Theology: Difference between doctrine, controversy and heresy

[mindlight]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

What process should we follow to establish the veracity of God centred truth claims?

 

[HTacianas]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

What process should we follow to establish the veracity of God centred truth claims?

Generally, doctrine is that which has been determined by the Ecumenical Councils. If there were to be some controversy, an Ecumenical Council would resolve it. Heresy is something that contradicts an Ecumenical Council.

 

[Ken Rank]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

What process should we follow to establish the veracity of God centred truth claims?

Great question! The answer is proper discipleship, but sadly that is a thing that doesn't happen all too often today. What I mean is that in GENERAL, churches might have what they call a "discipleship program" but the reality is, the student is simply learning biblical facts as the denomination understands them. What we should be teaching students is methodology so that, once they learn certain study methods, they can discern facts on their own.

We (the congregation I am part of) have created a school where we teach historical analysis, linguistics, etymology, various languages and more. This way, when a student learns HOW to compare opposing information and discern which is any is correct... they then OWN the answer and can defend it because it wasn't handed to them as a gift, the figured it out on their own. Much less polarization this way.

 

[Mountainmike]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

What process should we follow to establish the veracity of God centred truth claims?

Authority is at the centre of all of the disputes between protestant and catholic, catholic and orthodox even

"by what authority" can we know?

Complicated by the questions
- that Scripture does not state its own exclusivity, indeed points to the church and tradition outside of itself as the "foundation of truth" indeed asks that disputes are taken to the church.

- That scripture does not interpret itself. Without dwelling on the differences, there are mutually exclusive views of more or less every aspect of doctrine from baptism eucharist moral issues, salvation end times etc etc all using the same scripture to decide opposite doctrines! You are either OSAS, Saved can lose it, or not saved till the end. You can only be one of those- they are alternative! So sola scriptura has resulted in myriads of conflicting doctrine.

- that the new testament as we know it, did not exist in early church, and was a product of the authority of the church, that is the councils - so tradition was the only mechanism prior to that.

So most probably know the catholic position.
- that the apostolic succession (ie bishops appointed in succession) were tasked with handing down true doctrine, and resolving conflicts.
- by reading the early fathers we see that and true doctrine in action (take Ignatius to smyrneans - taught by john the apostle ) on the need for bishops for valid eucharist of the real flesh.
- that the successors of apostles (jointly) and Peter (individually) are given the power to "bind and loose" which means give definitive rulings on doctrine - it is that power wielded by councils.
- which is why disputes are brought to the church "the pillar and foundation of truth" which is stated as the "household of God"
- that primacy of Rome is seen in such as Iraneus (who also speaks of decision on heresy (gnosticism) modalism, even the first false canon of Marcion rejected.
- We see that later with the bishops declaring the primacy of Rome , the tome of Leo "there speaks peter", indeed augustine lists all the popes as authority in his argument against donatism

But it boils down to.
- tradition (paradosis) handing down of the whole faith by succession
- authority to "bind and loose" in council which rejected arianism and approved the creed and new testament
- same authority given to, but rarely if ever used by successors of Peter - the popes primary role is chief pastor "tend my sheep"

The problem for NONE catholics is....if you decide the fathers at council were not acting with authority, then how can you accept the new testament? (which was as much rejecting other books claimed as apostolic authorship as it was a process of inclusion) - and since those fathers such as anasthasius - key in the arguments against arianism, aslo believed in intercession of mary, and eucharistic transformation to real flesh at the blessing... If you accept the new testament how can you reject what the fathers said it meant?

That was the problem that set me on my journey from protestantism, through evangelical to catholicism. Finding authoirty in early church.

 

[FireDragon76]

Great question! The answer is proper discipleship, but sadly that is a thing that doesn't happen all too often today. What I mean is that in GENERAL, churches might have what they call a "discipleship program" but the reality is, the student is simply learning biblical facts as the denomination understands them. What we should be teaching students is methodology so that, once they learn certain study methods, they can discern facts on their own.

Learning critical thinking skills is not specifically a religious activity, and not even necessarily something that religious groups value.

 

[Greg J.]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

What process should we follow to establish the veracity of God centred truth claims?

Doctrine is not "definite" or infallible in any way whatsoever. It is a product of human thinking. (Scripture itself is the product of God "thinking.") Doctrine is a codification of interpretations church leadership has of Scripture of the matters it considers most important, which includes issues over which there has been/is dispute. Additionally it presents those things in simplified form compared to presenting their decisions with a presentation of Bible studies that lead them to their decisions. It is (supposed to be) a condensation of Scripture on particular issues so people can easily see the agreed upon interpretation of Scripture by church leadership.

Since doctrine is a product of humans, if you do not have the written official church doctrine in hand, then you do not know a church's doctrine.

Knowing what is controversial inside the church requires a study of that church's history (in detail, regarding the issue one is interested in). Knowing what is controversial in Christianity requires studying the history of Christianity.

What is your definition of heresy? Heresy can be defined as revealed opposition to what is commonly accepted regarding spiritual matters, but that means it is a very loose definition—it is not derived directly from the Bible. Church leadership can call anything they don't like heresy if they want, whether it is codified in church doctrine or not. (Usually it needs to be logically based on their doctrine.) With that definition what is considered heresy depends on which church you belong to. God is concerned that we are faithful to the authorities He has set over us, however, Jesus did not die so we could become God's slaves through men. He died so we could be restored to right relationship with God. Even God does not try to control what we think. He wants us to choose to follow Him.

You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:23, 1984 NIV)

Because doctrine is not only a statement of what has been agreed upon, but also a simplification of Scripture, be sure to study the Bible yourself so you can grow in your understanding of your church's doctrine.

 

[Mountainmike]

Learning critical thinking skills is not specifically a religious activity, and not even necessarily something that religious groups value.

Yet critical thinking is not common in atheists claiming that science underpins their philosophy either.
Not enough is taught of philosophy of sciecne. What it can say, and what it cannot.

 

[Ken Rank]

Learning critical thinking skills is not specifically a religious activity, and not even necessarily something that religious groups value.

I realize that... and I believe that is, at least in part, why we have so much division and polarization. When a teacher gives a student an answer, the student can't defend it because it's just an answer without an origin. So, when another person comes and challenges the student, the student can't defend the answer and ends up (usually) defending his position from a purely emotional place. And once it goes there, nothing but division and strife come from it.

On the other hand, had the student been taught some critical thinking skills, and they discerned the answer on their own, they CAN defend it if challenged and are often more likely to be open to correction if wrong because they can recognize, if pointed out, where they might have gone wrong in their procedure. Many of the more divisive issues in the faith today could be alleviated if we did a better job of discipling new students.

 

[1213]

As Christians how can we distinguish between what is definite (Doctrine - supported by scripture and global historical church), what is less clear ( Controversy) and what is plain wrong ( Heresy)?

I think, by reading the Bible.

 

[Uber Genius]

An important distinction needs to be made between the three, good question.

Firstly, if we think about how little people know about theology, even when they have been attending church for decades, it gives us pause.

Secondly, we find that new Christians may believe silly concepts that they have received from their culture while never realizing it. An example of this would be the misperception that "the HS is a force." Or the heretical misperception that “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.”

Thirdly, if we were to build a rubric of some kind, it would be informed by the early church fathers arguments and the resulting creeds. We would have a handful of beliefs that are essential. Then a greater number that we would want to move people as they matured in knowledge from heretical to orthodox, say in the area of church attendance, or baptism.

I'm in favor of a small center of things that someone would have to believe.

Do we have to be able to represent the hypostatic union and recognize that Jesus is eternal, has all essential attributes of God and man, and the nature of the HS in order to be saved?

For a quick and alarming survey of Evangelicals in US (which would be a more Biblically-knowledgeable group than most) see:

http://lifewayresearch.com/wp-conte...te-of-American-Theology-2016-Final-Report.pdf

 

[mindlight]

Learning critical thinking skills is not specifically a religious activity, and not even necessarily something that religious groups value.

In Germany something like half of those who study theology do not believe in God. But while I agree historical and scientific critical thinking is not something that just Christians do, genuine reflection on the Divine cannot really be done by those who do not know God. The ability to professionally handle the various theologians views on God is not authentic theology and makes the study of Gods revelation somehow abstract and inauthentic.

 

[mindlight]

Generally, doctrine is that which has been determined by the Ecumenical Councils. If there were to be some controversy, an Ecumenical Council would resolve it. Heresy is something that contradicts an Ecumenical Council.

There is no need to separate scripture from the affirmation of various creeds that have grown out of These Ecumenical councils e.g. NIcene Creed, Chalcedon on incarnation. If in the last times if the AntiChrist / False Prophet gains control of the institutional church I would not trust the results of any Ecumenical Council but would rather test them against older councils verdicts or scripture itself.