[George]

Aloha brother VR,

I thank you again for your response.

I don't mean to drag this thing out, and I'm not trying to play a semantical game here, but perhaps a little more " clarification" (on my part) is in order. If we were face to face, I'm sure that we would have already dispensed with the whole issue and moved on to other things. {Like: Perhaps a cup of coffee (for you) & a cup of tea (for me)}

I wrote:

"While a Heretick is someone who professes to believe in a particular religion or sect but who twists, or changes, or subtracts or adds to one or more (but not many) major tenants of that religion or sect."

To which you replied:

"Um, perhaps. Joseph Smith and the Popes are good examples:they claim to believe in the Biblical revelation, but then add their own accretions. However, I would hesitate to call Ian Paisley a "heretic" because he believes in TULIP and baby-sprinkling, nor would I call a charismatic a "heretic" for believing his own daffy conceits. Such people, I believe, are sincerely mistaken: some out of ignorance (a kid raised in a Foursquare Gospel church), some out of intellectual pride or stubbornness (the typical Reformed elder)."

I can see where I still didn't express myself quite clearly enough. So I will try once again: Biblically speaking - I believe that in order for a man to qualify as an heretick (in the Biblical sense [Acts 24:14] of the word), he must first have believed the "Truth of God" and embraced it; but he (at some point) ends up twisting, or changing, or subtracting, or adding to one or more major tenants (doctrines) of the Faith (but not many - not even a majority).

I believe that perhaps the best example of a true Biblical Heretick would be Simon (the former sorcerer -Acts 8:1-24). The Scriptures say about Simon: "Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." [Acts 8:13 ] Now Simon was a "believer" - BUT, through covetousness, he desired "POWER", and thought he could "purchase" it (contrary to the word of God, i.e. true "doctrine") and Peter's condemnation of him was swift & harsh! Peter instantly "rejected" him:
Acts 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
To which Simon replied: "Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me." [Acts 8:24]

Peter never said that Simon lost his salvation, but he did condemn him and pronounced that he (Simon) was in a terribly bad fix. Why? Because his heart was not right! And why was that? Because he mistakenly "thought" (false doctrine) that he could "buy" the Gift of God. It would appear (from Acts 8:24) that after Peter's "first admonition", Simon truly repented of his sin. For me to comment past this would entail speculation on my part - which I try to avoid like the plague.

I believe that Hymenaeus and Alexander were also hereticks:
1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Please notice: #1. "which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck: Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander" These men were "putting away" (changing the truth?) "concerning faith". And #2. Paul "delivered" them "unto Satan" (rejected them), just like he commanded the Corinthian brethren to do with any man, who is called a brother, that is a fornicator, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner:
1 Corinthians 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

1 Corinthians 5:9 Iwrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Which he commanded Titus to do with a "heretic" also. {Titus 3:10];

I also believe that Hymenaeus {2nd. mention} and Philetus were hereticks:
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
These men were saying that the "resurrection" was already past! {A "heresy" - if there ever was one!}. Were they hereticks? I believe so. Were they also "false teachers? For sure!

I believe that Alexander the coppersmith (2nd. mention? - 1Timothy 1:20) was also a heretick:
2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Notice: Any man, who is called a brother, that is a fornicator, idolater, railer, drunkard, or extortioner (all sins of the flesh) is to be rejected (1Corinthians 5:13)! The same goes for a heretick, although his sin has to do with believing in and following a "false way" i.e. a false doctrine (and possibly promulgating it amongst the brethren).

Heresy has to do with WORDS - False and perverse words that are destructive to the hearer; that eat away like a canker; and, as far as God is concerned, words which also subvert the heretick himself!

Whew! I said all that to say I don't believe the Joe Smith or the Popes "qualify" as true "heretics" since they never believed "the truth of God" in the first place. I would classify them as "False Profits" instead.

"Now, I believe that the baby-sprinklers and the faith-healers each believe in certain heresies: but that does not make them genuine heretics in my judgment. To me, a full-blown heretic is one who has utterly abandoned the foundational truths of Scripture, in favor of his own mad whims. Most Calvinists and charismatics aren't that far gone. I have brothers in each group who are, false modesty aside, far better Christians than I; and I will rip out my tongue by its tender young roots before I will call them "heretics." But, sitting at the table with my dear brother Keith the Charismatic, I will say, plainly, "Brother Keith, you're talking heresy."

"This is a fine, fine line I'm treading, and if it is invisible to some, I'm not surprised."

I believe most of what you said above, but your statement: "To me, a full-blown heretic is one who has utterly abandoned the foundational truths of Scripture, in favor of his own mad whims." has me puzzled, since it seems to me that that is a description (or definition) of an Apostate.

"My reservations about the atheist/agnostic examples are simple: what if the man or woman never believed in God to begin with? He or she cannot be said to have "apostasized." They haven't "fallen away" from anything."

I must have not made myself clear in regards to your statement above, because I tried to clarify (in my last Post) that I wasn't saying that Atheists or Agnostics were ever Apostates. What I tried to convey is that an Apostate often has a whole lot in common with Atheists and Agnostics.

I believe, like you, that true Atheists and Agnostics are not Apostates, since they never fell away from any thing.

Sorry for the long posts. Like I said before, if we had the opportunity (which I would truly relish) to meet face to face we would have "hashed this issue out" in less than an hour - either agreeing to disagree, or coming together in unity.