How do we view heresies?

[RICHinCHRIST]

I've been thinking about this since I heard Steve say it (although I don't remember if it was in a post or on 'TNP' or in his lectures..). Basically, what I remember was that Steve mentioned he doesn't believe it is a sin to have a wrong doctrine. At the time I remember agreeing mostly with what he said (context would probably have been good to remember). For instance, I personally would think that having an incorrect "end-times" millenial view would not be a sin in and of itself, because the person who holds the wrong view honestly believes he has the best conclusion based on Scripture. However, there are other things that seem to me to be much more serious, such as the means of salvation, Jesus' deity, Jesus' bodily resurrection, forcing the Mosaic law on believers in the New Covenant, cult doctrines, etc. These seem to not just be a means of "biblical illiteracy" or "honest mistakes". If having certain wrong doctrines is not a sin, how do we reconcile certain passages, such as:


Here, heresies are described as a work of the flesh, one in which could hinder someone from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.




This one says that these doctrines are not just errors, but rather they have a demonic origin.

Here the doctrine is given utmost importance, considering it assures the salvation of Timothy and his hearers.




Any thoughts?

[RICHinCHRIST]

Does someone's honest misinterpretation of Scripture constitute a heresy? All I can say is: maybe.

I'm supposing that when we say that having a wrong doctrine is not a sin, then it must be a doctrine that is very non-essential in character, even though the person's view of truth on whatever particular issue they have a wrong view on is actually false.

Does this mean that it is not a heresy? I don't know, maybe.

1 John seems to really condemn gnosticism, which is the view that Christ didn't come in the flesh. John even says these folks are antichrist! Did their rebellion cause this heresy? Or could they have been honestly misinterpreting the teachings? This could be a very bad example (considering gnosticism's implications), but you can apply it to any heresy.

Is there a distinction between a heresy and a wrong opinion on a minor issue? If so, when is that distinction made?

[RickC]

Hello Rich (good to meet you)!

We discussed something like your thread topic before, but I couldn't find "where". I, did, however, find a link I posted from Hank Hanegraaff's site. It covers a broad spectrum of "essential doctrines" and, also, in terms of what are "required to be saved." This may be somewhat off-topic for your thread, but I thought you might be interested.

Go to http://www.equip.org/categories -
Scroll to "Doctrine" -
Then to "The Essential Doctrines of The Christian Faith (Parts 1 & 2, by Norman Geisler)"
A fair amount of reading, but (at least) "related" to your thread.

I'll post an excerpt (from the very end of Part 2) -

THE LIST OF ESSENTIALS

The list of essential Christian doctrines that emerge from the early creeds and councils includes (1) human depravity, (2) Christ’s virgin birth, (3) Christ’s sinlessness, (4) Christ’s deity, (5) Christ’s humanity, (6) God’s unity, (7) God’s triunity, (8) the necessity of God’s grace, (9) the necessity of faith, (10) Christ’s atoning death, (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection, (12) Christ’s bodily ascension, (13) Christ’s present high priestly service, and (14) Christ second coming, final judgment (heaven and hell), and reign. All of these are necessary for salvation to be possible in the broad sense, which includes justification, sanctification, and glorification.

It is not necessary, however, to believe all of these to be saved (justified). The minimum necessary to believe in order to be saved is: (1) human depravity, (3) Christ’s sinlessness, (4) Christ’s deity, (5) Christ’s humanity, (6) God’s unity, (7) God’s triunity, (8) the necessity of God’s grace, (9) the necessity of faith, (10) Christ’s atoning death, and (11) Christ’s bodily resurrection.

It is not necessary to believe in (2) Christ’s virgin birth, (12) Christ’s bodily ascension, (13) Christ’s present service, or (14) Christ’s second coming and final judgment as a condition for obtaining a right standing with God (justification). Even some of those beliefs that are necessary may be more implicit than explicit; for example, human depravity and God’s triunity. Regarding human depravity, one must believe that he is a sinner in need of a Savior, but need not believe all that the orthodox doctrine of human depravity involves, such as the inheritance of a sin nature. The deity of Christ, likewise, is involved, which in turn involves at least two persons who are God (the Father and the Son); but there is no reason to think that to be saved one must understand and explicitly believe the orthodox doctrine of the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit who is united with those two persons in one nature (i.e., one God). Many people, in fact, do not understand this doctrine clearly, even years after they were saved.

All of the essential doctrines are necessary to make salvation possible, but not all are essential for one to believe in order for one to be saved. All are essential to believe to be a consistent20 Christian, but not all are necessary to believe to become a Christian. Generally, a sign that authentic conversion has occurred is that when a professing believer is instructed on these doctrines, he embraces them.

I don't necessarily agree with every "orthodox doctrine" (as defined above).

E.g., I do not believe in "the doctrine of original sin" (which originated with Augustine). This doctrine teaches, among other things, that Christ had to be sinless in order to take away the (so-called) "sinful nature" that is (supposedly) "passed along to everyone biologically".

Norman Geisler pointed this out. So I would disagree with him, and many, if not most Christians, that the belief in the doctrine of original sin is an "essential orthodox doctrine". True, that Roman Catholics and most Protestants believe in it. But Eastern Orthodox and Protestants such as myself do not.

Not to change your thread topic to "original sin."
(Just posting for FYI/ general purposes).
Take care!

[Jill]

.

[steve7150]

Galatians 5:20
idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told [you] in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (NKJV)
Here, heresies are described as a work of the flesh, one in which could hinder someone from inheriting the kingdom of heaven.



I think the meaning of "heresies" has changed over the years. Back in Jesus time i think it meant "to cause division" wheras now it may have a stronger negative meaning such as holding an unbiblical doctrine. So in Gal 5.20 the context Paul used it in adds meaning to the word when it is grouped with the preceding words. It sounds like Paul used it to mean causing division because of the previous actions he mentioned. I doubt that simply misunderstanding scripture would qualify as sin. Paul complimented the Bereans for searching the scriptures daily but not for having perfect doctrine.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hello Rich (good to meet you)!

We discussed something like your thread topic before, but I couldn't find "where". I, did, however, find a link I posted from Hank Hanegraaff's site. It covers a broad spectrum of "essential doctrines" and, also, in terms of what are "required to be saved." This may be somewhat off-topic for your thread, but I thought you might be interested.

Thanks Rick, for the link... it is helpful info.

I think the meaning of "heresies" has changed over the years. Back in Jesus time i think it meant "to cause division" wheras now it may have a stronger negative meaning such as holding an unbiblical doctrine.

I looked it up in a greek lexicon, and you are correct. The word does have that kind of meaning, and it's actually translated "sect" 5 times usually referring to the Pharisees or Sadduccees. It is only translated heresies 4 times.

However, 2 Peter 2:1-2 seems to answer that. These "sects" or "divisions" or whatever you want to call them... they were established around false teachings.




Prophets and teachers are known primarily for what they prophesy or teach. Whatever these "pseudo" prophets and teachers were saying, it caused these "heresies". And the signs to look out for are:

1) They deny Jesus
2) Many will follow their ways
3) The way of truth is blasphemed because of them

This sounds like a lot of false teachers I recognize today.

[RICHinCHRIST]

When I think of false teachings, I think of what Jesus spoke:



It seems that the cause of their false doctrine is that they are blind to the truth. Not only are they blamed for their blindness, but so are those who follow them.

Now that we have the written Word, I think God expects us to search the Scriptures and come to conclusions on false doctrines for ourselves. If we teach them, we deserve to be blind and fall in a ditch. Or if we don't rebuttal them but follow them, we also deserve to fall in a ditch.

The only question is: When does a doctrine twist the truth and lead to blindness, division, and a blasphemy against the truth?

I think Rick's post earlier was helpful to look over. There are essentials to the Christian faith. The non-essentials are where I think there is freedom.

[steve]

Here is a link to the old thread (from the old forum) about Christian Essentials.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... essentials