May you worship God with a heretic?

[Mushroom]

The fact that God uses any individual or group in the process of redeeming His people is no validation of that individual's or group's orthodoxy. Not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and clay also.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

The fact that God uses any individual or group in the process of redeeming His people is no validation of that individual's or group's orthodoxy. Not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and clay also.

That's exactly my point. Thank you for affirming.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

It seems many of you think it is enough if one's gospel presentation is Biblical, even if his gospel theology is not Biblical. Here is what I mean:

An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?

We could say the Arminian preaches both Biblically and unBiblically about the Gospel. But just because he has something right about it doesn't qualify his gospel as sufficient Gospel. Judged as a whole, it is FALSE.

 

[Philip]

Maybe I've used the word "heretic" a little loosely. How do the Reformed stantards define a "heretic?" How does a false teacher differ from a heretic?

Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), I have never met a consistent Arminian. The fact is that most Arminians believe in sola fide and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.

There is no difference between a heretic and a false teacher---there are, however, individuals who are honestly mistaken in their teaching and need to be lovingly convinced (in fact, this includes all of us). If we were saved by having all of our theological ducks in a row, we'd all be damned.

I believe there are, at this very moment, numbers of false converts in Arminian churches worldwide, who have been truly regenerated, but who have never heard the true Gospel preached to them. Their new nature makes them uneasy, confused and unsatisfied with the gospel they have received from their Arminian pastors, it can give them no rest. And I believe there are false converts in Reformed churches alike, truly regenerated AND having heard the true Gospel, but having never truly understood it. Even being regenerated and having heard the true Gospel does not always automatically result in conversion. But it is only a matter of time.

Where in Scripture do we find these fine distinctions? It seems to me that Scripturally there are only two kinds of people: repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. A false convert is just one who pretends to be a Christian. Regeneration (being born again---from Latin regenero, to have a new beginning) is always effectual, that's what it's called irresistible grace.

I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Maybe I've used the word "heretic" a little loosely. How do the Reformed stantards define a "heretic?" How does a false teacher differ from a heretic?

Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), I have never met a consistent Arminian. The fact is that most Arminians believe in sola fide and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.

There is no difference between a heretic and a false teacher---there are, however, individuals who are honestly mistaken in their teaching and need to be lovingly convinced (in fact, this includes all of us). If we were saved by having all of our theological ducks in a row, we'd all be damned.

I believe there are, at this very moment, numbers of false converts in Arminian churches worldwide, who have been truly regenerated, but who have never heard the true Gospel preached to them. Their new nature makes them uneasy, confused and unsatisfied with the gospel they have received from their Arminian pastors, it can give them no rest. And I believe there are false converts in Reformed churches alike, truly regenerated AND having heard the true Gospel, but having never truly understood it. Even being regenerated and having heard the true Gospel does not always automatically result in conversion. But it is only a matter of time.

Where in Scripture do we find these fine distinctions? It seems to me that Scripturally there are only two kinds of people: repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. A false convert is just one who pretends to be a Christian. Regeneration (being born again---from Latin regenero, to have a new beginning) is always effectual, that's what it's called irresistible grace.

According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance. I don't believe faith and regeneration overlap -- I believe one leads to the other. Thus, there are unconverted (unbelieving and unrepentant) Christians, who are regenerated, waiting to either hear the true Gospel or understand it for the first time in their life. I'm not saying it is either-or, just that there are people who have heard the true Gospel and haven't understood, and people who haven't heard the true Gospel to begin with.

I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.

I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine. What does it weigh for an unbeliever to say Christ was crucified and risen for sinners? Absolutely nothing. We must preach the whole councel of God's Word. We must explain the terms of the Bible so that there may be true perception of what happened on that cross on the Calvary.

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.

I suggest you read the red text above.

 

[Philip]

According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance.

That's a logical progression/distinction not a chronological one.

I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine.

That's why we do theology---but it's often true that good faithful Christians disagree over theology.

An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?

Talking about the external metaphysics and mechanics of how faith works is not the Gospel. The Gospel presents us with two options: repent and believe in Christ or reject Him. Arminians can and do present the true Gospel.

 

[jayce475]

Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.

That's quite sweeping. Would you consider it to be alright to worship in an RC place of worship as long as there are some believers inside? And last I remembered, there was hardly any consensus on whether Calvinism is the gospel the last time we had the thread for it.

---------- Post added at 12:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 AM ----------

 

[Philip]

Would you consider it to be alright to worship in an RC place of worship as long as there are some believers inside?

Not to steal Joseph's thunder here, but when it comes to RC/EO Masses, the issue is entirely different. In these cases we would be affirming, even tacitly, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Thus, in the mass, the sacrament is improperly administered and to partake is to acknowledge it to be valid.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance.

That's a logical progression/distinction not a chronological one.

I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine.

That's why we do theology---but it's often true that good faithful Christians disagree over theology.

An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?

Talking about the external metaphysics and mechanics of how faith works is not the Gospel. The Gospel presents us with two options: repent and believe in Christ or reject Him. Arminians can and do present the true Gospel.

With their Gospel presentation they directly present the true Gospel, with their Gospel theology they indirectly present a false gospel.

 

[Notthemama1984]

How can one be regenerate but not converted? I ask out of ignorance.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

How can one be regenerate but not converted? I ask out of ignorance.

Regeneration doesn't involve faith and repentance, it is a new nature with new desires, which LEADS to faith and repentance.

G.I. Williamson wrote in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11 XIV. Of Saving Faith and XV. Of Repentance unto Life:

QUESTIONS

3. What is the relationship between regeneration and conversion?

Ans. Regeneration is the source of conversion (repentance-faith); conversion is the effect of regeneration and calling.

He also clarified how conversion consists of faith and repentance, and what authentic faith and repentance require. Of repentance he said:

1. Man must know his lost condition (Rom. 3:20; Ps. 51:3-4; Ezek. 36:31).
2. Man must have a broken and contrite heart (Jer. 31:19; Ps. 51:17; 2 Cor. 7:10f).
3. Man must turn from the ways of sin (Acts 26:18; Ezek. 14:6; 2 Cor. 7:11).

Of faith he said:

1. Man must know the divine remedy for sin (Rom. 10:13-17; Ps. 9:10; Phil. 3:8).
2. Man must feel drawn to Christ with heart assent (John 4:42; 1 Thess. 2:13).
3. Man must turn to Christ to rely upon him alone for salvation (Acts 15:11; 16:31; Phil. 3:9).

None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration.

 

[torstar]

Corban, it's just not all about the $$$.

 

[jogri17]

Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.

 

[Notthemama1984]

None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration

But I don't see in Scripture where these events are described as happening decades later either.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration

But I don't see in Scripture where these events are described as happening decades later either.

I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of understanding the Gospel.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of understanding the Gospel.

I thought you were saying that someone could be regenerated under an Arminian preacher, but conversion would not happen until they heard the True Gospel. Did I misunderstand?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of understanding the Gospel.

I thought you were saying that someone could be regenerated under an Arminian preacher, but conversion would not happen until they heard the True Gospel. Did I misunderstand?

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.

As a matter of fact, I believe regeneration can also happen in the womb. But in other occasions I think it always happens under the influence of the Word of God.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I apologize my brain must not be working right now.

First you said..

I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion

Then you said....

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.

So in my mind it seems that you are advocating the possibility of an interval, and also NOT advocating the interval.

Can you help me out?

Thanks

 

[torstar]

Grateful my RAGE CAGE STAGE of understanding and accepting Calvinism never led me to reject the love of those in my life who didn't 100% see eye to eye with me.

And in life you just sometimes have to attend things you don't agree with. All a part of growing up and living in this world.

I am at an RCC function a few times a year out of respect to those who invite me for weddings, confirmations, funerals. I do not partake in the mass.

If a sermon is really bad, I'll just start reading Ezekiel and see how far I can get.

 

[Dearly Bought]

[Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), I have never met a consistent Arminian. The fact is that most Arminians believe in sola fide and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.

As I've already mentioned, the Canons of Dordt state that Arminians summon the error of Pelagius out of hell. Whatever "heresy" means, it definitely includes Arminianism according to the Reformed Confessions.

I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.

This is not the Biblically Reformed doctrine of the Church. A church in grievous error has become Lo-Ammi, "Not My People". As Calvin writes in his commentary on Hosea, "though they usurped the title of Church, they were yet alienated from God." In another place, he writes,

"...the marriage between God and men so long endures as they who have been adopted continue in pure faith, and apostacy in a manner frees God from us, so that he may justly repudiate us. Since such apostacy prevails under the Papacy, and has for many ages prevailed, how senseless they are in their boasting, while they would be thought to be the holy Catholic Church, and the elect people of God? For they are all born by wantonness, they are all spurious children. The incorruptible seed is the word of God; but what sort of doctrine have they. It is a spurious seed. Then as to God all the Papists are bastards. In vain then they boast themselves to be the children of God, and that they have the holy Mother Church, for they are born by filthy wantonness."
(Calvin's Commentary on Hosea, Ch. II. v. 4, 5)

The Belgic Confession presents the Reformed doctrine of the church with clarity:

We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
(Belgic Confession, Article 29)

Additionally, I would like to know the source of the following claim:

Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.

---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

I would refer anyone interested in Calvin's views on Roman mass attendance to his excellent tract "Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly."

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I apologize my brain must not be working right now.

First you said..

I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion

Then you said....

No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.

So in my mind it seems that you are advocating the possibility of an interval, and also NOT advocating the interval.

Can you help me out?

Thanks

Okay, what I was trying to say was that I don't believe the regenerated person must wait a certain period of time and when that time has elapsed, God immediately grants you faith and repentance. As opposed to that, I believe God will grant the regenerated person faith and repentance as he comes to the true understanding of the Gospel, which includes not only a new view of God, but also a new view of man and sin.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.

While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.

 

[Michael]

It would be helpful if we paused to define "heresy"/"heretic".

I assume we are speaking of "false teaching".

To what extent?

Conscious or ignorant?

Damnable in content/intent or otherwise?

Depending on these leanings the OP could be phrased:

"May you worship God with those who hate him and preach calculated lies against all that he is and stands for?"

"May you worship God with those who believe in Christ as their Savior and desire to be with him but are misled in the nuances of their theology?"​

Both may be heretics by some strain of definition yet the responses to the question may vary greatly.

 

[Peairtach]

I think it depends on how you define the words "heresy" and "error".

If I believe e.g.credobaptism or independent church government or singing hymns rather than psalms in church or speaking in tongues to be heresy then I probably believe that some heretics are regenerate and converted.

Different individuals and congregations and denominations will draw the line at who they are willing to worship with in different places. People should be careful to follow their biblically informed consciences and also respect the Christian sensitivities of their congregational and denominational brothers and sisters, who may be weaker or stronger in conscience on this subject, depending upon one's point of view. E.g. Romans 14.

If I attend an Arminian church once or twice in my life will I become an Arminian? Well if you think this you shouldn't attend, but you must be relatively poorly grounded in the doctrines of grace if you believe this would happen.

If I attend an Arminian church once or twice in my lifetime, will that encourage people to become Arminian? Is that likely? You may have more opportunities to persuade people to become Calvinistic.

If I attend an Arminian church am I engaging in false worship? The people around you are engaging in false worship to the extent that they have erroneous Arminian ideas in their minds.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.

While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.

So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?

 

[Andres]

Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.

Additionally, I would like to know the source of the following claim:

Can you please give your source for your comment, because I'm struggling to believe Calvin would endorse the Roman Mass.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.

While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.

So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?

Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.

 

[discipulo]

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.

While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.

So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?

Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.

You just called Richard Baxter an heretic, something John Owen, who was actually not soft on him, never did.