Is this a heresy?

[Aaron]

I've been trying to to say that heresy occurs within the local church, but apparently I wasn't clear enough on that, because your hypotheticals have been situations outside of the local church. A pastor has no control over what believers do in their own time.

So a heresy is a false teaching that divides members of a local church, but the division has to occur during one of the church's formal gatherings before it is heresy. That is what it seems you're saying.

 

[John of Japan]

So a heresy is a false teaching that divides members of a local church, but the division has to occur during one of the church's formal gatherings before it is heresy. That is what it seems you're saying.

Um, no. I have said not a word about any formal gatherings. Churches have a membership, do they not? That is implicit in the term ekklesia. My point is about a person who has attached himself to that ekklesia, began coming to the services, then teaches false doctrine among the membership. By this action he is inserting himself into the role of the pastor, something he is not qualified nor empowered to do.

If a pastor visits a sick member, he is fulfilling his duty. If a pastor visits a confused member to help him find God's will, that is fulfilling his duty. Those sheep are entrusted to him by God, and he shepherds them not just in the formal assembly, but all of the time.

 

[Aaron]

Um, no. I have said not a word about any formal gatherings. Churches have a membership, do they not? That is implicit in the term ekklesia. My point is about a person who has attached himself to that ekklesia, began coming to the services, then teaches false doctrine among the membership. By this action he is inserting himself into the role of the pastor, something he is not qualified nor empowered to do.

If a pastor visits a sick member, he is fulfilling his duty. If a pastor visits a confused member to help him find God's will, that is fulfilling his duty. Those sheep are entrusted to him by God, and he shepherds them not just in the formal assembly, but all of the time.

Does the teaching have to be formal? I ask, because in the situation I posed, the errant member influenced other members in the normal course of their fellowship.

There is a member, he comes to services, has been influenced by a Presbyterian friend, in the normal course of his fellowship with other members of the church has influenced them, they decide the Presbyterians have it right, leave and join the Presbyterians.

I don't see how they aren't judged heretics, and the Presbyterian doctrine as heresy according to your standard. What would have to be added to the mix to make them heretics, and the doctrine heresy?

 

[John of Japan]

Does the teaching have to be formal? I ask, because in the situation I posed, the errant member influenced other members in the normal course of their fellowship.

There is a member, he comes to services, has been influenced by a Presbyterian friend, in the normal course of his fellowship with other members of the church has influenced them, they decide the Presbyterians have it right, leave and join the Presbyterians.

I don't see how they aren't judged heretics, and the Presbyterian doctrine as heresy according to your standard. What would have to be added to the mix to make them heretics, and the doctrine heresy?

It looks to me like to make this all fit for you I'd have to deliniate my complete ecclesiology and my pastoral theology, both. :type: But I appreciate the questions. They help me articulate my position better. So I'll try to answer.

When someone from another church interacts with someone from my church, that is an inter-church matter and not yet heresy. The individual believer is a priest and can decide his own doctrine. However, as soon as that member of my church begins purposefully influencing other members of my church outside of the purview of his position in the church, it can become heresy, and that member is subject to church discipline.

So, in the case you are telling me about, yes, in the case of this post it has apparently become a matter of heresy, subject to church discipline.

I hope this helps. For a view similar to mine on ecclesiology, see Ecclesia, by B. H. Carroll. For a good discussion of church discipline that I like, see Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, by Edward Hiscox, Ch. 7. Hiscox lists "false doctrine" as a cause for church discipline, defined as, "Holding and teaching doctrines fundamentally false, contrary to the law of God, as understood by the body, and subversive of their accepted faith" (p. 181).

 

[Aaron]

I think we're more alike, than not. I'm more strict in what I would call a heresy, and who I would call a heretic, but I see the reasoning behind your point of view.

 

[John of Japan]

I think we're more alike, than not. I'm more strict in what I would call a heresy, and who I would call a heretic, but I see the reasoning behind your point of view.

It's been a good discussion. Thanks!

 

[Yeshua1]

It looks to me like to make this all fit for you I'd have to deliniate my complete ecclesiology and my pastoral theology, both. :type: But I appreciate the questions. They help me articulate my position better. So I'll try to answer.

When someone from another church interacts with someone from my church, that is an inter-church matter and not yet heresy. The individual believer is a priest and can decide his own doctrine. However, as soon as that member of my church begins purposefully influencing other members of my church outside of the purview of his position in the church, it can become heresy, and that member is subject to church discipline.

So, in the case you are telling me about, yes, in the case of this post it has apparently become a matter of heresy, subject to church discipline.

I hope this helps. For a view similar to mine on ecclesiology, see Ecclesia, by B. H. Carroll. For a good discussion of church discipline that I like, see Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, by Edward Hiscox, Ch. 7. Hiscox lists "false doctrine" as a cause for church discipline, defined as, "Holding and teaching doctrines fundamentally false, contrary to the law of God, as understood by the body, and subversive of their accepted faith" (p. 181).

Think that a lot of this topic depends upon the "heart" of the baptist/Pentacostalist, as my former pastor in Assemblies of God would teach as a baptist most of the time, and he would NOT be advocating his particulars doctrines if asked to preach, but things that we all agree upon!

In fact, anIBF elder came to that church to hear him teach on the second coming of Christ, pre trib pre mill, and complimented him on "teaching as a baptist!"

 

[John of Japan]

Think that a lot of this topic depends upon the "heart" of the baptist/Pentacostalist, as my former pastor in Assemblies of God would teach as a baptist most of the time, and he would NOT be advocating his particulars doctrines if asked to preach, but things that we all agree upon!

In fact, anIBF elder came to that church to hear him teach on the second coming of Christ, pre trib pre mill, and complimented him on "teaching as a baptist!"

The old line Pentecostals were more likely to be solid in their general doctrine, and many of those groups were solid fundamentalists (in the original proper sense, not the media inspired sense of today).

 

[Yeshua1]

The old line Pentecostals were more likely to be solid in their general doctrine, and many of those groups were solid fundamentalists (in the original proper sense, not the media inspired sense of today).

yes, as the Assemblies of God would be baptist like in eschatology/salvation/Bible/etc, its just they also had their "particular" views on the Spriit and how He operated today!

Also think that Seminary trained pastors in Assemblies more "open" to other concepts/views, as they would tend to see the Spirit more as empower us to witness than just focusing in on tongues!