# Pro-LGBT as heresy?



## arapahoepark (Jul 13, 2020)

Would you consider churches and or individuals who are pro-abomination as heretical? Merely antinomian? Something between? Mind you we were not talking about those who practice it nor those who struggle.
What of church members who are on the pro side i.e. Think the 'church' is wrong?


----------



## Taylor (Jul 13, 2020)

Well, antinomianism is heresy. But the problem of "pro-LGBT" people is not antinomianism, but unbelief. I would rather, then, just call them what they are—infidels, pagans, haters of Christ, or any such things as these.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Jul 13, 2020)

I'm more comfortable classifying pro-LGBT+ churches as a subcategory of "liberalism"; even if that's not its origin, that is always the trajectory. As such, as Machen might say, it's not a "heresy" of Christianity, properly speaking; it's just not Christianity. A defective view of God's creational order is simply too fundamental to ignore by simply slathering a thick layer of "Jesus" over everything.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 13, 2020)

Pro-homosexual churches are outside Christianity. That does not mean one who believes in its doctrine cannot be saved. Think of it like the Roman Catholic church, or the Eastern Orthodox. 

Personally it always saddens me to see an historic church, especially historic Presbyterian churches, displaying rainbow flags or some such. I traveled through Charlottesville Friday and Saturday and saw such a display a few times. Upsetting.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Jul 14, 2020)

I’m with Machen, liberal Christianity is a different religion.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 14, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> Would you consider churches and or individuals who are pro-abomination as heretical? Merely antinomian? Something between? Mind you we were not talking about those who practice it nor those who struggle.
> What of church members who are on the pro side i.e. Think the 'church' is wrong?


Since heresy as I understand it refers definitionally to doubting a fundamental of the faith, the trinity for example, I'd say no. Is it an egregious sin yes. It is abominable to be or support homosexual relations in anyway. But who cares what bad churches are doing or supporting? As long as good churches are doing what they're supposed to be doing thats all that matters. We try to think globally about these things without realizing that it first matters locally.
I don't care what a church down the street does only what my church does. Christ's kingdom is here, we've won just sit and wait he'll work out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jul 14, 2020)

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as a sin. A congregation that promotes the pro-LGBT agenda is teaching something contrary to the Scriptures. To my mind, that is denying the divine inspiration and authority of Scriptures. Is rejecting God's Word and elevating man's word as a higher authority a heresy? I think so.

In the OPC, the first question of the membership vows are:

_Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?_
Most on this board have to affirm something similar when taking membership vows. Promoting homosexuality violates this vow. Yes, I know these particular congregations most likely do not affirm such articles. That does not negate that it is a fundamental facet of the Christian faith, which has been affirmed for thousands of years.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jake (Jul 14, 2020)

I think churches that promote such have no excuse, but sadly as the winds change so quickly in our culture, there are plenty in Evangelical and yes even Reformed churches where the leadership will clearly say LGBT is a sin, but members don't act that way. I'm not sure it's an immediate barring from membership as heretical, but it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 14, 2020)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as a sin. A congregation that promotes the pro-LGBT agenda is teaching something contrary to the Scriptures. To my mind, that is denying the divine inspiration and authority of Scriptures. Is rejecting God's Word and elevating man's word as a higher authority a heresy? I think so.


What if a pro-LGBT congregation teaches that their beliefs are in-line with Scripture and that God's word is inerrant/inspired? If the problem is only that they teach something contrary to the Scriptures, basically every church is in hot water. Are people who disagree on the sacraments necessarily denying the authority of the Scriptures? How contrary does one have to go? I think arguing that people who disagree with you doctrinally are necessarily denying the authority of God's Word is perhaps too simplistic an analysis.

For instance, a PCUSA minister might agree with me that the Bible commands us to baptise infants, but a Reformed Baptist on this forum may disagree. But it is quite likely that my views on Scripture's innerrancy are closer to those of the Ref Baptist than the PCUSA minister's.

Of course, this is such a clear cut issue that affirming inerrancy and LGBT doctrine are next to incompatible, but there are likely those who would do it. Even if there was not, while I don't disagree on the severity of the error, I only think that saying it is necessarily a denial of inerrancy, and that that is the main issue, is a category error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Jul 14, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Since heresy as I understand it refers definitionally to doubting a fundamental of the faith, the trinity for example, I'd say no. Is it an egregious sin yes. It is abominable to be or support homosexual relations in anyway. But who cares what bad churches are doing or supporting? As long as good churches are doing what they're supposed to be doing thats all that matters. We try to think globally about these things without realizing that it first matters locally.
> I don't care what a church down the street does only what my church does. Christ's kingdom is here, we've won just sit and wait he'll work out.



Not sure how to take this comment. Who cares what bad churches are doing? We are to call out sin where it is being conveyed as a "Christian" stand. And most "bad" churches were once "good" churches. Unless we are willing to take a stand against sin I will surmise that the author of this post has a bit of a bunker mentality meaning we should ignore the rest of the world and just sit around waiting for the rapture or something.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2020)

BottleOfTears said:


> What if a pro-LGBT congregation teaches that their beliefs are in-line with Scripture and that God's word is inerrant/inspired? If the problem is only that they teach something contrary to the Scriptures, basically every church is in hot water. Are people who disagree on the sacraments necessarily denying the authority of the Scriptures? How contrary does one have to go? I think arguing that people who disagree with you doctrinally are necessarily denying the authority of God's Word is perhaps too simplistic an analysis.
> 
> For instance, a PCUSA minister might agree with me that the Bible commands us to baptise infants, but a Reformed Baptist on this forum may disagree. But it is quite likely that my views on Scripture's innerrancy are closer to those of the Ref Baptist than the PCUSA minister's.
> 
> Of course, this is such a clear cut issue that affirming inerrancy and LGBT doctrine are next to incompatible, but there are likely those who would do it. Even if there was not, while I don't disagree on the severity of the error, I only think that saying it is necessarily a denial of inerrancy, and that that is the main issue, is a category error.


Pretty much what I was getting at. The views are trickling down quickly into the young people.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 14, 2020)

I take it a step further. I believe SideB-LGBT informed theology is a complete uprooting of the foundations and fundamentals of Reformed Theology. What don’t we get about Totally Depraved? Even in Christ, we are totally depraved when our faith is not in exercise and our sinful depravities blind and dominate our judgment, even for a few seasons. Liberalism ultimately reigns in a denomination that places activism over the object of faith and worship (in fear, truth and trembling). That’s where our privilege comes in. Not our pit, but our release.

i agree that blanket liberalism in disordered emphasis that informs our understanding of the gospel is worse (or maybe can go hand-in-hand with heresy). Heresy could be a single error that is a thorn or an initial virus that gradually spreads and kills everything.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jul 14, 2020)

BottleOfTears said:


> Of course, this is such a clear cut issue that affirming inerrancy and LGBT doctrine are next to incompatible, but there are likely those who would do it. Even if there was not, while I don't disagree on the severity of the error, I only think that saying it is necessarily a denial of inerrancy, and that that is the main issue, is a category error.



If the Scripture is lucid on a topic and someone is promoting something contrary, it does not matter that they are verbally affirming inerrancy—the consequences of their teaching conflicts with the authority of Scripture. They are, in their practice, denying the infallibility of God's Word. What does it matter what they affirm with their mouth when they deny it in their heart?

I am not arguing that this teaching is _only_ in conflict with the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. This is merely one aspect of promoting a sin that God clearly commands we repent. It is, of course, also an egregious sin. It also muddies the Reformed teaching of the perspicuity of Scripture.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jul 14, 2020)

Let us define our term, and then make a decision whether this teaching is heresy.

_*Heresy. *The word “heresy” is derived from the Greek hairesis, which originally meant an action or belief chosen from among several options but in time came to mean an unorthodox opinion held by a group—sometimes even a majority—within the church. The concept of “heresy” is grounded in the conviction that there exists one revealed truth, and that other opinions are intentional distortions or denials of that truth. In the absence of such conviction, “heresy” becomes little more than bigoted persecution. But the Christian belief that truth has been revealed means that heresy becomes, not merely another opinion, but false teaching which leads people away from God’s revelation._

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical dictionary of theology: Second Edition 2001: 550. Print.

_*heresy*. Any teaching rejected by the Christian community as contrary to Scripture and hence to orthodox doctrine. Most of the teachings that have been declared heretical have to do with either the nature of God or the person of Jesus Christ. The term heresy is not generally used to characterize non-Christian belief. That is to say, systems of belief such as atheism or agnosticism, or non-Christian religions such as Buddhism or Islam are not technically heresy. The term heresy is generally reserved for any belief that claims to be Christian and scriptural but has been rejected by the church as sub-Christian or antiscriptural._

Grenz, Stanley, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket dictionary of theological terms 1999: 58. Print.

*heresy*_ connoted a deviation from the doctrine believed by the community and from its way of life_

Grossi, Vittorino. “Heresy—Heretic.” Ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover. Trans. Joseph T. Papa, Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett. Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 2014: 217. Print.

The teaching of homosexuality deviates from God's revealed truth, the teachings of the Church, and the Church's way of life. I conclude, by definition, it is heresy.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 14, 2020)

Dr. Peter Jones has some vital things to say... 






What the PCA Study Committee Did Not Study. – TruthXchange







truthxchange.com

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 14, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Since heresy as I understand it refers definitionally to doubting a fundamental of the faith, the trinity for example, I'd say no.


But we are not discussing homosexuality _per se,_ but churches that _teach_ (think doctrine) that these forms of sexual deviancy are consistent with morality. Homosexual behavior is a sin. Teaching someone that God made them that way and that it's beautiful, is a major doctrinal error that puts one outside the pale of Christianity and therefore constitutes a heresy. Would you not agree?

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## PezLad (Jul 14, 2020)

Gill galatians 5:20

*heresies*;
bad principles and tenets, relating to doctrine, which are subversive of the fundamentals of the Gospel and the Christian religion; and are the produce of a man's own invention, and the matter of his choice, without any foundation in the word of God; and these are works of the flesh, for they spring from a corrupt and carnal mind, and are propagated with carnal views, as popular applause, worldly advantage, and indulging the lusts of the flesh.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jul 15, 2020)

I'm listening to this podcast episode on that exact question at the moment, it sounds like a useful discussion.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

Howard the Reformer said:


> Not sure how to take this comment. Who cares what bad churches are doing? We are to call out sin where it is being conveyed as a "Christian" stand. And most "bad" churches were once "good" churches. Unless we are willing to take a stand against sin I will surmise that the author of this post has a bit of a bunker mentality meaning we should ignore the rest of the world and just sit around waiting for the rapture or something.


No sir, no bunkers or Dispensationalist here. In a country with religious freedom I'm less concerned with what other churches are doing and more concerned with my church. Calling a bad church a bad church is fine but what is my church (presbytery and denomination) doing that concerns me most. In said country there will be bad churches guaranteed. I didn't say anything as far as I can tell about "Calling them out", just a different focus on the question.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But we are not discussing homosexuality _per se,_ but churches that _teach_ (think doctrine) that these forms of sexual deviancy are consistent with morality. Homosexual behavior is a sin. Teaching someone that God made them that way and that it's beautiful, is a major doctrinal error that puts one outside the pale of Christianity and therefore constitutes a heresy. Would you not agree?


But if every doctrine, jot and tittle, that someone teaches differentially than the bible deserves the label than heretic loses its force. I see heresy as doubting a prime doctrine like God or Christ. Also heresy has a churchly aspect. A credobaptist teaching in a paedobaptist church is teaching heresy in a relative context. So I agree that relative to the member churchs represented on this site the teaching in question is heresy but "Heresy" as a word I personally reserve for those doubting the doctrines layed out in the ecumenical creeds. 
For instance a credobaptist who attends my church is not a heretic but unconfessional. If that makes sense. That way the term, with all its moral baggage, retains the force it deserves.


----------



## Wretched Man (Jul 16, 2020)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Let us define our term, and then make a decision whether this teaching is heresy.
> 
> _*Heresy. *The word “heresy” is derived from the Greek hairesis, which originally meant an action or belief chosen from among several options but in time came to mean an unorthodox opinion held by a group—sometimes even a majority—within the church. The concept of “heresy” is grounded in the conviction that there exists one revealed truth, and that other opinions are intentional distortions or denials of that truth. In the absence of such conviction, “heresy” becomes little more than bigoted persecution. But the Christian belief that truth has been revealed means that heresy becomes, not merely another opinion, but false teaching which leads people away from God’s revelation._
> 
> ...


My general view of heresy is as an _intentional_ distorting of God’s word.

Probe long enough and you’ll discover differing interpretations of scripture amongst any two Christians. The question I ask is are they intentionally twisting God’s word to appease their sinful nature? In this case, churches who promote the LGBT are clearly distorting or glossing over God’s clear hatred of homosexuality to appease those with this sinful inclination.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Jul 16, 2020)

Pro-LGBT is a symptom of a bigger problem; it never stands alone. Show me a professing Christian who supports a gay pride parade, and I'll show you someone who is - _at best_ - immature in the faith, and who has a very low view of Scripture, who doesn't understand the reality of sin and the need for repentance, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 16, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> But if every doctrine, jot and tittle, that someone teaches differentially than the bible deserves the label than heretic loses its force. I see heresy as doubting a prime doctrine like God or Christ.


Of course I never suggested "every doctrine, jot and tittle, that someone teaches differentially than the bible deserves the label" of heresy. But I would say any error that calls sin righteousness, denies the need for repentance, and confirms sinners in a course of disobedience, is a damnable heresy. Such teachers and churches have no claim to the title "Christian."

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto _them that are_ wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight... Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, _so_ their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.—Isaiah 5:20-24​
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach _them_, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed _the righteousness_ of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.—Matthew 5:19-20​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jul 16, 2020)

As an editor, I would push back at some of the labels suggested here. To be sure, labels that show where a writer stands on an issue are often necessary. To simply call a church "pro-LGBT" may be the clearest way to describe that church's stance, but it fails to reveal the writer's stance on that issue. Using a phrase that includes some judgment, like "pro-LGBT heresy," makes the writer's stance clearer. But is _heresy_ the best word in this case? Is it the most helpful, clearest way to label a church that a writer believes flaunts biblical sexual morality? Remembering that the goal is not to see how nasty we can be, but rather how clear we can be as writers, let's look at that word and some alternatives (none of which are perfect):

HERESY. The word _heresy_ works according to some technical definitions of the word. But the difficulty with _heresy_ is that many readers (probably most readers) associate it with historical departures from the church's creeds and with views that were condemned by church councils centuries ago. So when we say "heresy," the reader asks which heresy and goes looking for a doctrine that denies Nicaea or Chalcedon or the like. Enough readers will do this to make _heresy_ a problematical choice. The pro-LGBT view is simply too novel to fit the way many readers use _heresy. _Besides, unless the writer can identify a specific doctrine denied by a specific church council, many readers will think the label _heresy_ means the writer is making himself out to be a one-man church council.

APOSTATE. The word _apostate_ denotes one who has left the faith. This works on some level because a denial of biblical sexual ethics is a denial of the faith, and because the term tends to denote churches that have left historic Christianity when we use _apostate_ for churches. But when used for individuals, _apostate_ usually describes someone who agrees they have left the faith and openly identifies that way. So if we're looking for a label that communicates clearly and accurately, _apostate_ can be a problematical choice too.

LIBERAL. In many ways, churches that reject biblical sexual ethics line up with theological liberalism. It might not be a perfect match (many of these churches still outwardly affirm the Bible's truthfulness), but the spirit of the error is similar in that the church is accommodating to cultural sensibilities rather than following biblical teaching. But the growing problem with _liberal_, not only on LGBT issues but in general when applying it to churches, is that today's reader is likely to confuse and/or conflate theological liberalism with political liberalism. _Liberal _was a helpful word when Machen used it, but it comes with so much baggage and requires so much explaining for today's reader that it has become unhelpful in many situations.

UNFAITHFUL or DISOBEDIENT. In most cases, I think I would recommend one of these two options to a writer wanting to indicate disapproval with a church he contends is rejecting biblical sexual ethics. These words get to the heart of the issue: that the church in question is not obeying or holding to what God's Word teaches. If a writer is looking for strong language that clearly shows the seriousness of the error the writer believes is being allowed, a word like _disobedience_ fits the bill without some of the problems of other terms. In the case of the LGBT controversy in particular, most writers who disagree with that stance will contend that pro-LGBT churches have not just stumbled into an incorrect reading of the Bible (which might be labelled _error_) but have actively looked for a way to read the Bible that excuses sins and beliefs they want to embrace. Few simple labels communicate perfectly to every reader, but u_nfaithful_ or _disobedient_ conveys that thought quite well to most readers, I think.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> My general view of heresy is as an _intentional_ distorting of God’s word.
> 
> Probe long enough and you’ll discover differing interpretations of scripture amongst any two Christians. The question I ask is are they intentionally twisting God’s word to appease their sinful nature? In this case, churches who promote the LGBT are clearly distorting or glossing over God’s clear hatred of homosexuality to appease those with this sinful inclination.


That could be and is closer to what they're doing. Anyone with a low view of scripture will believe some kind of heresy.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 16, 2020)

First, I agree we need to throw out anything that appears political (or even cultural) in foundation. I also agree that if we are embracing this movement that so much of our theology is probably faulty and disordered to begin with. I think of the pastor who was pushed on the subject to the point that non-confessional, non-reformed views were uncovered at the heart of his reasoning.

Ultimately, I think we need to evoke the reality of spiritual warfare when dealing with many of these topics, especially considering how counter-culture Christianity is. If you know somebody is in the heat of battle, do you equip him with a balloon? Do you send him/her to revoice to be coddled? Or do you send him to mature warriors to help get him through the battle and out the other side not only alive but shining brighter than many of his brethren.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

Tom Hart said:


> Pro-LGBT is a symptom of a bigger problem; it never stands alone. Show me a professing Christian who supports a gay pride parade, and I'll show you someone who is - _at best_ - immature in the faith, and who has a very low view of Scripture, who doesn't understand the reality of sin and the need for repentance, etc.


Exactly. I don't doubt Karl Barth's intentions that he was Reformed and he wasn't teaching heresy but he was wrong on both counts.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

Jack K said:


> As an editor, I would push back at some of the labels suggested here. To be sure, labels that show where a writer stands on an issue are often necessary. To simply call a church "pro-LGBT" may be the clearest way to describe that church's stance, but it fails to reveal the writer's stance on that issue. Using a phrase that includes some judgment, like "pro-LGBT heresy," makes the writer's stance clearer. But is _heresy_ the best word in this case? Is it the most helpful, clearest way to label a church that a writer believes flaunts biblical sexual morality? Remembering that the goal is not to see how nasty we can be, but rather how clear we can be as writers, let's look at that word and some alternatives (none of which are perfect):
> 
> HERESY. The word _heresy_ works according to some technical definitions of the word. But the difficulty with _heresy_ is that many readers (probably most readers) associate it with historical departures from the church's creeds and with views that were condemned by church councils centuries ago. So when we say "heresy," the reader asks which heresy and goes looking for a doctrine that denies Nicaea or Chalcedon or the like. Enough readers will do this to make _heresy_ a problematical choice. The pro-LGBT view is simply too novel to fit the way many readers use _heresy. _Besides, unless the writer can identify a specific doctrine denied by a specific church council, many readers will think the label _heresy_ means the writer is making himself out to be a one-man church council.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more Jack. Amen!


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Jul 16, 2020)

I have a lot of friends who attend PCA churches that align with this view. This wasn't always the case and has accelerated over the past 4-5 years. When does one determine a heresy is anathema? Reading historical documents there was a lot of anathematizing occurring. Sometimes the views held seemed to be logical error but can certainly cause problems. When we label somebody a heretic are we saying they are not saved? When does one think somebody is anathema versus just falling into error? That is something I always struggled to understand. 

I realize its a little off topic but its somewhat related. I think this stems from something called the Redemption-Movement Hermetic or the Trajectory Hermenuetic (Webb). My pastor wrote a book on this as his Phd thesis in response to this hermenuetic being used by Egalitarians. It's history is deeply rooted in the slavery debate in the 1800s. Egalitarians borrowed some of the approaches used to abolish slavery as means to support the Egalitarians view. This hermenuetic is also being borrowed in support of homosexuality. I think you can trace some of the arguments used across the same lines of reasoning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Of course I never suggested "every doctrine, jot and tittle, that someone teaches differentially than the bible deserves the label" of heresy. But I would say any error that calls sin righteousness, denies the need for repentance, and confirms sinners in a course of disobedience, is a damnable heresy. Such teachers and churches have no claim to the title "Christian."
> 
> Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto _them that are_ wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight... Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, _so_ their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.—Isaiah 5:20-24​
> Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach _them_, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed _the righteousness_ of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.—Matthew 5:19-20​


I hope it didn't come off as I was accusing you of saying that, if it did than I apologize. It's just that everyone seems to throw that word around so much that it loses its value. Words are like currency the more in circulation a word is the less value the word has.
For instance (this only an example and not meant to change the subject) I have defended Dr. Oliphint's book "God With Us" on this site before. I'm still not persuaded that he teaches what his critics say he's teaching. But if I was I would be inclined to call that heresy because it then would distort the most central doctrine we have, theology proper. But I don't consider Lutherans heretics.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jul 16, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> I hope it didn't come off as I was accusing you of saying that, if it did than I apologize. It's just that everyone seems to throw that word around so much that it loses its value. Words are like currency the more in circulation a word is the less value the word has.
> For instance (this only an example and not meant to change the subject) I have defended Dr. Oliphint's book "God With Us" on this site before. I'm still not persuaded that he teaches what his critics say he's teaching. But if I was I would be inclined to call that heresy because it then would distort the most central doctrine we have, theology proper. But I don't consider Lutherans heretics.


I completely agree with you on the need to be judicious in our use of the term. But given the fact that we are talking about churches that openly affirm homosexuality as a wonderful blessing from God, I think your concern for not throwing the word around seems a little out of place in this discussion. We are not talking about people who differ with us on the mode of baptism or nature of church government. We are talking about people who claim to be minister of Jesus Christ teaching people that good is evil and evil is good.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I completely agree with you on the need to be judicious in our use of the term. But given the fact that we are talking about churches that openly affirm homosexuality as a wonderful blessing from God, I think your concern for not throwing the word around seems a little out of place in this discussion. We are not talking about people who differ with us on the mode of baptism or nature of church government. We are talking about people who claim to be minister of Jesus Christ teaching people that good is evil and evil is good.


I agree to a point and I agree that such ministers should not be ministers at all, but that is their right and I do support that right only. I also agree that we have a Godly and moral duty to call them out and use our freedom of expression to do so, I support that right as well. I think the only place we may disagree is in what word to call it. I prefer other words than heresy in this particular situation to maintain both the severity of the word (so that it's not overused and possibly abused) and the severity of how unbiblical and immoral the belief is.


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 16, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> I agree to a point and I agree that such ministers should not be ministers at all, but that is their right and I do support that right only.


I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jul 16, 2020)

I wouldn’t call it heresy but I would definitely probe further to see if their denial of scripture leads to denial of biblical doctrine.

Most “Pro-LGBT” “pastors” come out and deny the perspicuity of scripture, are in favor of reducing Jesus to a figure of political liberation, some may deny Him as the second person of the Trinity, etc. it a symptom of straight up unbelief In 99% of cases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.


I completely agree with you here. Names matter if someone wants to call something "Christian" that isn't, they should call it something else. I merely referred to their legal right to do so, not moral right (have some integrity you know). Sorry I didn't make that clear. But we agree on everything except the best word to use. I'm open to calling it heresy if a more nuanced definition of heresy was spelled out and that would avoid it's over use. It's bad no matter what we call it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I wouldn’t call it heresy but I would definitely probe further to see if their denial of scripture leads to denial of biblical doctrine.
> 
> Most “Pro-LGBT” “pastors” come out and deny the perspicuity of scripture, are in favor of reducing Jesus to a figure of political liberation, some may deny Him as the second person of the Trinity, etc. it a symptom of straight up unbelief In 99% of cases.


I agree and it does, "so goes the bible so goes the church".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

Oh and as a side note my thinking on the Oliphint matter has changed. I still basically agree with him but in a more critical way on both him and his critics, more nuanced. To not sidetrack this discussion anyone interested who read my defenses of him hear on this forum can PM for my current views.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 16, 2020)

What then should we make of worshipping alongside those who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A' but they themselves are not homosexuals?


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 16, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> What then should we make of worshipping alongside those who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A but you themselves are not homosexuals?'


That's a great question and I hate for the simplicity of the answer, as don't want to seem "crass" but try to change things from within and if you realize it's lost go somewhere else. We all have that option. It is saddening to see Christ's church like this but he's come and we've already won. He'll come again and mop up the mess, we just have to fight. Take pleasure in our as yet physical victory but it is coming! We just need to concern ourselves with what we're supposed to do and let him take care of the rest.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 17, 2020)

Calling support of LGBT a heresy is an example of what I'll call "error escalation." This is when an error of an opponent is shown, by a series of steps, to deny an essential doctrine of the faith. Therefore, the one who holds an error that seems insignificant at first is logically a heretic.

You may have seen a demonstration where, starting with a false statement, the teacher works out through valid mathematical operations that 1 + 1 = 3. Any competent mathematician can "prove" this or any arbitrary false statement when starting with a false premise. Similarly with error escalation a seemingly benign error becomes a denial of the Trinity.

Error escalation, then, is a tool to dismiss and exclude those deemed to be the enemy. It is applied unevenly so that the dangerous are disfellowshipped as heretics while friends are excused as being inconsistent. The side-B gay Christian, despite his protests, must deny the authority of the scriptures while the white supremacist we named our building after was merely a product of his time. Or vice versa.

The real tragedy is that the methods of error escalation could actually be used productively rather than as a weapon. The practitioner could believe his opponent when he says he believes the same fundamentals and work with him that he can't hold to both these fundamentals and the erroneous belief. Perhaps he'd be persuaded, perhaps not. Maybe the one with the concern would find that his argument wasn't as airtight as he supposed. Charity rather than suspicion should at least be our starting point. Explicit denial of the faith is different than holding a belief that, if worked out, couldn't logically be held at the same time as a tenet of the faith.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Jul 17, 2020)

SRoper said:


> Calling support of LGBT a heresy is an example of what I'll call "error escalation." This is when an error of an opponent is shown, by a series of steps, to deny an essential doctrine of the faith. Therefore, the one who holds an error that seems insignificant at first is logically a heretic.
> 
> You may have seen a demonstration where, starting with a false statement, the teacher works out through valid mathematical operations that 1 + 1 = 3. Any competent mathematician can "prove" this or any arbitrary false statement when starting with a false premise. Similarly with error escalation a seemingly benign error becomes a denial of the Trinity.
> 
> ...



Well said, Scott!

I will note, though, that I think most readers take the description _pro-LGBT_ to mean something more fully affirming than what is found in the typical side-B position. I for one have not assumed we are discussing side-B churches.

In addition to not describing even someone who is full-on "pro-LGBT" with the label _heretic_, I also would be careful not to describe someone who is side-B with the label _pro-LGBT_. That too would be escalation. Even if their position is wrong, an honest representation of it deserves more nuance than that. And "error escalation," as you call it, since it is easily seen to be over-the-top, usually causes the escalator rather than the person in error to be shut out of important conversations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 17, 2020)

Jack K said:


> Well said, Scott!
> 
> I will note, though, that I think most readers take the description _pro-LGBT_ to mean something more fully affirming than what is found in the typical side-B position. I for one have not assumed we are discussing side-B churches.
> 
> In addition to not describing even someone who is full-on "pro-LGBT" with the label _heretic_, I also would be careful not to describe someone who is side-B with the label _pro-LGBT_. That too would be escalation. Even if their position is wrong, an honest representation of it deserves more nuance than that. And "error escalation," as you call it, since it is easily seen to be over-the-top, usually causes the escalator rather than the person in error to be shut out of important conversations.


Correct. Hence why I clarified using 'side A.'


----------



## A.Joseph (Jul 17, 2020)

arapahoepark said:


> What then should we make of worshipping alongside those *who may affirm our distinctives yet side with 'side A'* but they themselves are not homosexuals?


Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 17, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.


Yes. It is both hypothetical and something that I have been increasingly running into. I mean they aren't 'theologians' though they claim evangelical distinctives while believing in homosexuality.


----------



## Jack K (Jul 17, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> Are you sure you are characterizing this right? Or is this a hypothetical? Im having trouble reconciling your scenario, which is why I went to Side B. I don’t see what you propose as even feasible.


Trent is right. It is becoming pretty easy to find churches that have an evangelical-sounding faith statement, outwardly affirming inerrancy and the deity of Christ and the like, but do not hold biblical positions when it comes to sexual morality or other issues that offend the surrounding culture. Their actions feel like theological liberalism, but their faith statements do not align with theological liberalism. I really do have a difficult time knowing what to call them. If anyone has a better idea than what I've proposed, or knows of a helpful term scholars are using, I'm eager to hear it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Jul 17, 2020)

Jack K said:


> Trent is right. It is becoming pretty easy to find churches that have an evangelical-sounding faith statement, outwardly affirming inerrancy and the deity of Christ and the like, but do not hold biblical positions when it comes to sexual morality or other issues that offend the surrounding culture. Their actions feel like theological liberalism, but their faith statements do not align with theological liberalism. I really do have a difficult time knowing what to call them. If anyone has a idea than what I've proposed, or knows of a helpful term scholars are using, I'm eager to hear it.


If a church’s preaching regimen is only topical rather than expository it is far easier to avoid the subject.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jul 17, 2020)

ZackF said:


> If a church’s preaching regimen is only topical rather than expository it is far easier to avoid the subject.



Correct. Hence why one can go to a Life.Church or a Willow Creek clone and never once hear The gospel or anything that would cause offense to a largely effete, suburban sensibility.

These “churches” merely exist as vectors to paint over Enlightenment and American attitudes with a Christian veneer and “reconcile” Christianity with elite sensibilities


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 19, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> Correct. Hence why one can go to a Life.Church or a Willow Creek clone and never once hear The gospel or anything that would cause offense to a largely effete, suburban sensibility.
> 
> These “churches” merely exist as vectors to paint over Enlightenment and American attitudes with a Christian veneer and “reconcile” Christianity with elite sensibilities


How is it enlightenment sensibilities to hold that view?


----------



## Minh (Jul 20, 2020)

I am not sure whether LGBT constitute "heresy" but in my opinion, I would simply have no fellowship with churches that promote LGBT, women pastors, etc...as they undermine the word of God.


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jul 20, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> How is it enlightenment sensibilities to hold that view?



I’m saying that a lot of those style of churches I described have members who confuse “liberty” with libertinism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Howard the Reformer (Jul 21, 2020)

This thread is an interesting read. Thanks to all who have participated. Much to think about.

My question is concerning what I would call a matter of degrees. Is the pro-LGBT stance taken by many churches any different than the reformed view on egalitarian teaching? Is a pro-LGBT stance any different than the reformed view on Federal Vision? Is the pro-LGBT view any different than the reformed view on the Roman Catholic Church? In my opinion sin is sin and it should be pointed out, and as a challenge to pastors, frankly thundered from reformed pulpits. Many reformed pulpits today are knuckling under to BLT, BLM and other errors, which are sin, so why should we as laymen expect pulpits not do the same for the pro-LGBT view?

Maybe if we returned to the simple theological proper term of SIN and proclaimed the Inerrant Infallible Word of God form our pulpits we would not be so concerned with labels. Where are the Edwards, Whitfield's, Spurgeon's of our day especially on this issue? Every age has theologicially incorrect issues and every age has a few Godly men willing to speak out publicly on the issues of their day. If you know of someone doing this please let me know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## EcclesiaDiscens. (Jul 21, 2020)

Howard the Reformer said:


> This thread is an interesting read. Thanks to all who have participated. Much to think about.
> 
> My question is concerning what I would call a matter of degrees. Is the pro-LGBT stance taken by many churches any different than the reformed view on egalitarian teaching? Is a pro-LGBT stance any different than the reformed view on Federal Vision? Is the pro-LGBT view any different than the reformed view on the Roman Catholic Church? In my opinion sin is sin and it should be pointed out, and as a challenge to pastors, frankly thundered from reformed pulpits. Many reformed pulpits today are knuckling under to BLT, BLM and other errors, which are sin, so why should we as laymen expect pulpits not do the same for the pro-LGBT view?
> 
> Maybe if we returned to the simple theological proper term of SIN and proclaimed the Inerrant Infallible Word of God form our pulpits we would not be so concerned with labels. Where are the Edwards, Whitfield's, Spurgeon's of our day especially on this issue? Every age has theologicially incorrect issues and every age has a few Godly men willing to speak out publicly on the issues of their day. If you know of someone doing this please let me know.



Well now we can’t quote Whitfield because of slavery. Same for Edwards. Can’t quote Gouge because he’s a patriarchalist. But we can still quote Rev. Paul Woolley despite his pro-abortion minority report at the OPC GA and have a chair in Church History named after him at Westminster Seminary Philly.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jul 21, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Pro-homosexual churches are outside Christianity. That does not mean one who believes in its doctrine cannot be saved. Think of it like the Roman Catholic church, or the Eastern Orthodox.
> 
> Personally it always saddens me to see an historic church, especially historic Presbyterian churches, displaying rainbow flags or some such. I traveled through Charlottesville Friday and Saturday and saw such a display a few times. Upsetting.



I have thought about this matter a little more and I am not sure I completely agree with my previous position. I believe it is more situational. Pro-LGBT is vague. If the church or its members understand what the Scriptures say about the subject and deny it, I would say it is safe to assume they do not believe the Bible, and evangelism instead of fellowship should be the default position. If the church is just ignorant, or believes that we should not come down as hard on homosexuality, I think that you may assume to find a mixture of apostates and brethren. If the church is Trinitarian and has basic beliefs about the gospel I personally would not be quick to condemn that church due to their error regarding the topic. I hope I explained myself well.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 28, 2020)

EcclesiaDiscens. said:


> I’m saying that a lot of those style of churches I described have members who confuse “liberty” with libertinism.


Well I would choose the word autonomy myself but that's just me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 28, 2020)

A.Joseph said:


> I actually don’t support that right because it makes a mockery of Christianity and can be used to make what’s orthodox appear to be the fringe. If they want to call it a different religion I think it would be more fitting. I don’t think these ideas translate well even from a natural theology/law position.


In retrospect I'm looking at it and I do support that right. It gives me the right to believe as I choose. What's the alternative and how is that better?


----------

