Monday, August 13, 2007

Heresy

Got back from Vail/Beaver Creek. Had a great time, but lost a couple days not feeling too great when we got back. I had an altitude headache for 2 days there, got used to it, then bounced back to flat ol' Texas! Feeling a bit better now, but would someone please turn down the heat? More on the trip later.

Got a little tag thing in the works, too, from Pearlie....I'm working on it! It's fun!

Here are a couple of heresy responses from youse guys....I'm working on this, too! And, Milly, I would be happy to talk Hershey with you anytime!! :-)


Don R said...
1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. 2. Roman Catholic Church. a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith. 3. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle. I think it probably fits #3 the closest,if you add "that I believe", to the end of the definition. Chappy and I definitely fit #1, #2, #3. If you look at heresies down through the ages (eons=aion):), many times the heresies became the orthodox in time. Jesus was certainly considered a heretic to the temple leaders of his day. Heresy is a very fluid term.... One man's heretic is another man's brother in the faith...Blessings!
11:10 AM
codepoke said...
So many things going on, but I really wanted to comment on this. I'm sorry, I'll probably have to be brief. A heretic is something Paul defined, and we lost the definition for. We've been trying to figure it out ever since. There are two types of heretics.1) Not saved:This person believes lots of facts about God, and since he doesn't know God, he gets a bunch of them wrong. That does not stop him from becoming a religious leader, and confusing many of the true children of God, though. 2) Saved: It's exactly like the first one, but this guy knows God and puts his head or feelings or will in front of the Spirit within him, makes mistakes, and confuses many of the other children of God. The difference between the two is that when rebuked, one eventually is convicted and repents. The other splits the church and breaks the hearts of many of the children he's been confusing. That's just my two cents. Mostly, this is one of the most important questions in practical Christianity, and when you asked it you just fired me up to think about it. So, those are my first thoughts. I look forward to your conclusions!

4 comments:

codepoke said...

Don R,

> many times the heresies became the orthodox in time

It's hard to know what you mean by this. Almost everything that's ever been believed is currently believed by some denomination somewhere, so yes, this is true after a fashion, but only at the periphery of the faith. I can't think of any contradiction of the Apostles' Creed that's ever been accepted as orthodoxy anywhere, any time.

Missy said...

I think heresy and Hershey are synonymous - mmm mmm, good!

If someone tells me someone else is a heretic, I immediately want to hear what they are teaching. Is that wrong?

I just think its rather silly to put a label on someone that basically says, "I'm right and you're wrong" - especially on things that are really just our best guesses.

In my experience, it's not usually the heretic who splits the church, he/she is the one who wants to talk about something no one in leadership does. It's the leadership who label him/her and those who agree as heretics and kick them out.

Maybe there are some situations this is a required action for, but not any I have witnessed.

Does any of this make me a heretic? That would be cool...

Kansas Bob said...

I like what CP said about the Apostle's Creed. Here it is:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Amen.

I accept it. Anyone take exception to it?

Don R said...

CP-I'm not that familar with the Apostle's Creed. I was raised in a Southern Baptist home. Spent 21+ years as a Baptist deacon, so I didn't hear a lot about it. It is only recently (last 3 years) that I have begun to explore Christianity in depth, all versions. The Apostle's Creed dates from the 3rd-5th century CE, dpending on who you take as accurate. To me that's a long time after Christ's death on the cross. As near as I can see, the AC was written as a general refutation of Gnosticism, answering the basic ideas of Gnosticism point for point. I have studied Gnosticism a bit and find many of their ideas quite interesting, but certainly can't buy most of their exclusivity. God is simply much bigger and more loving than they imagined. I wasn't implying that there were any contridictions within the creed that had become orthodox. Anyway, I really don't like the word "orthodox". To me, it puts God in an "orthodox" box, impying that we have all the answers we need, which I don't believe.