How should a "Christian" deal with "heretics"?

[Freodin]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

 

[HTacianas]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

I generally ignore them until they go on the offensive.

 

[Steve Petersen]

'Sufficient for the day are the evils thereof.'

 

[JackRT]

Every Christian, every single one, is a heretic to some other Christian.

 

[Chesterton]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

In the ancient church, we simply don't allow them to teach false stuff in our church, anymore than say, Richard Dawkins would allow an anti-evolutionist to teach side by side in a classroom of his.

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

Historically, false teachings are denounced, debated, argued against, but obviously you can't correct anyone against their will. In Eastern Christianity, people generally weren't harassed for being heretics, just told to "take it somewhere else".

 

[bcbsr]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

Follow the apostle Paul's example. Galatians for example. But make sure to read the rules on these forums, which have restrictions on what you can say in this regard. I tend to focus on issues of Soteriology, which to me are the most essential.

 

[Freodin]

Per the forum's rules, you cannot assert that someone is not a Christian, regardless of their beliefs. Which already is... weird. But understandable.

Though it is quite easy to imply this. Assert that you hold a certain position because of... your Christian knowledge, special divine revelations, or just a certain interpretation of the texts that are "obvious" for real Christians. Thus of course implying that everyone who disagrees with you is not a "real" Christian... even if you dare not say it aloud. Because of the rules.

Well, I am asking for a specific reason. For some time now I (and others) have been engaged here on the forum with a Christian who has some... really weird... positions.

He claims to be backed up by "science" and "history"... and based on that alone the skeptical group has taken it on them to reveal his... falsehoods.

But I found it interesting that no Christian... none, regardless of their position regarding the early history of the world - theistic evolution, OEC, YEC, GAP or whatever - has deigned to weigh in.

I can understand that a lot of people tend to sit back, safe in their own conviction of truth, ignoring that what they might consider "ridiculous".
Also, that not many people are willing to engage in a discussion that might cast doubt on the "Christianity" of a poster.

But still... I find the silence of the people who like to debate most anything here quite interesting.

 

[HTacianas]

Per the forum's rules, you cannot assert that someone is not a Christian, regardless of their beliefs. Which already is... weird. But understandable.

Though it is quite easy to imply this. Assert that you hold a certain position because of... your Christian knowledge, special divine revelations, or just a certain interpretation of the texts that are "obvious" for real Christians. Thus of course implying that everyone who disagrees with you is not a "real" Christian... even if you dare not say it aloud. Because of the rules.

Well, I am asking for a specific reason. For some time now I (and others) have been engaged here on the forum with a Christian who has some... really weird... positions.

He claims to be backed up by "science" and "history"... and based on that alone the skeptical group has taken it on them to reveal his... falsehoods.

But I found it interesting that no Christian... none, regardless of their position regarding the early history of the world - theistic evolution, OEC, YEC, GAP or whatever - has deigned to weigh in.

I can understand that a lot of people tend to sit back, safe in their own conviction of truth, ignoring that what they might consider "ridiculous".
Also, that not many people are willing to engage in a discussion that might cast doubt on the "Christianity" of a poster.

But still... I find the silence of the people who like to debate most anything here quite interesting.

You would have to give us an example of the "really weird" positions. I've probably heard them all before.

We can debate individual positions but as others have said we have to keep within the forum rules.

 

[Freodin]

You would have to give us an example of the "really weird" positions. I've probably heard them all before.

Well, this one I hadn't heard before... and I have been involved in these circles for some decades now.

I fear I could not present them adequately... they seem to be very convoluted, and his uses some concepts the I am not familiar with. I don't want to misrepresent him.

Basically he seems to think that two different deities created two different "earths", one of which was Adam's. This "world" was destroyed in the Flood, some remains sunk in a sea in our world in the Ararat Mountains, from which Noah went down to start civilization by interbreeding with the other "people" that God created on this world.

His "facts" about the scientific and archeological background - which he claims support him - are already way off... but I was rather amused by his strange interpretation of the biblical texts.

We can debate individual positions but as others have said we have to keep within the forum rules.

If you feel so inclined, take a look at this thread and look for the discussion between Aman777 and the others, starting at post #67.

 

[SkyWriting]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

That's me. I hear that a lot. Correct me at will!
It's up to you to be civil.

 

[Silmarien]

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

I don't see how laypeople could really have a duty to correct whatever wild doctrine someone is spouting off, since you may or may not actually have the theological training necessary to address the issue. But I don't see anything wrong with correcting people either. I also wouldn't consider informing someone that what they're saying is heretical to be against forum rules--I kind of get a kick out of telling people they're sounding gnostic.

This is the first time I've seen the thread you're talking about, though, and honestly... I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. My guess would be that atheists and agnostics here thrive on taking down that type of stuff, whereas theists would rather just pretend it doesn't exist. I'm surprised that none of the theistic evolutionists chimed in, though--some are pretty fierce, so maybe nobody noticed this time around.

 

[Chesterton]

Per the forum's rules, you cannot assert that someone is not a Christian, regardless of their beliefs.

FWIW, that's not true. If the person believes in two co-equal deities, he is not a Christian per CF's definition (the Nicene Creed). You say he seemed to say that. I looked at one page of the thread where #67 was, but did not care to read all the rest, so I don't know.

 

[cvanwey]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

I too am curious?

Furthermore, I find it curious that among all sects of Christians, the only established and/or resolved truth is that 'Jesus resurrected'. And yet, practically no other claim in the Bible is as unanimously concluded. And yet, all such other claims from the Bible carry the same weight or assertions...

Weird indeed.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

Could you clarify what you mean by “a false version of Christianity”?

I consider that type of heresy to be like Jehovah Witnesses and Mornons

 

[ToBeLoved]

I too am curious?

Furthermore, I find it curious that among all sects of Christians, the only established and/or resolved truth is that 'Jesus resurrected'. And yet, practically no other claim in the Bible is as unanimously concluded. And yet, all such other claims from the Bible carry the same weight or assertions...

Weird indeed.

The Niceness Creed is the established beliefs that join Christianity.

I have no idea why you think it is only the resurrection.

Can you explain further

 

[Hazelelponi]

I wouldn't dare to assume that I could define who is who... but I guess you Christians of all stripes have no problems with that.

So how do you suppose to deal with someone who teaches a "false" version of Christianity? Would it matter if it was a "false" version of "basic doctrine" or just different interpretations of "marginal details"?

I have heard that Christians should not correct their fellow believers "in public"... so that unbelievers can see the differences that exists between them. (Oh my, we would need to be so blind not to notice. )

But what about when a fellow believer teaches his "false doctrines" to unbelievers? Do you have a duty to correct them, so that the unbelievers do not get a wrong image of your religion?

There are so many false doctrines running around its impossible to stop them from being espoused and expounded.

If, within my hearing, a doctrine that I believe dangerous was being spread yes, I would speak concerning the scriptural position of the matter in order to show the truth as God relayed it to us.

Do I see myself as being the sole arbiter of truth? No. I can be as wrong as the next guy - this is why I continually pray that I be delivered from evil and not given up to it..

But, we are all convinced in our own minds, so it often makes me worry more about my own "rightness"..

But, it can be a mixed bag.

 

[cvanwey]

The Niceness Creed is the established beliefs that join Christianity.

I have no idea why you think it is only the resurrection.

Can you explain further

I will give one basic example, but I fear it will stray this OP off topic....

The claim for Noah's flood is every bit as claimed as the resurrection. And yet you have Christians whom claim it is global, local, metaphorical, or didn't even happen period. There exists no consensus, like with a claimed resurrection.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I will give one basic example, but I fear it will stray this OP off topic....

The claim for Noah's flood is every bit as claimed as the resurrection. And yet you have Christians whom claim it is global, local, metaphorical, or didn't even happen period. There exists no consensus, like with a claimed resurrection.

I think their are deal breakers theological ly which I would say revolve around Jesus Christ being God and man and salvation.

The other stuff like your Moses example, aren’t deal breakers that determine where someone spends eternity.

So I don’t classify that as false teaching per se because I think that most of that “fluffy” type doctrine is more a disagreement in theology but I don’t consider that false teaching myself.

I think though that the Nicene Creed has the most important points of our faith and that unites Christianity.

Differences in theology don’t separate God’s children. We are all God’s Children at the end of the day.

There are like 3.3 Billion Christians world wide. To think they all agree on everything is not feasible and God doesn’t call us to perfection

 

[cvanwey]

The other stuff like your Moses example, aren’t deal breakers that determine where someone spends eternity.

I was speaking about Noah and the flood claim, not Moses

Furthermore, we are not speaking about an erroneous or mundane claim here. We are talking about a catastrophic claimed event....

But let's compare the two - (1. Noah's flood vs 2. a resurrection):

1.

(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did Noah's flood actually happen (yes or no)?
Did the flood accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main premises and points of the OT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to rid the world of evil. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the OT is vastly askew.

2.


(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did the resurrection happen (yes or no)?
Did the resurrection accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main points of the NT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to provide salvation. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the NT is vastly askew.

So I don’t classify that as false teaching per se because I think that most of that “fluffy” type doctrine is more a disagreement in theology but I don’t consider that false teaching myself.

If the claims to a human exterminating flood, commanded by God, is false, which lies within the very same book as the claim of a resurrection, why is a 'resurrection' deemed more credible than any other claim? Especially when Bible passages state that 'all scripture is God breathed', which highlights the OT specifically, and even more prevalently?

There are like 3.3 Billion Christians world wide. To think they all agree on everything is not feasible and God doesn’t call us to perfection

If there actually is 3.3 billion Christians, than it is safe to say that all 3.3 billion 'believe' in a resurrection claim. Otherwise, they are not 'Christians', by definition. So why is this not the case for a flood claim? I'll tell you why...... Because it is perfectly acceptable to state you do not agree with a flood claim, and still possibly be saved

Please answer the question in red below:

But is it intellectually honest to state you believe in a resurrection, even if the evidence does not seem to follow as such, just like the many whom don't believe in a flood claim, because the evidence does not follow as such?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I was speaking about Noah and the flood claim, not Moses

Furthermore, we are not speaking about an erroneous or mundane claim here. We are talking about a catastrophic claimed event....

But let's compare the two - (1. Noah's flood vs 2. a resurrection):

1.

(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did Noah's flood actually happen (yes or no)?
Did the flood accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main premises and points of the OT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to rid the world of evil. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the OT is vastly askew.

2.


(2 rhetorical questions to illustrate a point):

Did the resurrection happen (yes or no)?
Did the resurrection accomplish God's task?

This is an axiomatic answer. It either did or did not happen. To state it is not a deal breaker defies one of the main points of the NT, which was the claimed method in which God chose to provide salvation. If it actually did not happen, then an entire story line for the NT is vastly askew.



If the claims to a human exterminating flood, commanded by God, is false, which lies within the very same book as the claim of a resurrection, why is a 'resurrection' deemed more credible than any other claim? Especially when Bible passages state that 'all scripture is God breathed', which highlights the OT specifically, and even more prevalently?



If there actually is 3.3 billion Christians, than it is safe to say that all 3.3 billion 'believe' in a resurrection claim. Otherwise, they are not 'Christians', by definition. So why is this not the case for a flood claim? I'll tell you why...... Because it is perfectly acceptable to state you do not agree with a flood claim, and still possibly be saved

Please answer the question in red below:

But is it intellectually honest to state you believe in a resurrection, even if the evidence does not seem to follow as such, just like the many whom don't believe in a flood claim, because the evidence does not follow as such?

Maybe you should look into geology studies and see if there is evidence for a flood.