Just who is a heretick?

[steaver]

Tts 3:9¶But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Tts 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

Tts 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

We have many contentions on this board over several postions of doctrine. When is a held view heresy?

We have debates over water baptism. Some say it is required for salvation, some say it is not. Is one view heresy and therefore the one who proclaims it a heretick?

OSAS is another one.

We have the promoting of Millenial Exclusion banned as heresy on this board.

When is a held view heretical? Who has this final authority as a body of believers? Does each congregation have it's own standard or should this be universal, but how could it be, lest you be a catholic and even they squabble over the pope's final authority.

I was just wondering because if this lies within the judgment of each individual church or denomination then why is ME judged as heresy (I agree btw) and some other views allowed to be promoted here such as water baptismal regeneration and OSAS (either yea or nay). Is it that some views have not yet been settled as heresy by the administration?

Of course, if many of these doctrines were declared heresy by the administration and the promotion of them banned, then there would be no thread to discuss such different denominational views!

The ME'ers are not allowed to push the view, yet other views such as water baptismal regeneration, Mary worship, Sabbath worship, etc is allowed as it is thoroughly discussed.

Just wondering.........

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Even the early Christians were called hereticks by the Jews who rejected Jesus as Christ....

Act 24:14But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:


:jesus:

 

[JSM17]

Then maybe the title of this section should be changed, it does say:

"Other Christian Denominations Debate other denominations' doctrines/beliefs here."

 

[Jedi Knight]

Heresy or Heretic's are usually spotted because they attack the work and person of Jesus Christ. They sometimes try and postulate another "Jesus" in His place by teaching unscriptural things to back up their lie.

 

[Alcott]

A heretick?
Must be a tiny arachnid at this location.

 

[Amy.G]

A heretick?
Must be a tiny arachnid at this location.

That would be a hairy-tic. :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

Surely it's "an heretick"?

 

[Darron Steele]

Just who is a heretick?

Anyone who does not agree with me, of course. :laugh: I am totally, totally only joking.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who really have that sentiment.

The medieval church, in an effort to ensure agreement with powerful self-serving clergy, redefined `heretic' to mean `Anyone who holds views we think is wrong.' Unfortunately, that tradition has stuck around.

In Scripture, the Greek word transliterated "heretick" in the KJV does not have anything to do with `erroneous religious precepts.' `Heresies’ transliterates Greek which is plural for “party”*/clique and “choosing.”** The Greek word has no reference to religious error and means “party” in a factional sense.* Greek for someone involved in such is translated “factious man” (ASV) at Titus 3:10. This is someone so fixated on a dispute that s/he seeks a religious faction/party rallied around a chosen opinion in that dispute.

Biblically, a person with a number of erroneous religious ideas but with no desire to create factions rallied around promoting them is not a heretic. Biblically, a person can have a high level of accuracy in Scripture's teachings, but if s/he wants to rally factions, s/he is a heretic regardless of how right s/he is.

____
* A. Campbell, The Christian System, pages 76-7.
** Vine et al, Expository Dictionary, page 303 NT.

 

[Revmitchell]

...........................................

 

[Johnv]

An important part about Baptist faith is the Disctinctive of Individual Soul Liberty. Engrained into that is allowing each individual the liberty of applying scripture according to his/her conscience. A heretic is someone who denies core scriptural doctrine (such as, the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc). These are scripture essentials. On nonessentials (pretrib or posttrib rapture, what day is the sabbath, women wearing pants, KJV as sole translation, etc), we as Baptists are bound by the disstinctives to guarantee the liberty of each individual to apply these as they deem fit for themselves.

Where we often fail is in accusing persons excercising Individul Soul Liberty of heresy. We need to discern between heresy and liberty. We often do a poor job at that, something of which I am no exception.

 

[billwald]

>When is a held view heretical?

Place to start your investigation - Deut 13:1-5.

 

[steaver]

Anyone who does not agree with me, of course. :laugh: I am totally, totally only joking.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who really have that sentiment.

The medieval church, in an effort to ensure agreement with powerful self-serving clergy, redefined `heretic' to mean `Anyone who holds views we think is wrong.' Unfortunately, that tradition has stuck around.

In Scripture, the Greek word transliterated "heretick" in the KJV does not have anything to do with `erroneous religious precepts.' `Heresies’ transliterates Greek which is plural for “party”*/clique and “choosing.”** The Greek word has no reference to religious error and means “party” in a factional sense.* Greek for someone involved in such is translated “factious man” (ASV) at Titus 3:10. This is someone so fixated on a dispute that s/he seeks a religious faction/party rallied around a chosen opinion in that dispute.

Biblically, a person with a number of erroneous religious ideas but with no desire to create factions rallied around promoting them is not a heretic. Biblically, a person can have a high level of accuracy in Scripture's teachings, but if s/he wants to rally factions, s/he is a heretic regardless of how right s/he is.

____
* A. Campbell, The Christian System, pages 76-7.
** Vine et al, Expository Dictionary, page 303 NT.

But "heretick" or "factious" is stated as a negative attribute to have. When someone calls a view heresy they are not giving it a thumbs up. Therefore heresy is only in the eyes of the beholder. There is no way of convincing one another with facts because facts matter not to one who has made up their mind to never change it. The Jews called the Christian way heresy and refused Paul's arguments from scripture. Why is Paul right and the Jews wrong? Does it all go back to having liberty to interpret the scriptures as each one sees fit?

Who can prove heresy? If it cannot be proven then there is no sense in ever bringing it up.

It seems it is only heresy to the group or individual who rejects the teaching. For example, the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as Messiah so therefore to them the Christian way is heresy, but to us who believe it is the Word of God.

But this does not apply to beliefs held within the body of Christ? Like I am a believer in OSAS. To many within the body of Christ this doctrine is false. So within the body of Christ I am a heretick to those who disagree on this issue and vice versa, no? I really don't see that a new faction or party must be involved. I know of a local church here who preaches from the pulpit (baptist btw) that King James is the only word of God. Any other version is rejected and not allowed. Is this considered heresy to us who see the version issue as a liberty? Is this church a new faction or party?

:jesus:

 

[Revmitchell]

But "heretick" or "factious" is stated as a negative attribute to have. When someone calls a view heresy they are not giving it a thumbs up. Therefore heresy is only in the eyes of the beholder. There is no way of convincing one another with facts because facts matter not to one who has made up their mind to never change it. The Jews called the Christian way heresy and refused Paul's arguments from scripture. Why is Paul right and the Jews wrong? Does it all go back to having liberty to interpret the scriptures as each one sees fit?

Who can prove heresy? If it cannot be proven then there is no sense in ever bringing it up.

It seems it is only heresy to the group or individual who rejects the teaching. For example, the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as Messiah so therefore to them the Christian way is heresy, but to us who believe it is the Word of God.

But this does not apply to beliefs held within the body of Christ? Like I am a believer in OSAS. To many within the body of Christ this doctrine is false. So within the body of Christ I am a heretick to those who disagree on this issue and vice versa, no? I really don't see that a new faction or party must be involved. I know of a local church here who preaches from the pulpit (baptist btw) that King James is the only word of God. Any other version is rejected and not allowed. Is this considered heresy to us who see the version issue as a liberty? Is this church a new faction or party?

:jesus:

Quite a bit of relativism going on

 

[steaver]

Quite a bit of relativism going on

Please elaborate...

:jesus:

 

[billwald]

From Constantine thru the Reformation period Orthodoxy was demonstrated by conformation to the ecumenical creeds. Those who reject the creeds have no traditional standards to judge orthodoxy.

Further, hetrodoxy is not heresy.