# May you worship God with a heretic?



## InSlaveryToChrist

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

(1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a _false_, _man-centered_ gospel?

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

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

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

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

(6) But we are not _in peace with_ heretics, right? That would be _compromise_, right?

Just some thoughts to feed on.


----------



## Skyler

This begs the question of whether Arminianism is really heresy.


----------



## Notthemama1984

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


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


 
God can use anyone or anything for His glory, even a heretic or a false doctrine. If we acknowledge that God can use even sin to the good of the elect, why not a false gospel? But the question really comes down to this: *What is the goal of the preaching of the Gospel?* Is it the QUANTITY of _professing_ Christians, or is it the QUALITY of professing Christians? Is it just to make the whole world _profess_ Christ as their Lord and Saviour, or is it to actually SAVE someone? You see, if we use that criteria as a measure, the Arminian gospel and the Arminian with his false doctrine fall right into the category of HERETICS, that is, false teachers who _knowingly_ TRY to lead the sheep their own way, not the way of the Bible -- but in spite of that, God will protect the sheep from the heretics and lead them to the truth. That won't happen, however, without the preaching of the TRUE Gospel! So what's good about communion in a church, where the Gospel is UNHEARD OF?!


----------



## jayce475

I would not worship with them even if Arminianism is not heresy on the basis of 2 Thess 3:6 and 2 Thess 3:14-15. Pentacostalism is too gross an error to accept as a mere denominational distinctive and I would see the need of practising biblical separation so that they may know their error.


----------



## Philip

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

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

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> God can use anyone or anything for His glory, even a heretic or a false doctrine. If we acknowledge that God can use even sin to the good of the elect, why not a false gospel? But the question really comes down to this: What is the goal of the preaching of the Gospel? Is it the QUANTITY of professing Christians, or is it the QUALITY of professing Christians? Is it just to make the whole world profess Christ as their Lord and Saviour, or is it to actually SAVE someone? You see, if we use that criteria as a measure, the Arminian gospel and the Arminian with his false doctrine fall right into the category of HERETICS, that is, false teachers who knowingly TRY to lead the sheep their own way, not the way of the Bible -- but in spite of that, God will protect the sheep from the heretics and lead them to the truth. That won't happen, however, without the preaching of the TRUE Gospel! So what's good about communion in a church, where the Gospel is UNHEARD OF?!



Romans 10:14-15 shows that the tool of salvation is men who publish good news and publish salvation. This is such the normative way that Paul asks, "How can believe without these men?"

On the other hand you seem to be advocating that God uses heretics just as often to bring about salvation. 

Is Arminianism bad mojo? Absolutely. I don't want you to think otherwise. But because of the salvations that God brings about through Arminian preachers, I cannot label them as heretics. 

At one point (I am not sure if this is still the case), the SBC had more missionaries serving abroad than any other denominations. This means that a majority of the churches that are popping up around the world are the fruits of Arminian missionaries. Can you honestly believe that these churches are all just a lie?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> If God could use Arian missionaries to convert the Goths in the 4th century (and that heresy, arguably, run deeper than mere Arminianism) He can use Arminians in our day. If perfect doctrine is one of the marks of a true church, then there are no true churches. If heretics cannot be saved in spite of their heresy, then we're all damned.
> 
> As for myself, tomorrow I plan to receive the Lord's Supper at the local CofE church just up the road. I may not agree with Anglicans on every point of doctrine or polity (thankfully this particular congregation really teaches the Scriptures---classic 39 Articles Anglicanism) but in the end, we are all part of the Church Catholic and one day will worship together.
> 
> Samuel, does one war against one's own body? If an Arminian as an Arminian can be saved, then they too are part of the body of Christ. The sacrament acknowledges no denominational boundaries.


 
It is not about whether God can use somebody or not, it is about whether we preach the same Gospel. There IS a way to distinguish between a false and a true church: WHAT IS THE GOSPEL? The Arminian says: "Jesus died to make our salvation possible." The Calvinist says: "Jesus died to save." How can you reconcile those? That's too much of an error! There has to be a line somewhere! If you can commune with an Arminian, then you probably can commune with a Pelagian, who says Christ gave us only a good example to follow. Or perhaps you could commune with just ANYONE who mentions the name "Christ"? I mean, you must draw a line somewhere and say, "ENOUGH!"

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> But because of *the salvations* that God brings about through Arminian preachers, I cannot label them as heretics.


 
So you believe in your own eyes afterall? Do you honestly believe a false gospel produces true converts? Or if what you're saying is that the Arminians are helping the elect to come to some basic understanding of the Scriptures, what is more basic than understanding the true Gospel? And apart from the Gospel nothing benefits! And as I already stated, God can use anyone and anything to promote His salvation -- does that, then, make _the means_ good and acceptable? No.


----------



## Notthemama1984

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

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


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


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

To counter your conversion experience:

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


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Do you honestly believe a false gospel produces true converts?



Absolutely not!

I just don't see Arminians preaching a false gospel. They are preaching Christ and Him crucified. They are preaching that we must have faith in Christ. We strongly disagree on how we get that faith, but it is still faith in Christ.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe a false gospel produces true converts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not!
> 
> I just don't see Arminians preaching a false gospel. They are preaching Christ and Him crucified. They are preaching that we must have faith in Christ. We strongly disagree on how we get that faith, but it is still faith in Christ.
Click to expand...

 
In "Christ" who cannot save without man's help, right?


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of basing your conversion on the facts of the Scripture, you "believe" that you were converted when you heard an Arminian gospel?
> 
> To counter your conversion experience:
> 
> I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.
Click to expand...

 



> Chapter XVIII
> 
> Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
> 
> I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]



I can have the assurance of my salvation. I had that assurance decades before I knew anything about TULIP, predestination, Calvinism, or anything remotely Reformed. 




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



This is the same Gospel that I heard proclaimed for the first 24 years of my life. This Gospel was proclaimed through the mouth of an Arminian minister.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------




InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe a false gospel produces true converts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not!
> 
> I just don't see Arminians preaching a false gospel. They are preaching Christ and Him crucified. They are preaching that we must have faith in Christ. We strongly disagree on how we get that faith, but it is still faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In "Christ" who cannot save without man's help, right?
Click to expand...

 
I do not know any Arminian who would say that. They all admit that God can save without man's help and in fact proclaim that God has saved us without our help. They are not advocating man adding to God's work. They simply advocate a free will choice of man. This choice does not diminish God's work in the sense that God's hands are tied. This choice was given to us by God. He willfully takes a step back and lets us freely choose. 

Again do not misunderstand me. This is a wrong view, but it is not a false Gospel.


----------



## Skyler

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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



I have heard that preached in the context of Arminianism.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


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


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

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of basing your conversion on the facts of the Scripture, you "believe" that you were converted when you heard an Arminian gospel?
> 
> To counter your conversion experience:
> 
> I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter XVIII
> 
> Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation
> 
> I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
> 
> II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can have the assurance of my salvation. I had that assurance decades before I knew anything about TULIP, predestination, Calvinism, or anything remotely Reformed.
Click to expand...


Great, I did, too. Sadly, my "assurance" turned out to be false assurance.




> I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the same Gospel that I heard proclaimed for the first 24 years of my life. This Gospel was proclaimed through the mouth of an Arminian minister.
Click to expand...



It is one thing to hear it, quite another to understand it.


----------



## Michael

1. Sure
2. No
3. No. Simply set an example and speak the truth in love.
4. Sure. Our own Reformed Churches are far from pure, apart from Christ's blood.
5. Yes
6. Depends how far you are taking this "heretic" thing. If they believe in the essentials of the Gospel, then they are your brothers and sisters in Christ. They may misunderstand and even preach against certain nuances of theology but thanks be to Christ we are not saved by our acute theological prowess. 

A child of God may worship him anywhere [and in far worse scenarios than this]. Why wouldn't you do so while visiting with your parents?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have a question that I would like to pose in this situation. What kind of Pentecostalism is involved? Is it a Trinitarian or Oneness first of all? Do they believe in Salvation by Grace through faith alone? Some have. Do your parents believe in the Trinity and do they believe that Christ died for their sins? Now for the harder question. Does the 5th commandment have any application to this issue?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a question that I would like to pose in this situation. What kind of Pentecostalism is involved? Is it a Trinitarian or Oneness first of all? Do they believe in Salvation by Grace through faith alone? Some have. Do your parents believe in the Trinity and do they believe that Christ died for their sins? Now for the harder question. Does the 5th commandment have any application to this issue?


 
Trinitarian. Yes to all the rest, plus they believe that Christ died even for their unbelief.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard that preached in the context of Arminianism.
Click to expand...

 
As I've already said, "It is one thing to hear it, quite another to understand it." I won't deny that regeneration is possible where the true Gospel is _not_ preached. As to conversion, however, I don't believe the Bible indicates -- and it is not my experience -- that conversion would be possible _without_ true understanding of the Gospel.

I also want to add that of course Arminians want to say, "Christ SAVES!" but you know what they really mean. Their own speech contradicts their beliefs. And so they lead the sheep to a great confusion and misery.


----------



## Dearly Bought

Since Arminian preachers still tend to quote God's Word a fair bit, it is always possible that God will bring about the new birth through _His Word_ not the false gospel of the Arminian preacher. We may see the same thing in Roman Catholic settings at times as well, but this does not justify recognition of Rome as a true church or her gospel as the true gospel.

According to the Canons of Dordt, Arminians "summon back from hell the Pelagian error." A quick perusal reveals that Arminianism is linked to Pelagius several times. Certainly there is no hesitation to apply the nomenclature of "heresy" to Arminianism.

From the Reformation to the present day, Reformed Christians have recognized Arminianism as a dangerous heresy which strikes at the core of the Gospel. Since proclamation of the true Gospel is the primary mark of the true church, we must not recognize Arminian assembles as true congregations of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). While we should "lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim. 2:2) in our relations with others, this does not mean that we should participate in false worship. Worship of the true God is not enough to constitute true worship; we must come to the true God through the mediation of Christ Jesus alone (Heb. 13:15). True worship requires a true Gospel, which Arminianism does not have.

R.C. Sproul wrote a piece of remarkable clarity entitled "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church." His words pretty much sum it all up,


> This is the issue: Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it in our own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter, that it ultimately depends on something we do for ourselves, thereby deny humanity’s utter helplessness in sin and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder then that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being, in principle, both a return to Rome because, in effect, it turned faith into a meritorious work, and a betrayal of the Reformation because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the reformers’ thought. Arminianism was indeed, in Reformed eyes, a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism. For *to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle than to rely on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other.*


----------



## jwithnell

Another pertinent question: what do they believe regarding the Lord's Table? I would not, for example, take communion in an RC church because I believe their doctrine regarding the sacraments are totally at odds with what the Bible teaches.

I spent several years among Armenians (Independent Baptist, a few with a Mennonite upbringing) when there was no reformed church available. I saw people who loved the Lord and many who were willing to serve Him sacrificially. I had serious differences with them doctrinally and did not think (or act) like our differences regarding baptism, the sovereignty of God, and so forth, were unimportant. But we could unite around Christ and I am convinced many will be with me in heaven.

I'm going to be pretty straight forward here: no one individual can declare another person or church heretical. It is an act of the church. You are not in a position to determine if others are in Christ or not. Due to our fallen minds, I'm certain we will find that some of our reformed doctrine is in error once the darkness of sin has been removed from our eyes. Parts of Christ's body may be more crippled than others, but they are still part of the body if they believe in a triune God who saves through Christ alone and speaks through His Bible only (and authoritatively).


----------



## Skyler

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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



I agree.

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

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


----------



## cih1355

Does that church preach a false gospel? If it does, then don't go there.


----------



## torstar

Chaplainintraining said:


> I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.
> 
> Is sitting under Arminian teaching the best possible scenario? No. Should we walk on the other side of the street when we see an Arminian coming? No.


 


Same here, I was converted under Arminian teaching and attended for decades. 

I'm grateful I have parents who are believers, even if they are not Reformed and we won't see eye to eye on every point of doctrine. I have no trouble listening to their pastor's teaching, although I could make a few wishes about future content...

I've also learned that people are not fair to other denoms; I could wish they at least make an attempt to understand before popping off against them. I have been under attack unfairly under both Arminian and Reformed membership, neither set of accusers having a clue. 

A shocking remnant will be revealed some day, and a shocking non-remnant will be as well.


----------



## MMasztal

Chaplainintraining said:


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



Well, my regeneration occurred as a result of the Bakker/Swaggart scandal. In my opinion, these guys are heretics.


----------



## Scott1

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I was invited by my parents to visit their Pentecostal Church tomorrow (it's communion day), and I'm in a really difficult situation. There are several questions that popped into my mind:
> 
> (1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a _false_, _man-centered_ gospel?
> One needs to be committed and accountable to a covenant community. As a matter of conscience and confession, the doctrine and practice needs to be substantially what you know to be biblically faithful. Not perfect, but substantially, comprehensively biblical.
> 
> That doesn't mean the people are perfect, let alone even mature in their understanding. God is always doing growing and sanctifying among His people, at every age and every stage.
> 
> 
> (2) Does communing with other Christians _necessarily_ indicate an agreement in the doctrine of the Gospel?
> 
> Depends on what is meant by "communing." Corporate worship ought be primarily based on biblical doctrine and practice. Other associations, including friendships are not on the same footing.
> 
> (3) Should I, instead of communing with heretics, declare "a holy war" against their false teaching?
> 
> Romans 12:19
> 
> 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.
> 
> (4) While we may rightly invite sinners and heretics alike to our own churches, is it right for us to go to their churches to worship "the same God"?
> 
> Primarily not, because we understand worship is a serious, important thing to our God. However, I can think of mercy, necessity and even other exceptions. Anecdotal only, E.g. Our Pastor taught in another church that we have associated with on a mercy basis- the service was a combination, both churches inputting- and it was very edifying.
> 
> (5) Although in communion we worship God, isn't communion also about _unity_ of Christians in the body of Christ, and therefore, doesn't communion imply _peace_ with others (no place for "a holy war")?
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> God has placed us in a catholic (worldwide) Body with lots of people who have some wrong theology. The difficulty is, once you mature to understand that, you don't want to be associated with the confession of that wrong theology, because it displeases our Creator.
> 
> (6) But we are not _in peace with_ heretics, right? That would be _compromise_, right?
> 
> Heretic often is understood to one with flagrant, overwhelming, nonredeemable error. One ought generally stay away from confessional association, and even away from the person if they are warned and persist.
> 
> Titus 3:10
> 
> 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
> 
> Just some thoughts to feed on.


 Remember our Lord's admonition:

I Corinthians 6
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 


and

I Corinthians 5
8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 


Blessings.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Samuel - 

I recommend you go visit your parents' church. It will give them a thrill, enable you to find out what their church is like, and possibly give you a hearing with them if you afterward want to address any concerns. 

A few tips:
1. Don't posture yourself as an aloof judge who condescends to observe their heathen rite.
2. You might be pleasantly surprised by a few things - or maybe not - but if you want to address concerns with your parents I suggest that you begin by noting what their church did well. 
3. I realize that because we're talking about matters that are of extreme importance that we feel justified - no, COMPELLED! - to use the strongest language possible in our condemnations. But I would encourage you to tone down the rhetoric so as to prevent them from writing you off or becoming defensive. 

Just go, sit with mom and dad, glean what you can, and offer winsome and constructive feedback to your folks when it is all said and done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AThornquist

Pentecostals are sometimes heretics, but being a Pentecostal does not in itself make you a heretic. There are many Pentecostals, especially in countries other than the US, that are genuinely converted and seeking to glorify God, although aspects of their theology are wrong. Broadly labelling them all as heretics is inaccurate and an offense to some true sheep that Christ died for. Remember that even some people on this board were Pentecostals and regenerate, though they came to a better understanding of the truth and moved away from those forms of theology.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Skyler said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to conversion, however, I don't believe the Bible indicates -- and it is not my experience -- that conversion would be possible without true understanding of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I think where we disagree is the level of understanding that is necessary.
> 
> Is it necessary to be able to delineate the five points of Calvinism, or is it sufficient to understand on a basic level that we are sinners, that we need God to deliver us from our sin, and that He offers that deliverance if we repent and believe on Christ?
Click to expand...

 
I'm not saying true understanding of the Gospel involves complete understanding of TULIP, not at all! You won't be able to see and appreciate God's love in the sufferings of Christ until you understand two things: (1) Christ was not obligated to save you and God was not obligated to love you, (2) you must be convicted of your own sinfulness and perceive yourself as an evil, wicked, vile, disgusting, abhorrent being (the point is: your sinfulness is beyond words).

---------- Post added at 05:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 AM ----------

Those of you who believe an Arminian gospel can actually lead you to _true_ conversion, doesn't that mean that the true Gospel is _unnecessary_?

Again, my stance is that God may well _regenerate_ people under a false gospel (I believe I was!), but never _convert_ them without the preaching AND understanding of the true Gospel.

---------- Post added at 05:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 AM ----------

I believe there are, at this very moment, numbers of false converts in Arminian churches worldwide, who have been truly regenerated, but who have never heard the true Gospel preached to them. Their new nature makes them uneasy, confused and unsatisfied with the gospel they have received from their Arminian pastors, it can give them no rest. And I believe there are false converts in Reformed churches alike, truly regenerated AND having heard the true Gospel, but having never _truly_ understood it. Even being regenerated and having heard the true Gospel does not always automatically result in conversion. But it is only a matter of time.


----------



## kvanlaan

As mentioned above, I don't think that we can pick and choose who is a heretic, that is for the church to decide. Since the Canons of Dordt plainly teach it to be heresy, if you are a confessing member of a 3FU church, then Arminianism *is* heresy (last I checked, we don't allow exceptions to confessions in the URC/Dutch reformed churches in general). Some say that it is a different brand of Arminianism, etc. but if so, then call it something different. Isn't today's Arminianism merely a more palatable (less in-your-face blatant) version of the old lie? Its genesis is the same, it's just 'rebranded' for wider consumption and appeal. Should you snub/shun him in a rude way? I don't think so. But nor should you compromise in your beliefs. We were at a friend's place a week ago and they are Copts. While I can accept him blessing the food and eating with him, I could not go to mass at his church. And when it comes to discussion of doctrine, I must firmly hold to my beliefs, even though it may cause awkwardness. We were diametrically opposed on points of theology, and on what basis could I possibly compromise? I must tell the truth, first and foremost. In the same way with an Arminian - when it is a question of salvation, I can't see where anyone on this board would say 'sure, just jump out of the line going to hell and into the line going to heaven, it will be just fine and God will be OK with it'. No, we affirm our beliefs, and hold fast to them, but in a Christlike way.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

kvanlaan said:


> As mentioned above, I don't think that we can pick and choose who is a heretic, that is for the church to decide. Since the Canons of Dordt plainly teach it to be heresy, if you are a confessing member of a 3FU church, then Arminianism *is* heresy (last I checked, we don't allow exceptions to confessions in the URC/Dutch reformed churches in general). Some say that it is a different brand of Arminianism, etc. but if so, then call it something different. Isn't today's Arminianism merely a more palatable (less in-your-face blatant) version of the old lie? Its genesis is the same, it's just 'rebranded' for wider consumption and appeal. Should you snub/shun him in a rude way? I don't think so. But nor should you compromise in your beliefs. We were at a friend's place a week ago and they are Copts. While I can accept him blessing the food and eating with him, I could not go to mass at his church. And when it comes to discussion of doctrine, I must firmly hold to my beliefs, even though it may cause awkwardness. We were diametrically opposed on points of theology, and on what basis could I possibly compromise? I must tell the truth, first and foremost. In the same way with an Arminian - when it is a question of salvation, I can't see where anyone on this board would say 'sure, just jump out of the line going to hell and into the line going to heaven, it will be just fine and God will be OK with it'. No, we affirm our beliefs, and hold fast to them, but in a Christlike way.


 
Maybe I've used the word "heretic" a little loosely. How do the Reformed standards define a "heretic?" How does a false teacher differ from a heretic?

---------- Post added at 07:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 AM ----------




Scott1 said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was invited by my parents to visit their Pentecostal Church tomorrow (it's communion day), and I'm in a really difficult situation. There are several questions that popped into my mind:
> 
> (1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a _false_, _man-centered_ gospel?
> One needs to be committed and accountable to a covenant community. As a matter of conscience and confession, the doctrine and practice needs to be substantially what you know to be biblically faithful. Not perfect, but substantially, comprehensively biblical.
> 
> That doesn't mean the people are perfect, let alone even mature in their understanding. God is always doing growing and sanctifying among His people, at every age and every stage.
> 
> 
> (2) Does communing with other Christians _necessarily_ indicate an agreement in the doctrine of the Gospel?
> 
> Depends on what is meant by "communing." Corporate worship ought be primarily based on biblical doctrine and practice. Other associations, including friendships are not on the same footing.
> 
> (3) Should I, instead of communing with heretics, declare "a holy war" against their false teaching?
> 
> Romans 12:19
> 
> 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.
> 
> (4) While we may rightly invite sinners and heretics alike to our own churches, is it right for us to go to their churches to worship "the same God"?
> 
> Primarily not, because we understand worship is a serious, important thing to our God. However, I can think of mercy, necessity and even other exceptions. Anecdotal only, E.g. Our Pastor taught in another church that we have associated with on a mercy basis- the service was a combination, both churches inputting- and it was very edifying.
> 
> (5) Although in communion we worship God, isn't communion also about _unity_ of Christians in the body of Christ, and therefore, doesn't communion imply _peace_ with others (no place for "a holy war")?
> 
> Not sure what you mean.
> 
> God has placed us in a catholic (worldwide) Body with lots of people who have some wrong theology. The difficulty is, once you mature to understand that, you don't want to be associated with the confession of that wrong theology, because it displeases our Creator.
> 
> (6) But we are not _in peace with_ heretics, right? That would be _compromise_, right?
> 
> Heretic often is understood to one with flagrant, overwhelming, nonredeemable error. One ought generally stay away from confessional association, and even away from the person if they are warned and persist.
> 
> Titus 3:10
> 
> 10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
> 
> Just some thoughts to feed on.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember our Lord's admonition:
> 
> I Corinthians 6
> 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
> 
> 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
> 
> 
> and
> 
> I Corinthians 5
> 8Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
> 
> 9I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> 
> 10Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
> 
> 11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> 
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...

 
According to that standard, I should not participate in the service of my parents' church. And I didn't. If a heretic is always to be rejected and not to have fellowship with, and if a heretic is "one with flagrant, overwhelming, nonredeemable error" -- and I think the way how Arminians describe Christ inevitably goes into that category -- then I'll not commune with Arminians, full-stop.


----------



## Mushroom

The fact that God uses any individual or group in the process of redeeming His people is no validation of that individual's or group's orthodoxy. Not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and clay also.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Brad said:


> The fact that God uses any individual or group in the process of redeeming His people is no validation of that individual's or group's orthodoxy. Not only vessels of gold and silver, but wood and clay also.


 
That's exactly my point. Thank you for affirming.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

*It seems many of you think it is enough if one's gospel presentation is Biblical, even if his gospel theology is not Biblical. Here is what I mean:

An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?

We could say the Arminian preaches both Biblically and unBiblically about the Gospel. But just because he has something right about it doesn't qualify his gospel as sufficient Gospel. Judged as a whole, it is FALSE.*


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Maybe I've used the word "heretic" a little loosely. How do the Reformed stantards define a "heretic?" How does a false teacher differ from a heretic?



Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), _I have never met a consistent Arminian_. The fact is that most Arminians believe in _sola fide_ and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.

There is no difference between a heretic and a false teacher---there are, however, individuals who are honestly mistaken in their teaching and need to be lovingly convinced (in fact, this includes all of us). If we were saved by having all of our theological ducks in a row, we'd all be damned. 



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I believe there are, at this very moment, numbers of false converts in Arminian churches worldwide, who have been truly regenerated, but who have never heard the true Gospel preached to them. Their new nature makes them uneasy, confused and unsatisfied with the gospel they have received from their Arminian pastors, it can give them no rest. And I believe there are false converts in Reformed churches alike, truly regenerated AND having heard the true Gospel, but having never truly understood it. Even being regenerated and having heard the true Gospel does not always automatically result in conversion. But it is only a matter of time.



Where in Scripture do we find these fine distinctions? It seems to me that Scripturally there are only two kinds of people: repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. A false convert is just one who pretends to be a Christian. Regeneration (being born again---from Latin _regenero_, to have a new beginning) is always effectual, that's what it's called irresistible grace.

I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I've used the word "heretic" a little loosely. How do the Reformed stantards define a "heretic?" How does a false teacher differ from a heretic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), _I have never met a consistent Arminian_. The fact is that most Arminians believe in _sola fide_ and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.
> 
> There is no difference between a heretic and a false teacher---there are, however, individuals who are honestly mistaken in their teaching and need to be lovingly convinced (in fact, this includes all of us). If we were saved by having all of our theological ducks in a row, we'd all be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there are, at this very moment, numbers of false converts in Arminian churches worldwide, who have been truly regenerated, but who have never heard the true Gospel preached to them. Their new nature makes them uneasy, confused and unsatisfied with the gospel they have received from their Arminian pastors, it can give them no rest. And I believe there are false converts in Reformed churches alike, truly regenerated AND having heard the true Gospel, but having never truly understood it. Even being regenerated and having heard the true Gospel does not always automatically result in conversion. But it is only a matter of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in Scripture do we find these fine distinctions? It seems to me that Scripturally there are only two kinds of people: repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. A false convert is just one who pretends to be a Christian. Regeneration (being born again---from Latin _regenero_, to have a new beginning) is always effectual, that's what it's called irresistible grace.
Click to expand...


According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance. I don't believe faith and regeneration overlap -- I believe one leads to the other. Thus, there are unconverted (unbelieving and unrepentant) Christians, who are regenerated, waiting to either hear the true Gospel or understand it for the first time in their life. I'm not saying it is either-or, just that there are people who have heard the true Gospel and haven't understood, and people who haven't heard the true Gospel to begin with.



> I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.


 
I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine. What does it weigh for an unbeliever to say Christ was crucified and risen for sinners? Absolutely nothing. We must preach the whole councel of God's Word. We must explain the terms of the Bible so that there may be true perception of what happened on that cross on the Calvary.

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------




Unashamed 116 said:


> Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.


 
I suggest you read the red text above.


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance.



That's a logical progression/distinction not a chronological one.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine.



That's why we do theology---but it's often true that good faithful Christians disagree over theology.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?



Talking about the external metaphysics and mechanics of how faith works is not the Gospel. The Gospel presents us with two options: repent and believe in Christ or reject Him. Arminians can and do present the true Gospel.


----------



## jayce475

Unashamed 116 said:


> Arminianism is not a falsegospel/heresy. Calvinism is not the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus came to save sinners through his death and resurrection. It doesn't matter if you are Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic, Pentecostal, Methodist, or whatever. If you believe that, then you believe the Gospel. You may feel free to worship God with any believer.


 
That's quite sweeping. Would you consider it to be alright to worship in an RC place of worship as long as there are some believers inside? And last I remembered, there was hardly any consensus on whether Calvinism is the gospel the last time we had the thread for it.

---------- Post added at 12:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 AM ----------


----------



## Philip

jayce475 said:


> Would you consider it to be alright to worship in an RC place of worship as long as there are some believers inside?



Not to steal Joseph's thunder here, but when it comes to RC/EO Masses, the issue is entirely different. In these cases we would be affirming, even tacitly, the doctrine of transubstantiation. Thus, in the mass, the sacrament is improperly administered and to partake is to acknowledge it to be valid.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Ordo Salutis regeneration precedes faith and repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a logical progression/distinction not a chronological one.
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly, expect for the assumption that it is enough for a church to just proclaim Christ crucified and risen -- there must be clarification of doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we do theology---but it's often true that good faithful Christians disagree over theology.
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Arminian never says Christ cannot save without man's help. He preaches a Christ who saves! But when it comes to details and strict definitions of terms, the conclusion is inevitable: Christ needs man's approval to save him. Now, that's a FALSE gospel, you see?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talking about the external metaphysics and mechanics of how faith works is not the Gospel. The Gospel presents us with two options: repent and believe in Christ or reject Him. Arminians can and do present the true Gospel.
Click to expand...


With their Gospel presentation they directly present the true Gospel, with their Gospel theology they indirectly present a false gospel.


----------



## Notthemama1984

How can one be regenerate but not converted? I ask out of ignorance.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


> How can one be regenerate but not converted? I ask out of ignorance.


 
Regeneration doesn't involve faith and repentance, it is a new nature with new desires, which LEADS to faith and repentance.

G.I. Williamson wrote in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11 XIV. Of Saving Faith and XV. Of Repentance unto Life:



> QUESTIONS
> 
> 3. What is the relationship between regeneration and conversion?
> 
> Ans. Regeneration is the source of conversion (repentance-faith); conversion is the effect of regeneration and calling.



He also clarified how conversion consists of faith and repentance, and what authentic faith and repentance require. Of repentance he said:

1. Man must know his lost condition (Rom. 3:20; Ps. 51:3-4; Ezek. 36:31).
2. Man must have a broken and contrite heart (Jer. 31:19; Ps. 51:17; 2 Cor. 7:10f).
3. Man must turn from the ways of sin (Acts 26:18; Ezek. 14:6; 2 Cor. 7:11).

Of faith he said:

1. Man must know the divine remedy for sin (Rom. 10:13-17; Ps. 9:10; Phil. 3:8).
2. Man must feel drawn to Christ with heart assent (John 4:42; 1 Thess. 2:13).
3. Man must turn to Christ to rely upon him alone for salvation (Acts 15:11; 16:31; Phil. 3:9).

None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration.


----------



## torstar

Corban, it's just not all about the $$$.


----------



## jogri17

Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration



But I don't see in Scripture where these events are described as happening decades later either.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these two events are immediately present in regeneration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I don't see in Scripture where these events are described as happening decades later either.
Click to expand...

 
I'm not advocating there is some _interval_ between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of _understanding_ the Gospel.


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of understanding the Gospel.



I thought you were saying that someone could be regenerated under an Arminian preacher, but conversion would not happen until they heard the True Gospel. Did I misunderstand?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion after which faith and repentance are automatically applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner. I believe conversion follows regeneration as a result of understanding the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were saying that someone could be regenerated under an Arminian preacher, but conversion would not happen until they heard the True Gospel. Did I misunderstand?
Click to expand...

 
No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.

As a matter of fact, I believe regeneration can also happen in the womb. But in other occasions I think it always happens under the influence of the Word of God.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I apologize my brain must not be working right now.

First you said..




InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion



Then you said....





InSlaveryToChrist said:


> No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.




So in my mind it seems that you are advocating the possibility of an interval, and also NOT advocating the interval.

Can you help me out?

Thanks


----------



## torstar

Grateful my RAGE CAGE STAGE of understanding and accepting Calvinism never led me to reject the love of those in my life who didn't 100% see eye to eye with me. 

And in life you just sometimes have to attend things you don't agree with. All a part of growing up and living in this world.

I am at an RCC function a few times a year out of respect to those who invite me for weddings, confirmations, funerals. I do not partake in the mass. 

If a sermon is really bad, I'll just start reading Ezekiel and see how far I can get.


----------



## Dearly Bought

P. F. Pugh said:


> [Most generally, a heretic is one who denies some point of the Apostles', Chalcedonian, or Nicene Creed, or else one who denies the authority of Scripture (ie: liberalism). Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism have also been classically defined as heresy and if Arminianism were consistent, it would lead to these, however (and this is important), _I have never met a consistent Arminian_. The fact is that most Arminians believe in _sola fide_ and penal substitution, which means that Arminians are just inconsistently reformed.


As I've already mentioned, the Canons of Dordt state that Arminians summon the error of Pelagius out of hell. Whatever "heresy" means, it definitely includes Arminianism according to the Reformed Confessions.



P. F. Pugh said:


> I also ask you this: does anyone really understand everything about the Gospel? I submit that none of us do. You are either in Christ or you are not---there is no middle ground here: whoever is not against us is for us. A church that proclaims Christ crucified and risen is still a church, though it has become the whore of Babylon. Though Israel turned to idols, they were still God's chosen people. Though Gomer ran and became a prostitute, she was still Hosea's wife. Do not despise the Church even when she falls into error---for the Church, even in grievous error, is still the bride of Christ.



This is not the Biblically Reformed doctrine of the Church. A church in grievous error has become Lo-Ammi, "Not My People". As Calvin writes in his commentary on Hosea, "though they usurped the title of Church, they were yet alienated from God." In another place, he writes,


> "...the marriage between God and men so long endures as they who have been adopted continue in pure faith, and *apostacy in a manner frees God from us, so that he may justly repudiate us*. Since such apostacy prevails under the Papacy, and has for many ages prevailed, how senseless they are in their boasting, while they would be thought to be the holy Catholic Church, and the elect people of God? For they are all born by wantonness, they are all spurious children. The incorruptible seed is the word of God; but what sort of doctrine have they. It is a spurious seed. Then as to God all the Papists are bastards. In vain then they boast themselves to be the children of God, and that they have the holy Mother Church, for they are born by filthy wantonness."
> (Calvin's Commentary on Hosea, Ch. II. v. 4, 5)



The Belgic Confession presents the Reformed doctrine of the church with clarity:



> We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word, but adds to and takes from them, as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.
> (Belgic Confession, Article 29)




Additionally, I would like to know the source of the following claim:


jogri17 said:


> Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.




---------- Post added at 01:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

I would refer anyone interested in Calvin's views on Roman mass attendance to his excellent tract "Shunning the Unlawful Rites of the Ungodly."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Chaplainintraining said:


> I apologize my brain must not be working right now.
> 
> First you said..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating there is some interval between regeneration and conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you said....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So in my mind it seems that you are advocating the possibility of an interval, and also NOT advocating the interval.
> 
> Can you help me out?
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

 
Okay, what I was trying to say was that I don't believe the regenerated person must wait a certain period of time and when that time has elapsed, God immediately grants you faith and repentance. As opposed to that, I believe God will grant the regenerated person faith and repentance as he comes to the true understanding of the Gospel, which includes not only a new view of God, but also a new view of man and sin.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.


----------



## Dearly Bought

SolaScriptura said:


> The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.


 
While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.


----------



## Michael

It would be helpful if we paused to define "heresy"/"heretic". 

I assume we are speaking of "false teaching".

To what extent?

Conscious or ignorant?

Damnable in content/intent or otherwise?

Depending on these leanings the OP could be phrased:

*"May you worship God with those who hate him and preach calculated lies against all that he is and stands for?"

"May you worship God with those who believe in Christ as their Savior and desire to be with him but are misled in the nuances of their theology?"​*
Both may be heretics by some strain of definition yet the responses to the question may vary greatly.


----------



## Peairtach

I think it depends on how you define the words "heresy" and "error".

If I believe e.g.credobaptism or independent church government or singing hymns rather than psalms in church or speaking in tongues to be heresy then I probably believe that some heretics are regenerate and converted.

Different individuals and congregations and denominations will draw the line at who they are willing to worship with in different places. People should be careful to follow their biblically informed consciences and also respect the Christian sensitivities of their congregational and denominational brothers and sisters, who may be weaker or stronger in conscience on this subject, depending upon one's point of view. E.g. Romans 14.

If I attend an Arminian church once or twice in my life will I become an Arminian? Well if you think this you shouldn't attend, but you must be relatively poorly grounded in the doctrines of grace if you believe this would happen.

If I attend an Arminian church once or twice in my lifetime, will that encourage people to become Arminian? Is that likely? You may have more opportunities to persuade people to become Calvinistic.

If I attend an Arminian church am I engaging in false worship? The people around you are engaging in false worship _to the extent_ that they have erroneous Arminian ideas in their minds.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Dearly Bought said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.
Click to expand...


So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?


----------



## Andres

jogri17 said:


> Calvin encouraged a man in his letters to attend a roman catholic mass when there was no reformed or Lutheran congegation near by. I agree with Calvin.





Dearly Bought said:


> Additionally, I would like to know the source of the following claim:



 Can you please give your source for your comment, because I'm struggling to believe Calvin would endorse the Roman Mass.


----------



## Dearly Bought

SolaScriptura said:


> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## discipulo

Dearly Bought said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## SolaScriptura

Dearly Bought said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dearly Bought said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Arminians to whom the Synod of Dordt responded are not identical with anyone and everyone who is not a 5-Point Calvinist. That should be remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is true, it should also be observed that the Canons of Dordt condemn each individual main point of Arminian error as heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## AThornquist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> No, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps the reason you couldn't understand me earlier was due to *your idea that regeneration and conversion take place simultaneously*.



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

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


----------



## Dearly Bought

discipulo said:


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


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



SolaScriptura said:


> So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?
> 
> 
> 
> Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, you're soft peddling here. If one denies any one of the 5 points of Calvinism, what are they believing in its place? And would that not, by your confession, be heresy?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## kvanlaan

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


----------



## torstar

Was Calvin a 5 point Calvinist?


----------



## Augusta

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


----------



## discipulo

Dearly Bought said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just called Richard Baxter an heretic, something John Owen, who was actually not soft on him, never did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits, I have no problem stating it.
> 
> Denial of any of the five points of the Synod of Dordt is heresy.
Click to expand...


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

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

You can find some of his works here:

Reformation Heritage Books - Search Results for "richard baxter"

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

See how carefully he qualified his sentence.

Maybe we should first of all distinguish shoes...

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


----------



## Philip

kvanlaan said:


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



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


----------



## SolaScriptura

Dearly Bought said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just called Richard Baxter an heretic, something John Owen, who was actually not soft on him, never did.
> 
> 
> 
> If the shoe fits, I have no problem stating it.
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... do you believe that the logical end of this is that unless one is a 5-Point Calvinist one is a heretic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Advocacy of any one of the five points of the Remonstrants is heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, you're soft peddling here. If one denies any one of the 5 points of Calvinism, what are they believing in its place? And would that not, by your confession, be heresy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial of any of the five points of the Synod of Dordt is heresy.
Click to expand...

 
And those who die as heretics?


----------



## kvanlaan

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



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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Augusta said:


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


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

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

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

On the one hand, the Arminian says, "Christ saves!" -- that's a _direct_ proclamation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Arminian says, "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" -- that's an _indirect_ proclamation of the Gospel. The former is _true_, the latter is _false_. Accordingly, the Arminian is _not_ a heretic and he _is_ a heretic. So, which is it?


----------



## SolaScriptura

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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



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

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

SolaScriptura said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, the Arminian says, "Christ saves!" -- that's a direct proclamation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the Arminian says, "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" -- that's an indirect proclamation of the Gospel. The former is true, the latter is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it is that easy. For example, you say it is false to say "Man has to receive the gift of salvation by exercising his freewill!" Does this mean that you deny that we have to exercise your will to respond to the Gospel?
> 
> It the issue really whether one has to exercise his freewill and believe, or is the question where the will to freely believe originates?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Notthemama1984

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


----------



## Grillsy

Chaplainintraining said:


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



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


----------



## Bill The Baptist

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


----------



## AThornquist

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


----------



## discipulo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



kvanlaan said:


> And for those of us who are not bound by the 3FU? In some ways I guess this is just the consequence of having multiple standards of subscription on this board. The Westminster Standards are silent on the point of which errors are heretical and which are not on this point (as far as I can tell---someone correct me if I'm wrong here).
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure about that - I think that the WCF is primary on the board, but I heartily invite you to subscribe to the 3FU in that regard if you don't already...
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canons of Dort, Heading 2

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## cih1355

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Grillsy said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Arminians are cowarding in their Gospel presentation. They know what they believe and state so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. "God did his part, now you do yours". I cannot count the number of times I heard that statement, right before the altar call of course.
Click to expand...

 
And that is not a _false_ gospel, then?

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




AThornquist said:


> Again I ask, can a heretic be a Christian?



No. 



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



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


----------



## captivewill

(1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a _false_, _man-centered_ gospel?

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

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

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

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

(6) But we are not _in peace with_ heretics, right? That would be _compromise_, right?

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


----------



## athanatos

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I was invited by my parents to visit their Pentecostal Church tomorrow (it's communion day), and I'm in a really difficult situation. There are several questions that popped into my mind:
> 
> (1) Is it appropriate to commune with Christians who teach a _false_, _man-centered_ gospel?


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



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


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



> (6) But we are not _in peace with_ heretics, right? That would be _compromise_, right?


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




Skyler said:


> This begs the question of whether Arminianism is really heresy.


Which, it isn't. Strictly speaking.



Chaplainintraining said:


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


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



P. F. Pugh said:


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


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



> As for myself, tomorrow I plan to receive the Lord's Supper at the local CofE church just up the road. I may not agree with Anglicans on every point of doctrine or polity (thankfully this particular congregation really teaches the Scriptures---classic 39 Articles Anglicanism) but in the end, we are all part of the Church Catholic and one day will worship together.
> 
> Samuel, does one war against one's own body? If an Arminian as an Arminian can be saved, then they too are part of the body of Christ. The sacrament acknowledges no denominational boundaries. Does the Arminian preach Christ crucified, buried, and raised for our sins or does he not?


That's interesting about the CoE 


Chaplainintraining said:


> I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.
> 
> Is sitting under Arminian teaching the best possible scenario? No. Should we walk on the other side of the street when we see an Arminian coming? No.


Progressive revelation. Jews were saved on less than that.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in my conversion that came about under the preaching of my Arminian father. It isn't an eyeball test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of basing your conversion on the facts of the Scripture, you "believe" that you were converted when you heard an Arminian gospel?
> 
> To counter your conversion experience:
> 
> I believe I was converted the moment I truly understood the heart of the Gospel -- that I'm truly sinful, that I'm truly dependent on God, that God truly loves and that God truly saves.
Click to expand...

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



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is sitting under Arminian teaching the best possible scenario? No. Should we walk on the other side of the street when we see an Arminian coming? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I interract with my Arminian family daily in many ways. But to have a good time together, that I cannot. For we preach not the same Christ.
Click to expand...

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



Skyler said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to conversion, however, I don't believe the Bible indicates -- and it is not my experience -- that conversion would be possible without true understanding of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> I think where we disagree is the level of understanding that is necessary.
> 
> Is it necessary to be able to delineate the five points of Calvinism, or is it sufficient to understand on a basic level that we are sinners, that we need God to deliver us from our sin, and that He offers that deliverance if we repent and believe on Christ?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Grillsy

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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



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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

discipulo said:


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


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


----------



## AThornquist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I ask, can a heretic be a Christian?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were those of us who were converted as Arminians in fact heretics until we came to understand Calvinism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. But we are heretics, if we deny Calvinism or don't already believe the Doctrines of Grace by personal experience, regardless of regeneration. In other words, one may be a heretic, even if he is regenerate. That one is regenerated does not announce him Christian, until he is converted and justified.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

AThornquist said:


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


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


----------



## AThornquist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, and so does G.I. Williamson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the supporters of his book: Joel R. Beeke, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Cornelis P. Venema and Cornelis Van Dam. Read back when I quoted him earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

AThornquist said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone is regenerated, he immediately trusts in Christ and is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, and so does G.I. Williamson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the supporters of his book: Joel R. Beeke, Richard B. Gaffin Jr., Cornelis P. Venema and Cornelis Van Dam. Read back when I quoted him earlier in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That quote you gave does not disagree with what I am saying _at all_. In fact, I am saying exactly what the quote says: regeneration leads to faith and repentance. The first always leads to the second.
> 
> You are saying that there can be a lengthy period in between regeneration and conversion and that someone can be a heretic during that time. Where does Scripture ever offer than possibility?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Where does it deny the possibility?



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


----------



## AThornquist

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


----------



## earl40

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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



How soon? To ascribe ANY amount of time between regeneration and saving faith is simply not correct and may is In my most humble opinion heresy. Now does someone who is regenerated and has faith grow in his or hers understanding of what their faith points towards? Of course it does and The Lord works WITH them one way or another to ensure they do indeed grow to the proper height of understanding He ordains.

I encourage you to look into the temporal order of salvation as not one "in time" but with the knowledge that regeneration does indeed happen first. To assert there are regenerate people who are not Christians has to assume there are people doing something GOOD in there justification.


----------



## Rob H

I'd like to say that, unless there is something that is blatantly obvious preventing your participation, go the first time. What would be a no-go far as I think, are word-o-faith and/or faith-healing, failure to acknowledge the Biblical Gospel, that sort of stuff. If I'm not mistaken, the Pentecostals are memorialists in their view of the Lord's Supper, not RC (transubstantiation) in any way. It is a low view of the Supper, not a complete biffing of the meaning. The Pentecostals are not confessional and do not subscribe to any standards that you can use in context with them. So you have to treat them at the basic level of orthodoxy IAW the Gospel.

I'd go, at least once. This honors your mother and father, is an attempt to love the brethren, even though they are likely to be wayward in their theology. And if they are proven heretics at some point, then you have the ammunition to make a standing decision not to attend again and also the means to approach your parents about the problem. Maybe they'll be more open to your position once you've actually been to the church with them. If you do not, they'll be able to hold "_You've never even been there_" over your head. It's hard to be on their wavelength if you don't have their language. And in that, I'm not saying you have to assume their position to work your way to orthodoxy. Just saying we learn the native language so we can work the ideas in as kindly a manner as possible.


----------



## interalia

I recommend learning and discerning heterodoxy in conjuntion with orthodoxy, and then differentiate against heresy.


----------



## Scott1

The difficulty with this topic is that "heresy" is being used in different ways by different posts.

Consider that while the Canons of Dordt did rule five points of the remonstrants (protesters) as heresy, the frame of reference and context being discussed is not necessarily the same.

As we know from Puritanboard, there is a spectrum of people imagining themselves to be anywhere from "one" to "five" point Calvinist. The "five points" are biblically, necessarily, logically related and dependent on one another, but that would be a topic for another discussion.

Here, we have people assuming themselves to be something like "3.14159" point Calvinists who have never been taught, nor have they considered the systematic biblical theology of the doctrines of grace.

We need to be loathe to term such "heretics." Such were many of us, without it even being clear in our thinking that is what we were.

Also, recognizing someone as a member of the church catholic universal is different than being member of a confessional denomination. On Puritanboard, I have learned some would not agree with that.

But to deem someone who gives profession and for which there is even evidence to indicate they are are a believer, but whose theology is not developed, perhaps a new or immature believer, a "heretic," to be consciously avoided at all costs, does not at all seem appropriate.

Looking at on-line definitions of the word, it is easy to understand the different lines of discussion on this, because the word is defined so differently.

To some, it is used as any deviation from the confessed doctrine of a denomination. Anything outside of that, is outside the true church and therefore irremediable, at least as it persists. (That is the way the Roman church has used it)

To others, it means knowing, intentional repudiation of doctrine of a confessional denomination, but does not necessarily mean the person is unregenerate.

To still others, it means only substantial error, so much so that it overcomes ones ability to "believe unto salvation" because it so strikes at God's truth.

Honestly, I find all of these definitions inadequate.

They do not express what we must know from Scripture is true- people believe all sorts of wrong things and are still, somehow, by God's grace members of the church universal, the Body of Christ. Not because they know the right things, but because a sovereign God, for reasons known unto Himself, choose to redeem them.

That doesn't mean the person is not sinning by ignorance or commission. For example "imagining" what one will about a God who has revealed Himself through His Word has second commandment implications. Creatures are not free to "make it up."

Nor does it mean people ought be allowed to teach wrong doctrine, not even in a nonconfessional (e.g. broadly evangelical) church. James 3:1 says those who do are liable for greater sin in wrongly representing our Lord.

But to imply that they are automatically outside of the Body of Christ, irredeemable, is wrong as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura

For the record, when I use the word "heretic" I don't mean it in the ecclesiological sense of their views being out of accord with ours and as such there is no room for them in our church. No, when I use the word "heretic" it is a statement of individual soteriology - I'm saying that their views are such that they are not saved. And "heresy" is a teaching/doctrine that if believed/professed will condemn. 

As such, I am very cautious to call a person a "heretic" or a doctrine "heresy."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

I would be very interested to hear what you say IS heresy, then. Give me examples, please. I don't see much of a difference between denying the deity of Christ (which the Mormons do) and denying the irresistibility of God (which the Arminians do). In denying God's irresistibility, the Arminians also deny God's deity. So, if you call Mormons heretics, then you should probably also call Arminians heretics.


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I don't see much of a difference between denying the deity of Christ (which the Mormons do) and denying the irresistibility of God (which the Arminians do).



No Arminian I've ever talked to doubts the ability of God to irresistably call someone to Himself. They deny that He does it.

Mormons, on the other hand have:

1) Extra-Biblical revelation
2) Denial of the Trinity
3) Denial of the Divinity of Christ
4) Denial of the simplicity of God
5) Denial of the immutability of God
6) Denial of the immateriality of God
7) Denial of the one holy catholic and apostolic church
8) The deification of humans


----------



## jayce475

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much of a difference between denying the deity of Christ (which the Mormons do) and denying the irresistibility of God (which the Arminians do).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No Arminian I've ever talked to doubts the ability of God to irresistably call someone to Himself. They deny that He does it.
> 
> Mormons, on the other hand have:
> 
> 1) Extra-Biblical revelation
> 2) Denial of the Trinity
> 3) Denial of the Divinity of Christ
> 4) Denial of the simplicity of God
> 5) Denial of the immutability of God
> 6) Denial of the immateriality of God
> 7) Denial of the one holy catholic and apostolic church
> 8) The deification of humans
Click to expand...

 
I've just my past 5 hours writing a critique to an article attacking TULIP written by an acclaimed Hong Kong evangelical pastor as my one of my housemates has been influenced greatly by it. I would post it here if it wasn't in Chinese. Be rest assured that he absolutely denies the irresistibility of God's saving grace, as do the pastors of the Charismatic church that I left a few years back.

By the way, I do not accept the notion that all non-Calvinists are outside the kingdom of God, but have no problem calling something such as Arminianism heresy in that it tears people away from the biblical God and causes us to have a low view of God. One such as Jacob Arminius himself, however, would have been in the danger of hellfire due to his essentially pelegian views. Nonetheless, I would not want to not play with God and see how many doctrines we can take away and still be safe with our salvation. Rather, we ought to warn all others of heresies and errors.


----------



## Philip

jayce475 said:


> Be rest assured that he absolutely denies the irresistibility of God's saving grace, as do the pastors of the Charismatic church that I left a few years back.



Ok, but again, when pressed most will say "Ok, yes He has the ability, but He doesn't."


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be rest assured that he absolutely denies the irresistibility of God's saving grace, as do the pastors of the Charismatic church that I left a few years back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but again, when pressed most will say "Ok, yes He has the ability, but He doesn't."
Click to expand...

 
I do agree with this, I made an overstatement. But I also agree with Jason that there certainly are some exceptions among Arminians.

Philip, would you consider a Mormon heretic by virtue of all those denials you listed above?


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Philip, would you consider a Mormon heretic by virtue of all those denials you listed above?



Absolutely. What the Mormon has denied are fundamental aspects of God's nature. An Arminian, by contrast, has merely exegetical errors with regard to how sinners are brought to faith. Indeed, often I find that Arminians are wrestling with a bad notion of freedom and responsibility, yet one that is incredibly hard to shake off.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philip, would you consider a Mormon heretic by virtue of all those denials you listed above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. What the Mormon has denied are fundamental aspects of God's nature. An Arminian, by contrast, has merely exegetical errors with regard to how sinners are brought to faith. Indeed, often I find that Arminians are wrestling with a bad notion of freedom and responsibility, yet one that is incredibly hard to shake off.
Click to expand...

 
What if Mormons denied only the Trinity of God -- would you still label them heretics? What about the denial of God's immutability -- one thing that Arminians have surely in common with Mormons is the denial of God's immutability.


----------



## Notthemama1984

How are they denying His immutability?


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What if Mormons denied only the Trinity of God -- would you still label them heretics? What about the denial of God's immutability -- one thing that Arminians have surely in common with Mormons is the denial of God's immutability.



How do Arminians deny God's immutability? Obviously, even unitarianism alone would be heresy. Mormons deny the immutability of God in denying the simplicity of God---that is, in saying that God has a physical body, they open up the possibility of change in God.


----------



## cih1355

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Philip, would you consider a Mormon heretic by virtue of all those denials you listed above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. What the Mormon has denied are fundamental aspects of God's nature. An Arminian, by contrast, has merely exegetical errors with regard to how sinners are brought to faith. Indeed, often I find that Arminians are wrestling with a bad notion of freedom and responsibility, yet one that is incredibly hard to shake off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What if Mormons denied only the Trinity of God -- would you still label them heretics? What about the denial of God's immutability -- one thing that Arminians have surely in common with Mormons is the denial of God's immutability.
Click to expand...

 
Denying the Trinity is heresy so Mormons are heretics. Since they deny the Trinity, they do not believe in the God of the Bible. They believe in some other god.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if Mormons denied only the Trinity of God -- would you still label them heretics? What about the denial of God's immutability -- one thing that Arminians have surely in common with Mormons is the denial of God's immutability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do Arminians deny God's immutability?
Click to expand...

 
Well, let me quote a short excerpt from an essay from a Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (Ballymena, Northern Ireland) on the free offer and its impact on God's immutability:



> According to the free offer, in time God desires to save the reprobate. But if you are going to hold to the truth of reprobation—a biblical and Reformed doctrine—you have to hold that God in "eternity past" did not choose or will to save the reprobate, because He reprobated them. Then, in "eternity future," when the reprobate are in hell, clearly God does not will to save them.
> The free offer position says that God passionately wants to save them, yet He reprobates them before the foundation of the world. So before the creation, He does not want to save them, but then in time He does want to save them, but when they die He does not want to save them. He does not want to save them, but then He does want to save them, but then He does not want to save them. If that is not change, then I do not know what is. The Bible says that there is "no shadow of turning" with God (James 1:17). God does not change. There is not even a flicker of His shadow as if God shifted just slightly and His shadow moved a little bit. There is absolutely "no shadow of turning" with God.
> Nor did God decree a sequence of dispositions in Himself so that He would not desire in "eternity past," desire in time, and not desire in "eternity future," to save the reprobate. God cannot change nor can He decree to change. God decrees things outside of Himself. God does not decree Himself or His dispositions. God is Himself. The decree pertains to everything outside of Himself, not Himself at all. He is the decreeing Creator; the universe is the decreed creation.


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Well, let me quote a short excerpt from an essay from a Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (Ballymena, Northern Ireland) on the free offer and its impact on God's immutability:



They're begging the question by assuming reprobation, which no Arminian would. The Arminian position is this: there are two kinds of people, those who say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." The difference between them is their free choice, which was made without God's election beforehand.

Now, the reformed view agrees with the first premise but disagrees that a free and responsible choice necessitates that God not intervene with His effectual calling of regeneration.


----------



## Notthemama1984

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let me quote a short excerpt from an essay from a Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (Ballymena, Northern Ireland) on the free offer and its impact on God's immutability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're begging the question by assuming reprobation, which no Arminian would. The Arminian position is this: there are two kinds of people, those who say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." The difference between them is their free choice, which was made without God's election beforehand.
> 
> Now, the reformed view agrees with the first premise but disagrees that a free and responsible choice necessitates that God not intervene with His effectual calling of regeneration.
Click to expand...

 
I agree that Arminians would not believe the quote.


----------



## athanatos

InSlaveryToChrist said:


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


Since our understanding of grace is a matter of degree, I would say "inaccurate" or imprecise. I would be hesitant to say a "false gospel" (borrowing the language of St. Paul to the Galatians), which would be missing the boat/damnable.


----------



## AThornquist

[IMGR][/IMGR]


athanatos said:


> Since our understanding of grace is a matter of degree, I would say "inaccurate" or imprecise. I would be hesitant to say a "false gospel" (borrowing the language of St. Paul to the Galatians), which would be missing the boat/damnable.



I agree. It is a poor understanding of the truth, and yet some people are genuinely saved by it. Of course it is God who draws the dead to life, but He doesn't do it through false gospels, does He? Of course not. So again, there are many instances when an Arminian gospel is not a false gospel, though the message given has its flaws.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

AThornquist said:


> [IMGR][/IMGR]
> 
> 
> athanatos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since our understanding of grace is a matter of degree, I would say "inaccurate" or imprecise. I would be hesitant to say a "false gospel" (borrowing the language of St. Paul to the Galatians), which would be missing the boat/damnable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It is a poor understanding of the truth, and *yet some people are genuinely saved by it*. Of course it is God who draws the dead to life, but He doesn't do it through false gospels, does He? Of course not. So again, there are many instances when an Arminian gospel is not a false gospel, though the message given has its flaws.
Click to expand...

 
How can you know whether one is genuinely saved or not? If you just say, "I know them by their fruits," then I will reply, "Aren't these fruits, in their original context, referring to one's doctrine (not works), as in the case of the Pharisees?" Thus, if Arminians are to be judged by their doctrine, I would say they have no fruit -- at least not in the area of the Gospel. As long as they give place to man-centeredness, they deny the true Gospel.


----------



## SolaScriptura

You know, it just dawned on me that had my advice from post #26 been followed, everyone would have been a lot happier and this talking in circles wouldn't have happened.


----------



## torstar

SolaScriptura said:


> You know, it just dawned on me that had my advice from post #26 been followed, everyone would have been a lot happier and this talking in circles wouldn't have happened.


 

Mmm-hmmmmmmm...

As often happens, there is a fine line between a legit concern and a nitpicking ego-trip. The truth eventually rises to the occasion.


----------



## Grillsy

AThornquist said:


> I agree. It is a poor understanding of the truth, and yet some people are genuinely saved by it. Of course it is God who draws the dead to life, but He doesn't do it through false gospels, does He? Of course not. So again, there are many instances when an Arminian gospel is not a false gospel, though the message given has its flaws.



It is important to remember that we are not saved by the message we hear Reformed or otherwise. We are justified by Christ. This comes about by the work of the Spirit through the preaching of the Word. There may yet be enough of the Gospel in an Arminian sermon that one might be saved through that. The same can be said of the Romish church or a modern Seventh Day Adventist congregation. God works in a spite of their theology not because of it. Although doubtless many are saved in non-Calvinist assemblies this in no wise legitimizes false teachers. We may not want to call Arminians heretics but we could safely say that what they teach, which is not always what they preach, is false.


----------



## SolaScriptura

What Rome or the LDS teaches is _false_. 

What your run-of-the-mill evangelical non-Calvinist church teaches is _incorrect_.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Grillsy said:


> God works in spite of [Arminians'] theology not because of it.



Well said.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> What Rome or the LDS teaches is _false_.
> 
> What your run-of-the-mill evangelical non-Calvinist church teaches is _incorrect_.


 
Could you still clarify how you differentiate between 'false' and 'incorrect?' Give me practical examples.


----------



## Grillsy

SolaScriptura said:


> What Rome or the LDS teaches is false.
> 
> What your run-of-the-mill evangelical non-Calvinist church teaches is incorrect.



Ben are you commenting on what I said?


----------



## athanatos

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Quote Originally Posted by Grillsy View Post
> God works in spite of [Arminians'] theology not because of it.
> Well said.



You changed what he meant, not just what he said. He included our own Reformed theology. The context was that God justifies, not our theology. Christ saves, not our construction of His message. The Holy Spirit quickens, not our eloquence or persuasiveness.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grillsy said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Rome or the LDS teaches is false.
> 
> What your run-of-the-mill evangelical non-Calvinist church teaches is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben are you commenting on what I said?
Click to expand...


Not you in particular, just the repeated and consistent use of the word "false" in this thread.

Samuel - as for your "practical examples," could you give me an example of something YOU would say is doctrinally/exegetically incorrect rather than false?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

athanatos said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote Originally Posted by Grillsy View Post
> God works in spite of [Arminians'] theology not because of it.
> Well said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You changed what he meant, not just what he said. He included our own Reformed theology.
Click to expand...

 
Oh... Well, I still agree with it.

---------- Post added at 08:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Rome or the LDS teaches is false.
> 
> What your run-of-the-mill evangelical non-Calvinist church teaches is incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben are you commenting on what I said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not you in particular, just the repeated and consistent use of the word "false" in this thread.
> 
> Samuel - as for your "practical examples," could you give me an example of something YOU would say is doctrinally/exegetically incorrect rather than false?
Click to expand...

 
Well, Ben, my problem is that I see no difference between the two. That's precisely why I asked you to clarify.


----------



## SolaScriptura

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Well, Ben, my problem is that I see no difference between the two.



If I may be a bit pointed - _THAT_ is precisely your problem.


----------



## Grillsy

Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally). 
Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false. 

I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term. 

Does that make sense? 

Samuel does that help clarify things?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Grillsy said:


> Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally).
> Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
> 
> I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Samuel does that help clarify things?


 
Frankly, that didn't help very much. But it seems to me that your thinking goes something like this: the distinction between an error and a lie is a matter of whether an error pertains to soteriology. In other words, an error in things that are irrelevant for a Christian to believe in order to be saved cannot be regarded as a lie. But that still wouldn't make any sense to me. An error is something that is not true, that is, it is a lie. Right?


----------



## Grillsy

I never used the word lie. I also didn't use irrelevant.


Suffice it to say there are degrees of wrongness. Some sins are not as heinous as others. Therefore some errors are not as heinous as others. That is what I was trying to try. I realize my above post was unclear.


----------



## cih1355

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself. I do see Arminianism as false. As do the historic Reformed churches (at least it seems so confessionally).
> Some things that all one this board would find non-debatable would be that the Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification is false, Mormon theology as a whole is false, adoptionism and Arianism are false.
> 
> I see things such as Framework Hypothesis and Historic Premillenialism as incorrect but they do not always lead to a church being considered false in the way Ben is using the term.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Samuel does that help clarify things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, that didn't help very much. But it seems to me that your thinking goes something like this: the distinction between an error and a lie is a matter of whether an error pertains to soteriology. In other words, an error in things that are irrelevant for a Christian to believe in order to be saved cannot be regarded as a lie. But that still wouldn't make any sense to me. An error is something that is not true, that is, it is a lie. Right?
Click to expand...

 
It is impossible for a person to be a Christian and at the same time believe in Mormon theology, the Roman Catholic view of justification, or in Arianism.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Grillsy said:


> I never used the word lie. I also didn't use irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Suffice it to say there are degrees of wrongness. Some sins are not as heinous as others. Therefore some errors are not as heinous as others. That is what I was trying to try. I realize my above post was unclear.


 
Okay. Now, how can you know when to label something _false_ and when just _incorrect_? How can you know when someone has crossed the line?


----------



## cih1355

Samuel,

Do your parents' church teach that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner? I have met Pentecostals before who do not believe that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

cih1355 said:


> Samuel,
> 
> Do your parents' church teach that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner? I have met Pentecostals before who do not believe that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner.


 
Upon the will yes, not the work. And they deny the OSAS (once saved always saved) or the Perseverance of the Saints.


----------



## Grillsy

cih1355 said:


> I have met Pentecostals before who do not believe that salvation is dependent upon the will and work of the sinner.



Most Arminians wouldn't dare say that. The logic of the Arminian scheme is that salvation is dependent upon the work the sinner. Rarely will an Arminian ever come out and say it like that.


----------



## AThornquist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> How can you know whether one is genuinely saved or not? If you just say, "I know them by their fruits," then I will reply, "Aren't these fruits, in their original context, referring to one's doctrine (not works), as in the case of the Pharisees?" Thus, if Arminians are to be judged by their doctrine, I would say they have no fruit -- at least not in the area of the Gospel.



I know that people can be saved by a weak, Arminian gospel because _I was_ and the testimony of the Christian church reveals saints of the past and present who had a poor understanding of Calvinism and certain details of the Gospel and yet clung to the cross as their only hope. Your doctrinal expectations of every saint of every generation is anachronistic (at best) and a low view of God's sovereign work in salvation through the means of Gospel truth. Do you really think the entire multitude of repenters in Acts 2 had a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion? No, they didn't - but they definitely saw their need for Christ because of the sins they had committed and so repented. Many Arminians have the same testimony.



> As long as they give place to man-centeredness, they deny the true Gospel.



I'll be honest with you, expecting fallen people to give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the gospel is absurd. _We_ have not lost every vestige of man-centeredness! Sinners need the gospel _in order to_ not give place to man-centeredness, and that work of sanctification will be a life-long process. Whether one hears and believes a few truths of the gospel and is converted or understands and embraces every fact of Scripture about the gospel and is converted, the Lord has saved a soul by means of the gospel. In either case, our fallen minds will continue to misunderstand and disbelieve certain aspects of truth--unless of course you want to argue that your doctrine is impeccable. Thanks be to God, He grants repentance even when our understanding of Him and His work is imperfect. _That_ is amazing grace.


----------



## Whitefield

...wheat and tares?...


----------



## SolaScriptura

Joshua said:


> MajP: We may worship God only in the ways He has commanded.
> MinP: God has never commanded us to worship Him with a heretic
> 
> Conclusion: We may not worship God with a heretic.
> 
> BOOM!!!! Irrefutable Logic.


 
How's this: The question "May we worship God with a heretic" is moot because heretics aren't truly worshipping God. They may be there, but they aren't worshipping. So I don't have to worry about worshipping _with_ a heretic.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

AThornquist said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you know whether one is genuinely saved or not? If you just say, "I know them by their fruits," then I will reply, "Aren't these fruits, in their original context, referring to one's doctrine (not works), as in the case of the Pharisees?" Thus, if Arminians are to be judged by their doctrine, I would say they have no fruit -- at least not in the area of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that people can be saved by a weak, Arminian gospel because _I was_ and the testimony of the Christian church reveals saints of the past and present who had a poor understanding of Calvinism and certain details of the Gospel and yet clung to the cross as their only hope. Your doctrinal expectations of every saint of every generation is anachronistic (at best) and a low view of God's sovereign work in salvation through the means of Gospel truth. Do you really think the entire multitude of repenters in Acts 2 had a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion? No, they didn't - but they definitely saw their need for Christ because of the sins they had committed and so repented. Many Arminians have the same testimony.
Click to expand...


I never said that you must have "a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion." I myself had been regenerated and converted for at least a whole year and had never even heard of such terms as Calvinism or TULIP.



> As long as they give place to man-centeredness, they deny the true Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be honest with you, expecting fallen people to give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the gospel is absurd. _We_ have not lost every vestige of man-centeredness! Sinners need the gospel _in order to_ not give place to man-centeredness, and that work of sanctification will be a life-long process. Whether one hears and believes a few truths of the gospel and is converted or understands and embraces every fact of Scripture about the gospel and is converted, the Lord has saved a soul by means of the gospel. In either case, our fallen minds will continue to misunderstand and disbelieve certain aspects of truth--unless of course you want to argue that your doctrine is impeccable. Thanks be to God, He grants repentance even when our understanding of Him and His work is imperfect. _That_ is amazing grace.
Click to expand...


You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say sinners have to PERFECTLY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. What I meant was that sinners have to GENUINELY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. To trust in yourself in the least cannot even enter into your mind, if you truly trust in Christ and Him alone. That's what I meant by saying there is no place for man-centeredness. But also, if you genuinely believe God is in any way obligated to save you, that faith is not saving.


----------



## AThornquist

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I never said that you must have "a systematic and pure understanding of the doctrines of grace, before or after conversion." I myself had been regenerated and converted for at least a whole year and had never even heard of such terms as Calvinism or TULIP.



The problem is that if someone does not understand the doctrines of grace, what they believe is often (or normally) categorized under the umbrella of Arminianism. And if they are Arminian, you say they are heretics. And you said a heretic cannot be a Christian. So, if someone does not have grasp on the doctrines of grace they either have to a) believe nothing and simply live in confusion or b) believe something that is not accurate and tend toward Arminianism, therefore making them a heretic and non-Christian. 
This is one of several reasons why I am making the point that the Lord saves people who only accurately understand portions of the gospel and are growing in their knowledge of the truth, and this includes many Arminians (however that "many" is, God only knows). 



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to say sinners have to PERFECTLY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. What I meant was that sinners have to GENUINELY give up all man-centeredness in order to trust the Gospel. To trust in yourself in the least cannot even enter into your mind, if you truly trust in Christ and Him alone. That's what I meant by saying there is no place for man-centeredness. But also, if you genuinely believe God is in any way obligated to save you, that faith is not saving.



I apologize if I misunderstood you, but I'm still not sure how helpful it is to say that one must "genuinely give up _all_ man-centeredness" in order to trust the Gospel. Anyway, relating to the OP, Calvinists say that one must trust Christ in order to be saved, as of course Arminians do. The difference is in how one is able to do that, whether by natural ability or after being regenerated. Even if Arminians believe they have the natural ability to trust in Christ, if they _do_ trust in Christ, they are saved! This is the testimony of an overwhelming number of converts, because often the understanding of God's sovereign work in their salvation is learned only after the fact; but since they thought they had the ability to trust Christ, they presupposed non-Calvinist doctrine even at conversion. This all boils down to this point again: Arminians _can_ be Christians, and it is beyond Scripture to broadly label Arminians as heretics and therefore unconverted.

Our hope would be that as one is converted he would learn true doctrine and see that Arminianism was simply wrong. But that convert did not trust Arminianism, he trusted Christ. Some people embrace Calvinism quickly and others won't until they see the God of grace and realize the truth of salvation, because our hearts and minds are still affected by the fall. That does not legitimize the false doctrines at all and the poor Christian will be troubled and sad in his walk, I am sure. Even so, God's grace reaches beyond our weakness.


----------



## kvanlaan

Is some of this not bound up in their attitude? Someone who has been taught Arminian doctrine and believes it is in error. Someone who teaches Arminian doctrine, is presented with the truth, and refuses to entertain it, they would be considered a heretic on some level, no? (I'm not trying to cling to still being able to call folks heretics, I'm trying to be gracious in this - the SoD is quite clear that it is heresy, but I would not want to label a new Christian a heretic because he went to a Billy Graham crusade and was saved).


----------



## Scott1

Thinking about the definition of "heresy," and how it is being used in different ways, I just read a blog comment posted by Sean Micheal Lucas, a PCA Pastor:
http://www.weswhite.net/2011/04/analyzing-mops-meyers-exoneration-report/#more-5436



> *Mr. Lucas*
> we need to be careful in using the “heretic” word; in the history of the church, it is typically reserved for those who deny the Trinity/deity of Jesus. That is, of course, how John uses it in his epistle.



The more I reflect on that, it makes sense.

There is 'serious error' or even 'serious systemic doctrinal error' which would be grounds for discipline or exclusion from confessional association, particularly for leadership. 

But that would not necessarily imply reprobation (i.e. an "unbeliever"). Nor that one would have to disassociate themselves with that person at every level. 

Error is sin, and 'serious sin' aggravated beyond that, whether by ignorance or intent. It is not acceptable to misrepresent our God, particularly by those who would teach His people.

But, it's not quite a heretic- because that would mark an individual in the sense of Titus 3 as an unbeliever, one to be avoided- one intent on harming the foundation of the church itself.


----------



## kvanlaan

From John Murray:
The Reformed Faith and Arminianism - The Westminster Presbyterian

Arminiansism *is* heresy. That is an integral part of the confessions of the 3FU churches. If the argument is then that 16th century Arminianism is not today's Arminianism, it has more to do with a watered-down and under-developed theology today, a lack of attention to detail and a lack of fervor - see the Screwtape Letters for the lack of flavor in modern 'heretics' (quotes provided just in case it is no longer PC to call them that, though they are historically and scripturally deigned to be just that).

What that means with regards to the heretic (albeit in many cases an unknowing one) is to gently explain their error to them in light of scripture. But what do we do when scripture is refuted and we are told that we are in fact the one in error? You have two contradictory statements, only one is right.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge

Perhaps Chapter 26 of the westminster confession of faith would help? But I've kind of been wondering how to parse this too.

1. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by His Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with Him in His grace, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

2. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.

3. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of His Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous. Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions. 


Oh, and Mr. Grigoletti, your comment is a non sequitor.


----------



## relostuff

Yes you can, maybe you will be salt and light to them. I have been to many Baptist Churches that are way in left field. I would visit but not join nor would I visit often.


----------

