# What defines Heresy?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

Apostle's Creed?

Nicene Creed?

Something else?

Always changing?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 15, 2005)

Gods word.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 15, 2005)

Fundamentalist..


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Aug 15, 2005)

It sounds more like people are saying what is not heresy...


----------



## yeutter (Aug 15, 2005)

Confessional statements tend to define the limits of unbelief as much as they define what we should believe.


----------



## rgrove (Aug 16, 2005)

The things listed can define certain heresies, but to me it's more difficult because does a heresy have to be something that is soul-damning? I've played around with the term heterodox to say something isn't soul damning heresy, but I don't see other people trying to make the distinction. I try to avoid the word on forums myself. Too many different ways to understand the word and too many different reactions to it. Has to be pretty blatant for me to stand up and say "that's heresy plain and simple".


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

I've adopted the practice of referring to those believers who have faulty doctrine as 'confused' Christians and I've tried to hold back from throwing the 'H' bomb to eagerly. An example would be the arminian - as repugnant as their theology (or lack of one) is, I'm not willing to call them heretics. They are confused and we need to challenge them. I'm thinking that there are a few on the board who in their heart of hearts believe that we are justified by doctrine. 

Doctrine is of major importance and too many churches have jettisoned any formal confession but we are still justified by Christ. (Yes I know, the Christ of Scripture as summarized in our doctrines.)

There are so many things to consider in what makes up heresy. First off, is it only the teacher who can be guilty of heresy? Does heresy condemn? I think each group of believers will come up with a different definition of heresy so it's important that when we debate about items that may be heretical, we must all be using the same definition.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

I think the question is wrong. It shouldn't be what defines heresy but 'who' defines heresy. In practice heresy is always going to be relative to the group or church wing that claims that it is orthodox. Each group will define heresy as a teaching that is contrary to 'our' orthodox beliefs.

In theory, heresy is a teaching that goes against the droctines of scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2005)

> An example would be the arminian - as repugnant as their theology (or lack of one) is, I'm not willing to call them heretics.



The protestant church, as well as Dordt has always stood on the fact that _Arminianism_ is heretical and those that hold to it are heretics. Heresy dambs, i.e.JW's, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Scientology, etc. 

Bob,
Without any disrespect, _confusion_ is a nice example of being tolerant. If someone does not hold to justification by faith alone, and they are truly confused, the question would remain, do these people have the truth that sets one free? Possibly they are regenerate, yet not converted and are working through the word (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God). Gods people, KNOW that Christ is justifier, and without His propitiatory sacrifice, they are (even now) perishing.


----------



## DTK (Aug 16, 2005)

> Without any disrespect, confusion is a nice example of being tolerant. If someone does not hold to justification by faith alone, and they are truly confused, the question would remain, do these people have the truth that sets one free? Possibly they are regenerate, yet not converted and are working through the word (Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God). Gods people, KNOW that Christ is justifier, and without His propitiatory sacrifice, they are (even now) perishing.


Scott, are you open to a critique of this comment? I would like to examine it with you, but I don't want simply to be a pain in the rear. In other words, I wouldn't want to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, and I'm not sure if a new thread ought to be initiated to do so if you grant permission to examine it.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

I agree with you Scott but what we are seeing a lot of is not so much a rebelliousness against scripture but a lack of an ability to reason. I see a very fine line between faith and the specific presupposition that "God IS and reveals himself in His Word, the Bible". There are believers, who know this but because we live in a pluralistic, post-modern culture don't know how to reason from that first principle. If you ask an arminian if they pray, they will quickly admit they believe in the sovereignty of God, if you ask them if they pray for loved ones to be saved, they must admit that they believe only God saves.

I'm speaking of the average lay-person who by faith holds an orthodox presup but lacks the tools to rightly reason a consistent doctrine and discern the consequences.

We are not battling bad doctrine alone, we are battling ignorance and the inability to follow logic.

For the arminian teacher I would be very close to branding that person a heretic. He should know better.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

It makes me think of a garden hose. There may be nothing wrong with the water or the pressure but there may be a kink in the hose that prevents the water from getting through efficiently. Bad tools of reason and logic are the kinks.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 16, 2005)

I think of it in terms of direction sometimes. We can all be somewhere along the path of understanding, but are on the path going toward the understanding end. When we are going in reverse, even if we are up the road from where others going the right way are, we are going the wrong way. The right way is orthodoxy, the wrong way is heresy. 

Just like none of us can really say we are orthodox all the way, so none of us are heretical all the way. I think I'm orthodox, but then I have to admit that there are a lot of things that I still getting orthodox at. But some may think I'm heretical. And so in part I am, because there is some part of me that is not as orthodox as I should be. But I hope I'm not doing that on purpose. So though I may hold some views that need correcting, yet I am orthodox because you know that eventually I will either be corrected or that these needed corrections will not influence me toward apostasy. In other words, I' headed the right way. 

In practical terms, though, I reserve the word for either a church, a teaching, or a teacher, and not an ordinary person with little influence. After all, we're talking about a term that defines a person who is outside the norm, a person with a difference, a dissenter. So we're talking about someone in our midst, in the church. 

Yes, it is true that people of other religions are heretics, but only if you hold that all people are originally God's people. That means you have to hold that they have left God at some point in their history. And this is true, for all people are descended from Adam. So all other religions are heretical. But this is a term used most often in our circles to describe a person influencing others towards apostasy, not new converts who still have a lot of baggage from their old life. 

I think there are tests for heresy. And one is as Scott says, the Word. Not that they have to pass a theology test. They have to have placed before them the plain Scripture on the issue at hand, and if they come up disagreeing with Scripture itself, against what you know they know to be true, then I would call them heretical. Another I suppose would be the cartwheels they turn in order to push forward their views, obviously straining the truth in order to come out as sensible. And another would be the fruits that become evident. 

On the one hand we need to be afraid, I would think, to use the term. But when it needs to be used we must be fearless. Exact, supported by Scripture, by Church doctrine, and by testimony, surely, but fearless. For I would think that it would be far worse for us in the end to be quiet than to speak out when called upon. So its a word that we who are on the Board, and sitting in the pew, need to use very sparingly, for it is not our business to tag people. But when we are placed in the spot where it is our duty to speak out, then we must. And so as to correct, not to entertain our sectarian tendencies on secondary matters. 

That's how I've understood it, as I've seen it practiced and taught.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 16, 2005)

Bob:

You don't mean that it is heretical to be poor at logic, do you? I think every Christian needs to go to school, as in catechism classes, but I don't think they need to take a philosophy course in order to be baptized. Not that I disagree with you, because I think that most people would benefit greatly from some lessons on using their heads. But there is such a thing as common sense, I believe. I still think there is some deliberation in going against true doctrine, and it can be by habit, or by following the crowd, or out of rebellion. All of these would go against reason, but the latter especially won't usually listen to reason.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> I agree with you Scott but what we are seeing a lot of is not so much a rebelliousness against scripture but a lack of an ability to reason. I see a very fine line between faith and the specific presupposition that "God IS and reveals himself in His Word, the Bible". There are believers, who know this but because we live in a pluralistic, post-modern culture don't know how to reason from that first principle. If you ask an arminian if they pray, they will quickly admit they believe in the sovereignty of God, if you ask them if they pray for loved ones to be saved, they must admit that they believe only God saves.
> 
> I'm speaking of the average lay-person who by faith holds an orthodox presup but lacks the tools to rightly reason a consistent doctrine and discern the consequences.
> ...



Bob,
You're grading upon a curve; this is why I am saying that your _tolerance_ is coming through. The apostle levels the charge of heresy in regards to Hymenaeus and Alexander. They were false teachers; anyone whom held to their teaching were as well heretics. They did not have the truth; only the _truth_ can set you free....As far as the ability to reason, the HS guides us in all truth. We have the church, the ages of the saints as validation. The things which are contrary to these principles, i.e. Arminianism, is no better than what Hymenaeus and Alexander taught. Disciples of these men were led astray, even to the shipwrecking of their faith.

1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 
1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 
1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

"You don't mean that it is heretical to be poor at logic, do you?"

No, just the opposite John. I think our schools and culture have prepared people to believe in contradictory statements (pluralism). It is up to us to give them at least the basic tools that our fore fathers had. Don't take your classical education for granted.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

Scott, I may be grading upon a curve. But I think we all do to a certain extent. Paul didn't have 100 of permutations of the church back then. Paul was the sole writer of any kind of systematic (Romans). 

But these days everyone believes they belong to the only orthodox club. Look at the nut jobs over at outside the camp. We are all heretics according to their curve.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by maxdetail]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

When I taught the inconsistent nonsense of arminianism years ago, was I saved? Was I a heretic? Was I confused? Was I condemned? Am I condemned now?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by maxdetail_
> When I taught the inconsistent nonsense of arminianism years ago, was I saved? Was I a heretic? Was I confused? Was I condemned? Am I condemned now?



Did Christ have a hold on you to pull you out of nonsense into the light? I never belonged to an arminian church, but to one of the best orthodox churches ever. But it was overrun by people who didn't seem to care whether they were being freed in the Word. They seemed to want it their own way. At least in your Arminian church, you were seeking to have it Christ's way; or at least He had a hold on you to bring you to His way. I only hope that Christ hasn't completely let go of His people in my old church. But I don't see much light there, and a lot of bad thinking.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 16, 2005)

What about someone who has all the doctrine right, but has no love, no compassion, and does not visit widows and orphans? Is a "noisy gong" and someone whose religion is vain a heretic?


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

At the basis of every code of doctrine or systematic must be the all-inclusive commands to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves. If these are missing then we are pharisees.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2005)

> What about someone who has all the doctrine right, but has no love, no compassion, and does not visit widows and orphans? Is a "noisy gong" and someone whose religion is vain a heretic?





> At the basis of every code of doctrine or systematic must be the all-inclusive commands to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves. If these are missing then we are pharisees.



These are red herrings. Surely Dordt was not being any less loving by pronoucing Gods truths.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> What about someone who has all the doctrine right, but has no love, no compassion, and does not visit widows and orphans? Is a "noisy gong" and someone whose religion is vain a heretic?



hyochristian

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 16, 2005)

As Michael Servetus said, "I'm smoking more now but enjoying it less."

(This has no bearing on the thread, it's just a cheap, shameless attempt to recycle an old joke.)

Scott, I am trying to make a distinction between those who are sheep but attending an apostate church and are confused and those who teach a doctrine contrary to orthodoxy. However, I used to teach wrong doctrine and I believe I was confused.

We do know that teachers are held to a higher standard.


----------



## raderag (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > An example would be the arminian - as repugnant as their theology (or lack of one) is, I'm not willing to call them heretics.
> ...



Can you be more specific about heresy being damning? Does the mere ascent to a heretical view damn? What is your basis for this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Brett,
If the Arminian is trusting in a works based salvation, he is damned.


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



What if they are inadvertantly... 

For example, saying that Christ died for those who would reject him... They are indirectly saying that Christ didn't die for the sin of unbelief and they turst Christ and their work of belief to get them to heaven. Yet they will directly say that we are saved by grace and not our works...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 16, 2005)

Tim,
Two entirely different things..........


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 16, 2005)

A few months ago, if you had asked me to explain the Incarnation, I probably would have told you something along the lines of "The Second Person of the Trinity inhabiting a human body".

Nevertheless, I also would have said, "Jesus is fully God and fully man".

Now that I have spent a little time trying to think it through more clearly (thanks to the Puritanboard), it finally dawned on me that Jesus had to have a human soul as well as a human body, otherwise he wouldn't have been fully human.

But I do not think I was a heretic a few months ago, just because I was a little fuzzy in my logic. In fact, it was *because* I knew Jesus is fully God and fully man that I finally cleared up the fuzziness in my mind on the subject. I never questioned Christ's full humanity . . . I had just never consistently applied that doctrine to all aspects of the Incarnation.

I kind of look at Arminianism the same way. I think it is certainly a heretical doctrine. And I think many are damned for holding to it. Nevertheless, I do believe there are some who believe in salvation by grace alone, and believe in God's sovereignty, who nevertheless would answer certain related doctrinal questions incorrectly because there is some inconsistency in their theology. And they haven't taken the time to clear it up yet. 

I don't know if there will be many Nazarenes and Methodists and Pentecostals in Heaven. But I do think there will be some!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 16, 2005)

For what it's worth, 

It's my understanding that historically the confessionally Reformed theologians have defined heresy as that which deviates from the Apostles' Creed (or the other catholic creeds). Thus, e.g., open theism, because it denies divine foreknowledge is heresy. Social Trinitarianism, to the degree it actually tends to tritheism, is heresy. Arminianism is more difficult. William Ames, no liberal, said that Arminianism is an error tending toward heresy. 

Traditionally, the Christological (Eutychus and Nestorius) and the anti-Trinitarian heresies were a defined list. Pelagius was condemned by numerous regional councils, most importantly perhaps Orange II (529). Thus the Canons of Dort 3/4.11 describe Pelagianism as heresy. In CD 5.15 heretics are those who oppose Christ's church. It comes close to calling Arminianism heresy, but perhaps stops short, in the Rejection of Errors 2.3 when it speaks of those who deny that Jesus actually merited salvation for anyone in particular (hmm, anyone denying merit today?) as having brought "out of hell" the Pelagian error.

We should be careful about pronouncing damnation on Arminians (they are of various sorts). The logical and historical consequences of Arminianism and its attending (and sponsoring) rationalism are well known. Some of the 17th century Remonstrants even became Unitarianis! Happily, many Arminians have not followed these consequences to their logical end. We should pray that they do not. 

Further, as a pastoral matter, as a former Arminian myself, it is hard for them to listen to us Calvinists about the glories of our faith and life when we're pronouncing their eternal damnation. 

In view of Dort's language and Ames' I've usually distinguished between "error" (deviation from Scripture as confessed in Reformed confessions) and "heresy," deviation from the Scriptures as confessed in the catholic creeds.

rsc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 16, 2005)

I think of heresy as departure from orthodoxy wrt to cardinal doctrines of the faith or the message of the gospel. I would include creation, the authority of Scripture as the word of God, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, substitionary atonement, justification by faith alone, and the like (this is not meant to be a complete list of cardinal doctrines, but representative).


----------



## ABondSlaveofChristJesus (Aug 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tim,
> Two entirely different things..........



Why? because of intentions?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 17, 2005)

I have a question. 

Mat 15:9


> in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.



Belgic Confession, art. XXIX, in part:



> As for the false Church, it ascribes more power and authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit itself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does it administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them, as it thinks proper; it relies more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those who live holily according to the Word of God and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry.
> 
> These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.



Are these heretics, or a false church? When does a heretical church, like the RCC, become a false church? What is the difference?


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Aug 17, 2005)

Webster's 1828 Dictionary




> HER'ESY, n. [Gr. to take, to hold; L. heresies.]
> 1. A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy, when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of Christians,may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage,heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.
> 
> 2. Heresy, in law, is an offense against Christianity's, consisting in a denial of some of its essential doctrines, publicly avowed and obstinately maintained.
> ...



In approach, I believe we would all fight against Heresy wherever we find it. In practice I would like to think that as we come upon heretics, we would speak the truth in Love (Christ's love). In this sense i see The writers of the Canons of Dort as being a brick wall, standing against heresy, but i would imagine that in person they would make every attempt to aid and correct a wayward brother, for love covers a multitude of sins. I believe that the Church is valid in calling certain persons "heretics" who knowingly promote heresies from within a body (the wolves in sheep's clothing), seeking to change what is held as orthodox. In doing so, as to warn the congregation (as a matter of discipline).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I have a question.
> 
> Mat 15:9
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 17, 2005)

1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. XX:



> IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.(p) And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,(q) and by the power of the civil magistrate.(r)
> 
> (p) Matt. 12:25; I Pet. 2:13, 14, 16; Rom. 13:1 to 8; Heb. 13:17.
> (q) Rom. 1:32 with I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11, 13; II John ver. 10, 11, and II Thess. 3:14, and I Tim. 6:3, 4, 5, and Tit. 1:10, 11, 13, and Tit. 3:10 with Matt. 18:15, 16, 17; I Tim. 1:19, 20; Rev. 2:2, 14, 15, 20; Rev. 3:9.
> (r) Deut. 13:6 to 12; Rom. 13:3, 4 with II John ver. 10, 11; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Rev. 17:12, 16, 17; Neh. 13:15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30; II Kings 23:5, 6, 9, 20, 21; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13, 16; Dan. 3:29; I Tim. 2:2; Isa. 49:23; Zech. 13:2, 3.


----------



## CalsFarmer (Aug 17, 2005)

Heresy defined? 

In my humble opinion......

ANY doctrinal framework that teaches that man is able to redeem himself by whatever means of works..... hear, believe, obey, confess, be baptized etc.....

Lot of it going around...


----------



## JohnV (Aug 17, 2005)

Dr. Clark:


> _from Dr. Clark_
> The "false church" essentially stands for Rome. Having anathematized the gospel and now (in 1561) persecuting it (about 12,000 Calvinists died under Phillip II in the Lowlands) she has become a false church. She baptizes infants and administers communion, but she has arrogated to herself power to add to the sacraments, add to the canon, corrupt worship etc.


But didn't Rome already arrogate to herself power and add to the sacraments before the Reformation? Is it then in persecuting the gospel in the form of those who held to the truth of it that she became more than heretical, becoming a false church? 

Andrew:
Is then heresy confined to erroneous teachings, or also to teachings that are used for false purposes, such as raising theories to doctrinal level, such as the NEW Perspectice on Paul. ( I have to stess the "new" part, because in that they admit that it is not part of the Reformed heritage, but is a taking of liberty upon doctrinal authority and extent. So they admit that it is either theoretical or heretical. And because they preach it, it is not considered theoretical; so it must be heretical by their own standards. All that just from including the word "new", if that definition from the WCF holds true. )

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2005)

> But didn't Rome already arrogate to herself power and add to the sacraments before the Reformation? Is it then in persecuting the gospel in the form of those who held to the truth of it that she became more than heretical, becoming a false church?



Yes, through the "middle ages" the W. church (we were all "Roman" then) did add to the sacraments. That act alone, though wrong and falsifying of the church is not necessarily heretical. I would argue that heresy needs and has traditionally received a fairly strict and narrow definition. 

One couldn't say that the W. church persecuted the gospel really before the Reformation. Once the doctrines of sola fide, sola gratia are officially condemned, we have entered new territory. The W. church had never officially condemned the gospel. Now "Rome" exists as a distinct entity. In the 16th century the Reformers were not willing, however, to utterly repudiate everything about Rome. This is why they continued to accept Roman baptisms for example. 

What they would or we should do today, after Vatican II, the Assumption of the BVM etc is another question. Arguably Rome is worse today than she was then.

Still, and please don't understand this as an apology for Rome, there is more of Christ and his grace in a typical Roman mass than in many megachurch, seeker sensitive, self-improvement oriented services in N. America.

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 17, 2005)

Is not this a reference to the Roman Catholic Church?:



> V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but *synagogues of Satan*.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]


----------



## JohnV (Aug 17, 2005)

Dr. Clark:

Thank you.

I think you were seeing my underlying assumptions, that we often are less likely to point the finger when it involves our own legitimacy. For example, we will say that Rome was a true church until the Reformation, but ony because that legitimizes us as true. So we'll justify our leaving the RCC because she was heretical, and became a false church when she refused reformation. This is all nice for us who left Rome. 

But in fact, she was still a remnant church, from which, as Calvin says, a true church came out of. The vestiges of the true church still existed, though as an entity the RCC was not a true church. And she was that for a long time, as Calvin says ( I don't have the reference in front of me, but if I remember it was in his introductory chapter to the king ), where the true church was always present in the believers throughout the ages, though it was evident that many false practices had occurred long before the Reformation.

So I believe you are right, that we have keep a rather tight definition of heresy, keeping it to the main tenets of the faith. 

Would we, then, regard the three marks of the church as marks of heresy or, as the BC says, marks of a true or false church? When men add their own teachings to the preaching of the Word, is that heresy or false church?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 17, 2005)

> Would we, then, regard the three marks of the church as marks of heresy or, as the BC says, marks of a true or false church? When men add their own teachings to the preaching of the Word, is that heresy or false church?



I think there is an implied distinction between "heresy" and "false church." That the Anabaptists were only a "sect" and not even a church suggests that they were closer to heresy than Rome, at least in the 16th century. 

Its also important to recognize that "heresy" is an ecclesiastical and not personal definition. In other words, if the church has not declared such and such "heretical" then we should be very cautious about doing so ourselves. 

It is proper to say, as private person, "In my opinion, such and such a movement is heretical and I think the church should judge it so" with the caveat that ones opinion is merely that, a private opinion and not a public ecclesiastical judgment.

rsc


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> It is proper to say, as private person, "In my opinion, such and such a movement is heretical and I think the church should judge it so" with the caveat that ones opinion is merely that, a private opinion and not a public ecclesiastical judgment.



I agree with this statement. It is interesting to note how many PB'ers have gone way past this when discussing some of the various controversies currently in the PCA. There has been no public ecclesiastical judgment (that I know of) concerning the current controversies. Yet many on this board have no qualms about using the H-word as a defininitive pronouncement, instead of as a personal opinion.


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 17, 2005)

"Its also important to recognize that "heresy" is an ecclesiastical and not personal definition. In other words, if the church has not declared such and such "heretical" then we should be very cautious about doing so ourselves. "

Wonderful, excellent qualifier for whatever definition we arrive at. Great point Dr. Scott.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 17, 2005)

Is a heretical church, then, worse than false church? Or is a false church worse? 

-------------------------------------------

Though it is true that denominations have not made judgments about certain teachings, especially new ones as they arise, it is still true that they have long ago made judgments as to the extent and limits of authority that a pastor has. He is commissioned to care for and minister to the flock, and to preach the Word. Preaching the precepts of men instead of the doctrine of God has been condemned long ago. And the procedure for bringing up new insights has long been established, already at the Jerusalem Council. 

At least this is what I have been contending lately, that the practice of taking upon yourself the authority that rightly belongs to the church is a heretical practice, without direct reference to the subject matter under question. However, I should add the qualifier that this is my opinion, though I read it all over the place in the churches formulations for government, worship, etc. So, for a minister to preach the New Perspective on Paul, for example, before the Church has even considered it, much less ruled it as doctrinally binding, is wrong because he has usurped authority that does not belong to him. This we can know before we know much about the topic itself, whether or not it is a heresy, or Biblical, or an acceptable opinion. Only the church as a whole can decide whether it is doctrinally binding, and therefore to be preached, not he on his own. And until the church decides, he must respect the authority of the church and preach what has been ruled as matter for preaching, nothing more. 

A minister may add in his sermons things pertaining to mission works, or local ministries, or the necessities upon the congregation for various things, because the basis for them is in Scripture. Particularizing that is not wrong. We're not confining the freedom to add those necessary things to the sermons. What we're talking about here is entire new things that are introduced, such as new views on the creation days, or new ideas on justification, or whatever seemingly new thing that comes along; and men teaching these from the pulpit before the church has had a chance to approve them. 

The difficulty is that even the denominations are not addressing it as they should. They either approve as within the Confessions or as rule outside the Confessions, but do not address the usurpation of authority, or the fact that the pulpit is polluted with teachings of men. Liberty of conscience to hold to an opinion is far different than imposing them upon people by using the pulpit. Even if the NPP is acceptable, the denominations still need to address the fact that men have preached these things before the church made a decision. And approving it as acceptable within the Confessional standard is not the same as naming it as doctrinally binding. It is a doctrinal issue of unity and authority, yes, but mostly of the purity of the Word being preached, not just of the teaching which is under question.

If everyone that is in authority is doing what is right in his own eyes, then why not the ordinary pew-sitter too? After all, if the authority structure is in disarray, what holds them back anymore?

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by JohnV]

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by JohnV]


----------

