Are You a Heretic?
The primary reason that I became a Christian as a kid was because the church gave me candy, and a very close second was because I didn't want to go to hell. One Sunday, the Sunday School teacher told her class that if we didn't have Jesus in our hearts then when we die we would go to a place called hell where we would burn everyday...forever...without a break. And worms would eat our skin and eyes. And we’d be really, really thirsty, but could never have water. And worst of all, there would be no TV! To a seven year old, that is the absolute worst scenario one could imagine. It took about .26 seconds for me to raise my hand to “accept Jesus into my heart.”
For many Christians, the concept of a literal, physical place of torment is a vital component of their belief system, right next to the extremely important 12 noon worship service ending time. Hell is an expression of God’s holiness and justice. God is holy, and therefore he cannot coexist with sin. God is also just and sin must be punished. To this group of Christians, hell is the eternal destination for all who refuse to accept Christ as their rescuer and redeemer. Hell is a place of physical and emotional punishment.
But for other Christians, this concept doesn't line up with a God who is loving, forgiving, and compassionate. Author Rob Bell is one of the latter Christians. In his recent book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person, Bell introduces his readers to an ancient understanding of the biblical concept of hell in which it is not a literal place where non-believers spend eternity. Instead, hell is a state of being in which humans exist apart from the way God has intended for humans to exist. In this view, hell can be on the streets of Atlanta where young boys and girls are "rented out" for sexual exploits, or where civil unrest dominates the culture of the Democratic Republic of Congo and where many people die daily from malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition. To Bell, hell is here and now, not another place at the end of time.
This is what I want to engage you with: what is heresy? Many in Christianity, especially evangelical Christianity, have condemned Bell’s view as heretical, and have been pretty vocal about opposing his view. All of this drama has caused me to ask a few questions. Not questions about particular views of hell - I already know where I stand on that issue - but questions about heresy. I am simply using the Rob Bell situation as an example. Heresy is “an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma” (Merriam-Webster). That’s pretty vague, and according to that definition almost every Christian could be considered a heretic on some level. Wikipedia says that “Christian heresy is non-orthodox practices and beliefs that were deemed to be heretical by one or more of the Christian churches.” Again, not as helpful as I would like.
So I throw it out to the great minds who read patch.com. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these questions.
- What is heresy?
- Who decides what heresy is?
See you in the comments.
Chidike Thomas
11:03 am on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
When anything is removed from or added to scripture as it is.
Chidike Thomas
11:05 am on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
In that case i think anyone who reads up on the things they hear from heretics can deem it as heresy.
Everett Bracken
11:24 am on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
but whose interpretation of the Scripture? Yours? Mine? The Pope? The Preacher? For example, Rob Bell didn't add anything to the Scriptures, he just has a different interpretation of what they mean.
Chidike Thomas
12:01 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I believe the interpretation is irrelevant, you can interpret it however you want but there's one bible. If, in fact, Rob bell expressed such views without adding or taking away anything from scripture, he may be delusional, but he should not be deemed a heretic.
Gail Moore
7:26 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
This statement would pretty much put every Bible written in English as heretical scripture and certainly anything written for what many consider better interpretation. Since many of the words were transcribed with the "closest interpretation" to the original writings, tenses have been changed and words interchanged making significant verses just DIFFERENT.
In this case, I could call anyone who reads and learns and teaches from an NLV version a heretic because I have learned Scripture from an KJV of the Bible.
If Adding or Taking Away are what makes a heretic, then there are many many Christians out there who should own this title.
So I think it is something other than this definition.
Chidike Thomas
9:16 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I think you misunderstand what i'm trying to say here. I'm not referring to changed tenses and interchanged words. In my experience, these minor differences do not cause two interpretations of the bible to be in direct conflict with each other. You can say the phrase "hello, how are you" in many different languages, but it still means the same thing.
When i say "adding or taking away", I'm referring to any addition or removal that alters the meaning of the text to further align with the heretic's personal viewpoints. This meaning when someone adds in their own verses or ideas and claim that they are in the bible, when in fact they aren't, or when they say that something isn't in the bible when, in fact, it is. Perhaps i should have been clearer with my definition.
Gail Moore
12:19 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I respectfully disagree. There are instances in which a changed word alters doctrinal meaning. Churches have been divided over single words or interpretation of single verses ... claiming the "others" to be heretics based upon interpretation.
I still submit that the reference to "heretic" is church based, doctrinal differences rather than scriptural interpretation.
Crystal Huskey
11:30 am on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Once upon a time Protestants were considered heretics. And Galileo ;)
Many things that were once considered heretical simply aren't anymore. I don't think you should disqualify someone's argument as heresy until you personally have researched it. That leads to ignorance.
Everett Bracken
12:15 pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Great examples. The protesters of the Catholic Church were excommunicated for holding views contrary to the traditions of the Church. They were considered heretics simply because they understood the Scriptures differently.
David Brown
12:19 pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I'm familiar with Rob Bell's book and his views. I'm not at all insouciant concerning his views of hell. His views go against the clear teachings of Scripture. He indeed has added to Scripture in his heretical views of hell. Nowhere in Scripture can Rob Bell find a substantiation for his views.
Everett Bracken
12:58 pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Thanks for you comment, David. I had to look up the for insouciant, and I have added to my vocabulary now! Forgive me for pushing back, but I'm just so darn curious about why people believe what they believe, and I always want to ask why to dig down to the first principles on which a belief is built.
I'm curious what you think Jesus' words in John 8 are about? A clear understanding would best be understood in the transubstantiation view, correct? Or am I wrong about that?
53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.
Gail Moore
1:04 pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
It would seem that a heretic is someone who claims to speak for the CHURCH by authority of God, but who speaks or teaches contrary to Church Doctrine rather than scripture. I've more heard of heretics being of a particular Christian belief rather than referring to Buddhists, etc. as such. Too many times, I think the term is used by narrow minded people when challenged with something that MIGHT make sense, but they just can't be bothered to disprove it scripturally. Sort of a cheap-shot way of ending an argument.
But whenever I hear the word, I recall the Emo Phillips definition of a heretic ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2y_kI_-x1Q&feature=related
Everett Bracken
1:23 pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I agree that many times people use it to shut down an argument and not have to think about it. That bit by Emo is hilarious!
Denton
7:43 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
You are referring to John 6 not 8. Context is important in Scripture interpretation. Jesus just finished comparing himself to the manna in the wilderness. The difference is He now is the manna and you will never die if you "consume" Him. This simply means you must completely trust Him alone for salvation from your sins
Rob Bell is definitely a heretic. The orthodox teaching, which happens to be the plain reading of Scripture, is that Hell is a definite reality and you don't want to go there. The good news is that Jesus paid the fine for my sin and because of that I not only will not go there, but also I will be with God in His presence forever with a new sinless body!
Everett Bracken
10:37 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
"The good news is that Jesus paid the fine for my sin..." Amen! I just showed The Passion of the Christ DVD to my students, and it was very moving for them.
Yes, John 6. My mistake. No doubt that context is vitally important in understanding the passage. You seem to prefer an interpretation that Jesus is using his flesh and blood as metaphor in this passage and that "This simply means you must completely trust Him alone for salvation from your sins." Not saying that I disagree with your interpretation, but I wonder how you know that is what it means. And since you think this is metaphorical, Is it possible that Jesus' teaching about hell are also metaphorical?
Also, when you say "orthodox teaching" are you referring to the approved doctrines by the Apostles and church councils over the years?
David Hoard
9:25 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
It won't be a new body - at least not brand new. It will be our old body glorified - made new, sinless. Christ came to redeem a fallen creation - not to abandon it and then create something brand new from scratch.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith, believed by many to represent the hight of Christian understanding and faithfulness in history thus far (WCF 32.2-3): "At the last day, ... [we] shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to [our] souls forever. The bodies of the ... just, by His Spirit, [shall be raised] unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body."