SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
If I may be a bit pointed - THAT is precisely your problem.
May you worship God with a heretic?
- Thread starter InSlaveryToChrist
- Start date
- Status
If I may be a bit pointed - THAT is precisely your problem.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally).
Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
Does that make sense?
Samuel does that help clarify things?
Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
Does that make sense?
Samuel does that help clarify things?
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Frankly, that didn't help very much. But it seems to me that your thinking goes something like this: the distinction between an error and a lie is a matter of whether an error pertains to soteriology. In other words, an error in things that are irrelevant for a Christian to believe in order to be saved cannot be regarded as a lie. But that still wouldn't make any sense to me. An error is something that is not true, that is, it is a lie. Right?
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
I never used the word lie. I also didn't use irrelevant.
Suffice it to say there are degrees of wrongness. Some sins are not as heinous as others. Therefore some errors are not as heinous as others. That is what I was trying to try. I realize my above post was unclear.
Suffice it to say there are degrees of wrongness. Some sins are not as heinous as others. Therefore some errors are not as heinous as others. That is what I was trying to try. I realize my above post was unclear.
It is impossible for a person to be a Christian and at the same time believe in Mormon theology, the Roman Catholic view of justification, or in Arianism.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Okay. Now, how can you know when to label something false and when just incorrect? How can you know when someone has crossed the line?
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Upon the will yes, not the work. And they deny the OSAS (once saved always saved) or the Perseverance of the Saints.
Grillsy
Puritan Board Junior
Most Arminians wouldn't dare say that. The logic of the Arminian scheme is that salvation is dependent upon the work the sinner. Rarely will an Arminian ever come out and say it like that.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
I know that people can be saved by a weak, Arminian gospel because I was and the testimony of the Christian church reveals saints of the past and present who had a poor understanding of Calvinism and certain details of the Gospel and yet clung to the cross as their only hope. Your doctrinal expectations of every saint of every generation is anachronistic (at best) and a low view of God's sovereign work in salvation through the means of Gospel truth. Do you really think the entire multitude of repenters in Acts 2 had a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion? No, they didn't - but they definitely saw their need for Christ because of the sins they had committed and so repented. Many Arminians have the same testimony.
I'll be honest with you, expecting fallen people to give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the gospel is absurd. We have not lost every vestige of man-centeredness! Sinners need the gospel in order to not give place to man-centeredness, and that work of sanctification will be a life-long process. Whether one hears and believes a few truths of the gospel and is converted or understands and embraces every fact of Scripture about the gospel and is converted, the Lord has saved a soul by means of the gospel. In either case, our fallen minds will continue to misunderstand and disbelieve certain aspects of truth--unless of course you want to argue that your doctrine is impeccable. Thanks be to God, He grants repentance even when our understanding of Him and His work is imperfect. That is amazing grace.
Whitefield
Puritan Board Junior
...wheat and tares?...
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
How's this: The question "May we worship God with a heretic" is moot because heretics aren't truly worshipping God. They may be there, but they aren't worshipping. So I don't have to worry about worshipping with a heretic.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
I never said that you must have "a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion." I myself had been regenerated and converted for at least a whole year and had never even heard of such terms as Calvinism or TULIP.
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say sinners have to PERFECTLY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. What I meant was that sinners have to GENUINELY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. To trust in yourself in the least cannot even enter into your mind, if you truly trust in Christ and Him alone. That's what I meant by saying there is no place for man-centeredness. But also, if you genuinely believe God is in any way obligated to save you, that faith is not saving.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
The problem is that if someone does not understand the doctrines of grace, what they believe is often (or normally) categorized under the umbrella of Arminianism. And if they are Arminian, you say they are heretics. And you said a heretic cannot be a Christian. So, if someone does not have grasp on the doctrines of grace they either have to a) believe nothing and simply live in confusion or b) believe something that is not accurate and tend toward Arminianism, therefore making them a heretic and non-Christian.
This is one of several reasons why I am making the point that the Lord saves people who only accurately understand portions of the gospel and are growing in their knowledge of the truth, and this includes many Arminians (however that "many" is, God only knows).
I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I'm still not sure how helpful it is to say that one must "genuinely give up all man-centeredness" in order to trust the Gospel. Anyway, relating to the OP, Calvinists say that one must trust Christ in order to be saved, as of course Arminians do. The difference is in how one is able to do that, whether by natural ability or after being regenerated. Even if Arminians believe they have the natural ability to trust in Christ, if they do trust in Christ, they are saved! This is the testimony of an overwhelming number of converts, because often the understanding of God's sovereign work in their salvation is learned only after the fact; but since they thought they had the ability to trust Christ, they presupposed non-Calvinist doctrine even at conversion. This all boils down to this point again: Arminians can be Christians, and it is beyond Scripture to broadly label Arminians as heretics and therefore unconverted.
Our hope would be that as one is converted he would learn true doctrine and see that Arminianism was simply wrong. But that convert did not trust Arminianism, he trusted Christ. Some people embrace Calvinism quickly and others won't until they see the God of grace and realize the truth of salvation, because our hearts and minds are still affected by the fall. That does not legitimize the false doctrines at all and the poor Christian will be troubled and sad in his walk, I am sure. Even so, God's grace reaches beyond our weakness.
Last edited:
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
Is some of this not bound up in their attitude? Someone who has been taught Arminian doctrine and believes it is in error. Someone who teaches Arminian doctrine, is presented with the truth, and refuses to entertain it, they would be considered a heretic on some level, no? (I'm not trying to cling to still being able to call folks heretics, I'm trying to be gracious in this - the SoD is quite clear that it is heresy, but I would not want to label a new Christian a heretic because he went to a Billy Graham crusade and was saved).
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thinking about the definition of "heresy," and how it is being used in different ways, I just read a blog comment posted by Sean Micheal Lucas, a PCA Pastor:
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/04/analyzing-mops-meyers-exoneration-report/#more-5436
The more I reflect on that, it makes sense.
There is 'serious error' or even 'serious systemic doctrinal error' which would be grounds for discipline or exclusion from confessional association, particularly for leadership.
But that would not necessarily imply reprobation (i.e. an "unbeliever"). Nor that one would have to disassociate themselves with that person at every level.
Error is sin, and 'serious sin' aggravated beyond that, whether by ignorance or intent. It is not acceptable to misrepresent our God, particularly by those who would teach His people.
But, it's not quite a heretic- because that would mark an individual in the sense of Titus 3 as an unbeliever, one to be avoided- one intent on harming the foundation of the church itself.
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/04/analyzing-mops-meyers-exoneration-report/#more-5436
The more I reflect on that, it makes sense.
There is 'serious error' or even 'serious systemic doctrinal error' which would be grounds for discipline or exclusion from confessional association, particularly for leadership.
But that would not necessarily imply reprobation (i.e. an "unbeliever"). Nor that one would have to disassociate themselves with that person at every level.
Error is sin, and 'serious sin' aggravated beyond that, whether by ignorance or intent. It is not acceptable to misrepresent our God, particularly by those who would teach His people.
But, it's not quite a heretic- because that would mark an individual in the sense of Titus 3 as an unbeliever, one to be avoided- one intent on harming the foundation of the church itself.
Last edited:
kvanlaan
Puritan Board Doctor
From John Murray:
The Reformed Faith and Arminianism - The Westminster Presbyterian
Arminiansism is heresy. That is an integral part of the confessions of the 3FU churches. If the argument is then that 16th century Arminianism is not today's Arminianism, it has more to do with a watered-down and under-developed theology today, a lack of attention to detail and a lack of fervor - see the Screwtape Letters for the lack of flavor in modern 'heretics' (quotes provided just in case it is no longer PC to call them that, though they are historically and scripturally deigned to be just that).
What that means with regards to the heretic (albeit in many cases an unknowing one) is to gently explain their error to them in light of scripture. But what do we do when scripture is refuted and we are told that we are in fact the one in error? You have two contradictory statements, only one is right.
The Reformed Faith and Arminianism - The Westminster Presbyterian
Arminiansism is heresy. That is an integral part of the confessions of the 3FU churches. If the argument is then that 16th century Arminianism is not today's Arminianism, it has more to do with a watered-down and under-developed theology today, a lack of attention to detail and a lack of fervor - see the Screwtape Letters for the lack of flavor in modern 'heretics' (quotes provided just in case it is no longer PC to call them that, though they are historically and scripturally deigned to be just that).
What that means with regards to the heretic (albeit in many cases an unknowing one) is to gently explain their error to them in light of scripture. But what do we do when scripture is refuted and we are told that we are in fact the one in error? You have two contradictory statements, only one is right.
DeborahtheJudge
Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps Chapter 26 of the westminster confession of faith would help? But I've kind of been wondering how to parse this too.
1. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
2. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
3. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.
Oh, and Mr. Grigoletti, your comment is a non sequitor.
1. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.
2. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.
3. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.
Oh, and Mr. Grigoletti, your comment is a non sequitor.
- Status
Similar threads
