The Subtle Denotation of a ‘Heretic’

[DHK]

Heresy is confusing to me. Primarily because everybody is someone else's Heretic. The term means this :

It is one who deviates from what is "generally accepted doctrine" of the church (whatever that church may be). Obviously the doctrine of purgatory is heresy to us, but not to the Catholics. At the beginning of the 20th century a number of conservative Christians gathered together and enumerated a number of doctrines which they considered to be "fundamentals" of the faith. Those who went contrary to those fundamentals would definitely be called heretics. They dealt with such doctrines as the inerrancy of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the deity of Christ, the trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, to name a few. These were essential doctrines of the Christian faith which could not be disputed by those would call themselves Christians.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is one who deviates from what is "generally accepted doctrine" of the church (whatever that church may be). Obviously the doctrine of purgatory is heresy to us, but not to the Catholics. At the beginning of the 20th century a number of conservative Christians gathered together and enumerated a number of doctrines which they considered to be "fundamentals" of the faith. Those who went contrary to those fundamentals would definitely be called heretics. They dealt with such doctrines as the inerrancy of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the deity of Christ, the trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, to name a few. These were essential doctrines of the Christian faith which could not be disputed by those would call themselves Christians.

Yes I know who these people are and that they are from Yale.

 

[DHK]

Yes I know who these people are and that they are from Yale.

That is nonsense, and you are badly misinformed.

In the summer on 1875 about seven men, led by James H. Brookes, started the private Believers' Meetings for Bible Study again. They rented a cottage near Chicago to spend a week in intense study. These men included James H. Brookes, who was just launching his magazine The Truth; Nathaniel West, William J. Erdman, Henry M. Parsons, Fleming H. Revell, P.P.Bliss, and Major Daniel W. Whittle. This marked the beginning of a series of successive Believers' Meetings that would eventually become the Niagara Bible Conference...

The names of Fundamentalism's founding fathers who graced Niagara's platform during those years should once again become familiar to Fundamentalists. In addition to those already mentioned there were such well-known speakers as Methodists W.E. Blackstone and Leander W. Munhall, and Baptists Amzi C. Dixon and James M. Stifler. Presbyterians included C.I. Scofield, Nathaniel West, and J. Wilbur Chapman, J. Hudson Taylor, the Britisher who founded the China Inland Mission, also participated. So did William R. Nicholson, the Reformed Episcopalian.
The interdenominational makeup of those early Fundamentalist conferences is obvious, and "the Lord's Supper was often the high point of the week."

From David Beale's book, "In Pursuit of Purity"

 

[Rippon]

At the beginning of the 20th century a number of conservative Christians gathered together and enumerated a number of doctrines which they considered to be "fundamentals" of the faith. Those who went contrary to those fundamentals would definitely be called heretics. They dealt with such doctrines as the inerrancy of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the deity of Christ, the trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, to name a few. These were essential doctrines of the Christian faith which could not be disputed by those would call themselves Christians.

A number of the men who contributed articles to The Fundamentals were Calvinists such as Warfield,Machen,O.T.Allis,J.C.Ryle,George S.Bishop and Thomas Spurgeon.

You think that the distinctive beliefs of Calvinists are heretical -- yet you would embrace these same men as brothers in the faith?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Some are merely skirting the issue. History provides for us in substantive reality how heretics, those that hold to and promote what others feel is heretical depending on the powers that happen to be in the majority, are perceived and treated. For some of you to try and downplay the historical fact that heresy and the heretics that promote heretical notions have been throughout history believed to be outside of the faith and as such worthy of damnation, yea the fires of damnation, are guilty of divesting your intellectual abilities for the practices most closely akin to that of an ostrich. To try to purport that one can say that another holds to heretical notions without clearly denoting such a one as a heretic is simply absurd.

Fine, have it your way. If one is so adamant about trying to say that one can call another’s beliefs as ‘heretical’ without in any way insinuating that the individual is a heretic, (and by doing so is completely acceptable and within the guidelines of this list to do so) please explain to the list how one can simply show forth the similarities in the necessitated ends of ones beliefs and that of the clearly understood beliefs of a mere ‘Calvinist' and be guilty of name calling or personally attacking another? Pray tell us how one is NOT a personal attack and is NOT name calling in any way, yet the other is clearly a personal attack and clearly name calling??? Where is the fairness, where is the consistency shown by such utter irresponsible hypocrisy?

Here one can denote another’s views by the most inflammatory remark possible within the church world, one that fueled the fires of the martyrs, and yet not be viewed by themselves as lowering themselves to such derogatory remarks as name calling or personally attacking another, yet if one simply sets forth the logical ends of ones beliefs with a well known system of theology, known the world over as Calvinism, we hear the cry of ‘Personal attack!’ ‘Name Calling!’ certain reason for editing ones posts, or even censure or banning! The utter hypocrisy cannot be missed by any one with even a shred of fairness left in their being.

 

[DHK]

A number of the men who contributed articles to The Fundamentals were Calvinists such as Warfield,Machen,O.T.Allis,J.C.Ryle,George S.Bishop and Thomas Spurgeon.

You think that the distinctive beliefs of Calvinists are heretical -- yet you would embrace these same men as brothers in the faith?

I am not the one who calls Calvinism heresy.
However there are certain people's views or interpretations of Calvinism which have an aberrant theology. There are probably more than a dozen different varieties of Calvinism represented here. (Maybe he was a schizophrenic). :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I am not the one who calls Calvinism heresy.
However there are certain people's views or interpretations of Calvinism which have an aberrant theology. There are probably more than a dozen different varieties of Calvinism represented here. (Maybe he was a schizophrenic). :laugh:

Calvinism is not a person.So using the pronoun "he" is not applicable.

 

[Rippon]

I am not the one who calls Calvinism heresy.

You need to search your memory banks.

 

[DHK]

Calvinism is not a person.So using the pronoun "he" is not applicable.

And the people that you wrongly label as "Arminians" are not followers of a person either. However, you are beginning to derail this thread.

 

[Rippon]

However there are certain people's views or interpretations of Calvinism which have an aberrant theology. There are probably more than a dozen different varieties of Calvinism represented here.

[not on topic--derailing the thread]

 

[Rippon]

And the people that you wrongly label as "Arminians" are not followers of a person either.

[not on topic--derailing the thread]

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: And the people that you wrongly label as "Arminians" are not followers of a person either. However, you are beginning to derail this thread.

HP: Sorry DHK. It is you that appears to be trying to derail this thread. Can you sit straight faced in front of your mirror and this list and say that you have never called Calvinism ‘heresy’ on this list, if not ‘abominable heresy’ or something closely akin to that?

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry DHK. It is you that appears to be trying to derail this thread. Can you sit straight faced in front of your mirror and this list and say that you have never called Calvinism ‘heresy’ on this list, if not ‘abominable heresy’ or something closely akin to that?

Save it HP. Get back to the topic. Or I will begin to edit yours as well. I am not about to get in any personal arguments here. If you can't discuss the OP, then don't post.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

[deleted; off topic]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That is nonsense, and you are badly misinformed.
From David Beale's book, "In Pursuit of Purity"

I'm sorry I meant Princeton. It was a reaction to the liberal movement back at the turn of the 20th century.

 

[mark1]

Heretic is not a doctrine against any group of men, other than the scripture itself, given by the inspiration of God. That is the trouble, some are followers of men, and not of God.

Scripture says we only know in part. When you call another a heretic, you place yourself above that person, as if God gave it all to you, and scripture tells me He did not.

 

[DHK]

I'm sorry I meant Princeton. It was a reaction to the liberal movement back at the turn of the 20th century.

They were not all theological clones. It was indeed a movement against liberalism. But these conservatives came from a wide variety of backgrounds. Judson was a Congregationalist who ended up as a missionary in Burma. There were Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, and others. These were not simply Princeton graduates, but men of widely differing backgrounds, speaking out against the "heresies" of the day.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

[post deleted; off topic]
To repeat again:
Save it HP. Get back to the topic. Or I will begin to edit yours as well. I am not about to get in any personal arguments here. If you can't discuss the OP, then don't post. __________________

Count this one as an official warning.

 

[Marcia]

Some are merely skirting the issue. History provides for us in substantive reality how heretics, those that hold to and promote what others feel is heretical depending on the powers that happen to be in the majority, are perceived and treated. For some of you to try and downplay the historical fact that heresy and the heretics that promote heretical notions have been throughout history believed to be outside of the faith and as such worthy of damnation, yea the fires of damnation, are guilty of divesting your intellectual abilities for the practices most closely akin to that of an ostrich.

Why don't you give some specific examples? You seem upset by some kind of thing in the past when people were called heretics. Are you talking about the Roman Catholic Church? If so, I need say nothing because I am not Roman Catholic and I don't need to defend them. What they may have called heresy 500 or 600 years ago may have nothing to do with heresy today.

Fine, have it your way.

It would help if you would say to whom you are speaking here. You give no indication.

If one is so adamant about trying to say that one can call another’s beliefs as ‘heretical’ without in any way insinuating that the individual is a heretic, (and by doing so is completely acceptable and within the guidelines of this list to do so)

This is a question for a moderator or the owner of the BB. It's their policy, not mine. You can say certain beliefs are heretical but you cannot call someone a heretic. It's probably due to the rules against personal attack. If you are so incensed by this you have 2 choices:
1) Talk to a moderator about this
2) Leave the forum if you don't like the rules

 

[steaver]

Scripture says we only know in part. When you call another a heretic, you place yourself above that person, as if God gave it all to you, and scripture tells me He did not.

1Cr 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

To "know in part" is to know part of what God knows. It does not mean we are unsure and it does not mean we cannot know sound doctrine. If it did, then just toss your bibles in the trash.

Here is an example. I have ten individual pieces of information. I am choosing to give you five of these ten. The other five you cannot know because only I know what they are and I choose to withhold them. You now have been given five pieces of information and thus you now "know in part" some of what I know in full. You "know" part of the puzzle.

For we "know". Right here Paul is telling you that we are certainly sure of some things. More is yet to come.

Thus the saying goes, do not go beyond what is written. Which is what many heretics do.

:jesus: