The Subtle Denotation of a ‘Heretic’

[mark1]

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:

Why so many beliefs on BB about scripture, if what you say is true. Why the acknowledgements that there are mistakes in the written translations, if we are so sure. I know there are different beliefs on "absolute knowledge" of eternal life. (example) Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong. You or I?

Are you saying that you do not have to ask God anything about the meaning of scripture, that you know it all from Gen to Rev? I wonder why there are so many different beliefs of scripture, even on BB?

 

[steaver]

Why so many beliefs on BB about scripture, if what you say is true. Why the acknowledgements that there are mistakes in the written translations, if we are so sure. I know there are different beliefs on "absolute knowledge" of eternal life. (example) Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong. You or I?

Are you saying that you do not have to ask God anything about the meaning of scripture, that you know it all from Gen to Rev? I wonder why there are so many different beliefs of scripture, even on BB?

There are many beliefs because there are many Christians here with views speculating about the parts of knowledge that have not been revealed. Many take what we know in part, that which was given by God, and add there own two bits.

I do not hold any position that there are mistakes in the translation I use (KJV) can't speak for most others. From what I have researched extensively, there are no mistakes in the KJV, HOWEVER, Greek and Hebrew is necessary for greater clarity of meanings. This does not make any particular translated word an error just because it could be said in a different or "better" way.

The JSOC will decide who was right and who was wrong. Some doctrines burn up and some remain. We must work at humbleness and rightly divide the word of truth for the glory of God, not for our own glory.

We have to ask God for guidance through the scriptures. What meanings are you looking for? The Apostles explained things for the Christian life thoroughly, there are no hidden messages. The basic guidelines are no contradictions and context, context, context.

:godisgood:

 

[mark1]

There are many beliefs because there are many Christians here with views speculating about the parts of knowledge that have not been revealed. Many take what we know in part, that which was given by God, and add there own two bits.

I do not hold any position that there are mistakes in the translation I use (KJV) can't speak for most others. From what I have researched extensively, there are no mistakes in the KJV, HOWEVER, Greek and Hebrew is necessary for greater clarity of meanings. This does not make any particular translated word an error just because it could be said in a different or "better" way.

The JSOC will decide who was right and who was wrong. Some doctrines burn up and some remain. We must work at humbleness and rightly divide the word of truth for the glory of God, not for our own glory.

We have to ask God for guidance through the scriptures. What meanings are you looking for? The Apostles explained things for the Christian life thoroughly, there are no hidden messages. The basic guidelines are no contradictions and context, context, context.

:godisgood:

You doctrine differs from many on this board. Are they all heretics?

 

[DHK]

Why so many beliefs on BB about scripture, if what you say is true. Why the acknowledgements that there are mistakes in the written translations, if we are so sure. I know there are different beliefs on "absolute knowledge" of eternal life. (example) Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong. You or I?

Are you saying that you do not have to ask God anything about the meaning of scripture, that you know it all from Gen to Rev? I wonder why there are so many different beliefs of scripture, even on BB?

Salvation is an essential doctrine. One cannot be wrong on it.
For example, the Philippian jailer asked: What must I do to be saved?
Paul answered: "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved.

The message is clear and simple.
If the RCC or the COC says that you must be baptized to be saved, that is heresy.
If the United Pentecostal says you must speak in tongues to be saved, that is heresy. These people can rightly be called heretics for they believe not that salvation is by faith, and faith alone.

The gift of God is eternal life (Rom.6:23; Eph.2:8,9)
How do we dare contradict that which the Bible states so clearly?

However, concerning translations, no translation is perfect. Anyone that knows anything about translation or languages knows that when one translates from one language to another meaning is lost. That is true in the Bible, political speeches, the ECF writings; it is true of everything. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Meaning is lost in any translation. There are idioms, adages, cultural situations, and so, in every translation that just cannot be translated from one language to another.

English itself is the hardest language in the world to learn for one who does not know it. Here is an essay from an East Indian who had to learn English:

The crazy English language
contributed by Shafaq

English is the most widely used language in the history of our planet. One in every seven human beings can speak it. More than half of the world's books and three-quarters of international mail are in English. Of all languages, English has the largest vocabulary, perhaps as many as two million words - and one of the noblest bodies of literature.
Nonetheless, let's face it: English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, neither pine nor apple in pineapple, and no ham in a hamburger. English muffins weren't invented in England or French Fries in France. Sweet meats are candy, while sweet breads, which aren't sweet are meat.
We take English for granted. But when we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither a pig nor from Guinea.
And why is it that a writer writes, but fingers don't fing, grocers don't grocer and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth? One goose, two geese so one moose, two meese? One index, two indices - one Kleenex, two Kleenices?
Doesn't it seem loopy that you can make amends but not just one amend, that you comb through the annals of history but not just one annal? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and you get rid of all but one what do you call it?
If the teacher taught, why isn't it true that the preacher praught? If a horse hair mat is made from the hair of horses and a camel's hair coat is made from the hair of camels, from what is a mohair coat made? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I wonder if all English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what other language do people drive on a parkway and park in a drive way? Recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike? How can the weather be hot as hell, one day and cold as hell the next?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill a form by filling it out and in which your alarm clock goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course isn't really a race at all). That is why, when stars are out they are visible, but when the lights are out they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch I start it, but when I wind up this essay I end it.

 

[mark1]

Salvation is an essential doctrine. One cannot be wrong on it.
For example, the Philippian jailer asked: What must I do to be saved?
Paul answered: "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved.

The message is clear and simple.
If the RCC or the COC says that you must be baptized to be saved, that is heresy.
If the United Pentecostal says you must speak in tongues to be saved, that is heresy. These people can rightly be called heretics for they believe not that salvation is by faith, and faith alone.

The gift of God is eternal life (Rom.6:23; Eph.2:8,9)
How do we dare contradict that which the Bible states so clearly?

However, concerning translations, no translation is perfect. Anyone that knows anything about translation or languages knows that when one translates from one language to another meaning is lost. That is true in the Bible, political speeches, the ECF writings; it is true of everything. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Meaning is lost in any translation. There are idioms, adages, cultural situations, and so, in every translation that just cannot be translated from one language to another.

English itself is the hardest language in the world to learn for one who does not know it. Here is an essay from an East Indian who had to learn English:

I have no problem agreeing with you that the heresies you named are indeed heretics. I do find a problem with someone saying just because we differ on doctrine does not make me or anyone else a heretic, or most on this board would be heretics to the others.

 

[Marcia]

I have no problem agreeing with you that the heresies you named are indeed heretics. I do find a problem with someone saying just because we differ on doctrine does not make me or anyone else a heretic, or most on this board would be heretics to the others.

Did you read through this thread? We are not allowed to call others heretics here.

However, there are some beliefs that are heresies - these deny the essentials of the faith. I named several of them:
Denying the Trinity, the diety of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ.

If someone appears on the BB and starts to argue for these beliefs and/or says they are his/hers, then they probably would be kicked off because non-Christians are not allowed on the BB. That is why there are no Oneness followers or Mormons on the BB.

Christians can disagree on secondary issues (that's what makes up a lot of discussion here on the BB!) but disagreeing on a secondary issue is not a heresy. Of course, we don't all agree - we do not understand everything as God does - we are not God.

 

[mark1]

Did you read through this thread? We are not allowed to call others heretics here.

However, there are some beliefs that are heresies - these deny the essentials of the faith. I named several of them:
Denying the Trinity, the diety of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ.

If someone appears on the BB and starts to argue for these beliefs and/or says they are his/hers, then they probably would be kicked off because non-Christians are not allowed on the BB. That is why there are no Oneness followers or Mormons on the BB.
Christians can disagree on secondary issues (that's what makes up a lot of discussion here on the BB!) but disagreeing on a secondary issue is not a heresy. Of course, we don't all agree - we do not understand everything as God does - we are not God.

Please Marcia;
Don't put words in my mouth. I for sure read through this thread. I simply agreed with the moderator on the heretics. I also believe in the Trinity. That is not what this discussion is about. It was stated that when some get outside the norm and start explaining scripture to which the Holy Spirit has not revealed the truth to them, is where heretics come from. If I quoted it right.

I am calling no one on BB heretic, nor am I saying they speak heresies.

 

[mark1]

Well, I am new here, so maybe I just better watch and read for a while!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I have no problem agreeing with you that the heresies you named are indeed heretics. I do find a problem with someone saying just because we differ on doctrine does not make me or anyone else a heretic, or most on this board would be heretics to the others.

GE:
I think this is what one might call strain at a gnat.

 

[mark1]

GE:
I think this is what one might call strain at a gnat.

Thank You. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

We are told that it is in accordance to the rules of this forum to call ones doctrines heretical, but in doing so we evidently are not making a direct personal implication of the individual themselves as being a heretic due to one being a direct persoanl attack and the other not viewed as such. Pray tell me what a heretic is other than one holding to heretical teachings? Tell me Marcia, DHK, and others that have commented on this issue, where is the support for such utter nonsense? One can be said to have upheld or presented 'heretical doctrines' without rightfully being rightfully charged as a heretic, at least from their limited point of view?

Maybe we have the question wrong. What is a heretic? Does anyone have a common dictionary at their disposal? Is there not a direct connection between the holding of heretical views and the term heretic, or could the terms have the same root word as the results of an explosion in a print shop, where the letters in the words, without any real cause, have by mere chance and in random fashion ended up appearing in such a similiar sequence?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

With the confusion that has been wrought by the obvious lacking of the ability (or willingness) to recall past statements evidenced by some on the list, we need some clarification on the ‘personal attack’ issue and exactly what constitutes a personal attack. Am I right in assuming that due to the fact it is NOT against the rules of this forum to associate ones doctrines or views with the word ‘heretical’, that the reason being is that it only draws attention to the doctrine and its association with like views held by heretics?

Marcia, (and all others welcomed to answer as well:thumbs: ) you seem to understand the rules of this forum very well. Would it be wrong then to draw parallels between ones view say and the views of a Catholic, even though the other is clearly not a Catholic, as one does not state directly the other ‘IS’ a Catholic…………….or would it be a personal attack and a violation of the rules of this forum to draw any parallel between ones views and the stated views of a system of theology if in fact the individual is NOT desirous of being associated with that particular system of thought?

 

[DHK]

HP: Please take note and be warned:
1. If you have read through the thread you will note that a definition of "heresy" has already been given.
2. Dragging other conversational information from other threads into this thread will not be tolerated.
3. Discussing personal attacks on others will not be tolerated.
4. If such things start taking place, be sure that your posts will be deleted.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: 4. If such things start taking place, be sure that your posts will be deleted.

HP: Somehow I already have been made aware of this point. When the light is shed on the truth, and the truth points at you or your selected few, you hit the delete button. So much for fair debate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: At least two mods and one former one have called the doctrine(s) of Calvinism damnable heresies.

It's hard to separate Calvinists from Calvinism. Since Calvinists subscribe to the teachings of Calvinism according to the view of many on the BB -- they are in fact damnable heretics.

I think that a number of posters are unthinking when it comes to these kinds of charges. First of all, the word "damnable" is rather severe. It carries the meaning that the teachings held by a given individual is worthy of eternal torment -- that they are Hell-bound.

Those who throw that phrase around with reckless abandon are sinning up a storm.

HP: Excellent points Rippon.:thumbs: I suppose one could do as such without sin, simply due to overwhelming ignorance of the implications of the words, and the treatment those being denoted as promoting heretical notions have received at the hands of the so-called Church.

You cannot call a doctrine that one is setting forth as heresy without directly implying such a one as a heretic, if the meanings of words as denoted in our dictionaries have any merit whatsoever. You can however draw a parallel between a system of thought and similar thoughts presented without denoting one as necessarily ‘at one’ with that system. For Instance, if one finds free will offensive, and chooses to bring to my attention that my beliefs echo the same sentiments as say an Arminian on this point, that would be perfectly acceptable, although I am not an Arminian and Arminians will gladly tell you that.

 

[DHK]

HP: Somehow I already have been made aware of this point. When the light is shed on the truth, and the truth points at you or your selected few, you hit the delete button. So much for fair debate.

BB POSTING RULES:

[SIZE=-1]3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.

[/SIZE]

 

[EdSutton]

It's 1 AM local time, as I type this.

May I make a not-so-subtle request that a Moderator close this thread - one where "I have no dog in this fight" in any manner, whatsoever, and a thread in which I have not even previously posted, but one which appears to be "going nowhere fast", before one or more BB member(s) manage(s) to talk himself, herself, or themselves into a BB "mandated vacation?"

I have made no request of this manner, previously in three years, and 7K posts, so I wonder if it might be even possible that this request be considered here?

Regardless, in the meantime, I'm going to :sleeping_2:

Ed