|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is Heresy Outdated?
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: I'm in agreement with what seems to be the consensus here that persecution of heresy by state churches is not appropriate.
That's putting it mildly.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm not seeing that at all, Jengie--I think Beeswax is spot on, and his correction of Marvin's historiographic misapprehension is not rhetorical. It's a statement of verifiable fact. At one point Athanasius stood against practically the entire hierarchy of Church and State in defense of orthodoxy. The Arians were not poor persecuted underdogs.
That's pretty irrelevant to my statement, which was that heresy is defined by the winners. It doesn't matter what their odds of winning were before the fight started.
quote:
If you want to argue that orthodoxy is merely a political mechanism of exclusion, that's fine.
It's a political mechanism by which the ones holding power in a church ensure that they will continue to hold on to that power. It's not so much about Truth as it is about who gets to define Truth (and, not coincidentally, therefore gets to live in a nice big palace).
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
If I may make an observation....
Most of the arguments made against the concept of "heresy" have been about the unhelpful/inappropriate/wrong use of the term in some sort of disagreement.
Somebody wants to argue a point, have a discussion etc and are shouted down by someone probably from a big institution, who yells "You can't say that, it's heresy!", translated as "I'm in charge, if you disagree with me you're out!"
I have never experienced this abuse of authority myself in the church, but have no doubt that it happens. It is wrong.
But however bad this may be, to put forward the argument "well, there's no such thing as heresy, that went out with the Ark!" does not help. Because in the end it is to be on the side of Pilate against Jesus (John 18:37-38).
The answer to this "bad behaviour" is to challenge the wrong use of power and authority, which is totally against the way Christian authority should be exercised (cf Matt 20:25-27)
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's not so much about Truth as it is about who gets to define Truth (and, not coincidentally, therefore gets to live in a nice big palace).
I happen to know that the apartment for the Archibishop of Canterbury within the Lambeth Palace complex is quite small. When Rowan Williams moved in with his family, it was quite cramped. The size was probably based on the assumption that archibishops of Canterbury are generally of an age not to have children of school age. You do get the use of the second largest private garden in central London (Buckingham Palace has the largest) but this use is shared with others also living onsite in Lambeth Palace Mews. There is a library, chapel and many offices within the buildings, as well as rooms required for the public functions of the archbishop. Rowan Williams is probably better off living in the master's lodge at Magdalene College, Cambridge.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Saying that orthodoxy only exists so that people can wear big shiny hats and live in palaces is like saying that people only vote UKIP because they don't want to pay the minimum wage. Even if one conceded that the whole thing were merely ideological it ignores a whole range of human motivation that isn't about self-aggrandisement and personal power.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Saying that orthodoxy only exists so that people can wear big shiny hats and live in palaces is like saying that people only vote UKIP because they don't want to pay the minimum wage. Even if one conceded that the whole thing were merely ideological it ignores a whole range of human motivation that isn't about self-aggrandisement and personal power.
I'm sure tribalism and fear of change played a big part as well. Hell, there may even have been a couple who genuinely believed it was God's will, bless 'em.
But for the most part, I'm pretty sure it was about power and control. Just like most of the rest of human history.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Hegemony, innit?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.
This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I have been trying to think of a reference to heresy in the Old Testament. Is the idea of heresy mostly a New Testament and later development?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy.
An "invisible church" in your sense would not have authority to define what must be believed, but it could still be an authority on the Christian tradition and how theology has been done historically. It could become an authority on doing theology now.
No-one who likes church as it is will want that, so it's easy to dismiss the possibility because its unlikely to happen. But there's no problem in principle with creating an entirely different model of church that needs no concept of heresy.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But for the most part, I'm pretty sure it was about power and control. Just like most of the rest of human history.
Jesus warned us about the World. He warned us about the dangers of wealth and earthly power. We can't say we didn't know... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
this, too, shall pass
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Basically, as with so many of these things, it all boils down to ecclesiology. What is the role of the Church in defining the faith? Obviously, if one holds to a high ecclesiology then he Church has that authority directly from Jesus Christ himself. If one happens to have a low ecclesiology, then you'll probably think that's bollocks, but then for such I would ask on what authority they accept the Creed, for instance.
This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).
I think it's more nuanced than that. I get how it would be much easier to just be a sola church Christian, just as it would be to be a sola scriptura Christian. My conscience allows me to be neither. This does not mean that I think the church has no authority to define sound theology, nor that defining theology is a totally individualistic "every man for himself" process. It's about taking all those factors - scripture, tradition / church, experience, progressive understanding, revelation, reason, putting them in a mixing pot and seeing what comes out the other side. Some of those factors are individualistic, some are corporate - some are a mix, just as the process itself can be an individual or corporate one.
It's simply acknowledging that the church can get it wrong, just as the writers of scripture could get it wrong, just as we get it wrong. But despite that, with the Holy Spirit's guidance, it's still possible to get things right.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To Goperryrevs:
(I'm not going to quote your whole post because it's right there and I"m responding to the whole thing rather than individual parts; no offense intended)
I'm pretty sure I understand all the points you're making (not saying I agree with all of them), but then the question remains: does the church you describe, or anybody in it or within hailing distance of it, have the authority to declare something heretical? Or is the notion of declaring things heretical not really a part of this ecclesiology?
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I have been trying to think of a reference to heresy in the Old Testament. Is the idea of heresy mostly a New Testament and later development?
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
MT, OFFENCE TAKEN. No wait, I mean the opposite...
quote:
does the church you describe, or anybody in it or within hailing distance of it, have the authority to declare something heretical? Or is the notion of declaring things heretical not really a part of this ecclesiology?
To unpack that question, first of all I'd say that the 'what is church?' thread is pertinent. It'd be nice to be able to give a straightforward answer to that question, but for me, it's incredibly complicated. The invisible church doesn't comprise or encompass one denomoniation or expression of christianity. The story of the church involves Orthodox, Arians, Catholics, Nestorians, Coptics, Protestants, Anabaptists, Latter Day Saints, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and more. We're all part of that story. That's not to say that I don't think that some of those groups have got things incredibly wrong (or better, all of those groups have got some things incredibly wrong). It's just acknowledging complexity where it exists.
So, yes, I do believe heresy exists. In terms of 'the church' declaring something heretical, I have a couple of problems with that. Firstly, which church, and on what terms? Given the complicated nature of the story of the church, this is also not an easy question to answer. Secondly, the idea of 'declaring' heresy suggests that it is the church that decides right teaching from wrong teaching. I would say that recognising, acknowledging - or better, discerning heresy would be a much better description. The church doesn't get to decide what is heretical or not, but it is right that the gathering of christians should aim to discern dangerous teaching from healing teaching. That discernment process involves all the factors I mentioned earlier.
It would be so much easier for me to do what Ad Orientem (and I presume, you) do, and say "this is the one true church, the others are all in error". For me, though, that would involve such a massive amount of cognitive dissonance that it would be impossible. So, instead, I'm left with this muddiness and complexity.
As for the word 'heresy', I'm with SCK in that I'd much prefer that we use the word 'error' these days. Heresy is such a loaded, baggage-ridden word, laden with inhumane and unchristian barbaric treatments of fellow people, christian or not, over the centuries. In the same way that I could never understand why a christian youth movement thought it was a good idea to call themselves 'crusaders' (why not 'jihadists'?), throwing the word 'heresy' around is simply counterproductive, given its history.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Discerning heresy, rather than declaring it. I like that a lot. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This makes sense to me, also. An invisible church would appear to have no authority to define sound theology vs. heresy. It's hard for me to see how, without a high ecclesiology, it's not "every man for himself" (or woman).
You say that like it's a bad thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.
Surely that's a prohibition against Apostasy, not heresy? There's a fairly substantive distinction between worshipping Moloch and holding that there was a time when Christ was not.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by ;
quote:
In the same way that I could never understand why a christian youth movement thought it was a good idea to call themselves 'crusaders' (why not 'jihadists'?), throwing the word 'heresy' around is simply counterproductive, given its history.
In the early 1900s when the Crusaders Union was formed, Britain was still a pretty unquestioned 'Christian country' and the Crusades were still viewed as respectable by most Westerners. Remember that only a few years after the Crusaders were formed European powers went into a World War in which both sides were claiming to be fighting a holy cause ('Gott mit Uns' on the German side, and a variety of similar statements on the English side). Also at that time Islam was pretty weak.
It was still ultimately wrong and as a former Crusader member I now realise the name wasn't as good as it still sounded in the 1950s/60s - though the teaching I received was pretty good.
Te Crusaders Union has (quite a few years ago now) been rebranded as 'Urban Saints' - I'm somewhat out of touch on exactly what it does nowadays.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Oops! - forgot to go back and check so I could credit Goperryrevs with the original quote I was commenting on.... Sorry!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.
But wouldn't the word 'idolatry' best describe all these activities - the pursuit, love or worship of anything in preference to Yahweh God? I think 'apostasy', which Gildas just suggested, is another pretty loaded word. Is idolatry less so? It feels that way to me. (Not a less harsh accusation, to be clear, just perhaps a more straightforward one. Maybe...)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Heresy was much more physical in the Old Testament. Look for prohibitions of worshiping Moloch, Asherah, or Baal. The Golden Calf in Exodus was heresy. The first commandment, "You shall have no gods before me" is a prohibition of heresy.
But wouldn't the word 'idolatry' best describe all these activities - the pursuit, love or worship of anything in preference to Yahweh God?
Aaron doesn't say, "Here's another god to worship." he says, "This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt." How do you know the golden calf isn't a representation of God? Because the invisible God cannot be depicted in images like golden calves. To think he can be is heresy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
That the concept of heresy is questioned shows it is more needed than ever.
To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.
Certainly, we should not burn heretics. But we sure as heck should not make them bishops, either.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
That the concept of heresy is questioned shows it is more needed than ever.
To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.
Certainly, we should not burn heretics. But we sure as heck should not make them bishops, either.
Indeed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Aaron doesn't say, "Here's another god to worship." he says, "This is your god, who brought you up out of Egypt." How do you know the golden calf isn't a representation of God? Because the invisible God cannot be depicted in images like golden calves. To think he can be is heresy.
So what is the difference between heresy and idolatry? Is idolatry a subset of heresy, if you like; of all the wildly, dangerously incorrect beliefs about God (my crude definition of heresy), the act of putting something else in his place is what specifically gets called idolatry.
Then again, and as already asked, is the concept of heresy even in the Old Testament? What is the Hebrew for 'heresy', as distinct from 'idolatry'? I gather the Greek word, from which the English word is just a transliteration, is derived from the regular Greek word for 'priest'. Hmm, ironic that on one of the few occasions a 'religious' word gets used for a 'religious' purpose in the NT, it's to describe something very negative...
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
To defend truth, one must call out and refute falsehood. It has been so since the earliest church fathers and before.
But falsehood and heresy are two different things, aren't they? You wouldn't automatically describe anyone who believes something a bit off from orthodoxy as a heretic, would you? And, just as important, who gets to label beliefs and people as heretical. The people with the (religious) power, ISTM, and that makes me very nervous.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by South Coast Kevin;
quote:
So what is the difference between heresy and idolatry?
I think that among God's people 'idolatry' in the sense of creating something like the golden calf to represent the infinite God and be worshipped, is also 'heresy'.
But idolatry is also a wider word referring to the 'made-up' gods of paganism, whether those gods are represented by a physical idol or not.
On the 'what is church' thread I've recently explored the way that certain forms of 'liberal Christian' theology create a kind of 'conceptual idol' by rejecting Scripture teaching and preferring their own reasoning, creating an 'our Jesus' with little connection to any historical Jesus. That too is both idolatry and heresy.
In general, 'heresy' is a term within a religion, referring to variants within the religion rather than the views of a different religion altogether. This isn't always straightforward - arguably Christianity is a 'heresy' from a Jewish viewpoint.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'd argue that whilst heresy and idolatry can be coterminous, there is a subtle difference.
We can make idols of legitimate things too. We can idolise what we see as 'sound doctrine' for instance - and we can idolise our own 'orthodoxy' too.
We can even make an idol of the scriptures.
We have to be careful with all these things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by SCK;
quote:
I gather the Greek word, from which the English word is just a transliteration, is derived from the regular Greek word for 'priest'.
I double- checked in case my memory was faulty; no, 'heresy' is not related to 'hieros/priest' but to a word meaning 'choose' - a heresy is in effect a belief 'chosen' over against what considers itself the standard belief.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We can make idols of legitimate things too. We can idolise what we see as 'sound doctrine' for instance - and we can idolise our own 'orthodoxy' too. We can even make an idol of the scriptures.
Oh yes, definitely. Sorry I wasn't clear - putting anything before Yahweh God himself is idolatry, IMO; whether it be another god, a physical representation of Yahweh, personal happiness, material goods, the Bible, orthodox doctrine, your family, your job....
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I double- checked in case my memory was faulty; no, 'heresy' is not related to 'hieros/priest' but to a word meaning 'choose' - a heresy is in effect a belief 'chosen' over against what considers itself the standard belief.
Thanks for that, Mr Langton Sir. My mistake... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Would a physical representation of Christ be idolatry, then South Coast Kevin?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Would a physical representation of Christ be idolatry, then South Coast Kevin?
Do you mean a painting, a statue or something like that? I'd say definitely not idolatry in itself. But when you get into bowing to the physical representation or directing prayers to it, then I'd start advising caution.
But that's just me - I'm sure it's perfectly possible to use a picture or what-have-you of Jesus as a focus for prayer and devotion to him, without the image itself becoming the object of our worship. Sometimes I use a candle for this purpose (which is a physical object, although obviously not a physical representation of Jesus). It's a matter of the heart of each person, ISTM.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Just wondering, SCK ...
Those who use iconography would say, of course, that their veneration is being offering 'through' the object (but not without it) to the Person or persons depicted or represented.
I don't have an issue with this, although I would have done at one time. Mind you, I'd have been against candles at one time too!
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).
Sorry to be brief. Got work to do.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Those who use iconography would say, of course, that their veneration is being offering 'through' the object (but not without it) to the Person or persons depicted or represented.
Sure, if it works for some people and helps them focus on God then, fine! It just feels dubious to me, but that reflects my own spiritual heritage and probably my character, to some extent.
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).
So what actually is heresy, do you think? (When time permits... )
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Valarian
Apprentice
# 18175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
It puts all the emphasis on right profession of doctrine (orthodoxy) rather than on right action (orthopraxy); while I think Jesus and the NT writers place far more emphasis on the latter.
This is why heresy is important - to challenge the commonly held beliefs and doctrines. In the modern church (of whichever flavour), the doctrines and beliefs of the congregation are held to be more important than their behaviours and practices.
I myself hold beliefs that are not orthodox Christian. I still consider myself Christian though, even if I don't hold with the divinity of the Christ or the virgin birth. In the eyes of an orthodox believer, this may well make me a heretic. To me, I hold these beliefs through study of early Christianity and knowledge of where the doctrines come from. They have come from independent study and research of the Bible, rather than being told what to believe when reading the texts.
Posts: 4 | From: Worcestershire, UK | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Valarian:
In the modern church (of whichever flavour), the doctrines and beliefs of the congregation are held to be more important than their behaviours and practices.
I don't think so, actually. Churchgoers are rarely expected to argue for and justify official church doctrines. If they were, their churches would equip them far better for the task than they do. The majority of churches offer relatively little teaching; members are expected to listen to the sermons, and are then free to go and do their own studying if they want to. Churches with small groups are probably in the minority.
It's assumed that the people who've been attending for a while are 'believers' in a more or less orthodox way, an assumption that's reinforced if the individual is particularly useful to the church community and whose behaviour suggests decency and kindness.
[ 25. July 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think so, actually. Churchgoers are rarely expected to argue for and justify official church doctrines. If they were, their churches would equip them far better for the task than they do. ...
It's assumed that the people who've been attending for a while are 'believers' in a more or less orthodox way, an assumption that's reinforced if the individual is particularly useful to the church community and whose behaviour suggests decency and kindness.
I think this really depends on the church--the kinds of churches of the "fundamentalist" variety discussed on the Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism thread, at least in my experience, were very firmly focused on The Critical Importance of Correct Doctrine--and on being able and willing to "witness" to anyone at a moment's notice.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Kevin, I agree that not all error is heresy. Also, there is a difference between false teaching from a church leader/teacher (or someone who claims such a position) and mistaken thinking from a learner. I remember having some off ideas as a new Christian. That certainly did not make me a heretic (Or at least I hope not.).
So what actually is heresy, do you think? (When time permits…
I've never really thought about where the boundary is between heresy and mere error.
I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.
An unfortunate result of the 4th Lateran Council is that it made disagreement about what exactly happens during the Eucharist "heresy." And that created great problems for centuries. But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.
But as to the exact boundary line between heresy and lesser errors, I am not sure. Perhaps we should burn most shipmates at the stake just to be safe.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.
So you would not want someone who held such beliefs to be in a leadership / responsibility position over you. Fair enough, I think I'd agree (although I would happily meet, study and pray with someone like that, such as Valarian upthread - hello, newcomer! - on an equal basis).
Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are? If we want to keep heresy as a more serious category of error, someone has to make that distinction. Or do we each draw the line for ourselves - deciding individually whether we'll accept direction from someone who holds to this or that belief?
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
But as to the exact boundary line between heresy and lesser errors, I am not sure. Perhaps we should burn most shipmates at the stake just to be safe.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ChastMastr
Oh yes, obviously. It goes without saying that evangelicalism was traditionally very concerned with gathering around the right doctrines - that was the whole point of it. But most of the world isn't evangelical (or not of that precise type). Theological understanding of internal church teachings isn't necessarily expected of most of the world's churchgoers. And most Christians aren't regularly in church anyway, so they'd have to be highly motivated to study completely on their own. I doubt that this is very common.
Of course, if people aren't attending church because they want to cleave to 'the right doctrines' then they must be attending for some other reasons.
[ 26. July 2014, 12:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?
Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.
Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?
Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.
Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."
Two minor points. First on what grounds the "ecumenical councils"
Secondly, since when did "lead" mean you had to follow?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are?
Short answer: The Holy Spirit, though Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils.
Which is in line with Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit would lead the church "into all the truth."
Two minor points. First on what grounds the "ecumenical councils"
Secondly, since when did "lead" mean you had to follow?
Jengie
"Minor points"?
To go into the grounds of the ecumenical councils would take a very long post and may be a good topic for a new thread. The church does have some authority as illustrated by the Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts.
No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.
Surely the point about heresy is that "I" do not get to define it?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.
I think the point being made is that if we do not have to follow then how can you be certain that the ecumenical councils followed where the Holy Spirit led?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
But I would not characterize disagreement as to how and to what extent Christ is present in the Eucharist as heresy.
Surely the point about heresy is that "I" do not get to define it?
I think we agree on that.
Arethosemyfeet, again, that is a very good question to which I am unable to do justice at this time. I think it worthy of a thread of its own.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
No one has to follow. God does not make us robots. But to willfully disobey the leading of the Holy Spirit through scripture and the ecumenical councils is not something I'd advise.
I think the point being made is that if we do not have to follow then how can you be certain that the ecumenical councils followed where the Holy Spirit led?
Why do you need to be certain? Nothing in life is certain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Valarian
Apprentice
# 18175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I would say error about the basics of the Faith committed by someone in a leadership/teaching role would most certainly be a heresy. One example: denial of the Trinity by Arians and by Jehovah's Witnesses.
So you would not want someone who held such beliefs to be in a leadership / responsibility position over you. Fair enough, I think I'd agree (although I would happily meet, study and pray with someone like that, such as Valarian upthread - hello, newcomer! - on an equal basis).
Again, though, who gets to say what 'the basics of the Faith' are? If we want to keep heresy as a more serious category of error, someone has to make that distinction. Or do we each draw the line for ourselves - deciding individually whether we'll accept direction from someone who holds to this or that belief?
Indeed, are you even sure that the basics of the faith are the basics of the faith? After all, the doctrine of the Trinity wasn't formalised until the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The Arians weren't the first to deny the Triune nature of God. The first sect to do so would be the Ebionites, the poor ones of Jerusalem - which could arguably, from the description in Acts, be the church led by James the Just, Jesus' brother. The trinity is not in the Bible, first formulated in the 2nd Century by Tertullian in his statement of three beings (hypostases) in one substance (homoousios). It's not consistent with the Shema, and would therefore by incompatible with Jesus' own Jewish faith. To me, the Trinity is a Greco/Roman corruption of early Christianity, which happened to be passed through the council and accepted as doctrine in the 3rd Century. But that is, perhaps, another topic.
Personally, the basics of the faith for me are to: Love God with all your heart (and soul and mind) and to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Then to follow the ten commandments. As Rabbi Hillel says: All else is commentary, go and learn.
Posts: 4 | From: Worcestershire, UK | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Valarian:
Personally, the basics of the faith for me are to: Love God with all your heart (and soul and mind) and to treat others as you wish to be treated yourself. Then to follow the ten commandments. As Rabbi Hillel says: All else is commentary, go and learn.
Those are good things but they are not particularly Christian. If those are sufficient for Christianity, then Christianity really doesn't exist except as a historical artifact.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
