Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I disagree. Look at Scripture:I'm just saying that to call one a heretic, he must hold a doctrine erroneous enough that if believed, he cannot be called a Christian, whether or not in your view he was born again.
And in each case of the churches mentioned the ones causing the divisions were put out of the church for causing division: Charismatics, Calvinists, and for propagation of an errant theology.The faction or division has to be over something false. Truth is hotter and has caused more division and splits in local groups than any heresy. Christ is the Truth, and we killed Him. Was He a heretic?
A heresy is a false doctrine. It's error is grievous enough to warrant putting one who holds it out of the church, i.e. splitting him from the body of Christ, i.e. delivering him to Satan.
That's the denotative meaning, but not the Scriptural use. In Scripture it means false doctrine. We are commanded to reject a heretic, not because what he says is true yet not well-received, but because what he says is false and antithetical to faith in Christ.The local church has the right to believe what they believe is right. Others don't have the right to come in and cause division. That is heretical.
I'm going by how it's used in the Scriptures. No church has the right to reject one that Christ has received.And in each case of the churches mentioned the ones causing the divisions were put out of the church for causing division: Charismatics, Calvinists, and for propagation of an errant theology.
According to the Scripture I gave you heresy is that which causes division in the church. I would rather go by what the Bible says then by your definition.
Yes there is and to say there isn't is heresy. More than a few here believe you receive the Holy Spirit when you are saved but this is not always the case. Why should it be different than what scripture says it is.On the thread, "Is there a baptism in the Holy Spirit for today?"
I'm just saying that to call one a heretic, he must hold a doctrine erroneous enough that if believed, he cannot be called a Christian, whether or not in your view he was born again.
Therefore, I will assume you haven't thought this through Scripturally.Yes. As I stated above, a heretic is rejected. He is not allowed into the communion of saints. One may have an erroneous notion concerning things such as meat and wine, but he is received.
How can you say I gave you no Scripture? What I said was nearly verbatim. What does it mean to reject a heretic? What does it mean to receive a brother?Okay, I ask for Scripture for this:
And you give me this--no Scripture.
Therefore, I will assume you haven't thought this through Scripturally.
You provided no Scripture for your statement that "to call one a heretic, he must hold a doctrine erroneous enough that if believed, he cannot be called a Christian."How can you say I gave you no Scripture? What I said was nearly verbatim. What does it mean to reject a heretic? What does it mean to receive a brother?
I didn't think you needed the citation, but if you do I'll be happy to provide it.
So, it isn't that I haven't provided Scripture, it is that you have a different view of discipline. Matthew 18 says that he that is under discipline is to be regarded as a heathen and a publican. IOW, we are to regard them as unsaved. A nonchristian. Do we do that for light or transient reasons?You provided no Scripture for your statement that "to call one a heretic, he must hold a doctrine erroneous enough that if believed, he cannot be called a Christian."
This presupposes (with no Scripture evidence) that the only reason one is not received into the fellowship is that he or she is not worthy to be called a Christian for some reason. This ignores the complete concept of church discipline as outlined by the Savior in Matt. 18 and carried out in the church at Corinth, where a man was disfellowshipped and then later restored.
This is odd. You are asking me to discuss another thread, not this one, another OP, not the one I wrote.Yes there is and to say there isn't is heresy. More than a few here believe you receive the Holy Spirit when you are saved but this is not always the case. Why should it be different than what scripture says it is.
Act_8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
These people believed and had not received the Holy Spirit. Those who had been baptized in the name of Christ already have the Spirit. The Minister lays hands on them in Baptisim.
Act_19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
I ask that you show scripture that states we receive the Spirit any other way
In my humble opinion no one has ever given a good reason for not laying hands on others.
These verses do not say this is the only way to receive the Holy Spirit this is true yet scripture does not indicate other wise either. True that on pentecost men received but trully that hasn't happen again that I know of.
MB
Thanks for the explanation. This is better. I felt you were simply referring to Scripture with no exegesis. You've still not explained how we decide what doctrines are foundational and therefore are a basis for declaring heresy.So, it isn't that I haven't provided Scripture, it is that you have a different view of discipline. Matthew 18 says that he that is under discipline is to be regarded as a heathen and a publican. IOW, we are to regard them as unsaved. A nonchristian. Do we do that for light or transient reasons?
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Nice sidestep. :thumbsup: But there are Scriptures.That's up to the local church. :thumbs:
Right, like I'm going to be teaching as a doctrine the color of the carpet in my church.:laugh: I specifically and intentionally used the word "doctrine" in the OP.
John of Japan said:So if I get you right, for a doctrine to be heresy it has to be against foundational doctrine. Do you have Scripture for your definition? And how do we determine what is a foundational doctrine in your opinion? My view is taken from NT Greek semantics of the word hairesis. What is yours based upon? In fact, what is your definition?
John of Japan said:I take it from this that you view the modern Charismatic version of tongues as identical to those in the NT. Is that correct?
John of Japan said:I doubt seriously if these were the same kind of tongues seen in the modern movement, except for the Montanists, who apparently got their tongues from the Cybele cult.
I don't have time to look up all your references. It would be nice if you gave some quotes. For example, Agabus does not appear in the Didache, and I highly doubt if anything like tongues occurs in the Apostolic Fathers, which I have. So I would like references before I believe this point.
John of Japan said:This is not what I've done. My OP refers to someone not a member teaching tongues to members without the pastor knowing. This is not the same as someone simply teaching tongues. My definition of heresy revolves around the local church, not the universal church.
Church discipline can only applied to a local church.If you apply it to the local church and not the universal church, I can't do anything about it. I apply it to both the local and universal church.
Cheerio
Perfectly understandable.Apologies for the delay in replying, I had a busy season...
Of course it's not a heresy by my definition! Unless there is a doctrine of church carpets that I don't know about. Don't remember reading that in Strong or Berkhof or Erickson. :tongue3:Well you wanted an example of something that creates division. I'm just saying...carpet seems to be divisive in some churches. How is that not a heresy according to your definition?
Well, you're right that I should have been more specific about what kinds of doctrine are heresy. I would say that "false doctrine" is heresy. And what is false doctrine is to be determined by each autonomous local church.Now if you want to talk about a "teaching" how about churches that divide over the frequency of communion. So which one is a heresy? The church where I serve does communion once a quarter. The church I grew up in had communion services once a month. Other churches I know of have split over the frequency. So who is correct?
Actually, I believe we should be using linguistics even more in hermeneutics. I'm currently reading Lingistics and Biblical Interpretation, by Cotterell and Turner. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet. I believe it is the book that inspired David Alan Black's Linguistics for Students of NT Greek.Well first of all we need to be careful using Greek and attempting draw out far reaching conclusions. As the term αἵρεσις is used in the NT, it is more usually used to speak of a sect or faction of believers than error-laden teachers. A simple search of the word's use discovers it is isolated primarily to Acts with occurences in 1 Corinthians 11:19, Galatians 5:20, and 2 Peter 2:1.
The word is polysemous. The fact that it refers to sects in Acts doesn't mean it can't have another meaning given it in the epistles. Look it up in your lexicons.The Acts usage the word often refers to sects of a particular religion (usually Jewish.) I can't find a single translation that uses the term "heresy" in most of the occurrences. In Acts 5:17, the first usage, the term clearly indicates the Lukan descriptor of a sect, or faction, or denomination of Sadducees.
I wouldn't call intensifying. It's an adjective, not an intensifier, so it describes ἀπωλείας, it doesn't add to the meaning of the original word.In fact the only time I see the word "heresy" is when the term is linked with the intensifying ἀπωλείας. This shouldn't be surprising. However, to stretch the term, which clearly in other contexts carries a sect or denominational affiliation, to simply mean that it is anything which "divides" isn't in keeping with the NT intent/usage of the term.
The ESV has "divisions" and the HCSVB has "factions." How is that not what I'm interpreting a heresy as, especially in light of the fact that Galatians was written to combat the Judaite heresy?Maybe Galatians 5:20 would be useful, however only the KJV/NKJV use heresy for the term. The Vulgate doesn't even use heresy. All the major translations prefer to point out that Paul's point is these are factions which divide. Not heresies. The 2 Peter 2:1 text, when read in context and considered in light of the broader argument isn't speaking of an issue like tongues, inspiration, and such but is talking more epistemologically. A way of thinking that divides.
I understand how you desire to apply the term, however, I don't believe the NT supports your read.
It is my view that the tongues of 1 Cor. 14 are simply languages. I think the semantics of the original bears that out. They can't be the tongues of Acts 2 because they need interpretation and that was not needed in Acts.I would say the burden of proof is on you to show us how the historical case differs from the present usage.
Though I don't disagree that the NT evidences for tongues being primarily evidenced in discernible or translatable foreign languages. 1 Cor 14 is clear on the use of tongues like this as the edifying force of them. However, when we are speaking of a private prayer language (cf. 1 Cor 14:14) then we have a different issue.
The research of the lingusts I quoted show that the modern tongues of the Charismatics are without meaning and structure. How is baby talk supposed to edify?I am thankful for your citations of other works, however, my point here is that the NT teachings are that there are tongues and we are to be edified by their use. With a legitimate theological divergence over this issue where Scripture does agree that tongues are legitimate we simply cannot label them heresy and be done with it.
The point about Agabus is not slightly, it is completely incorrect. He wasn't even talking about tongues in Acts, much less in the Didache.Well, the onus is on you to show where the Apostolic Fathers don't practice tongues in the same fashion as the NT examples. The point about Agabus is slightly incorrect, I meant to draw back to Acts 11 where he is prophet interpreting and seeing events which come to pass through a kind of Spirit enlightened state.
As for examples, first look at Ignatius' letters to: The Magnesians 8; Ephesians 17; Smyrnians 9; Philadelphians 7; and to Polycarp 2.
So far you have proven completely unreliable in your references to ancient literature. So frankly, no offense but I'm hesitant to spend the time to look these up. Did you get all of these from someone else, or have you actually looked them up yourself? (I have previously read the discussion in Eusebious, but why should I take valuable time to look up the rest of these?Justin's Dialogues 39
The Epistle of Barnabus 16:9
The Acts of Thomas 10:20
In Tertullian, the whole Montanist episode is kind of self-explanatory, but perhaps you can start with Against Marcion 5.8-9 perhaps then his entire treatise on Baptism has points which are helpful. Also "On the Soul" 9 is rather specific. Of course one on the better text on Monatism is by De Soyres "Monatism and the Primitive Church" which is available for download at a number of places.
Eusebius records a number of these disputes and discussions in his history in book 5.
Clement of Alexandria has several passages, I'd point to Stromata 4:21.
Origen has plenty of references in his homilies (I'm not typing all those out, sorry)
The Apostolic Tradition points out other gifts which are miraculous and of the same type as tongues in chapter 14.
Cyprian is also helpful in Epistle 70:2-3.
I can keep going if necessary. There are other texts which can do a more complete job of showing all the necessary passages.
Even if they are the same, that says nothing about the modern tongues movement, which is what this thread is about.However, and we must return to this, the onus must be on you to prove that these ecstatic experiences are not the same as the NT examples we have been given. I just don't see it, especially since several texts reference the NT when talking about the ecstatic expressions.
At this point I think we're agreeing to disagree.Well I can't do anything if your OP doesn't lay out the complete case. In taking the OP at face value I simply commented, and still maintain, that teachings on tongues (which you weren't explicit about) are not heresy. If someone came into our church and starting teaching about tongues we would not consider them heretics, but would ask them to be reviewed and have a discussion about their position. If their position wasn't in line with Scripture and our doctrinal statement (which is conditioned by Scripture) we would ask them to stop teaching.
Just teaching a different doctrine than one we hold isn't enough to warrant the charge/label of heretic. Its a term thrown around with all too much ease and not enough substance. When it is ill-applied we end up with an assortment of beliefs that are our particular brand of theology and up for discussion in light of Church history.
If you apply it to the local church and not the universal church, I can't do anything about it. I apply it to both the local and universal church.
Cheerio
Okay, have a good one. :wavey:Glad you took the time to give my post its deserved attention. I'll better understand our interactions henceforth.