How much questioning is "permitted" in your religion before you are labeled a heretic?

[meltzerboy]

While my religion–Judaism–encourages questioning, discussion, and heated debate, one eventually reaches a certain point at which, at least from the perspective of some Torah (Orthodox) Jews, the dreaded name of heretic may enter the conversation. This often applies more to the leaders (“rabbis”) of less Orthodox movements than to the followers. Still, the name of heretic is applied.

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic? This question may even be applicable to atheists in terms of whether you are considered a true atheist if you question more conventional atheist views.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Questions should be encouraged and if you are not faithful to the teachings of hte churc leave.

 

[cornbread_r2]

From the catechism #2089:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

It seems that obstinate denial of even one truth which must be believed is enough. I’ve seen some persons here post lists of dogmas/doctrines which must be believed, but those lists never come with a citation to an authoritative source.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t much care what other humans think… until I’m up for ordination, and then I’ll care. But I’m Episcopalian, and we have a lot of latitude in what’s acceptable. I am 100% on the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, so I guess I’d rank as pretty orthodox.

 

[ltwin]

While my religion–Judaism–encourages questioning, discussion, and heated debate, one eventually reaches a certain point at which, at least from the perspective of some Torah (Orthodox) Jews, the dreaded name of heretic may enter the conversation. This often applies more to the leaders (“rabbis”) of less Orthodox movements than to the followers. Still, the name of heretic is applied.

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic? This question may even be applicable to atheists in terms of whether you are considered a true atheist if you question more conventional atheist views.

As a Pentecostal and an evangelical, it is complicated. There is a level of realism that there will be diversity among Christians. We won’t agree on everything, like Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

However, there is a degree that we must agree or else we begin to do violence to the gospel. The nature of Christ, for example. If I say that Christ was not equal to God the Father but was something less than God, then I am getting into heresy.

I would say that the ecumenical creeds, like the Nicene Creed, are really good statements of Christian orthodoxy in response to various heresies the church was forced to respond to at the time. Obviously, other doctrinal controversies have arisen since then which Christians have had to respond to and have responded to in different ways.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Apologies for my response. I didn’t look to see which forum this was posted to.

 

[Izdaari]

As a Pentecostal and an evangelical, it is complicated. There is a level of realism that there will be diversity among Christians. We won’t agree on everything, like Calvinism vs. Arminianism.

However, there is a degree that we must agree or else we begin to do violence to the gospel. The nature of Christ, for example. If I say that Christ was not equal to God the Father but was something less than God, then I am getting into heresy.

I would say that the ecumenical creeds, like the Nicene Creed, are really good statements of Christian orthodoxy in response to various heresies the church was forced to respond to at the time. Obviously, other doctrinal controversies have arisen since then which Christians have had to respond to and have responded to in different ways.

I am a former Pentecostal and *former *evangelical.

Other than that, I agree with everything you said.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

A: Not much.

 

[jrtrent]

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic?

It depends in part on how we define religion. I am a Christian, but am also a type of Christian called conservative Protestant, and a type of conservative Protestant called Anglican (though not Church of England). Each of these terms becomes more specific in terms of what must be believed in order to be considered faithful to the label we’ve adopted. Conservative Protestants hold many things in common, such as (from a list by Loraine Boettner) that the Bible is the word of God and our authoritative guide in church affairs; the deity of Christ; His sacrificial death on the cross for the salvation of those who place their faith in Him; the importance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the resurrection of the body and future judgment; of heaven and hell; of moral character and spiritual life.

There are also allowable differences, such as different beliefs about the nature, form, and suitable subjects for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, whether a person holds Calvinistic or Arminian views on salvation, and varying forms of church government, and it’s in these differences that we get different forms of conservative Protestants, with labels like Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and so on. When I mentioned “allowable differences,” it’s in the sense that Protestants acknowledge that fellow Protestants are still true Christians despite denominational differences. They are not allowable differences within each denomination; e.g., you couldn’t believe in infant baptism or reject Calvinism and be a member a Particular Baptist congregation.

There are also liberal Protestants, and these can include ones who don’t accept such concepts as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross, and His physical resurrection. Some denominations have accepted the ordination of women and, more recently, of homosexuals. Among conservative Protestants, such liberal ideas could be considered heretical. I’ve heard many speak of having a closer affinity to non-Protestant groups such as Orthodox, Catholic, and even Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses than to liberal Protestantism.

 

[Peter12rb]

I think the matter of heresy often depends as much on the person who applies the label of heretic, as it depends on the actual ‘heretic’ himself. A person who is more of a fundamentalist will label even the slightest differences as heretical, whereas a person who is more lenient in their beliefs will be more forgiving of differences.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

From the catechism #2089:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

It seems that obstinate denial of even one truth which must be believed is enough. I’ve seen some persons here post lists of dogmas/doctrines which must be believed, but those lists never come with a citation to an authoritative source.

Please note, that questioning doctrine is not an issue. Questioning things is how you learn about them. It is when you reject the authoritative answer (the one that come through the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that you enter into heresy.

So, to answer the OP, you can and should question everything; but you should also be willing to accept the answer when it’s given.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Please note, that questioning doctrine is not an issue. Questioning things is how you learn about them. It is when you reject the authoritative answer (the one that come through the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) that you enter into heresy.

So, to answer the OP, you can and should question everything; but you should also be willing to accept the answer when it’s given.

Yes some are happy with the ‘YES’ answers but unwilling to accept a ‘NO’ answer.

 

[Lisa1967]

While my religion–Judaism–encourages questioning, discussion, and heated debate, one eventually reaches a certain point at which, at least from the perspective of some Torah (Orthodox) Jews, the dreaded name of heretic may enter the conversation. This often applies more to the leaders (“rabbis”) of less Orthodox movements than to the followers. Still, the name of heretic is applied.

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic? This question may even be applicable to atheists in terms of whether you are considered a true atheist if you question more conventional atheist views.

Good question!

It depends on the religion and denomination.

I attend ELCA Lutheran and Episcopal churches and questioning seems to be ok there, at least to some extent. There is a program at some churches, including the Lutheran church I attend, called Theology on Tap where a staff member from the church meets anyone interested at a restaurant to talk over theology over dinner and drinks. The Episcopal Church had a saying, “Jesus came to take away your sins, not your mind.”

I think the church which has been the most open to questioning (at least in my experience) was the Unitarian church. They have a program called Building Your Own Theology. People of all faiths or none are welcome there.

 

[CMatt25]

There are also liberal Protestants, and these can include ones who don’t accept such concepts as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross, and His physical resurrection. Some denominations have accepted the ordination of women and, more recently, of homosexuals. Among conservative Protestants, such liberal ideas could be considered heretical. I’ve heard many speak of having a closer affinity to non-Protestant groups such as Orthodox, Catholic, and even Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses than to liberal Protestantism.

Shoot now this is just messin’ with my mind. Maybe I’m not as liberal as I or others on CAF think. I believe in the deity of Jesus. His virgin birth. His atoning work on the cross. And in His physical resurrection. Perhaps I’m mainline - liberal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps this has already been said, in effect. If so, one can ignore it. Also, I’ll admit right off that I’m not a theologian.

The Catholic Church considers any deviation from its teachings to be “heresy”. There can be little heresies and big heresies. Now, the Church does encourage theologians to debate theological or moral issues that have not been definitively settled, but it discourages them from “going public” with their speculations, lest they mislead others.

I am aware that Judaism encourages debate, at least among those who are reasonably learned in the law. But even then, it is my impression that certain things are considered “settled” by the reverence due to longevity of the view and the respect given to one whose opinions are generally given great weight, even though, theoretically, they might still be open to dispute.

But it is also my impression (and perhaps I will be corrected in this) that certain things are just not open to debate at all. It is my impression that the Torah itself is deemed immutable. What is subject to debate is the interpretation given to a portion of the Torah, or to an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation, and so on.

 

[meltzerboy]

Perhaps this has already been said, in effect. If so, one can ignore it. Also, I’ll admit right off that I’m not a theologian.

The Catholic Church considers any deviation from its teachings to be “heresy”. There can be little heresies and big heresies. Now, the Church does encourage theologians to debate theological or moral issues that have not been definitively settled, but it discourages them from “going public” with their speculations, lest they mislead others.

I am aware that Judaism encourages debate, at least among those who are reasonably learned in the law. But even then, it is my impression that certain things are considered “settled” by the reverence due to longevity of the view and the respect given to one whose opinions are generally given great weight, even though, theoretically, they might still be open to dispute.

But it is also my impression (and perhaps I will be corrected in this) that certain things are just not open to debate at all. It is my impression that the Torah itself is deemed immutable. What is subject to debate is the interpretation given to a portion of the Torah, or to an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation, and so on.

What you are describing about Judaism fits well in Torah or Orthodox Judaism but less well in other movements (Conservative at times, Reform, Reconstructionist), in which debate about the divinely inspirational nature of the Torah itself may take place together with interpreting the specific commandments. Certainly among most Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, the Talmud (Oral Torah) is not accepted as divinely inspired, and there is little debate about that. However, for the Orthodox in Judaism, it is a given that both the Torah and the Talmud (minus the commentaries upon commentaries) are both the Word of G-d even though, as you note, one may interpret certain passages in different ways.

I realize the Catholic position on the subject of heresy. That’s why my question was asked in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum, although I appreciate (name removed by moderator)ut from you and other Catholics as well.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

While my religion–Judaism–encourages questioning, discussion, and heated debate, one eventually reaches a certain point at which, at least from the perspective of some Torah (Orthodox) Jews, the dreaded name of heretic may enter the conversation. This often applies more to the leaders (“rabbis”) of less Orthodox movements than to the followers. Still, the name of heretic is applied.

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic? This question may even be applicable to atheists in terms of whether you are considered a true atheist if you question more conventional atheist views.

We can question all we want.

How we respond to the answers is what will get us in trouble

 

[FireFromHeaven]

While my religion–Judaism–encourages questioning, discussion, and heated debate, one eventually reaches a certain point at which, at least from the perspective of some Torah (Orthodox) Jews, the dreaded name of heretic may enter the conversation. This often applies more to the leaders (“rabbis”) of less Orthodox movements than to the followers. Still, the name of heretic is applied.

I was wondering how far you feel you can go questioning the customs, practices, even doctrines and dogmas of your faith before you are thought of by others as a heretic? This question may even be applicable to atheists in terms of whether you are considered a true atheist if you question more conventional atheist views.

In Catholicism you are only a heretic when you claim erroneous doctrines that the church has labeled as such as absolute truth. Questioning is permitted but if you understand yet deny the doctrine it is heresy.

 

[Publisher]

Sometimes one learns more by the questions they ask than the so called answers others provide them. A person among Friends may question even the existence of God and still be welcome in Meeting…if it is an honest question it deserves an honest and true answer…and it may take decades to finally be able to articulate an answer to a question of such deep magnitude it can take a lifetime seeking an answer…it’s the Journey not the destination that is important.

A member of the Society of Friends can be “read out of meeting” if their lives do not meet the standards they agreed to live within when they petitioned the Meeting to join. How our lives are lived is of much more import than the “mythologies” we use to define the Eternal One…who is beyond comprehension. “We see thru a glass darkly…” That “glass” will be “dark” as long as we are on This Side.

Questions are how we learn…questions teach us there are no easy answers…questions are an integral part of being human.

 

[Izdaari]

Shoot now this is just messin’ with my mind. Maybe I’m not as liberal as I or others on CAF think. I believe in the deity of Jesus. His virgin birth. His atoning work on the cross. And in His physical resurrection. Perhaps I’m mainline - liberal.

That would describe me also. I agree with “liberal” Christians on a lot, amd belong to a “liberal” church, but I also believe all that stuff.