How do you determine heresy?

[Zach Wingo]

What is some criteria you use when making the decision to label a particular teaching or teacher as heretical?

[Hans Deventer]

I'd say that heresy is anything that goes against the ecumenical creeds of the Church. For instance, we have a guy in our church who denies that Jesus as he walked on this earth was both God and man. That's heresy.

[Ian Gentles]

I think we all are a bit heretical, what would early church fathers makes of we christians today? But in general I agree with what Hans has said.

[Jim Chabot]

That's a tough one Zach. I've come to realize that there is no standard outside of Scripture, and that Scripture is subject to interpretation. So while we may argue that a particular teaching is false because Scripture bears witness against it, I would be loath to call someone heretical overall.

I've also found that using the creeds as a standard tends to protect some pretty bad actors while shunning others. Not a good standard at all. Don't gat me wrong, I've no problem with the statements contained there, but they fall short as a litmus test.

[Randy Wise]

The NT.

Its not required of a Christian to state Jesus "always was".

However I don't see how anyone can't see the Father in the Son from what Jesus taught. "God with us"

Randy

[Jim Abrams]

Its important to keep in mind that no single individual gets to either 'lable or decide' what is or is not heresy. That distinction is given to the church collectivly and has been reserved for ways of thinking about God that are detrementle to the essential core affermations of the historic Christian faith as outlined by the creeds and to which the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit give witness.

[Cam Pence]

I'd say that heresy is anything that goes against the ecumenical creeds of the Church. For instance, we have a guy in our church who denies that Jesus as he walked on this earth was both God and man. That's heresy.

Um Hans.....but then what do we do with six day creation? This guy

[Hans Deventer]

Um Hans.....but then what do we do with six day creation? This guy

The great thing about the creeds is that we don't get to choose our topics and define folks a heretic for simply thinking different about a subject we in our infallibility so happen to consider important. I think that is actually the greatest blessing. Otherwise we end up like the Unholy Inquisition, better known as the CN's.

(I must say that I'm feeling more and more sympathy for the Jesus who cleaned up the temple).

[Cam Pence]

The great thing about the creeds is that we don't get to choose our topics and define folks a heretic for simply thinking different about a subject we in our infallibility so happen to consider important. I think that is actually the greatest blessing. Otherwise we end up like the Unholy Inquisition, better known as the CN's.

(I must say that I'm feeling more and more sympathy for the Jesus who cleaned up the temple).

Yea brother I know. We need a sarcasm button

[Hans Deventer]

Yea brother I know. We need a sarcasm button

The "hate this" button would be nice too. And the "crying" one. Though they usually go together.

[John Reilly]

Specifically, throughout church history the church has dealt with heresies by suing councils where creeds affirmed cardinal doctrines to measure heresy. Specifically important are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Creed of Chalcedon. The church is the protector of doctrine especially of Christology. At the Council of Chalcedon, the church affirmed the hypostatic union of Jesus, being fully God and fully human. Jesus is unique having two natures in one person. I am reading a new book, April, 2012, "BAD RELIGION: How We Became a Nation of Heretics." Basically affirms that the result of pluralism, Americans have ecclectically composed countless personal religions, creating god in their own image, and blending favorite beliefs that feel good to them. The church must rise up and protect and preach the truth and miracle of Emmanuel, God with US in Jesus. Any religious belief contrary to the cardinal doctrine of an eternal existing Jesus as fully God and becoming incarnate as fully human, is heresy.

[Jon Bemis]

Its important to keep in mind that no single individual gets to either 'lable or decide' what is or is not heresy. That distinction is given to the church collectivly and has been reserved for ways of thinking about God that are detrementle to the essential core affermations of the historic Christian faith as outlined by the creeds and to which the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit give witness.

I didn't type (or think) fast enough. Good summation.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Its important to keep in mind that no single individual gets to either 'lable or decide' what is or is not heresy. That distinction is given to the church collectivly and has been reserved for ways of thinking about God that are detrementle to the essential core affermations of the historic Christian faith as outlined by the creeds and to which the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit give witness.

While I do not disagree I do have to ask, Does this mean there are no more heresies? Or does each church, local for non-denominational, or the denomination for denominational churches get to decide for themselves? Because the possibility of all denominations and non-denominational churches coming together in ecumenical council just seems very slim.

The question asked, I do think that the second question becomes the answer in actual practice today. Different churches and denominations decide for themselves what are the essentials and what are not. Violation in teaching, thought, and oft question of the determined essentials then becomes heresy. I know many small non-denominational churches that think that following the lectionary is heretical, others reciting the creeds, etc.

[Ryan Scott]

My favorite treatment of heresy comes courtesy of Dr. Paul Bassett. He says heresy is not about people being thrown out of the Church, but about people exiling themselves.

If your belief leads you to break off fellowship with the body, keeps you from coming to the table with us, then your belief is heretical.

I like it.

[Randy Wise]

My favorite treatment of heresy comes courtesy of Dr. Paul Bassett. He says heresy is not about people being thrown out of the Church, but about people exiling themselves.

If your belief leads you to break off fellowship with the body, keeps you from coming to the table with us, then your belief is heretical.

I like it.

Was Martin Luther a heretic?

The NT has to be a mark as to what a Christian is . Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Jesus stated those that hold to His testimony show to be His.

I don't agree to ES. Only the "new creation" Christ is us.

Randy

[Randy Wise]

(I must say that I'm feeling more and more sympathy for the Jesus who cleaned up the temple).

Well if Jesus calls you up to heaven to write down what you see and hear to give to the church you are going to have a "book" to bring back as there are alot more then "7" in this day.

R.

[David Graham]

I think we really can't go beyond the creeds as a general rule for "essential" Christian belief.
As Jim has implied however, one may give a "nodding" assent to the credal words but still be a "heretic" in the heart...... or in practice.

Thus we can say with a high level of confidence that those doctrines which are against what is taught in the creeds are heretical because the general councils of the early church rejected them. These early councils were representative of the general world church of their day and attempted to clarify what was important for Christians to believe. And since contentious issues arose about the nature of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ, they made statements about what they believed to be true on these issues.

Now we may agree or disagree about what other issues are heretical or not, but since it is now virtually impossible to gather another general council of the Christian church to discuss and vote on these issues we have no other "trustworthy" barometer available to us that can give most Christians the confidence to understand what is universally acceptable or not.

We might want to stand upon the authority of the word of God...... but in the end it is one persons interpretations against another person's interpretations, and if a similar hermaneutical standard is applied there will be no doubt strong points of truth on both sides of an issue presented in such a debate. But such an appraoch is unlikely to establish a universal truth.(From personal involvement in the hoimosexuality debate in the church, I know that this principle is true)

We might say that the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of all truth) will lead us into all truth..... but if that be so than how is it that godly people can have differing (or even opposite) opinions about the same issue?

In the end we have to work in close Christian service with those with whom we mostly agree and be generous in grace with those with whom we disagree. As Bresee said: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, harmony; and in all things, charity". We'd all do well to learn and practice that!

[Hans Deventer]

I don't agree to ES. Only the "new creation" Christ is us.

Randy, we already know you neither agree with Nicea nor with the CotN. You're still welcome to write here, but keep in mind that we do.

[Randy Wise]

Randy, we already know you neither agree with Nicea nor with the CotN. You're still welcome to write here, but keep in mind that we do.

That doesn't support truth. If you state ES and you state Jesus always was and always was God I sure hope its because that's what you believe to be truth. One states a reasoning of mystery (how that holds to One God) and I have been on this board long enough to know ES has confused many Nazarenes. Keep in mind I post what I believe to be true and I hope that's a answer that people seek when polling for answers.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

That doesn't support truth. If you state ES and you state Jesus always was and always was God I sure hope its because that's what you believe to be truth. One states a reasoning of mystery (how that holds to One God) and I have been on this board long enough to know ES has confused many Nazarenes. Keep in mind I post what I believe to be true and I hope that's a answer that people seek when polling for answers.

Randy

I had expected a more sensible answer from you. You are a guest, Randy. Behave accordingly.

[Hans Deventer]

Well if Jesus calls you up to heaven to write down what you see and hear to give to the church you are going to have a "book" to bring back as there are alot more then "7" in this day.

R.

I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I wrote.

[David Graham]

THIS IS A HOST POST

Let us once again be reminded that this is a Nazarene Friendly site......

We are not here to attack Nazarene doctrine or one another.......

Let's keep to the main issue under discussion please!

[Zach Wingo]

Was Martin Luther a heretic?

He was to the Roman Catholic wasn't he?

[Zach Wingo]

Can someone please tell me what ES stands for? I have a few guesses but...

[John Kennedy]

Can someone please tell me what ES stands for? I have a few guesses but...

Entire sanctification.

Or, it could also stand for eternal security. I have the feeling, however, that within the context of this discussion, it's probably the former.

[James Johnson]

THIS IS A HOST POST

Let us once again be reminded that this is a Nazarene Friendly site......

We are not here to attack Nazarene doctrine or one another.......

Well now; I believe this could be stamped on many threads including any discussion on GA's!

[Hans Deventer]

Well now; I believe this could be stamped on many threads including any discussion on GA's!

The difference is if you're discussing stuff from the inside, or from the outside. Example, among the Jews there were and are many different fractions who can say pretty nasty stuff to one another. However, when the Nazi's started to say stuff like that, things sounded somewhat differently. As were the results.

So to follow your example, as a Nazarene, I can discuss GA's. It is actually well known I think we can do without them. But being a Nazarene, I'm certainly not attacking the CotN. I'm just thinking about what would be best for the Church I love.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Was Martin Luther a heretic?

The NT has to be a mark as to what a Christian is . Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. Jesus stated those that hold to His testimony show to be His.

I don't agree to ES. Only the "new creation" Christ is us.

Randy

I think it's necessary to differentiate between "one who believes a heresy" and "one who acknowledges they believe in a heresy and continue to profess and teach it." One could believe a heresy out of ignorance, but not be a heretic. If someone is confronted with the heretical nature of their beliefs, yet still professes to believe and more importantly, teaches such, then they are to be properly labeled a heretic.

Martin Luther was a heretic of the RCC, but only after Diet at Worms where he refused to recant. He was not a heretic to orthodox Christianity.

And before you ask.... you already know.

[James Johnson]

The difference is if you're discussing stuff from the inside, or from the outside. Example, among the Jews there were and are many different fractions who can say pretty nasty stuff to one another. However, when the Nazi's started to say stuff like that, things sounded somewhat differently. As were the results.

So to follow your example, as a Nazarene, I can discuss GA's. It is actually well known I think we can do without them. But being a Nazarene, I'm certainly not attacking the CotN. I'm just thinking about what would be best for the Church I love.

Hans, please understand I was making an off the cuff blanket statement and not one pointed at you or anyone else!

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, please understand I was making an off the cuff blanket statement and not one pointed at you or anyone else!

Sure, no problem, James! I was just elaborate on it.

[Randy Wise]

I think it's necessary to differentiate between "one who believes a heresy" and "one who acknowledges they believe in a heresy and continue to profess and teach it." One could believe a heresy out of ignorance, but not be a heretic. If someone is confronted with the heretical nature of their beliefs, yet still professes to believe and more importantly, teaches such, then they are to be properly labeled a heretic.

Martin Luther was a heretic of the RCC, but only after Diet at Worms where he refused to recant. He was not a heretic to orthodox Christianity.

And before you ask.... you already know.

Yes I know the NT doesn't require a Christian to state "Jesus always was". That was added by man.

What word do you think Paul should have used to capture all that Jesus is yet is not God but the Son of God and Christ of God. "Lord"

1 Corinthians 8:6

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Its clear to me the Father defined who Jesus is. (His being) Jesus gave us a gift as He was given a gift. The Father in Him and He in us. How then is that a God who always was and always was God? The fullness was given and that fullness includes all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Jesus is all that the Father is "God" but He has always been the Son. (Not God in that context)

Randy

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Yes I know the NT doesn't require a Christian to state "Jesus always was". That was added by man.

Read the prologue of John. It is quite clear from the get go that Jesus always was.

Better yet read it in Greek, or just trust someone like Daniel Wallace to read it for you.

What word do you think Paul should have used to capture all that Jesus is yet is not God but the Son of God and Christ of God. "Lord"

You do know that the word "adonai" is what is used for God in the Greek OT right?

And what say you of Thomas after he sees the risen Christ?

Or of the Granville Sharp constructions found in the Pauline Epistles and Peter's epistles? "our Lord and God" "our Savior and God"

1 Corinthians 8:6

For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Are you really going to build your Christology on one verse? Paul was speaking against polytheism, so any attempt at saying he supported Jesus as some other divine being is absurd.

Its clear to me the Father defined who Jesus is. (His being) Jesus gave us a gift as He was given a gift. The Father in Him and He in us. How then is that a God who always was and always was God? The fullness was given and that fullness includes all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Jesus is all that the Father is "God" but He has always been the Son. (Not God in that context)

What do you do with Phil 2:5-11? He existed in the form of God, he did not find equality with God something to be held on to, but emptied himself. It is very clear that Jesus was God and laid aside his privileges as God.

You might also want to look at the Creation account in Genesis and in John, and see how you fit Isaiah 44:24 in the mix:

"I, the Lord, am maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone."

Now how, if God is the creator, and Jesus is the maker of all things.... how is it that Yahweh in Isaiah tells us that he created everything "all alone" and "by [himself]"?

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh man... here we go again.

[David Graham]

Read the prologue of John. It is quite clear from the get go that Jesus always was.

Better yet read it in Greek, or just trust someone like Daniel Wallace to read it for you. You do know that the word "adonai" is what is used for God in the Greek OT right?

And what say you of Thomas after he sees the risen Christ?

Or of the Granville Sharp constructions found in the Pauline Epistles and Peter's epistles? "our Lord and God" "our Savior and God" Are you really going to build your Christology on one verse? Paul was speaking against polytheism, so any attempt at saying he supported Jesus as some other divine being is absurd. What do you do with Phil 2:5-11? He existed in the form of God, he did not find equality with God something to be held on to, but emptied himself. It is very clear that Jesus was God and laid aside his privileges as God.

You might also want to look at the Creation account in Genesis and in John, and see how you fit Isaiah 44:24 in the mix:

"I, the Lord, am maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone."

Now how, if God is the creator, and Jesus is the maker of all things.... how is it that Yahweh in Isaiah tells us that he created everything "all alone" and "by [himself]"?

Sure Benjamin, I agree with all that you say; however, it's still based upon your particular hermaneutic (and possibly mine), yet if a person comes up with other conclusions based upon a different hermaneutic..... does that make them a heretic? Or is there another "Better" criteria for determining truth and error?

It seems to me that this is the central question we are trying to answer here in this discussion.

[Randy Wise]

Read the prologue of John. It is quite clear from the get go that Jesus always was.

Better yet read it in Greek, or just trust someone like Daniel Wallace to read it for you. You do know that the word "adonai" is what is used for God in the Greek OT right?

And what say you of Thomas after he sees the risen Christ?

Or of the Granville Sharp constructions found in the Pauline Epistles and Peter's epistles? "our Lord and God" "our Savior and God" Are you really going to build your Christology on one verse? Paul was speaking against polytheism, so any attempt at saying he supported Jesus as some other divine being is absurd. What do you do with Phil 2:5-11? He existed in the form of God, he did not find equality with God something to be held on to, but emptied himself. It is very clear that Jesus was God and laid aside his privileges as God.

You might also want to look at the Creation account in Genesis and in John, and see how you fit Isaiah 44:24 in the mix:

"I, the Lord, am maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone."

Now how, if God is the creator, and Jesus is the maker of all things.... how is it that Yahweh in Isaiah tells us that he created everything "all alone" and "by [himself]"?

I agree Jesus existed before the world began. So how does John help you convince me that Jesus "always was"? I believe God created through the Son. How does that state "Jesus always was"? How can you read the NT and not see the Father defined all that Jesus is? The Son.

Jesus doesn't take sides with His children. (what are you arguing about?) He uses truth when He answers. I believe people on this board have faith and love for the same Jesus I do. (Our Lord)

Lets move on.

Randy

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Sure Benjamin, I agree with all that you say; however, it's still based upon your particular hermaneutic (and possibly mine), yet if a person comes up with other conclusions based upon a different hermaneutic..... does that make them a heretic? Or is there another "Better" criteria for determining truth and error?

It seems to me that this is the central question we are trying to answer here in this discussion.

I don't think this is an issue of differing hermeneutics, but proper and improper hermeneutics.

I am a Trinitarian because I accept ALL of the OT and all of the NT. I don't ignore the passages that might disagree with position and I don't add words to passages to be able to read them. I am not a Trinitarian because I read the Bible through the lens of the ecumenical creeds.

I talk with Mormons all the time on this issue. They read turn of the century LDS leader theology into the Bible and don't allow the text to speak for itself. So every mention of the Father and the Son being one is followed in their minds with "...in purpose". And the same is with every Unitarian I've ever had dialogue with. There is a consistent lack of letting all of Scripture speak, some passages always get pushed aside.

Again, I make the distinction of heretic as someone who not only believes heresy, but also acknowledges that it is considered heresy, refuses correction and teaches heresy.

So while a number of people may have strange beliefs, I think their hermeneutic needs to be corrected and beliefs need to be put to the test of the creeds (for the lack of better meter).

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I agree Jesus existed before the world began. So how does John help you convince me that Jesus "always was"?

In the beginning was the Word. The Word was already in existence "in the beginning". It doesn't say "in the beginning of the world/universe", but rather "the beginning". John is explicit in saying that at the very beginning of time, existence or being the Word was already in existence.

He goes on to say that "the word was with God and the Word was God". The word "pros" can be translated as "face to face", so the "the Word was God and the Word was face to face with God".

There really is no room for assuming that "there was when [the Son] was not". You would have to make that assertion outside of scripture and in opposition to what John is saying.

Could you tell me how John should have written the Prologue had he (in your view) really meant to say that Jesus had always existed?

I believe God created through the Son. How does that state "Jesus always was"?

Do you believe that the Son was somehow created at some point? Is he a separate being?

The issue is that Jesus is the Creator, but God is called the Creator, and we find in Isaiah that when God created he did it all alone. But if Jesus is a created thing, then it is impossible for him to be creator. He is instead part of creation.

How can you read the NT and not see the Father defined all that Jesus is? The Son.

Where do you see this? I don't see a single place where it says that the Father "defined all that Jesus is"

Jesus doesn't take sides with His children. (what are you arguing about?) He uses truth when He answers. I believe people on this board have faith and love for the same Jesus I do. (Our Lord)

So the different ontological nature of diety being completely different doesn't matter to you?

Lets move on.

Randy

Sorry, the identity of God and thus of Christ is THE pivotal issue, both in the OT and NT. And if God made the identity of himself both known and an issue of salvation.... then it's not something I can just "move on" over.

[Randy Wise]

I don't think this is an issue of differing hermeneutics, but proper and improper hermeneutics.

I am a Trinitarian because I accept ALL of the OT and all of the NT. I don't ignore the passages that might disagree with position and I don't add words to passages to be able to read them. I am not a Trinitarian because I read the Bible through the lens of the ecumenical creeds.

I talk with Mormons all the time on this issue. They read turn of the century LDS leader theology into the Bible and don't allow the text to speak for itself. So every mention of the Father and the Son being one is followed in their minds with "...in purpose". And the same is with every Unitarian I've ever had dialogue with. There is a consistent lack of letting all of Scripture speak, some passages always get pushed aside.

Again, I make the distinction of heretic as someone who not only believes heresy, but also acknowledges that it is considered heresy, refuses correction and teaches heresy.

So while a number of people may have strange beliefs, I think their hermeneutic needs to be corrected and beliefs need to be put to the test of the creeds (for the lack of better meter).

But I state you are in error. (Jesus always was) I agree Jesus is all that the Father is (God) and in that the One and Only. As One Lord.

I am not a mormon nor do I deny what is written about the Son. Nor do I hold to teaching outside the 66 books. I also consider myself conservative not liberal.

Again the NT doesn't hold that a christian state Jesus always was. That was added by man.

Perhaps you should share what I state with your mormon friends.


Randy

[Benjamin Burch]

Oh man... here we go again.

Seriously. Can we not have this discussion for the 100th time?

Randy's Christology is heretical. Randy doesn't care. Randy thinks he knows better than the Church. Randy is more than willing to say others are in error because they don't believe heresy. Randy has no authority and is not in a teaching position. Randy is therefore not a threat. Randy is not going to change his mind.

/discussion.

[Randy Wise]

Seriously. Can we not have this discussion for the 100th time?

Randy's Christology is heretical. Randy doesn't care. Randy thinks he knows better than the Church. Randy is more than willing to say others are in error because they don't believe heresy. Randy has no authority and is not in a teaching position. Randy is therefore not a threat. Randy is not going to change his mind.

/discussion.

Randy doesn't care? Hmm

If I go to others with the written gospel message its because I do care. The authority is in that message. The Lords words. Not ours. Jesus is who I uphold just as is written.


Randy