A New Guy's Perspective

[Joel J.]

  Helen,

I do not thing your answer printed...you said I can comment but there was no comment..could you check that and comment.

Thanks

[Helen]

  Helen,

I do not thing your answer printed...you said I can comment but there was no comment..could you check that and comment.

Thanks

Do me a favor Joel, please hit "quote" of my text that you are having a problem seeing, so that I can see how it only says; "I can comment".

[Joel J.]

  I will have to get back to you...I got caught up in making marmalade.
I think I can make it better than store bought..but I did not realize you have to boil the skins so long. Have you ever made it?

[Helen]

  I will have to get back to you...I got caught up in making marmalade.
I think I can make it better than store bought..but I did not realize you have to boil the skins so long. Have you ever made it?

So you were able to see my whole post.  So I fail to see any objection on your part to my objection to your calling saints here heretics. 

[Joel J.]

   Ok, I said I would get back to you.

Heretic......

There is only one place this word is used in the NT that I can see, and three I believe where its root heresies is used.

So we need to see if there are heresies inside the church or whether there is only heresies outside the church.

So these scriptures are I Cor 11:19
                                  Gal 5:20
                                   II Pet 2:1

Looks like these heresies are in the church. So we have heretics in the church committing heresies.

If you are a saint that speaks heresies that makes you a heretic, if you are a saint that gets drunk you are a drunkard, or who lies you are a liar.

Do you know saints that lie all the time and can not be trusted? They are liars.
Do you know saints that spread heresies all the time and can not be trusted? They are heretics.

Obviously there are differing degrees to these sins. One who persists in them is worth of hell, that does not mean every saint who has lied will go to hell nor every one who has spread heresies will either.

My conclusion;

I believe it is biblical to call some saints heretics. I do not believe everyone will agree with me, and that is ok.

Thank you for this opportunity Helen.

[Helen]

  Ok, I said I would get back to you.

Heretic......

There is only one place this word is used in the NT that I can see, and three I believe where its root heresies is used.

So we need to see if there are heresies inside the church or whether there is only heresies outside the church.

So these scriptures are I Cor 11:19
                                  Gal 5:20
                                   II Pet 2:1

Looks like these heresies are in the church. So we have heretics in the church committing heresies.

If you are a saint that speaks heresies that makes you a heretic, if you are a saint that gets drunk you are a drunkard, or who lies you are a liar.

Do you know saints that lie all the time and can not be trusted? They are liars.
Do you know saints that spread heresies all the time and can not be trusted? They are heretics.

Obviously there are differing degrees to these sins. One who persists in them is worth of hell, that does not mean every saint who has lied will go to hell nor every one who has spread heresies will either.

My conclusion;

I believe it is biblical to call some saints heretics. I do not believe everyone will agree with me, and that is ok.

Thank you for this opportunity Helen.

Based on your conclusions here Joel, I was wondering if you consider... 

[Helen]

Based on your conclusions here Joel, I was wondering if you considerd...

A saint is not condemned.

9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.  10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;  11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. Titus 3  KJV

I’d like to consider the texts you claim makes saints heretics.  The explanation within the verses qualify and explain themselves very well and easily demonstrate that the terms “saints” and “heretics” are incongruous Joel.

18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3  KJV

The choice to live a sin is what makes a person a heretic, and that is biblically seen in the saints where?

1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8 KJV

But that is not even the main concern I have with your conclusion, which is not seen in the text of Titus, a form of condemnation of those who reason from New Covenant scriptures and not "the law".

1.)  "Geneologies about the law", now that's a subject that I don't think I've ever seen debated here on the Gathering, so that can't be what has you condemning anyone here. 

2.)  "Foolish questions about the law", might be in some of the Hebrew roots discussions, so is that who you are calling heretics?

3.)  "Contentions and striving about the law" is seen where else on this board Joel?  In fact, Steve Born has been one of the most outspoken against the idea that we are under the law in the New Covenant and this is exactly what we as Christians should be doing; not seeking to be justified by the law; but rather Jesus.

Furthermore...

[Helen]

I’d like to offer this too in regards to the same considerations:…

Lenski’s Commentary on the Interpretation of Titus (3:9); pg. 941:

But silly questions and genealogies and strifes and battles about the law continue to turn thy back on, for they are unprofitable and in vain.

These first two nouns belong together, for the silly questions were to a large extent concerned with filling in the genealogies recorded in the books of Moses and spinning stories around these fictitious names.  The next two also belong together: “strifes” or disputes about such things; and then, again specifying “battles about the law”; the Greek has a mere adjective: vouikas.  This recalls the senseless, ignorant, "law teachers" mentioned in I Tim.1:6, who did not know what the law was for and turned it into fancies.  On all four nouns compare II Tim.2:23; Titus 1:14.

23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. II Timothy 2  KJV 14Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. Titus 1  KJV

Having pure learned debates regarding the Gospel is not what these verses are teaching against.

And regarding I Corinthians 11:19...

[Helen]

And regarding I Corinthians 11:19...

By your own admission Joel, Titus 3:9 is the only place you find the Greek “heretic” and there is a difference between heresies coming against a church and a saint being called a heretic.  It is very obvious to those of us from the Chapel that a heresy (i.e., Connections) can make it into a church.  I stated that you might want to rethink calling your brethren heretics.  You are allowing yourself to make a leap in logic to call saints heretics, when I Corinthians 11:19 proves that the separating of the wheat and tares is what is happening in this scripture (verse 19). 

Without qualification, your offering here makes the whole church at Corinth heretics, because Paul found a heresy in that church.
 

17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.  18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.  19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.  20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. I Corinthians 11  KJV

Question.  Are wheat tares ?  Are tares wheat?  The approved in the church at Corinth had to be made manifest, in much the same manner that Jesus’ righteousness was made manifest by Satan’s attempt to test Him in the wilderness and it proved His purity.  Tests with divisions will always try to come against the church, but anyone calling those they disagree with heretics requires established truths from the scripture are being violated; not a personal vendetta against someone just because they don't personally agree with them.  If being a heretic just means disagreeing with another theologically, then you and everyone else here on the Gathering; are heretics. 

Actually this verse goes back to the discussion on “private interpretation” when a person makes their mind up about a teaching by their own personal preference.  We have no right to accuse any saints as heretics without proof of their scriptural divation, independant of clique diviation.  In fact, this is the crux of the heresy in the church of Corinth, that certain cliques were acting uncharitable and not discerning the Lord's body (verse 29)

Lenski’s Commentary on the Interpretation of I Corinthians (11:18-19); pg. 455-457:

For when you come together in assembly, I am told that cliques exist among you; and in part I believe it.

When Paul reports what has come to his ears he only summarizes the evil as it appears to his mind: “that cliques exist among you,” schisms or splits.  We shall see presently just what Paul means.  Paul thus tells the Corinthians that the cliques which have already been formed among them may grow more serious and result in actual divisions. The text that read iva kai connect the divine purpose closely with the idea of necessity.  Paul thus tells the Corinthians that the cliques which have already been formed among them may grow more serious and result in actual divisions.  Because so many practical, moral, and personal issues have already started in their midst, because they show so much disinclination and disability to eradicate these incipient differences, actual heretical views and teachings may develop and tear the congregation apart.  That would be deplorable, but such results must appear in this sinful world; when they do come to pass they have one good feature: they reveal who the true members are.

Sound farmilar?  The New Testament uses this word ‘heresies’ with reference to actual divisions which are disrupting the congregation.  Calling saints heretics without proof they propagate heretical teaching is not only very divisive; but actually stands in jeopardy of the heresy of taking part in an uncharitably clique for the purpose of approval in man's eyes and not the eyes of God, when bearing false witness against those they look down on.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. I Corinthians 11:19   KJV

In summary, this text does not call saints tares, because Paul teaches that there is a separation happening here that will make manifest the wheat (saints) from the tares.

Regarding Galatians 5:20...

[Helen]

Regarding Galatians 5:20...

Joel, you assert that this verse teaches that there are heresies/heretics inside the church of Galatia.  Reading the text of this verse; I cannot see where this verse teaches that heresies and therefore heretics were in this church.  Again, one of the reasons why I suggested that you might not want to accuse saints of being heretics; because you end up doing exactly what you are preaching against; when heresy means a person chooses division from the church; contrary to biblical teaching. 

Basically, if you choose to use this verse to teach that there were heresies/heretics in the Galatian church, you would have to also believe that there were murders/murderers happening in that church too.

Church leadership teaching a church that the unsaved commit heresies; does not a heretic make.

18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.   19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;

Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings,

and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5   KJV

Obviously there are differing degrees to these sins. One who persists in them is worth of hell, that does not mean every saint who has lied will go to hell nor every one who has spread heresies will either.

This is why I find I am in disagreement with what appears as just an opinion Joel, because it begs the question; do you offer the same consideration for all these works of the flesh listed in this teaching to the Galatians?  What is the proper understanding of a spectrum of degrees in some of these sins, say adulteries, hatred and murder; which could be construed as allowable for a saint to practice and consider they remain an heir of God’s kingdom?  This is not a matter of repentance, but rather a teaching that employs contrast to demonstrate those who are “of the flesh”.

We see here a list of manifestations that they, who by nature of the flesh do; thus why they are not heirs of God’s kingdom.  Regarding your assertion that there are different degrees of allowable heresies a saint can commit to justify your opinion, I cannot find that idea addressed in Galatians 5; because the Greek for the word “do” in verse 21, prasso; means to practice, i.e. perform repeatedly; as being in the habit of doing it continually.  So you will have to provide another scripture to support your spectrum of degrees of heresies can be committed by saints, while maintaining their position as heirs.  Heresies in this scripture disqualifies a person from being an heir of God’s kingdom. 

The context of chapter 5 contrasts “spirit” and “flesh”; the old and new natures.  The verse before Galatians 5:20 says that such works manifests who is of the flesh, not of the spirit.  While the old nature is allowed to continually cause conflict for a saint's new nature; it is in the presence of this continual clashing that a saint is daily reminded that we are of the spirit. 

Paul’s list identifies what dominates those of the flesh, those who are not of God’s kingdom; inherently.

Regarding Galatians 5 and those going/not going to hell...

[Helen]

Regarding Galatians 5 and those going/not going to hell...

Since Galatians 5 teaches that heretics are not heirs of God’s kingdom, the idea that this text teaches they go to hell is understood from the teaching of a saint’s inheritance of the kingdom of God.  It should be clearly understood that scripture demonstrates that the kingdom of God was “at hand” when John the Baptist heralded the coming of God’s kingdom in Christ. 

The idea of death in this discussion begs the question; does death have to happen to be ushered into God’s kingdom?  The question of going to hell requires death as a prerequisite to that event and I see that Paul is addressing events that must occur before a person dies.

Lenski’s Commentary on the Interpretation of Galatians (5:21); pg. 289-290:

All this shows that Paul does not mean: shall not enter heaven, “God’s kingdom” in that sense.  His kingdom is inherited in this life. “God’s kingdom” is one of the grandest concepts of Scripture.  See Matt.3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 1:33; John 3:3.  The kingdom is the rule of God in grace and in glory.  Wherever He so rules there is this blessed kingdom.   Unlike earthly kingdoms, the divine King alone makes His kingdom.  Those kingdoms exist apart from their kings, make and at times unmake their kings; not so this kingdom.  The genitive is possessive: the kingdom belongs to God; but it is difficult to exclude authorship from this genitive: God makes the kingdom.  It extends from Adam to eternity.  On earth His rule is in grace, in heaven it is in glory.  Jesus expounded this kingdom in his parables, each parable revealing one side of it.  The new birth admits to this kingdom, John 3:3, 5.  This is effected by repentance, Matt.3:2. We “inherit” the kingdom.  Since we are sons of the King, it is ours.  We are not subjects as are those of ordinary earthly kingdoms but royal princes (I Peter 2:9) who bear themselves as such.  Grand vistas open up here.  “The kingdom ours remaineth,” Luther.  We own it as heirs.  We already rule in this kingdom and shall rule.  Since we are heirs of the kingdom, crowns await us.  Only kings are crowned.  This crowning takes place at the consummation of the kingdom.  We shall sit with Christ on His thrown.  Superearthly is the kingdom, for all earthly kingdoms have only subjects, but this kingdom is composed of nothing but kings.  It carries the idea of a kingdom to the nth degree.  See the author’s Kings and Priests for a full exposition.  The future tense “shall not inherit” = shall never possess this inheritance, because they are doing these works of the flesh they cannot be reborn and become King’s sons.

It is the continual nature of the sins listed in Galatians 5’s verses 19-21 that prevents those who abide habitually in them from being heirs of God’s kingdom.  This does not mean that a person cannot repent of such and become an heir; just that they cannot be heirs while they are habitually participating in these sins.  Of course, my purpose for searching this truth remains in contrast to Joel's proposal that saints can habitually do things that scripture teaches heirs of God's kingdom cannot do.   

And regarding II Peter 2:1

[Helen]

And regarding II Peter 2 :1…

Joel, your offering of this verse as your proof text just begs the question….do you think the false teachers referred to here by Peter were saints?  I think you do, based on your lack of any comments with the verses you put up here in regards to my concern; your calling saints heretics.  Your Bible study consisted of no study at all, but rather; just 3 references to book/chapter & verse; and then your conclusion that has nothing to do with what I said.

1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. II Peter 2   KJV

Seems to me, this verse is pretty clear that these are fake teachers that try to secretly introduce their false teachings.  Is “denying the Lord that bought them” possible and still be considered saved/saints?

Here's a clue...look at the judgment of God upon them in the following verses.

[Joe Wagenius]

Hi Dave good to hear from you!
I do remember you from CC days.
I have been active in this (and the previous versions of this) board for some years, in fact I used to have it open at my desk at work for 10 hrs a day! However there have been some very big changes in my life in the past year & I have taken some "time off" as it were from the board. I love to interact with the rest of my "adopted family" so to speak...yes even SB!
It has been a wonderful tool over the years, & I hope to start to "ramp up" some in the near future!