Featured Is this a heresy?

Yes. As I stated above, a heretic is rejected. He is not allowed into the communion of saints. One may have an erroneous notion concerning things such as meat and wine, but he is received.

 

I disagree. Look at Scripture:

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

How is this word heretic used in scripture.
The ASV renders it this way:

Titus 3:10 A factious man after a first and second admonition refuse;

It is one who causes factions or divisions.

Paul taught very strongly on this doctrine:
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

I have seen and experienced what John has. A few Charismatics come into the church, spread their divisive doctrine, and cause a church split. That is heresy, and they are heretics.

I have seen the same thing happen in a non-Cal church where some Calvinists came in and began to preach TULIP, contrary to the doctrine of the pastor. They swayed some and then some others, and caused a church split. In that case Calvinism is heresy, and those Calvinists were heretics. They deliberately went into a non-Cal church in order to cause division. Paul said to avoid such. Avoid those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine that you have learned. Calvinism is heresy when it is divisive and splits churches, just as the Charismatic movement is.

If a person is not willing to adhere to the statement of faith and the doctrine that the church preaches, then he ought not to join the church.

Churches have been split over eschatology as well. If the church is premill and pretrib, why would someone other than that come and try to teach the people a "new doctrine" contrary to what they have learned. It is not biblical. It is heresy.

That is what heresy is, no matter what you believe. The local church has the right to believe what they believe is right. Others don't have the right to come in and cause division. That is heretical.

 

The faction or division has to be over something false. Truth is hotter and has caused more division and splits in local groups than any heresy. Christ is the Truth, and we killed Him. Was He a heretic?


A heresy is a false doctrine. It's error is grievous enough to warrant putting one who holds it out of the church, i.e. splitting him from the body of Christ, i.e. delivering him to Satan.

 

And in each case of the churches mentioned the ones causing the divisions were put out of the church for causing division: Charismatics, Calvinists, and for propagation of an errant theology.
According to the Scripture I gave you heresy is that which causes division in the church. I would rather go by what the Bible says then by your definition.

 

That's the denotative meaning, but not the Scriptural use. In Scripture it means false doctrine. We are commanded to reject a heretic, not because what he says is true yet not well-received, but because what he says is false and antithetical to faith in Christ.

On the other hand, we are commanded to receive others who may have inconsequential false and erroneous notions about things such as meat and drink.

Both hold to false notions. We know because they confess them. One we are commanded to receive, the other we are commanded to reject. If one is a heretic, he is in the eyes of Christ, and he is a heretic whether he is in a body at peace with his doctrine or not.

 

I'm going by how it's used in the Scriptures. No church has the right to reject one that Christ has received.

 

Yes there is and to say there isn't is heresy. More than a few here believe you receive the Holy Spirit when you are saved but this is not always the case. Why should it be different than what scripture says it is.

Act_8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

These people believed and had not received the Holy Spirit. Those who had been baptized in the name of Christ already have the Spirit. The Minister lays hands on them in Baptisim.

Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

I ask that you show scripture that states we receive the Spirit any other way

In my humble opinion no one has ever given a good reason for not laying hands on others.
These verses do not say this is the only way to receive the Holy Spirit this is true yet scripture does not indicate other wise either. True that on pentecost men received but trully that hasn't happen again that I know of.
MB

 

How can you say I gave you no Scripture? What I said was nearly verbatim. What does it mean to reject a heretic? What does it mean to receive a brother?

I didn't think you needed the citation, but if you do I'll be happy to provide it.

 

So, it isn't that I haven't provided Scripture, it is that you have a different view of discipline. Matthew 18 says that he that is under discipline is to be regarded as a heathen and a publican. IOW, we are to regard them as unsaved. A nonchristian. Do we do that for light or transient reasons?

Anyway, that's how I see it.

 

That's up to the local church. :thumbs:

 

Apologies for the delay in replying, I had a busy season...

Well you wanted an example of something that creates division. I'm just saying...carpet seems to be divisive in some churches. How is that not a heresy according to your definition?

Now if you want to talk about a "teaching" how about churches that divide over the frequency of communion. So which one is a heresy? The church where I serve does communion once a quarter. The church I grew up in had communion services once a month. Other churches I know of have split over the frequency. So who is correct?

Well first of all we need to be careful using Greek and attempting draw out far reaching conclusions. As the term αἵρεσις is used in the NT, it is more usually used to speak of a sect or faction of believers than error-laden teachers. A simple search of the word's use discovers it is isolated primarily to Acts with occurences in 1 Corinthians 11:19, Galatians 5:20, and 2 Peter 2:1.

The Acts usage the word often refers to sects of a particular religion (usually Jewish.) I can't find a single translation that uses the term "heresy" in most of the occurrences. In Acts 5:17, the first usage, the term clearly indicates the Lukan descriptor of a sect, or faction, or denomination of Sadducees.

In fact the only time I see the word "heresy" is when the term is linked with the intensifying ἀπωλείας. This shouldn't be surprising. However, to stretch the term, which clearly in other contexts carries a sect or denominational affiliation, to simply mean that it is anything which "divides" isn't in keeping with the NT intent/usage of the term.

Maybe Galatians 5:20 would be useful, however only the KJV/NKJV use heresy for the term. The Vulgate doesn't even use heresy. All the major translations prefer to point out that Paul's point is these are factions which divide. Not heresies. The 2 Peter 2:1 text, when read in context and considered in light of the broader argument isn't speaking of an issue like tongues, inspiration, and such but is talking more epistemologically. A way of thinking that divides.

I understand how you desire to apply the term, however, I don't believe the NT supports your read.

I would say the burden of proof is on you to show us how the historical case differs from the present usage.

Though I don't disagree that the NT evidences for tongues being primarily evidenced in discernible or translatable foreign languages. 1 Cor 14 is clear on the use of tongues like this as the edifying force of them. However, when we are speaking of a private prayer language (cf. 1 Cor 14:14) then we have a different issue.

I am thankful for your citations of other works, however, my point here is that the NT teachings are that there are tongues and we are to be edified by their use. With a legitimate theological divergence over this issue where Scripture does agree that tongues are legitimate we simply cannot label them heresy and be done with it.

Well, the onus is on you to show where the Apostolic Fathers don't practice tongues in the same fashion as the NT examples. The point about Agabus is slightly incorrect, I meant to draw back to Acts 11 where he is prophet interpreting and seeing events which come to pass through a kind of Spirit enlightened state.

As for examples, first look at Ignatius' letters to: The Magnesians 8; Ephesians 17; Smyrnians 9; Philadelphians 7; and to Polycarp 2.
Justin's Dialogues 39
The Epistle of Barnabus 16:9
The Acts of Thomas 10:20
In Tertullian, the whole Montanist episode is kind of self-explanatory, but perhaps you can start with Against Marcion 5.8-9 perhaps then his entire treatise on Baptism has points which are helpful. Also "On the Soul" 9 is rather specific. Of course one on the better text on Monatism is by De Soyres "Monatism and the Primitive Church" which is available for download at a number of places.
Eusebius records a number of these disputes and discussions in his history in book 5.
Clement of Alexandria has several passages, I'd point to Stromata 4:21.
Origen has plenty of references in his homilies (I'm not typing all those out, sorry)
The Apostolic Tradition points out other gifts which are miraculous and of the same type as tongues in chapter 14.
Cyprian is also helpful in Epistle 70:2-3.
I can keep going if necessary. There are other texts which can do a more complete job of showing all the necessary passages.

However, and we must return to this, the onus must be on you to prove that these ecstatic experiences are not the same as the NT examples we have been given. I just don't see it, especially since several texts reference the NT when talking about the ecstatic expressions.

Well I can't do anything if your OP doesn't lay out the complete case. In taking the OP at face value I simply commented, and still maintain, that teachings on tongues (which you weren't explicit about) are not heresy. If someone came into our church and starting teaching about tongues we would not consider them heretics, but would ask them to be reviewed and have a discussion about their position. If their position wasn't in line with Scripture and our doctrinal statement (which is conditioned by Scripture) we would ask them to stop teaching.

Just teaching a different doctrine than one we hold isn't enough to warrant the charge/label of heretic. Its a term thrown around with all too much ease and not enough substance. When it is ill-applied we end up with an assortment of beliefs that are our particular brand of theology and up for discussion in light of Church history.

If you apply it to the local church and not the universal church, I can't do anything about it. I apply it to both the local and universal church.

Cheerio

 

Church discipline can only applied to a local church.
If heresy is defined a being factious and divisive, then it can only be applied to a local church.
Even if it is applied to unorthodox doctrine, one cannot necessarily exclude all Charismatics, Presbyterians believing in infant baptism, and so many others that we may believe have heretical doctrine, as being outside of the "universal church" or the family of God. Can a person believe in the heresy of baptismal regeneration and still be saved? One wouldn't think so, but there are many naive and uneducated Christians out there that don't know much more than the Romans Road.

 

Glad you took the time to give my post its deserved attention. I'll better understand our interactions henceforth.