What is Biblical Heresy - a conversation about definitions, not personalities

[Always in His Presence]

This thread is on a concept - not a personality. Keep names out of the issue and discuss just the issue.
​

Heresy –



this word is being bandied about with a fair amount of regularity these last couple months and seems to be becoming a catch phrase for just about anything that is found disagreeable with doctrinal or teaching view points.


People ‘feel’ justified in their actions of calling someone a heretic or false whatever because they believe that they have evidence to support their position. When referring to an individual that is a ‘heretic’ it’s perfectly acceptable use of the term because of a set of beliefs we hold that differ from the opposing position.




But what is biblical heresy or false teaching?


I’ve been looking into some early writings and have found the following.

[FONT=&quot]Chapter I.—Absurd ideas of the disciples of Valentinus as to the origin, name, order, and conjugal productions of their fancied Æons, with the passages of Scripture which they adapt to their opinions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. They maintain, then, that in the invisible and ineffable heights above there exists a certain perfect, pre-existent Æon,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2664 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]whom they call Proarche, Propator, and Bythus, and describe as being invisible and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained throughout innumerable cycles of ages in profound serenity and quiescence. There existed along with him Ennoea, whom they also call Charis and Sige.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2665 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]At last this Bythus determined to send forth from himself the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]beginning of all things, and deposited this production (which he had resolved to bring forth) in his contemporary Sige, even as seed is deposited in the womb. She then, having received this seed, and becoming pregnant, gave birth to Nous, who was both similar and equal to him who had produced him, and was alone capable of comprehending his father’s greatness. This Nous they call also Monogenes, and Father, and the Beginning of all Things. Along with him was also produced Aletheia; and these four constituted the first and first-begotten Pythagorean Tetrad, which they also denominate the root of all things. For there are first Bythus and Sige, and then Nous and Aletheia. And Monogenes, perceiving for what purpose he had been produced, also himself sent forth Logos and Zoe, being the father of all those who were to come after him, and the beginning and fashioning of the entire Pleroma. By the conjunction of Logos and Zoe were brought forth Anthropos and Ecclesia; and thus was formed the first-begotten Ogdoad, the root and substance of all things, called among them by four names, viz., Bythus, and Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos. For each of these is masculo-feminine, as follows: Propator was united by a conjunction with his Ennoea; then Monogenes, that is Nous, with Aletheia; Logos with Zoe, and Anthropos with Ecclesia.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Apostolic Fathers with Justin[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Martyr and Irenaeus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]by[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Philip Schaff[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Page 566

Here’s a second example:

[FONT=&quot]Chapter IV.—Account given by the heretics of the formation of Achamoth; origin of the visible world from her disturbances.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The following are the transactions which they narrate as having occurred outside of the Pleroma: The enthymesis of that Sophia who dwells above, which they also term Achamoth,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2711being removed from the Pleroma, together with her passion, they relate to have, as a matter of course, become violently excited in those places of darkness and vacuity [to which she had been banished]. For she was excluded from light[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2712 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and the Pleroma, and was without form or figure, like an untimely birth, because she had received nothing[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2713 [/FONT][FONT=&quot][from a male parent]. But the Christ dwelling on high took pity upon her; and having extended himself through and beyond auros,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2714 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]he imparted a figure to her, but merely as respected substance, and not so as to convey intelligence.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2715 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having effected this, he withdrew his influence, and returned, leaving Achamoth to herself, in order that she, becoming sensible of her suffering as being severed from the Pleroma, might be influenced by the desire of better things, while she possessed in the meantime a kind of odour of immortality left in her by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also she is called by two names—Sophia after her father (for Sophia is spoken of as being her father), and Holy Spirit from that Spirit who is along with Christ. Having then obtained a form, along with intelligence, and being immediately deserted by that Logos who had been invisibly present with her—that is, by Christ —she strained herself to discover that light which had forsaken her, but could not effect her purpose, inasmuch as she was prevented by Horos. And as Horos thus obstructed her further progress, he exclaimed,Iao,[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Apostolic Fathers with Justin[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Martyr and Irenaeus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]by[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Philip Schaff[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Page 594

I was also trying to find a condensed explanation of the Gnostic heresy, but could not find one under 700+ words – way too lengthy for a forum read.


Both of these are first and second century examples of Biblical False teachers and heresy. I've used both in teaching theology 202 at one of the Bible Schools.


We are all familiar with the scripture admonishing those who teach/preach another Gospel. I wanted to show what preaching another Gospel looks like.


Simply put - another Gospel leaves out the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or the need for His sacrifice on Calvary.


I'm aware of only one major minister doing this in the last 18 years or so.


Thoughts?


Please provide examples, proof text etc.

 

[JimB]

Sorry, but I haven’t read the word “heresy” in this forum except from those who insist on calling some in the forum “heresy hunters” for daring to oppose a favorite televangelist.

Since heresy is “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine,” it would depend on which group considered itself orthodox. To a Southern Baptist I am a heretic because I speak in tongues, to a Catholic I am a heretic because I am a Protestant, to a Oneness Pentecostal I am a heretic because I believe in the Trinity, to WOF (in this forum, at least) I am a heretic for a million reasons … and it goes on ad infinitum. Everyone is a heretic to someone else’s orthodoxy.

~Jim

Fools rush in - and get all the best seats.​

 

[Seeking Him]

I'm reading a book called "The Fathers Of The Church" by Mike Aquilina, here is what they say about Gnosticism.

" Gnosticism" was a widespread intellectual current in the ancient world, influencing pockets of Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. The term Gnostic describes a great number of widely diverse movements,sects,and philosophical systems. If anything unites them, it is the emphasis of secret and pseudo-mystical knowledge (in Greek,gnosis).

Gnostic sects tended to view themselves as an elite, whose special knowledge separated them from the rabble of ordinary Christians. Many held that ordinary were incapable of discerning Jesus' real teaching, which was apparent only to the "elect". A common Gnostic tenant is the radical opposion of matter and spirit. Contrary to Christian orthodoxy, Gnostics believe that all matter was evil, including the human body, which they view as a prison for the spirit.. Thus they believed that the creator of this world was an evil demiurge, whom Jesus came to vanquish.. They denied the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation."

 

[pinetree]

very interesting...

 

[NorrinRadd]

*looks in shower drain*

Hair I see!

From WordWeb:

1) Any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position

2) A belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a religion


From YourDictionary:

1. 1. a religious belief opposed to the orthodox doctrines of a church; esp., such a belief specifically denounced by the church
   2. the rejection of a belief that is a part of church dogma

heresy Synonyms

heresy

n.
nonconformity, dissidence, revisionism, protestantism, dissent, heterodoxy, sectarianism, doctrinal divergence, apostasy, agnosticism, schism, unorthodoxy, secularism; see also blasphemy, paganism, sin.




Such are the relatively brief treatments given by general-purpose dictionaries.

Please note the entries at the Apologetics Index and Theopedia. (Too extensive to reasonably reproduce here, IMO.)



Summary of the Christianese theological techno-speak of the above two sites: A "heresy" is a disagreement with an "essential" doctrine. But of course there's plenty of discord over what constitutes "essential."



The OP was about the "Biblical" definition of heresy. IMO, there isn't one. The word is used with a semantic range that includes "sect" and "faction," but is also at least once used with the modifier "destructive." It seems to me that hairesis might legitimately, and relatively innocuously, refer to all the varied denominations and "non-denominations." It might be that the technical theological term really only refers to the sorts of "heresies" that the Bible terms "destructive."

 

[BenAdam]

subbing

 

[hopeinGod]

We are given great encouragement by Paul to the Romans to "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." This, I suppose, is the main goal of error aor false teaching: they cause divisions and offenses.

I'm reminded of two guys in Paul's writing to the Thessolonians names Hymenaeus and Philetus, "who concerning the truth have erred, sayiing that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."


What is set aside by false teachers, as we see here, is the foundational principles which are listed in Hebrews 6. It is from these teachings, which are not often taught by churches today, that we are to compare what we hear.

The sad part, however, is that these six principle teachings are not being taught, so for one to exercise himself to discern both good and evil, it would be difficult without such teaching.

The words "sound doctrine" are also a mystery to believers as these are merely words to them. What is meant by this phrase anyway? Inerrant teaching? And who is to know what is sound and what is not?

As already mentioned, churches are built upon their own particular blend of "foundational truths," which can be and are being continually debated by the remainder of the church.

For instance, within the doctrine of baptisms, most churches teach that there is only one, or possibly two. However, from 1 John, we see that there are three: blood, water and the spirit, for the spirit, body and soul, which is not taught in most churches.

Coming to a place where the church is functioning in the "unity of the faith" as described in Eph. 4, I am convinced, will not take place in my lifetime, as it is hinged upon doctrinal agreement, and that will not happen.
Dave

 

[pinetree]

subbing

i dont get "subbing"

 

[BenAdam]

i dont get "subbing"

it's like heresy, but not as bad, kind of like heck to hell

 

[Always in His Presence]

Some awesome replies here -

I'm on the road again - heading back to Tulsa - so I'll have to expand my thoughts a bit later tonight or perhaps in the morning.

I guess what I am trying to express, is that in scripture and the early church the designation of heretic or heresy was reserved for only those who denied Christ's divinity.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I guess what I am trying to express, is that in scripture and the early church the designation of heretic or heresy was reserved for only those who denied Christ's divinity.

What about Docetism? That would be a heresy that denied Jesus' humanity. Or Nestorianism?

 

[pinetree]

it's like heresy, but not as bad, kind of like heck to hell

thank you

 

[JimB]

Some awesome replies here -

I'm on the road again - heading back to Tulsa - so I'll have to expand my thoughts a bit later tonight or perhaps in the morning.

I guess what I am trying to express, is that in scripture and the early church the designation of heretic or heresy was reserved for only those who denied Christ's divinity.

This is probably a more accurate definition of “heresy” than the way it is often used by Christians. We are too quick sometimes to brand people as “heretics” because they do not subscribe to our preferred belief system or denomination.

If orthodoxy depended on us having our doctrine down pat or holding our mouth right then we are all heretics.

~Jim

Beware of half-truths - you may get hold of the wrong half.​

 

[ImmersionX]

Sorry, but I haven’t read the word “heresy” in this forum except from those who insist on calling some in the forum “heresy hunters” for daring to oppose a favorite televangelist.

Since heresy is “opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine,” it would depend on which group considered itself orthodox. To a Southern Baptist I am a heretic because I speak in tongues, to a Catholic I am a heretic because I am a Protestant, to a Oneness Pentecostal I am a heretic because I believe in the Trinity, to WOF (in this forum, at least) I am a heretic for a million reasons … and it goes on ad infinitum. Everyone is a heretic to someone else’s orthodoxy.

~Jim

Fools rush in - and get all the best seats.​

I hope you all don't mind me chiming in here...I think this is a very good thread.

I must disagree here with this a bit....I am a "Southern" Baptist Christian, and cessationist, and I can only say for myself that I do not think you a heretic for speaking in Tongues. Now if you claimed to raise people from the dead then yes...I would call you a heretic quicker than one can blink. It seems that you are on the right track because personal orthodoxy is a very powerful thing. My thought on what a heretic is in this day and age is very simple: Anyone that preaches a Gospel other than the one preached in the Bible...is a heretic. I am trying so so hard to not point out the group of people/movement that is my base example of my thought on this but for the sake of civility...I will hold my tongue.

I appreciate you all listening/reading my opinion on this one, and a thankyou for this thread in general, because I believe that Yes...the word "heretic" is being flung around way too easily now a days. And perhaps for the sake of fellowship, this thread will hold some answers, or perhaps just clarify why this is so rampant today.

God Bless.

 

[imperfectchristian]

This is probably a more accurate definition of “heresy” than the way it is often used by Christians. We are too quick sometimes to brand people as “heretics” because they do not subscribe to our preferred belief system or denomination.

If orthodoxy depended on us having our doctrine down pat or holding our mouth right then we are all heretics.

~Jim

Beware of half-truths - you may get hold of the wrong half.​

Amen....I Agree!

 

[enoch son]

This thread is on a concept - not a personality. Keep names out of the issue and discuss just the issue.​

Heresy –



this word is being bandied about with a fair amount of regularity these last couple months and seems to be becoming a catch phrase for just about anything that is found disagreeable with doctrinal or teaching view points.


People ‘feel’ justified in their actions of calling someone a heretic or false whatever because they believe that they have evidence to support their position. When referring to an individual that is a ‘heretic’ it’s perfectly acceptable use of the term because of a set of beliefs we hold that differ from the opposing position.




But what is biblical heresy or false teaching?


I’ve been looking into some early writings and have found the following.








Here’s a second example:








I was also trying to find a condensed explanation of the Gnostic heresy, but could not find one under 700+ words – way too lengthy for a forum read.


Both of these are first and second century examples of Biblical False teachers and heresy. I've used both in teaching theology 202 at one of the Bible Schools.


We are all familiar with the scripture admonishing those who teach/preach another Gospel. I wanted to show what preaching another Gospel looks like.


Simply put - another Gospel leaves out the Divinity of Jesus Christ, or the need for His sacrifice on Calvary.


I'm aware of only one major minister doing this in the last 18 years or so.


Thoughts?


Please provide examples, proof text etc.

Ha let just burn them like the rcc did. What a bunch of low life srum bags not to believe like we do at are chruch. rot in hell! Sounds like heresy to me. Examples read any post on this site.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Webster defines "heresy" as, "an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards."

Harper’s Bible Dictionary Heresy, a term derived from the Greek word hairesis, originally an opinion or way of thinking.

Heresy is the school of pride.

Heresy is more experiences and less scriptural.... when that happens, its heresy !!

 

[Optimax]

Congratulations Gramps!!

 

[NorrinRadd]

i dont get "subbing"

It's boating for people who don't like fresh air.

 

[NorrinRadd]

...
I guess what I am trying to express, is that in scripture and the early church the designation of heretic or heresy was reserved for only those who denied Christ's divinity.

That may be the way the "early Church" used the word, but I don't think it's clear that that's the way *Scripture* used it.

In Acts, it seems to mean "faction," and not in a particularly negative sense.

In 1 Cor. 11:19 and Gal. 5:20, it also means "faction." In those cases it is more negative, partly because of the implied hostility associated with it.

In 2 Pet. 2:1 it seems to be used more "technically," but there it is modified with "destructive." One could infer that "heresy" is ambiguous (can be a bad thing, but not necessarily), but "destructive heresies" are bad. There, the specific *identified* error is "denying the Master (despotes, not kyrios) Who bought them." It doesn't mention denying His deity, but rather denying Him. At least in the NASB95.


That's a recurring problem. After long usage, we're stuck with Biblical words often used in non-Biblical ways. "Sanctification" is another example.