What is Heresy?

[Josheb]

I guess I'll invite myself! Deal with it!

I still love you

 

[fastfredy0]

Orthodoxy is not decided by consensus. That would make orthodoxy an appeal to the majority (a logically fallacious endeavor). While it is true most of what we now call "core" doctrines, or orthodoxy were established through debate, but the debate was vigorous and prayerful. God had a hand in deciding what was orthodox.

I don't agree (not that this is important). I agree that God has a hand in deciding what is orthodox. Again, the definition of "orthodox" is:
(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.
Thus, orthodoxy is subject to change and determined by the majority. I grant that orthodoxy does not necessarily mean its teaching is true and 'consensus' is difficult to measure at times.

 

[Josheb]

Ahhh ...You mean so rigid newer Christians need not apply?

Au contraire. That might be an intended pool of prospects.

Their statement of faith is specific to Reformed Theology and deviations aren't permitted. I was permanently banned (after being an active member for many months) for simply holding an annihilationist point of view in the vein of John Stott. I never once posted a single word about the topic. I had acknowledged my perspective in a note to the admin when I joined because I did not want to misrepresent myself when it came to the statement of faith. Because of its association with the SDA and Open Theists it is considered by some to be heresy. It is certainly outside Calvin's perspective of consciously living on after death, but there have been many noted Christian theologians who've taken that pov. It's an example of a position that falls within the spectrum of normative orthodoxy but not statistical orthodoxy.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

I'll send you a bill . Natch. This one's on me .

 

[Hazelelponi]

Their statement of faith is specific to Reformed Theology and deviations aren't permitted.

They wouldn't let me join because I didn't know what creeds I affirmed, told me to come back when I knew the creeds. Being a new Christian literally gets the door shut on you there regardless of how Reformed your actual beliefs might be.

They have no desire to teach, which was only what I was referring to.

Whenever you mention PB I just think of people who don't want converts to the faith anywhere near them. Might get something dirty.

I'm probably good at that, so I don't hold it against them, well, not terribly anyway... Hahaha

I'll send you a bill . Natch. This one's on me .

Lol. . if you start charging we will have to negotiate, I am on the free plan almost everywhere!

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't agree (not that this is important). I agree that God has a hand in deciding what is orthodox. Again, the definition of "orthodox" is:
(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.
Thus, orthodoxy is subject to change and determined by the majority. I grant that orthodoxy does not necessarily mean its teaching is true and 'consensus' is difficult to measure at times.

I haven't replied to you but I have been reading your posts and have appreciated your thoughts greatly brother. They have been helpful.

 

[Arial]

They wouldn't let me join because I didn't know what creeds I affirmed, told me to come back when I knew the creeds. Being a new Christian literally gets the door shut on you there regardless of how Reformed your actual beliefs might be.

They have no desire to teach, which was only what I was referring to.

Whenever you mention PB I just think of people who don't want converts to the faith anywhere near them. Might get something dirty.

I'm probably good at that, so I don't hold it against them, well, not terribly anyway... Hahaha

I read their requirements to join and found them to be almost cultish and certainly legalistic and didn't bother.

 

[Josheb]

They wouldn't let me join because I didn't know what creeds I affirmed, told me to come back when I knew the creeds.

That'd be enough for me not to join.

Being a new Christian literally gets the door shut on you there regardless of how Reformed your actual beliefs might be. They have no desire to teach, which was only what I was referring to. Whenever you mention PB I just think of people who don't want converts to the faith anywhere near them. Might get something dirty. I'm probably good at that, so I don't hold it against them, well, not terribly anyway... Hahaha

I still think PB is a good place to learn about RT. I lurk there still. Not my kind of fellowship, however. There's another forum in which I post that has dedicated boards for this and that and you're not allowed to post in those boards unless you're a this or a that. Genuine inquiries are often perceived as criticism or trolling and the poster asked to leave that board.

Lol. . if you start charging we will have to negotiate, I am on the free plan almost everywhere!

I got banned from CARM for a month because I jokingly said something like, "You can send the check to....." I received notification I'd violated the rule prohibiting solicitation! Told on appeal it did not matter that I was (clearly) joking. In fact, Matt Slick himself (the owner of CARM) once DMed me personally to inform me that if I ever posted anything about the impeccability of Christ again I would be banned forever. I had written an op ASSERTING and DEFENDING Christ's impeccability, which is a position explicitly affirmed by CARM, and the op prompted a dynamic discussion (which is one of the functions of an internet forum, yes? ). I informed Matt that I completely supported CARM's position. Didn't matter, the subject is prohibited....... even though it is not listed as a prohibited topic in the TOS. In fact, I might get banned again because CARM's TOS prohibits discussing CARM in other forums!

Sometimes forums do odd stuff.

No one wants to join a forum I'd run (so I do not run one ).



Any way..... back to the op..... I think the best way to understand heresy is to have a thorough knowledge of scripture (or at least as thorough as God enables at any given point in one's life). You've probably read my account of having unwittingly joined a cult as a young believer to later recognize the preaching was wayward only because I knew enough scripture for the alarms to sound. That being said, the creeds are useful because their a synopsis of core beliefs. When Christians did not have Bibles of their own, and when many did not know how to read, the creeds served the Church exceedingly well. People knew what to believe - and by antithesis what not to believe - because they regularly recited sound doctrine. Even if it was rote they had it instilled in their brains through repetition. Adam and Eve were once good and sinless. They were the thesis!. As such, they possessed the ability to be and know good and, by contrast, the ability to recognize anything not-good simply because it was not good. They were the thesis by which any prospective antithesis they might observe could be measured and all that ability vanished the moment disobedience occurred. They became the antithesis and there was no more thesis once banished from the garden (until JC again showed up). We, the redeemed, have God's spirit within us and the word as our standard but neither does much good in ignorance. Every truth and every heresy is measured by well-rendered scripture, not the other way around, so every Christian concerned with (avoiding) heresy must know the word (written, incarnate, rhema).

 

[Odë:hgöd]

It isn't denominations that determine what is heresy. It is the Bible.

● 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

There are numerous English versions of the Bible in our day. They can't possibly all
be inspired. So when someone asks "Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?" we
should ask: Which version?

New Christians are often curious why there are so many English versions of the
Bible. Well, the thing is: the Bible was originally penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and
koiné Greek. I seriously doubt that there is even one Bible among the many English
versions available in our day that can said to be spot-on primarily because it is
virtually impossible to move thoughts from one language into another verbatim.

And then there is also the problem of ambiguity. Quite a few of the ancient words
have more than one meaning. Translators do their best to select an appropriate
thought, but must admit that sometimes they are taking an educated guess.

Another problem faced by translators is the lack of sufficient text. It's interesting to
note in an interlinear how many and how often that words are edited into English
versions to fill them out. Now those fills of course can't be assured inspired.

A lexicon of the words in the Bible giving their meanings in the original languages is
a big help sometimes although lexicons don't take into account grammatical rules,
viz: lexicons have their uses, but they aren't meant to be substitutes for an
education-- and I haven't even touched on punctuation; which is a really big
problem in itself because none that are placed in English translations came from the
manuscripts. Their selection, and their placement, is entirely arbitrary; and possibly
even biased.
_

 

[makesends]

Arial said:
It isn't denominations that determine what is heresy. It is the Bible.

Any way..... back to the op..... I think the best way to understand heresy is to have a thorough knowledge of scripture (or at least as thorough as God enables at any given point in one's life). You've probably read my account of having unwittingly joined a cult as a young believer to later recognize the preaching was wayward only because I knew enough scripture for the alarms to sound.

Amen that! One doesn't have to study the heresy, to recognize heresy.

It has been useful, though, to hear from those who have recognized the heresy, and are able to describe why it is heresy, to avoid 'slight' deviations from orthodoxy that at first appear innocuous. MOST of the statements of cults seem great and orthodox, until you find out what their proponents mean by the words they use.

 

[Arial]

● 2Tim 3:16 . . All scripture is given by inspiration of God.

There are numerous English versions of the Bible in our day. They can't possibly all
be inspired. So when someone asks "Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?" we
should ask: Which version?

New Christians are often curious why there are so many English versions of the
Bible. Well, the thing is: the Bible was originally penned in Hebrew, Aramaic, and
koiné Greek. I seriously doubt that there is even one Bible among the many English
versions available in our day that can said to be spot-on primarily because it is
virtually impossible to move thoughts from one language into another verbatim.

And then there is also the problem of ambiguity. Quite a few of the ancient words
have more than one meaning. Translators do their best to select an appropriate
thought, but must admit that sometimes they are taking an educated guess.

Another problem faced by translators is the lack of sufficient text. It's interesting to
note in an interlinear how many and how often that words are edited into English
versions to fill them out. Now those fills of course can't be assured inspired.

A lexicon of the words in the Bible giving their meanings in the original languages is
a big help sometimes although lexicons don't take into account grammatical rules,
viz: lexicons have their uses, but they aren't meant to be substitutes for an
education-- and I haven't even touched on punctuation; which is a really big
problem in itself because none that are placed in English translations came from the
manuscripts. Their selection, and their placement, is entirely arbitrary; and possibly
even biased.
_

So are you saying that no Bible can be considered inspired and therefore can't be trusted? Are you also saying that God could inspire the original writers but his Providence over its inspiration stops there? That his revelation of himself and his story of historical redemption, and truth, were only meant for original recipients of the material---that he did not superintend our canon?

 

[Hazelelponi]

The Apostles' Doctrine was the first Doctrine of the Church. This is what being a Reformed Christian is all about; IE getting as close to the original beliefs as we can. Heresey is to far from the Apostles' Doctrine. We love the Early Church fathers, but often they stray from the Apostles' Doctrine. The early Church Councils are good; the Jerusalem Council is found in the Bible itself, it has to be perfect. It is a Fundamental of the Faith that judges all further Councils...

The Reformed Hermeneutic, IE getting back to the Original Doctrine; is the answer...

I want you to know that what you've said is immensely helpful and I feel very confident in how to be well seated on issues with confidence and not doubt going forward. I needed all those words.

God has used you to benefit me greatly, so I praise God for all His works, and for His people. May God bless you and yours.

 

[Josheb]

Arial said:
It isn't denominations that determine what is heresy. It is the Bible.

Amen that! One doesn't have to study the heresy, to recognize heresy.

It has been useful, though, to hear from those who have recognized the heresy, and are able to describe why it is heresy, to avoid 'slight' deviations from orthodoxy that at first appear innocuous. MOST of the statements of cults seem great and orthodox, until you find out what their proponents mean by the words they use.

That is true and I wholeheartedly affirm it but much of that requires a person to study theology and Church history and that cannot occur absent an already-existing or a simultaneous study of scripture. I happen to like theology and history but many do not. The Spirit births within all of us a desire for the word, but not necessarily for history or the reading of Augustine, Aquinas, Whitefield, Berkouwer, or Frame, and even were that the case reading Gill versus Watts, Mather, Edwards and/or Wesley (all of whom were "Reformed" in some sense) is going to cause problems when it comes to heresy. Edwards was the cat's meow in his day and Wesley changed the world but there are very real and serious problems in their perspectives.

I've gotten into the habit of examining portions of books I read by notables and measuring their use of scripture with scripture. I take the time to look up what they claim scripture says and often times what they say it says is not what it states. This is especially true of DP theologians but is not limited to them. RTs take liberties with scripture, too. The soundness of someone's position(s) can be measured by their exegetical prowess and, therefore, so too can error. Heresy is an extreme error, one that falls outside the pale of orthodoxy. That is why Arminius manages to make into the orthodox camp of Christian theology, but Pelagius and Flowers do not. How many Christians want to read Augustine, Arminius, and Flowers? We do because God made us with that bend. The other guy's eyes glaze over when I start to talk like that at the coffee table after the service, and heaven forbid I'd broach any of this on the subway or in grocery store (unless God appoints the moment for that purpose ).

The pastor cribbed from Lewis this morning saying a person who expresses the meaning of scripture in his own words is a friend, whereas the person who expresses his own meaning in God's words is a fiend . That could be a good answer to "What is heresy?"

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm asking this in earnest, not as a critique but out of genuine curiosity. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to sort out what actually constitutes Christian belief, and in that process I’ve written off quite a bit as “not Christian.” So I want to be thoughtful in how I evaluate things going forward now that I am sure of home.

As many probably already know (and has been pointed out) Dispensational premillennialism is not typically treated as a heresy, even if it's in opposition to a classical doctrine. That got me wondering:

Are there other issues—especially ones that might appear more peripheral to some—that would actually be considered heterodox or even heretical by historic, conservative Christian standards?

For instance:

• The ordination of women as pastors, elders, or deacons
• The acceptance of homosexual marriages

Would either of those positions be seen as heretical? Or are they generally considered secondary issues that fall within the bounds of orthodoxy as long as someone affirms core creeds like the Trinity, the resurrection, and salvation through Christ?

I guess what I’m really asking is: How do we rightly discern what marks the boundaries of the church’s teaching? How do we evaluate the visible church when serious disagreements exist over things that touch on moral and ecclesial order?

Again, I'm not trying to stir controversy—I truly want to understand how to think through these matters.

One thing that might help is to know that 'airesie' the original term is about dividing things, groups, etc. Now let's place that in the 1st generation's frequent conflicts with Judaism. The point would be that non Jews had found a faith that included them through Christ, but, whoops, here comes the Judaizers and they want to divide such groups. To see this most concretely, visit Galatians, where, of course, there is one of the most definitive uses of 'airesie.'

So yes, there is a mistaken doctrine at work, but then also it (the belief) divides one of the early Christian groups. As Paul would ask in I Cor, "Is Christ divided?" Both features are a work of the flesh.

With its high view of male-female marriage, it can only divide such a group to have same-sex marriages.

re women's roles, you have to know that at that time, there were the cults where women ran everything and did so because while the intimate relations provide a taste of ecstasy, the Christian faith always acknowledges that restraint about such things must be in place. The cults would pursue ecstasy/erotica instead of honoring God. A proverb says 'too much honey makes one sick' and I Cor 7 says 'separate to pray intensely, but then come together again so that passion does not make you go elsewhere for fulfillment;' there is an obligation to each other there. If one exception is made to married male-female sexual practice, then all exceptions are validated, as we know from chaos today, and down through time.

In modern times two things happened within 10 days of eachother that moved the West to gender destruction: volunteer armed service and abortion rights, 1973. Both attacked a gender virtue that holds society together. And now we have the loss of masculinity, for ex., see Pearcy's THE WAR ON MASCULINITY.

 

[Hazelelponi]

One thing that might help is to know that 'airesie' the original term is about dividing things, groups, etc. Now let's place that in the 1st generation's frequent conflicts with Judaism. The point would be that non Jews had found a faith that included them through Christ, but, whoops, here comes the Judaizers and they want to divide such groups. To see this most concretely, visit Galatians, where, of course, there is one of the most definitive uses of 'airesie.'

So yes, there is a mistaken doctrine at work, but then also it (the belief) divides one of the early Christian groups. As Paul would ask in I Cor, "Is Christ divided?" Both features are a work of the flesh.

With its high view of male-female marriage, it can only divide such a group to have same-sex marriages.

re women's roles, you have to know that at that time, there were the cults where women ran everything and did so because while the intimate relations provide a taste of ecstasy, the Christian faith always acknowledges that restraint about such things must be in place. The cults would pursue ecstasy/erotica instead of honoring God. A proverb says 'too much honey makes one sick' and I Cor 7 says 'separate to pray intensely, but then come together again so that passion does not make you go elsewhere for fulfillment;' there is an obligation to each other there. If one exception is made to married male-female sexual practice, then all exceptions are validated, as we know from chaos today, and down through time.

In modern times two things happened within 10 days of eachother that moved the West to gender destruction: volunteer armed service and abortion rights, 1973. Both attacked a gender virtue that holds society together. And now we have the loss of masculinity, for ex., see Pearcy's THE WAR ON MASCULINITY.

This is very helpful thank you. Excellent.

God bless you.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Any way..... back to the op..... I think the best way to understand heresy is to have a thorough knowledge of scripture (or at least as thorough as God enables at any given point in one's life). You've probably read my account of having unwittingly joined a cult as a young believer to later recognize the preaching was wayward only because I knew enough scripture for the alarms to sound. That being said, the creeds are useful because their a synopsis of core beliefs. When Christians did not have Bibles of their own, and when many did not know how to read, the creeds served the Church exceedingly well. People knew what to believe - and by antithesis what not to believe - because they regularly recited sound doctrine. Even if it was rote they had it instilled in their brains through repetition. Adam and Eve were once good and sinless. They were the thesis!. As such, they possessed the ability to be and know good and, by contrast, the ability to recognize anything not-good simply because it was not good. They were the thesis by which any prospective antithesis they might observe could be measured and all that ability vanished the moment disobedience occurred. They became the antithesis and there was no more thesis once banished from the garden (until JC again showed up). We, the redeemed, have God's spirit within us and the word as our standard but neither does much good in ignorance. Every truth and every heresy is measured by well-rendered scripture, not the other way around, so every Christian concerned with (avoiding) heresy must know the word (written, incarnate, rhema).

I love this... Yes this helps a lot plus gives me lots to consider and think about. Very cool thank you for taking the time...

God bless you and your family... Thank you again

 

[CrowCross]

So are you saying that no Bible can be considered inspired and therefore can't be trusted? Are you also saying that God could inspire the original writers but his Providence over its inspiration stops there? That his revelation of himself and his story of historical redemption, and truth, were only meant for original recipients of the material---that he did not superintend our canon?

In today's christian book store we can find literal translations...freestyle translations as well as paraphrase translations. We now even have the amplified version.
I agree with @Odë:hgöd....sometimes translators got the word wrong or even the thought wrong.

BUT....I agree with you....The revelation of Jesus and his story of historical redemption, and truth has not been lost.

​

 

[makesends]

The pastor cribbed from Lewis this morning saying a person who expresses the meaning of scripture in his own words is a friend, whereas the person who expresses his own meaning in God's words is a fiend . That could be a good answer to "What is heresy?"

Brings to mind what I heard somewhere, that worshiping God is not worship by adding words to what God says about himself. But yes indeed!, if one uses God's words about himself to teach what God did not mean — — —well....

 

[Odë:hgöd]

he did not superintend our canon?

Which canon did you have in mind? There are several English versions out there to
choose from. For example:

Amplified
Catholic
Christian Standard Version
Common English
Contemporary English
English Standard Version
God's Word
International Children's
King James Version
La Biblia de las Americas
Life Application
Multiple Translations
New American
New American Standard Version
New Century
New International Reader's Version
New International Version
New King James Version
New Living Translation
New Revised Standard
Nueva Version International
Reina Valera
The Message
Today's New International Version
_

 

[Arial]

Which canon did you have in mind? There are several English versions out there to
choose from. For example:

Amplified
Catholic
Christian Standard Version
Common English
Contemporary English
English Standard Version
God's Word
International Children's
King James Version
La Biblia de las Americas
Life Application
Multiple Translations
New American
New American Standard Version
New Century
New International Reader's Version
New International Version
New King James Version
New Living Translation
New Revised Standard
Nueva Version International
Reina Valera
The Message
Today's New International Version
_

Same canon except for Catholic. I know nothing about the foreign ones but I think you are confusing translations and canon.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
Not long after my conversion, I was not only surprised, but also a bit discouraged,
to discover that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist; and that the best
that scholars have to work with are hand-written copies of hand-written copies; so I
think we have to concede that 2Tim 3:16 no longer applies the way it once did in
Paul's day.
_