HERESY?

[Enoch111]

You are directing Christians away from these sources of God's Word to -- what?

I am directing no one. I am simply stating a fact which can be verified by all. Every Christian has a responsibility to search out the truth and reject the lies, no matter where they appear.

 

[amigo de christo]

Correct. Unless we are totally dependent on the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, and love nothing but the truth, Christians can be deceived. Even theologians, scholars, professors, and well-known personalities can lead Christians astray.

Yes indeed my friend . Stay planted in that bible and teach that doctrine continuously . I see some , even here , who are already
trying to downplay the dire importance of scripture . We wont be heeding those . not for a one second .
stay planted in the lovely biblical doctrine my friend .

 

[amigo de christo]

I am directing no one. I am simply stating a fact which can be verified by all. Every Christian has a responsibility to search out the truth and reject the lies, no matter where they appear.

Double down on these reminders my friend . Folks who down play the importance of scripture are taking no time off downplaying scripture .
SO we take no time off countering it with true scripture and reminding folks to be planted in the bible .
The bible is the one book satan wants folks not to trust in , satan wants folks to trust in men , so as he can decieve us through men .
But we stand on scripture truth and that BY grace . So just double down my friend . Dont let anyone try and sway you from doing so .

 

[Nancy]

One could say that Satan and his influence is indeed in church's today, way more even than in night clubs, prostitution houses, and any place of "ill repute". Why would he need to persecute or even tempt those who are already deep into and given over to their sinful, worldly ways?
Isn't it those who are truly seeking God that Satan is really after? He's looking to devour, not those that are already given over to their sin-they're right where he wants them.
He watches those who try to draw near to God through Jesus Christ-MOST especially (IMHO) the scriptures.

 

[amigo de christo]

One could say that Satan and his influence is indeed in church's today, way more even than in night clubs, prostitution houses, and any place of "ill repute". Why would he need to persecute or even tempt those who are already deep into and given over to their sinful, worldly ways?
Isn't it those who are truly seeking God that Satan is really after? He's looking to devour, not those that are already given over to their sin-they're right where he wants them.
He watches those who try to draw near to God through Jesus Christ-MOST especially (IMHO) the scriptures.

The enemy knows his time is short so he is moving about fast now .
Oh but we resist him through our faith in JESUS CHRIST . Stay glued in the bible and let us keep all our hope , trust and affections
above on Him . Its an all out war for the souls of men . The gospel must be forefront and all things Jesus taught must be kept
centered on our hearts .

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
Nice to see you here -
Hope you're doing well.

I understand a heresy to be any teaching that is not in keeping with orthodox Christianity (not the Eastern Orthodox religion).

The problem is that we all believe to have the truth.
We Protestants claim that we use the bible as our authority...
but then how come we have such diverse beliefs?!

I agree...JWs teach heretical doctrine.
Ditto for Islam.
I understand Mormonism is heretical but I just don't know too much about it and I'm sure you do.

I'd say the prosperity gospel is heretical too...
It was unheard of till very recently.

I believe Augustine had heretical teachings and he was a Catholic that was very respected because he was blessed with Charisma and the ability to win controversies. He changed doctrine in the CC. Pelagius was blamed for heresy, when it was Augustine that was teaching heresy.

What do you think about the idea that all beliefs that are different from the early church can be considered heresy?
(up to 325AD or thereabouts).

Grace,

I live in an aged care facility and we've been in lockdown for a week. I've tested negative on all the Covid tests.

I'll be uploading a new article on heresy to my homepage today or tomorrow. My further study has revealed the following:

Schlier considers heresy must be understood ‘against the Hellenistic and Jewish background. The usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier Rabbis [Ac 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 28:22]. . . . In these passages the term has the neutral flavour of “school.”’[1]

Schlier concludes:

Against this background, it is impossible to solve the problem of the derivation of the special Christian sense of heresy. . . . The separation of non-orthodox groups, the heterodox parties, came to be designated heresy. . . . The basis of the Christian concept of hairesis is to be found in the new situation created by the introduction of the Christian ekklesia. Ekklesia and hairesis are material opposites. The latter cannot accept the former; the former excludes the latter. This may be clearly seen in Gal 5:10 where hairesis is reckoned among “he works of the flesh, along with [sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition]. Yet neither here nor else in the NT does hairesis have a technical sense. In 1 Cor. 11:18f we see even more clearly the impossibility of hairesis within Christianity.[2]​

Heresy in the early church

In the age which followed NT hairesis, it was still understood as an eschatologically threatening magnitude essentially opposed to the ekklesia. . . . Within Christianity hairesis always denotes hostile societies and there is always consciousness of an inner relationship between heretics and the secular philosophical schools or Jewish sects . . . which they also describe by the term hairesis. What the Church usually has in view is Gnosticism. As seen by the Church, the Gnostics form schools.[3]

So anything that was taught that was contrary to that for the early church – opposing Scripture – was called heresy.

So, this gives a wide field for relevance and challenge, especially in light of how denominations add to Scripture in topics such as baptism, the Lord’s Supper, allegorical interpretation of Scripture, etc.

Application

To sum up: A heresy in today’s understanding is a sect whose way of thinking is dogma that promotes theology contrary to biblical Christianity – an heretical sect. This includes infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper as Real Presence, Covenant Theology, Once-Saved-Always-Saved, and worship of Mary.

Bibliography

Schlier, Heinrich 1964. In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol 1. Ed by Gerhard Kittel, tr & ed Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.


Notes
[1] Ibid.

[2] Ibid., 182-193.

[3] Ibid., 183,

 

[Jim B]

What your suggesting is they are departing from their faith, here I changed it from 'the' to 'their', to make it clearer.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from their faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

Those who depart the faith proves the faith was not theirs, not gifted to them by God.
That word 'THE' is important, as it's referring to THE Christian faith, which was not theirs, which is true as they had no faith

So then you believe that saved people lose their salvation?

What is it about "some" that you can't understand? It's also true that many people hear the Gospel and become Christians. Your alarming attitude is in itself alarming. It's also not a good idea to change what Scripture says.

I never said that saved people lose their salvation. Perhaps some will lose their salvation by leaving the faith, but many will gain their salvation by believing in Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings..." It is never acceptable to change Scripture.

 

[amigo de christo]

May none ever change scripture . Simple believe it and recieve it .

 

[bbyrd009]

Beware of the scribes…

 

[Scott Downey]

What is it about "some" that you can't understand? It's also true that many people hear the Gospel and become Christians. Your alarming attitude is in itself alarming. It's also not a good idea to change what Scripture says.

I never said that saved people lose their salvation. Perhaps some will lose their salvation by leaving the faith, but many will gain their salvation by believing in Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 4:1, "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings..." It is never acceptable to change Scripture.

You are making a nonsensical point, I said the word is 'THE' not 'their', I was making my own counterpoint to your apparently unclear explanation.
People don't lose salvation.
Plenty falsely believe saved people do lose salvation by departing from the faith, and they also use that same verse to justify their opinion.
I wont repost my entire post.

 

[Scott Downey]

Beware of the scribes…

And what do you mean by that?

 

[Scott Downey]

Heretics who practice their heresy unrepentantly, and many do, are not saved. Heresy is a work of the flesh.
See if you can find where that is true in scripture.

 

[Jim B]

You are making a nonsensical point, I said the word is 'THE' not 'their', I was making my own counterpoint to your apparently unclear explanation.
People don't lose salvation.
Plenty falsely believe saved people do lose salvation by departing from the faith, and they also use that same verse to justify their opinion.
I wont repost my entire post.

Thank you for not repeating your post. I stand by what I wrote also. If it's unclear to you that is not my problem.

 

[Enoch111]

Perhaps some will lose their salvation by leaving the faith, but many will gain their salvation by believing in Jesus Christ.

Why would a genuinely saved person "leave the faith" when he or she already knows what salvation is all about? Now there are people like Simon the Sorcerer who supposedly believed the Gospel, but in fact were never converted. They did not lose something they never had to begin with.

 

[Jim B]

Why would a genuinely saved person "leave the faith" when he or she already knows what salvation is all about? Now there are people like Simon the Sorcerer who supposedly believed the Gospel, but in fact were never converted. They did not lose something they never had to begin with.

Because Satan is constantly working to deceive Christians. Ephesians 6:10-18, "Finally, be strengthened in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Clothe yourselves with the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. Stand firm therefore, by fastening the belt of truth around your waist, by putting on the breastplate of righteousness, by fitting your feet with the preparation that comes from the good news of peace, and in all of this, by taking up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). With every prayer and petition, pray at all times in the Spirit, and to this end be alert, with all perseverance and petitions for all the saints."

 

[Scott Downey]

Thank you for not repeating your post. I stand by what I wrote also. If it's unclear to you that is not my problem.

Actually you muddied up the water here, as apparently I was responding to the poster named GodsGrace not you... in post #1593

"GodsGrace said: ↑
Jim B,
Scripture states that the very people that believe can be deceived:

1 Timothy 4:1
1Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,

I agree with @Enoch111 ...
The Body of Christ CAN be deceived...

We have persons on this very site that claim to be Christian but do not believe that
Jesus is God and do not believe in the Trinity.

And where did the other poster say he was going to give you the truth?
You shouldn't add to what persons state."

 

[Pierac]

The key doctrine of the Bible is "the doctrine of Christ". This includes His full deity (that He is God) and also His full sinless humanity. Plus His perfect life, death, burial, and resurrection -- the redemptive work of Christ. If Jesus was not God He could not possibly be the Redeemer and Savior of the world.
(1 Timothy 3:16 KJV only)

I imagine by now you may be arguing with me and saying something like this: Well, if Jesus is not God in human flesh what you say to the Scriptures that say only God can save? After all, God says, "I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides me" (Isaiah 40 3:11). If Jesus is not God and there are two saviors! And this is something the Bible here clearly excludes.

We have already seen a strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not one single Old Testament prophecy that supports it. Not one verse foretells that God himself was going to become a man in order to save us. The opposite is the case. The prophets predicted a human being who would under God's anointing Spirit rescue us.

Wherein lies the solution? Ah, let's now read this through our Hebrew eyes and see what a difference it makes. Remember that dictum the Jews had about the law of agency where "the agent is as the principal himself"? It applies right here.

Let's go back to Exodus 23. You remember that we used this chapter earlier to illustrate the Hebrew law of agency. We saw that the angel of the Lord acted in God's stead. What the angel did in said was really what God himself did and said, for "My name is in him" (v. 21). In verse 23 Jehovah explained, "For My angel will go before you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivities and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them." The angel was the instrument through whom God destroyed the enemies.

Now let's proceed on in the chapter. God says to the Israelites, "I will send my terror ahead of you… I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets ahead of you, that they may drive out the Hivities, the Canaanites, and the Hittites before you" (v. 27-28).

To our understanding this sounds as if the LORD himself is going to do the work. But when we come to verse 31: "I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you will drive them out before you." So God expects the Israelites to drive their enemies out. Is there a contradiction here? Will God Himself drive out their enemies or will the Israelites do it? We note the principle again and again. Got says He will act when in fact He is going to empower his angels and his people to do the work.

This kind of talk has a thorough Hebrew feel about it. Actions that are directly ascribed to God are in fact carried out by his commissioned agents. Take another instance: "in the LORD… he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam" (2 Kings 14:27).

Once again we observe the clear distinction between God who is the ultimate Author of deliverance and his appointed agent who in this case was King Jeroboam. Or take this verse: "therefore you did deliver them into the hands of the oppressors who oppressed them. But when they cry to You in the time of their distress, You did hear from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You did give them deliverers who delivered them from the hand of their it oppressors" (Nehemiah 9:27).

Graeser, the author of One God and One Lord, p.363. Writes:
God, Christ and others are referred to as "saviors," but that clearly does not make them identical. The term "Savior" is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated as "deliverer." This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as "Savior" when it applies to God or Christ, but as "deliverer" when it applies to men, is to make the terms seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scriptures can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

Is often been argued that the very name Jesus, which means "Yahweh saves," prove Jesus is Jehovah because "he will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). But the logic is not consistently applied because the O.T. name Joshua means "Yahweh saves." I have never yet heard someone who believes in the deity of Christ argue that Joshua was God in the flesh. We know that the O.T. Joshua was God appointed man to deliver Israel. As Joshua and Israel went forth in obedience to his word God save them. Just so, in the matter of our salvation, God sent forth his son into battle. Through Jesus God has saved us. This is why both God and Jesus are called Savior. But the Bible never loses sight of the fact that God the Father is the ultimate Author of our salvation through (dia) his son.

This same line of reasoning applies to the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2. This is one of the most commonly appealed to Scriptures that allegedly proves that Jesus must be God, because "only God can forgive sins" (v.7). When Jesus pronounced the man forgiven/healed, the Pharisees say that Jesus is "blaspheming" because he is claiming to be God. But a little careful attention to detail will show that Jesus is not claiming deity. He is rather claiming "authority." He says, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…" (v.10). The parallel account in Matthew's report is that once the people saw Jesus healed a paralytic, "they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men" ( Matt 9:8). We note that Jesus is claiming to be "the Son of Man," that is, the human Messiah, with a God given right to pronounce forgiveness. Not too much later Jesus invested other men-his apostles-with the same authority to forgive sins: "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; he to retain the sins of any, they have been retained" (John 20:23). If only God can forgive sins, then God and Jesus and the apostles are all God! Besides, there is no teaching anywhere in the Bible that says only God can forgive. Even Christians are commanded to forgive each other sin (Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). The fact that the Pharisees say that only God can forgive sins does not make this an established Biblical doctrine. The Pharisees often had wrong doctrine and were often corrected by our Lord Jesus. This was one such occasion.

Those who believe that Jesus can only be our Savior if he is God sometimes appeal to the prophecy from Jeremiah 23: (In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is his name by which he will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness’" (Jer. 23:6).

Does this not say that the coming Savior will be "The LORD our righteousness," that is, God himself? This is easily answered when we note that a few chapters later we have this prophecy in Jeremiah 33: "in those days Judah shall be saved in Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the LORD is our righteousness’ (v.16).
Here the city of Jerusalem is given the very same title as the coming redeemer earlier. I have never yet heard anyone argue that the city of Jerusalem must also be God himself because it bears the same title as Jehovah. Hebrew understanding is needed to avoid the confusion.

This is why it is fallacious to reason that because Jesus is called the "King of Kings and the Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16) he must necessarily be Almighty God Himself. The fact that Artaxerxes is called "king of kings" and that God himself calls Nebuchadnezzar "king of kings" does not put these men in the same league as Messiah Jesus, nor mean they have the same nature as him. The designation "king of kings" is obviously a very Hebrew way of speaking that has nothing to do with the equivalency of nature. The Hebrews could also speak of a "servant of servants," which simply means to the lowest of the low (Gen 9:25). In the book of Daniel God addresses Nebuchadnezzar: "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory" (Dan. 2:37).

In the same Hebrew fashion, when Scriptures designate Jesus Christ as "the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords" the message conveyed is that God has also given him the Kingdom, the power, the strength, and the glory of the Age to Come. Equality of being with the God who gives the Kingdom does not come into the equation, for either Nebuchadnezzar or Jesus. If, as already noted, to share the same nomenclature as God does not prove literal identity with God himself, the same holds true for the sharing of the same titles. Whilst Jesus may share the title "king of kings and Lord of Lords" with God his Father, there is one title reserved uniquely for the Father God. No other individual, including the Lord Jesus, is ever called by the title "God of gods" (Deut. 10:17). This title, as well as "the Lord God" (Rev. 1:8), is always reserved for the one true God, who is the Father.

Perhaps it's you that undermine Gospel truth and Bible truth? I use Scripture, you use traditions of men!
Paul

 

[Pierac]

Can an "it" make all things?
Can an "It" create the heavens and the earth?
Can an "it" create a human being?

Been there done that...

HERESY?

 

[bbyrd009]

And what do you mean by that?

well, i was just Quoting, but i would say that since I know the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock it might serve us better to compare our Feudal English versions with the original language via a lexicon, lest we be misled?

The Body of Christ CAN be deceived...

We have persons on this very site that claim to be Christian but

then why label them as in “the body of Christ,” one might ask

 

[Scott Downey]

well, i was just Quoting, but i would say that since I know the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock it might serve us better to compare our Feudal English versions with the original language via a lexicon, lest we be misled?

then why label them as in “the body of Christ,” one might ask

Sometimes I use this site, to explore the old Greek meanings of the transliterated words.
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible
Its a good extensive resource