Is this a heresy?

[John of Japan]

On the thread, "Is there a baptism in the Holy Spirit for today?" I posed a hypothetical situation to awaken: "Joe is a tongues speaker. He starts attending a church, A LOCAL CHURCH not an Internet forum, and without the pastor knowing starts teaching Bill and Sam, members of that LOCAL CHURCH (not Internet forum) about tongues. Is he (not you) right to do this or wrong?"

Twice he refused to answer it, but I finally got an answer out of him: "If they were following God, I see no harm in sharing what they have learned with others."

I call this condoning heresy, which in the NT is division causing in the local church of Jesus Christ. If a minor doctrine like tongues is taught in a local church in this way, I believe the Bible is clear on that. Note for example that the admonition to reject a heretic was written to a local church pastor (Titus 3:10), and other admonitions about heresy were given to local churches (1 Cor. 11:9, Gal. 5:20, etc.). What say ye?

 

[glazer1972]

It is heresy.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Yes If......!

On the thread, "Is there a baptism in the Holy Spirit for today?" I posed a hypothetical situation to awaken: "Joe is a tongues speaker. He starts attending a church, A LOCAL CHURCH not an Internet forum, and without the pastor knowing starts teaching Bill and Sam, members of that LOCAL CHURCH (not Internet forum) about tongues. Is he (not you) right to do this or wrong?"

Twice he refused to answer it, but I finally got an answer out of him: "If they were following God, I see no harm in sharing what they have learned with others."

I call this condoning heresy, which in the NT is division causing in the local church of Jesus Christ. If a minor doctrine like tongues is taught in a local church in this way, I believe the Bible is clear on that. Note for example that the admonition to reject a heretic was written to a local church pastor (Titus 3:10), and other admonitions about heresy were given to local churches (1 Cor. 11:9, Gal. 5:20, etc.). What say ye?

IF...and I do say IF the "tongues" you are talking about are the type of unknown gibberish and fake interpretations that the Charismatics practice, and the spirit "baptism" (so-called) or "second work of grace" that they say those tongues are an indication or "evidence" of are what you mean in your poll...then yes...THAT is a division in the body of the church and should be treated as a heresy...in my opinion....an as I believe the Bible clearly teaches.

It is sad to see anyone get deceived by that and even worse to see them draw others away into that error.:tear:

Bro.Greg

 

[John of Japan]

IF...and I do say IF the "tongues" you are talking about are the type of unknown gibberish and fake interpretations that the Charismatics practice, and the spirit "baptism" (so-called) or "second work of grace" that they say those tongues are an indication or "evidence" of are what you mean in your poll...then yes...THAT is a division in the body of the church and should be treated as a heresy...in my opinion....an as I believe the Bible clearly teaches.

It is sad to see anyone get deceived by that and even worse to see them draw others away into that error.:tear:

Bro.Greg

Yes, that's the kind of tongues in question.

It is very sad for both the original person deceived, but it is also very sad for the pastor and the church members who have been hurt by the heresy. I remember the shock on my church peoples' faces one time when I explained what had happened.

I'm outraged that awaken would come on this board to openly say that it is okay if a church is split by such people. Let him have his tongues, I don't care. That's his business. But I believe Jesus is truly grieved when people condone, for such a minor doctrine as tongues, dividing the church He died for.

 

[Oldtimer]

Answer to Poll Question: Yes

I read the thread, in question, in it's entirety this morning.

Learned much from those who took so much time and effort to rightly divide the truth. And, frankly I was appalled at the deliberate mis-representation of others thoughts, in an attempt to justify a position taken.

IF...and I do say IF the "tongues" you are talking about are the type of unknown gibberish and fake interpretations that the Charismatics practice, and the spirit "baptism" (so-called) or "second work of grace" that they say those tongues are an indication or "evidence" of are what you mean in your poll...then yes...THAT is a division in the body of the church and should be treated as a heresy...in my opinion....an as I believe the Bible clearly teaches.

It is sad to see anyone get deceived by that and even worse to see them draw others away into that error. Bro.Greg

I'm outraged that awaken would come on this board to openly say that it is okay if a church is split by such people. Let him have his tongues, I don't care. That's his business. But I believe Jesus is truly grieved when people condone, for such a minor doctrine as tongues, dividing the church He died for.

Well said, Brothers.

 

[John of Japan]

Answer to Poll Question: Yes

I read the thread, in question, in it's entirety this morning.

Learned much from those who took so much time and effort to rightly divide the truth. And, frankly I was appalled at the deliberate mis-representation of others thoughts, in an attempt to justify a position taken.

Well said, Brothers.

Thank you for your comments, Oldtimer and Gregory and Glazer, and to all who have participated in the poll so far.

 

[Zenas]

If it's at variance with the teachings of your church, it's heresy. Therefore, I voted yes. If someone comes in to usurp the established doctrines or practices of a congregation it's heresy, and the church has the right or even a duty to wipe it out. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's at variance with God's will--unless of course you have the audacity to proclaim that you are right and all others are wrong.

 

[12strings]

If it's at variance with the teachings of your church, it's heresy. Therefore, I voted yes. If someone comes in to usurp the established doctrines or practices of a congregation it's heresy, and the church has the right or even a duty to wipe it out. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's at variance with God's will--unless of course you have the audacity to proclaim that you are right and all others are wrong.

This thread uses the word "heresy" in a different way than most people use it...Perhaps more biblically, but not what most people consider heresy.

And it raises another issue...is it heresy to attempt to change ANY established practice at a church? For example:
-You believe speaking in tongues has ceased, and attempt to start teaching the members of a charismatic church this way.
-The church you attend tolerates a known drunkard as a deacon, Is attempting to address the situation "heresy?"

 

[plain_n_simple]

How bad was the split in the church?

 

[annsni]

It's interesting because I just read this this morning:

http://thecripplegate.com/speaking-with-tongues-speakers/

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Without links, the question can't really be answered....although I DECIDEDLY don't believe in "tongues" as a charismatic might use the term...they aren't "heretics" for believing in it....Didn't we all flirt with it in our teens or early twenties a little about the same time we were experimenting with a little pot??? C'mon...lighten up will ya!!!! :laugh: Even the willingness to "teach" otherwise within a church isn't "heresy" either. I don't know how we are getting from "teaching" others some rather foolish pablum that the pastor might not believe in to "splitting" a church, and even if one is "splitting", that makes them all types of vile things...but not necessarily a "heretic" as the doctrine itself is not a "heretical" one....only a false one IMO...I think there is insufficient detail in the poll and OP to answer....The question and OP creates something of a false dichotomy until more detail is given.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Since the original meaning of the word "heresy" was simply "a minority opinion", the question is inappropriately applied.

 

[John of Japan]

If it's at variance with the teachings of your church, it's heresy. Therefore, I voted yes. If someone comes in to usurp the established doctrines or practices of a congregation it's heresy, and the church has the right or even a duty to wipe it out. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's at variance with God's will--unless of course you have the audacity to proclaim that you are right and all others are wrong.

Precisely. This is the point I am trying to make. A key statement in the OP is that this was done without the knowledge or approval of the pastor, who is tasked by God with teaching (2 Tim. 4:2) and defending (Acts 20:28-29) the doctrine of the church. This is usurping pastoral authority, and is a part of heresy as I believe the Bible teaches it.

 

[John of Japan]

This thread uses the word "heresy" in a different way than most people use it...Perhaps more biblically, but not what most people consider heresy.

As a linguist (the practical kind, not a linguistic scholar), I approach word studies in the Bible from a lingistic standpoint. The key to semantics (the study of meaning) in modern linguistics is contemporary usage, so I look at the word heresy in the Bible as it was used in the 1st century: (1) a sect, and (2) a divisive teaching.

And it raises another issue...is it heresy to attempt to change ANY established practice at a church? For example:
-You believe speaking in tongues has ceased, and attempt to start teaching the members of a charismatic church this way.

I would not teach against tongues in a tongues speaking church unless invited there specifically by the pastor to do so because (1) There is no way I would join such a church, so I would be a guest, and guests don't cause trouble, and (2) I would have no Biblical authority or right to do so.

-The church you attend tolerates a known drunkard as a deacon, Is attempting to address the situation "heresy?"

This is a church discipline issue, not heresy. But the attender must be a member before addressing the situation as per Matt. 18.

 

[John of Japan]

How bad was the split in the church?

It's a hypothetical situation, so we don't know. But it doesn't matter. Any split caused this way (the OP) involves heresy.

In Japan, the churches are so small that if two people leave it's a split. :flower:

 

[OldRegular]

I would not call it a heresy unless it was coupled with a teaching regarding a second blessing of the Holy Spirit; then it would be heresy in my opinion! In the scenario presented the teaching obviously created division within the Church.

That being said the Apostle Paul tells us: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. [Romans 16:17]

If Paul's advice is followed there would be no divisions; the person would be avoided! I avoided that particular thread!

 

[John of Japan]

Since the original meaning of the word "heresy" was simply "a minority opinion", the question is inappropriately applied.

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.

 

[John of Japan]

I would not call it a heresy unless it was coupled with a teaching regarding a second blessing of the Holy Spirit; then it would be heresy in my opinion! In the scenario presented the teaching obviously created division within the Church.

That being said the Apostle Paul tells us: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. [Romans 16:17]

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.

If Paul's advice is followed there would be no divisions; the person would be avoided! I avoided that particular thread!

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.

 

[John of Japan]

Without links, the question can't really be answered....although I DECIDEDLY don't believe in "tongues" as a charismatic might use the term...they aren't "heretics" for believing in it....Didn't we all flirt with it in our teens or early twenties a little about the same time we were experimenting with a little pot??? C'mon...lighten up will ya!!!! :laugh: Even the willingness to "teach" otherwise within a church isn't "heresy" either. I don't know how we are getting from "teaching" others some rather foolish pablum that the pastor might not believe in to "splitting" a church, and even if one is "splitting", that makes them all types of vile things...but not necessarily a "heretic" as the doctrine itself is not a "heretical" one....only a false one IMO...I think there is insufficient detail in the poll and OP to answer....The question and OP creates something of a false dichotomy until more detail is given.

It is a hypothetical situation, so there are no links and no more information. I'm not sure what you mean by a false dichotomy, but you have this from the hypothetical:

(1) The man teaching tongues is not a member of the church, so he has no standing there.
(2) He is doing this without the knowledge or consent of the pastor, so he is usurping pastoral authority.
(3) The doctrine he is teaching is modern tongues, which is notorious for causing church splits. (Anyone who has pastored a Baptist church for any length of time can tell you this.)

What else would be required in your opinion for it to be heresy?

 

[OldRegular]

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.

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

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.

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.