how Should we define what is Heresy?

[DHK]

Chapter and verse.

Of the "B, I, B, L, E. That's the Book for me!".

You are asking an irrational question, and you want an answer from the Bible.

Here is what you were replying to:

Originally Posted by Yeshua1
Isn't denying the literal physical returning of Jesus still future though heresy, as defined by the orthodox church?

For the sake of clarity let's take out the negative.

"Is denying the literal physical return of Jesus still future...heresy as defined by the orthodox church?"

Now the question is more clear. It doesn't demand a chapter and verse. It demands a yes or a no. It is either yes or no.
My position is yes, denying the Second Coming is a heretical position to take, and in a previous post I gave you reasons why.

 

[Revmitchell]

Heresy is more than mere error. Heresy is a doctrine that, which if confessed, divides one from faith in Christ. The Judaizers of the early church is a Scriptural example.

NO sir, heresy is any teaching that is not orthodox.

 

[Rippon]

NO sir, heresy is any teaching that is not orthodox.

And how do you define the word "orthodox" as it applies to Christianity?

For instance,Calvinism and its belief in particular redemption is perfectly orthodox in historic Christianity.

But since non-Calvinists constitute the majority of mainstream believers you can try to make a case that PR is out of sync with the prevailing doctrine of unlimited atonement. But that does not affect the core of the Gospel at all.

 

[asterisktom]

You are asking an irrational question, and you want an answer from the Bible.

Here is what you were replying to:

<snipped>

No - that is not what I was replying to. The "irrational" aspect only appears because you misconstrued my comment. To see what I was responding to (incredible that I have to tell this to a moderator) you must go back through the thread to my first comment. You would have seen that I even gave the quote in full.

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Revmitchell

Denying a literal and physical future return of Jesus is heresy.

My question to him - quite rational, logical, and Berean was, in essence - Where is this view found in the Bible?

To clarify further:
I am not denying the Bible doctrine of the parousia, Christ's coming in power. That is as surely taught as His Messianic mission is taught. What I am denying is the "physical" part. Also, I deny that it is still future in our time. (From the time perspective of the Bible it was indeed future.)

Where in the Bible are the denial of those points said to be heretical? For that matter, viewed positively, where are the affirmations of those things (physical return of Christ) taught in the Bible?

 

[Revmitchell]

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.


Preterism teaches another Jesus. The gospel includes a future, literal, and physical return of Christ.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11).




One can try to explain away these verses all they want. But the B-I-B-L-E is very clear. And when you have to start playing spiritual gymnastics and use eisegetical measures to be able to comfortably stick this heresy then you one has lost their way. Just as bad as the idea that God creates some men just to damn them.

 

[asterisktom]

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

To your credit, RM, you at least provided a passage. However you provide no connection between Paul's teaching here and Preterism. The context makes it quite clear what the false gospel is. It is teaching that is contrary to the true gospel. In this immediate context, the first dozen verses or so of this epistle, we have several essentials of the gospel mentioned. Just a few:

Our Savior raised from the dead, vs. 1,
Christ gave himself for our sins, vs. 4, and
Rescued us from this present evil world, vs.4.
He called us by His grace, vs. 7.

While this is not a complete description of the gospel - that was not the intention - it does give us an indication of what was in Paul's mind when he then warned against the enemies of this same gospel. There is no mention at all here of the timing of Christ's coming, nor of Christ's nature at His coming (that is, the Parousia).

It is interesting how this verse is used as a holy two-by-four against whatever the user sees as his enemies. Arminians use it against Calvinists (and vice versa).

More accurately, orthodox Christians use it against cultists who deny essential teachings like the deity of Christ. This is a proper use of the passage mainly because those who deny Christ's deity also deny the gracious nature of the gospel. Cultists, like the Judaizers that Paul was targeting here, make the grace of Christ of no effect with their formula of "God And ___". What is filled in the blank varies from cult to cult, false religion to false religion. But the mere existence of any additional item besides grace, makes the grace of Christ - and the Cross of Christ - of no effect.

There is nothing here about Preterism.

Preterism teaches another Jesus. The gospel includes a future, literal, and physical return of Christ.

And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; 11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11).

This passage teaches the manner of Christ's Parousia, not His nature. "He will come in just the same way". In the same way that "He was taken" He was to have returned.

How was He taken? "A cloud received Him out of their sight."

That is how He was to return.

One can try to explain away these verses all they want. But the B-I-B-L-E is very clear. And when you have to start playing spiritual gymnastics and use eisegetical measures to be able to comfortably stick this heresy then you one has lost their way. Just as bad as the idea that God creates some men just to damn them.

We see what we want to see. Actually, what you write here reminds me of myself - especially back in my BJU days in the 70s. I was so sure that I was totally in the right when it came to these matters.

But I have since done a lot of Bible studying and a lot of unstudying too (which is harder to do). Even though I was irked by comments made by people I was pretty sure were unsaved, I kept some of the points they made in mind, studying them out Scripturally when I had opportunity later. I hope you will too.

 

[kyredneck]

.....In this immediate context, the first dozen verses or so of this epistle, we have several essentials of the gospel mentioned. Just a few:

Our Savior raised from the dead, vs. 1,
Christ gave himself for our sins, vs. 4, and
Rescued us from this present evil world, vs.4.
He called us by His grace, vs. 7.

While this is not a complete description of the gospel - that was not the intention - it does give us an indication of what was in Paul's mind when he then warned against the enemies of this same gospel. There is no mention at all here of the timing of Christ's coming, nor of Christ's nature at His coming (that is, the Parousia).

It is interesting how this verse is used as a holy two-by-four against whatever the user sees as his enemies. Arminians use it against Calvinists (and vice versa).

More accurately, orthodox Christians use it against cultists who deny essential teachings like the deity of Christ. This is a proper use of the passage mainly because those who deny Christ's deity also deny the gracious nature of the gospel. Cultists, like the Judaizers that Paul was targeting here, make the grace of Christ of no effect with their formula of "God And ___". What is filled in the blank varies from cult to cult, false religion to false religion. But the mere existence of any additional item besides grace, makes the grace of Christ - and the Cross of Christ - of no effect.

There is nothing here about Preterism.

AMEN!

LOL...holy 2x4

 

[DHK]

<snipped>

No - that is not what I was replying to. The "irrational" aspect only appears because you misconstrued my comment. To see what I was responding to (incredible that I have to tell this to a moderator) you must go back through the thread to my first comment. You would have seen that I even gave the quote in full.


Where in the Bible are the denial of those points said to be heretical? For that matter, viewed positively, where are the affirmations of those things (physical return of Christ) taught in the Bible?

I know what you were asking and I gave you my answer. The purpose is not to derail this thread into a preterist thread. Any verse I give you, you will try and refute with your preterist interpretation. And then we can go back and forth on that ad infnitum. I have been down that road, and this is not that thread.
I gave you that evidence by posting a part of a sermon in a book by Charles Feinberg. He preached a sermon on the Second Coming using all the appropriate scriptures. He declared it a fundamental doctrine. It was accepted then as one of "The Fundamentals of the Faith," in an era when men were fighting liberalism. I have already proven my point without the use of Scripture. If you want the Scripture get access to Feinberg's book and read the sermon's therein. Those messages are on "The Fundamentals of our Faith." The future Second Coming is one of them, and has been throughout history.

It is not your interpretation of the Bible that determines what is a fundamental doctrine; it is what is accepted by orthodox Christianity. On this doctrine you stand outside orthodox Christianity. I can't give you a chapter and verse that says: "Tom Riggle stands outside of Orthodox Christianity in relation to the Second Coming." But he does.

 

[HankD]

Tom and I (and others) went "tooth and nail" debating preterism some time past.

I could answer, but I'm not going to engage. There is no point to it IMO.
Maybe at some later date.

If someone is really interested in preterism vs. futurism you can scan the archives.

Tom is not a heretic (IMO, he is just mistaken about the date of the return of Christ).

I believe there is a big difference between being mistaken and being a heretic.


HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Tom and I (and others) went "tooth and nail" debating preterism some time past.

I could answer, but I'm not going to engage. There is no point to it IMO.
Maybe at some later date.

If someone is really interested in preterism vs. futurism you can scan the archives.

Tom is not a heretic (IMO, he is just mistaken about the date of the return of Christ).

I believe there is a big difference between being mistaken and being a heretic.


HankD

Thanks, Hank.

I am not really interested in debating Preterism at the present time. I am a bit tired myself of hashing over the same things again and again. One can see that by how rarely I have been participating here lately. Also, my plate is full now that I am back in China.

My sole purpose in responding here was to ask for the scriptural basis for Rev Mitchell's assertion that my belief is heretical. Not interested in Feinberg, the Creeds, etc. What does the Bible say? (The question is rhetorical here).

Take care!

 

[asterisktom]

I know what you were asking and I gave you my answer. The purpose is not to derail this thread into a preterist thread.

If your first sentence is true then that is a mark against you. It means that you willfully misrepresented me in order to cast my response as "irrational".

Derail the thread? The initiater of this thread derailed his own thread by shifting the focus from "How do we define heresy?" to whether denying Christ's future second coming is heretical. We started out with a good question and then devolved into writing up a laundry list of what is heresy and what is not - away from Scriptural foundations. This is not at all helpful. What you saw, DHK, as derailing a thread was actually my attempting to get it back on track.

Any verse I give you, you will try and refute with your preterist interpretation. And then we can go back and forth on that ad infnitum. I have been down that road, and this is not that thread.
I gave you that evidence by posting a part of a sermon in a book by Charles Feinberg. He preached a sermon on the Second Coming using all the appropriate scriptures. He declared it a fundamental doctrine. It was accepted then as one of "The Fundamentals of the Faith," in an era when men were fighting liberalism. I have already proven my point without the use of Scripture. If you want the Scripture get access to Feinberg's book and read the sermon's therein. Those messages are on "The Fundamentals of our Faith." The future Second Coming is one of them, and has been throughout history.

Feinberg is not Bible. Maybe he is to you. For what it its not worth I used to be quite a fan of Feinberg back in the day, having heard him
preach at our church and having read much of his writings. But there came a time when I saw that what he teaches just is not supported by the Bible.

It is not your interpretation of the Bible that determines what is a fundamental doctrine; it is what is accepted by orthodox Christianity. On this doctrine you stand outside orthodox Christianity. I can't give you a chapter and verse that says: "Tom Riggle stands outside of Orthodox Christianity in relation to the Second Coming." But he does.

All you have is a charge with no grounds. You can't give me a chapter and verse that I am outside orthodoxy . Thank you. I will take that as a forthright admission.

 

[DHK]

All you have is a charge with no grounds. You can't give me a chapter and verse that I am outside orthodoxy . Thank you. I will take that as a forthright admission.

I can give you 315 promises that Christ is coming back again. That is how many there are. But as Hank said, I don't want to go down that road again.
Most who would list "the fundamentals of the faith" would include the future coming of our Lord," as does Feinberg. He is conciliatory to those who hold other view points such as post-mil and even amil, but there must be a belief in the 2nd coming. That is the hope of every Christian (1John 3:3; Titus 2:13). Paul even teaches that not only man, but all of creation is waiting for the coming of Christ (Rom.8:20-23).

As I said before, to ask for a verse that says "Tom is outside of orthodoxy," is ludicrous. Try looking in Hezekiah 3:4.

 

[asterisktom]

I can give you 315 promises that Christ is coming back again. That is how many there are. But as Hank said, I don't want to go down that road again.
Most who would list "the fundamentals of the faith" would include the future coming of our Lord," as does Feinberg. He is conciliatory to those who hold other view points such as post-mil and even amil, but there must be a belief in the 2nd coming. That is the hope of every Christian (1John 3:3; Titus 2:13). Paul even teaches that not only man, but all of creation is waiting for the coming of Christ (Rom.8:20-23).

As I said before, to ask for a verse that says "Tom is outside of orthodoxy," is ludicrous. Try looking in Hezekiah 3:4.

Who is denying those promises? Neither do I deny the many promises of His first coming.
My hope, and present blessedness, is in Christ. It is not in a fleeting event, but an abiding presence - the parousia. "Christ in you, the hope of glory". After we die we see Him face to face undistracted by hardships and difficulties, but even now we enjoy Kingdom life in His presence.

 

[DHK]

Who is denying those promises? Neither do I deny the many promises of His first coming.
My hope, and present blessedness, is in Christ. It is not in a fleeting event, but an abiding presence - the parousia. "Christ in you, the hope of glory". After we die we see Him face to face undistracted by hardships and difficulties, but even now we enjoy Kingdom life in His presence.

We are not looking for a past event.
We are not looking back to the birth of Christ.
We are not looking inward to Christ being in us.
We are not looking to being "with" Christ in heaven.

Those promises are not speaking of the Second Coming of Christ, not of the above scenarios.
They are future, as Titus 2:13 so explicitly tells us:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

It is a future event. He is a blessed hope. A hope that is not seen is not a hope. It will be a glorious appearing; still future, still to come. That is the only way that this can be taken.

 

[asterisktom]

A hope that is not seen is not a hope.

Hope that is seen is not hope.

Two quotes (underlining mine), diametrically opposed, one by you, one by Paul.

One of you is wrong.

"Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?" - Romans 8:24

You are recasting the very definition of biblical hope to defend the indefensible.

 

[DHK]

Two quotes (underlining mine), diametrically opposed, one by you, one by Paul.

One of you is wrong.

"Now hope that is seen is not hope, because who hopes for what he sees?" - Romans 8:24

You are recasting the very definition of biblical hope to defend the indefensible.

Yes, you are right; I misquoted Romans 8:24. I should have looked it up.
Hope that is seen is not hope.
If Christ had come then he would have been seen; but he has not been seen and therefore he is our hope. His coming is still future. We have not yet seen him, as it clearly says in Titus 2:13.