Is this a heresy?

[preachinjesus]

I checked "No, it is not heresy."

Differences on the nature of tongues and their application to the life of a believer are difference in doctrine, not foundational belief.

I apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. Given that ecstatic experiences existed throughout the early church (including the apostolic age) I do not generally believe that teachings on the use and application of a doctrine of miraculous gifts is (within reason) close to heretical teaching. It is a doctrinal difference. We must do doctrinal triage, supporting the foundational, doctrinal, and preferential. Not everything is foundational.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First of all, the original meaning of the Greek word was not "a minority opinion." That is the etymology of the English word from the 1200s, which came from the Latin/Greek word. The etymology of the word in Greek is unknown, but its usage in Classical Greek is to take or conquer, or to choose for one's self. (My reference for this is the "middle Liddel." lexicon, Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon.)

Secondly, even if you were correct about the original meaning of the Biblical word, in modern semantics it is called the "root fallacy" to say that the original meaning, the etymology, carries on as the primary meaning of the word. What is much more important is the contemporary meaning of the word; that is, how is it used in the society of the 1st century? For a good explanation of this see D. A. Carson's book, Exegetical Fallacies.

In this thread I have referred to the usage of the Greek word hairesis, heresy, to individual NT churches by the Apostle Paul. This is the meaning in question in this thread. The meaning I am giving as a doctrine that causes division in a church is right in line with the major koine lexicons. BAGD says, "opinion, dogma; 'destructive opinions' (2 Pe 3:1). For "heretic" (hairetikos) it gives "factious, causing divisions." I could give meanings from several other lexicons if you like.

As a linguist and a scholar of church history myself, I am quire certain that what I wrote is true. And a minority opinion may or may not be divisive.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The teaching of tongues is always accompanied by the doctrine that it is the sign (THE sign) of the fullness/baptism of the Holy Spirit, the second blessing doctrine which Pentecostalism borrowed from the 19th century holiness (which did not teach tongues). It is significant that awaken has refused to answer me on this point--whether or not he believes that tongues are the sign of the fullness/baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I know you're having fun here, but it is much harder to avoid someone when they are coming to your church. And Paul was writing to a local church. So the obvious conclusion is that the trouble maker, the division causer, must be disciplined out of the church.

That is quite untrue. I can name at least two denominations which do not hold to that. One, the Vineyard Church movement; two, the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I checked "No, it is not heresy."

Differences on the nature of tongues and their application to the life of a believer are difference in doctrine, not foundational belief.

I apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. Given that ecstatic experiences existed throughout the early church (including the apostolic age) I do not generally believe that teachings on the use and application of a doctrine of miraculous gifts is (within reason) close to heretical teaching. It is a doctrinal difference. We must do doctrinal triage, supporting the foundational, doctrinal, and preferential. Not everything is foundational.

I tend to agree with you.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree with your conclusion regarding discipline of the trouble maker but I really am not having fun.

Sorry about the mis-characterization.

I know I have posted contentious threads on this Forum but I believe they addressed certain errors within the Baptist Church or at least differences in doctrine. Frankly I believe that "awaken" has posted some threads that, if not deliberately divisive, have posed questions that have long been settled among Baptists. That is the real reason I have avoided most of his threads.

I understand. I have not avoided his threads because I have had such sorrow as a pastor from such doctrine, that I wanted to be sure his points were carefully and Biblically answered.

This is a true story. Some years ago a man in my SS class made the remark: "Jesus Christ had to go to hell to be purged of sin." I asked for Scripture but he could present none. Some months later he made the same remark. I told him that if he could not justify that statement by Scripture not to repeat it again. Sometime later he left the Church. I don't know what I would have done if he had started that nonsense again but something for sure. At that time I had not read anything about the Word of Faith heresy but I believe that is where he got that nonsense. I suggested to "awaken" early on that I thought he was tainted by Word of Faith which he denied knowing about.

That man certainly was certainly spouting heresy, and could have split the church easily.

 

[John of Japan]

As a linguist and a scholar of church history myself, I am quire certain that what I wrote is true.

Then we cordially disagree. Do you have any scholarly source for your view (since you apparently don't like BAGD's definition)?

And a minority opinion may or may not be divisive.

I agree with this statement as it stands. I just don't agree that "minority opinion" fits the semantic bill for such NT usages as "heretic" in Titus 3:10 or "heresies" in Gal. 5:20.

 

[John of Japan]

That is quite untrue. I can name at least two denominations which do not hold to that. One, the Vineyard Church movement; two, the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship.

Then I have to regroup. I know you are right about the Vineyard Church movement. Though I don't know the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship, but I'm sure you're right there too.

 

[John of Japan]

I checked "No, it is not heresy."

Differences on the nature of tongues and their application to the life of a believer are difference in doctrine, not foundational belief.

I apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. Given that ecstatic experiences existed throughout the early church (including the apostolic age) I do not generally believe that teachings on the use and application of a doctrine of miraculous gifts is (within reason) close to heretical teaching. It is a doctrinal difference. We must do doctrinal triage, supporting the foundational, doctrinal, and preferential. Not everything is foundational.

I also apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. My point is not that a heresy is simply a teaching I believe to be false, it is a teaching that divides the local church. At the moment it divides it becomes a heresy.

Surely you wouldn't argue that tongues do not ever divide churches? Famed church historian Martin Marty wrote, "The standard-brand churches remained nervous about pentecostal outbreaks and intrusions. From some points of view, the nervousness was well-grounded" ("Pentecostalism in American Piety and Practice," in Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. by charismatic Vinson Synan, p. 227). John MacArthur wrote, "Perhaps the most serious damage done to the church by the charismatic movement has been precisely in this matter of unity. Who knows how many thousands of churches have split over charismatic teaching? The number would surely be staggering" (Charismatic Chaos, p. 356).

 

[John of Japan]

That is quite untrue. I can name at least two denominations which do not hold to that. One, the Vineyard Church movement; two, the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship.

For the record, awaken has finally answered me on another thread about whether or not tongues are the sign of the baptism of the Spirit. He says he doesn't know.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Then we cordially disagree. Do you have any scholarly source for your view (since you apparently don't like BAGD's definition)?

Yes, and we can do that -- cordially disagree. I have sources but can't post them now.

I agree with this statement as it stands. I just don't agree that "minority opinion" fits the semantic bill for such NT usages as "heretic" in Titus 3:10 or "heresies" in Gal. 5:20.

A note about "heretics": Often in the history of the church, who was a heretic depended on who was in power and making the charge; for example, when the Arians were in the ascendancy and in power in the Empire, Trinitarianism was the heresy. Athanasius, defender of Trinitarianism, was banished and driven into exile five times because of his beliefs.

About Titus 3:10 -- In probably the most literal translation ever produced, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the word used is "party-man". Interesting, right?

 

[John of Japan]

A note about "heretics": Often in the history of the church, who was a heretic depended on who was in power and making the charge; for example, when the Arians were in the ascendancy and in power in the Empire, Trinitarianism was the heresy. Athanasius, defender of Trinitarianism, was banished and driven into exile five times because of his beliefs.

True in church history, of course.

About Titus 3:10 -- In probably the most literal translation ever produced, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the word used is "party-man". Interesting, right?

Interesting? Hmm. Odd is the word I would use. You could take it as "party animal" in the modern vernacular! :laugh: "Young's" has "a sectarian man."

 

[John of Japan]

I checked "No, it is not heresy."

Differences on the nature of tongues and their application to the life of a believer are difference in doctrine, not foundational belief.

I apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. Given that ecstatic experiences existed throughout the early church (including the apostolic age) I do not generally believe that teachings on the use and application of a doctrine of miraculous gifts is (within reason) close to heretical teaching. It is a doctrinal difference. We must do doctrinal triage, supporting the foundational, doctrinal, and preferential. Not everything is foundational.

Did such teachings occur in the 1st century church? Arguable.

Did they occur after that? Only in the Montanists as far as I know. Do you know of some other group?

Eusebius (c. 260-c. 340) in his work The History of the Church only tells us about the Montanists that they were strongly opposed by many. He himself says about Montanus, "Then he secretly stirred up and inflamed minds closed to the true Faith, raising up in this way two others--women who he filled with the sham spirit, so that they chattered crazily, inopportunely, and wildly, like Montanus himself" (G. A. Williamson's translation, Dorset Press, 1965, p. 219).

 

[Michael Wrenn]

True in church history, of course.


Interesting? Hmm. Odd is the word I would use. You could take it as "party animal" in the modern vernacular! :laugh: "Young's" has "a sectarian man."

Yep, but not in Rotherham's day.

The use and definition of the words "heretic" and "heresy" as most understand it today is due to the Roman Catholic Church redefining early on what the words originally meant.

 

[John of Japan]

Yep, but not in Rotherham's day.

The use and definition of the words "heretic" and "heresy" as most understand it today is due to the Roman Catholic Church redefining early on what the words originally meant.

And I think that is a very unfortunate error.

 

[John of Japan]

Did such teachings occur in the 1st century church? Arguable.

Did they occur after that? Only in the Montanists as far as I know. Do you know of some other group?

Eusebius (c. 260-c. 340) in his work The History of the Church only tells us about the Montanists that they were strongly opposed by many. He himself says about Montanus, "Then he secretly stirred up and inflamed minds closed to the true Faith, raising up in this way two others--women who he filled with the sham spirit, so that they chattered crazily, inopportunely, and wildly, like Montanus himself" (G. A. Williamson's translation, Dorset Press, 1965, p. 219).

According to church historian Lars Qualben, Montanus had previously to conversion been a priest of Cybele (A History of the Christian Church, p. 86). Qualben writes, "They ushered in a new type of prophecy...closely akin to the ecstatic visions and wild frenzies of the priests of Cybele. The prophet claimed to fall into a trance or ecstatic transport..." (ibid, 87).

Well, well, it so happens that Cybele's cult (a mystery religion of the day) was an early non-Christian tongues cult! Coincidence? I don't think so. I think the Montanist tongues came straight from heathenism.

Furthermore, these early tongues speakers were divisive. According to another historian, Irenaeus made a trip to Rome from the church at Lyons "to convey and uphold their opinion on one of the questions then most deeply agitating the church. This was the heresy of Montanus, who had gained many adherents at Lyons as in Italy" (The Early Years of Christianity, by E. de Pressense, trans. by Annie Harwood, p. 255). Note that this historian wrote in 1870, long before the modern Charismatic movement existed. He also wrote, "Montanism, founded by the Phrygian Montanus, profoundly agitated the Church of the second century" (p. 136). In other words, tongues were divisive in the 2nd century, they are in the 21st century, they will always be divisive. And the Holy Spirit doesn't lead in ways that will divide a genuine, Biblical local church.

 

[preachinjesus]

I also apply the term "heresy" in a strict way. My point is not that a heresy is simply a teaching I believe to be false, it is a teaching that divides the local church. At the moment it divides it becomes a heresy.

That isn't my definition of heresy. If you do reductio absurdum on your definition the color of carpet one suggests could be viewed in terms of heresy. That isn't tenable imho.

Surely you wouldn't argue that tongues do not ever divide churches? Famed church historian Martin Marty wrote, "The standard-brand churches remained nervous about pentecostal outbreaks and intrusions. From some points of view, the nervousness was well-grounded" ("Pentecostalism in American Piety and Practice," in Aspects of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, ed. by charismatic Vinson Synan, p. 227). John MacArthur wrote, "Perhaps the most serious damage done to the church by the charismatic movement has been precisely in this matter of unity. Who knows how many thousands of churches have split over charismatic teaching? The number would surely be staggering" (Charismatic Chaos, p. 356).

Well I'm not a fan of quoting Dr MacArthur on this issue. His stance is too extreme. However, I don't see how honest differences over a doctrinal view should be riled up to charges of heresy. Tongues can be as contentious as one makes them out to be. Just because an issue divides a church doesn't make it rise to the level of heresy.

Recently a friend of mine (honestly this is a friend) had a group of more established members of his church come to him and state that if he didn't stop preaching from the NIV (he uses 1984) and go back to using hymns only in the services they were going to leave the church. This group represented about 100 of his members. Now the church was growing like crazy and he had no desire to change his methodology to go backwards and chase off the new members and new Christians that were in the church. That said, even in this case this isn't heresy.

I don't understand how Baptists can make such a big deal about an issue the NT clearly teaches on and shows evidence of its employment. While I do not speak in tongues nor have a private prayer language, it isn't my place to accuse and speak down to someone who does. So long as it isn't a test for salvation (that is a different issue) I think we can share common ground in our common faith.

Tongues isn't an issue for heresy.

Did such teachings occur in the 1st century church? Arguable.

Well clearly it was being used at Pentecost and beyond according to the NT. All of those books were written in the first century.

Did they occur after that? Only in the Montanists as far as I know. Do you know of some other group?

Well I think we need to be a bit more careful about dismissing the Montanists. They were a pretty influential group that only deviated from other orthodox churches in the North Africa over the nature of ecstatic experience (well there were a couple of other issues.) They also got Tertullian to be a member of their group. That should say something.

However I think you can find plenty of examples of ecstatic experiences in the early church. Ignatius of Antioch points out a number of instances in his ministry where early Christians were experiencing these gifts. The Didache makes note of Agabus who spoke in tongues (or some kind of holy ecstatic language.) There are a number of other citations in other aprocyphal texts from the second and third centuries. In fact I believe, if I'm correct, you can find evidences of people speaking in tongues or prophesying in miraculous gifts across all the major patristic authors through the fourth century.

So I don't think we can automatically declare someone who is teaching on this subject as being a heretic. If for no other reason than the NT clearly shows us there are experiences of this in the apostolic age and has doctrinal content on the use of and interpretation of tongues.

 

[DHK]

That is quite untrue. I can name at least two denominations which do not hold to that. One, the Vineyard Church movement; two, the Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship.

I think you are wrong about the Vineyard Movement. They are part of the Third Wave Movement and one of the most extreme.

During the 1990s, the Vineyard was widely criticized by conservative Christians due to events during a series of revival meetings at the then Toronto Vineyard. These meetings, dubbed the Toronto Blessing, gained notoriety due to the large crowds, lengthy meetings, and reports of unorderly manifestations of the Holy Spirit, including people laughing, crying, and shaking.[21] Critics, such as Hank Hanegraaf in his book, "Counterfeit Revival", charged the Toronto Blessing (under Wimber's authority at the time) with promoting heresy for three main reasons: first, claiming unusual experiences of the Holy Spirit including physical responses, speaking in tongues, and prophesying; second, claiming that these experiences of spiritual revelation were equal in importance to the Bible; and third, claiming that these experiences were a sign that God was doing "something new."[22] Hanegraaf held that the Toronto Blessing (and thus the Vineyard movement) was denying sola scriptura or the “sufficiency of Scripture”, a doctrinal tenet that Protestant churches have held to be incontrovertibly true, by suggesting that all believers should come to see what "new thing" God was doing in Toronto. To cessationist and conservative thinking, this "new thing" felt dangerous and potentially cultist, putting the inerrant word of God on equal footing with the expression of a spiritual gift or, in the Hanagraaf's position, undermining the Bible with false teachings.[22] Ultimately, the Toronto church was released from the Vineyard movement due to the controversy of how the meetings were being handled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Vineyard_Churches

The barking like dogs and hissing like snakes and such other "manifestations of the Spirit" were common with them, and became a kind of trademark of theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Vineyard_Churches#cite_note-22

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I think you are wrong about the Vineyard Movement. They are part of the Third Wave Movement and one of the most extreme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Vineyard_Churches

The barking like dogs and hissing like snakes and such other "manifestations of the Spirit" were common with them, and became a kind of trademark of theirs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Vineyard_Churches#cite_note-22

I was talking about the issue of baptism of the Holy Spirit with initial evidence of tongues and how they differ with traditional Pentecostals and Charismatics on that.

 

[DHK]

I was talking about the issue of baptism of the Holy Spirit with initial evidence of tongues and how they differ with traditional Pentecostals and Charismatics on that.

The Charismatic movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement, and the Vineyard (or Third Wave) grew out of the Charismatic Movement (the Charismatics being the Second Wave). The "barking like a dog" etc., are still manifestations of the Spirit and are considered a subsequent blessing. Thus it is not substantially different from those who believe that tongues is a result from being baptized by the Spirit.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Charismatic movement grew out of the Pentecostal movement, and the Vineyard (or Third Wave) grew out of the Charismatic Movement (the Charismatics being the Second Wave). The "barking like a dog" etc., are still manifestations of the Spirit and are considered a subsequent blessing. Thus it is not substantially different from those who believe that tongues is a result from being baptized by the Spirit.

But it is different in that one aspect.