# Heretic & Still A Christian?



## thistle93 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hi! Do you believe someone can have heretic theological views and still be saved? Now I know there are some areas that are essential to Christianity such as the deity of Christ, virgin birth and the Trinity. But I also think we have to be careful that we not assume that a proper theological understanding of these things are what save us. This would imply that it is our theology that saves us but in actuality it is not our theology (for many are very theologically correct but not saved) but God's grace that saves us. Seems that in the Bible "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved" is the minimum standard, such as the thief on the cross. Now granted that proper theology will be a sign of true conversion but is it not also part of the sanctification process. I know my theology has been purified through the years but I do not doubt I was a Christian even when I did not have a proper understand of some key areas of theology. The more we are sanctified the more our theology will mature. For me I believe those who espouse heretic doctrine show they are not truly saved but I think there are probably many who have really bad theology but are not espousing it (mainly because of spiritual ignorance) but are still saved by the grace of God but proof is that God will purify their theology at some point in the end. Agree or disagree? Would like to hear thoughts. Thanks!


For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Moireach (Apr 17, 2012)

In my previous denomination there is a minister who believes the pope is a Christian. That is an outright heresy in my book. I still believe he is a Christian.


----------



## bug (Apr 17, 2012)

Perhaps it is worth carefully defining heresy, and perhaps also bringing concepts like sub-orthodoxy and heterdoxy for actually the world is never quite so black and white as we like to think it is. Whilst it is true that there are some cardinal doctrines that if one denies one shuts oneself out from the kingdom, however at the same time we are saved by grace despite our sin. I think there will be many in glory that misunderstood so much of what the bible said, perhaps I am one of those myself.

Another point to consider is how mature in the faith the person is, and what light they have been given - I ahve more hope for a recent convert that hasn't had much teaches that still has serious faults in their theology then one who claims to have been a christain for many years and has sat under good teaching who still holds to the same serious errors


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 17, 2012)

Yes. There are people like Alister McGrath who believe in theistic evolution, and John Stott who, latterly, believed in annihilationism.

Solomon was a true believer and yet married too many ladies and worshipped false gods. David was a true believer and yet committed murder and adultery.

Regarding being a true Christian, the Bible only indicates that we can be infallibly assured of our own salvation, not of another's. We may doubt another person's salvation based on what they say or do, but we can never look into their hearts. But Stott and McGrath seem to indicate by a lot of their fruits they are _true_ Christians, as far as it is possible for us to know such things. Stott died a few of years ago.

The Pope is a Christian, being part of the visible Church. I don't see how anyone would think he has the fruits of a true Christian, because if he became a true Christian a good sign of that would be that he would renounce his offices and titles In my humble opinion.

There are outer and inner aspects to being a Christian. We can only judge that another person is saved by their profession of faith and verbal and practical fruits. Can we ever be infallibly sure that _another_ person is saved or unsaved, when we can't look into their hearts?

We can have a pretty good idea, but infallibility belongs only to God.



> But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." (II Tim 2:19, ESV)



This reminds us too that just because we strongly believe that someone is a true Christian, it doesn't mean we should embrace them or their views.


----------



## Moireach (Apr 17, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> The Pope is a Christian, being part of the visible Church. I don't see how anyone would think he has the fruits of a true Christian, because if he became a true Christian a good sign of that would be that he would renounce his offices and titles In my humble opinion.
> 
> There are outer and inner aspects to being a Christian. We can only judge that another person is saved by their profession of faith and verbal and practical fruits. Can we ever be infallibly sure that _another_ person is saved or unsaved, when we can't look into their hearts?



'Christian' defined by the Bible is more than belonging to the visible church. God has given us the Bible and it is not vague on who is a Christian and who is not. Granted, there is difficulty when you have someone with more than slight differences regarding various doctrines. But regarding the pope this is not the case, you have the opposite of Christian doctrine across the board. To say he is a Christian - a regenerate soul - is an outright heresy.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 17, 2012)

We have to be very careful in answering this.

The term ought be reserved for the most extreme kind of unrepentant belief and/or practice, and not overused, and usually after some sort of church process. The person is a "marked" man to be avoided, unless and until they repent.

Even in the case of ex-communication we do not know for sure if the person is unsaved, we treat that person "as if" they were.

Several Scriptures come to mind here.



> Titus 3
> 
> 9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
> 
> ...





> 1 Corinthians 5
> 
> 
> 
> 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.





> 1 Corinthians 5:5
> 
> 
> 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


----------



## Moireach (Apr 17, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> We have to be very careful in answering this.
> 
> The term ought be reserved for the most extreme kind of unrepentant belief and/or practice, and not overused, and usually after some sort of church process. The person is a "marked" man to be avoided, unless and until they repent.
> 
> ...



It's interesting to see the actual word heretic used in that first quote Scott.

I have to clarify what I've said then. I was of the understanding that the word heretic was a lot more broad. Definitions I have seen have been more broad that.

Obviously going by the definition you gave I wouldn't call the man a heretic, by my understanding of the word I would. I can just avoid using the word until a find a definitive definition of it.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 17, 2012)

Moireach said:


> I was of the understanding that the word heretic was a lot more broad. Definitions I have seen have been more broad that.



And you may well be closer to the historical definition, and some may be using the term in a broad sense.

It is difficult because I've not yet found a definition of "heretic" that is suitable (maybe someone here can post one).

One way of looking at this is that with heresy comes an obligation to "mark" a person and avoid them. My understanding is that would be both for Christian fellowship (which might be formal church discipline), but even socially avoiding nonessential contact.

Now, for a season, we might avoid a person who is divisive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a heretic.

For my understanding, heresy is differentiated from serious error (and from minor error, and certainly from preference). That's to avoid overusing the term, and also to comport with the biblical admonitions of "marking" that person.

Some might disagree, but I wouldn't see basis for marking a heretic or avoiding any Christian communion or recognizing someone as a Christian who imagines themselves 3 of 5 point Calvinist-
as serious (and inconsistent) as that is.

There is much error, and we could almost everyone a heretic who holds a wrong view, at least at some point in time. 

But, at some point, someone's error is so strong that we might actually treat them "as if" a nonbeliever, their profession notwithstanding. For example, someone who denies the Trinity. 

That's one way to look at this, anyway.


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

thistle93 said:


> Do you believe someone can have heretic theological views and still be saved?



To put it simply, yes. We are not saved by orthodoxy but by the grace of God. I remember several years ago reading the works of the 5th-century heretic Nestorius and discovering that regardless of whether his actual view of the two natures was sufficiently incorrect as to be heretical, it became clear that this was a man far advanced in grace whose only concern was that Christ be preached.


----------



## Moireach (Apr 17, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> > I was of the understanding that the word heretic was a lot more broad. Definitions I have seen have been more broad that.
> ...



It's an interesting question.

I am in a confessional denomination. To be inducted you must vow on the WCF. If you stray from WCF you are to be disciplined and put out of the ministry. 

I have mentioned one example, to follow on from it in the case I mentioned the man vowed on the WCF and then called the pope a regenerate believer who we should thank God for. 

Going by the Church's law - which obviously we believe is based on God's word - this minister is to be spoken to by the Presbytery, given to opportunity to change his mind, and if there is a refusal then he is to be put out of the ministry.

So the above processes do point towards the word 'heresy' as you have defined it, at least to an extent. The extent that the person is to be put out of a teaching position, although not Church membership in this case.

What do you think?

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:17 PM ----------

It should also be noted that our view on Church unity probably differs here. 

I believe the Church unites on the doctrine laid out in the WCF.

And the American revised WCF does omit a sentence which relates to this example.


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

Moireach said:


> It should also be noted that our view on Church unity probably differs here.
> 
> I believe the Church unites on the doctrine laid out in the WCF.
> 
> And the American revised WCF does omit a sentence which relates to this example.



I think we should also note that deviation from the WCF does not a heretic make. Heresy generally denotes far more basic errors than claiming that the Pope is not anti-Christ.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 17, 2012)

Comments below.


Moireach said:


> t's an interesting question.
> 
> I am in a confessional denomination. To be inducted you must vow on the WCF. If you stray from WCF you are to be disciplined and put out of the ministry.
> 
> ...



Certainly one cannot join (and confess) with a communion with which he has substantial doctrinal disagreement. That would be false witness, among other things.

But, for example, to declare "hereticks" all who confess believer's only baptism and regard them as non Christian would be contrary to much biblical principle (e.g. the ninth commandment requires a charitable disposition toward those in the household of faith).

Look at how the Lord dealt with the seven churches in Revelation 3- he admonished, warned them, but did not label them all heretics.

It's NOT okay to misrepresent God, particularly so when you "know better," and there are consequences for that, in this life.

But we also recognize a catholic (universal) church, body of Christ, well beyond the bound of biblical reformed Presbyterianism, because by all appearances, and indications in Scripture, God does too.


----------



## Moireach (Apr 17, 2012)

Philip said:


> Moireach said:
> 
> 
> > It should also be noted that our view on Church unity probably differs here.
> ...



It's down to the hazy definition of heresy again. Of course that would seem extremely unfair generally.

When it is a minister who has vowed that he is certainly the anti-Christ and has deviated from that, it depends how broad your definition is, because it is turning your back on an accepted Reformed truth.

But I agree that I think the word heresy does constitute more than a deviation on points which are not central to the faith in the WCF.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 17, 2012)

*David*


> To say he is a Christian - a regenerate soul - is an outright heresy.



I wouldn't say he was a regenerate soul; he shows every evidence of not being one. But he is a member of the visible Christian Church, and in _that sense_ a Christian, which just makes things worse for him if he doesn't come to genuine faith in Christ.

Our Lord talked of Nathanael as being "an Israelite indeed" which meant that there were those in the covenant people who were Israelites but not "Israelites indeed". The same is true in the Christian Church. Some Christians are nominally Christian while some Christians are Christians in heart.

When the Northern Ten Tribes broke off from Judah and Benjamin and most of them stopped visiting the Temple, these people did not cease to be Israelites.

The Westminster Confession of Faith calls the babies of those who profess the faith "Christians" - even although they have produced no signs of regeneration yet - and if Roman Catholics aren't Christians in some sense of the word, why do we not baptise them again?


----------



## NB3K (Apr 17, 2012)

Can I answer the question with a question?

I have a friend who professes to be a "born-again" believer. He does not believe in the decrees of God in an "absolute" sense. I try to tell him again and again about predestination and election, but he always goes to Roman's 11 to show me that God's decrees are not absolute and final. God redestinates and unelects people if they do not obey his rules.

I do not believe this man is born again.

What say ye?


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

NB3K said:


> I do not believe this man is born again.
> 
> What say ye?



Does he trust in Christ alone for His salvation? That is, when pressed on it, would he acknowledge that Christ died for Him?


----------



## Rufus (Apr 17, 2012)

Depends on damnable v.s. non-damnable heresy v.s. mere error. Viz. Arianism and Pelagianism are damnable, theistic evolution is not.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 17, 2012)

Philip said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe this man is born again.
> ...



Everyone that rejects predestination/election always say, "yes I believe Christ died for me!" but when pushed farther into where that salvation comes from HE ABSOLUTELY REJECTS THE ETERNAL DECREES OF GOD! He does not come with the same ole line that it would be unfair, but he crates a new doctrine of "re-destination" off of Roman's 11 and therefore rejecting what Paul says in Romans 8, 9, & first half of 11, Ephesains 1 & 2, Jesus teaching on the purpose of the parables, & John 6, 10, 17. He hints that Calvinism is liken to JW & Mormons that we create something out of a few passages and disreguard what the other passages of Scriptures say.

I tried to teach him that there is a differnece in what God commands and what God decrees. He says, " THere is no differnece in what God decrees and what he commands; they are all the same". So I ask what about Abraham being commanded to offer Issac to God on an alter? Surely God did not decree that Abraham should slaughter his son on the altar, but that God did command him to. From there I show the same thing with Moses and Pharoh. He does not want to hear anymore from there on.

Now I understand from reading church history, Predestination/Election has been always at the heart of the Gospel! Why Christ was sent, What Christ did all are directly related with the Eternal Decrees!

All that the Father gives me WILL come!


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

NB3K said:


> Everyone that rejects predestination/election always say, "yes I believe Christ died for me!"



Ok, then why doubt their salvation? Having a right understanding of election is nowhere in Scripture stated to be a necessary condition for being actually elect nor is it a sign of regeneration. God elects plenty of people with messed-up views of all kinds of things in Scripture, but they must always be argued with _as the elect_.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 17, 2012)

Philip said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone that rejects predestination/election always say, "yes I believe Christ died for me!"
> ...



Ok i'll give people the benifet of the doubt. We are all messed up doctrinally at some time or another. Even Calvin professes that in his preface to the Psalms! But I do not believe in my friend's God. See my friend's God does not decree based upon his wise wisdom and predetermined counsel, but after the works of his hands. My friend's God is weak and pitifull and powerless! His God neeeds to re-think his decrees over and over again.

See my friend mixes LAW with Grace and He does not understand that God causes His children to walk in newness of life, but only gives them the ability to walk in newness of life.

He never wants to be subjected to the authority of a organized body (church membership). He still believes that there are still Apostles being called. He really doesn't hold to the trinity (he'll argues about the seven spirits of God out of Rev) He says that dieing to one's self is a man made doctrine. 

I have been dealing with this man for over 3 years. He treats his wife and family like ****! His wife and him are always split. One time he told me that he never sins "intentially"!

While he may be "elect" he is not converted. 

I believe that once a man is converted HE WILL LONG FOR THE TRUTH!

Doctrine Matters as Voddie Baucham would say!


----------



## Philip (Apr 17, 2012)

NB3K said:


> He never wants to be subjected to the authority of a organized body (church membership). He still believes that there are still Apostles being called. He really doesn't hold to the trinity (he'll argues about the seven spirits of God out of Rev) He says that dieing to one's self is a man made doctrine.



Ah, that's a bit different. Now we're talking practice. In many ways, judging someone's salvific status involves looking at the fruit in their lives, not just the intellectual positions they take. Sounds like you need to discuss more fundamental things than just the sovereignty of God.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 17, 2012)

Philip said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > He never wants to be subjected to the authority of a organized body (church membership). He still believes that there are still Apostles being called. He really doesn't hold to the trinity (he'll argues about the seven spirits of God out of Rev) He says that dieing to one's self is a man made doctrine.
> ...



We talk about all kinds of things, but we always get back to the Sovereignty of God.


I hate talking to so-called church people! I rather go somewhere where there has never been spoken the name of Christ!


----------



## Loopie (Apr 18, 2012)

It is also important to understand what a person is saying when they say "I believe in and love Jesus." I have heard Oneness advocates, Muslims, and Mormons say this phrase. Do I believe that any of them are true believers? No. Of course I cannot say this from an infallible perspective, but it is always important to keep in mind that when a person professes Christ it is just as important to understand which 'Jesus' they are talking about. The Jesus of the Bible, or some other Jesus?


----------



## Ryft (Apr 18, 2012)

NB3K said:


> I have a friend who professes to be a born-again believer. He does not believe in the decrees of God in an absolute sense. I try to tell him again and again about predestination and election, but he always goes to Romans 11 to show me that God's decrees are not absolute and final. God redestinates and unelects people if they do not obey his rules.
> 
> I do not believe this man is born-again. What say ye?



Answer: I have no idea. 

Since I do not know the man at all, and I mean not one single thing about him, I am therefore not comfortable offering an opinion about his salvation. God alone knows. But I do want to offer you a little bit of insight drawn from my own Christian walk that may help draw down some of your sound and fury. Maybe. We shall see.

When I first heard the gospel and was called to Christ, it was through a gentleman with whom I spent hours upon hours learning from and studying God's word. He was very passionate about Christ and the gospel and blessed with deep theological insight. However, he was also explicitly anti-Calvinist, seemingly convinced that Calvinism was a devilish heresy that heaps insult upon the nature and character of God. And being someone who was nowhere near familiar (yet) with the word of God, I trusted his theological evaluation and adopted the same attitude as him. And perhaps not too unlike your friend, I likewise could not see, much less understand, what the importance or big deal was about church membership, accountability, discipline and so forth. For the first six years of my life as a Christian, (i) church was no big deal to me, (ii) I was firmly opposed to Calvinism, and (iii) my social and work life was not entirely distinguishable from that of a secular person (i.e., my Christian convictions were only manifest privately and at church).

But around that time God in his providential care of my sanctification began bringing into my life certain individuals who were either convinced of Reformed theology, such as one gentleman, or were solidly confessional in their Reformed theology, such as another gentleman. And through deep theological and doctrinal conversations, as well as extensive and intentional reading and study of the Bible on my own, by God's grace I finally became convinced and eventually embraced the doctrines of grace. Considering what I had formerly thought about Calvinism, this was an astonishing turn around; but, again, that was six years in the making. And I was still ambivalent about the church.

That took another five or six years (and mostly because I had been very badly hurt by the megachurch I had been attending). Yet God once again began to infuse my life with godly men and wise counsel and, not coincidentally, the same theme kept coming up again and again: the church. It seemed like every time I turned around I was being confronted by that theme. So I got the hint and began studying, and over the next year I not only developed a strong doctrine of the church but, to my amazement, I actually found myself wanting to find one to be a part of. So I began "church shopping" (and avoided all megachurches) and eventually found one—a modest Baptist church that I am a full member of, that I deeply love to a degree I can scarcely explain, that I fully submit myself to, heavily involve myself in, and live to serve in every way I possibly can.

I may have looked something like your friend at one time—and for years, Jason—and I would not have blamed people for thinking I was not born-again; but I thank God that the one who began a good work in me will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus, a little here and a little there according to his providence and purpose, graciously conforming me to the image of his Son, according to his will, his way, and his timing. Some of us have come from tragic backgrounds and hardened lives and take a lot more work than some people might otherwise prefer. What we need is your prayers, grace, patience, kindness, and loving instruction. And more prayers. Nothing is impossible for God, Jason. If he can pull me out of the life I had to where I am today, even if it has taken fifteen years to reach this point, then your friend is not beyond the reach of his saving grace either. 

Is he born-again? I could not say. But I know what the first several years of my life as a Christian looked like, so I would not want to count your friend out yet. I get that you are frustrated. In a way that is understandable. But what your friend might need more than your strong biblical argument for God's sovereignty is your prayerful, loving, and patient explanation of the glorious gospel of Christ Jesus. That is the power of God to us who are being saved. "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

P.S. Do not forget that some plant while others water, but it is God who makes things grow. Maybe you are the one planting seeds, and someone else later will water; and, if it is his will, God will make it grow.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 18, 2012)

One needs only to look to the snake on the pole to be delivered! I try not to make it any more complicated than that.

Blessings!


----------



## M21195 (Apr 18, 2012)

Loopie said:


> It is also important to understand what a person is saying when they say "I believe in and love Jesus." I have heard Oneness advocates, Muslims, and Mormons say this phrase. Do I believe that any of them are true believers? No. Of course I cannot say this from an infallible perspective, but it is always important to keep in mind that when a person professes Christ it is just as important to understand which 'Jesus' they are talking about. The Jesus of the Bible, or some other Jesus?





---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

I asked a similar question a while back

http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/elect-participation-cult-arminian-belief-system-70203/


----------



## NB3K (Apr 18, 2012)

Well that was thoughtful of you to let me know a bit of your conversion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 18, 2012)

Chris´tian
n.	1.	
1.	One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.
The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. - Acts xi. 26.
2.	One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes an adherent of an opposing system.
3.	(Eccl.) One of a Christian denomination which rejects human creeds as bases of fellowship, and sectarian names. They are congregational in church government, and baptize by immersion. They are also called Disciples of Christ, and Campbellites.
a.	1.	Pertaining to Christ or his religion; as, Christian people.
3.	Pertaining to the church; ecclesiastical; as, a Christian court.
4.	Characteristic of Christian people; civilized; kind; kindly; gentle; beneficent.
The graceful tact; the Christian art. - Tennyson.

Yeah . . . right.

One can be a "heretic" by the standards of most of us on PB and be a pastor in good standing in all seven of the mainline denominations. One can be judged a "heretic" in an ecclesiastical action by a confessional body and still be considered "too conservative" by most mainline denominations and numerous "evangelical" ones.

If you are asking if one can hold multiple erroneous views and still receive the heavenly umpire's "safe" at home plate, I plead Deut 29:29. My job is to proclaim the Gospel, to support meaningful discipline, and to stand by the Word of God. Determining how erroneous one may be and still "make it" to heven is way outside my skill set.


----------



## R Harris (Apr 19, 2012)

"15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability." (2 Peter 3).

These are frightening words. If anyone ever tells you "doctrine doesn't matter", or that "The Bible is easy to understand" as one megachurch in our area stated in a radio advertisement many years ago, refer them quickly to this passage.

There are over 6,000 denominations and tens of thousands of "independent, non-denominational" churches in the USA today, and most evangelicals simply believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do. Any solid exegetical arguments given perhaps in opposition to their beliefs is simply met with "well, that's just your interpretation".

Given Peter's statement above (which some attribute to Paul's teachings on predestination, but obviously there is no proof of this, and besides, many of Paul's teachings are 'hard to understand'), there are no doubt many twisters and distorters out there, and Peter is not distinguishing between "major doctrines" and "minor doctrines."

I don't know, it's a difficult topic, but I do believe that many, especially the ultra dispensationals and charismatics, are given way too much leeway on their teachings.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 19, 2012)

R Harris said:


> I don't know, it's a difficult topic, but I do believe that many, especially the ultra dispensationals and charismatics, are given way too much leeway on their teachings.


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 19, 2012)

Instead of a ''bottom-up'' approach to discernment, I prefer a a ''top-down'' one in my personal life. What is the difference? A bottom-up approach goes in trying to predefine a lowest common denominator form of Christianity (Apostle's Creed, 5 fundamentals, Westminster Standards, Cambridge declaration, Chicago Statement, Danvers statement, etc...). This approach is thoroughly Biblical and ought to be preferred for organisations, Churches, para-church work, etc. If you want to actually do something on a regular basis you have to have a bottom up that starts from essential ideas (esse) to practical ideas (ben esse) to ideas of theological conviction that may not affect the heart of the faith or the pragmatic aspects, but corrupt it and lead to things that attack the essential or pragmatical (women in church offices, inerrancy, creation disputes, etc. are some ideas that come to mind).

When engaging in dialogue, I do not believe we ought to hold the same mindset. Here we allow the other person no matter how heretical they are to claim what they want and with reason, logic, and persuasion we convince them other wise. We are on neutral ground. The Unitarian is on equal ground with the Trinitarian and until we find our common ground on which we dialogue we are just sharing opinions. This is why I call it ''top down''. There is a sense of universality here. Once there is common ground, we can convince them of the truth using the articulations of our ''bottom-up'' form. 

This is all to say that I do not believe it is helpful saying to heretics ''you're not a Christian'' if they consider themselves to be one. We will engage in dialogue (this is to say opinion sharing with open ears to understand how they talk), until you can point out the critical flaw in their argument which always come down to them using something as a source of truth they will not apply equally to other points... you know like how Reformed baptists like to say they believe the Covenant of grace is unified, the covenant of Abraham, and not fully inaugrated, yet deny the sign of the covenant (which they admit was circumcision in the Old and Baptism in the new) to children. That is just an example of how I would point out their inconsistency


----------



## NB3K (Apr 19, 2012)

From listening to alot of anti-trinitrian's they usually deny Christ actually being God in the flesh. Then they go on and attack trinitarians as worshipping a man and not the God!


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 19, 2012)

See, this is the area where turn of the century fundamentalism started going astray (What's with this board talking about things that I'm prepping for my Sunday School class?) and why it gets a bad rap. Initially, fundamentalism started off on the right track. It laid out essential doctrines that could not be negotiated without compromising one's faith. The problem is that over time the "fundamentals" became stretched over non-essentials and became the unattractive movement it now is. 

For example, I grew up in my young years going to a VERY fundamentalist Baptist church. According to them, if you weren't _fundamentalist_ Baptist, your soul might be in peril. You could affirm the essentials of the faith, but if you had disagreements on secondary matters, you "really needed to question whether or not you asked Jesus into your heart." If you didn't use ONLY the King James Version, or called yourself Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or-GASP!-Southern Baptist, the pastors looked upon you with serious concern. And I'm really not exaggerating about this.

So we have that side of the problem. On the other side, we have the "anything goes" crowd, which has influenced a good portion of today's evangelicalism, where everything even resembling Christianity is Christian. It was amazing how many Christians I knew who professed sound theology but also jumped on the emergent bandwagon when it came along (or at the very least gave it more credence than they should have), and not until Bell's blatant denial of eternal punishment in _Love Wins_ that they backed off on it (Anyone who has read any of Bell's earlier stuff and has a grasp of sound doctrine should have picked up on the warning signs he left in his earlier writings). 

Heresy is a sticky word. If it's used too flippantly, as hyper-fundamentalists use it, then it's tuned out. If it's not used at all, as in the latter example, then it's the "frog in the boiling pot" analogy: you don't see the problem until it's too late. Good apologetics will be careful to analyze the fruit of a person or movement without passing judgment on the state of a person's soul (provided there is not clear evidence of violating the gospel). 

I know he's a "non-Reformed Calvinist," but John MacArthur does a very good job of this in his book _Charismatic Chaos_. If you've not read the book, I highly recommend it. He does a great job of looking at the charismatic/pentecostal movement and analyzing the dangers and errors of the movement in light of the Bible; yet while he correctly points out to how the movement can cause people to depart from the historic faith, nowhere do I recall him judging the salvation of any of the prominent members of the movement, nor any of the followers of the movement. He takes a secondary issue and skillfully shows how the issue can mislead and hurt without saying "If you believe in charismaticism/pentecostalism you are not a Christian." 

We can point to errors on secondary issues and denounce them without denouncing a professor of those views as non-Christian. We can even do this while communicating that a secondary issue if not brought back on course can lead to distortion on the core issue (the Gospel). This is the case with theistic evolution. Can one be a Christian and hold to theistic evolution? Yes... BUT, theistic evolution opens the door for questioning the veracity and historicity of Scripture, and somewhere down the line a person may say "Well, if creation is mythologized, then why not the fall? And if the fall, why not the gospel?" Thus a secondary issue eventually spreads and "contaminates" the core issue if not corrected.


----------

