# Definition of heresy.



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 7, 2007)

Is the following a sufficient/thorough definition of heresy?



> We are in heresy when we pick and choose what to believe in Scripture rather than receiving it all as the word of God. Instead of being received, the faith is chosen selectively by the heretic.



I'll credit the quote to it's author later, as I do not want to bias the discussion based on his identity.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 7, 2007)

No.

That may be helpfull, but it is not enough.


----------



## larryjf (Nov 8, 2007)

I would think it would be more like denying the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 8, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would think it would be more like denying the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.





Stick to the creeds to define heresy. Perhaps it would be helpful to refer to false views (confessionally false) as "errors" rather then "heresy"?

What I mean is a man who denies (say) the "holy catholic church" or "one baptism for the remission of sins" is a "heretic". But the next man who differs from the WCF on church government or mode and subject of baptism is "in error".

Now I happen to belive that those who are in "error" vis the WCF are also "heretics", but that can only be my opinion until such time as an ecumenical council recieves the WCF as the "holy faith of our fathers, unless which a man believe he may not be saved."


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 8, 2007)

I agree that this is an over-simplification. Yet I was hoping to spark some discussion on the subject (but no one seems to be engaged by the topic) and perhaps, just maybe, come up with a definition of heresy that most PB folk could agree to. We do see the term used from time to time here 'bouts.

Any other comments or discussion before I reveal the source of the quote? 

Anyone want to guess who I'm quoting?


----------



## heartoflesh (Nov 8, 2007)

If a person accepts Open Theism, what creed essential are they denying?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 8, 2007)

Well, the creeds do call God "almighty".


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 8, 2007)

Slippery little word, "heresy," isn't it?

In RC circles, they distinguish heresy from schism (disunity through lack of love) and apostasy (abandonment of Christianity). In the RC sense of the term, "heresy" comes in two principle flavors: "formal" (adherence to false doctrine by a baptized Roman Catholic) and "material" (false doctrine held in ignorance by a non-Roman).

For those of us Protestants, we often throw the word around about as loosely as we do political/ideological labels. A "liberal," for instance, is just about anybody to the left of me. Religiously, "I am a conservative evangelical," YOU are a fundamentalist. In this sense, a heretic is anybody who disagrees with me over a point of doctrine. The problem comes when, as a result of seeing through a "glass darkly," we begin to disagree on eschatological schema, patterns of polity, candidates for baptism, the RPW, ow whatever. On this board, I _believe_ I have heard Arminians, name-it-and-claim-it preachers, credobaptists, and premil folks labeled "heretics" at one time or another. Some think theonomy is a heresy. Most of you all have no problems calling dispensationalism heresy, etc.

It would seem to me that one might distinguish between beliefs that consign one to hell and notions that are to one degree or another untrue, but not a "salvation issue." In our Protestant tradition, heresy has often been used in a more technical sense of a two-fold move: denying a "crucial" (???) Christian truth + embracing an unbiblical error. But herein lies the rub. Who is to distinguish between a central/crucial doctrine and an "unimportant" one? Might it even be heretical to call ANY doctrine of God "unimportant"?

Another distinction seems necessary. My observation is that conservative Protestants often suffer from degree envy. So we send our best and brightest off to Harvard, Claremont, Chicago, the GTU, etc. for their terminal degrees. They return with their piety and heart for the Lord intact, but often infected with a mindset that destroys the faith from within. Having known and grown close to mentors who are unashamedly liberal, they suffer from bouts of cognitive dissonance. Unable to condemn the pernicious doctrines of their mentors without seeming to slam their academic father-figures, they waffle. However, the next generation of students, tuaght by the wafflers, begins to move further away from the truth. When they go off to university for their PhD's they return with little heart for the Lord and a decidedly liberal methodology and mindset.

One of my colleagues in seminary was the best of the best (Wheaton summa; top grades at Fuller). But, after returning from graduate school tried to explain to an NT Intro class (where one of my interns was present) that Jesus did not know that he was God during his earthly ministry!!! My intern, in his best California valley boy slang, raised his hand to ask: "Didn't Peter kindof tip him off at Caserea Philippi?"

My point being that sometimes a teacher may be unassailably displaying evident piety and devotion, even giving lip service to all of the right doctrines, yet teach in such a way as to infect students with heresy. My concern is that we make the word narrow enough not to throw everyone but me and thee off the boat and yet broad enough to include the professedly orthodox person who leads people astray.


----------



## Josiah (Nov 8, 2007)

Who are you quoting? I tried to google the quote but came up empty. It sounds like something that i have heard or read before.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 8, 2007)

The quote comes form Rushdoony's commentary on Romans & Galatians.

BTW, I agree with Dennis in that "heresy" does seem to be a "slippery term".

Is there a standardized definition of heresy? If so, who decided it?


----------



## Gesetveemet (Nov 8, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> The quote comes form Rushdoony's commentary on Romans & Galatians.
> 
> BTW, I agree with Dennis in that "heresy" does seem to be a "slippery term".
> 
> Is there a standardized definition of heresy? If so, who decided it?





It's not a definition but . . .

Heresy corrupts unity and purity of faith




> *INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION*
> _TRANSLATED BY
> HENRY BEVERIDGE_
> *CHAPTER 2
> ...





.


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 8, 2007)

Could heresy be defined as a belief where if one were to believe it, then he could not be a Christian?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Nov 8, 2007)

I did a little write up on this a while back:
Otherwise, he cannot be saved: Salvation, Essentials and the Trinity - Part 1 | Think! - Wrestlin’ With Wordz-N-Ideaz


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 8, 2007)

*What Heresy Is.*

James Durham, _Concerning Scandal _(Naphtali Press, 1990). Part Four (Concerning Scandalous Divisions), Chapter One (How Heresy, Schism AND Division Differ), page 225.


> WHAT HERESY IS.
> And, first, Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in
> fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate
> the same.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 8, 2007)

I believe heresy is tied to the usage in church documents that declare heretics by saying "if they deny what is taught here, let them be _anathema_." Anathema means accursed, or damned, and comes from Galatians 1:9, "If anyone is preaching a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

A heresy, is something that is contrary to the gospel itself thus is damnable.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 9, 2007)

The origin of the word in the NT is instructive. _Hairesis_ denotes . . .
1. a choice
2. a chosen opinion (used only negatively in the NT of views caused by false teachings)
3. a sect or party (holding certain opinions)

2 Tim 3:16 pictures the role of the Scriptures as establishing the "line" ("teaching" - _didaskalian_), showing where we have deviated from the line ("reproof" - _elegmon_), directing us in the proper change in course to return to the line ("correction" - _epanorthoosin_), and how to continue our conduct on the line ("training in righteousness" - _paideian teen dikaiosunee_). The "geometry" of obedience leads us to follow the line of God's leading in His word. Our "choice" seems responsive to His gracious provision of truth to follow in and error to avoid. 

Heresy would seem to involve a very different kind of "choosing," one that exalts the autonomous will of man. "Choosing" to separate from the life-giving truth of God in favor of one's own determinations, differentiations, and decisions, sometimes even forming a schismatic party would characterize heresy.


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> The origin of the word in the NT is instructive. _Hairesis_ denotes . . .
> 1. a choice
> 2. a chosen opinion (used only negatively in the NT of views caused by false teachings)
> 3. a sect or party (holding certain opinions)
> ...



I am going to save that one! 

I think 'heresy' must involve 'schism'.



> 1 Cor 11:18,19 "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.



There are plenty of people out there (probably myself) who believe some error but do not choose to cause division. That is error, not heresy.

This would agree with Durham's quote above.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 9, 2007)

Ken,

In lecture 39 of Dr. Curt Daniel's _History of Calvinism _series, he speaks of the problem of offering humanity an inadequate diagnosis of our depravity and inability. He analogizes to a physician who offers (for a fee) to "doctor" your Xray to make it look less dire rather than operating to remove the cancer. Daniel says that such a doctor should be "run out of" the ranks of physicians. Then, he adds: *"In my opinion, Arminians should be run out of the ranks of theologians too." *Does that have any relevance for our discussion of "heresy"???


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 9, 2007)

So far we have the following marks of heresy (I may have missed a couple, so correct me where necessary).

1. Clear Biblical error (leading to the fires of Hell) is involved.
2. That error is taught to others.
3. It leads to schism in the Church.

What did I miss?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 9, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> So far we have the following marks of heresy (I may have missed a couple, so correct me where necessary).
> 
> 1. Clear Biblical error (leading to the fires of Hell) is involved.
> 2. That error is taught to others.
> ...



Who advocates #3? Schism has been a blessing at times...

Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.

WHo said the above? was it Dabney? I find it very true


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Ken,
> 
> In lecture 39 of Dr. Curt Daniel's _History of Calvinism _series, he speaks of the problem of offering humanity an inadequate diagnosis of our depravity and inability. He analogizes to a physician who offers (for a fee) to "doctor" your xray to make it looke less dire rather than operating to remove the cancer. Daniel says that such a doctor should be "run out of" the ranks of physicians. Then, he adds: *"In my opinion, Arminians should be run out of the ranks of theologians too." *Does that have any relevance for our discussion of "heresy"???



Great analogy! I am going to use that one. (I will give Dr. Daniel credit)


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Southern Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > So far we have the following marks of heresy (I may have missed a couple, so correct me where necessary).
> ...



Am I on your ignore list or do you not bother to read all of the posts?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 9, 2007)

Schism would be a bad dividing of the Church - Trouble for troubles sake.

Separation would be a good action of the Church - We must remain a chaste bride.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 9, 2007)

I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:

"Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 3:11), and factiously maintained by some person or persons within the visible church, Acts 20:30, in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon and drawn from the holy Scripture...."

--James Fergusson, in his An Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians.

I think this is much better than the first definition I cited. What say ye?


----------



## KMK (Nov 9, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:
> 
> "Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 3:11), and factiously maintained by some person or persons within the visible church, Acts 20:30, in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon and drawn from the holy Scripture...."
> 
> ...



I like the words 'factiously maintained'!


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 9, 2007)

The classic understanding of heresy has been:

Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.

Hence, Christians can be in error, but not be heretics. Thus, denial of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian formula of Christ, etc. etc. are heresies. Arminianism is not.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Nov 9, 2007)

KMK said:


> I like the words 'factiously maintained'!



Yep, for that is exactly what Paul is dealing with in Galatians. The Judaisers were dividing the Church with their factious doctrines.


----------



## shelly (Nov 9, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> The classic understanding of heresy has been:
> 
> Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.
> 
> Hence, Christians can be in error, but not be heretics. Thus, denial of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian formula of Christ, etc. etc. are heresies. Arminianism is not.




So the belief in, and teaching of, the free will of man deciding to accept God's gift that He has offered and made possible by Christ's death on the the cross to the entire world and is just standing by waiting for men to choose Him is not heresy?

Can you explain why not?

Sounds like a different gospel to me.

I can accept that Suzy Q in the pew believes that and is saved in spite of it; but one who *believes* and *teaches* such things, how can they be anything but a heretic?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 9, 2007)

KMK said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Southern Presbyterian said:
> ...



No KMK, you are not. I mised it. So now I must disagree that schism is always heretical. I agree with the quote i provided.


----------



## shelly (Nov 12, 2007)

*might as well be Catholic,since no one's a heretic*



shelly said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > The classic understanding of heresy has been:
> ...




Hey y'all. I'm seriously asking, not just being a smart mouth.

Anybody?

Am I being too strict in my understanding of what heresy is? Is there as much leeway in beliefs as it seems, based on my observations of the PB for the last 4 years and my foray into the PCA? 

It seems like "everybody" is cutting everyone else so much slack in the "biggies", that's it's hard to comprehend why all the "little stuff" has divided the church to this extent.
If


> So the belief in, and teaching of, the free will of man deciding to accept God's gift that He has offered and made possible by Christ's death on the the cross to the entire world and is just standing by waiting for men to choose Him is not heresy?


 isn't that big of a deal; then is anything? If all that is an acceptable level of error; then why bother with separation. We should all go back to PCUSA, shoot, might as well go for the gold and go all the way back to the Catholic church and purify it. As near as I can tell, their baptisms are acceptable by the cream of the crop of reformed/presbyterians as represented on the Puritan Board. The arguements for RC baptisms might as well be arguements for why the RC isn't really all that bad, just in error.

I really do need a good funciional definition of heresy because I am used to having everything spelled out that I am supposed to believe. Turned out that it was all wrong and I'm unlearning all the old stuff and learning new. This new way of living doesn't involve being force-fed my "beliefs". I had to start from scratch. I'm not looking for the legalism I left behind, but just a good way to figure out the boundaries of Scripture. I've spent 4 years off and on here, done a lot of reading, and bugged pastors with questions about their sermons and what I've been reading. The only one who hasn't been able to turn off the questions and discussions during this time is my husband, although he does fall asleep on me 

My observation, for whatever it's worth, is that whatever one believes can be backed up by scripture and the confessions in some way. If we took everyone here on the PB and tried to match up those who held all the same beliefs; there wouldn't be any matches, except maybe husbands and wives. That's ok, but can I get one thing that everyone agrees on? Just one. A good functional definition for heresy. Who gets to decide what is heresy? How can you really say


> Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.


?
God is in charge of salvation, so can it ever really be in jeopardy?

I think that if I knew what heresy was then I'd be a lot less likely to float that direction. Trust me, I get some odd ideas at times. I know how to spot Baptist nutcases, but I wouldn't recognize a Presbyterian that was going off the deep end if I was in the boat with him or on shore watching.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 12, 2007)

shelly said:


> How can you really say
> 
> 
> > Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.
> ...



Of course it cannot - what's meant is not that their salvation is at risk in some sense. Perhaps better
put is "Heresy is an error which casts grave doubt on one's claims of salvation"? The point is that the
term "heresy" should be reserved to those cases in which holding the teaching so labelled causes serious
doubt about the validity of the person's profession.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 12, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Is the following a sufficient/thorough definition of heresy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That sounds like a quote from R.J. Rushdoony.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 12, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> The classic understanding of heresy has been:
> 
> Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.
> 
> Hence, Christians can be in error, but not be heretics. Thus, denial of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian formula of Christ, etc. etc. are heresies. Arminianism is not.




I would not agree with this. If one fully understands Arminianism (most people we call Arminians don't) then one must be a heretic, as they believe that salvation is ultimately dependant upon man.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 12, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> James Durham, _Concerning Scandal _(Naphtali Press, 1990). Part Four (Concerning Scandalous Divisions), Chapter One (How Heresy, Schism AND Division Differ), page 225.
> 
> 
> > WHAT HERESY IS.
> ...





Southern Presbyterian said:


> I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:
> 
> "Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 3:11), and factiously maintained by some person or persons within the visible church, Acts 20:30, in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon and drawn from the holy Scripture...."
> 
> ...



I like both quotes because they say and imply the same thing.

If heresy is nothing more than error in doctrine then we're all heretics of some sort. It's simply a matter of degrees of error.

I don't even agree that a man who propagates and teaches a false doctrine can necessarily be labeled a heretic if he simply does it out of ignorance.

This is the main problem with the facile arguments that the Federal Vision proponents put forth when they argue that "...if you say this then you're saying you'd put Augustine out of the Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (sorry, I can't add more exclamation points to make their point)

In fact, what distinguishes the person who holds an error in doctrine from a heretic (even a key doctrine) is whether they are fractious or unwilling to submit to Truth when someone testifies what the Scriptures teach. Heretics stop their ears to the Truth when the Church rightly divides it for them. He then purposefully separates himself from the Church, calls it false, and establishes an authority in himself to propogate the error.

I believe we ought to be very careful to utilize the term to allow for ecclesiastical discipline to occur with men to see if they are willing to submit before we throw around the term and create a roadblock to their recovery. It should only be utilized after the Church has tried and declared a man to be the case. I don't believe we have the right, individuallly, to classify another man as a heretic on our own authority. 

We also ought to be careful to take each man, one by one, to determine how teachable they are. I have a dear brother in Christ at our current Church who has been transformed by the renewing of his mind over the past year as I've taught through Romans. He admitted to me a few weeks ago that he is ashamed by the things that he used to believe and perform from the front of the Church as the music minister. Aren't we all ashamed, however, of the ways we used to dishonor Christ with our doctrine?

Hope for the best in a man and don't try to go for the throat immediately to bring out the worst in him.


----------



## shelly (Nov 12, 2007)

*I don't care about the heretics just heresy*

Okay, so as individuals we don't have the authority to go around labeling _people_ as heretics, but should leave that to the church/elders/session. I understand that. The sermon yesterday at church was very clear on that score. The church has the authority to judge, but not individuals. BTW that was a completely new idea to me. Good thing he took his time with that point.

But the question remains about a _teaching_ that is heresy. Is there a difference between all the various levels of error and heresy? One man's error is another man's heresy. So is it really going to matter in the long run which errors/heresies one holds to? I don't care about the heretics just heresy.

In a practical way, I can pick up any book by anyone claiming to be Christian and learn from it, and it isn't going to be that big of a deal if along the way I pick up a few more errors/heresies because we all hold to some sort of errors. And I should keep in mind that arminians/semi-pelagians are our brothers in Christ, so anything they teach isn't really that bad.

I don't really believe that, yet to distill what I have learned on the PB and from pastors in real life over the last few years, that is what is true. Am I missing something here? At least when I was IFB I knew we were right and everyone else was wrong. Now, when I put it all together, everyone is at least a little bit right so I shouldn't worry about heresy.


----------



## shelly (Nov 12, 2007)

*When does error become heresy?*



Southern Presbyterian said:


> I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:
> 
> "Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 3:11), and factiously maintained by some person or persons within the visible church, Acts 20:30, in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon and drawn from the holy Scripture...."
> 
> ...



What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?


> what's meant is not that their salvation is at risk in some sense. Perhaps better
> put is "Heresy is an error which casts grave doubt on one's claims of salvation"? The point is that the
> term "heresy" should be reserved to those cases in which holding the teaching so labelled causes serious
> doubt about the validity of the person's profession.



What is the criteria used to determine whether one should "doubt about the validity of the person's profession"? You can't truly say that's it's a departure from the confessions because you call them brothers in Christ whom have never subscribed to any of them and quite possibly never even read through them, even in a cursury manner.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 12, 2007)

> What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?



Maybe we could arrive at an inductive answer looking at the examples that Scripture gives. So the first step would be a list. Here's a couple items off the top of my head.
1. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach an inadequate gospel (though not on those who preach the gospel inadequately) --Galatians 1, Philippians 1.
2. John declares that anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and is the Messiah is definitely out of bounds.
3. Paul says that those who say that the resurrection is already past overthrow the faith.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 12, 2007)

py3ak said:


> > What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In relation to the first point, is Arminianism an inadequate gospel, or the gospel preached in adequately.

As for point two, surely there are errors on the person of Christ which could be described as heresies, but perhaps not damnable heresies.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 12, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> > The classic understanding of heresy has been:
> ...



Yes, Daniel you are right, most Arminians don't know that they are Arminians. However, Arminianism is a very misunderstood system, if by that one means the actual beliefs of Arminius himself. For example, Arminius believed in total depravity. However, he _also _believed that God gives a special grace to humanity to give them an ability to choose. This is very different to saying that humans have a completely free will.

We must distinguish between Arminianism (or Semi-Pelagianism) and Pelagianism. Lots of people in the above discussion have confused Pelagianism with Arminianism. They are not the same beast. In Pelagianism grace = example (of Christ), whereas in Arminianism grace = spiritual power (via Christ's cross-work). In Pelagianism the will is completely free, in Arminianism the will is completely fallen, but made slightly free by universal grace.

Pelagianism _is _a heresy. I'm unwilling to say that Arminianism is.

Blessings.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 12, 2007)

I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 12, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.



What do you mean?


----------



## shelly (Nov 12, 2007)

There were two books I read first as I began studying things out. I cannot remember the titles of both of them.

One was Beginning at Moses by Michael Barrett (It's packed right now, so I can't quote from it)
I think it was p 12, near the bottom of the page, that had a startling definition of semi-pelagianism. It was startling because it was the teaching I had grown up with in a very well respected(at the time) IFB baptist church.

I think that book is why I'm just not persuaded that semi-pelagian baptists(or any semi-pelagian) are "brothers in Christ". I became persuaded that the God I knew of was not the God that was really in the Bible. I realized that I believed in a different gospel and a different God. I've always taken things all the way out to what seems like a logical conclusion to me. When I was about 15 I asked my pastor about all the verses I was seeing that seemed to teach election. He put me in my place and that was the last question I asked him. From that point on I kept my eyes open for something better than being baptist. Nothing came along until I was over 30.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 12, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.
> ...



If you read his writings, you find will that he is not "that far off" in certain areas. I could give him the right hand of fellowship on issues. 

Take for instance the neonomian heresy propogated and allowed by the presbytery in the Church of Scotland against the "marrow men' regarding the clause. the Auchterarder Creed: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” 

This staement is 100% true, yet teh GA of Scotland said the creed was detestable. 

I detest this flavor of theology. It is the worse legalism, one can speak of. Repentance is not a condition of the gospel offer nor a condition of salvation, strictly speaking. Repentance is never a cause of grace or a condition of grace but always a consequence of grace.

Arminius would never speak as such. Thats why i made this statement. See Daniel, very few if any have read his own words, we read a charicature of him painted by polemical diatribes in the heat of anger.

One example. Of Arminius:



V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

230

VI. THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a Son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear or terrific dread

He is pretty good on Justification being in line with the confessions and unanimous beliefs.

He stated:'I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions.

In no way am I making a blanket endorsement of what he later taught once splitting the ranks amongst calvin. But we must also be careful to stae all he taught was heretical


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 12, 2007)

shelly said:


> I think that book is why I'm just not persuaded that semi-pelagian baptists(or any semi-pelagian) are "brothers in Christ".



So you're saying that no-one in the church (or you whilst in the church) are Christians? They're all really unbelievers who are hell-bound?



shelly said:


> I became persuaded that the God I knew of was not the God that was really in the Bible. I realized that I believed in a different gospel and a different God.



"Different" is a word that needs some qualification. The issue is _how _different. Certainly semi-pelagians are able to affirm the basic gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4, that Christ died for sins, was buried, and raised. So, at least, they'd have _that _in common, even if there are differences as we begin to unpack their understanding of these points. But despite differences there is common ground.



shelly said:


> I've always taken things all the way out to what seems like a logical conclusion to me.



That can be both a blessing and a curse. Some doctrines are taken to their logical conclusion in Scripture, because they need to be (e.g. Paul's teasing out of a denial of the end time resurrection of all people in 1 Cor. 15).

However, when it comes to the doctrines of election and predestination, we need to be very careful about attempting to logically tease these out beyond what Scripture tells us. Paul gives his sober warning in Rom. 9 once we start going on that track. Calvin says that when we try and logically tease out predestination to its end conclusions we enter a labyrinth of which we cannot escape. Having finite minds means that we can't see all the logical connections and conclusions of an infinite God (Rom. 11:33ff.).



shelly said:


> When I was about 15 I asked my pastor about all the verses I was seeing that seemed to teach election. He put me in my place and that was the last question I asked him. From that point on I kept my eyes open for something better than being baptist. Nothing came along until I was over 30.



Yes, it's very sad when pastors respond in this way about election. I've had similar experiences. However, I don't therefore want to condemn them as unbelievers. (I know my own biases and sin). BTW aren't there plenty of baptists who affirm election? There certainly are on the PB.


----------



## cih1355 (Nov 12, 2007)

I have talked with people who believe that they can lose their salvation. They also told me that their obedience does not justify them in whole or in part. They claim that their obedience does not retain their salvation. I tried to point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs, but they say, "There is no inconsistency. I'm just going by what the Bible says." I asked them if they believe that they have their own righteousness and they said that they did not have their own righteousness at all. Some people don't see the logical connections between their beliefs, which is why they can have beliefs that undermine each other without knowing it.


----------

