May you worship God with a heretic?

[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?

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

Ok, you're soft peddling here. If one denies any one of the 5 points of Calvinism, what are they believing in its place? And would that not, by your confession, be heresy?

 

[AThornquist]

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.

There may be a logical order to regeneration and conversion, but I don't think regeneration and conversion can be seperated in time. Are you teaching heresy?

I have a question for you: can a heretic be a Christian? I am just wondering what you do with the many Christians that don't believe in Calvinism, whether by disagreement or ignorance. And are you saying that those of us who were not Calvinists when we were first converted were heretics?

 

[Dearly Bought]

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

If the shoe fits, I have no problem stating it.

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.

Ok, you're soft peddling here. If one denies any one of the 5 points of Calvinism, what are they believing in its place? And would that not, by your confession, be heresy?

Denial of any of the five points of the Synod of Dordt is heresy.

 

[kvanlaan]

Thing is, this is a confessional board. We 3FU folks hold to it being heresy because it is right there in black and white. Thus I don't think that the idea that it is NOT heresy can be up for discussion, since that would be counter-confessional and beyond the pale of general discussion. So while Bryan's statement may ruffle some feathers, he's well within board rules to make such a statement (as I understand the board rules, and that part of the equation may be lacking...)

 

[torstar]

Was Calvin a 5 point Calvinist?

 

[Augusta]

All the five points are are shorthand for what we believe are the doctrines of grace found in scripture. Trying to call the tulip esoteric knowledge that it's ok for Christians to be ignorant of is disingenuous. They are borne out in Scripture and therefore should be known by all who call themselves Christian. So, yes, if you deny the five points, especially when they are explained to you, you are a heretic. If you are ignorant of them I wouldn't say you are a heretic. Once they are understood then you are responsible for that knowledge.

 

[discipulo]

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

If the shoe fits, I have no problem stating it.

Denial of any of the five points of the Synod of Dordt is heresy.

When I mentioned the brotherly friendship of Owen and Baxter, I was expecting to make my point with tongue in cheek, but I may have been misunderstood.

While Owen wrote one of the most brilliant and influential treaties on limited atonement, yes, Baxter got himself entangled in scholastic elaborations over Scripture that placed him under some form of Amyraldism.

You can find some of his works here:

Reformation Heritage Books - Search Results for "richard baxter"

It was William Ames who said that Arminianism is not properly a heresy but a dangerous error in the faith tending to heresy.

See how carefully he qualified his sentence.

Maybe we should first of all distinguish shoes...

Ps - sorry Samuel, this is already my second post off topic.

 

[Philip]

Thing is, this is a confessional board. We 3FU folks hold to it being heresy because it is right there in black and white. Thus I don't think that the idea that it is NOT heresy can be up for discussion, since that would be counter-confessional and beyond the pale of general discussion.

And for those of us who are not bound by the 3FU? In some ways I guess this is just the consequence of having multiple standards of subscription on this board. The Westminster Standards are silent on the point of which errors are heretical and which are not on this point (as far as I can tell---someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

If the shoe fits, I have no problem stating it.

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.

Ok, you're soft peddling here. If one denies any one of the 5 points of Calvinism, what are they believing in its place? And would that not, by your confession, be heresy?

Denial of any of the five points of the Synod of Dordt is heresy.

And those who die as heretics?

 

[kvanlaan]

And for those of us who are not bound by the 3FU? In some ways I guess this is just the consequence of having multiple standards of subscription on this board. The Westminster Standards are silent on the point of which errors are heretical and which are not on this point (as far as I can tell---someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

I am not sure about that - I think that the WCF is primary on the board, but I heartily invite you to subscribe to the 3FU in that regard if you don't already...

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

All the five points are are shorthand for what we believe are the doctrines of grace found in scripture. Trying to call the tulip esoteric knowledge that it's ok for Christians to be ignorant of is disingenuous. They are borne out in Scripture and therefore should be known by all who call themselves Christian. So, yes, if you deny the five points, especially when they are explained to you, you are a heretic. If you are ignorant of them I wouldn't say you are a heretic. Once they are understood then you are responsible for that knowledge.

I agree. There are certain things you MUST believe as a qualification of claiming the title Christian. I'm not saying one must believe the five points of Calvinism as they are presented in the historic confessions. But you must believe that you cannot save yourself and that you're totally dependent on God for salvation (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints), and if you believe that, then you cannot possibly deny Limited Atonement. All these things are in some measure rooted in the believer's heart.

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 AM ----------

I want to remind all of you, who are engaged in this discussion, that the Arminian does preach a false gospel indirectly. Here is a good example how it practically works:

On the one hand, the Arminian says, "Christ saves!" -- that's a direct proclamation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Arminian says, "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" -- that's an indirect proclamation of the Gospel. The former is true, the latter is false. Accordingly, the Arminian is not a heretic and he is a heretic. So, which is it?

 

[SolaScriptura]

On the one hand, the Arminian says, "Christ saves!" -- that's a direct proclamation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Arminian says, "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" -- that's an indirect proclamation of the Gospel. The former is true, the latter is false.

I don't think it is that easy. For example, you say it is false to say "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" Does this mean that you deny that we have to exercise your will to respond to the Gospel?

It the issue really whether one has to exercise his freewill and believe, or is the question where the will to freely believe originates?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

On the one hand, the Arminian says, "Christ saves!" -- that's a direct proclamation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Arminian says, "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" -- that's an indirect proclamation of the Gospel. The former is true, the latter is false.

I don't think it is that easy. For example, you say it is false to say "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" Does this mean that you deny that we have to exercise your will to respond to the Gospel?

It the issue really whether one has to exercise his freewill and believe, or is the question where the will to freely believe originates?

Fair enough. But anyways, you know Arminians teach various errors concerning the Gospel, though they do not want to talk about them in their gospel presentation.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I don't think Arminians are cowarding in their Gospel presentation. They know what they believe and state so.

 

[Grillsy]

I don't think Arminians are cowarding in their Gospel presentation. They know what they believe and state so.

I agree. "God did his part, now you do yours". I cannot count the number of times I heard that statement, right before the altar call of course.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would not classify Arminianism as outright heresy, probably just bad theology. I would also have to appeal to Mark 9:38-41. Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our[a] side. 41 For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." The point of this passage is that the Kingdom of God is bigger than our experience of it. That is not to say that all those who do things in the name of Christ are actually Christians, it just means that it is not our place to judge that.

 

[AThornquist]

Many people agree that Christians can have honest disagreements about baptism, eschatology, the gifts of the spirit, ecclesiology, and so on, and yet if someone fails to meet the Calvinist standard they are a heretic. Hmm. Yes, there are bare essentials of the faith, but I don't see Jesus or the apostles laying out a perfect understanding of the doctrines of grace as a prerequisite to salvation. Again I ask, can a heretic be a Christian? Were those of us who were converted as Arminians in fact heretics until we came to understand Calvinism?

 

[discipulo]

Samuel, please know that I highly respect your personal struggle, it must be very difficult to you since it implies your parents spiritual wellbeing and state before God.

And I do rejoice to see your commitment to the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace as confessed by Confessional Reformed Churches.

My only concern here is the definition of Heretic, because I don’t think we should have spiritual fellowship or worship in a heretical sect.

The words hairetikos Titus 3:10-11 (below) and hairesis Galatians 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Corinthians 11:19, are indeed very strong.

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Knowing that he that is such is subverted , and sinneth being condemned of himself.
You see a lot of errors in the early Church addressed by Paul or by the letters in Revelation, and yes we have more responsibility now that we have the complete Canon.

I just posted how the Wesleys had a lot of errors, from the 2nd blessing to perfectionistic sanctification, of course their Arminian views, but they were Christians, no doubt about that.

J C Ryle includes John Wesley in his book Christian Leaders of the XVIII century, and in my opinion makes a firm, yet charitable and balanced critique of Wesley.

We have to be careful to keep the H Bomb – Heresy - to when it is really justified.

I think of those cases that completely pervert the Gospel (salvation by works), Christology (denying the divinity of Christ and / or the Trinity), some forms of Spiritual Deception going on in radical Charismatic Churches where experience engulfs doctrine (the Bible stays closed and laying hands is the main thing, so if you speak in tongues or are slain to the ground, then it doesn’t really matter what you believe sort of thing). But first of all I would only include under the name of heretics mostly Cults.

as Hairesis is also a word translated for sect:
Acts 15:5, 24:5, 24:14, 28:2, meaning groups that set themselves apart in an exclusivist way,

So this would apply In my humble opinion specially to organizations like the Mormons, JWs, and the like.

And for those of us who are not bound by the 3FU? In some ways I guess this is just the consequence of having multiple standards of subscription on this board. The Westminster Standards are silent on the point of which errors are heretical and which are not on this point (as far as I can tell---someone correct me if I'm wrong here).

I am not sure about that - I think that the WCF is primary on the board, but I heartily invite you to subscribe to the 3FU in that regard if you don't already...

Kevin, as you may have noticed I most of the times heartily agree with your posts, this one included, I like to talk about the 6 forms of Unity.
And although our Reformed Churches only subscribe to the 3FU, I think it’s a great blessing for us on a personal level to adopt the Westminster Standards too.

I didn’t want to be obnoxious towards you, Traci, Bryan or Samuel, of course I agree wholeheartedly with the Canons of Dort as a clear and orthodox summary of the Soteriological Doctrine of God’s Word.

But like I wrote above my only problem is that we replace the word error for heresy, it may seem a semantic question, so the gravity that I place on the word may be different from yours.

Error in the cases of Evangelical Churches in general is in my opinion a more appropriate word, and one to be qualified, there are errors and errors.

Denying 1 heading or more of the Canons of Dort is Un-Confessional, absolutely! One cannot be in good standing as an officer in a Reformed Church with such a position.

But does that mean that someone with reservations about Definite Atonement is an heretic or not even a Christian? I think that is stretching things way out. I think we can do better than that.

Reformed thinking took time to crystalize, for instance take the research of Dr. Robert Godfrey:

Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618. Westminster Theological Journal 37:2 (Winter 1974): 133–71.

Tensions within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dordt, 1618-1619 (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974).

We all need illumination, it takes time and the Work of the Holy Spirit to understand difficult points in Scripture. We know Scripture has difficult points to reconcile.

Wasn’t that the rationalistic problem with the Remonstrants, trying to reconcile rationally God’s Sovereignty with human responsibility?

But maintaining that Biblical tension while formulating and understanding systematically Doctrine is not easy, we know that.

The Synod of Dordrecht felt the need for the sake of Scripture faithfulness and perspicuity to affirm a Limited Efficacy to the Atonement (even better to say a Definite Atonement) and an Unlimited Sufficiency.

That’s right, With Dort we confess that while Christ’s Atonement is only efficient and effectively applied to the Elect, potentially is sufficient for all humanity.

Canons of Dort, Heading 2

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value
This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

My bottom line is, when someone comes quoting John 3:16 in a semi-pelagian way, we should be patient and take time to explain things.

If we just label that person an heretic, then we have to be consistent and obey Titus 3:10-11
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Knowing that he that is such is subverted , and sinneth being condemned of himself.

To those of arminian persuasion I prefer to apply James 5:19-20

Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

 

[cih1355]

What does you parents' church teach about salvation? I have known Pentecostals who believe that there is nothing in man or about man that would cause or compel God to have a desire to save him. They also believe that salvation is totally dependent upon God. They don't believe that faith or their good deeds is the basis upon which a sinner is justified before God.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I don't think Arminians are cowarding in their Gospel presentation. They know what they believe and state so.

I agree. "God did his part, now you do yours". I cannot count the number of times I heard that statement, right before the altar call of course.

And that is not a false gospel, then?

---------- Post added at 12:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

Again I ask, can a heretic be a Christian?

No.

Were those of us who were converted as Arminians in fact heretics until we came to understand Calvinism?

Not necessarily. But we are heretics, if we deny Calvinism or don't already believe the Doctrines of Grace by personal experience, regardless of regeneration. In other words, one may be a heretic, even if he is regenerate. That one is regenerated does not announce him Christian, until he is converted and justified.

 

[captivewill]

(1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a false, man-centered gospel?

(2) Does communing with other Christians necessarily indicate an agreement in the doctrine of the Gospel?

(3) Should I, instead of communing with heretics, declare "a holy war" against their false teaching?

(4) While we may rightly invite sinners and heretics alike to our own churches, is it right for us to go to their churches to worship "the same God"?

(5) Although in communion we worship God, isn't communion also about unity of Christians in the body of Christ, and therefore, doesn't communion imply peace with others (no place for "a holy war")?

(6) But we are not in peace with heretics, right? That would be compromise, right?

Let us be very careful in properly discerning and describing justification, that we do not ignore the doctrine and the reality of the new birth. All who are born again are In Christ. All who are In Christ have fellowship with one another as well as with Christ. All who are justified have been born again. All who have been born again are not however adequately or accurately informed of the truth of their own salvation. Sometimes we pursue fellowship so as to minister truth to the people for whom Christ died. If He loved them then we love them. And our ministry of truth will establish their faith in the security that is in Christ.
Thus let us fellowship with those who clearly Love the Lord but let us be careful as we do so.

 

[athanatos]

I was invited by my parents to visit their Pentecostal Church tomorrow (it's communion day), and I'm in a really difficult situation. There are several questions that popped into my mind:

(1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a false, man-centered gospel?

If they are Christians, then commune with them but not at their commune.

(2) Does communing with other Christians necessarily indicate an agreement in the doctrine of the Gospel?

Nope. Did Christ condone drunkards and sinners in their lifestyle? Orthopraxis and orthodoxy need not be differentiated for interaction.

(3) Should I, instead of communing with heretics, declare "a holy war" against their false teaching?

NO. Preach the gospel to those outside Christ, and if you're given the authority to teach those in Christ, teach what you understand the Scriptures to proclaim. You're not a crusader and you don't want to be.

(4) While we may rightly invite sinners and heretics alike to our own churches, is it right for us to go to their churches to worship "the same God"?

If someone claiming to be a brother is in unrepentant sin, then cast him out. If he isn't claiming to be a brother or if he isn't in unrepentant sin, then accept him in the church where he can be sanctified by word and sacrament.

(5) Although in communion we worship God, isn't communion also about unity of Christians in the body of Christ, and therefore, doesn't communion imply peace with others (no place for "a holy war")?

How much does the priest/pastor presenting communion influence your taking of the cup and bread? I think it comes down to conscience.

(6) But we are not in peace with heretics, right? That would be compromise, right?

Depends. You're not going to find a brother who is 100% correct in his theology, including yourself. What level of agreement is necessary? I don't put a strict number, but I'd say it must at least be trinitarian, justified by faith in Christ's work.

This begs the question of whether Arminianism is really heresy.

Which, it isn't. Strictly speaking.

I may be in the minority, but I have to think that Arminianism is not heresy. I can't see how God would use a heretic as His vessel to bring thousands (maybe millions) into His family.

This is one great reason to support it. Now, some actually make the argument that RCC does too, but perhaps despite their emphasis on works, penance, etc.

If God could use Arian missionaries to convert the Goths in the 4th century (and that heresy, arguably, run deeper than mere Arminianism) He can use Arminians in our day. If perfect doctrine is one of the marks of a true church, then there are no true churches. If heretics cannot be saved in spite of their heresy, then we're all damned.

This is actually a good point. I am not sure I agree that Arian converts were saved, since they were non-trinitarian. Really tough, though since it is likely (in my mind at least) that some where saved, perhaps despite the non-trinitarian theology. Didn't they worship Christ as a creator-creature, instead of creator? If they worshiped Christ period, I find the whole thing rather muddy.

As for myself, tomorrow I plan to receive the Lord's Supper at the local CofE church just up the road. I may not agree with Anglicans on every point of doctrine or polity (thankfully this particular congregation really teaches the Scriptures---classic 39 Articles Anglicanism) but in the end, we are all part of the Church Catholic and one day will worship together.

Samuel, does one war against one's own body? If an Arminian as an Arminian can be saved, then they too are part of the body of Christ. The sacrament acknowledges no denominational boundaries. Does the Arminian preach Christ crucified, buried, and raised for our sins or does he not?

That's interesting about the CoE

I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.

Is sitting under Arminian teaching the best possible scenario? No. Should we walk on the other side of the street when we see an Arminian coming? No.

Progressive revelation. Jews were saved on less than that.

I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.

Instead of basing your conversion on the facts of the Scripture, you "believe" that you were converted when you heard an Arminian gospel?

To counter your conversion experience:

I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.

I feel like that's way too restrictive. Maybe I am wrong, but I think I got saved at 5yr on the basis that I knew I did wrong and I needed Jesus in my heart to make me good. I didn't understand the heart of the gospel, because I didn't understand my own heart or God's. I am getting a clearer idea the older I get, but it is even now far from complete.

Is sitting under Arminian teaching the best possible scenario? No. Should we walk on the other side of the street when we see an Arminian coming? No.

I interract with my Arminian family daily in many ways. But to have a good time together, that I cannot. For we preach not the same Christ.

Why would they be different Christs? What is the Arminian Jesus like?

As to conversion, however, I don't believe the Bible indicates -- and it is not my experience -- that conversion would be possible without true understanding of the Gospel.

I agree.

I think where we disagree is the level of understanding that is necessary.

Is it necessary to be able to delineate the five points of Calvinism, or is it sufficient to understand on a basic level that we are sinners, that we need God to deliver us from our sin, and that He offers that deliverance if we repent and believe on Christ?

I think this is a better approach. What did the Ethiopian eunuch need? what did the disciples need? what did Cornelius need? They didn't go through catechism, but there was basic knowledge. Very.

 

[Grillsy]

Originally Posted by Grillsy
Originally Posted by Chaplainintraining
I don't think Arminians are cowarding in their Gospel presentation. They know what they believe and state so.
I agree. "God did his part, now you do yours". I cannot count the number of times I heard that statement, right before the altar call of course.
And that is not a false gospel, then?

The example I gave, that you quoted, is definitely an aberrant if not false Gospel presentation. It certainly has the wrong object.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

If we just label that person an heretic, then we have to be consistent and obey Titus 3:10-11
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Knowing that he that is such is subverted , and sinneth being condemned of himself.

I don't see what is wrong with labeling a person an heretic, if what he believes is a false gospel. That person is lost, but of course I won't just leave him to the darkness, but rather try my best to guide him to the light of the true Gospel. But if he is not willing to listen and hearken to the truth, then so be it, "knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth being condemned of himself." Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your idea of a heretic is that of a reprobate. That we condemn one as a heretic does not mean we say, "You cannot be saved!", but that, "You are not Christian!" I don't see what's so wrong with that.

 

[AThornquist]

Again I ask, can a heretic be a Christian?

No.

Were those of us who were converted as Arminians in fact heretics until we came to understand Calvinism?

Not necessarily. But we are heretics, if we deny Calvinism or don't already believe the Doctrines of Grace by personal experience, regardless of regeneration. In other words, one may be a heretic, even if he is regenerate. That one is regenerated does not announce him Christian, until he is converted and justified.

Wow. Your view of regeneration and conversion is messed up. If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified. There is no such thing as someone walking around as a regenerate heretic. Regeneration and salvation are always together: John 3, Titus 3, etc. I suppose I could call you a heretic for such a view, but the biblical evidence to make such a claim is equal to your claims of non-Calvinists all being heretics (in other words, no evidence at all).

You say heretics cannot be Christians and if we don't believe in Calvinism we are a heretic; therefore, if someone does not believe in Calvinism he is not a Christian. I would love for you to prove that from Scripture. There are many non-calvinists who have poor theology but love and trust Jesus as their savior, as were some of us on this board before we understood the doctrines of grace. There is already a narrow way to heaven; stop making it narrower.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified.

I disagree, and so does G.I. Williamson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the supporters of his book: Joel R. Beeke, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Cornelis P. Venema and Cornelis Van Dam. Read back when I quoted him earlier in this thread.

 

[AThornquist]

If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified.

I disagree, and so does G.I. Williamson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the supporters of his book: Joel R. Beeke, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Cornelis P. Venema and Cornelis Van Dam. Read back when I quoted him earlier in this thread.

That quote you gave does not disagree with what I am saying at all. In fact, I am saying exactly what the quote says: regeneration leads to faith and repentance. The first always leads to the second.

You are saying that there can be a lengthy period in between regeneration and conversion and that someone can be a heretic during that time. Where does Scripture ever offer than possibility?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified.

I disagree, and so does G.I. Williamson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the supporters of his book: Joel R. Beeke, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Cornelis P. Venema and Cornelis Van Dam. Read back when I quoted him earlier in this thread.

That quote you gave does not disagree with what I am saying at all. In fact, I am saying exactly what the quote says: regeneration leads to faith and repentance. The first always leads to the second.

You are saying that there can be a lengthy period in between regeneration and conversion and that someone can be a heretic during that time. Where does Scripture ever offer than possibility?

Where does it deny the possibility? But to refine my assertion, I believe God will grant understanding of the Gospel soon after regeneration.

 

[Philip]

Where does it deny the possibility?

You're going beyond Scripture here. The assumption in our tradition is that when one is born again, one will then immediately repent and follow after Christ. That's the pattern we see time and again in Scripture. If you can find no support for this position in Scripture, then you cannot teach it or judge others by it.

 

[AThornquist]

Samuel, the notion of being a heretic for a lengthy time after being regenerated is biblically untenable because of the nature of regeneration in scripture. In what way has a person even been regenerated if he is a heretic for a lengthy period of time? But I think this is probably a vain discussion. I'm not interested in investing much more time in arguing relatively periphal items in this thread (i.e. regeneration) when the primary items (i.e. Can a non-Calvinist be a Christian?) are being overlooked. Rather than stray further off-topic, I will ask this question: how can we blame our theological disagreements on the noetic effects of the fall and then demand that people must believe and understand limited atonement, perseverance, election, and so forth when Jesus nor the apostles demanded an understanding of these things in order to be saved?