what is a heresy or a heritic

Status
Not open for further replies.

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,198
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I thought we were already there with the morals and even doctrine. Seems like there is a church for any sin any belief, the word said men's ears would be tickled in the last days and is that ever true

I agree that in some circles it is so. Not in all.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
'Heretic', one who practices heresy

A nonconformist, one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

According to Websters and others definition, anyone not subjective to the RCC doctrine is a heretic. This includes, Protestants which also includes Messianics.

The Inquisition was all about conformity, under pain of death. Is this a good thing? Are we to be puppets in our beliefs? Or should we be encouraged to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit which is to be within us and guiding us into all truth? The type of formal heresy is considered a 'grave sin', but it is a 'sin' against the authority of the church, not against G-d. This can be argued of course.

Heresy is understood today to mean the denial of revealed truth as taught by The Church
Notice it does not say as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

and that! is the point .
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
The Church has always been able to call error out as error. Ancient Israel's prophets and priests did the same. Do you really want to advocate total relativism in doctrine and morals?

they did so by the spirit of god
not by the doctrines of men agreed upon by men ..

when we judge based upon the traditions of men ..we crucify the innocent on a cross
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes and how can it when so many scoff at the idea of hearing from God or the Holy Spirit annointing being on someone? They cry show us, prove it and Jesus had an answer for those with that kind of faith

There's a big difference there though.

If you believe that God is leading you to do something you get to decide whether to follow that calling, and you get to take responsibility if it turns out that the dreams you had were caused by eating too much cheese the night before. You don't need to prove it to anyone, you get to decide for yourself whether you believe it based on whatever criteria you decide.

If you want someone else to believe that you are specifically hearing from God you need to be willing to be tested. There are precedents for that all through Scripture, from Deut 13:1-3, Deut 18:18-22, 1Co 14:29, 1Th 5:20-21, 1Jn 4:1 etc. It doesn't work to simply say "God told me that..." as if it were the beginning and ending of the discussion unless you're talking about something that affects you and only you. Even if it does only affect you, don't be surprised if people ask questions if you seem to be going off on a tangent somewhere.

... which comes right back to the eternal issue of "being led into truth" because when one person says something is from God and another says it is not (however firm the respective beliefs) somebody is wrong and without an objective standard you'll never know who is right and who is wrong. If you believe you're called to be a missionary to Tajikistan and I believe you should eat less cheese before bed you have the absolute right to ignore my concerns and train to be a missionary anyway. If you tell me that I'm called to be a missionary to Tajikistan you can be sure I'll test your words rigorously.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Frankly, I'm more apt to give some credence to a doctrine of MEN (of virtually ALL Christians - spread out over all the centuries and all continents) than I am of some INDIVIDUAL person or denomination. I don't deny that God can (and even does) lead ONE person while ignoring and bypassing the whole church but I'd be highly CAUTIOUS of such.... every heretic known in history CLAIMED that God only spoke to himself, only lead himself, only spoke through himself, and that there was ONE who is unaccountable, infallible, authoritative: SELF.

Abe Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time.... you can fool all of the people some of the time... but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Scripture calls on us to hold individual teachers fully accountable, Scripture warns of us false teachers, Scirpture warns us of those who CLAIM to speak for God but who do not. When some individual person or denomination insists, "God told ME" that should be a big, gigantic, enormous red flag.



"Heresy" is a teaching officially declared FALSE by the whole corpus of Christians, the whole church. There are several of them, they were listed in posts #12 and 13.




- Josiah





.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
which church . your church ? thier church// that other church .. ?

so here we see that the moment such a judgment is based carnally it risks crucifying the innocent

for here we have it defined yet again..the definition of heresy keeps changing to suit defense of "preferred perception" ..not in defense of the word of God .the word of god needs no defense .it is already established it is irrefutable truth .
most accusations of heresy are NOT heresy against the word of God but heresy againt a denominations corpus .

but the moment a denominations "corpus " declares that they alone are with out error ,they declare themselves infallible and are by virtue of that .in error .
and if they judge error from the stance of error ..it is indeed the blind judging another for being blind .. it is the pot calling the kettle black.. and if the pot then rises up and murders the kettle to silence it then that error is made fully manifest .
 
Last edited:

visionary

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,824
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Messianic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Scripture should overrule church doctrines. In fact, it should be a rule that when the scriptures reveal error in church doctrines, the church should embrace it. When the scriptures reveal a closer walk with Him, the church should be able to embrace it.
 
Last edited:

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Scripture should overrule church doctrines. In fact, it should be a rule that when the scriptures reveal error in church doctrines, the church should embrace it. When the scriptures reveal a closer walk with Him, the church should be able to embrace it.

always :)

Because after the the different perceptions of men have passed and the proporters of it long gone -the word of God wil stand :)
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Alithis -


Which of the heresies do you personally, individually think is actually correct, according to YOUR OWN individual, singular "understanding" of the words found in Scripture? Which below do you (by your own individual, singular feeling) do YOU individually insist is not heretical but rather correct?


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....



.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
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.


Which of the above universally declared heresies to you, Alithis, in your own individual, singular opinion is NOT heresy but you defend as Truth because YOU individually feel such based on how YOU individual view the words of Scripture?



Thank you.


- Josiah
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
off topic start another thread .
this thread is about the definition of "heresy"
it is not about endlessly arguing which perception of your denomination deems to be heresy against your denomination .
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
this thread is about the definition of "heresy"
it is not about endlessly arguing which perception of your denomination deems to be heresy against your denomination .


See posts 49 and 50.


1. I responded to the proclaimation that "Scripture trumps doctrine." And thus that what Christians have deemed "heresy" (listed for you) is thus subject to what (You? Me? Donald Trump? Some other self-declared individual?) singularly feel is contrary to Scripture. My post was directly exclusively to that point. As you know.


2. The heresies (listed for you) have NOTHING to do with ANY denomination. They are UNIVERSALLY condemned. They were officially condemned at ECUMENICAL Councils (not by denominations). My denomination accepts the conclusion of all Christians - but then virtually ALL denominations ALWAYS have. There are (and have never been) any denominations (I'm not including the LDS or any "cults" in this) that have embraced these, they've all "signed on" to what Christians have denounced as wrong. I gave you the list of them.


3. Now, do you - in your own individual, singular FEELING - conclude that virtually all Christians for all these many centuries have been wrong and that you individually, singularly, are right in proclaiming these views to be TRUTH rather than heresy? Or do you join with all Christians over all these many, many centuries in also condemning these views as wrong?



.
 
Last edited:

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
i gave a similar response to posts 49 and 50

[B]off topic[/B] start another thread .

this thread is about the definition of "heresy"
it is not about endlessly arguing which perception your denomination deems to be heresy against your denomination .
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Put him on ignore or report him if it conmtimues
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
this thread is about the definition of "heresy"
it is not about endlessly arguing which perception your denomination deems to be heresy against your denomination .

Heresy is what CHRISTIANITY has declared as wrong.

I gave the list for you.


The counterpoint seems to be that these heresies are subject to the individual, singular feeling of [insert the full proper name of whatever that is], subject to whether ___________ personally, individually, singularly FEELS that Scripture affirms are wrong..... So I'll ask you again: in the personal, individual, singular feeling of your yourself, which of the heresies do YOU in YOUR individual, singular, personal feeling about Scripture is NOT wrong but rather right, NOT heresy but rather Truth (in the individual, personal, singular feeling of you yourself)?


And again, heresy has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my denomination, your denomination or any denomination. NO denomination has EVER decided ANY of these heresies were wrong (although ALL known to me agree that they are), they were decided by the whole corpus of Christians in ancient times, and declared wrong by ECUMENICAL Councils (NOT by denominations), long, long ago. I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about you or about denominations.... why you are so obsessed with individuals..... or why you won't answer whether you embrace the heresies AS SUCH or rather you feel they are right rather than wrong. Will YOU state if these - the heresies - ARE heresies? Or do you defend one or more as Truth in your individual, singular opinion?




.
 
Last edited:

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
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 .
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
ii now know i need not strive endlessly for in the end GOD is judge .and can go my way in peace.

I see. So, you won't state that ANY of the heresies Christianity has declared are wrong. You won't say anything is wrong - because you aren't the judge. I understand that. I just wonder if you do, if you then will never state that anything stated here at CH is wrong, that you will then never declare anyone here at CH to be wrong. You aren't the judge. Got it. Do you?

And of course, it means you'll want to be treated the same - you'll not desire anyone to agree with you on anything - because we aren't a judge either, God alone will determine if what you say is right or wrong, we must not. Got it. Do you?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
which church . your church ? thier church// that other church .. ?

This is why I'd be inclined to urge caution before using a word like "heresy".

so here we see that the moment such a judgment is based carnally it risks crucifying the innocent

The problem with this is that rejecting anything "carnal" sounds very spiritual but the simple act of studying the Scriptures could itself be described as "carnal" by the kind of person who insists on "being led" all the time. Sooner or later we have to go back to Scripture and use the minds that God gave us to figure whether a teaching aligns with Scripture, contradicts Scripture, or sits easily alongside Scripture. Otherwise we end up with two people refusing to "be carnal" because they are "led by the Spirit" but aren't being led in the same direction.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Looking at examples is always a good way of helping to define a term. So, given the examples that Josiah listed, which ones do you guys agree on or disagree on?
 

visionary

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Messages
2,824
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Messianic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
It is a powerful word. Say it. And you are immediately looking around to see what evil creature lurks within the meaning of the words spoken or written. It makes you step back with a disdain upon your face. You don't want to even investigate it to see if the accusation is accurate. How many of you have looked beyond the tag title definition and scripturally searched to see if it is so. Probably not because who wants to study something already condemned. But I ask you who condemned it and why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom