# When Does Belief Become Heresy?



## KMK (Aug 24, 2007)

It has been stated on many threads that one of the sins of the FV proponents was that they did not use proper channels when bringing forth their new understanding of Paul and the nature of the 'works of the law'.

My question is this: If a man was compelled by the NPP teaching and kept his belilef to himself, he would not be considered a heretic because he was not causing division, right?

If so, what channels are appropriate for a man who thinks he has an important, 'fresh' outlook on scripture that would not cause division and yet allow the man to be heard? (I am not referring to myself because I haven't had a 'new idea' in years)

In other words,, how should FV proponants, hyper-preterists, paedocommunionists, feminists, tongues speakers etc. air their 'new perspectives' properly?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2007)

IF they are Presbyterian, probably make his Presbytery aware of any changes in his doctrinal views, as his vows require him to do.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 24, 2007)

What if they kick him out as a heretic without being allowed to give his side and enough time for discussion from the church at large......




NaphtaliPress said:


> IF they are Presbyterian, probably make his Presbytery aware of any changes in his doctrinal views, as his vows require him to do.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2007)

thunaer said:


> What if they kick him out as a heretic without being allowed to give his side and enough time for discussion from the church at large......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If his presbytery does something the man doesn't agree with he can appeal to General Assembly, which will have the final say for that denomination.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 24, 2007)

Hmm, I understand that..... But what is his recourse after that? I am not suggesting a lone ranger approach... What if this man is very learned and has a biblical argument with big historical church forefathers names that back up with what he believes.... What would be his recourse...




NaphtaliPress said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> > What if they kick him out as a heretic without being allowed to give his side and enough time for discussion from the church at large......
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2007)

If the church were not fractured, a general council or some synod like Dordt or Westminster? I really don't know. It not particularly profitable In my humble opinion to play what ifs about something to which there is no solution beyond the denominational level. If it is deemed heresy, his church has spoken; if another church holds that position, he will naturally gravitate there and possibly seek to be a minister there. Look at the FV situation if you want to see how the broader reformed church even in a fractured state is handling new erroneous teaching. I think it presumes an awful lot to think in the case a presbytery is so ignorant or corrupt not to see a heresy is actually truth, that a larger body of men at GA will act the same. 



thunaer said:


> Hmm, I understand that..... But what is his recourse after that? I am not suggesting a lone ranger approach... What if this man is very learned and has a biblical argument with big historical church forefathers names that back up with what he believes.... What would be his recourse...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KMK (Aug 24, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> IF they are Presbyterian, probably make his Presbytery aware of any changes in his doctrinal views, as his vows require him to do.



Did the FVers do this? Did they take it to the GA etc? Are they really 'heretics' if they went through proper channels, were kicked out, and then formed their own organization? What does the church expect these men to do? Accept that they are wrong and shut up, and if not, get out? 

Which is worse, that these men are wrong, or that these men wouldn't sit in silence?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > IF they are Presbyterian, probably make his Presbytery aware of any changes in his doctrinal views, as his vows require him to do.
> ...


It's worse to be wrong and disturbing the peace of the church than just wrong.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> It has been stated on many threads that one of the sins of the FV proponents was that they did not use proper channels when bringing forth their new understanding of Paul and the nature of the 'works of the law'.
> 
> My question is this: If a man was compelled by the NPP teaching and kept his belilef to himself, he would not be considered a heretic because he was not causing division, right?
> 
> ...



Ken:

I'll tell you what I believe to be the right way, if that's OK with you. 

It seems to me that if someone doesn't have the interest of the unity and truth of the Church's doctrines at heart then it is wrong to pursue it in the first place. 

But let's assume a person has these in his heart. The right thing to do is to seek proper Biblical answers from the Session, from the Presbytery, or from the GA. The latter two would become involved if it became a matter of concern for the larger church, for example if it was a preacher or an elder holding the view and insisting upon it. If that's the case then the Presbytery and the GA have two problems, not just one. So we need to focus on the first, the Session. 

I believe the one who differs and the elders should approach this with the mind to seek the truth, not personal vindication. Both parties come to the table knowing that one must change, and either one should be willing to do so only on the basis of proper Biblical grounding. 

If all that separates them is a difference of personal views, then it is up to the individual who differs to submit. If he can't prove what he believes then he's in the wrong to voice his differences openly in the church. What we are called to is unity in doctrine, and the Church has stated what is required. Requiring anything more than that is not right. A person may only differ with his church if he stands on the truth of the Bible, not if he stands only on his own convictions.

All discussion should be towards seeking unity and truth, being ready to give up under being convicted by both or either one. If it doesn't take place in that way, then it is improper, I believe. 

The proper approach is to try to talk things out seeking truth and unity, not personal vindication. Standing against the church is a serious thing, and should never be done lightly. And you can't stand on anything but sure proofs, not simply on differences of personal views. Someone who differs must be ready to have his own mind changed just as he expects others to change their minds when he goes about explaining his views: he thinks to convince, and he should be just as ready to be convinced himself.


----------



## KMK (Aug 25, 2007)

So at what point did the FVers go wrong? Did they take their convictions through the process that you describe?


----------



## JohnV (Aug 25, 2007)

Where I see that FVers went wrong was in two or three basic areas:

First, they are not charging anyone with error, so therefore they are only raising their views as their own views, not necessarily as right views to the exclusion of others. Therefore there is no reason to be unsettling a church. They're not saying that non-FVers are wrong, only that FVers are also not wrong. This puts their contention into a non-doctrinal, non-essential category. 

Second, they did not bring their views up into the church in an orderly fashion. They ought to have abided by the rules of the denomination for settling such disputes, seeking unity and truth, not personal vindication. 

Third, the whole mess is based upon a wrong understanding of the relationship of doctrine and personal conviction. One must stand his personal convictions on doctrine, never doctrine on personal convictions. 

Fourth, this approach neglects other matters of the Confessions. The Confessions isn't just a doctrinal statement, but also a governing statement about how the church is to be set up. There should be ministers, elders, deacons, etc., and specific duties applied to each. But there's also statements about limits. These ministers are paying attention to their own consciences but not to that of others. They are violating others' consciences whenever they unduly elevate their own, especially if they use a church office or duty to do so. 

I must still be free to not be a FVer, and to be so even in a FV church. I should never have to hear a sermon, not even in a FV church, which demeans or discourages my convictions simply on the grounds that I don't hold to FVist views, or because I don't hold to the minister's or the majority's views on some other things of personal conscience. I come to church to hear the Word of God, to be comforted and strengthened, to be humbled over my sin, to receive forgiveness and encouragement, and to worship God and raise my prayers to Him; and I receive the greeting and the benediction just as much as anyone else. God has made none of this contingent upon my acceptance of someone's personal convictions on non-essential matters. on things that they themselves do not even insist upon as truth. 

Now if FV is a doctrinal issue in their eyes, then let them raise it as such to the authoritative bodies. They should be making it an either/or case. It should be a doctrinal case. It should not be a question of whether the Bible teaches FV too, but whether the Bible teaches FV at all; and if so then the Bible cannot also be teaching non-FV. 

In other words, because they're not doing this properly they cannot be authentic in their claims. As far as I know they're just seeking equality of their views, not justification of them. So the whole thing is wrong even without looking at the particulars of their claims. Whatever FV is it can't be right because people who know right from wrong would never go about it that way. It's either right or it's wrong, it can't be true for just some; for if it's just true for just some then it can't be true at all. Whatever is true is true for all people, not just some. 

No, all they're seeking is status for personal convictions, to be free to believe them and to preach them. And that means they don't really understand the relationship of doctrine to personal convictions. They're raising something that they aren't even representing as exclusively true; they're not paying attention to the full Confessions; and they're being underhanded in introducing their views into the churches. 

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've never yet seen a FV apologetic that puts the claims into a charge of error against those who do not hold the FV views. That means everything to me. It's either right or its wrong. If all they're contending is that it's not wrong then I'm not interested: I have no intention of paying dues to join the Acropolis group.


----------



## KMK (Aug 25, 2007)

So they are coming around the back door by refusing to state that the church is in error in its understanding of justification and the church etc. but that they have a 'personal conviction' that is just different. 

It seems the feminists used the same tactic and then when they got a foothold then they said, "We're right. You're wrong. If you don't like it, get out."

I like your statement "One must stand his personal convictions on doctrine, never doctrine on personal convictions."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 25, 2007)

JohnV said:


> In other words, because they're not doing this properly they cannot be authentic in their claims. As far as I know they're just seeking equality of their views, not justification of them. So the whole thing is wrong even without looking at the particulars of their claims. Whatever FV is it can't be right because people who know right from wrong would never go about it that way. It's either right or it's wrong, it can't be true for just some; for if it's just true for just some then it can't be true at all. Whatever is true is true for all people, not just some.
> 
> No, all they're seeking is status for personal convictions, to be free to believe them and to preach them. And that means they don't really understand the relationship of doctrine to personal convictions. They're raising something that they aren't even representing as exclusively true; they're not paying attention to the full Confessions; and they're being underhanded in introducing their views into the churches.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've never yet seen a FV apologetic that puts the claims into a charge of error against those who do not hold the FV views. That means everything to me. It's either right or its wrong. If all they're contending is that it's not wrong then I'm not interested: I have no intention of paying dues to join the Acropolis group.



Very Well Said! AMEN and


----------



## JohnV (Aug 25, 2007)

KMK said:


> I like your statement "One must stand his personal convictions on doctrine, never doctrine on personal convictions."



It ain't mine. A long time ago I was writing down every worthwhile quote that I could find. Only years later did I bother to write down who said it and where it came from. I was interested in the truths in them and no one owned that, so I didn't bother to write down the authors; I wasn't thinking to use the quotes someday like I'm doing now. This is one of those early quotes. I don't know who said it before me, but its not my own. 



> So they are coming around the back door by refusing to state that the church is in error in its understanding of justification and the church etc. but that they have a 'personal conviction' that is just different.
> 
> It seems the feminists used the same tactic and then when they got a foothold then they said, "We're right. You're wrong. If you don't like it, get out."



I think the important part is that they're worried about their own acceptance of their own personal views; and the fact that they believe this also gives them the right to propagate them in the church setting.


----------



## KMK (Aug 25, 2007)

JohnV said:


> I think the important part is that they're worried about their own acceptance of their own personal views; and the fact that they believe this also gives them the right to propagate them in the church setting.



So these men were actually teaching these things from the pulpit????? I though they were just writing articles and books and having conferences with other pastors!


----------



## JohnV (Aug 26, 2007)

That's not what I said, Ken. What I meant was that men were using their church offices and duties to lend authority to their own views. I believe that a minister may write a paper, but if he's writing as a minister of the Word it must be under the supervision of his Session; doing so outside the pale of being directly answerable to elders means that he is just another man, not an office-bearer. In other words, he can't use his position as a minister or professor in the church beyond his responsibility to the church. It is not a licence in that respect. It does not put the man himself over anyone else. It is still a fact that the offices of the church are filled by men who are no less objects of grace than those who are not eligible for office. Men are called to office because of the gifts that God gives them to call and educate God's people. They're not called because their ideas are so much better than others' ideas. If their ideas are better its because they have matured more in submitting their thoughts to the Word of God, to God's own revelation. 

As a minister he must put his own ideas aside in order to maintain as much as possible the unity of the church. He represents Christ to his church, not himself or his own views; but he also represents the Church to his church, and not his own views. His consciencience is supposed to be guided by what he is called to do; his is not called to follow his conscience to be guided in what he is called to do. In some cases he is called to follow his conscience, but to follow a conscience that is fully submitted to and guided by his calling and duty. 

Winds of doctrine are still winds of doctrine, even if it's our own ministers propagating them. Writing articles and holding conferences is another way to propagate. That's not what the offices of the church are for.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 27, 2007)

Of course, if these men are preaching these things from the pulpit then there's a much deeper problem. No one gave them a commission to do so. They have no mandate for it. Their authority comes from the Church and is supposed to be under the Church's watchful eye. The Sessions (immediately) and the Presbytery's (ultimately) are responsible for the men who preach the Word that they preach only Christ's Word; no part of their office comes from their own whims and fancies. There has to be a firm ground under what they preach, and be approved by the Church that has ordained them to preach these things. There's a whole lot of things going on in such a case than merely having a different opinion that the denomination may or may not allow as a personal point of view.

I don't go to such churches, so I don't know whether they preach these things or not. All I know so far is that the pieces that I've read so far by FVists do not obligate me to believe what they proffer. They only seek that they obtain the right to hold their own views and to propagate them freely.

But to answer your original question, "When does belief become heresy?" I would say that belief does not become heresy. If we take FV as an example, it became unbelief before it became heresy. They took the tenets of the faith to be optional, able to be changed from person to person, depending upon their perspectives, individualized. They began to accept the notion that what is true for one person may not necessarily be true for another. They've taken the freedom to differ that is allowed under personal conscience to extend into areas of defined doctrine. They've assumed that their own personal consciencious beliefs are their "Bible doctrine" compared what others believe in their own personal conscience, and insist that they be allowed to proclaim it using their position of respect granted them by the churches; when "Bible doctrine" became less than Bible doctrine, able to be mixed with non-doctrine. It became heresy when they confused true belief with personal persuasions on non-essentials.


----------

