Heresy and Heretics

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The word ‘heretic’ and ‘heresy’ has been tossed around on this board for months, particularly at the pen of DHK. I cannot remember one time a strict definition of the word heretic or heresy has been given, nor has the eternal fate of one guilty of heresy.

What is your definition of heresy, who could be justly classified as a heretic, and will heretics and or those promoting heresy be found in heaven? Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

 

[billwald]

>Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

Question would make better sense as two questions in plain English than one in Christian jargon.

Can God regenerate (save, justify, redeem) ANYONE "in" Christ Jesus? Yes, he can.

Can an unregenerate person hope (think, conclude) that he is saved and going to Heaven? Yes, he can think that but he is wrong.


Maybe a better word to use on the list to describe me and others is "hetrodox."

 

[steaver]

The word ‘heretic’ and ‘heresy’ has been tossed around on this board for months, particularly at the pen of DHK. I cannot remember one time a strict definition of the word heretic or heresy has been given, nor has the eternal fate of one guilty of heresy.

What is your definition of heresy, who could be justly classified as a heretic, and will heretics and or those promoting heresy be found in heaven? Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

heresy-opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.

Biblically-a false doctrine.

How does this apply to Christians as a body of believers in whole? Not sure. Each congregation can make decrees and a list of doctrines that must be held else a person be labeled a heretic and put out of the congregation. This board could declare certain doctrines heresy and not allow a member to remain here. However that would defeat the purpose of these debates. It would kill this board.

We could rightly in all good conscience call each other heretics for the simple fact that we declare each others doctrines false.

So on a debate board such as this where differing doctrines are welcome for debate there is no weight in decalring another's view heretical for it does not matter to this board. No one is going to be cast out for heresy for we are all heretics to each other simply because we are here disagreeing on doctrines.

For example, I could constantly in all good conscience call you a heretic everytime you post your faith plus works salvation doctrine. Also you could in all good conscience call me a heretic for my faith alone position. What good would this do? It means nothing on a board set up to debate doctrines where one believes something true and another false.

So I would conclude that on this board the accusation of heresy has no teeth so why bother. If it was a board not allowing differing doctrines then the claim of heresy would carry some weight, however, there would be no debate board anymore.

What is heresy would have to be determined by the individual congregation and the consequences thereof. Here it really has no teeth unless it would be something totally outrageous such as denying Jesus is God. Then it would be by by to that member I'm sure.

:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, before I comment on your comments, can you address this question?

Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

 

[steaver]

Steaver, before I comment on your comments, can you address this question?

Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

Well, according to the definition of a heretic, I would have to believe that you are one. Yet I also believe you are Eternally secure in Christ. Hope is something you need to work on from my perspective. My hope is based solely on Christ. It appears to me that your hope is based on Christ plus your own overcoming.

:godisgood:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bill: Maybe a better word to use on the list to describe me and others is "hetrodox."

HP: Maybe before you place that across your forehead, ......did they burn people at the stake, etc. for being heterodox?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Well, according to the definition of a heretic, I would have to believe that you are one. Yet I also believe you are Eternally secure in Christ. Hope is something you need to work on from my perspective. My hope is based solely on Christ. It appears to me that your hope is based on Christ plus your own overcoming.

HP: Well just for the record, I would not attach the same to yourself, DHK or any other that comes to mind. I certainly would strongly disagree with many, but I would never attach the word heresy to anyone I would not also view as outside of the faith. I believe some are sticking their heads in the sand to throw the word around and then act as if though they are within the guidelines of this forum. History certainly sets forth the attitudes, and actions resulting from those attitudes, reflected by those labeling others as heretics.

Does the name John Calvin ring a bell to anyone on this list? Speaking of a classic example of where such rhetoric leads, look no further.

 

[DHK]

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

hairetikos
Search for G141 in KJVSL
airetikoV hairetikos hahee-ret-ee-kos'
from the same as 140; a schismatic:--heretic (the Greek word itself).

From Thayer' Lexicon

Thayer Definition:
1) fitted or able to take or choose a thing
2) schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine
3) heretic

Jamieson, Faucett and Brown

heretic--Greek "heresy," originally meant a division resulting from individual self-will; the individual doing and teaching what he chose, independent of the teaching and practice of the Church.

In course of time it came to mean definitely "heresy" in the modern sense; and in the later Epistles it has almost assumed this meaning. The heretics of Crete, when Titus was there, were in doctrine followers of their own self-willed "questions" reprobated in Tit 3:9, and immoral in practice.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

airesiV hairesis hah'-ee-res-is
from 138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion:--heresy
(which is the Greek word itself), sect. (Strong's)

 

[Darrell C]

Steaver, before I comment on your comments, can you address this question?

Can one be a heretic and at the same time be in possession of a firm hope of eternal life?

Hi H.P..

Before I comment on your comment which you are withholding 'til Steaver comments, will you address this question? (just yanking your chain, my friend, lighten up a little)

Hope your feeling better, by the way.

2 Peter 2
1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Just throwing that in for consideration.

Steaver raises a good point though. In this format heresy is not really dealt with.

But, I will say (and probably be deemed a heretic) that not all who belong to God are learned theologians who are flawless in doctrine.

Some of the people I have talked with (even among the fellowships I have attended) have what I would consider heretical beliefs.

Do I question their salvation? Well, sorry to say, but sometimes I do.

I will stand firm in what I believe to be sound doctrine and through scripture try to convince them.

One thing I consider to be heresy: the denial of Christ's deity.

Yet I have known people who deny that Jesus is God, yet, surprisingly, are trusting Him for their salvation.

What do you do with that?

Knowledge is not salvation, Jesus said, "Search the scripture, for in them ye think ye have eternal life."

The Pharisees had knowledge...didn't get them far.

Point is, there is a simplicity in the gospel that gets overlooked in the search for knowledge.

All that to say, I do think it possible for one to be saved, but to be in error in certain areas of knowledge.

Will they remain that way? Highly unlikely.

One last question. Did you lose interest in Heb. 10:14?

God bless.

 

[steaver]

HP: Well just for the record, I would not attach the same to yourself, DHK or any other that comes to mind. I certainly would strongly disagree with many, but I would never attach the word heresy to anyone I would not also view as outside of the faith. I believe some are sticking their heads in the sand to throw the word around and then act as if though they are within the guidelines of this forum. History certainly sets forth the attitudes, and actions resulting from those attitudes, reflected by those labeling others as heretics.

Does the name John Calvin ring a bell to anyone on this list? Speaking of a classic example of where such rhetoric leads, look no further.

But according to the definition of the word I am a heretic to you whether you say it or not. But it does not matter in this environment set up for the sole purpose of debating opposite beliefs even though they are within the faith of Jesus Christ. So really it carries no weight to call something hersy in this forum as though that adds anything to the argument.

So what do you have against Calvin? Did he murder someone or what? I never took the time to sudy him even though brothers like you like to believe he is my mentor or something.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: So what do you have against Calvin? Did he murder someone or what? I never took the time to sudy him even though brothers like you like to believe he is my mentor or something.

HP: Research Servetus for yourself.

 

[steaver]

HP: Research Servetus for yourself.

I looked him up. Calvin did not murder the man. He like Paul breathed out hatred for the man, maybe even testified against him, but did not do the actual murdering. Now I know that you excuse Paul so I assume you would excuse Calvin here as well since Calvin did it in all good conscience thinking that he was doing God a service. As you believe, the sin does not count if the person believes he is doing God a service.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Paul was no believer when he breathed out cruelty towards the believers. Calvin was a professing Christian theologian and a ruler within the so-called Church. Not hardly apples for apples Steaver.

Calvin premediatated the death of Servetus seven years before he was burnt at the stake in a most cruel and slow manner. The ONLY redeeming factor you might 'possibly' desire to attribute to Calvin is that he wanted to allow Servetus to die by having his head cut off as opposed to roasting him over a slow fire as they did. Some great consulation Calvin graced him with.
What absolute horrific autrocities this man Calvin and others fomented and participated in. His name will forever be a testament to the depths of wickedness some men will traverse in the name of Christianity, men that could not believe any possibility existed that they could be wrong. Sounds all to familiar to me.

 

[steaver]

Paul was no believer when he breathed out cruelty towards the believers. Calvin was a professing Christian theologian and a ruler within the so-called Church. Not hardly apples for apples Steaver.

.

James teaches us about "professing Christians", how those who say they believe but do not show the proof in good works are not true Christians.

If Calvin was a murderer, then he did not possess eternal life (saved) according to 1 John. He was a pretender.

Therefore Calvin was in the same condition as Paul, killing people, or consenting to their deaths, ignorantly in unbelief. This according to your views excuses them both for they were doing it in good conscience and thought themselves to be doing a service for God.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: This according to your views excuses them both for they were doing it in good conscience and thought themselves to be doing a service for God.

HP: Hogwash. No such conclusion can be justly drawn. Besides, there is clear evidence in the Apostle Paul life of sincere repentance once God enlightened him. In the case of Calvin I find none, but rather him continuing years later in defending his actions. Calvin was no Apostle Paul for God’s sake, neither was there any sign whatsoever of his repentance.

And you say it was not Calvin that put him to death??? Read the remark of Calvin himself concerning the death of Servetus after he was killed. “I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Here are yet two more comments by Calvin: "Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

Dream on Steaver.

 

[steaver]

HP: Hogwash. No such conclusion can be justly drawn. Besides, there is clear evidence in the Apostle Paul life of sincere repentance once God enlightened him. In the case of Calvin I find none, but rather him continuing years later in defending his actions. Calvin was no Apostle Paul for God’s sake, neither was there any sign whatsoever of his repentance.

And you say it was not Calvin that put him to death??? Read the remark of Calvin himself concerning the death of Servetus after he was killed. “I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Here are yet two more comments by Calvin: "Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that (they allege) I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face."
"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.

Dream on Steaver.

It does not matter. According to your views Calvin may not have been "enlightened" yet. Therefore his actions would be excused before God. You don't know if God "enlightened" Calvin later in life and then he repented.

 

[DHK]

It does not matter. According to your views Calvin may not have been "enlightened" yet. Therefore his actions would be excused before God. You don't know if God "enlightened" Calvin later in life and then he repented.

I think you will have to look at this verse more carefully:

"If Calvin was a murderer, then he did not possess eternal life (saved) according to 1 John. He was a pretender."

Calvin may have killed Servetus.
Calvin may have been a Christian when he did it.
That shows us the depravity of the human heart.
It shows us that even a Christian is capable of committing most any sin.
It also shows us that God is able to forgive any sin.

 

[lori4dogs]

In times past heresy was seen as an evil that threatened both the salvation of souls and the very heart of the community. Heresy was not an individual acting alone; heresy was an attack on the whole community and the whole purpose of life. Severe abuses arose when the Church’s concern for the purity of the Apostolic faith was trumped by the motivations of local authorities.

The Church conducted the investigations and trials. Punishment was left to the hands of the secular authorities. In Protestant states after the Reformation, the state conducted the investigation and trial and imposed punishment.

 

[DHK]

In times past heresy was seen as an evil that threatened both the salvation of souls and the very heart of the community.

It still is, just like the RCC heresies of Purgatory, Baptismal Regeneration and salvation by works.

Heresy was not an individual acting alone; heresy was an attack on the whole community and the whole purpose of life.

This is only true if the whole community was under the authority of a state church like the RCC was in England in the times of Bloody Mary of Tudor where there was no soul liberty. The RCC, as the state church in that day, acted very much like the governments of Islamic nations that enforce Shariah law in their own nations today, especially in their treatment of Christians and Muslims who convert to Christianity.

Severe abuses arose when the Church’s concern for the purity of the Apostolic faith was trumped by the motivations of local authorities.

The Montanists separated from the main church of Christianity because they wanted purity of Church. The church of the day (whom the Catholics claim was theirs) was corrupt, degenerate, and hardly acted like a church at all.
The Albigenses were peace-loving people who simply wanted to live their lives in a pure and Godly way; but unfortunately they were massacred by the heretical RCC in the most ungodly wicked horrible Crusades of history. This wasn't just one murder. It was wholesale slaughter of an entire people. This act on the behalf on one organization who said they were acting on behalf of God, would put Hitler to shame. The history books of today are too kind to them.

The Church conducted the investigations and trials. Punishment was left to the hands of the secular authorities. In Protestant states after the Reformation, the state conducted the investigation and trial and imposed punishment.

Inquisitors are not secular authorities. You have been brain washed good.
The most brutal and ugly punishment and death was handed out by the RCC itself.

 

[lori4dogs]

The Albigensian movement in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was a heresy that grew in southern France. Albigensians rejected the sacraments and believed that the "evil god" of the Old Testament had created the physical world. In 1208, they killed a papal representative.

Real pacifists DHK.