what is a heresy or a heritic

[Alithis]

it is interesting that the scriptures use the word so few times

it appears in 2 peter 2: 1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.

so we see here it is one who brings in a teaching that is not built upon the foundation of what is already written . but added to it and not aligned to what the whole word of God states .

the dictionary definition is basically
heresy
ˈhɛrɪsi/
noun
belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.
"ie Huss was burned for heresy"
synonyms: dissension, dissent, dissidence, blasphemy, nonconformity, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, freethinking, schism, faction;
------------------------
so we see here that a heresy againt an established line of thought or reasoning and does not automatically make it a heresy againt the word of god .

a heresy againt the word of God is something that is not already IN the world of God but is externally introduced (brought in ) and then defended as if it were already there . it is a false hood .
an easy way to know the difference is by the actions of the party throwing the accusation around . ie ..if they burn you at the stake (and act of murder which itself is a falsehood againt the words of the lord JEsus- he never told us to burn any one ) -then you can be assured the accusation is false .
the accusation seeking to "condemn" a perceived heresy is of the same nature .

so while a certain opposing line of thought can be clearly a heresy against a man made institution .and that man made institution may seek your demise for speaking out - that is exactly what it is and all it is - a heresy against a man made institution . not against the word of God
---
another time the word is referred to ,this time speaking of a heretic , is from Titus 3:10 - A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

in this instance the word basically means
factious
relating or inclined to dissension.
synonyms: divided, split, sectarian, schismatic, dissenting, contentious, discordant, conflicting, argumentative, disagreeing, disputatious, quarrelling, quarrelsome, clashing, warring, at variance, at loggerheads, at odds, disharmonious, tumultuous, turbulent, dissident, rebellious, insurrectionary, seditious, mutinous
"he had transformed a fragmented, factious resistance movement into a monolithic one"

and here we see the reason the lord called me to turn away from partaking in never ceasing contention .it is not a matter of not contending for the truth . but rther speaking out to contend and then leaving it there .
and again also shows one can be a heretic against a man made institutions line of thought but still not a heretic against the word of god .
so it is important not to confuse the two but to define the two .

and here i have contended that one cannot be judged as being a heretic against the word of god in regard to that which is not in the word of God
but can be judged to be a heretic against an organisation which promotes that which is not in the word of God .

ans having thus contended , having thus assertively maintained , i now know i need not strive endlessly for in the end GOD is judge .and can go my way in peace .and need not engage in ceaseless bickering with no edification nor throw about wild accusations .

 

[MoreCoffee]

Heresy is error taught as Christian truth.

A heretic is one who is (and still professes to be) a Christian and teaches error without being ignorant of the teaching of the Christian Church and that his/her teaching is contrary to it.

 

[Alithis]

Heresy is error taught as Christian truth.

A heretic is one who is (and still professes to be) a Christian and teaches error without being ignorant of the teaching of the Christian Church and that his/her teaching is contrary to it.

which christian church ? that is the thing when it comes to judging heresy ..-is it heresy againt the church which is the collective of all those in whom the holy Spirit dwells?
or is it heresy againt a particular denomination ?

 

[tango]

I think "heresy" is a massively overused term, rather like "miracle" in many ways.

Where teachings disagree we need to consider the question of whether the disagreement is sufficiently serious that we need to break fellowship. When I look at the stance taken by some Christians that alcohol in any quantity isn't appropriate for a Christian I see an argument that I just can't see any Scriptural support for. But then I don't see a Scriptural mandate to drink alcohol, so I regard it as something where we can choose for ourselves and wouldn't break fellowship just because someone else makes a different choice to my

If a teaching goes against the very core of the Christian faith then we need to tread a lot more carefully. When teachers encourage us to follow other gods I think we should reject them and their teachings and if that means breaking fellowship then so be it.


The way some people use the term reminds me of this joke:


I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

 

[Josiah]

which christian church ?

The Christian church. All of us..... spread out over all the continents and the centuries. Over the years, heretics have risen up - claiming self to be the ONE lead by the Spirit, claiming self to be the ONE infallible one - teaching ERROR. Sometimes, they get followers (the very issue Scripture decries - the tendency of error or persuade). CHRISTIANS (who are the church) listen and evaluate - as Scripture demands that we do, holding that one accountable (in spite of heretics always declaring self is the sole unaccountable one since self is the one lead by the Spirit). And the corpus of Christians have been EXCELLENT at spotting and denouncing heresies. Including the Nestorianism you've promoted here at CH.

It's understandable that laity will "re-invent" the wheel, re-inventing ancient heresies. But it SHOULD be the role of our teachers to boldly correct us! Problem is: in too much of modern Christianity, even the clergy are largely ignorant of Christian history, Christian theology, the Councils. Thus, horrible and destructive heresies are allowed to return (maybe even promoted by well-meaning clergy who are simply and horribly ignorant).




.

 

[psalms 91]

How many threads have we to suffer your harrangue? Enough already, try a different subject and move on as we all have. You are pushing to have many put you on ignore

 

[Josiah]

How many threads have we to suffer your harrangue? Enough already, try a different subject and move on as we all have. You are pushing to have many put you on ignore

I thought you did - but you just responded to a post of mine.... a post in DIRECT RESPONSE to the opening post.

Instead, you didn't reply to the opening post at all - or to anything - just perhaps TRYING to support why you don't care if you are promoting heresy or not?

 

[psalms 91]

I thought you did - but you just responded to a post of mine.... a post in DIRECT RESPONSE to the opening post.

Instead, you didn't reply to the opening post at all - or to anything - just perhaps TRYING to support why you don't care if you are promoting heresy or not?

I happened to look at it and yes you are correct that we do not like to be browbeaten by someone agiain you are defining a bully very well. If that is what you want so be it. And yes heresy is something that should be avoided and please dont use that to respond with the 100th post of the same old same old.

 

[Alithis]

I think "heresy" is a massively overused term, rather like "miracle" in many ways.

Where teachings disagree we need to consider the question of whether the disagreement is sufficiently serious that we need to break fellowship. When I look at the stance taken by some Christians that alcohol in any quantity isn't appropriate for a Christian I see an argument that I just can't see any Scriptural support for. But then I don't see a Scriptural mandate to drink alcohol, so I regard it as something where we can choose for ourselves and wouldn't break fellowship just because someone else makes a different choice to my

If a teaching goes against the very core of the Christian faith then we need to tread a lot more carefully. When teachers encourage us to follow other gods I think we should reject them and their teachings and if that means breaking fellowship then so be it.


The way some people use the term reminds me of this joke:


I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said: "Yes."

I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

lol .. yes exactly ,
It seems this word heresy is used by peter to describe some one "bringing in " a teaching that's not already established in scripture.
but outside that its used as an accusatory word, mostly when such doctrine is challenged into a corner -out comes the accusation.

i like the old saying i think it is wise advice .. "what the ENTIRE scripture states about any given topic ..is the doctrine there of . Never what one single plucked out sentance says .
and any doctrine formed out of the NT is found to be strongly established on the foundation of what the OT states .
ie - doctrines on faith are traced back solidly to Abraham
doctrines on the lamb of God are traced back solidly to the Passover
doctrines on water baptism are traced back solidly to passing through the red sea .etc
no NT based doctrine is without OT foundation. After all ,the apostles studied the scriptures they had and preached from them the Gospel and all the foundations of repentance from dead works , water baptism , resurrection etc they had no NT to refer to . Everything they preached they used the OT to show it . the NT is thier holy Spirit inspired expounding of the OT ..it is the OT explained for us .
thus is ANY teaching is introduced that is cannot be firmly established from the OT also ..or it does not agree with the OT .it is not a doctrine of God but of man .
and it is these such doctrines when challenged that often bring forth the accusation of heresy . and such doctrines are often "denominational based ", not scripturally based , traditions of men , not scriptural doctrines found in both the OT and the NT .

the bereans "searched the scriptures" to see if what was being preached was true .. they did not have the NT ,they did so from the OT .
ANY teaching that either is not found in the OT or the NT ..or disagrees with the OT is to be deemed a false doctrine .
its easy enough to tell . for when the doctrine is challenged into a corner .. heresy is accused .
and that is why i asked "which christian church " for such heresy not againt God or his word - is ONLY against a man made institution and its traditions - and they proved this falsehood . for Jesus said "some will put you to death thinking they are doing the will of God" (pp) and that actions displayed the utter state of error they are in .

 

[Josiah]

I happened to look at it and yes you are correct that we do not like to be browbeaten by someone agiain you are defining a bully very well. If that is what you want so be it. And yes heresy is something that should be avoided and please dont use that to respond with the 100th post of the same old same old.

IF I'm a "bully" against horrible heresy (and thus a defender of Christ and Christianity), then I'll wear that label with joy.

And I defended Christ against Nestorianism only when Nestorianism is promoted, defended, echoed. Same with other universally condemned heresies.

 

[Josiah]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies

A heresy is a universally condemned false teaching.





.

 

[Josiah]

Here's a list of the universally condemned heresies:


Adoptionism. Adoptionism held that Jesus was not really God but merely a man to whom special graces had been given and who achieved a kind of divine status at his baptism. This idea that Christ as a man was only the "adopted" son of God proved to be a persistent heresy. It was condemned by Pope St. Victor 1, who excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium for Adoptionism. The same heresy was condemned in 785 and again in 794. Revived by Peter Abelard in the twelfth century, Adoptionism was again condemned by Pope Alexander III in 1177.

Anomeanism. A radical variant of Arianism (see below), Anomeanism held that the Son was "unlike" (Greek: animoios) the Father.

Apollinarianism. This heretical doctrine of Apollinaris (310-390), bishop of Laodicea in Asia Minor, held that Christ had a human body but only a sensitive soul-and no rational human mind or human free will, these having been replaced in Christ by the divine Logos, or Word of God. This theory was condemned by Roman synods in 377 and 381 and by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the latter year.

Arianism. A major heresy that arose in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. First effectively advanced by Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria, who denied that there were three distinct divine Persons in God. For Arius, there was only one Person, the Father. According to Arian theory, the Son was created ("There was a time when he was not"). Christ was thus a son of God, not by nature, but only by grace and adoption. This theory logically evacuates the doctrine of the Incarnation of God in Christ of all meaning: if God did not become man, then the world has not been redeemed and the faith itself eventually dissolves. Arianism was formally condemned in 325 by the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which formulated and promulgated the original version of the Nicene Creed; but Arianism and Semi-Arianism (see below) nevertheless continued to prevail in its original form in many areas for more than a century. Arianism was combatted by the great St. Athanasius of Alexandria (296-373) among others; but the heresy nevertheless persisted, especially among the barbarians, for several centuries.

Donatism. A fourth- and fifth-century African heresy holding that the validity of the sacraments depends upon the moral character of the minister of the sacraments and that sinners cannot be true members of the Church or even tolerated by the Church if their sins are publicly known. Donatism began as a schism when rigorists claimed that a bishop of Carthage, Caecilian (fl. ca. 313), was not a true bishop because he had been ordained by a bishop who had been an apostate under the Diocletian persecution. The Donatists ordained their own bishops, one of whom was Donatus, for whom the heresy is named. Donatism was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-3 14) and by the (local) Council of Arles in 314, but it nevertheless persisted in North Africa until the Muslim conquest in the seventh century. The great St. Augustine (354-430) wrote extensively against Donatism.

Gnosticism. The heretical theory that salvation comes through some special kind of knowledge, usually knowledge claimed by a special elite group. Gnostic theories existed before Christianity, and the Gnostics adapted the Gospels to their own views and for their own purposes, even composing pseudogospels, embodying their particular ideas and doctrines. Gnosticism held matter to be evil and hostile to the human spirit; it also essentially denied the truths of Christian revelation. Secular historian Jacob Burckhardt described the Gnostics as "speculative enthusiasts" who embraced Christianity only as a platform for Platonic and Oriental ideas. Gnosticism as an organized sect or body of beliefs has long been extinct, but Gnostic ideas persist and surface in some form in nearly every major heretical version of the Christian faith.

Macedonianism. A heresy named after Macedonius, an Arian bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 362,) whose followers denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit: the Spirit was declared by them not to proceed from the Father but to be a creation of the Son. Macedonianism was condemned in 381 by the ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which added to the Nicene Creed an affirmation of belief in the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

Marcionism. A second-century heresy of Marcion (ff. ca. 140) and his followers, who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament, except for the Gospel of Luke and ten of the Letters of St. Paul. The Marcionists claimed to preach a purer gospel after the manner of St. Paul; for them Christianity was purely a gospel of love to the exclusion of any law. Only virgins, widows, and celibates were baptized by the Marcionists; married people could not advance beyond the catechumenate.

Modalism. A form of Trinitarian heresy of the second and third centuries, Modalism held that there is only one Person in God, who manifests himself in various ways, or modes. Sabellianism (see below) was a form of Modalism, as was Priscillianism (see below).

Monophysitism. A fifth-century heresy holding that in Christ there is only one nature (Greek: mono, single; physis, nature), a divine nature. Thus, Monophysitism denies the true human nature of Christ; this human nature is absorbed into Christ's divine nature, according to Monophysitism. This heresy arose primarily in reaction to Nestorianism (see below). Monophysitism, though condemned by Pope St. Leo the Great in his famous Tome Of 449 and by the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, persists to this day in parts of the East.

Monothelitism. A heresy that arose in the seventh century as a result of Byzantine imperial efforts to accommodate the Monophysites (see above). Monothelites accepted the orthodox doctrine of the two natures, divine and human, in the Person of Jesus Christ but held that these two natures had only "one will" (Greek: monos, single; thelein, will). This heresy was condemned by the Sixth General Council of Constantinople in 681.

Montanism. A second-century heretical movement that professed belief in a new "Church of the Spirit". The Montanists believed they enjoyed the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This claim meant that their fanatically rigorous views concerning morality superseded the authentic revelation of Christ that had been handed down in the Church. The heresy of Montanism, which claimed the great Tertullian (160-220) himself, was condemned by several Eastern synods around the year 202.


continued in next post....





.

 

[Josiah]

Nestorianism. A fifth-century heresy claiming that there are two distinct Persons in the Incarnate Christ, one human and one divine. Christianity teaches that Christ was and is a divine person who took on a human nature. According to Nestorianism, it is unthinkable that Mary could really have been the mother of God, but only the mother of a human being conjoined to God. Nestorianism, which took its name from Nestorius, a bishop of Constantinople (d. ca. 451), was condemned by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. Overemphasizing the humanity of Christ, Nestorianism is the opposite heresy from Monophysitism (see above), which overemphasized Christ's divinity.

Novatianism. A schism that became a heresy. It originated with Novatian, a Roman priest who became an antipope, claiming the papacy in 251 in opposition to the true pope, St. Cornelius. The Novatianists adopted a moral rigorism similar to that of Donatism (see above). Those guilty of grave sin were excluded from the Church permanently, and absolution was refused to those guilty of the sins of murder and adultery.

Pelagianism. A heretical doctrine on divine grace taught by Pelagius (355-425), a monk from the British Isles who first propagated his views in Rome in the time of Pope Anastasius I. Pelagius argued that Christianity's teaching that in order to do good, divine grace in the soul was necessary. This canceled human free will. Pelagianism included a cluster of other beliefs and essentially entailed a denial of the Christian doctrine of Original Sin. It was condemned by local councils in Africa in 416 and 417, and also by Pope St. Innocent I in the latter year. It was condemned again in 418 by his successor, Pope St. Zosimus. Semi-Pelagianism, a related heresy, was condemned by the local Council of Orange in 529 but has long persisted among those who question Original Sin and the supremacy of divine grace.

Priscillianism. A fourth-century heresy originating in Spain and combining forms of both Modalism and Gnosticism (see above). It denied Christ's divinity and real humanity, holding that human souls were united to bodies in punishment for their sins.

Sabellianism. A third-century heresy named after a theologian, Sabellius (fl. ca. 215). The Sabellians believed that there was only one Person in God, with three "modes", or aspects, of manifesting himself as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. It was thus a form of Modalism (see above). Jesus Christ was merely a temporary manifestation in the flesh of the eternal God. This heresy was also known by the name of Patripassianism, since it held that it was the Father who suffered on the cross. It was condemned by Pope St. Callistus I, but as a form of Modalism it has persisted in history in connection with other heresies.

Semi-Arianism. A modified form of Arianism (see above) that flourished after the Council of Nicaea had condemned Arianism in 325. The Semi-Arians were often "moderates" who wanted to forge a "compromise" between those who held to the Christianity's strict teaching concerning the divinity of Christ and Christ's consubstantiality with the Father and those tempted by Arianism to deny many great truths. Sometimes referred to as Arianizers, the Serni-Arians also included those who wished to substitute homo-i-ousios ("of like substance") or homoios ("similar") for the orthodox Nicene homo-ousios ("one in being" or "consubstantial") with the Father. There were a number of differing positions that fell within the general category of Semi-Arianism; their common theme was an unwillingness to accept that the Nicene term homo-ousios was necessary to the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Subordinationism. A general name for all the fourth century heresies that admitted only God the Father as God. See the entries above for Arianism, Anomeanism, Macedonianism, Modalism, and Semi-Arianism; all of these heresies are forms of Subordinationism.

Valentinianism. A form of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism (see above) based on the teaching of one Valentinus, who lived in Rome between 136 and 165. The Valentinians claimed that the visible world had been created by the God of the Old Testament but that only the invisible world was real. According to them, Christ came to deliver mankind from its bondage to matter and the physical world; most of mankind, however, wholly engrossed in matter, would nevertheless end in eternal perdition. The great St. Irenaeus (ca. 125-ca. 202) inveighed against Valentinianism in particular in his magisterial work Against the Heresies.




.

 

[Alithis]

defining what a heresy is .
and pointing out the different perceived heresies over the centuries // are not the same topic .

if you wish to start another thread announcing perceived heresies ..please do so .

 

[Alithis]

it is interesting that the scriptures use the word so few times

it appears in 2 peter 2: 1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.

so we see here it is one who brings in a teaching that is not built upon the foundation of what is already written . but added to it and not aligned to what the whole word of God states .

the dictionary definition is basically
heresy
ˈhɛrɪsi/
noun
belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine.
"ie Huss was burned for heresy"
synonyms: dissension, dissent, dissidence, blasphemy, nonconformity, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, freethinking, schism, faction;
------------------------
so we see here that a heresy againt an established line of thought or reasoning and does not automatically make it a heresy againt the word of god .

a heresy againt the word of God is something that is not already IN the world of God but is externally introduced (brought in ) and then defended as if it were already there . it is a false hood .
an easy way to know the difference is by the actions of the party throwing the accusation around . ie ..if they burn you at the stake (and act of murder which itself is a falsehood againt the words of the lord JEsus- he never told us to burn any one ) -then you can be assured the accusation is false .
the accusation seeking to "condemn" a perceived heresy is of the same nature .

so while a certain opposing line of thought can be clearly a heresy against a man made institution .and that man made institution may seek your demise for speaking out - that is exactly what it is and all it is - a heresy against a man made institution . not against the word of God
---
another time the word is referred to ,this time speaking of a heretic , is from Titus 3:10 - A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;

in this instance the word basically means
factious
relating or inclined to dissension.
synonyms: divided, split, sectarian, schismatic, dissenting, contentious, discordant, conflicting, argumentative, disagreeing, disputatious, quarrelling, quarrelsome, clashing, warring, at variance, at loggerheads, at odds, disharmonious, tumultuous, turbulent, dissident, rebellious, insurrectionary, seditious, mutinous
"he had transformed a fragmented, factious resistance movement into a monolithic one"

and here we see the reason the lord called me to turn away from partaking in never ceasing contention .it is not a matter of not contending for the truth . but rather speaking out to contend and then leaving it there .
and again also shows one can be a heretic against a man made institutions line of thought but still not a heretic against the word of god .
so it is important not to confuse the two but to define the two .

and here i have contended that one cannot be judged as being a heretic against the word of god in regard to that which is not in the word of God
but can be judged to be a heretic against an organisation which promotes that which is not in the word of God .

ans having thus contended , having thus assertively maintained , i now know i need not strive endlessly for in the end GOD is judge .and can go my way in peace .and need not engage in ceaseless bickering with no edification nor throw about wild accusations .

 

[Alithis]

It seems this word heresy is used by peter to describe some one "bringing in " a teaching that's not already established in scripture.
but outside that its used as an accusatory word, mostly when such doctrine is challenged into a corner -out comes the accusation.

i like the old saying i think it is wise advice .. "what the ENTIRE scripture states about any given topic ..is the doctrine there of . Never what one single plucked out sentence says .
and any doctrine formed out of the NT is found to be strongly established on the foundation of what the OT states .
ie - doctrines on faith are traced back solidly to Abraham
doctrines on the lamb of God are traced back solidly to the Passover
doctrines on water baptism are traced back solidly to passing through the red sea .etc
no NT based doctrine is without OT foundation. After all ,the apostles studied the scriptures they had and preached from them the Gospel and all the foundations of repentance from dead works , water baptism , resurrection etc they had no NT to refer to . Everything they preached they used the OT to show it . the NT is thier holy Spirit inspired expounding of the OT ..it is the OT explained for us .
thus is ANY teaching is introduced that is cannot be firmly established from the OT also ..or it does not agree with the OT .it is not a doctrine of God but of man .
and it is these such doctrines when challenged that often bring forth the accusation of heresy . and such doctrines are often "denominational based ", not scripturally based , traditions of men , not scriptural doctrines found in both the OT and the NT .

the bereans "searched the scriptures" to see if what was being preached was true .. they did not have the NT ,they did so from the OT .
ANY teaching that either is not found in the OT or the NT ..or disagrees with the OT is to be deemed a false doctrine .
its easy enough to tell . for when the doctrine is challenged into a corner .. heresy is accused .
and that is why i asked "which christian church " for such heresy not against God or his word - is ONLY against a man made institution and its traditions - and they proved this falsehood . for Jesus said "some will put you to death thinking they are doing the will of God" (pp) and that action displayed the utter state of error they are in .

 

[psalms 91]

Seems to me that the RCC used that term to justify killing a lot of people and I am sure that it wasnt always a heresay. Of course like one poster if you keep repeating it over and over and over till everyone is sick of it then maybe you win that way but it still isnt wrong. Watch out we will be peppered with posts that are the same as the other hundred now but so be it I am tired of tiptoeing around, if they cvant erase some of his posts then I guess we will jst have to continue on. Seems like someone should take notice and stop this repetitive posting

 

[Josiah]

synonyms: dissension, dissent, dissidence, blasphemy, nonconformity, unorthodoxy, heterodoxy, apostasy, freethinking, schism, faction;
------------------------
so we see here that a heresy againt an established line of thought or reasoning and does not automatically make it a heresy againt the word of god .

Of course, heretics often have egos that don't permit them to submit to the truth but rather to perpetuate that SELF is by definition correct, that SELF is the ONE who understands, that SELF is the ONE who is lead by the Spirit, that SELF is the ONE who knows what Scripture MEANS rather than says, so all (including God) must submit to SELF who is the ONE Authority. That's long been a problem. And yes, heretics often cry that "Only GOD can judge ME" but then they declare SELF to be the judge of everyone else.

The list of historic heresies is given in two posts above. You will notice nearly all do deny God, deny Christ. Sadly.... the ignorant may at times wonder back into them, for the ignorant are apt to repeat error. But that's a good reason to study and know them.




.

 

[Alithis]

To Bill..
yes well.the topic is well established in the meaning of the word .
..
and from its meaning we see any one can percieve any one else to be a heritic merely because they refuse to agree with a preferred doctrine.but when that doctrine is intoduced from outside the scripture and then defended to the point of comitting murder *to silence the person,we have no choice but to conclude that error is complete.

 

[psalms 91]

To Bill..
yes well.the topic is well established in the meaning of the word .
..
and from its meaning we see any one can percieve any one else to be a heritic merely because they refuse to agree with a preferred doctrine.but when that doctrine is intoduced from outside the scripture and then defended to the point of comitting murder *to silence the person,we have no choice but to conclude that error is complete.

Totsally agree with you,