List of Heresies

[Philip]

I just happened across this historical list of beliefs considered a heresy by the Christian Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
While Wikipedia often needs careful scrutiny, I found this to be a pretty good list. They may have left out a few things.

[melanie]

Meh, let's just box people up, label them and burn them at the stake.
I'm over this cry heresy jargon.
A very wise man once said
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit. Love others. Believe Jesus died and rose again so that we might inherit eternal life.

People assume and argue fervently that oh no, if they are not believing in the right Christ then it's all in vain. In other words hope you like it hot. But that's not what scripture says, it says to love God, and have faith in Christ' redemptive work on the cross. We like to wear our christianity on our sleeve as some kind of arbiter to condemn anyone that believes differently to ourselves. We spend far too much time trying to distinguish where everyone else is going wrong.
I have long taken offence to the JW claim that they are the true church as I have also taken offence to the claim the JW's are not saved.
My issue is not with questioning and holding to truth, my issue is with people who weild this heretical claim as if they know who is making into the Kingdom of heaven.
I am not going to conform to any doctrine, denomination, theology or otherwise. I am also not going to go around labelling others as heretics either. I leant a long time ago that majority doesn't equate with monopoly on truth. I believe things outside of the mainstream and I for a long time was not honest with myself because I didn't want to be different, the odd one out. I thought that I must be wrong because I wasn't the majority, but life has taught me that firstly I have to be honest as least to myself and majority opinion is just an opinion and not always right.
The biggest heresy I see outside of Christ' teaching is the failure to love one another.
http://reknew.org/2011/05/the-heresy-of ... to-love-2/

[RickD]

Meh, let's just box people up, label them and burn them at the stake.
I'm over this cry heresy jargon.
A very wise man once said
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit. Love others. Believe Jesus died and rose again so that we might inherit eternal life.

People assume and argue fervently that oh no, if they are not believing in the right Christ then it's all in vain. In other words hope you like it hot. But that's not what scripture says, it says to love God, and have faith in Christ' redemptive work on the cross. We like to wear our christianity on our sleeve as some kind of arbiter to condemn anyone that believes differently to ourselves. We spend far too much time trying to distinguish where everyone else is going wrong.
I have long taken offence to the JW claim that they are the true church as I have also taken offence to the claim the JW's are not saved.
My issue is not with questioning and holding to truth, my issue is with people who weild this heretical claim as if they know who is making into the Kingdom of heaven.
I am not going to conform to any doctrine, denomination, theology or otherwise. I am also not going to go around labelling others as heretics either. I leant a long time ago that majority doesn't equate with monopoly on truth. I believe things outside of the mainstream and I for a long time was not honest with myself because I didn't want to be different, the odd one out. I thought that I must be wrong because I wasn't the majority, but life has taught me that firstly I have to be honest as least to myself and majority opinion is just an opinion and not always right.
The biggest heresy I see outside of Christ' teaching is the failure to love one another.
http://reknew.org/2011/05/the-heresy-of ... to-love-2/

Mel,
I think it's rather ironic in this post of yours, that you posted that link. The link you posted is by Greg Boyd. He teaches a heresy called open theism. Among other things, open theism calls into question God's immutability.

Part of God's Immutability is:

...he (God) knows all things, eternally and immutably so...

In Open Theism, God doesn't know the future exhaustively.

And Mel,
In light of your recent conversation about the Trinity, I think it's rather glaring what Jac has to say here regarding how proper understanding of the Trinity, guards against heresies such as Open Theism.

[melanie]

Meh, let's just box people up, label them and burn them at the stake.
I'm over this cry heresy jargon.
A very wise man once said
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit. Love others. Believe Jesus died and rose again so that we might inherit eternal life.

People assume and argue fervently that oh no, if they are not believing in the right Christ then it's all in vain. In other words hope you like it hot. But that's not what scripture says, it says to love God, and have faith in Christ' redemptive work on the cross. We like to wear our christianity on our sleeve as some kind of arbiter to condemn anyone that believes differently to ourselves. We spend far too much time trying to distinguish where everyone else is going wrong.
I have long taken offence to the JW claim that they are the true church as I have also taken offence to the claim the JW's are not saved.
My issue is not with questioning and holding to truth, my issue is with people who weild this heretical claim as if they know who is making into the Kingdom of heaven.
I am not going to conform to any doctrine, denomination, theology or otherwise. I am also not going to go around labelling others as heretics either. I leant a long time ago that majority doesn't equate with monopoly on truth. I believe things outside of the mainstream and I for a long time was not honest with myself because I didn't want to be different, the odd one out. I thought that I must be wrong because I wasn't the majority, but life has taught me that firstly I have to be honest as least to myself and majority opinion is just an opinion and not always right.
The biggest heresy I see outside of Christ' teaching is the failure to love one another.
http://reknew.org/2011/05/the-heresy-of ... to-love-2/

Mel,
I think it's rather ironic in this post of yours, that you posted that link. The link you posted is by Greg Boyd. He teaches a heresy called open theism. Among other things, open theism calls into question God's immutability.

Part of God's Immutability is:

...he (God) knows all things, eternally and immutably so...

In Open Theism, God doesn't know the future exhaustively.

And Mel,
In light of your recent conversation about the Trinity, I think it's rather glaring what Jac has to say here regarding how proper understanding of the Trinity, guards against heresies such as Open Theism.

Rick, the irony you point only strengthens my point.
I know who the article was written by and I don't have to agree with every theological principle of a person to appreciate and respect their insight into certain facets of christianity. It is not ironic to me, as I would not call this man a heretic. That is entirely my point. The extent of Gods immutability is a widely, hotly debated topic. If someone differs from me in their POV I do not slam them with the 'heresy' label.
When exactly did we start thinking we were so damn right about everything.
It is an error. A big one. I presume I am wrong then work backwards. I read with an open mind and an earnest heart. I openly look at others POV, I look into both sides and somewhere in the middle. If I was to pigeon hole every person who had a different theological stance as a heretic, then I would stuck in my own opinions never considering anyone else's unless of course they aligned with mine. It is easy to reinforce our beliefs if we only appreciate those that agree and pigeon hole those that don't. Never challenging ourselves, never thinking outside of our pre conceived ideas.
So many of these people are not heretics they just have a different opinion. It is a slippery slope to assume otherwise.
This website that I linked to is about thinking outside the box.
Questioning.
I believe that is a good thing. I don't agree with everything and the whole point of the site is you don't have to. It's about having open discussion without ridicule. It is about re thinking christian ideas without being only indoctrinated into one line of thinking.
Job and his friends spend 30 some chapters questioning God's nature. And when He finally shows up on the scene? The only thing He says is “You can’t understand Me". The issue isn’t that Job is trying to understand God, it’s that he assumes himself capable of understanding God.
We cannot condemn others because they have a different theology to us. We can be firm in our convictions whilst accepting differences in our beliefs. Will the rod we use to judge others regarding theology be the same rod God judges us? We had better have it all worked out and be spot on, if we are judging other's for apparently falling short.
We are all just trying to do the best we can. Loving God and trying to be intellectually honest in our understanding. The 'church' has some pretty ugly history due to differing theology with the heresy card being thrown at each other resulting and justifying a horrible past.
Let's stop tearing each other down.
So what.... people think differently.
I think it's about time we stop tearing each other down and look to building upon what is agreeable. God is real, He loves us and He died on a cross to save us. I don't care if others think different, I don't care if they see Gods immutability differently to me. I don't care if they feel the HS is an actual person and not the mind and will of God, I don't care if they think Adam and Eve weren't literal, I don't care if they believe in soul sleep untill Christ second coming. I will put forward my opinion but I'm not going to slam people as heretics because they believe different to me. They are my brothers in sisters in Christ regardless. I am not going to only assume my brothers and sisters are those adhering to the exact understanding as my own.
This is the problem with Christianity... Too much condemnation and unnecessary division.

[RickD]

Hi Mel,

First off, let me say that I agree with your last sentence. There is definitely too much unnecessary division within the church. But, how do we know what is necessary or unnecessary division? Do we just put up with any doctrine which claims to be Christian? Or do we study scripture, so that we can more easily discern false doctrines?
If someone says they believe in Jesus Christ, we should assume they are brothers and sisters in Christ? We don't need to use discernment to see if the Christ they're preaching is a false Christ?

Mel, I think your motivation is good. You are looking to bring all Christians together, instead of divide. We all probably need to be more understanding of other Christian beliefs that differ from our own. But, we do need to discern between non essential doctrine that Christians are free to disagree about, and doctrine that affects salvation, and the nature of God.

Romans 16:17-18
17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and [a]hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Mel,
It's the ones who teach things contrary to scripture, that cause dissension among believers. It's not the people who bring those false teachings to light, that cause the dissension.

It is our duty as Christians to use discernment, and test the doctrine that is preached in the church today.
1 John 4:1
4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

And again, speaking for myself, if someone has a belief within Christianity that's different than mine, I welcome discussion on that. The discussion should be used to help each other grow in the faith. That's why I love this board so much. I've learned so much from everyone here.

[PaulSacramento]

A very wise man once said
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Ghandi, yes, who failed to grasp that NO ONE can be like Christ and that to think that by being A christian somehow one stops being human is, well, silly.

Nowhere in the bible does it teach that becoming a Christina makes you like Christ and, at best and if you let Christ do it, it can make you a better person THAN YOU WERE ( which means you may still be a real ass, just not as bad as before).

A heresy is :
opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.

For some, being viewed a heretic is a badge of honor so it isn't an insult to call someone a heretic.

We label people all the time, heck the moment we criticize a person of labeling another we are doing the same thing !
LOL !

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
We label people all the time, heck the moment we criticize a person of labeling another we are doing the same thing !
LOL !

That's a great point Paul!

It reminds me of a story...

Back when there was a big to do over Chick fil A, and the owner's stance on the sanctity of marriage, there was a possibility of Chick fil A opening a store in Boston. Now according to the then mayor of Boston, Menino, Boston was some sort of bastion of tolerance. The Mayor claimed that Boston was very tolerant of all beliefs, and Chick fil A's owner was preaching intolerance with his beliefs on marriage. Menino went on to say, that Chick fil A was not welcome in Boston because of its owner's intolerance.

Anyone see the intolerant hypocrisy in that?

He basically said that Boston is some kind of bastion of tolerance for all beliefs. UNLESS we happen to disagree with YOUR BELIEF, then we aren't tolerant of you!

My point is that I agree with what Paul said. We can't complain about people disagreeing with Christians who disagree with other Christians, when we ourselves disagree with their disagreeing!

[melanie]

PaulS wrote:
We label people all the time, heck the moment we criticize a person of labeling another we are doing the same thing !
LOL !

That's a great point Paul!

It reminds me of a story...

Back when there was a big to do over Chick fil A, and the owner's stance on the sanctity of marriage, there was a possibility of Chick fil A opening a store in Boston. Now according to the then mayor of Boston, Menino, Boston was some sort of bastion of tolerance. The Mayor claimed that Boston was very tolerant of all beliefs, and Chick fil A's owner was preaching intolerance with his beliefs on marriage. Menino went on to say, that Chick fil A was not welcome in Boston because of its owner's intolerance.

Anyone see the intolerant hypocrisy in that?

He basically said that Boston is some kind of bastion of tolerance for all beliefs. UNLESS we happen to disagree with YOUR BELIEF, then we aren't tolerant of you!

My point is that I agree with what Paul said. We can't complain about people disagreeing with Christians who disagree with other Christians, when we ourselves disagree with their disagreeing!

Meh again! Philosopy at its sloppiest
It's not about disagreeing that disagreeing is disagreeable!
It's about understanding that disagreeing is not always heretical, but intellectual and not divisional

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:
We label people all the time, heck the moment we criticize a person of labeling another we are doing the same thing !
LOL !

That's a great point Paul!

It reminds me of a story...

Back when there was a big to do over Chick fil A, and the owner's stance on the sanctity of marriage, there was a possibility of Chick fil A opening a store in Boston. Now according to the then mayor of Boston, Menino, Boston was some sort of bastion of tolerance. The Mayor claimed that Boston was very tolerant of all beliefs, and Chick fil A's owner was preaching intolerance with his beliefs on marriage. Menino went on to say, that Chick fil A was not welcome in Boston because of its owner's intolerance.

Anyone see the intolerant hypocrisy in that?

He basically said that Boston is some kind of bastion of tolerance for all beliefs. UNLESS we happen to disagree with YOUR BELIEF, then we aren't tolerant of you!

My point is that I agree with what Paul said. We can't complain about people disagreeing with Christians who disagree with other Christians, when we ourselves disagree with their disagreeing!

Meh again! Philosopy at its sloppiest
It's not about disagreeing that disagreeing is disagreeable!
It's about understanding that disagreeing is not always heretical, but intellectual and not divisional

Your problem seems to be with the term "heresy", but the reality is that the word means what it means.
If you have an opinion that is not orthodox then it is heretical, there is no gray area there.
It isn't a a derogatory term by the way, it just is a term.
I am sure I have some heretical opinion too, I have no problem with them being called heretical.

[melanie]

PaulS wrote:
We label people all the time, heck the moment we criticize a person of labeling another we are doing the same thing !
LOL !

That's a great point Paul!

It reminds me of a story...

Back when there was a big to do over Chick fil A, and the owner's stance on the sanctity of marriage, there was a possibility of Chick fil A opening a store in Boston. Now according to the then mayor of Boston, Menino, Boston was some sort of bastion of tolerance. The Mayor claimed that Boston was very tolerant of all beliefs, and Chick fil A's owner was preaching intolerance with his beliefs on marriage. Menino went on to say, that Chick fil A was not welcome in Boston because of its owner's intolerance.

Anyone see the intolerant hypocrisy in that?

He basically said that Boston is some kind of bastion of tolerance for all beliefs. UNLESS we happen to disagree with YOUR BELIEF, then we aren't tolerant of you!

My point is that I agree with what Paul said. We can't complain about people disagreeing with Christians who disagree with other Christians, when we ourselves disagree with their disagreeing!

Meh again! Philosopy at its sloppiest
It's not about disagreeing that disagreeing is disagreeable!
It's about understanding that disagreeing is not always heretical, but intellectual and not divisional

Your problem seems to be with the term "heresy", but the reality is that the word means w
If you have an opinion that is not orthodox then it is heretical, there is no gray area there.
It isn't a a derogatory term by the way, it just is a term.
I am sure I have some heretical opinion too, I have no problem with them being called heretical.

What heresy actually biblically means is not to disagree but cause division within the church, the body of Christ.
What a load of BS Paul. Look at the original post.
Let's call a spade a spade at least for open discussion
Heresy is not a term we use lightheartedly at least it shouldn't be, it is the big clincher we throw around. It is used to discredit as shown, above by Rick to throw un christian theology out there.
I am happy to discuss heretical so-called thinking and unorthodox theology but come on' lets at least not play semantics and call it as it is!

[PaulSacramento]

What heresy actually biblically means is not to disagree but cause division within the church, the body of Christ.

Yes, in the bible, passages like 2Peter 2:1, mention the term "hairesis" and that word means:
act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city
choosing, choice
that which is chosen
a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)
ex:
of the Sadducees
of the Pharisees
of the Christians

dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims.

So, as you can see the issue is what is being done WITH that opinion, if a person or persons are causing dissension or division.
Lets not forget that the Phariesses viewed Christ and Christians as "heretics".


Orthodox doctrines and teachings are very clear and have been taught for millienium, any person that chooses to disagree with them would be, by biblical definitions, only a heretic if they cause dissension and division.

[PaulSacramento]

here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/heresy-definition.html

This part is important to keep in mind:

Obviously, the gauge for “heretical” teaching varies according to the established orthodoxy of the day. Any group or individual who differs from another group can technically be called heretical. In Acts 24:14, Christians are called heretics by the Jews. The “heretics” of the Middle Ages were only heretical in that they disagreed with the Catholic Church, not because they held unbiblical doctrines. The Spanish Inquisition executed over 14,000 people, many of them for simply possessing a Bible. Thus, biblically speaking, it was the established church itself that was heretical during the Middle Ages.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/heresy-defi ... z3c6YwKlk3

[Philip]

Seems like I'm seeing an emotional reaction to the term "heresy." My post was merely to note what beliefs and teachings have generally been considered heretical by various parts of the Church in various periods. I did not mean it as an endorsement of the list, even though I agree with most of it - as some issues I've not closely studied. But IS there a litmus test of correct teaching? Absolutely! And that is Scripture. Rick had it correct when he asserted that the problem is not in those questioning certain teachings - AS LONG AS the clear teaching of Scripture is their measure.

Is there a time and place to criticize false doctrine or teaching? Of course! If not, Paul would not have written to Timothy: to remain in Ephesus "so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm."

And so, why is it important to sometimes criticize and correct teaching or doctrine that is clearly at odds with Scripture? Because it is frequently harmful, even dangerous. At times false belief obviously prevents or discourages faith. If we were to never criticize and just be "tolerant" of false teaching, well, that is the equivalent of not caring or seeing the potential dangers within such teachings. And what does Scripture itself say it is useful for? "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that the crucial element here may be a lesson for all:
What is heresy? what is orthodoxy?
Who decides and How?

Well, we have to answer the last two first and that answer is clear:
WE decide because it is OUR faith and OUR salvation that may depend on it.
How?
As Philip quoted Paul:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

We decide by the study of HIS written word and I add to that, guided by the Holy Spirit.

What do I mean by this?

Orthodoxy tells us that Christ is God and some heretic views state He is not.
What does the bible say?
Explicitly and implicitly?

And there you go.

[Philip]

I just wanted to emphasize the correct MOTIVE (from the above Scripture quotes) for calling out false teachings and heresy:
The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.

So, far from being what the world would call as "judgmental," correctly implemented, the above is to be done out of love, concern and true faith. And the clear implication is also that to NOT correct where possible and in such a way would be a LACK of those attributes of the goal of the "COMMAND."