Re: Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretic
Roger, the issues are important. One view of heresy would be doctrine not in harmony with the following:
Originally Posted by notuptome
2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
or in the following:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
We see above that Paul references material that is exterior to Scripture. A whole lot of preaching, practices, doctrines, and interpretation of Scripture might fall into that category. Paul is seen here as stating that Timothy possesses the full knowledge of Paul's doctrine, practices, and likely much more. Timothy (and Titus) knew more of Paul's doctrine then we have in the Bible and because of this, Paul believes Timothy is prepared to continue the work in his tradition. What we have been given in Scripture is sufficient, but it does not represent everything of Paul. It would be like what John offers regarding Jesus, the world could not contain the books that should be written (John 21:25). Nevertheless, what we have is sufficient and complete.
We can basically label opinions and interpretations on the Scripture and doctrine based on the Scripture as tradition. These are derived from Scripture (or not), but require correct and sound application. The first century Apostles and Christians thus handed down either by their preaching, direct inquiry, example, other writings, etc. certain practices and views of the Church. A good example would be worship on Sunday, a very contentious subject. Without the "tradition" of the early Church indicating that Sunday became the day of assembly for Christian congregations, what the Scripture offers in the New Testament about which day of the week the early Church assembled might be viewed as insufficient. Without the "tradition" of the early Church indicating which Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Peter, John, etc. were inspired, there would be little to go on in even making the New Testament. While the Trinity and the divinity of Christ might be sufficiently implied by Scripture, the concordance of the early Church tradition in the development and defense of these doctrines is seen as important.
In my opinion, Paul would be indicating to Titus that one who was not in harmony with his tradition (the whole of his practices, doctrine, views on Scripture, judgments, etc.) would be a heretic.
How tradition is viewed as additional instruction to the Church exterior to the Bible (Scripture) is a big issue. There are at least 3 ways to view it. The Catholics would suggest that by Apostolic Succession, the tradition of the Church continues generation to generation as a continual means of revelation of God to the Church, in addition to that supplied in Scripture. This of course can lead to abuses, as in the case of indulgences, sacraments, etc. The reformers viewed Scripture as surpreme but allowed that the tradition of the early Church should carry considerable weight where it was not contrary to Scripture. For example, they accepted infant baptism on the tradition of the early Church and not being contrary to principles in Scripture. The radical reformers rejected any influence of tradition altogether and depended wholly on illumination of Scripture by the Holy Spirit. The radical reformers rejected the Trinity and the divinity of Christ as errors of tradition not supported in Scripture.
This definition basically says heresy is an untraditional opinion; untraditional and unorthodox are synonyms.
Originally Posted by notuptome
As has been offered, Luther was a heretic of the Roman Church and their tradition. The radical reformers were heretics to the Protestant Church and their tradition. We also know that Paul was considered a heretic of Judaism and their tradition (Acts 24:14).
I Samuel 3:10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, Samuel, Samuel. Then Samuel answered, Speak; for thy servant heareth.