What is Heresy?

[Eleanor]

It is, that and the fact it's stated as one of the facets of Atonement makes it indispensable, but so is Ransom Theory, and is actually so "named" verbatim in scripture. I think "Moral Influence' theory is arguably the weakest but yeah, plain ol' Substitutionary Atonement would probably have been a better moniker.

Both (atonement and ransom) being a payment to redeem (buy back) from sin's condemnation.

 

[XrzrX]

Both (atonement and ransom) being a payment to redeem (buy back) from sin's condemnation.

Right, and I agree. I think all the models are true, and just highlight a unique facet of Atonement, which by it's nature is so complete and manifold it would require several descriptors. The thing is all of them including "penal" require a 'curation' of support (which is fine) to enumerate the 'concept', where one is stated unequivocally... by name.. "Who gave himself a Ransom for all..", of course "Christus Victor".. has the ultimate ring , so... where's the suggestion box?

 

[Carbon]

Heresy is that which is contradictory to orthodoxy, which is
1) inspiration and infallibility of Scripture,
2) deity of Christ,
3) Christ's virgin birth and miracles,
4) Christ's penal death for our sins,
5) Christ's physical resurrection and personal return.

What she said. I would add denial of the Trinity is heresy as well

 

[makesends]

Of course I would appreciate input from @John Bauer , @Carbon @Josheb @ReverendRV @Arial @fastfredy0 @His clay as well when they have time, I understand each church might have slightly different views I'm just looking for solid Biblical and theologally sound replies that address the OP.

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

Heresy is also what is sometimes implied by seemingly innocuous beliefs. One might ask if the Arminian Gospel is heresy. Well, no, I wouldn't say so, but the notion that our eternal destiny hinges on our decision, is heresy. Thus I say, that my Arminian brothers and sisters don't realize what they are saying, even when they insist on libertarian free will.

 

[Carbon]

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

Heresy is also what is sometimes implied by seemingly innocuous beliefs. One might ask if the Arminian Gospel is heresy. Well, no, I wouldn't say so, but the notion that our eternal destiny hinges on our decision, is heresy. Thus I say, that my Arminian brothers and sisters don't realize what they are saying, even when they insist on libertarian free will.

Semi-pelagianism is. So is pelagianism

 

[XrzrX]

What she said. I would add denial of the Trinity is heresy as well

As would I.

 

[makesends]

As would I.

I'll plant a stake and gather the faggots.

 

[fastfredy0]

I do just have to interject, you mean the dictionary that recently changed the definition of male and female to "having a gender identity that is opposite of 'female/male'"

I'm not sure what your point is. I do not claim the dictionary to be infallible. A dictionary defines the meaning of words according to their usage and adds/changes words as their usage changes. For instance, I imagine the word GAY has had additional meaning(s) added to it over the last 100 years.

 

[XrzrX]

I'll plant a stake and gather the faggots.

Well, branches broken off are for the fire..

 

[XrzrX]

I'm not sure what your point is. I do not claim the dictionary to be infallible. A dictionary defines the meaning of words according to their usage and adds/changes words as their usage changes. For instance, I imagine the word GAY has had additional meaning(s) added to it over the last 100 years.

Yes, but you specified "the authority".

 

[fastfredy0]

Yes, but you specified "the authority".

Well, do you know of a better practical 'authority' than a dictionary as the ultimate source of the meaning of words?

 

[XrzrX]

I'm not sure what your point is. I do not claim the dictionary to be infallible. A dictionary defines the meaning of words according to their usage and adds/changes words as their usage changes. For instance, I imagine the word GAY has had additional meaning(s) added to it over the last 100 years.

Regardless of whether it's 'the', or 'an' authority... I would question the verity of any "authority" that is patently in error. Citing "usage" doesn't apply in this case, which are demarked clearly as "usages", it's posited as "Definitive Meaning", definition. Clearly, a lie... and by no stretch of the imagination, any longer, any kind of 'authority'.

 

[XrzrX]

Well, do you know of a better practical 'authority' than a dictionary as the ultimate source of the meaning of words?

Great question, the answer is no.. and what an absolute travesty. A bellwether for the survival and advance of reason.

 

[ReverendRV]

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.

Heresey is false teaching opposed to Christian Orthodoxy. It's more than Sola Scriptura, which is the highest Authority to settle all Spiritual disputes; it's really Orthodoxy that Opposes heresey. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy. Fundamentalism versus private interpretation...

It's the Apostles Doctrine that thwarts Heresey...

 

[Josheb]

What is Heresy?​

- a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine
Orthodox- conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true

... so as time goes by a belief can become a heresy or stop being a heresy as the majority of opinion on a religious subject can change over time. There doesn't seem to be a direct relationship between truth and what is or is not a heresy as people determine what they think is theologically right or wrong, not God. (Aside: God determines everything but for this answer I'm not going there ... giggle)

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'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.

Outside of core doctrine, there exists a degree of diversity because God's revelation to us is either not exhaustive or not yet fully grasped and understood. Because of this there exist sectarian orthodoxies, and that usually encompasses as limited spectrum of beliefs because of the aforementioned limits of scripture or our understanding thereof. There is, for example, a core set of beliefs and doctrines within Reformed theology but outside of those beliefs and doctrines there is some debate. A. W. Pink, for example, is much more determinist than someone like Sproul. Vos' soteriology, at least to the extent he embraced his own view of Pauline Eschatology, is slightly different than Luther's or maybe Spurgeon's. For us commoners , the tendency is to advocate in the vein of whoever we last read ., and that is why it is always best to start with the most explicit statements in scripture. Doctrine built on the explicit never varies. Doctrine built on what is thought to be implicit often varies.

@CrowCross' list is very good but it is very behavioral. It's also worth noting heresy is often worded in the negative (like that list od denials). That being said, as a presuppositionalist, I encourage everyone to grasp the principles asserted in scripture, not merely the letter. When we correctly grasp the principles asserted by scripture, we always better grasp the letter because too rigid an adherence to the letter breeds legalism, not just bad doctrine, and legalism kills. A principled reading of the explicit helps prevent wayward inferences. Presuppositionalism starts with the basics.

God exists.
Anything and everything else is heretical.

Jesus is the Son of God who is God made flesh.
Anything and everything else is heretical.

Basics.


One last word. During my career I networked with a hugely diverse set of congregation and my clients were even more diverse. I am wholeheartedly Reformed in my thinking but because of the necessity to meet my clients wherever they may be took it upon myself to listen, read, and learn all about the diversity within Christendom and have discovered that although someone may say they are not Reformed they usually accept Reformed positions when they hear them....... as long as they are not specifically labeled Reformed . It is as if Christians tend to be more reformed than they know. That goes for RC's, too, not just Prots. It's kind of like talking individual positions with a Democrat. They'll agree with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the third, fourth, etc. and if and when the two of us sit, listen and reason together a lot of consensuses can be had, but the minute the R-word is mentioned disagreement ensues. And that is one of the ways to tell if you're dealing with a heresy: the heretic gets upset and acts like you are the problem (not the doctrine = post, not poster, position, not person).

As far as RT goes, take your cues from our example because @Carbon, @Arial, @John Bauer, @Fred, @makesends, @ReverendRV, and I (and whoever I left out) do not always agree but we usually disagree within a set of limits still well within the spectrum of RT orthodoxy. You'll find the same condition(s) exist in most Dispensationally-heavy forums, or a Zionist-heavy forums. Most, not all. Puritan Board would be an example of rigid orthodoxy in the RT arena.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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

Heresy is also what is sometimes implied by seemingly innocuous beliefs. One might ask if the Arminian Gospel is heresy. Well, no, I wouldn't say so, but the notion that our eternal destiny hinges on our decision, is heresy. Thus I say, that my Arminian brothers and sisters don't realize what they are saying, even when they insist on libertarian free will.

Hahaha well you knew I was going to forget people in the list, but I'm glad that at least if I forget to add a name it's someone like you (and @Eleanor ) who knows they are always invited. I apologize dearest brother and sister for the unintentional oversight.

You are always welcome att my table, and we always have coffee

Thank you for your input and adding the Arminians to the mix. I have them in the bucket of needing prayers prayers.

What you mentioned is interesting, I do appreciate you in this thread.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Heresey is false teaching opposed to Christian Orthodoxy. It's more than Sola Scriptura, which is the highest Authority to settle all Spiritual disputes; it's really Orthodoxy that Opposes heresey. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy. Fundamentalism versus private interpretation...

It's the Apostles Doctrine that thwarts Heresey...

So this is where we need to learn what the controversies were at the time, how each heresy developed according to the church histories, and then start learning and adopting the creeds and confessions as we understand them?

This isn't something I have very seriously done because everything about all the denominations can seem daunting to me and the language is more difficult to understand.

At least now I don't have to run to the dictionary to figure out what 75% of the words mean anymore .. I have finally at least learned to understand the language now. Praise God as that is all Him.

If you have any further thoughts or I'm not thinking about this correctly please speak. God bless you and thank you for responding.