What is a heretic?

A heretic is one who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his church, or rejects doctrines prescribed by his church.

I suppose it would depend on the doctrine.

Presumably, this refers to, e.g., preterism... But it could also refer to worshipping Mary, believing that homosexuality is not sinful, believing that Catholics are a non-Christian cult, preaching hatred or intolerance for any group, or any of a million other things that at least some people disagree with.

It's very hard to clearly define "heresy" with respect to the thousand or so "Christian" denominations in the U.S.

In the end, my personal sense pretty much limits it to a *very* few doctrines that strike me as clearly opposed to Christ's teachings. The rest is just healthy debate.

I don't know that we can reliably determine whether a doctrine is heretical or not in some cases. I can find good, unambiguous, scriptural support for eternal punishment, annihilation, or universalism. Obviously, no two of them can both be true... But all three are clearly endorsed in different places in scripture.

I think it's often very hard to come up with a clear answer to the question "what is the correct doctrine". For instance, I think a lot of the alternatives to the trinity are reasonable readings of at least some part of the Bible, although I think they're probably wrong. (I can't tell, because I don't really *understand* the trinity well enough to comment on it.)

So... I figure, we can occasionally suggest that a given doctrine is most likely wrong, but one person's "obvious contradiction" is another person's "obvious truth". For instance, I personally believe that God does not hate *ANY* people - but I know a lot of people who think that He hates lots of people. I think they're wrong, and it seems obvious to me, but I can't demonstrate that their belief is "heretical".

Is a false doctrine heresy?

It's a matter of perspective. The person believing the doctrine in question wouldn't consider it false. So it's one person's word against another.

Who gets to decide? Any lay person? A small group of message board operators? A council of long since dead guys from back in early church history who can't be presented with a differing view? The scriptures themselves?

Heresy is a serious charge. If a person is so audacious as to call something a heresy they better be able to prove it at length, and the other side needs to have an opportunity to prove their case-otherwise it's just name calling.

If somebody comes out with a doctrine that they can't defend from scripture then it's probably heresy. If two or more different groups come up with different interpretations of scripture that they can reasonably defend then the opposing sides should agree to disagree for the time being and let the debate continue in as civil a manner as possible while both sides are constantly praying and searching the scriptures for answers.

As mentioned before there are hundreds if not thousands of Protestant denominations. Some of them must be wrong on some points. Therefore, if every false doctrine out there is a heresy, then there are a lot of heretics walking around. Either that or they're simply but not maliciously wrong-as all humans are from time to time.

Personally, I would be very reluctant to use the term heresy. Some very smart but dogmatic people have been proven wrong and looked really foolish later in history. A good example is Martin Luther himself who labeled Capernicus (I think that's who it was) a heretic for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun instead of the other way around. We all know now who was right. I think it's a good lesson for all of us.

I agree wholeheartedly with bobcat. We must be very careful in using the word "heretic." For example, Mandy and Auntie Belle Um would you consider John Calvin a heretic? Would you allow him to post in the Eschatology Forum? Calvin was for the most part a preterist. This is simply undeniable if we read his writings. He would have scoffed at the idea of a pre-trib rapture of the church or any rapture at all for that matter.

We must look at the big picture. Do we realize that the idea of a rapture itself is less than 200 years old? Mandy and Auntie Belle Um, do you realize if you taught the things that you do today more than 200 years ago, YOU would have most certainly been called heretics? Eschatological views grow in prominence and wane. This has been happening for 2000 years.

History yields great lessons if we will listen. One is most certainly that we should only use the word "heretic" with very great caution. For if we are wrong in our judgment, we have committed a sin worse than heresy. We have persecuted the Lord Jesus Himself.

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
If someone believes a false doctrine, does that automatically make that person a heretic?

Click to expand...

Auntie Belle Um,

Everyone believes at least a little false doctrine. Do you really believe that your doctrine is absolutely perfect? That is why perfect doctrine is not a requirement for salvation. Moreover, do you believe those with the most perfect doctrine are more favored by God?

Do you really think God checks out our eschatology when deciding how much grace to give us? There is only one measure of our favor and grace, and the is the blood of the Lamb. Period.

We must realize that Jesus is not a doctrine. He is a Person. Knowing Him is what matters most.

I am not saying we don't have to strive for perfection in our doctrine. We should. Yet, we must realize that our understanding of Him is in a state of growth and correction every day of our lives. We must constantly be on our knees asking God for more understanding.

There is only one person who cannot have more understanding of the Kingdom of God. It is one who thinks he already has it all. We must make sure that person never becomes us.

If someone believes a false doctrine, does that automatically make that person a heretic?

Click to expand...

Simply believing a wrong or false doctrine does not always equal heresy. But believing a heresy makes one a heretic. My point is that if someone claims that a person believes a heresy (preterism), then by definition, that makes the person a heretic in the eyes of the critic. I don't see the logical argument that a doctrine can be heretical, while the person who believes it is not. What you believe defines who you are, so if you believe a heresy then you are a heretic. I don't see any other way it can work; I mean, how else does a person become a heretic other than by believing in an heresy?

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Originally posted by Acts6:5
What you believe defines who you are, so if you believe a heresy then you are a heretic. I don't see any other way it can work; I mean, how else does a person become a heretic other than believing in an heresy?

Click to expand...

Good point Acts6:5 -this is an interesting quote:
"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved". Galileo (1564-1642)

davo

Indeed, merely believing a false doctrine is not heresy.
Propounding a false doctrine knowing it to be false - or having no excuse for not believing the truth - is heresy.

And as some have pointed out... A heretic is anyone who disagrees with my(regardless of whoever it is that is saying "my") interpretation! (cos it is that I am the most holy and most faithful of God's witnesses or disciples that has ever lived or ever will live.)

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist
I agree wholeheartedly with bobcat. We must be very careful in using the word "heretic." For example, Mandy and Auntie Belle Um would you consider John Calvin a heretic? Would you allow him to post in the Eschatology Forum? Calvin was for the most part a preterist. This is simply undeniable if we read his writings. He would have scoffed at the idea of a pre-trib rapture of the church or any rapture at all for that matter.

Click to expand...

Preach it brother Ozark! Calvin? The Apostle Paul wouldn't be able to post his inspired words in the Eschatology Forum!

We must look at the big picture. Do we realize that the idea of a rapture itself is less than 200 years old? Mandy and Auntie Belle Um, do you realize if you taught the things that you do today more than 200 years ago, YOU would have most certainly been called heretics? Eschatological views grow in prominence and wane. This has been happening for 2000 years. [/B]

Click to expand...

Brother this is getting tooo good!!! Preach on! Preach on!

History yields great lessons if we will listen. One is most certainly that we should only use the word "heretic" with very great caution. For if we are wrong in our judgment, we have committed a sin worse than heresy. We have persecuted the Lord Jesus Himself. [/B]

Click to expand...

And all the people said Aaaaaamen!!! This is great Ozark!
Keep up more of that powerful preachin!

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist
I agree wholeheartedly with bobcat. We must be very careful in using the word "heretic." For example, Mandy and Auntie Belle Um would you consider John Calvin a heretic? Would you allow him to post in the Eschatology Forum? Calvin was for the most part a preterist. This is simply undeniable if we read his writings. He would have scoffed at the idea of a pre-trib rapture of the church or any rapture at all for that matter.

We must look at the big picture. Do we realize that the idea of a rapture itself is less than 200 years old? Mandy and Auntie Belle Um, do you realize if you taught the things that you do today more than 200 years ago, YOU would have most certainly been called heretics? Eschatological views grow in prominence and wane. This has been happening for 2000 years.

History yields great lessons if we will listen. One is most certainly that we should only use the word "heretic" with very great caution. For if we are wrong in our judgment, we have committed a sin worse than heresy. We have persecuted the Lord Jesus Himself.

Click to expand...

There are some serious problems with some of Calvin's theology, besides his eschatological views.

If the rapture is something that was invented, then Paul invented it.


1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The shall not sleep is referring to physical death. 1 Corinthians 15, very clearly shows the physical resurrection of those who die in Christ and the rapture.



1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Another clear verse showing the rapture.

Hi Mandy, please allow me to state somethng briefly if I may... I used to be an extremely zealous futurist just like you..... I used to quote the traditional Rapture passages just like the one's you have posted in this thread... I used to believe that someday the Lord is going to return to planet earth to remove all bible believing born again believers from this world because the preachers I was listening to kept on preaching the same old worn out gloom and doom message that this world is getting so evil that God has a great plan for our great escape into the safety of His heavenly presence! This kind of "escapism" is not taught in Scriptures. Most futurist's views have fallen short in their failure to properly take into account the historical-grammatical and cultural context of the prophecies; specifically what they meant to their first century audience. I used to read my Bible just like you.... through a filter... a futurist filter..... now I read the Bible through another kind of filter.... it's called 'the eyes of the first century reader filter' also known as the past fulfilled filter or the realized eschatology filter or Preterist filter..... I would recommend for you to give it a try.... you'll be amazed at the results......

Mandy,

So you wouldn’t let John Calvin post on the Eschatology forum? I suppose he wasn’t a Christian either. Mandy, you are painting yourself in a corner.

The passages you quote were simply not interpreted to mean a rapture prior to the nineteenth century. As for the Apostle Paul believing there would be a rapture of the church about 2000 years after his lifetime, that is laughable. Scriptures showing or implying that he thought the Lord’s return was imminent are found in every one of his epistles. You would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. In fact, Paul’s statements concerning the soon return of the Lord Jesus along with similar statements by the other apostles and by the Lord Jesus Himself are skeptics greatest method of attack against the Bible.

Even our beloved C.S. Lewis said:

“Say what you like, we shall be told the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master told them so. He shared, and indeed created their delusion.”

Oops! We have to ban Lewis too!

Moreover, think of the history of your own tradition. I see in your bio that you attend Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa. I attended there some years ago, and I loved it. (Are they still having those Friday night concerts for the youth? Many of my friends got saved there.) The charismatic movement I guess began at Azusa Street in the early twentieth century. Do you know what the established church said about those folks? “Of the Devil! Heretics! Not even Christians!” Now you are the establishment, and what are you saying to a group of people called preterists who dare to say there is more for the church?

I been called a heretic and one heck of alot of other things throughout my lifetime on this earth to date.
So it goes, ain't nothing but a thing.

GySgt
James

The span of most of history has been that the educated few have held control of the majority view of biblical interpretation. This began to change with the printing-press making Bibles more easily available, increases in general literacy, and most recently, the web, on which anyone with a opinion can either put up a website or speak on a forum.

With this opportunity for anyone to have a say, we find that lots of people who don't know their Bible but they know what they want to believe: who wouldn't know hermeneutics from Herman Munster or homiletics from a Holiday Inn; are holding forth with equal authority to a person who knows what s/he's talking about.

With this ability for so many more people to express themselves, it seems as if heresy has never been as common place. As for me, anyone can put forward an interesting new idea or new spin on scripture, and if it has merit we can benefit from it.

But if a Purveyor of Proof-Texting hasn't done his homework by comparing his notions with the whole of scripture, or doesn't even have an idea of what scripture says; if such a person just knows that God has told them something special (even if it contradicts what the bible says); then I would tell him he will go far, like a staple being ejected from a stapler.

With an observable decrease of bible knowledge during the past two generations, the environment is ripe for heresies to abound (in which people think their personal opinions count for something). Many Christians don't know any better because we have moved, many of us, from a solid rock of understanding through hermeneutic and exegetical analysis (and, may I say it, in some cases, basic sense) resulting in an understanding of an Objective Truth that was reliable, to believing that personal interpretation is a more valid method of discerning the will of God. In an environment in which anyone's opinion is equally valid, we end up with all interpretations of Truth being in the eye of the beholder, entirely subjective, which is the same Post-Modernist twaddle that the world is embracing.

Well said Bright Eyes

You said: "With an observable decrease of bible knowledge during the past two generations, the environment is ripe for heresies to abound..."

Yeah, typified by the "Left Behind" series -and others of that ilk IMO.

davo

Originally posted by Bright Eyes
The span of most of history has been that the educated few have held control of the majority view of biblical interpretation. This began to change with the printing-press making Bibles more easily available, increases in general literacy, and most recently, the web, on which anyone with a opinion can either put up a website or speak on a forum.

With this opportunity for anyone to have a say, we find that lots of people who don't know their Bible but they know what they want to believe: who wouldn't know hermeneutics from Herman Munster or homiletics from a Holiday Inn; are holding forth with equal authority to a person who knows what s/he's talking about.

With this ability for so many more people to express themselves, it seems as if heresy has never been as common place. As for me, anyone can put forward an interesting new idea or new spin on scripture, and if it has merit we can benefit from it.

But if a Purveyor of Proof-Texting hasn't done his homework by comparing his notions with the whole of scripture, or doesn't even have an idea of what scripture says; if such a person just knows that God has told them something special (even if it contradicts what the bible says); then I would tell him he will go far, like a staple being ejected from a stapler.

With an observable decrease of bible knowledge during the past two generations, the environment is ripe for heresies to abound (in which people think their personal opinions count for something). Many Christians don't know any better because we have moved, many of us, from a solid rock of understanding through hermeneutic and exegetical analysis (and, may I say it, in some cases, basic sense) resulting in an understanding of an Objective Truth that was reliable, to believing that personal interpretation is a more valid method of discerning the will of God. In an environment in which anyone's opinion is equally valid, we end up with all interpretations of Truth being in the eye of the beholder, entirely subjective, which is the same Post-Modernist twaddle that the world is embracing.

Click to expand...

So true. Amen and amen!

Semper Fi, Gunny. Good to see a fellow Marine.

In Christ,

Acts6:5