Featured Is this a heresy?

On the thread, "Is there a baptism in the Holy Spirit for today?" I posed a hypothetical situation to awaken: "Joe is a tongues speaker. He starts attending a church, A LOCAL CHURCH not an Internet forum, and without the pastor knowing starts teaching Bill and Sam, members of that LOCAL CHURCH (not Internet forum) about tongues. Is he (not you) right to do this or wrong?"

Twice he refused to answer it, but I finally got an answer out of him: "If they were following God, I see no harm in sharing what they have learned with others."

I call this condoning heresy, which in the NT is division causing in the local church of Jesus Christ. If a minor doctrine like tongues is taught in a local church in this way, I believe the Bible is clear on that. Note for example that the admonition to reject a heretic was written to a local church pastor (Titus 3:10), and other admonitions about heresy were given to local churches (1 Cor. 11:9, Gal. 5:20, etc.). What say ye?

 

Yes, that's the kind of tongues in question.

It is very sad for both the original person deceived, but it is also very sad for the pastor and the church members who have been hurt by the heresy. I remember the shock on my church peoples' faces one time when I explained what had happened.

I'm outraged that awaken would come on this board to openly say that it is okay if a church is split by such people. Let him have his tongues, I don't care. That's his business. But I believe Jesus is truly grieved when people condone, for such a minor doctrine as tongues, dividing the church He died for.

 

Thank you for your comments, Oldtimer and Gregory and Glazer, and to all who have participated in the poll so far.

 

Precisely. This is the point I am trying to make. A key statement in the OP is that this was done without the knowledge or approval of the pastor, who is tasked by God with teaching (2 Tim. 4:2) and defending (Acts 20:28-29) the doctrine of the church. This is usurping pastoral authority, and is a part of heresy as I believe the Bible teaches it.

 

As a linguist (the practical kind, not a linguistic scholar), I approach word studies in the Bible from a lingistic standpoint. The key to semantics (the study of meaning) in modern linguistics is contemporary usage, so I look at the word heresy in the Bible as it was used in the 1st century: (1) a sect, and (2) a divisive teaching.

I would not teach against tongues in a tongues speaking church unless invited there specifically by the pastor to do so because (1) There is no way I would join such a church, so I would be a guest, and guests don't cause trouble, and (2) I would have no Biblical authority or right to do so.

This is a church discipline issue, not heresy. But the attender must be a member before addressing the situation as per Matt. 18.

 

It's a hypothetical situation, so we don't know. But it doesn't matter. Any split caused this way (the OP) involves heresy.

In Japan, the churches are so small that if two people leave it's a split. :flower:

 

First of all, the original meaning of the Greek word was not "a minority opinion." That is the etymology of the English word from the 1200s, which came from the Latin/Greek word. The etymology of the word in Greek is unknown, but its usage in Classical Greek is to take or conquer, or to choose for one's self. (My reference for this is the "middle Liddel." lexicon, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon.)

Secondly, even if you were correct about the original meaning of the Biblical word, in modern semantics it is called the "root fallacy" to say that the original meaning, the etymology, carries on as the primary meaning of the word. What is much more important is the contemporary meaning of the word; that is, how is it used in the society of the 1st century? For a good explanation of this see D. A. Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies.

In this thread I have referred to the usage of the Greek word hairesis, heresy, to individual NT churches by the Apostle Paul. This is the meaning in question in this thread. The meaning I am giving as a doctrine that causes division in a church is right in line with the major koine lexicons. BAGD says, "opinion, dogma; 'destructive opinions' (2 Pe 3:1). For "heretic" (hairetikos) it gives "factious, causing divisions." I could give meanings from several other lexicons if you like.

 

The teaching of tongues is always accompanied by the doctrine that it is the sign (THE sign) of the fullness/baptism of the Holy Spirit, the second blessing doctrine which Pentecostalism borrowed from the 19th century holiness (which did not teach tongues). It is significant that awaken has refused to answer me on this point--whether or not he believes that tongues are the sign of the fullness/baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I know you're having fun here, but it is much harder to avoid someone when they are coming to your church. And Paul was writing to a local church. So the obvious conclusion is that the trouble maker, the division causer, must be disciplined out of the church.

 

It is a hypothetical situation, so there are no links and no more information. I'm not sure what you mean by a false dichotomy, but you have this from the hypothetical:

(1) The man teaching tongues is not a member of the church, so he has no standing there.
(2) He is doing this without the knowledge or consent of the pastor, so he is usurping pastoral authority.
(3) The doctrine he is teaching is modern tongues, which is notorious for causing church splits. (Anyone who has pastored a Baptist church for any length of time can tell you this.)

What else would be required in your opinion for it to be heresy?