Heresy: What is it?

[canadyjd]

Ok, now I think you've finally posted something I agree with. :tongue3:

"Essential Christianity"
I would assume this to be the fundamentals of the faith, such as the virgin birth, atonement, resurrection, etc..

Yes.
peace to youraise:

 

[EdSutton]

= John of Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
"Essential Christianity" You mean a "Baptist"?

:thumbs: :thumbs:

[Snicker!] [Snort!]

Heh! Heh!

Ed

 

[Mishelly]

Can one discuss other beliefs of so called Christians and not have it be heresy.

Debating is just that, debate. One can ask a question while trying to explain why the otherside believes as they do with out being heretic.

I know some belive that to discuss such matters is spreading the lies and thus being heretic, I do not.

To understand is to have the knowledge of why they think the way they do. To explain to them why what they belive is not of God and thus heretic.

If you can explain to them, for example the Trinity, and why it is the Truth one must know what they are thinking and why. I want to understand there thinking so I can come to them with my knowledge of the Word. I have a LONG way to go with my knowledge though :flower:

So to debate is not heresy to me, otherwise most of us would not be here :smilewinkgrin:

 

[DHK]

So to debate is not heresy to me, otherwise most of us would not be here :smilewinkgrin:

Of course debate is not heresy. But many of the topics are. And rejection of many of the doctrines are. Take the trinity for example. One can discuss it in the most civil manner without any reference to heresy or any kind of name-calling. And according to BB rules there shouldn't be any name-calling.
But the rejection of the trinity is a heresy and should be labeled as such. Attack the doctrine and not the person. Instead of saying you're a heretick; say that any view of God that rejects doctrine of the trinity is heretical. To deny the deity of Christ is heresy. Do we continue our debate without pointing things out. Even the Bible points such things out as "damnable heresies." We should be no less condemnatory in our treatment of actual heresy.
But again, attack the false doctrine; not the person.
DHK

 

[Mishelly]

Of course debate is not heresy. But many of the topics are. And rejection of many of the doctrines are.

But the rejection of the trinity is a heresy and should be labeled as such. Attack the doctrine and not the person. Instead of saying you're a heretick; say that any view of God that rejects doctrine of the trinity is heretical. To deny the deity of Christ is heresy.

We should be no less condemnatory in our treatment of actual heresy.

But again, attack the false doctrine; not the person.
DHK

I agree with this raise:

My question is this, can one come to understand the other persons viewpoint with out being heretic?

I know the Trinity to be the Truth but how can one explain that to someone who does not with out knowing what they think on the matter?

 

[DHK]

I agree with this raise:

My question is this, can one come to understand the other persons viewpoint with out being heretic?

I know the Trinity to be the Truth but how can one explain that to someone who does not with out knowing what they think on the matter?

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Yes, and the Bible commands us to do so.

 

[John of Japan]

Of course debate is not heresy. But many of the topics are. And rejection of many of the doctrines are. Take the trinity for example. One can discuss it in the most civil manner without any reference to heresy or any kind of name-calling. And according to BB rules there shouldn't be any name-calling.
But the rejection of the trinity is a heresy and should be labeled as such. Attack the doctrine and not the person. Instead of saying you're a heretick; say that any view of God that rejects doctrine of the trinity is heretical. To deny the deity of Christ is heresy. Do we continue our debate without pointing things out. Even the Bible points such things out as "damnable heresies." We should be no less condemnatory in our treatment of actual heresy.
But again, attack the false doctrine; not the person.
DHK

Well said, DHK! :thumbs:

 

[canadyjd]

Well said, DHK! :thumbs:

Ditto:thumbs:

peace to youraise:

 

[Bro Tony]

I would agree we should not "attack" anyone, but is calling someone who is a heretic, a heretic, an attack? The Bible tells us to expose the works of darkness. We are to point out not only the false prophecies and heresies, but also the false prophets and heretics. It is not an "attack", it is their teachings that expose them for what they are.

Bro Tony

 

[npetreley]

2 Timothy 2:24-25 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

Yes, and the Bible commands us to do so.

Since Jesus and Paul were often downright abrasive and insulting to certain audiences, how do you reconcile that with these instructions?

 

[DHK]

Since Jesus and Paul were often downright abrasive and insulting to certain audiences, how do you reconcile that with these instructions?

Jesus said: Don't cast your pearls before swine.

Concerning religious leaders, Paul said:
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

Leaders such as Benny Hinn who pretend to be Christians and are not; Cult leaders; leaders of false religions such as Islam, etc. need to be exposed as heretics before all, publicly. There is no doubt about this. They are leaders expounding their doctrine publicly. When a person preaches publicly their false doctrine, they need to be exposted publicly as a false teacher.
However, when one professes to be a Christian on this board, for example, and is a debate with another poster it is somewhat unethical to call him a heretic. Perhaps the exception to this rule was when we had Catholic e-pologists on this board who were here for no other reason than advertising Catholicism and recruiting people to Catholicism. In that case Catholcism needed to be exposed and these teachers needed to be shown that they beleived in heresy, and therefore were heretics. They needed to be sharply rebuked. They were the foremost leaders in their religion.
DHK