Heresy

[Thinkingstuff]

Has anyone other than myself notice the heresy accusations get thrown around like candy? Which I find funny since baptist are primary local churches (which a few may join together to help finance mission and other evanglelization works) rather than churches like the RCC, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbeterians, etc... which have a denomination wide standard belief system. Baptist really can't call someone a heretic out side of their local church body. That's like calling a moslem a heretic. He can't really be a heretic because he doesn't claim to be a christian

Main Entry: her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

You can't dissent from a body not your own. Unless of course people believe in a universality of christian believers. Like you can't call an Englishman a traitor to the American cause because that was never their cause. Just a thought:type:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How then does the Bible define heresy?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I remember long ago hearing a preacher in a sermon say, "Heresy is the wrong answer to a right questition."

 

[DHK]

1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

We are not Catholics, and need not go by a RCC definition. Thus the first one doesn't apply to us.
The second definition is more fitting.
It is one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
For example, I don't believe any of the tenets of Calvin, no, not one.
Thus, a Calvinist may come right out and call me a heretic. To him, I may be one. That is his opinion. But it is I who stand on the Word of God, not Calvin, and believe that I am Biblically correct. I will not be as passionate in this area as to call them heretics but rather misled, and dismiss it as a matter of soul liberty.

Any denial of the great fundamentals of the faith upon which we all agree, accepted down throughout all ages, is heresy--the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth, etc.
Any one who dissents from these accepted doctrines is a heretic.

What is your definition as an "accepted doctrine?" Premillennialism?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

We are not Catholics, and need not go by a RCC definition. Thus the first one doesn't apply to us.
The second definition is more fitting.
It is one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
For example, I don't believe any of the tenets of Calvin, no, not one.
Thus, a Calvinist may come right out and call me a heretic. To him, I may be one. That is his opinion. But it is I who stand on the Word of God, not Calvin, and believe that I am Biblically correct. I will not be as passionate in this area as to call them heretics but rather misled, and dismiss it as a matter of soul liberty.

Any denial of the great fundamentals of the faith upon which we all agree, accepted down throughout all ages, is heresy--the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth, etc.
Any one who dissents from these accepted doctrines is a heretic.

What is your definition as an "accepted doctrine?" Premillennialism?

Why the barb on Calvinism?

Any denial of the great fundamentals of the faith upon which we all agree, accepted down throughout all ages, is heresy--the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth, etc.

This I agree with.

If you teach another Gospel, or even a perverted one, you woud be a heretic. The Standard is the Word of God. What's stupid about your calvinism comment is it suggests calvinism originated with John Calvin and it is John Calvin that calvnists believe and follow. Tell me that isn't your view.

RB

 

[webdog]

We are not Catholics, and need not go by a RCC definition. Thus the first one doesn't apply to us.
The second definition is more fitting.
It is one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
For example, I don't believe any of the tenets of Calvin, no, not one.
Thus, a Calvinist may come right out and call me a heretic. To him, I may be one. That is his opinion. But it is I who stand on the Word of God, not Calvin, and believe that I am Biblically correct. I will not be as passionate in this area as to call them heretics but rather misled, and dismiss it as a matter of soul liberty.

Any denial of the great fundamentals of the faith upon which we all agree, accepted down throughout all ages, is heresy--the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the virgin birth, etc.
Any one who dissents from these accepted doctrines is a heretic.

What is your definition as an "accepted doctrine?" Premillennialism?

So, since Lordship Salvation is both accepted and rejected, calling it a false teaching is not calling the person who teaches it a heretic, as you keep accusing me of.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So, since Lordship Salvation is both accepted and rejected, calling it a false teaching is not calling the person who teaches it a heretic, as you keep accusing me of.

I agree. Check the other thread. I can't recall any personal attack you have made on me, even though we have disagreed several times.

 

[DHK]

If you teach another Gospel, or even a perverted one, you woud be a heretic. The Standard is the Word of God. What's stupid about your calvinism comment is it suggests calvinism originated with John Calvin and it is John Calvin that calvnists believe and follow. Tell me that isn't your view.

RB

Since you are a Calvinist and I am not, I take the liberty not to express my view on this thread for it is not on Calvinism. I only used it as an example, as how quickly people with passionate views can easily start defending a position to the extent where others might be given an unfair label. I think I proved my point.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Since you are a Calvinist and I am not, I take the liberty not to express my view on this thread for it is not on Calvinism. I only used it as an example, as how quickly people with passionate views can easily start defending a position to the extent where others might be given an unfair label. I think I proved my point.

If your trying to be sensitive to others then try using different examples.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How then does the Bible define heresy?

I would enjoy seeing if you can show how the bible defines heresy.

As far as DHK. "An accepted belief or Doctrine" was my point. Accepted by who. To be a heretic you must claim to be of a body and then teach against its accepted teachings. Thus for baptist I find it particularly facinating because all claim a level of independence. So, If I being a member of my church teach something agains what it believes then I am a heretic. If I teach the samething in the same body but it also is against Presbeterians they can't really claims that I am a heretic since I am not a part of their system. Unless presumptively argue that they hold the only accepted beliefs of All Christendom. Since there are so many beliefs in Christianity by nature of claiming a particular denomination you are in effect somebodies heretic. But baptist do not believe in a universality of Christianity (generally speaking) So they can only consider their local church (unless southern baptist by nature of agreed upon beliefs). Maybe we should go around calling people infidels. Probably more appropiate. Ie if you believe LS vs. free grace then you're a heretic (which by its very nature means a person does not believe right enough to be saved and therefore not really a christian).

Studing Church history I find that as we throw around the term heretic it has lost it vehemence. It would cause by nature excommunication (exclusion from fellowship). Seperation from community. In the US community doesn't mean what it did then. You couldn't sell or trade unless in community. Often it meant that you had to start a new with out the convention of people knowing you. Many times it ended in death. WE on this site throw around the word like it is nothing and I guess in today's world it is nothing. And no one can really argue against you since when people die you have no way of determining if they indeed "saved". Everyone uses Scriptures to point out their perspectives. And to be honest I find it funny and a bit ludicrous. And here is the kicker - We're protestants! Here a heretic there a heretic everywhere a heretic, heretic, e i e i o. I'm being a bit facetious because reading this stuff I started laughing.

My core beliefs? Fundemental truths? ok -> The Lord thy God is one God. One God three hypostasis all homoosiouos. The incarnation of Jesus Christ. 2 natures one divine one human fully both. the virgin birth by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived taught and was crusified under Potius Pilate. Jesus rose again on the third day in fulfillment of the scripture. I believe that he will come again to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end. I believe that you must believe to be saved and justified. I believe that I will be raised in the last day physically. I believe that scriptures are authoritative and are for the edification, training in all righteousness. To me this is fundemental.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

As far as escatological (spelling?) or end of the world senario I don't buy into Tim Lehay or that kind of senario. I don't believe that Moses, Abraham were seperate types of believers that they believed in Jesus just as we do. Though they did not know the fulfillment of it. I believe that Christianity is God's fulfillment of the scriptures. I don't believe there will be a time when God says ok Gentiles you're time is up to bad so sad your dad. Jews I'm thowing the ball back to you. Jesus said that his kingdom is near and even at hand. Which I take to mean that christianity is his kingdom as are the hearts of those who believe in him. I don't believe in a partial return of Jesus and then a full return but a full return and judgement.

 

[Marcia]

Heresy is denying one of the essentials of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ. Most heresies have to do with the nature of God, which is why Modalism was condemned as a heresy in the 3rd century, Arianism was a heresy, and plenty of others, all of which are still around today, but in other forms. So Oneness Pentecostalism is a heresy, the JWs beliefs are heresy, the Mormon beliefs are heresy, etc.

Not being a Calvinist is not a heresy, as some here seem to think. No one here so far is denying the nature of God or Christ or the Holy Spirit as taught in Scripture or the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Heresy divides Christian from non-Christian based on biblical doctrine.

 

[Amy.G]

My core beliefs? Fundemental truths? ok -> The Lord thy God is one God. One God three hypostasis all homoosiouos. The incarnation of Jesus Christ. 2 natures one divine one human fully both. the virgin birth by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus lived taught and was crusified under Potius Pilate. Jesus rose again on the third day in fulfillment of the scripture. I believe that he will come again to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end. I believe that you must believe to be saved and justified. I believe that I will be raised in the last day physically. I believe that scriptures are authoritative and are for the edification, training in all righteousness. To me this is fundemental.

What about the MK? What are your beliefs on that?

I'm collecting data as I am getting ready to embark on a major study of end times.

(I'm probably going to be asking LOTS of questions on the BB, so watch out :laugh: )

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What about the MK? What are your beliefs on that?

I'm collecting data as I am getting ready to embark on a major study of end times.

(I'm probably going to be asking LOTS of questions on the BB, so watch out :laugh: )

That is quite an undertaking. I could go into it with you. But in order to have an appreciation for end time studies having a knowledge of Apocalyptic literature is a must. You will find language is symbolic and number represent something rather than being mathmatically perfect. I've mentioned this before. I'm sure 1,000 years in the ancient world could have meant (I'm quoting from Carl Sagan "billions and billions of stars") a very long time. Most baptist will take the exact meaning of 1,000 years as just that but I could go on and on. Do the math of weeks in Daniel and see what you come up with. You also have to have a good idea of the 2nd temple period literature. I bought translations of the Qumran find to see what the Essenes were saying and you would be quite suprised. Flusser has put a good book on this literature. Don't forget what most protestant bibles exclude from the LXX is also key on understanding this apocalyptic literature. So an understanding of what happened after Malachi and before Matthew is important. Antiochus IV plays a major role and first puts up the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus later describes the Abomination of Desolation (when you see this) It happens that Caligular errected a statue of himself in the temple just before it and Jerusalem was destroyed. There are many things to take into account. I'll be glad to share more. But I think that some here would stone me to death because I don't agree with the claims of Hal Lindsay or Lehaye. They make for great flights of fancy but doctrinally I find it a streatch especially when taking history into context. You might want to get Josephus to cross reference the occurences of the Sulucid and Ptolemaic rules.

 

[Amy.G]

That is quite an undertaking. I could go into it with you. But in order to have an appreciation for end time studies having a knowledge of Apocalyptic literature is a must. You will find language is symbolic and number represent something rather than being mathmatically perfect. I've mentioned this before. I'm sure 1,000 years in the ancient world could have meant (I'm quoting from Carl Sagan "billions and billions of stars") a very long time. Most baptist will take the exact meaning of 1,000 years as just that but I could go on and on. Do the math of weeks in Daniel and see what you come up with. You also have to have a good idea of the 2nd temple period literature. I bought translations of the Qumran find to see what the Essenes were saying and you would be quite suprised. Flusser has put a good book on this literature. Don't forget what most protestant bibles exclude from the LXX is also key on understanding this apocalyptic literature. So an understanding of what happened after Malachi and before Matthew is important. Antiochus IV plays a major role and first puts up the Abomination of Desolation. Jesus later describes the Abomination of Desolation (when you see this) It happens that Caligular errected a statue of himself in the temple just before it and Jerusalem was destroyed. There are many things to take into account. I'll be glad to share more. But I think that some here would stone me to death because I don't agree with the claims of Hal Lindsay or Lehaye. They make for great flights of fancy but doctrinally I find it a streatch especially when taking history into context. You might want to get Josephus to cross reference the occurences of the Sulucid and Ptolemaic rules.

Oh my goodness TS. Why does it have to be so complicated? Why would God make it so hard to understand? Why are people so divided over this? Surely the answers are in God's word, but why can't we all see it? Even on the BB, there are many different interpretations. Who's right? Is anyone right? And how did they figure it out?
This one requires a lot of prayer.

Thanks for your help. I'm interested in all your views. No stoning allowed! :laugh:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Oh my goodness TS. Why does it have to be so complicated? Why would God make it so hard to understand? Why are people so divided over this? Surely the answers are in God's word, but why can't we all see it? Even on the BB, there are many different interpretations. Who's right? Is anyone right? And how did they figure it out?
This one requires a lot of prayer.

Thanks for your help. I'm interested in all your views. No stoning allowed! :laugh:

Good to see you studying hard on it. May the Lord give you understanding in that area. I look forward to your thoughts as you search it out.

RB

 

[Amy.G]

Good to see you studying hard on it. May the Lord give you understanding in that area. I look forward to your thoughts as you search it out.

RB

I look forward to your thoughts as well. Any help would be appreciated greatly! :thumbs:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I look forward to your thoughts as well. Any help would be appreciated greatly! :thumbs:

Are you going to study the Scriptures and then read some books on the subject or just the Scriptures?

RB

 

[Plain Old Bill]

You are a funny guy. EIEIO:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbs:

 

[Amy.G]

Are you going to study the Scriptures and then read some books on the subject or just the Scriptures?

RB

I'm going to study the scriptures first. One of my problems is that I've got too much info in my head from outside resources. I need to pray for amnesia and immerse myself in the word.