What is a heresy?

[Checkpoint]

Imagine this arrived on your desk one day.

"... it is what it is ... a well-known heresy ... those who have bought into it have bought into a heresy."

How do you think you would have responded?

I immediately asked myself an obvious question, "Just what is a heresy, anyway?"

And set about finding out. You may have too. If so, tell us about it.

For discussion and debate:

Who or what determines what is or is not a heresy?

Who is, or has been, labelled a heretic?

How has a heretic been treated in the Bible, and since it was completed?

By whom was this done to the heretic, or to heretics?

[PinSeeker]

I half read it.

Is that a new phenomenon?

<eyeroll> I was joking, Tammy. I didn't literally halfway read it. Rather, I purposely only directly responded the part of your statement underlined here:

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

I surely don't do ad hominems, and I surely don't try to shame or scare anybody in any way. In the conversations on this forum that I participate in, Tammy, I read all of what everybody says, including you. I might dismiss some of it out of hand, but I do read it.

But, it is only your opinion that I have not shown you to be wrong. While I respect that opinion, it's... wrong.

As wrong as you claimed my hearing to be, above?

<eyeroll> Actually, Tammy, I said...

• "(y)ou seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error," [emphasis added]

...which is really to implicitly ask the question whether you were actually hearing that or not. So I made no "claim" regarding your "hearing," did I? No, I did not.

(You do realize I never mentioned me in this thread at all, right? Oh... wait... lol... were your words on the other thread about buying into heresies actually meant for me? Well, instead of going back and forth in an unproductive 'that's your opinion, no that's your opinion', I'll just link to the post that lists all the exchange and leave those to stand: viewtopic.php?p=1019280#p1019280 )

Yeah so again -- Tammy -- I was specifically responding to the underlined part of this comment from you...

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

...which seems to me (see what I did there?) a defensive -- and whining, to be honest -- comment concerning yourself, which, if so, would echo what you've said in the same manner many times before ("Oh, but, dear Pinseeker, you haven't shown what I've said to be wrong!"). I'm sure your opinion hasn't changed. It is your opinion that I have not shown you to be wrong (specifically about annihilationism), and that was at least the indirect inference of your comment. Ergo, my direct response to you. You even double down on that inference in your last post, with the link to previous posts.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I half read it.

Is that a new phenomenon?

<eyeroll> I was joking, Tammy. I didn't literally halfway read it.

Oh, of course you were joking... and you roll your eyes at me because somehow I should have known that? Why should I have known that you were joking when you insinuated false things about me based on this half-reading (or deliberate dismissal of the part that applied to you)?

So what exactly were you apologizing for, Pinseeker?

Rather, I purposely only directly responded to this statement:

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

No, you responded only to the first bit (bolded here)... and you either didn't read or you ignored the rest.

In the conversations on this forum that I participate in, Tammy, I read all of what everybody says, including you. I might dismiss some of it out of hand, but I do read it.

Then maybe you shouldn't say (and act as though) you don't read it all.

But, it is only your opinion that I have not shown you to be wrong. While I respect that opinion, it's... wrong.

As wrong as you claimed my hearing to be, above?

<eyeroll> Actually, Tammy, I said...

• "(y)ou seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error," [emphasis added]

...which is really to implicitly ask the question whether you were actually hearing that or not. So I made no "claim" regarding your "hearing," did I? No, I did not.

You sure about that? How about we take your full quote:

You seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error. Which, frankly, is surely not a new phenomenon.

Emphasis in bold, mine.

(You do realize I never mentioned me in this thread at all, right? Oh... wait... lol... were your words on the other thread about buying into heresies actually meant for me? Well, instead of going back and forth in an unproductive 'that's your opinion, no that's your opinion', I'll just link to the post that lists all the exchange and leave those to stand: viewtopic.php?p=1019280#p1019280 )

Yeah so again -- Tammy -- I was specifically responding to this comment from you...

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

...which seems to me (see what I did there?) a defensive -- and whining, to be honest -- comment concerning yourself,

Yes, I see what you did there, and I stand by what I said. So why not tell me what you think is wrong about what I said?


As for what you said,

Christ said to rejoice when people say false things about us, for His sake. So why would I whine? And since when is defending oneself or others whining? Since when is calling out false insinuations whining? And I hadn't even realized your comment on the other thread was directed to me when I first saw it (I just skimmed it, I had left the conversation by that point). I was simply thinking about people who have been accused of being heretics (or of 'buying into' heresies, which is something you said to Checkpoint)... not because they are contradicting the Word of God (Christ; the Truth), but just because they reject or contradict a religious teaching/tradition.

which, if so, would echo what you've said in the same manner many times before ("Oh, but, dear Pinseeker, you haven't shown what I've said to be wrong!"). I'm sure your opinion hasn't changed. It is your opinion that I have not shown you to be wrong (specifically about annihilationism), and that was at least the indirect inference of your comment. Ergo, my direct response to you.

Like I said, anyone can read those posts and decide for themselves.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited for clarity)

[Checkpoint]

In the Bible the word "heresy" has a somewhat different meaning than the one is commonly attributed to it today.

2 Pet. 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.

It is used in these texts too: Ac. 5:17; 15:5; 24: 5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20. In some of those places where that word is used in the Bible, the meaning is not necessarily negative, like the one given in our time.

The word "sect" is an appropriate translation in a general sense, but even so, the word "sect" does not always have a negative connotation, except when it applies to a division that damages the unity of beliefs within an organized group and with already established beliefs, like first century Christians, who had a body of basic doctrines that could not be denied or taught otherwise.

What "basic doctrines" did you have in mind, Eloi?

I suggest The Apostles Creed as an appropriate and sufficient summary.

Which NT "hairesis" texts do not have a negative connotation, if any?

[PinSeeker]

Why should I have known that you were joking when you insinuated false things about me based on this half-reading (or deliberate dismissal of the part that applied to you)?

I insinuated no false things, Tammy. Are you calling me a liar?

So what exactly were you apologizing for, Pinseeker?

Really nothing, as I had nothing to apologize for. Maybe I should apologize for not being able to convey tone of voice on a message board. I was being facetious, really.

Rather, I purposely only directly responded to this statement:

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

No, you responded only to the first bit (bolded here)... and you either didn't read or you ignored the rest.

No, I did exactly what I said. I don't lie. And I don't like anybody putting words into my mouth or applying their own little spin on what I said. It's graceless, frankly.

In the conversations on this forum that I participate in, Tammy, I read all of what everybody says, including you. I might dismiss some of it out of hand, but I do read it.

Then maybe you shouldn't say (and act as though) you don't read it all.

You misread my comment. Which I take at least some of the blame for. But, I'll do what I please, thanks. Within reason, of course.

But, it is only your opinion that I have not shown you to be wrong. While I respect that opinion, it's... wrong.

As wrong as you claimed my hearing to be, above?

<eyeroll> Actually, Tammy, I said...

• "(y)ou seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error," [emphasis added]

...which is really to implicitly ask the question whether you were actually hearing that or not. So I made no "claim" regarding your "hearing," did I? No, I did not.

You sure about that?

Absolutely.

How about we take your full quote:

You seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error. Which, frankly, is surely not a new phenomenon.

Emphasis in bold, mine.

Yeah, great! Let's do that. By all means. The last part of that comment, that you bolded, changes nothing about my suggestion regarding a mere possibility. The only thing added is that if you're "hearing" were in fact what It seemed to be, it would not be without precedent. Thank you.

(You do realize I never mentioned me in this thread at all, right? Oh... wait... lol... were your words on the other thread about buying into heresies actually meant for me? Well, instead of going back and forth in an unproductive 'that's your opinion, no that's your opinion', I'll just link to the post that lists all the exchange and leave those to stand: viewtopic.php?p=1019280#p1019280 )

Yeah so again -- Tammy -- I was specifically responding to this comment from you...

• "Seems to me that calling someone else a heretic without being able to show that they are wrong (or telling them that they have bought into a heresy that you cannot show to be wrong)... it just sounds like an ad hominem; perhaps even a way to shame or scare someone into silence. Like a charge of 'apostasy'."

...which seems to me (see what I did there?) a defensive -- and whining, to be honest -- comment concerning yourself,

Yes, I see what you did there, and I stand by what I said.

Fine with me. So do I.

So why not tell me what you think is wrong about what I said?

I mean, you've said a lot of things at this point, Tammy. You'll have to be specific if you want a response to this question. I'm not sure what comment of yours you are referring to.

Christ said to rejoice when people say false things about us, for His sake. So why would I whine?

That's a good question. You tell me.

I hadn't even realized your comment on the other thread was directed to me when I first saw it (I just skimmed it, I had left the conversation by that point). I was simply thinking about people who have been accused of being heretics (or of 'buying into' heresies, which is something you said to Checkpoint)... not because they are contradicting the Word of God (Christ; the Truth), but just because they reject or contradict a religious teaching/tradition.

No idea what comment of mine you're talking about here...

Like I said, anyone can read those posts and decide for themselves.

Indeed.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[tam]

Peace again to you, Pinseeker,

Why should I have known that you were joking when you insinuated false things about me based on this half-reading (or deliberate dismissal of the part that applied to you)?

I insinuated no false things, Tammy. Are you calling me a liar?

I believe you deflected my questions. Please allow me to ask a rephrased one (or two):

When you said, "You seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error. Which, frankly, is surely not a new phenomenon," ... had I actually heard something in error? If the answer is no, then when you said, "Okay. I apologize. I 'half-read'", what possible reason would I have had to think that was a joke?

**


I had responded to the rest, but I think I am just going to move on instead. Except to clarify something for you:

I hadn't even realized your comment on the other thread was directed to me when I first saw it (I just skimmed it, I had left the conversation by that point). I was simply thinking about people who have been accused of being heretics (or of 'buying into' heresies, which is something you said to Checkpoint)... not because they are contradicting the Word of God (Christ; the Truth), but just because they reject or contradict a religious teaching/tradition.

No idea what comment of mine you're talking about here...

This one (in response to Checkpoint):

But it is what it is. Annihilationism is a well-known heresy. I'm not calling you or anyone else a heretic, but those who have bought into it have bought into a heresy. - Pinseeker

viewtopic.php?p=1020543#p1020543



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Eloi]

In the Bible the word "heresy" has a somewhat different meaning than the one is commonly attributed to it today.

2 Pet. 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.

It is used in these texts too: Ac. 5:17; 15:5; 24: 5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20. In some of those places where that word is used in the Bible, the meaning is not necessarily negative, like the one given in our time.

The word "sect" is an appropriate translation in a general sense, but even so, the word "sect" does not always have a negative connotation, except when it applies to a division that damages the unity of beliefs within an organized group and with already established beliefs, like first century Christians, who had a body of basic doctrines that could not be denied or taught otherwise.

What "basic doctrines" did you have in mind, Eloi?

I suggest The Apostles Creed as an appropriate and sufficient summary.

Which NT "hairesis" texts do not have a negative connotation, if any?

False teachers soon began to emerge among first century Christians, who began to teach things that the first disciples had never been taught by the apostles or first anointed Christians. Paul, Peter, John, etc., warned against those teachings and those "teachers" continually. Those men could not create sects within the original community of united Christians because the presence and influence of the apostles and others was preventing them from forming the divisions they intended; the spirit of God in the anointed ones prevented it. That phenomenon was the apostasy that had been prophesied and that would be intense when the original anointed ones died.

Inspired writers continually warned other Christians not to be deviated from what they had received all along ... but it inevitably happened just as it had been prophesied. Actually, in the Bible a teaching is not called "heresy", but rather the group formed by separating itself from the rest because of that/those false teachings that distorted what was previously received. The Scriptures could not be perverted, because God did not allow that to happen. When a seeker after God's truth wants to recognize whether a teaching is truly Christian, the question to ask is: Does the Scripture show that faithful first-century Christians believed it? This is how we know.

[Checkpoint]

In the Bible the word "heresy" has a somewhat different meaning than the one is commonly attributed to it today.

2 Pet. 2:1 However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. 2 Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. 3 Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. But as for them, the judgment from of old is not moving slowly, and the destruction of them is not slumbering.

It is used in these texts too: Ac. 5:17; 15:5; 24: 5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20. In some of those places where that word is used in the Bible, the meaning is not necessarily negative, like the one given in our time.

The word "sect" is an appropriate translation in a general sense, but even so, the word "sect" does not always have a negative connotation, except when it applies to a division that damages the unity of beliefs within an organized group and with already established beliefs, like first century Christians, who had a body of basic doctrines that could not be denied or taught otherwise.

What "basic doctrines" did you have in mind, Eloi?

I suggest The Apostles Creed as an appropriate and sufficient summary.

Which NT "hairesis" texts do not have a negative connotation, if any?

False teachers soon began to emerge among first century Christians, who began to teach things that the first disciples had never been taught by the apostles or first anointed Christians. Paul, Peter, John, etc., warned against those teachings and those "teachers" continually. Those men could not create sects within the original community of united Christians because the presence and influence of the apostles and others was preventing them from forming the divisions they intended; the spirit of God in the anointed ones prevented it. That phenomenon was the apostasy that had been prophesied and that would be intense when the original anointed ones died.

Inspired writers continually warned other Christians not to be deviated from what they had received all along ... but it inevitably happened just as it had been prophesied. Actually, in the Bible a teaching is not called "heresy", but rather the group formed by separating itself from the rest because of that/those false teachings that distorted what was previously received. The Scriptures could not be perverted, because God did not allow that to happen. When a seeker after God's truth wants to recognize whether a teaching is truly Christian, the question to ask is: Does the Scripture show that faithful first-century Christians believed it? This is how we know.

Thankyou for what you have posted to me, Eloi. It tells an interesting story that sounds like something that could have happened.

However, it also has the ring of a strange familiarity that also tells me that something is missing.

Oh yes, I do know this much, at least.

My short post had asked you two specific questions.

Your response did not answer either of them; your history did not even refer to either one.

Did you/do you now, realize that?

Perhaps you could explain, or maybe you could see if you can give me the two answers I requested.

Peace from one poster to another.

[Eloi]

This was my answer, and it continues being so:

When a seeker after God's truth wants to recognize whether a teaching is truly Christian, the question to ask is: Does the Scripture show that faithful first-century Christians believed it? This is how we know.

That I said about "heresies" ... and that is the topic. I won't make a list of basic doctrines that original loyal Christians bellieved ... The Bible has those, and there are other places in the forum where interested persons talk about them.

In the Bible the word "sect" is neutral when it refers to Sadducees or Pharisees; Paul didn't mind to call "sect" the way he was following as Christian-Jew (Acts 24:14), as other Jews called it (Acts 24:5). It was normal for a Jew to call sect the different groups inside them. It is normal, to Jews, to have different rabbis with different teachings about the same topic, the same way Christendom has too many theologians. Christians in first century DIDN'T ... and NEITHER DO WE Jehovah's Witnesses.

[PinSeeker]

I believe you deflected my questions.

I deflected nothing. I really kind of doubt that is really your perception, but I'll accept it. Nevertheless, I deflected nothing.

Please allow me to ask a rephrased one (or two):

When you said, "You seem to be "hearing" something coming from me (and/or others, possibly) in error. Which, frankly, is surely not a new phenomenon," ... had I actually heard something in error?

LOL! I don't know, Tammy. That's why I said, "You seem to be "hearing"..." (emphasis added). Wow.

If the answer is no...

So the answer is not 'no,' but based on previous exchanges between you and I, it was and is certainly possible that the answer could be no. Further insight would be needed to determine if that was indeed the case. Now, please don't infer from that that I want to gain that further insight into your hearing at this point; I really never had and do not now have any such desire.

...when you said, "Okay. I apologize. I 'half-read'", what possible reason would I have had to think that was a joke?

Again, non-verbal communication is only sometimes possible on message boards. That's how it was meant. Facetiousness, really.

I think I am just going to move on instead.

That's a magnificent idea.

Except to clarify something for you:

Oh, boy... <eyeroll>

I hadn't even realized your comment on the other thread was directed to me when I first saw it (I just skimmed it, I had left the conversation by that point). I was simply thinking about people who have been accused of being heretics (or of 'buying into' heresies, which is something you said to Checkpoint)... not because they are contradicting the Word of God (Christ; the Truth), but just because they reject or contradict a religious teaching/tradition.

No idea what comment of mine you're talking about here...

This one (in response to Checkpoint):

But it is what it is. Annihilationism is a well-known heresy. I'm not calling you or anyone else a heretic, but those who have bought into it have bought into a heresy. - Pinseeker

This comment was not directed toward you. It was just about annihilationism. I do know that's where you stand, but it was a general comment. Hoo boy.

Okay, grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[PinSeeker]

I suggest The Apostles Creed as an appropriate and sufficient summary.

Agreed. But even the Apostles' Creed is not Scripture and thus not divinely inspired.

False teachers soon began to emerge among first century Christians, who began to teach things that the first disciples had never been taught by the apostles or first anointed Christians. Paul, Peter, John, etc., warned against those teachings and those "teachers" continually. Those men could not create sects within the original community of united Christians because the presence and influence of the apostles and others was preventing them from forming the divisions they intended; the spirit of God in the anointed ones prevented it. That phenomenon was the apostasy that had been prophesied and that would be intense when the original anointed ones died.

Inspired writers continually warned other Christians not to be deviated from what they had received all along ... but it inevitably happened just as it had been prophesied. Actually, in the Bible a teaching is not called "heresy", but rather the group formed by separating itself from the rest because of that/those false teachings that distorted what was previously received. The Scriptures could not be perverted, because God did not allow that to happen. When a seeker after God's truth wants to recognize whether a teaching is truly Christian, the question to ask is: Does the Scripture show that faithful first-century Christians believed it? This is how we know.

I agree with most everything you wrote, here, Eloi. However, I would submit that what you say in your last sentence is... well... not intellectually incorrect, experientially speaking, but it doesn't get at the core of the issue. I feel certain you will disagree with this, but this is the work of the Holy Spirit, our Helper given to us by God the Father, Who sends the Spirit in Christ's name (John 14:25). Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 that this is the case:

• "...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit Who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

This echoes back to what John said, also:

• "A person cannot receive even one thing unless it is given him from heaven."

Grace and peace to all.