# Apostatcy and Heresy



## Denny (Sep 5, 2005)

I have heard several here refer to Roman Catholicism as Apostate,but according to the Wikipedia definition. They are in heresy,rather than Apostate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostate


*The difference between apostasy and heresy is that the latter refers to rejection or corruption of certain doctrines, not to the complete abandonment of one's religion.*



[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Denny]

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Denny]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2005)

If I subscribe to a heresy, I am apostasizing myself from biblical orthodoxy and Christs church. Example, I deny justification by faith alone. This would render my religion false. The whole belief system crumbles.


----------



## Denny (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If I subscribe to a heresy, I am apostasizing myself from biblical orthodoxy and Christs church. Example, I deny justification by faith alone. This would render my religion false. The whole belief system crumbles.



So for you apostacy and heresy are synonymous?

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud,but who or whom decides what falls within biblical orthodoxy?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Denny]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



denny,
They are not one in the same. Heresy leads to apostacy. 

Whom decides? The scriptures and Christs church.


----------



## Denny (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



Catholics will tell you they've abandoned nothing. Especially their faith.


----------



## DTK (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> Catholics will tell you they've abandoned nothing. Especially their faith.



In the context of the Reformation, Calvin himself would disagree...



> *John Calvin commenting on Hosea 2:5:* This passage confirms what I have shortly before explained, "” that it is not enough that God should choose any people for himself, except the people themselves persevere in the obedience of faith; for this is the spiritual chastity which the Lord requires from all his people. But when is a wife, whom God has bound to himself by a sacred marriage, said to become wanton? When she falls away, as we shall more clearly see hereafter, from pure and sound faith. Then it follows that the marriage between God and men so long endures as they who have been adopted continue in pure faith, and apostasy in a manner frees God from us, so that he may justly repudiate us. Since such apostasy 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. See _Calvin´s Commentaries_, Vol. XIII, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 83.
> 
> *John Calvin:* The Roman pontiff is now opposing himself to the reviving doctrines of the gospel, just as if his head were at stake. Does he not, by this very fact, demonstrate that there will be no safety for his see unless he can put to flight the kingdom of Christ? Your imperial majesty is aware how wide a field of discussion here opens upon me. But to conclude this point in a few words: I deny that see to be apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy; I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist; I deny him to be a successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built; and I deny him to be the head of the church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the church, after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head. John Calvin, _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ (Dallas: Protestant Heritage Press, 1995), p. 135.


Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Denny (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Denny_
> ...



Doesn't the idea of apostasy carry with it a notion that you have denied Christ entirely. And like Judas there is no hope for you?


----------



## JohnV (Sep 5, 2005)

Is it worse to call someone heretical or to call someone apostate? 
Leaving out the context that we are all going in the direction from complete apostacy, total depravity, to full redemption, and we are all still being sanctified, so that we are riding the line, so to speak between the lie and the truth, wherever we may be on the path of sanctification, when does someone deserve to be called a heretic, and when apostate? And which is worse? 

Or is this too hard, trying to draw the line to fine? 

Its just that some things that would have clearly been called heretical in days past are commonplace in our churches now, and no one raises an accusing finger anymore. On the other hand, at times we sometimes split hairs in order to find heresies that our forefathers would not have bothered over. I think of, as an example in the latter case, of so many views on the creation days; and of the example in the former case of our present day pastors preaching their own gospels, their own convictions, instead of confining themselves to the doctrines which the churches have outlined as Biblical teaching.


----------



## DTK (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Denny_
> Doesn't the idea of apostasy carry with it a notion that you have denied Christ entirely. And like Judas there is no hope for you?


That is indeed one meaning of apostasy. But the term is not limited to that meaning. In his _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_, Muller includes that definition, but states that it has a broader meaning as well...


> *apostasia* (avpostasi,a): _apostasy;_ a willful falling away from or rebellion against, Christian truth. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian, the ultimate or final apostasy being the so-called unforgivable sin, the _peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum_ (q.v.), the sin against the Holy Spirit; apostasy is also one of the characteristic evidences of the antichrist (_antichristus_, q.v.). Richard A. Muller, _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 41.


I refer you to Calvin again...


> *John Calvin commenting on 1 Tim 4:1:* Besides, it is no slight vice which he describes, but a very heinous crime "”_apostasy from the faith_; although, at first Sight, in the doctrine which he briefly notices there does not appear to be so much evil. What is the case? Is faith completely overturned on account of the prohibition of marriage, or of certain kinds of food? But we must take into view a higher reason, that men pervert and invent at their pleasure the worship of God, that they assume dominion over the consciences, and that they dare to forbid that use of good things which the Lord has permitted. As soon as the purity of the worship of God is impaired, there no longer remains anything perfect or sound, and faith itself is utterly ruined.
> Accordingly, although Papists laugh at us, when we censure their tyrannical laws about outward observances, yet we know that we are pleading a cause of the greatest weight and importance; because the doctrine of faith is destroyed, as soon as the worship of God is infected by such corruptions. The controversy is not about flesh or fish, or about a black or ashy color, or about Friday or Wednesday, but about the mad superstitions of men, who wish to appease God by such trifles, and, by contriving a carnal worship of him, contrive for themselves an idol instead of God. Who will deny that this is revolting from the faith? See _Calvin´s Commentaries_, Vol. XXI, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprinted 1979), p. 98.


Cheers,
DTK


----------



## Herald (Sep 5, 2005)

*Heretic or Heresy?*

Here is a mind-bender: Can someone hold to a heresy without being a heretic? My pastor are debating this question. What do we make of a good Areminan who rejects Calvinism but is orthodox in most other areas of the faith? For instance, Norman Geisler. Would we call him a heretic or that he holds to a heresy? In either event, is he a believer? Not an easy question to answer.


----------

