The charge of "heresy"

You really think so? I think it's thrown around more loosely by the free-willer side, but maybe I just notice it more because it's the OTHER side. Just recently some folks just barely stopped short of calling me a heretic for my views on sin.

 

Was that because, like Calvin Coolidge's Pastor, "You is agin' it?" :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

http://www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/calvinismmain.html

 

Wow, he used both the B word and the H word! And decorated it with horror pictures, too!

 

This is the part of your OP that caught my eye. It reflects a trend that I'm seeing more of. It is a cum-bah-yah touchy-feely thing in which theological certainty is frowned on. It is almost a pride in being uncertain. Maybe that's too strong, but this trend manifests itself in this way: "Even though he strongly disagrees with me, he's not wrong. Just different."

It is a way of saying, I believe I'm right but I can never be sure; but I would never say he's wrong. We just see things from a different perspective. For me to insist that he's wrong would imply that I think I'm right, and that would be impolite.

That's why many modern pastors don't preach doctrine from their pulpits. Some folks might not agree with the preaching, and that would be division in the church, and we can't have that.

Now, to be sure, this is not true of us on the Baptist Board. If it were, we'd be posting somewhere else. In fact, Brother Bobbyd, I have never seen your statement expressed before on the BB. That's why it caught my attention.

 

I think it is a "debate tactic" that is used for several reasons, but the reason that I think it is used most is that there are a TON of "baby" believers that are running around these days and a lot of these folks want other people to think for them. And so if the word "heretic" is thrown out there it is more than likely going to keep "baby" believers away from the get go.

The religious elite don't want folks to think for themselves these days. And the religious don't want to take the time to think for themselves anyway, so it's a great marriage in disaster.

 

Looking up the word "heresy" in a Christian dictionary would be enlightening. Bottom line, the word is only helpful if you stick to historical meanings; otherwise it becomes meaningless. But even historically, it has to be defined according to the reigning ideology; so it is somewhat subjective.

Some ideologies attract crusader-types like dogpiles attract flies. The disciple learns the wonderful truths, become enamored, and declares deviants to be heretics. It's always been this way, so take a breath and keep moving; you aren't going to change it.

 

The definition of heresy on this board is "you do not agree with what I think the Bible says."

 

We all agree that some views are heretical. The question is, which ones? I'll start with this one. A wrong doctrine related to salvation. That'll extend to several other related doctrines as well, including eternal security.

We ought not to be reluctant to label wrong salvic views as heresy. Beyond that, we should be careful.

 

Heresy could be charged to people saying things like:
Jesus did not lead a perfect life.
Jesus is not God.
Jesus was not born of a virgin.
The Bible is not inspired by God.
Jesus was not really resurrected.
Jesus on the cross was not enough to pay for our sins.
etc, etc, etc

The following are not heresy statements:
I am a Calvinist or free willer.
I believe in Landmarkism or I do not.
I am pre mil, post mil, amil, pre trib, post trib, half trib, no trib.
I read KJV, NIV, NKJV, ASB, etc, only.
Once saved always saved, although I believe it quite strongly, have doubts to believe otherwise is heresy.

Those that blur the lines between these two catagories are who we have to thank for 1500+ Christian denominations since Acts.

Those who cannot see the difference need to find another line of work.

 

SN : One of your examples of non-heresy was someone who only reads a particular Bible version . Would you say that those who go way beyond that to the point of saying none but their version is the Word of God qualifies as heterodox ?

 

That is an interesting question. I was thinking of it in the opposite way, that is, we as Christians even if someone only reads say, King James, should not consider them any less of a Christian, much less a heretic.

I would say those that those who fit your question are very misinformed about others who read a different version, but it still to me does not fit that extreme catagory.

Heretic on this board seems to be used in a very light manner, sort of like calling someone a fool, idiot, or the like.

 

I think claiming one English version is the only true Word of God falls into the category of idiocy, not heresy.

 

I have seen the word heretic used in connection with charasmatic type issues, tongues, faith healing, etc. While it is not the way I would worship, not sure this rises to that level.

People who use heretic lightly usually line up with those who want to exclude and divide, thinking they only are right.