How do protestants determine heresy?

[Newsy]

I understand the Catholic teaching in regards to scripture interpretation. I also understand how the Catholic Church determines if someone is guilty of heresy. I am curious how other denominations determine heresy, especially if people can interpret scripture for themselves outside of any church’s teaching.
The Catholic idea goes something like this, personal interpretation of scripture is OK as long as it doesn’t disagree with Church teaching. I am happy with this because the Catholic Church has 2000 years of history and some really great theologians. I’ve got a couple of years of self study, no comparison!
I was protestant for most of my life and still have no real idea how this is determined in a non-Catholic church.
Thanks for any information!

 

[Mark_David]

I believe it’s either by the notion that “Scripture interprets Scripture”, which isn’t very helpful since it still relies on man’s interpretations of it as a framework (eg: Calvinism); or - as with the more mainstream Protestants - they simply cherry-pick the “easy” verses and ignore the rest. But then, an increasing number of “Catholics” do that as well; they ignore (or are happily ignorant of) the Church’s actual teachings.

 

[Krakatoa]

Since it is a common Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy. While I cannot speak for the actual Protestant teachings on heresy, it seems to me they are quite confused on the subject, since they are unaware of their own heresy.

 

[runningdude]

Well, almost every protestant denomination split from another that they perceived to be in error.

For instance, Luther inspired a movement that resulted in the Evangelical Church of Germany breaking off from the Church of Germany (Catholic). This movement which spread to the United States as the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

This eventually became too liberal for some, so the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church split off.

So Protestants uncover heresy by breaking away into smaller, but usually truer groups, while the larger “mainline” group falter under the burden of increasing heresies.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

Since it is a **common **Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy.

I doubt that it is even close to true that it is a common protestant belief that the Pope is the antichrist. Most protestants, like the Orthodox Church, just doubt the Biblical authority of a supreme pontiff in Rome.

Back to the original topic:
To be honest, I don’t think protestants label many things as heresey. Even when we disagree with doctrines so much that it causes a split, I can’t think of any cases where both groups still acknowledge the others as Christians but call each other heretics. The only two examples of heresy that I think many protestants would agree on are the beliefs of the LDS and Jehovah Witnesses. In both cases, the LDS and JWs have significantly altered doctrine.

 

[AmericanMuslim]

I can’t resist posting this old joke.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

He said, “Like what?” I said,

“Well…are you religious or atheist?”

He said, “Religious.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?”

He said, “Christian.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”

He said, “Protestant.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”

He said, “Baptist!”

I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

He said, “Baptist Church of god!”

I said, “Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?”

He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”

I said, “Me too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”

He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”

I said, “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed him off.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well, almost every protestant denomination split from another that they perceived to be in error.

For instance, Luther inspired a movement that resulted in the Evangelical Church of Germany breaking off from the Church of Germany (Catholic). This movement which spread to the United States as the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

This eventually became too liberal for some, so the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church split off.

So Protestants uncover heresy by breaking away into smaller, but usually truer groups, while the larger “mainline” group falter under the burden of increasing heresies.

I was going to say the same thing. Basically if they don’t agree, factions are made and out comes two groups. That is why we have thousands of denominations right now.

 

[hn160]

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to heresies, new ones are rehash of old ones.Our Lutheran Confessions condemn the errors of the Anabaptist, Schwenfeldians, New Arians, and the Anti-Trintarians.

 

[stevekehl]

Since it is a common Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy. While I cannot speak for the actual Protestant teachings on heresy, it seems to me they are quite confused on the subject, since they are unaware of their own heresy.

You should change your user name to Krakasmile! Protestants don’t believe the pope is the antichrist, maybe some before 1930, and no denominations teach it. That would be a heresy. If you can’t speak on actual Protestant teachings then don’t. Protestants look to Scripture to determine heresies, if you have any specifics feel free to ask.

 

[JonNC]

Well, almost every protestant denomination split from another that they perceived to be in error.

For instance, Luther inspired a movement that resulted in the Evangelical Church of Germany breaking off from the Church of Germany (Catholic). This movement which spread to the United States as the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

This eventually became too liberal for some, so the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church split off. So Protestants uncover heresy by breaking away into smaller, but usually truer groups, while the larger “mainline” group falter under the burden of increasing heresies.

The presentation of American Lutheran here is histroically inaccurate. LCMS is not a split off of other American Lutheran synods. In fact, Lutheransim in American can more often than not be described as a history of mergers of smaller synods into larger ones. the following link gives a brief history.

elca.org/Who-We-Are/History/Lutheran-Roots-in-America.aspx

Jon

 

[Methos]

Christian heresy in the 20th century

 

[exnihilo]

The Catholic idea goes something like this, personal interpretation of scripture is OK as long as it doesn’t disagree with Church teaching.

I think that is the same for all churches including Protestant. Consequently an important issue is where the church perceives authority to reside. Some Protestant denominations have an episcopacy. Others say authority resides in synods. Some say authority resides in the elders of the church. Some say authority resides in the pastor.

The important point is all churches have some authority within the church. This authority is almost always delegated in some way. That would mean that even in a church with the episcopacy the local pastor has some authority. When there is disagreement the issue is run up through whatever organizations structure exists. If there is a synod it will be the ultimate arbiter. If there are elders they will be the judge.

The authority structure would be the de jure authority. Of course man seems to tend to consider himself the de facto authority. That being the case individuals can and will disagree with the de jure authority. For some in a church this will mean they are within the church but disagree with a teaching. At times the disagreement might cause a person to leave a particular church. And sometimes the disagreement will be significant enough or attract enough people to form factions. Once a faction is formed it is likely that a group of people will split. This could be a schism where some folks remove themselves from the authority. This could be seen in whole local churches becoming independent of some authority to which they formerly were in obedience to or in individuals leaving that church for another one.

I dont see the issue as being any different from the how the Catholic church would view it. Of course the authority structures can be very different from the Catholic church. And Catholics would say they are the true church. But each Protestant would think their church is the true church. After all almost no one in a particular church believes their church is a false church. And if they do and remain in that church they must believe that it can become a true church if they make some changes.

What might be slightly different with Protestants is that they dont hold as strongly to the idea of there being one true church. They would have a greater tendency to believe that different Protestant churches could be real churches but have less or more of the truth. They would also sometimes define less doctrine and practice as being essential to a true faith and thus think to escape any reason for division. Of course the evidence is that there is great disagreement on what is essential and true faith and thus many divisions.

 

[Publisher]

Since it is a common Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy. While I cannot speak for the actual Protestant teachings on heresy, it seems to me they are quite confused on the subject, since they are unaware of their own heresy.

Not a “common” Protestant belief…it IS however a prominant belief of Catholics ABOUT Protestants.

 

[Cat]

Since it is a common Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy. While I cannot speak for the actual Protestant teachings on heresy, it seems to me they are quite confused on the subject, since they are unaware of their own heresy.

At least you qualified this by making it clear that it is your personal opinion.

You most certainly cannot speak for actual Protestant teachings on heresy.

 

[Newsy]

I think that is the same for all churches including Protestant. Consequently an important issue is where the church perceives authority to reside. Some Protestant denominations have an episcopacy. Others say authority resides in synods. Some say authority resides in the elders of the church. Some say authority resides in the pastor.

The important point is all churches have some authority within the church. This authority is almost always delegated in some way. That would mean that even in a church with the episcopacy the local pastor has some authority. When there is disagreement the issue is run up through whatever organizations structure exists. If there is a synod it will be the ultimate arbiter. If there are elders they will be the judge.

The authority structure would be the de jure authority. Of course man seems to tend to consider himself the de facto authority. That being the case individuals can and will disagree with the de jure authority. For some in a church this will mean they are within the church but disagree with a teaching. At times the disagreement might cause a person to leave a particular church. And sometimes the disagreement will be significant enough or attract enough people to form factions. Once a faction is formed it is likely that a group of people will split. This could be a schism where some folks remove themselves from the authority. This could be seen in whole local churches becoming independent of some authority to which they formerly were in obedience to or in individuals leaving that church for another one.

I dont see the issue as being any different from the how the Catholic church would view it. Of course the authority structures can be very different from the Catholic church. And Catholics would say they are the true church. But each Protestant would think their church is the true church. After all almost no one in a particular church believes their church is a false church. And if they do and remain in that church they must believe that it can become a true church if they make some changes.

What might be slightly different with Protestants is that they dont hold as strongly to the idea of there being one true church. They would have a greater tendency to believe that different Protestant churches could be real churches but have less or more of the truth. They would also sometimes define less doctrine and practice as being essential to a true faith and thus think to escape any reason for division. Of course the evidence is that there is great disagreement on what is essential and true faith and thus many divisions.

I guess this is my point, even in church’s with an authority structure, there seemed to be an overarching idea that all opinions could be correct. For example, I was a member of the Presbyterian Church, I could be a member in good standing even if I disagreed with most of their teaching. I was given the “the Holy Spirit will lead you” speech and any issue was dropped. Many people in my former church were in disagreement over a variety of doctrinal issues, but none were considered heretics. It seemed that Church Authority was always taking a backseat to personal interpretation. A person could fall into heresy and never be questioned because their opinion was as good as any other opinion. It seems that once you reject Church Authority, then each person becomes their own authority.

In the Early Church there were many forms of heresy, some were blatantly obvious while others were not. There was a group of people who denied Christ’s fully divine** and** fully human nature, they were labeled as heretics. Nobody arrived at this idea of Christ being fully human and fully God by scripture alone, they had the teaching of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit to help them understand this concept. If a church rejects the Authority of the Catholic Church, then what do they use to determine heresy?

I agree that there is no set of “essentials of the Faith”, what some deem absolutely needed is considered frivolous in other churches. The Catholic Church sees a deposit of Truth in herself and different amounts of Truth in others, which I tend to agree with since there is only one complete truth.

 

[exnihilo]

I guess this is my point, even in church’s with an authority structure, there seemed to be an overarching idea that all opinions could be correct. For example, I was a member of the Presbyterian Church, I could be a member in good standing even if I disagreed with most of their teaching. I was given the “the Holy Spirit will lead you” speech and any issue was dropped. Many people in my former church were in disagreement over a variety of doctrinal issues, but none were considered heretics. It seemed that Church Authority was always taking a backseat to personal interpretation. A person could fall into heresy and never be questioned because their opinion was as good as any other opinion. It seems that once you reject Church Authority, then each person becomes their own authority.

Yes, that is a tremendous problem. But I would not identify that as anything unique to a particular area of the church. I see that as a widespread problem in the dying days of Western Civilization. I see that as relativism. And with relativism comes no standards and with that no discipline. How can you have discipline without a standard? So yes, in many churches anything goes.

When everything can be right nothing is wrong. In order to bind people together you need to have some widespread agreement. This attitude of acceptance eventually fails because the groups simply disappears as it has no reason to be a group in the first place.

In the Early Church there were many forms of heresy, some were blatantly obvious while others were not. There was a group of people who denied Christ’s fully divine** and** fully human nature, they were labeled as heretics. Nobody arrived at this idea of Christ being fully human and fully God by scripture alone, they had the teaching of the Apostles and the Holy Spirit to help them understand this concept. If a church rejects the Authority of the Catholic Church, then what do they use to determine heresy?

There are heads of major churches that make the same heretical claim today.

I stand by my original post in saying that heresy is defined in all churches as defiance of whatever authority structure they have. For Protestants they obviously dont believe in the authority of the Catholic Church otherwise they wouldn’t be protestant.

But to tie in your first point when you have a relativist theology the only heresies are in not accepting other people’s heresy or in holding fast to tradition. In the relativist world heresy is what the church formerly taught.

 

[ChurchAuthority]

You should change your user name to Krakasmile! Protestants don’t believe the pope is the antichrist, maybe some before 1930, and no denominations teach it. That would be a heresy. If you can’t speak on actual Protestant teachings then don’t. Protestants look to Scripture to determine heresies, if you have any specifics feel free to ask.

Since Protestantism itself was born of individual interpretation of the Scriptures - WHICH Protestants are correct when determining what heresy is - as it pertains to the Scriptures?

 

[Big_Dummy]

A Protestant by definition accepts the first 5 or 8 ecumentical creeds and the Bible. John 1:1 cleary teaches the deity of Christ, Niciene cleary taught the trinity and one can find that doctrine in scripture – google Robert Bowman’s biblical outline study of the Trinity.

 

[kylemccloughan]

Since it is a common Protestant belief that the Antichrist is the office of the Papacy, I suspect that most non-Catholic Christians believe the Catholic Church is the primary heresy. While I cannot speak for the actual Protestant teachings on heresy, it seems to me they are quite confused on the subject, since they are unaware of their own heresy.

Common Protestant belief for whom?? What is a common Protestant? Is it mainline or evangelical? I think you went in way over your head with this one. The Anglican Communion is made up of over 80 million Protestants worldwide but yet they do NOT teach that the pope is the anti-Christ, so how is it common???

 

[Newsy]

I guess I should ask the question “Are there still heretics in Protestant churches?”.
Calvin and Luther accused people of heresy, does it still happen? Or, has relativism set in among the protestant and evangelical churches?