What Makes Heresy?

In my perusings I found this article[1] which perhaps has some helpful ways of breaking down the elements and issues in identifying "heresy."

Kinds Of Heretical Doctrine

Taking the protestant principle to heart, we next turn to the Bible — what kinds of heretical doctrine does it discuss and forewarn us about? The Bible makes frequent reference to false teachings and it is often within the context of refuting heresy that its positive doctrinal material is cast.

The Old Testament contains solemn warnings against anyone who prophesies or proclaims teachings in the name of any god but the LORD, Jehovah (Deut. 13:1-5; 18:20-22). This is the assumed context in which the New Testament teaching about heresies is framed.

In the New Testament, there are warnings about false prophets (Matt. 24:11, 24; 2 Pet. 2:1) — that is, those who make predictions in the name of God and whose predictions turn out to be false (cf. Deut. 18:22). There is also a warning about false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13). There are warnings about those claiming to be the Christ, or claiming that Christ has come, or that the Day of the Lord has come, or that the resurrection has occurred — when all these events will be so plain and conspicuous that no one will miss them (Matt. 24:5, 23-27; 2 Thess. 2:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:16-18).

There are also warnings about those who proclaim another Jesus or a different gospel, or who introduce a spirit other than God's Spirit (1 Cor. 15:3-5; 2 Cor. 11:4;
Gal. 1:6-9). The teaching that circumcision and keeping the Law are necessary for salvation is condemned (Gal. 5:2-4; Phil. 3:2). On the other side, teaching that liberty in Christ gives us excuse for licentiousness is also condemned (Jude 4).

The denial of Jesus Christ's coming in the flesh is regarded as from the spirit of antichrist (1 John 4:1-6). There are warnings about people who cause dissensions by teaching doctrine directly opposed to what Christians already know to be true (Rom. 16:17; Tit. 3:10-11). There are warnings about those who claim to love God but do not love God's people (1 John 4:20; 5:1), and who deliberately break away from the church on the basis of perverted doctrine (1 John 2:19). Finally, there are warnings against adding to or taking away from the words of prophetic Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19) or twisting the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).

Looking over these warnings from Scripture, we may classify heresies into six major categories:

1. Heresies about revelation — teachings that distort, deny, or add to Scripture in a way that leads people to destruction; false claims to apostolic or prophetic authority.
2. Heresies about God — teachings that promote false gods or idolatrous distortions of the true God.
3. Heresies about Christ — denials of His unique Lordship, His genuine humanity, His true identity.
4. Heresies about salvation — teaching legalism or licentiousness; denying the gospel of Christ's death and resurrection; and so forth.
5. Heresies about the church — deliberate attempts to lead people away from the fellowship of true Christians; utter rejection of the church.
6. Heresies about the future — false predictions for which divine authority is claimed; claims that Christ's return has taken place; and the like.

Note that errors in any one of these six categories tend to introduce errors into the other five. Take, for instance, the heretical view held by many groups that the church became totally apostate in the early centuries and thus had to be "restored" in the last days. This doctrine implies (1) that Scripture is not a sufficient revelation, but needs supplementing or "explaining" by some authoritative teacher or publication. It also almost always serves as a basis for rejecting the early church's views of (2) God and (3) Christ. Since the Reformation is rejected as falling short of the needed restoration, (4) the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is likewise rejected. And the doctrine of a restoration comes to dominate the group's views of (5) the future, as it requires them to view many or most biblical prophecies about the future as finding fulfillment in their own group.

We find then that an error in any area of doctrine can affect every other area. Therefore, although heresies tend to fall directly into one or more of these six major categories, heresies can in fact occur on virtually any doctrinal subject. For example, someone who teaches that angels should be worshipped is teaching a heretical view (Col. 2:18), even though the subject matter is angels. This is because worship of any creature completely cuts the heart out of any confession of God as the one God.

Nor should it be thought that the New Testament gives us a complete catalogue of all possible heresies. In our day there are literally thousands of clever distortions of Christian theology that deserve the label heresy, and they can be seen as such apart from being explicitly anticipated and identified as heretical in the Bible. The Bible teaches us what is absolutely essential, enunciates principles as to what is basic to sound Christian faith and what is nonessential, gives us a wide variety of examples of heresies, and expects us to exercise discernment in evaluating new and controversial teachings when they surface.

In short, heresy is any doctrine which the Bible explicitly labels as destructive, damning error; or a doctrine which the Bible instructs is not to be tolerated in the church; or any doctrine which, even if not mentioned in the Bible, utterly contradicts those truths which the Bible indicates are essential for sound Christian faith.

Aberrational views can also be classified according to the above six categories. In each case, the aberrant doctrine seriously compromises the Bible's essential teaching in one or more of those six areas, although not outright denying it. For example, the practice of speculating on the precise date of the return of Christ can often be an aberration that stops short of heresy. The practice is certainly unbiblical, and in the context of heretical systems of doctrine such date-setting can itself be regarded as heretical. But in some cases, teachers have argued more modestly that Christ might return on a certain date, admitting the very real possibility of error, and urging only intensified obedience to God's Word. Even this sort of teaching should be regarded as more or less aberrant, since it compromises the biblical warnings against making predictions of this sort; but it is not of itself heretical.

[1] A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part Two: Guidelines For Doctrinal Discernment — Section 2 Page 4.

Heresy Isn't Neat & Simple?

More, from Apologetics Research and their article[1] on heresy:

Aberrational Christianity

It might seem that doctrinal discernment should be a fairly cut-and-dried procedure of determining whether a doctrine is orthodox or heretical. After all, we have defined orthodoxy and heresy in such a way that they cover all possibilities. Either a doctrine is such that those who hold it should be accepted as Christians (in which case it is orthodox), or it is not (in which case it is heretical). This might seem to imply a black-or-white approach in which all doctrine is either completely orthodox or completely heretical.

Although doctrinal discernment would be a lot neater and simpler if this were the case, unfortunately things are more complicated — in at least two distinct ways. First, a single doctrine is never held in isolation from other doctrines, but rather is always part of a system or network of beliefs held by a person or group. And sometimes that system of beliefs includes many doctrines which are orthodox as well as some which are heretical. For example, a religious group might hold that the Bible is the Word of God, that there is only one God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, and yet deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Such a group's belief system is heretical, even though it contains many true beliefs. Moreover, a group's heretical beliefs generally lead them to misunderstand or misapply even those true beliefs they do confess, since the beliefs tend to be interdependent and thus mutually affect one another. Thus, one of the tasks of doctrinal discernment is to sort out which beliefs in a heretical system are actually heretical, which are not, and how the nonheretical beliefs are misapplied because of the heretical system in which they are held.

The second sort of complication to be noticed is that people often hold conflicting beliefs. Because people are often inconsistent, in some cases they may hold to orthodox beliefs but also hold to beliefs that undermine or contradict their orthodox beliefs. The difficulty presented in such cases is to sort out whether the belief system is basically orthodox or not.

For example, many professing Christian groups today confess belief in one God, but also speak of human beings (usually Christians in particular) as being in some sense "gods." This verbal contradiction may or may not betray a real contradiction in the substance of their beliefs. Making matters even more difficult is the fact that these different groups mean vastly different things by calling believers "gods." In some cases it is evident that they really do not believe in one God at all. In other cases it is clear that they are using the word "gods" of believers in a figurative sense such that their confession of one God is not contradicted at all. In still other cases a real tension exists, and it is difficult to avoid concluding that the group in question holds conflicting views.

In order to accommodate this phenomenon, it is helpful to speak of religious doctrines which undermine or are in tension with a group's orthodox beliefs as aberrational. Holding such aberrational views is a serious problem, and those who do so must be considered as being in serious sin and should be treated accordingly. Specifically, those advocating such errors should not be allowed to teach or minister in the church, and those refusing to keep such aberrant views to themselves should be excommunicated.

The charge that a person or group's beliefs are aberrational is a serious one that cannot be made easily. It is arguable that at one level any incorrect belief is at tension with or undermines orthodox beliefs. By aberrational, however, I am referring only to false beliefs which do serious damage to the integrity of an orthodox confession of faith.

The sum of the matter is that doctrinal discernment is a difficult task -- one which requires sensitivity, a sense of proportion and balance, and a deep understanding of what is essential and what is not. New heresies and aberrations are constantly arising, as well as new insights into biblical truth, and discernment is needed to tell the difference. Thus, the task of doctrinal discernment is an ongoing necessity in the Christian church.

Having shown that doctrinal discernment is necessary, I have yet to say very much at all about how it is to be done.

[1] A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy. Part Two: Guidelines For Doctrinal Discernment — Section 1 Page 4.

church picnic

There were many highlights on Sunday last during our all-church picnic at the Polk County Fairgrounds.

It was such a great time. The weather was perfect. The children were happy with all kinds of foods, cotton candy and icees. I got to spend a little time hanging out with mommies of babies that normally I don't get to anymore. It just feels so safe, having my children run to so many adults, known to them as their sunday school teachers.

I spent some time listening to my mentor, Helen. I decided to visit a little with Dr. Radmacher. I said that I wanted to introduce him to my three children while they were around. I asked him about his health, and he says he is slowly gaining some endurance back, which was very good to hear. I could see his mind working and he asked me if I had made any determination over what it is I believe I am meant to do. I told him that I was still a little unsure what use a woman can be when it comes to speaking about the Word of God. He said that there was a woman student who now is a teacher of seminary classes, to other women students.

He said that he had investigated my blog (as I had sort of asked him to review it in July to make sure I was not causing harm of any kind), and he said that I am on to some good ideas. The first class I should take is hermeneutics, he said. Without having a framework of how to study the bible, I might come up with a great idea one time and then the next, come up with a piece of junk. How am I supposed to know for sure whether what I've got is any good? After that I should take elementary greek, secondary greek and then hebrew.

How smart. For sure what I think about might be good, or bad, but there should be a method for others to interact with me and help correct and challenge me.

He talked for some time about the term "repentance." That it means a change of mind in the greek, not all the things it has come to mean in reformed doctrine about forsaking sin. He pointed out that some say that the reason why it is not mentioned once in the whole gospel of John, a book written for the purpose of evangelism, is because perhaps John did not have the term available. But that theory is overruled by the book of Revelation where John uses it in chapters two and three, in the context of speaking to the churches. Repentance, to the churches, and no repentance, to the lost. Hmm. Fascinating.

Then he asked me "Do you know how many times the word 'sovereign' is translated into the Old Testament, in the NIV?" Two-hundred and something-another times. How many times in the New Testament in the NIV? I think he said six times. Then he asked, "How many times is the word 'sovereign' translated into the NKJV?"

Zero, in the New Testament. And only once in the Old, where David is praying for Solomon.

"Where in the hebrew are they translating the word 'sovereign' from?" he asked. I was afraid of the answer. He said "it is translated out of the word 'LORD.' Do you know what LORD means? It is the name of God, YHWH. And what is the name 'YHWH'? It's meaning is found in exodus when Moses speaks to God about his name and God answers, 'Tell them that 'I AM' has sent me to you.' So, where is this term 'sovereign' coming from? And you see with that one word they can insert their entire construct about God and free will. As if God is some bully in the skies who controls everything."

Wow, exactly, one of the reasons why I was captivated to keep taking classes at the seminary. I needed to hear this. I replied, "It's so interesting that we are conscious of the damage of the errors found in for instance the New World Translation but you give an example of the same magnitude of error, and what's more I wonder if it is intentional, right underneath our noses that no one talks about."

He said "My personal belief for why the gospel of John was written without the word 'repentance' has to do with the fact that God in His foreknowledge could see how, down the line, there would be a time where a word would have gone so much farther than it should have in what it was supposed to mean. I wonder if it was not in His wisdom to intentionally leave that word entirely out of the evangelistic gospel."

I replied, "You know I was just thinking about that same thing this week, I was thinking about how God must have known what He was doing when he foresaw the use of the passage in mark 16:16, which says 'whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe is already condemned,' and He saw all the error that resulted out of that one assertion about baptism. Just imagine if Paul had listed baptism as one of the 'first things' of the gospel in 1 cor. 15? How much more reasoning for error would there be about that one command?"

Dr. Radmacher then discussed briefly as I enthusiastically nodded along that adding sanctificational additions to the formula doesn't change the reality that it is by faith alone. I mentioned how I had been doing a word study on "gospel," using as he said a method of looking at every instance and how it is used in context to build my understanding. I found it surprising to see that the gospel has two meanings, one a message of good news, and two the entire narrative of the life and sayings of Jesus. And it makes me wonder if people are aware that when they quote the gospel for the lost out of 1 cor 15 are they really meaning to assert the whole story of Jesus Christ as the first things to be shared?

I believe there was a twinkle in his eye when I said this, but, perhaps I imagined it for I certainly was looking for one. Maybe the twinkle, if real, was only for my devotion to word-studies. Perhaps I will never know.

It was very neat and I pray for blessings to his wife who sat patiently listening to things she has already heard perhaps many times. The benefit was all one-way, from them to myself.

A great paragraph on "the gospel"

As I was reading through the concordance on "gospel," I found this great paragraph on the gospel in the book of Romans:

Romans 15:14-21

Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel 2098 of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Therefore I have reason to glory in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel 2098 of Christ. And so I have made it my aim to preach the gospel 2097, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation, but as it is written:

“To whom He was not announced, they shall see;
And those who have not heard shall understand.”


There's something not quite right in this idea of mine I think, about 2097 being the message that saves and 2098 being the message that sanctifies.... But for now it's the best I can do until I do more research. It seems to be a high predictor of context of any passage.

This paragraph, along with passages in a former post, are one of the select few where they are used together.

You may draw your own observations, but here are mine:

1 -- Paul is confident that they are "filled" with knowledge (vs 14)

2 -- Paul still wants to disscuss particular points with them

3 -- He calls this effort, ministering the "gospel 2098 of God" (vs 15)

4 -- Paul switches to the word "gospel," 2097, as he discusses the original exposure of the Word to the lost (vs 20)

5 -- He verifies again that 2097 is about the beginning of the message by quoting the OT which says "To whom He was not announced...."

What do you think?

Is the case being built to reconsider 1 cor 15 as the "gospel" 2098 message for the... lost?

Word Studies on "Gospel"

People say "the gospel is 1 cor. 15: that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures, that He was buried and was resurrected."

Is this the message that sanctifies or justifies? (Or perhaps can it be both?)


The number used in this passage is: 2098 -- which is the greek word "gospel" meaning the entire narrative of scriptures.

I want to show you the results I've found on how the two words "gospel" are used by Paul. It is instrumental to see how the words are used by the author. For reference:

2097 -- εὐαγγελίζω to bring good news, to announce good tidings (verb)

2098 -- εὐαγγέλιον (includes the above and also this aspect to its usage) the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings (noun)

In this passage below, Paul crafts the use of both 2097 and 2098 earlier on in 1 corinthians....

1 cor 9:18:

What then is my reward? That in my preaching 2097 I may present the gospel 2098 free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel 2098.

To support this distinction in the two versions of the word "gospel," consider the topic of chapter 9 where this verse was pulled. The Word declares that salvation is by faith alone; the gift of eternal life is granted in an instant upon faith. Do we think of that as the end of the road? No. He also commanded us to teach all His commandments, to make disciples of all men. Paul was also employed in this work of discipleship, not just evangelizing the lost. Here, Paul discussed protocol for his income and likened it to the work of OT temple workers who were never done:

1Cor.9:14:

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel 2098 should get their living by the gospel 2098.

You don't suppose he could have much an income from just evangelism, an instantaneous kind of event? Especially if the listeners reject it we're supposed to shake the dust and move on. But -- discipleship goes on for some great deal of time, if not forever.

For these reasons, among others already shared and those in future posts, I see 2098 used with the entire Word of God that apostles preach to the churches, and 2097 as the powerful working of salvation to the ears of the lost.

Gospel (2098) means sanctification too

"Gospel" also represents the Word of God that sanctifies, not just that part of the message that saves people from hell. I don't bother to make a complex reasoning for it, because it's right here in the definition!

From the Blue Letter Bible's (an online bible study resource) lexicon for strong's concordance #2098:

5) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings.

May I show you all of what "gospel" means in the greek? There are two variations of this word...

2097 --
1) to bring good news, to announce glad tidings
a) used in the OT of any kind of good news
- of the joyful tidings of God's kindness, in particular, of the Messianic blessings
b) in the NT used especially of the glad tidings of the coming kingdom of God, and of the salvation to be obtained in it through Christ, and of what relates to this salvation
c) glad tidings are brought to one, one has glad tidings proclaimed to him
d) to proclaim glad tidings
- instruct (men) concerning the things that pertain to Christian salvation

2098 --
1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings
a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God
b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ
c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ
d) the gospel
e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings

What's more,
2097 -- a verb
2098 -- a noun

That's it, that's all I wanted to bring your attention to.

"The False Gospel Passages" 1 cor. 15

Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

1 Corinthians 14:34-15:20

The importance of the resurrection is clear, in explaining the truth, in the context of what saves us. The reason why it is important is because without it, there could have been no risen Christ to worship. More importantly, it would have made them liars when they preached.

What made them liars?

1) The alternate teaching, if correct, that in fact the dead do not rise; us or Christ.

2) To have been wrong at any one point in truth, would have made their message empty. It also would have made faith futile.

Next I experiment with a hypothetical....

Say an alternately important teaching was left out; that Jesus is the Messiah. If Jesus is preached as if he were not the Messiah but something other, could Paul have just as easily said to these teachers "But if Jesus were not the Messiah, he could not have been the prophecied One who died for all iniquity. And if He could not have died for your sins, you are still in your sins!"

The faith became futile when some exchanged the truth for a contradiction of it, and they preach the contradiction. These people are called "False witnesses" in verse fifteen, not "Un-witnesses," because they speak false things about Christ. They were never described here as being silent on the truth for a time or a purpose.

This is how this "gospel" is described:

A-received and in which they now stand
B-the means by which you are saved, on a condition:
C-that you hold fast to the teaching given
D-unless in the case that you never held fast to it

This book was written to believers so how could point D even have been mentioned, if we're talking about justification? The kind of "saved" discussed in B is a post-justification kind of salvation, the kind that comes from works, effort, holding fast, can be lost, etc. Therefore the teachings in C, those things passed from Jesus Christ to Paul, and Paul to his disciples in the Corinth church, are post-justification teachings.

Consider the context. See what the text says before this topic begins: chapter fourteen talks about the gift of tongues and prophecy in the church. As he concludes those regulations he reminds the Corinthians that the gift of prophecy does not originate with the people of Corinth themselves, but comes from God who wants us to remember His commands that regulate what is considered the truth. Then Paul immediately explains the truths in which we stand. It is a flow of reasoning he uses to compare the two issues: both require regulation to keep them able to perform their function. What is futile and empty in faith and preaching also can be true about tongues that are not spoken for the right reasons and in a right way during assemblies.

Summary:
Chapter fifteen's gospel, or good news, is a good news of further teachings for the body of those who already believe.

The common evangelical idea of the "saving content of the gospel" would begin to be described by them especially from this chapter! "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures," his burial, and his resurrection. But why do they stop there, when Paul didn't? Without skipping a beat he says that Christ was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve. Okay. Then he adds the apostles and then himself, not even pausing before taking a side-track of the issue of his unworthiness.

Is all of that "the saving content of the gospel?"

It doesn't seem to me it has any natural breaking point.

What kind of failure made the whole faith futile?

Was it silence, or leaving them without definition? No; it was not that these teachers were silent, for a time, about an aspect of the truth.

These chapters are teachings on how to regulate teachings and worship. "The gospel" meaning that which saves people to eternal life, is not mentioned at all in this chapter. Take a look once again; for no where is there any mention of faith in this list of teachings. "Holding fast to the word" isn't referring to faith, because holding fast to believing is the same as trying to judge whether a little bit of faith or a lot of faith is capable of making a man justified. As if we must muster around.

But we know that "the law is not of faith" (gal 3:12) and "now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe." rom 3:21-22

It is my conclusion for now that this passage cannot be applied to the "crossless, deityless" free grace gospel proponents. For nothing they preach is false, though their preaching may be stark in its silence on scripture.