What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What is heresy?

smaller said:
I believe "believers" are baptized by His Spirit, unseen.
Click to expand...
True. That does not cancel water baptism, which is to be seen by all as a witness to that which is unseen. When you go through the book of Acts, water baptism was an immediate (or almost immediate) act of obedience by all who were saved.
 
Malachi said:
True. That does not cancel water baptism, which is to be seen by all as a witness to that which is unseen. When you go through the book of Acts, water baptism was an immediate (or almost immediate) act of obedience by all who were saved.
Click to expand...

And unfortunately some have turned these things of the Spirit into being the same as "laws" with the attendant penalties attached. Same old game, new rules. Today I'd reject being baptized under the law of full immersion or burn alive forever. Nothing but legalism with an ill eternal bent penalty clause attached.

How do you think we wound up being divided across the spectrum? Works and legalism.
 
th1b.taylor said:
Heresy is a teaching that is unsupported by scripture. Now, I am not all that slow to point heresy against; 1. The Virgin Birth 2. The Blood Atonement 3. The Deity of Jesus 4. The Bodily Resurection of Jesus but on matter such as OSAS I tend not to find much fruit in such arguments and prefere something such as I'll drop something such as, "I'll wave at you on the way up.

The Fundamentals of Christianity are not disputable but OSAS is not required for the Pail Of Orthodoxy and if one ignores the full context of the scriptures and is something like a TULIP Believer, it is easy (risky I believe) to stand there.

Oh, I am also OSAS.
Click to expand...

Oh Bill, they're just not listening to you.
 
What is heresy? The word simply means "choice". It is not always used in a negative fashion. The word "sect" in the NT is from the Greek word "hairesis". There were men of the "sect/heresy" of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Nazarenes. Most of you are of the sect/heresy of the Christians.

There are two verses in Scripture that help to define heresy in the negative sense.

1) 2Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.​

Based on this verse, one heresy is to deny the Lord (Yeshua/Jesus), that is, to deny him as one's Lord, Savior and Yahweh's Messiah.

2) Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
​
This verse defines heresy as not believing all things written in the law [Torah - including the law of Moses] and in the prophets.
 
jocor said:
2) Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
​
This verse defines heresy as not believing all things written in the law [Torah - including the law of Moses] and in the prophets.
Click to expand...

Obviously the pharisee's and Paul didn't quite see eye to eye in all that was written.
 
Wrg1405 said:
What is damnable false teaching?
Click to expand...

We see “heresy” as a word used in the NT. In NT Greek (I read and teach Greek), the term from which we get “heresy” is hairesis. Arndt & Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon (1957:23) states that hairesis means ‘sect, party, school’. It was used of the Sadduccees in Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees in Acts 15:5. Of the Christians in Acts 24:5. It is used of a heretical sect or those with destructive opinions in 2 Peter 2:1' (“destructive heresies” ESV).

The article on hairesis in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964:182f) states that its “usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier Rabbis” but the development of the Christian sense of heresy does not parallel this Rabbinic use.

When the NT ekklesia (church) came into being, there was no place for hairesis. They were opposed to each other. This author states that “the greater seriousness consists in the fact that hairesis affect the foundation of the church in doctrine (2 Pt. 2:1), and that they do so in such a fundamental way as to give rise to a new society alongside the ekklesia” (Kittel 1964:183).

From the NT, we see the term, heresy, being used to mean what Paul called strange doctrines, different doctrine, doctrines of demons, every wind of doctrine, etc. (I Timothy 1:3; 4:1;6:3; Ephesians 4:14), as contrasted with sound doctrine, our doctrine, the doctrine conforming to godliness, the doctrine of God, etc. (I Timothy 4:6; 6:1,3; II Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1, 10).

Therefore, hairesis in the NT does not refer to doctrinal differences (as might apply with divergent views of baptism and the Lord's Supper). It refers to foundational doctrines as taught (particularly in the NT) and applied to doctrines of God, Christ, human beings, salvation, the Holy Spirit, etc. Thus, the early church was threatened by the heresies of Gnostician, Marcionism, Nestorianism, Arianism, Doceticism, etc.

What are some of the heresies of today that are attacking foundational doctrines of the faith?

Oz

Works consulted
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (4th ed). London: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition to Zondervan Publishing House).

Kittel, G (ed) 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 1. Tr. by G W Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 
smaller said:
How do you think we wound up being divided across the spectrum? Works and legalism.
Click to expand...
Evidently you need to get a solid grasp of the meaning of Christian baptism, which is as far from legalism as you can get. Even John's baptism had nothing to do with legalism. So please study the matter since it is a command of Christ.
 
antipasta said:
Anything that contradicts the Nicene Creed.
Click to expand...
That is twice you have tread on the Word of God making it less that one of the Creeds. i held my mouth after one post but you are in direct violation of the Word of God and in danger of setting yourself at the wrong seat of judgement.
 
th1b.taylor said:
That is twice you have tread on the Word of God making it less that one of the Creeds. i held my mouth after one post but you are in direct violation of the Word of God and in danger of setting yourself at the wrong seat of judgement.
Click to expand...
It's okay. I hold to the Nicene Creed, so I'm good to go at Judgement time. :wink
 
OzSpen said:
Thanks for that clarification. Which are the risky Arminian proclamations to which you refer? Why are they risky?
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying that Arminianism was risky. I was responding to a thread above referencing a TULIP believer as being risky ( assuming I interpreted correctly) So I was just asking the reverse. Two different views of which only one can be right. So as I've said above what happens before Christ when two people stand before Christ one who holds onto TULIP and the other Aminianism?
 
Wrg1405 said:
I wasn't saying that Arminianism was risky. I was responding to a thread above referencing a TULIP believer as being risky ( assuming I interpreted correctly) So I was just asking the reverse. Two different views of which only one can be right. So as I've said above what happens before Christ when two people stand before Christ one who holds onto TULIP and the other Aminianism?
Click to expand...

To be honest, when we stand before Christ there will be no denominational or theological labels on us - in my understanding. We are in or out of the kingdom by His grace (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 2:11).

However, that didn't stop an ardent Calvinist such as R C Sproul from saying In the introduction to his book, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (1997:25, Baker Books) when asked if he thought Arminians were Christians. His response was, '"Yes, barely." They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency'. So for Sproul, the Calvinist, Arminians are 'barely' Christian.

Oz
 
Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:
Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.
​
The NT ekklesia was not only viewed as a hairesis, but it's "ringleader" Paul was as well. Even those outside of the ekklesia looked upon them as a hairesis. This shows two possible views; 1) the NT ekklesia was indeed a hairesis, not necessarily in a bad sense, but in the sense that they made different choices concerning beliefs 2) that even though one is considered a hairesis, that assessment may be false. We need to be careful of how we label others or what we accuse them of.
 
jocor said:
Acts 28:22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against. The NT ekklesia was not only viewed as a hairesis, but it's "ringleader" Paul was as well.
Click to expand...

Paul and the other Apostles.

IF anyone is "in Christ" they are guaranteed this, which is shown in Acts 28:22 as well.

Luke 21:17
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
 
smaller said:
Paul and the other Apostles.

IF anyone is "in Christ" they are guaranteed this, which is shown in Acts 28:22 as well.
Click to expand...
I agree. That is why I wrote, "The NT ekklesia was not only viewed as a hairesis". The ekklesia includes the Apostles and anyone else "in Christ".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top