Multiple Choice Question
What is a heretic?
- Someone who believes something different from me.
- Someone who believes something different from what my Pastor said.
- Someone identified by a corporate body of believers as heretical.
- Someone who denies the virgin birth, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus the Christ
- Other, please explain.
offered by Kc | 12/04/2005 08:22:00 PM
26 Comments:
The doctors say that only a miracle can save Bob. He is in critical but stable condition. I am going tonight to a prayer vigil beside his bed at the hospital.
If you read this before 4:00 a.m. pray that I stay awake. If you read this after. please pick up the prayer that I have left off.
Thank you for your prayers. More info on my blog.
CS thank you so much and we will continue in prayer for you all.
Perhaps we need to establish different levels of heresy.
Doctrine can only be a ground for Church discipline if it touches on the doctrine of Christ.
"Someone who denies the virgin birth, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus the Christ"
These are certainly heritical viewpoints in light of revealed truth, but I can see how a new babe in Christ might not know better until he/she has grown in Him.
Would that make him/her a heretic?
DF do you think heresy as refered to in the scripture pertains to doctrine? Perhaps so, but it's difficult for me to determine that from one verse.
Joe, even if it does they've got two more stikes before they're out from what I read.
Would you connect it to verses about antichrists and false teachers?
A heretic is a divisive person. In 1 Corinthians, Paul draws an immediate causal connection between divisions and false teaching.
May God bless you DF. ;-)
Doesn't it mean "of one's own opinion"? So, I guess if you teach your own opinion as the Word of God, you are a heretic? I don't know, we all seem to bring some opinion into it.
J I knew this would be a tuffy for you but fear not, your secret is safe. ;-)
Rose that was my hope in this post, that we might all see our perception of a word used only once in the NT. We all have our opinion, we each have our understanding. The one thing we do have in common is that we're related by blood. As family we should stick together and watch out for each other instead of calling each other names that we really don't understand. I think this is what being of one mind is all about. ;-)
What is a heretic?
Someone who believes something different from me.
You know who you are to, so don't bother commenting your a heretic!
J no need to beat yourself up when there are so many here that are more than happy to give a beating! (hehe) Isn't it good to know He can catch us before we go too far? ;-)
Kris I'm still laughing. Okay you'll have to hurry up and get a publisher for the KRV so we can get right! LOL
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heresy is one of those words that ultimately depends on the general concensus of a group. For instance, the word "conservative" is used to describe a particular segment of American politics. It is also used to describe a segment of Communist Chinese politics, but the two meanings could not be more different.
Likewise, put a Roman Catholic, a Calvinist, a Jew and a Greek* into a room and say the word "orthodox." Suddenly one word is speaking four different languages.
I guess the proper way to frame it is, "One man's heresy is another man's enlightenment."
------------
* I didn't include a fundamentalist because I don't know any who would deign to engage in discussion with such heretics as these.
Dorsey I'm with DF on this one as far as the one verse in Titus that uses the word. I think a heretic is a factious person, a troublemaker, someone who wears a bearded...er...well...what I mean is... ;-)
In that context, I don't disagree.
But what if the dissenter is correct? If my pastor is asleep at the wheel and the autopilot is set to "status quo" and I encourage someone to want something deeper than the gospel of not making waves, then am I guilty of "sowing discord among the brethren?"
To rephrase my earlier comment, "One man's troublemaker is another man's savior."
Fair question. I'm a firm believer in confrontation and Church authority. If the pastor is being factous I'd go to him and if he won't hear me I'll take two more, and if he won't hear them I'll take it to the Church. Now if the Church won't correct the situation then I'd consider I might be in the wrong Church. That's just the way I understand it but I'm still open to learning.
Would love to get in on this one.
BTW Kc (just so you'll know) I found 8 other places the word hairesis is used in the NT. Often translated as "sect"
I am sure we can all find anathems for any other true brother we want. Catholics have theirs. Protestants have theirs. At the same time, you can not believe anything you want and still be a Christian. JWs and Mormons can not be considered Christians in their thinking. They may get to heaven (if they have activated faith...and we could get into that, but it is a side issue here), but they are not thinking Christianly.
i know that sounds contradictory. But faith is what gets us into heaven. Doctrine defines us here as followers of Christ. There are boundaries set by the Christian world at large and if anyone goes outside those bounds, they are not Christian. They are heretics.And I do not feel bad about calling them heretics. At the same time, I can not in good conscience consider my true brothers in the Baptists or Catholic church (or any legitimate "church")a heretic just because we disagree on baptism or the Lord's Supper (or Eucharist or whatever you wish to call it).
A Mormon will go to hell if he does not believe. He will go to hell if he believes in the Jesus of Mormonism because that Jesus is a false god. A Mormon will go to heaven if he puts his faith in Jesus of the Bible even though he is screwed up on the trinity and a thousand other things. So in that sense, it comes down to where he placed his faith. God has to make that decision not me (as to whether to accept him in or not). But I can not claim him as my brother if he is teaching things contrary to the Scripture (and he can't interpret Scripture however he wants, there are boundaries). It's God desicion to let him in. But it's the church's descision to see if he is teaching the Bible. (And by church I do not mean the local Methodist church).
So, doctrine does matter. Faith supersecedes doctrine as far as final destination, but doctrine identifies a person (or community) at the moment of what he has put his faith in. And if you put your faith in bad stuff, you eventually will find yourself in a bad place.
The next thing that may come up. Well i forgot what I was going to say.
I know this sounds like you must think the same as I or you are not a Christian, but it is more if you do not put your Faith in Christ you are not a Christian.
Anyway I loved Kris's answer. She cracks me up. And if I did not know her, I would have been angry. But sort of knowing her, it is so funny that she would even say such a thing. It surprised me. She is a saint and an example.
Must clarify this statement:
"Doctrine defines us here as followers of Christ"
No. Love does that. Doctrine defines us here as following the teaching of Christ. In other words are we thinking in the way Jesus taught us to think about himself. If we are not, we might be a redneck (oops a heretic).
Pech thanks for your understanding here. Do you notice a difference between the scriptures that refers to heresy and the one that refers to a heretic? I hope to discuss that with you. I pray you are both doing well. Many blessings dear brother.
It appears sects were those groups who left what had been considered "correct" whether that was Pharisee or Jews accusing followers of the Way from departing from the truth.
Therefore, a heretic is an individual inside one of these groups.
I maay add that although there can be vast differences in interpretation of the Scripture, there are boundaries. But I can give my true brother the right to interpret as he wishes as long as it does not stray from what Christ taught
Looked at the Titus passage. This seems to refer to an individual inside (maybe even a believer) who is trekking out on his own. As he does, the church has the obligation to confront him in love about his teachings. The spirit of this is to try to win him back. If he refuses to listen to the church, then he is to be excommunicated (with drawn fellowship).
This appears to be different from false prophets (pseudoprophetes) and false teachers (pseudodidaskelos). So, it could be that in the Bible, heretics, were insiders who were going astray. Today, instead of using "heretic" maybe we could use false prophet and teacher. That would include Joseph Smith and Armstrong and David Koresh. In that sense I would have no problem labeling someone a false prophet or teacher.
I agree on that. That's not a difference on interpretation, it's throwing out the Gospel.
That's it.
Whenever the gospel is corrupted, there is heresy.
To have the true gospel you have to have the true Jesus (as he claimed himself to be---that is God). Our false teachers are preaching a false Jesus. His teachings about himself have been accepted by His Body (Bride).
That's the measuring stick of a false prophet/teacher (heretic). It's not about End Times, Eternal Security, or the like (though they are important, they are not important enough to be the measuring stick).
"Someone who denies the virgin birth, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus the Christ"
I would add the Trinity, go figure.
Jonathan I considered that too and finally concluded that while it would certainly be heresy to teach against the diety of any part of the Godhead the theological construct itself is just that. In other words a rose by any other name... ;-)
Post a Comment