What's a heretic?

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

hairetikos
from the same as 140; a schismatic:--heretic (Strongs)

Albert Barnes.

 

Brian,

Whatever goes outside the bounds of the Church's orthodox belief system....

Some good orthodox standards are the Westminster Confession of Faith, Concord Formula, Heidlburg Confession....

Or look at the protestants councils to see what they "deemed" as heretical.... try Dort, Orange, Nicene, Carthage.

 

Agreed. Or at the broadest level possible, start with the Apostle's Creed.

 

Christianty is defined by the ecumenical creeds. Denominations are defined by their catechisms and are (still) Christian as long as they conform to the ecumencal creeds.

This is why the LDS and JWs are out. Most Baptists accept the creeds in a round about way but they insist upon reinventing the wheel every generation.

 

Actually the reformation catechisms were made to provide UNITY and only ONE denomination. The Catholic church had theirs and the reformers were together on theirs... catechisms where for the most part the reformers CREED. Unfortunately, when the reformers broke away from the RC the pendulum went to far the other way and through history, the people disregarded the catechisms as being valued as standard theology for the church, which led to denominational ism. As the RC considers the Protestants to be heretical, historic protestantism considers Arminianism to be heretical. (Council of Dort)

 

My soul hs found a resting place
Not in device or creed
I trust the Ever Living One
His wounds for me shall plead

I need no other argument
I need no other plea
It is enough that Jesus died
and that He died for me.

 

Your salvation is great.... that gives you "birth" atestring... but your life and growing up is in your theology and doctrine.

1 Timothy 4:16 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

 

But in light of sola Scriptura who is to say that the Reformational catechisms were even necessary, let alone infallibly correct in their interpretations of Scripture? There were mutually conflicting viewpoints on key issues even at the beginning of the Reformation. Who's to say which viewpoint among the Reformers was right on a given issue? Given the presuppositions of those first Protestants, the "pendulum" couldn't help but go "too far the other way".

And the historic undivided Church would certainly regard Calvinism as being heretical as well.

 

That, my friend, is a form of a creed.

 

Again, sola Scriptura is itself a creedal statement, albeit a short one. Creeds are inescapable; the question is not do we have them, the question is what do our creeds say about what we believe?

And I know of no Protestant creed that claims infallibilty.

 

Who the heretics are--

depends the "powers that be". Jesus was considered an "heretic". The charge at His trial was: blasphemy--"he makes himself to be God." "I Am That I AM" was not blaspheming--He is God in the flesh.

True followers of Jesus today are still considered "heretics"--they do not conform to Rome, Istanbul, Wittenburg or Canterbury, or any other religions of the world--i.e. the "powers that be".

You will not find that written in the creeds or catechisms. It is written in Scripture: see Mt. 16:18; 28:20. Also do a word study on "the Bride."

Selah,

Bro. James, a dyed-in-the-wool heretic

 

Heretic: Someone who disagrees with your point of view on religious matters.

 

Succinctly put my friend.

Well done.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

posted June 15, 2005 02:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rc:
[QB] Actually the reformation catechisms were made to provide UNITY and only ONE denomination. The Catholic church had theirs and the reformers were together on theirs... catechisms where for the most part the reformers CREED. Unfortunately, when the reformers broke away from the RC the pendulum went to far the other way and through history, the people disregarded the catechisms as being valued as standard theology for the church, which led to denominational ism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But in light of sola Scriptura who is to say that the Reformational catechisms were even necessary, let alone infallibly correct in their interpretations of Scripture? There were mutually conflicting viewpoints on key issues even at the beginning of the Reformation. Who's to say which viewpoint among the Reformers was right on a given issue? Given the presuppositions of those first Protestants, the "pendulum" couldn't help but go "too far the other way".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the RC considers the Protestants to be heretical, historic protestantism considers Arminianism to be heretical. (Council of Dort)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the historic undivided Church would certainly regard Calvinism as being heretical as well.


Sorry, Dt.... never has been done.... because this was predestination, election was always the standard. You won't find a council callling calvinism heretical ... ONLY arminianism... because it has always gone against the teachings of the Biblical church.

 

Sola Scriptura is probably the silliest Reformed premise. If there is no agreement as to the meaning it might as well be in Reformed Egyption.

 

You are a Catholic (under some other disguise) I presume. It is the Catholics (and no other group that I know of) that are so vehemently opposed to sola scriptura. The reason being is that sola sccriptura goes directly contrary to the magesterium's compelling the adherence of the church to believe in the catechesim no matter what. This way their is no soul libery, and thus no sola scriptura (two doctrines which go hand in hand). It is the Catholics that oppose these doctrines (Baptist Distinctives), not Protestants.
DHK

 

Actually, "rc", you're wrong. Views that were later part of Calvinist thought, such as irresistable grace and limited atonement and monergistic predestination, were in fact explicitly condemned by church councils in the West before the Great Schism of 1054. First, in the Synod of Arles in 473 AD, the ultra-Augustinian views of Lucidus were condemned. He taught double predestination and that Christ did not die for the nonelect. (He was ordered to retract these heresies and he did so.) Afterwards, this extreme monergistic "predestinarianism" pretty much died out in the West until the ninth century when Gottschalk, appealing to Augustine, revived the heresy. These views were once again condemned, this time at the Synod of Quierzy in 849. This viewpoint was pretty much unheard of in the East, since Eastern Christians always maintained the synergy between God's Sovereign grace and man's free responsiblity.

So "Calvinism" was indeed condemned as heresy long before John Calvin came on the scene. The consensus of the historic biblical church was that man must cooperate with God's grace.