 'being used by the devil', being 'possessed', teaching 'heresy'.

Throughout history, take note, it has always been the true followers of Christ who have been slandered and many times slaughtered. You find not one movement in history that was a Holy Spirit lead movement that implemented murder of its opponents as a directive. Neither did it implement resistance or accusation.

Was it Jesus and His that accused the population of notorious sin, accusing them of blasphemy or heresy, or was it the 'pious' priestly class of the time that leveled these slanders against Christ and the disciples?

So it is not for us to accuse but to correct once and then move on, shake the dust off our feet, and pray for our enemies.

 

[horsecamp]

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.

Tyndale was almost as good as me at spellin

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.


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

but we three are so loving true and always sinless huh
if only Calvin could have learned from us and followed our perfect Christ like examples huh
HOW BIGS YOU guys HALEO I TINK I COULD USE A BIGGER ONE MY SELF how about u two?

us 3 whistle britches..need bigger halos

3 for my bucket list

 

[Apocalypticist]

How about step 1 horsecamp. Thou shalt not kill.

In that case, Calvin has a lot to learn. Like not killing people. You can't lump Calvin in with anyone on this forum because I don't believe there are any killers here though I could be mistaken.

Not to say we can't learn from Calvin. I was reading him last night. I value what he has to offer but I also recognize him for being a sick man. Born again Christians do not kill people, period.

 

[Mungo]

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.

Wow,

That's a lot of negativity against the Catholic Church. I just thought people might be interested in a definition, albeit from one groups persepective.

 

[Tim TP]

I think this thread will be closed, and probably I'll be banned.

That(at least the closing) is what seems to happen when the moderators here have difficult questions asked of Christianity.

 

[lforrest]

I think this thread will be closed, and probably I'll be banned.

That(at least the closing) is what seems to happen when the moderators here have difficult questions asked of Christianity.

It is possible that this thread will be closed as this particular section of the forum is for other faith members and the discussion has turned into an internal debate among Christians. Don't worry about being banned for starting such a discussion.

While there may not be consensus as to what is heresy in Christianity as a whole, for the purposes of this website heresy is anything contrary to the close handed essentials of the Christian faith expressed in this site's Statement of Faith. As a nonbeliever you don't have to believe those essentials to remain here, you may even question them if you choose, but you should handle those beliefs respectfully.

Please continue asking these good questions.

 

[Christabel]

I think the question of what qualifies as heresy in the orthodox Christian church is a good question.

Orthodox: definition

1. (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Heresy: definition

Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.

In other words, heresy is determined by the interpreter. The Catholics considered Luther a heretic. The mainstream prodestant churches consider the Catholics, the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses heretics. The Mormons consider all denominations heretical but their own. The Seventh Day Adventists consider the Catholics and the Prodestants heretics, as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. And so the story goes. A person or a denomination is considered heretical by any person or denomination that disagrees with that person or that denomination's doctrines.

 

[rockytopva]

I think the question of what qualifies as heresy in the orthodox Christian church is a good question.

Nice reply... And welcome to CB Christabel!

 

[Mungo]

I think the question of what qualifies as heresy in the orthodox Christian church is a good question.

Orthodox: definition

1. (of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

Heresy: definition

Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (esp. Christian) doctrine.

In other words, heresy is determined by the interpreter. The Catholics considered Luther a heretic. The mainstream prodestant churches consider the Catholics, the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists, and the Jehovah's Witnesses heretics. The Mormons consider all denominations heretical but their own. The Seventh Day Adventists consider the Catholics and the Prodestants heretics, as well as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. And so the story goes. A person or a denomination is considered heretical by any person or denomination that disagrees with that person or that denomination's doctrines.

In the Catholic definition that I gave earlier (that Dodo_David snarled at) there is an important part of the definition that I think he did not appreciate:

“….the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative….”

This means that it is correct to say that the Catholic Church considered Martin Luther a heretic because he was brought up a Catholic, and was a Catholic monk. Therefore he was morally culpable. It would not be true to say that today the Catholic Church considers all Protestants to be heretics.

I quote this from Cardinal Ratzinger’s book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood (Cardinal Ratzinger was later Pope Bendict XVI):
Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. ……. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense.....

I think the words heresy and heretic have become debased and, like the word 'cult', have become perjorative terms to be thrown at people we disagree with.

 

[Tim TP]

In the Catholic definition that I gave earlier (that Dodo_David snarled at) there is an important part of the definition that I think he did not appreciate:

“….the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative….”

This means that it is correct to say that the Catholic Church considered Martin Luther a heretic because he was brought up a Catholic, and was a Catholic monk. Therefore he was morally culpable. It would not be true to say that today the Catholic Church considers all Protestants to be heretics.

So, me being an atheist, I'm not capable of doing it then.

 

[Mungo]

So, me being an atheist, I'm not capable of doing it then.

I'm sure we can find other things to chuck at you if you are disappointed we can't call you a heretic.

 

[Dodo_David]

For what it's worth, in one of my earlier posts, I wasn't promoting anti-Catholicism.
Instead, I was pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have the authority to dictate the beliefs of the entire universal Church.

 

[aspen]

unfortunitely most Christians have lost a healthy understanding of authority.

 

[Tim TP]

unfortunitely most Christians have lost a healthy understanding of authority.

Ummm....

Who has this power then? I take it it's you. ??

Unless you see God apoint somebody as his rep on earth how do you tell if you should respect the other man's opinion more than yours??

 

[Mungo]

Ummm....

Who has this power then? I take it it's you. ??

Unless you see God apoint somebody as his rep on earth how do you tell if you should respect the other man's opinion more than yours??

The evidence of witnesses.

 

[Tim TP]

OK, if somebody else says that Mr X is apointed by God and they saw it happen.

Would you accept that? Would you question it? Would you need evidence that they were not ripping you off?

Or would you kneel down and accept your inferiority?

 

[Mungo]

OK, if somebody else says that Mr X is apointed by God and they saw it happen.

Would you accept that? Would you question it? Would you need evidence that they were not ripping you off?

Or would you kneel down and accept your inferiority?

My inferiority to whom?

 

[Tim TP]

My inferiority to whom?

The person you see as having authority over you.

 

[Mungo]

The person you see as having authority over you.

In what way would I be inferior?

 

[Tim TP]

unfortunitely most Christians have lost a healthy understanding of authority.

To acknowledge another person as superiour in some sense, such as I acknowledge the police man as having authority over me when he directs trafic and I have to drive down a road I otherwise would not have I acknowledge his legal superiority over me in that situation.

If, in a religious situation, you acknowledge another person as your superiour then you acknowledge that you are, in that situation, inferiour.

What criteria do you use?