Heresy

[elijah23]

Re: "Faith"

This, I think is the MORE important definition to "nail down". The VAST MAJORITY of what's CALLED "Faith" in the religious community is really nothing more than HOPE. And Hope isn't "Faith" and carries NO guarantees like Faith does.

Folks talk about the BAPTIST (or Catholic, or Orthodox) FAITH - when Being "Baptist" etc. isn't a "Faith" at all. it's a denominational franchise.

Folks say they have "Faith" in one another, which really only meant that the HOPE the "other" won't let 'em down too badly.

The Church of Christ (Campbellite) demonstrates NO theological concept of "Faith" at all, and sees it as meaning nothing beyond "Mental ascent", which if "Walked out" equals "Faith".

I’ve heard the word “faith†being used two different ways:

First, “faith†would mean “trust in the Lord.†Example: I have faith in the Lord.

Second, “faith†would mean “our set of beliefs.†Example: Our faith requires that we love one another.

Sometimes people will say, "Have faith in yourself," I guess. I don't see how one can do that. It is still a matter of having faith in the Lord. Or they might say, "Trust me," which irritates me since it is still a matter of having faith in the Lord, and the Lord only. Except we do learn to trust our close friends, I think.

 

[elijah23]

elijah23,

I think the failure to point out the heretics has led to whole denominations screwing from the narrow way. Why do we have large denominations like Episcopalians supporting the gay lifestyle? There are others like T.D. Jakes who believes in modalism instead of God in three Persons. What about those 'ministries' that preach if you just have enough faith, then you'll get healed, as people with serious diseases leave with not only the disappointment of not being healed, but feel some how their faith is not valid. The minister afterwards gets to fly home in his jet where he enjoys a ten thousand + foot home. When people claim truths that contradict what the Bible says when it comes to the fundamentals, then we can call them heretics, not out of judgment but discernment. The debate has been going on for some time just what are the fundamentals. What must we agree on as Christians? I can't remember them all, but here are a few: Jesus is God; God is a Trinity; salvation comes by faith alone, not works; salvation comes through Jesus alone in His death and resurrection; God wrote the Bible through men. It's possible to be ignorant of some of these distinctions and still be a Christian, but with the revelation God has given us in the Bible, those same ignorant Christians will adopt the basic fundamentals of the faith that are not negotiable. The fruit will reveal the nature of the tree. The person who teaches that all souls go to Heaven is a heretical teaching. If I believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan, that's heresy. He who does not have the Son, does not have the Father. One of the most unloving things we can do is keep silent when the heretic speaks!

- Davies

Not all Episcopalians support the homosexual lifestyle. Churches to battle over things. The United Methodist Church, which I belong to, battles over the same issue. I find it annoying that church leaders will support disobedience to our Lord, who taught us to be sexually abstinent until we marry.

But there are no perfect Christians. Many of the same Christians who oppose homosexuality will then give their blessing to sexual permissiveness, as long as it is of a heterosexual nature.

In the end, one takes a stand in his own local church. What do I care what goes on in all the rest of the United Methodist Churches in the world? About all I can do is set the best example I can for those in the local church I belong to, not that I haven't expressed my opinion to the entire church conference that my church belongs to.

 

[Davies]

About all I can do is set the best example I can for those in the local church I belong to, not that I haven't expressed my opinion to the entire church conference that my church belongs to.

I would agree with you there are likely to be many good churches found within denominations that support sin. I don't like to just single out homosexuality. But when your pastor promotes heresy from the pulpit, I suppose each person has to ask the question, when is it appropriate to leave the local church. There is a schism in the Anglican church where, I believe, the African segments have broken away. A distinction has to be made at some point including denominations. This may be one of the reasons why there are so many denominations.

This brings up another interesting matter, the movement to have denominations that are 'non-denominational.' What is a non-denominational church? Do Catholics fall under the same category? Do Mormons fall under the same category? Who are we to say the Mormons are not Christians after all. As long as we don't allow are differences to get in the way, can't we all get along?

If we aren't clear on doctrine, or orthodoxy, then our orthopraxy will suffer, and you'll end up with the mess we have today in our churches. We not only have disunity on the non-essentials of the faith, we have disunity on the essentials. No wonder our society mocks Christianity. They look at the presumed followers of Christ, and say, 'Why would I want to be a part of that. They can't even agree on the truth among themselves.'

I would also agree with you that an individual is capable of so much and is not responsible for the decisions his denomination makes. What we can do, is point out the decisions our denominations make, and decide to accept it or reject it, and hopefully you're knowledgeable enough to recognize heresy. What heartache and pain for those who don't recognize it.

- Davies

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I would agree with you there are likely to be many good churches found within denominations that support sin. I don't like to just single out homosexuality. But when your pastor promotes heresy from the pulpit, I suppose each person has to ask the question, when is it appropriate to leave the local church. There is a schism in the Anglican church where, I believe, the African segments have broken away. A distinction has to be made at some point including denominations. This may be one of the reasons why there are so many denominations.

This brings up another interesting matter, the movement to have denominations that are 'non-denominational.' What is a non-denominational church? Do Catholics fall under the same category? Do Mormons fall under the same category? Who are we to say the Mormons are not Christians after all. As long as we don't allow are differences to get in the way, can't we all get along?

If we aren't clear on doctrine, or orthodoxy, then our orthopraxy will suffer, and you'll end up with the mess we have today in our churches. We not only have disunity on the non-essentials of the faith, we have disunity on the essentials. No wonder our society mocks Christianity. They look at the presumed followers of Christ, and say, 'Why would I want to be a part of that. They can't even agree on the truth among themselves.'

I would also agree with you that an individual is capable of so much and is not responsible for the decisions his denomination makes. What we can do, is point out the decisions our denominations make, and decide to accept it or reject it, and hopefully you're knowledgeable enough to recognize heresy. What heartache and pain for those who don't recognize it.

- Davies

When I got saved I moved from what I call 'the church of the world', where, generally speaking, unsaved people go to church, and into the true church of Jesus Christ where the truly saved and transformed and serious people of God go to meet together and where the unsaved and the inquiring are the minority.

This may offend some, and I certainly don't want to purposely or sinfully offend anyone, but it is the world's mainline denominations that constitute the 'church of the world', the place where unsaved people go and are made comfortable and do what they think they're supposed to do to appease God.

Generally speaking, it is in the non-denominational congregations that have separated themselves from the 'church of the world' and who make few if any compromises with the world's philosophies and religious beliefs that you will find the true congregations of the people of God. This doesn't mean you won't find genuinely saved people in the church of the world, but if you want to be with the sincere and devoted people of God who strive to not compromise the truth and are not so severely polluted with the contentions of spirit-less, unsaved people you really have to look for that in a non-denominational congregation.

That's my two cents worth...and I'm sure it has probably bought me a lot of grief.

 

[Davies]

I'm curious now. Why are churches started as 'non-denominational' churches and what distinguishes them from denominational churches?

- Davies

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm curious now. Why are churches started as 'non-denominational' churches...

I'm guessing in order to purposely break the grip of polluted and spirit-less leadership that they feel are taking them away from God's will.

...and what distinguishes them from denominational churches?

- Davies

They are not identified with, or controlled by, a particular religious system of worship and belief presently in operation.

The irony is, sooner or later the group that decides they will be non-denominational will by virtue of organizing themselves against the status quo become a denomination.

 

[Hitch]

I'm curious now. Why are churches started as 'non-denominational' churches and what distinguishes them from denominational churches?

- Davies

I dont want to make this thread another discussion of eschatology, but I reckon it is eschatology that drives this sort of thing as the historical churches seldom use it as a benchmark and in 'non-doms' it is usually a driving force.

 

[Mike]

I'm guessing in order to purposely break the grip of polluted and spirit-less leadership that they feel are taking them away from God's will.



They are not identified with, or controlled by, a particular religious system of worship and belief presently in operation.

The irony is, sooner or later the group that decides they will be non-denominational will by virtue of organizing themselves against the status quo become a denomination.

I find this line of reasoning a little broad with the brush. I'm confident that I could walk into any biblically-based church and find some who are dead in sin and some worshiping in spirit and truth. Going to a great church doesn't make you a solid believer, and going to a dead one won't stop the Lord from instilling faith that can move mountains. I believe each of us are Led personally; some of us follow, and others don't. My main point is that there are beautiful Christians who grow in faith in spite of the church they're at.

Non-denominations are not fail-safe. There is a non-D church on the west side of Michigan. Everything looked great, multitudes were flocking to hear Rob Bell preach. Then Bell comes out and announces in his latest book that he holds to Universalism. My perspective is that these people in his congregation fled from denominations because of the politics. What they got in return was a pastor who was not in line with "Mere Christianity".

Denominational churches can be too rigid, meaning - They are restricted from preaching certain doctrines which they've come to believe because of the affiliation to the denomination. Non-denominational churches, in turn, have no way of effectively restricting bad doctrine. You could have a rogue pastor start leading his flock to the belief that Paul's writings were not equally Inspired as any of the other books.

Most of us would agree that if a preacher started preaching that Paul's writings are not Inspired, it would be good to find another church to attend. At that point, you listen to the Lord and either fight for the removal of this pastor, or you find another church home. I believe it is much less likely to find a rogue pastor at a denominational church.

 

[Free]

I'm curious now. Why are churches started as 'non-denominational' churches and what distinguishes them from denominational churches?

- Davies

I think mainly because of various disagreements with every other denominations' beliefs. Hence, they are their own denomination, further fracturing Christianity. Some likely do it so that they do not have to answer to anyone, which, to me, is an extremely serious, but key, side effect of all non-denominational churches. Now they can teach what they want, with little repercussion.

 

[reba]

Somebody once told me denominations are like back yard fences they make for good neighbours.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think mainly because of various disagreements with every other denominations' beliefs. Hence, they are their own denomination, further fracturing Christianity.

Denominations seem to center around what that group thinks is the most important hobby horse to ride in the church.

Ironically, the varying gifts God gave us to build each other up and unify us is what we divide ourselves by. Some think evangelism is what the church should be focusing on. Some think helps are what we are to be devoted to. Some think water baptism is the most important thing. Some think the baptism of the Spirit is the most important thing. Some think miraculous workings are the defining experience of the church. And so on, and so on... And so we seek churches that agree with what we think the main purpose of the Christian's life is.

But if we all understood that the various giftings and burdens for ministry God has given in different measures to different members in the body were given for the purpose of fulfilling the one common calling we all share without difference and exception then we might actually be able to fellowship one with another in the one big denomination called the body of Christ. But as long as we continue to think walking in a gift in service to God is the primary goal and epitome of what it means to live for and please God then we will continue to banter over who's gift and burden is the one we all need to be walking in, and separate ourselves in order to do that. How sad.

I want to start a new grass roots, non-denominational movement that joins us Christians in fellowship according to the one thing we really have been called to that we all share without any difference or exception. And we'll all use our various gifts and abilities to fulfill that goal, instead of making any one particular gift or ministry itself the goal. All are invited to join me in this new non-denominational grassroots movement.

 

[Davies]

Generally speaking, it is in the non-denominational congregations that have separated themselves from the 'church of the world' and who make few if any compromises with the world's philosophies and religious beliefs that you will find the true congregations of the people of God. This doesn't mean you won't find genuinely saved people in the church of the world, but if you want to be with the sincere and devoted people of God who strive to not compromise the truth and are not so severely polluted with the contentions of spirit-less, unsaved people you really have to look for that in a non-denominational congregation.

I've personally been involved with about three different denominations. Before I became a Christian, I was listening to what I thought was a bird menagerie as everyone was speaking in tongues. They said they were non-denominational, but they had their distinctives. I've been involved with Calvary Chapel. They will tell you they are non-denominational, but they have their distinctives as well. I've also been involved, but never a member, with Independent Baptists. The only thing different I can tell between them are the distinctives, and perhaps the Baptists had more. I don't see any differences between the donoms and non-denoms. I don't think I need to particularly look at the non-denominational congregations to find "sincere and devoted people of God who strive to not compromise the truth and are not so severely polluted with the contentions of spirit-less, unsaved people." I found rewarding fellowship with each one of them.

The irony is, sooner or later the group that decides they will be non-denominational will by virtue of organizing themselves against the status quo become a denomination. - Jethro Bodine

I agree with Jethro that though an organization claims to be non-denominational, they really are not. Perhaps a good church will have a pastor and elders who are held accountable to what they teach and what they do. The practice of church discipline needs to be in place. A practice rarely seen, at least in my experience.

- Davies

 

[Asyncritus]

The Lord can use people to reveal the Gospel. He also can reveal it simply by imparting the knowledge directly to us, if we are paying attention to him.

Oh yeah.

Acts 8.32 Now the place of the scripture which he was reading was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before his shearer is dumb, So he openeth not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgement was taken away: His generation who shall declare? For his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other?
35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Biblical "Faith"

I’ve heard the word “faith” being used two different ways:

First, “faith” would mean “trust in the Lord.” Example: I have faith in the Lord.

Second, “faith” would mean “our set of beliefs.” Example: Our faith requires that we love one another.

Sometimes people will say, "Have faith in yourself," I guess. I don't see how one can do that. It is still a matter of having faith in the Lord. Or they might say, "Trust me," which irritates me since it is still a matter of having faith in the Lord, and the Lord only. Except we do learn to trust our close friends, I think.

Your FIRST definition is true:

Biblically (Hebrews 11):
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There are ABSOLUTE conditions. "Substance" can be understood as the "ABSOLUTE REALITY" of what's being hoped for, and "EVIDENCE" is a POSITIVE PROOF that the thing you DON'T see - IS/WILL BE there. One might say that Biblical FAITH is the same as ACTUALLY POSSESSING something - that's not there yet.

#2 isn't even related to "Biblical Faith" it's just a corruption of the word by using it to describe an intellectual set of beliefs, or philosophies.

Personally I DO legitimately "Have faith" in myself in some respects. I "Have faith" in the Biblical sense that when I get on stage with the other members of the "Cedar Junction Bluegrass band" that when It comes time for me to start the Set with an up-tempo Banjo breakdown - I'll be able to do it well. OR if I need to put a front wheel bearing in my car, I get the parts, and "Just DO it".

Or at work when I'm given the responsibility of designing a special machine, I know what to do, and how to do it so as soon as I'm Given the job - the machine is a established REALITY to me - even thought it's not built yet. I have cultivated certain abilities which I can place TOTAL TRUST in - i.e. "Faith".

When somebody tells me to "Trust them" - That's my clue NOT to. I 'spect you already know why -

 

[Free]

Denominations seem to center around what that group thinks is the most important hobby horse to ride in the church.

Ironically, the varying gifts God gave us to build each other up and unify us is what we divide ourselves by. Some think evangelism is what the church should be focusing on. Some think helps are what we are to be devoted to. Some think water baptism is the most important thing. Some think the baptism of the Spirit is the most important thing. Some think miraculous workings are the defining experience of the church. And so on, and so on... And so we seek churches that agree with what we think the main purpose of the Christian's life is.

But if we all understood that the various giftings and burdens for ministry God has given in different measures to different members in the body were given for the purpose of fulfilling the one common calling we all share without difference and exception then we might actually be able to fellowship one with another in the one big denomination called the body of Christ. But as long as we continue to think walking in a gift in service to God is the primary goal and epitome of what it means to live for and please God then we will continue to banter over who's gift and burden is the one we all need to be walking in, and separate ourselves in order to do that. How sad.

That may account for most of the major denominations but it certainly doesn't account for the rest, the majority of denominations. Take Oneness Pentecostalism, started due to belief in heresy.

I want to start a new grass roots, non-denominational movement that joins us Christians in fellowship according to the one thing we really have been called to that we all share without any difference or exception. And we'll all use our various gifts and abilities to fulfill that goal, instead of making any one particular gift or ministry itself the goal. All are invited to join me in this new non-denominational grassroots movement.

Well, have fun with that. I think that denominations are a necessary evil and would pick a denominational church over a non-denominational one every time.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Originally Posted by Jethro Bodine:
I want to start a new grass roots, non-denominational movement that joins us Christians in fellowship according to the one thing we really have been called to that we all share without any difference or exception. And we'll all use our various gifts and abilities to fulfill that goal, instead of making any one particular gift or ministry itself the goal. All are invited to join me in this new non-denominational grassroots movement.

Well, have fun with that. I think that denominations are a necessary evil and would pick a denominational church over a non-denominational one every time.

I think the phrase is 'well, good luck with that', lol.

I think you know I was just making a point. I wouldn't try it because I agree that most Christians would attend a traditional mainline church over a non-denominational but entirely Biblical meeting of the saints that actually accomplished what God intended for his people when they meet together (most mainline churches do not do that). Simply because the traditions of how the body of Christ goes to church are so thoroughly entrenched in the body of Christ that most Christians do not know what a truly Biblical meeting of the saints looks like and accomplishes that they would be able to recognize it and appreciate it when they saw it.

 

[jasoncran]

not all mainline churches are alike.

i have been to some of them and gone to several churches and hear the differences.

calvary chapel has that phenonom.

 

[fact]

I doubt if any of us fully understands the truth, yet (1 Cor 13:12), so for the most part, I don’t think any of us is in a position to call another a heretic. It is true that some people do seem to create a self-serving theology and try to promote it, and perhaps such people deserve to be called heretics, but when heresy simply means, “I disagree with what you say,†then heresy no longer is an issue.

Dear, in Galatian 1:8 Paul called heretic to damnation every one who teach a different gospell that he never taught, most of the readers of any VERSION of the bible like to ignore that damnation, which is repeated twice:

A VERSION MEANS THAT IS DIFFERENT TO ITS SOURCE

 

[Free]

Dear, in Galatian 1:8 Paul called heretic to damnation every one who teach a different gospell that he never taught, most of the readers of any VERSION of the bible like to ignore that damnation, which is repeated twice:

A VERSION MEANS THAT IS DIFFERENT TO ITS SOURCE

The gospel Paul was referring to wasn't a version of Scripture, so no, most readers are not ignoring his warning. Besides, you are using a version so you have just contradicted your argument.

But this thread is about heresy, not different versions of Scripture. Unless, of course, you are saying that all, or most, versions of Scripture are heresy. But that wouldn't be correct.

I think the phrase is 'well, good luck with that', lol.

I had thought of that but figured someone would say something about luck not being Christian. :D

I think you know I was just making a point.

I thought that was likely the case but I hadn't read any of your posts.

I wouldn't try it because I agree that most Christians would attend a traditional mainline church over a non-denominational but entirely Biblical meeting of the saints that actually accomplished what God intended for his people when they meet together (most mainline churches do not do that). Simply because the traditions of how the body of Christ goes to church are so thoroughly entrenched in the body of Christ that most Christians do not know what a truly Biblical meeting of the saints looks like and accomplishes that they would be able to recognize it and appreciate it when they saw it.

Well, this presumes that none are "doing church" correctly. It could be that one or more denominations have it more-or-less right. Or that several together are 'accomplishing what God intended.'

 

[fact]

The gospel Paul was referring to wasn't a version of Scripture, so no, most readers are not ignoring his warning. Besides, you are using a version so you have just contradicted your argument.

But this thread is about heresy, not different versions of Scripture. Unless, of course, you are saying that all, or most, versions of Scripture are heresy. But that wouldn't be correct.

'

Dear, In the 1611 King James Version DID NOT EXIST the name JESUS

The name used today is wrong

None of the New Testament Writers mentioned the name JEHOVAH/YEHOVAH, which the King James Version mentions, that name is wrong

The King James Version worships and teaches so a different gospel, fall within Galatians 1:8 & 9