Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Heresy ?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
I find the definition of Heresy to be, “Departing from sound doctrine”; And this definition is where this thread is coming from.  If this definition is wrong, please correct me.
------------------------ 
Therefore, the fact is, those people in a Pentecostal Church(for instance), are heretics because they are “overlooking”(sliding over), the Scriptures that talk about woman preachers or that teach about the real use of “tongues” etc.  
 
Now the Pentecostal Church, preaches the right Gospel; Therefore they are just as SAVED as we are, but they are heretics because they are disregarding various Scriptures.
 
This brings to mind, one of my old memory verses.........
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;” (Titus 3:10)
 
In other words, if you have a friend that is a Pentecostal; After you talk to him about his wrong doctrine once or twice and he rejects “sound Doctrine”, than just leave him in his error.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The word "heresy" is translated from the Greek "hairesis"  It has several definitions.
 

  1. act of taking, capture: e.g. storming a city

  2. choosing, choice

  3. that which is chosen

  4. a body of men following their own tenets (sect or party)

    1. of the Sadducees

    2. of the Pharisees

    3. of the Christians

  5. dissensions arising from diversity of opinions and aims

It is evident that #'s 4 & 5 would be the most concerning when trying to identify an heretick, since an heretick is

schismatic, factious, a follower of a false doctrine

Yes, there are many false doctrines in the Pentecostal faith, as in many other denominations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was raised in the AoG and in Pentecostal Holiness Churches.  They did indeed believe one could lose one's Salvation.  My mother told me on many occasions that when she stopped going to Church after she married dad, and until she began attending Church again, believed she lost her Salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I do know some Pentecostals believe salvation can be lost but so far I've not personally known any of those. All of the Pentecostals I have known and do know believe if one is saved they are eternally saved.

 

In the Assembly of God church I was saved in the pastor taught eternal salvation. I don't know if the pastor which followed him taught that or not since his replacement was overtly Charismatic and I soon left that church after the new pastor took over.

 

I know Methodists and those from the Christian Church which teach and believe salvation can be lost (many in the Christian Church also teach baptism is necessary for salvation).

 

As a child I grew up in Methodist Sunday School and was taught the need to be "good enough" to get to heaven. I know of folks who were taught the same thing and it still haunts them to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

To all above:  :goodpost:

 

I went to an Assemblies of God church when I was about 17 for some months maybe a year. My Granny was saved in the Church of God, both of them here believe in losing salvation. It messed me up for a long time. I feared losing my salvation more than I trusted Jesus and His Father's power of keeping me saved. It lead me into a works doctrine. Praise Jesus he set me free from that. We have "freewill" Baptist here in the Mts and they too believe in losing salvation. Their members will testify during revivals, "I done this, or I done that and I need to get resaved". One of my co-workers told me if I saw a young woman in a bikini wrecked my car or truck and was killed, I'd go to hell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's easy to be misled when you don't "rightly divide" the Scriptures.

For example:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift,

and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to
themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.  Hebrews 6:4-6
 
Hebrews is written to Hebrews and will be applicable during the Tribulation,
after the Age of Grace (Gospel of Grace) ends with the Rapture of the Body of Christ.
Misapplication of the Gospels and the Hebrew Epistles will lead to all sorts of confusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

I find the definition of Heresy to be, “Departing from sound doctrine”; And this definition is where this thread is coming from.  If this definition is wrong, please correct me.

And where did FIND this definition?

Edited by AVBibleBeliever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

the following Posts is from a Bible study another did no the subject of Heresy.  Sound doctrine and Sound teaching on the subject of Heresy is what is being shared from this post forward.  Please take time to read it as it is very clear and simple once one sticks to scriptures to define and engage on the subject of Heresy.

 

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:   And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

 

Since this is the only verse in the Bible with the word "heresy" in it (1Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 5:20; 2Peter 2:1 have the word "heresies" in them, but none of them shed any light on the definition of the word), and the only verse that can shed light on the meaning of the word, we will have to know just exactly what was "the way" that Paul freely confessed to, but to which the Jews believed was contrary to one of the major tenants of their faith (i.e. "heresy")

Edited by AVBibleBeliever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is the first (and only) time the word “heresy” (singular) shows up in the Bible and it is the only verse that gives the Scriptural meaning (i.e. definition) of the word.
 

In order to understand the meaning of the word “heresy” (without running off to "the Greek”) we are going to have to examine the time and the circumstances (i.e. “the context”) in which the word first occurs in the Holy Bible. {i.e. the King James Bible}

Acts 24:14 occurs many years (approximately 21-24 years) after the Apostle Paul’s initial calling by God [Acts 9:1-16]. The historical context of the events is after Paul’s Third Missionary Journey; and after many of his Epistles (Letters) were written; and after the establishment of the church of God in many cities & towns throughout much of the Mediterranean area.

In other words the Jews in Israel, after dealing with Peter, James, John, and the rest of the Lord Jesus Christ’s disciples (and their many converts [Acts 21:20-21] – mostly Jews) for approximately 25 years, were very familiar with some of the apostles beliefs and teachings, and had already heard about the Apostle Paul and his dealings with the Gentiles. And they were OBviously aware of at least some of the doctrine he was teaching (especially the inclusion of the hated Gentiles into “the household of God”); and of his active involvement in the establishment and growth of the many churches that were popping up all over the Roman Empire; and they had a genuine concern that Paul’s teachings were subverting the Mosaic Law and the Jews’ religion and traditions.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The following are some of the charges (all false) that were brought against the Apostle Paul by the Jews of his day:

•  He taught “all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses”; and “not to circumcise their children”; and not “to walk after the customs”.

•  He taught “all men every where against the people {i.e. the Jews}, and the law, and this place {i.e. the Temple}”


Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Charges and accusations made against Paul by the leaders of the nation of Israel (i.e. the high priest; the elders; and “a certain orator named Tertullus” – their 'mouthpiece'):

For
we
have
found
this
man
a
pestile
nt
fellow
, and
a
mover
of
sedition
among all the Jews throughout the world, and
a
ringleader
of the sect of the Nazarenes
:

6
Who
also
hath
gone
about
to
profane
the temple
: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

7
But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

8
Commanding his accusers to come u
nt
o thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

9
And the
Jews
also
asse
nt
ed
, saying that these things were so
.


According to the “charges” brought by the Jews against The Apostle Paul:  
•     Paul was “a pestilent fellow” {a personal attack on Paul’s character without any proof.}
•     Paul was “a mover of sedition among all the Jews” {an unsupported charge without evidence.}
•     Paul was “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” {so what “crime” did he commit?}
•     Paul went about “to profane the temple” {in what specific way did he “profane the temple?}



Did you notice that the Jews did not present one specific charge against Paul? Vague generalizations and personal attacks are TYPICAL of all naysayers, gainsayers, and sophists. This is the modus operandi of all cunning, deceitful, dishonest and disingenuous Humanists today. {And the reason why I say it is an exercise in futility to try to reason with naysayers, gainsayers, sophists, and/or Bible critics & correctors (lost or saved) – since they have no genuine interest in the truth!}

ACTS 24: THE APOSTLE PAUL’S DEFENCE BEFORE THE GOVERNOR (FELIX)
Please take note as to how Paul deals specifically with the generalized and unfounded charges brought against him.


Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned u
nt
o him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge u
nt
o this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:

11
Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I we
nt
up to Jerusalem for to worship.

12 And they
neither
found
me
in
the
temple
disputing
with
any
man
,
neither
raising
up
the
people
,
neither
in
the
synagogues
,
nor
in
the
city
:

13
Neither
can
they
prove
the
things
whereof
they
now
accuse
me
.


14
But
this
I
confess
u
nt
o
thee
, that
after
the
way
which
they
call
heresy
, so worship I the God of my fathers
, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:


15
And have
hope
toward
God
, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be
a
resurrection
of the dead
, b
ot
h of the just and unjust.


16
And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

17
Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.

18
Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult.

19
Who ought to have been here before thee, and
OB
ject, if they had ought against me.

20
Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council,

21
Except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.


Paul denied that he taught: “all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses”; he denied that he taught the Jews: “not to circumcise their children”; and he denied that he taught the Jews: not “to walk after the customs”. He also denied that he ever taught: “all men every where against the people {i.e. the Jews}, and the law, and this place” {i.e. the Temple}. Paul denied all of their charges and accusations! But in Acts 24:14 Paul does confessthat after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets”. So the question arises just exactly WHAT was “the way” that the Jews called “heresy”, and to which the Apostle Paul freely confessed to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...