Tag Archives: False Accusations


From Glenn Sacks:

Him: Hey you remember Linda, the woman who was here a few weeks back?
Me: Yeah.
Him: She's in jail!
Me: No way, really? What happened?
Him: She got into a fight with her husband and she hit him and he called the cops.
Me: Good for him!
Him: No, he's a real jerk.
Me: Oh, did he hit her first?
Him: Well, no.
Me: Did he push her or something?
Him: No, but he's a real scumbag, and has probably hit her in the past.
Me: He has?
Him: I don't know, but he's a real jerk so probably.
Me: Did she ever say he did? Call the cops?
Him: No, but that doesn't mean anything.

Subtle message...it's always the man's fault.

From Barack Obama:

"My daughters and all your daughters will know there's no barrier to who they are. ... They will take for granted women can do anything that the boys can do, and do it better, and do it in heels. I still don't know how she does it in heels."

Subtle message...girls are better than boys.  Even in heels.

From Scotland:

Ten police officers had been involved in the case at a substantial cost to the taxpayer, so Lindsay was charged with wasting police time.(...)

Sheriff Veal said she had shown little sympathy for Graeme and didn't care about the impact of false allegations on genuine rape victims.

But last week judges at the Justiciary Appeal Court in Edinburgh overturned the sentence, after her defence counsel argued that the Sheriff should have taken into consideration the fact that Lindsay could be viewed as "vulnerable".

Subtle message:  false accusations are a "waste of police time", not destruction of a reputation.  False accusers DO NOT CARE about the falsely accused.  False accusers get off.

False accusations hurt.  Just say no.


First, the basic definition of "heresy", since this is a word that has been used in connection with "subordinationism".


From merriam-webster:

  • a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
  • b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
  • c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
  • a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
  • b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I think it is important to understand that in order to have a "heresy", you have to have an authority to proclaim it OR to have an absolute, definitive theory, opinion, practice or doctrine to which to adhere (and be contrary to).

POINT: If you choose to level an accusation of "heresy", you should have an authoritative church body that represents "the Church" as a whole. If you cannot do this, you are choosing, either as a single person or small body, to proclaim orthodoxy and/or heresy outside of the "body" as a whole.

Accusations of heresy are serious business. False accusations are more serious yet. We should be very cautious when using such words as "heresy" or "blasphemy", lest we bear false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have little trouble examining doctrine against "historical proclamations" of heresy.  There was a time that was much closer to the cross and the apostles then we are now.  There was a time when the church was united; before the church in Rome and the Eastern Church separated.  Before that time, the young church had several councils that gathered together, examined Scripture and proclaimed "orthodoxy".

So...who decides?

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed. (from PBCC.org)

I'll let folks do their own search for the "seven ecumenical councils" - because which of the three major branches will cite different sources, yet all three branches recognize a group of seven councils on which all agree.

In short...if these seven councils agree that a doctrine is "heresy", all three major branches of Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will agree.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  • The Council of Nicea, 325
  • The Council of Constantinople, 381
  • The Council of Ephesus, 431
  • The Council of Chalcedon, 451
  • The Council of Constantinople II, 553
  • The Council of Constantinople III, 680
  • The Council of Nicea II, 787

To wrap it up, these seven ecumenical councils of the early church met to BOTH unite the church on essential doctrine and to separate those who teach heresy from those who teach truth.

I believe that if a teaching is not found (or condemned) in these seven councils, it becomes more difficult to level an accusation of "heresy". Again, we should be very careful when doing so.