# The H-word.



## raderag (May 16, 2005)

When is it acceptable to throw the "œh" word (heresy), when talking theology amongst friends in the Church? Must there be a specific council dealing with the Charge? In other words,, is it in bad form to call out NT Wright´s work as heresy, or say that AA or the NP is hetrodox?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 16, 2005)

or Arminianism, for that matter . . .


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> or Arminianism, for that matter . . .



Arminianism was declared heresy by the Church in 1619 at the Synod of Dort.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



While I agree with Dordt... for some reason I've never thought that the Synod was representative of "The Church" in the same way as (say) Nicea. The Synod of Dordt is more like a church-trial conducted by a denomination. 
Maybe I'm wrong though.

I would never call Arminianism "heresy" because that means that all Arminians are going to hell. And I think that is just too silly. 
Arminianism is not the same as anti-Triniarianism or Sacerdotalism or openness Theology or a denial of the resurrection, etc...


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

Arminianism is heresy and those whom practice it heretical. Arminianism is synergistic and fully unbiblical. The God of arminius is a god whom is not sovereign; he is weak. All arminians will burn in the lake of fire; they do not trust in Christ, they trust in themselves.

*I have never met a man whom subscribed to the doctrines of Arminius.

[Edited on 5-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Authorised (May 16, 2005)

Dan Corner...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

Edwards called Arminianism "darkness" of highest order.
Owen called it "a spawn of the devil."
Dordt denounced it as "heresy" and expelled all those who held to it out of the country.
Westminster called it "heresy" "plaguing" the church.
Turretin liked it to "pelagianism" which is heresy of the highest order.
Calvin, fighting with Pighius, called it the brain child of the devil.
Luther denouced Erasmus' take on it (and free will) as "dung" on a silver platter.

Historical theology is important! - and church history can be fun too!
I believe we should call a duck a duck. When the church catches up to doing its research, they should find it a duck as well. 

In certain cases, it takes a very long time for the "process" to happen. But in that course of time, we should not pat heresy on the back and call it "agreeing to disagree." We should still call it heresy - especially with the "pen."

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Edwards called Arminianism "darkness" of highest order.
> Owen called it "a spawn of the devil."
> Dordt denounced it as "heresy" and expelled all those who held to it out of the country.
> ...


----------



## raderag (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Historical theology is important! - and church history can be fun too!
> I believe we should call a duck a duck. When the church catches up to doing its research, they should find it a duck as well.
> 
> ...



Ok, I am agreeing with the above, but I was told not to call something heresy that hasn't be specifically been declared as such by the Church. What of that?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...


Arminianism was rejected by all the Protestant churches officially, until the Wesleyan Methodists arrived. They were the first protestants to have an Arminian Confession to my knowledge unless we would count some of the Anabaptists (or the later Lutherans if you really want to stretch it). If you were found guilty of arminianism in the Protestant churches you were booted. I think that says alot historically.


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> Ok, I am agreeing with the above, but I was told not to call something heresy that hasn't be specifically been declared as such by the Church. What of that?



Brett, I think the point Matt and others is trying to make is: Arminianism was specifically declared heresy by the Church at the Council of Dordt.

At this point, I think it becomes a matter of determining if the Council of Dordt represented "the Church" or not. I believe it did.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

I think a better question may be "was Dordt right?"

If they were........then........


----------



## raderag (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...




AHHHHH!!! I am not talking about Arminianism, I am talking about AA/FV.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2005)

Brett,
For the record, I told Matt the other day that I agree with this. We should not call it heresy until the church officially renders that verdict. However, we all know a duck when we see it.


----------



## sastark (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> AHHHHH!!! I am not talking about Arminianism, I am talking about AA/FV.



Right. And, like I said, Arminianism is heresy.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sastark_
> ...



Ok, The Federal Vision is heresy.

Does that help? 

I'm more forthright than Scott is on trendy heresy.


----------



## raderag (May 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



So, would you be comfortable saying that in a Church setting where some might agree with the FV?


----------



## turmeric (May 17, 2005)

Yup. But then you have to be ready to defend your point. I would be ready to insist on the proper doctrine of justification at the moment with them, but it would take a lot more research to conduct a proper debate.


----------



## raderag (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



Matt, if I send you a private email about this, do you have time to discuss it?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 17, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## raderag (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Yes.



I just sent the email.


----------



## Mayflower (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Arminianism is heresy and those whom practice it heretical. Arminianism is synergistic and fully unbiblical. The God of arminius is a god whom is not sovereign; he is weak. All arminians will burn in the lake of fire; they do not trust in Christ, they trust in themselves.
> 
> *I have never met a man whom subscribed to the doctrines of Arminius.
> ...



Maybe this already discussed before, but can someone explain me, what the difference is between the arminianisme of arminian and what we called the modern arminianism ?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 17, 2005)

*At the risk of getting deemed a heretic myself...*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Arminianism is heresy and those whom practice it heretical. Arminianism is synergistic and fully unbiblical. The God of arminius is a god whom is not sovereign; he is weak. All arminians will burn in the lake of fire; they do not trust in Christ, they trust in themselves.
> 
> *I have never met a man whom subscribed to the doctrines of Arminius.
> ...



I've never been so blunt in my denunciation of Armianism to associate all who espouse it to eternal damnation... I'm I just too soft and tolerant having went to dispensationalist schools? Perhaps. I will acquiesce and say Arminianism is a heresy, but is it a damanble one? gee-- i readily admit there has to be a line where a person who exalts their own "will" so much has literally fallen pray to a works-righteousness... the free will has no salvific powers and the natural man is dead in sins and trespasses, however, salvation is by grace through faith and not some rigorous quasi-gnostic ability to articulate the _ordo salutis_ with precision or understand the nature of the new birth being totally from above... Though, I realize Paul attributes the surety of his salvation to having taken "heed to sound doctrine..." but I tend to leave it up to God and just stand on sound doctrine rather than issue any damnation decrees of my own to those who profess faith in Christ's atoning, death, burial and resurrection. Most Arminians have never even heard the term. I disdain Romanism, but recognise that people will can and do come out of trappings of that heretical system and are saved. The fact they espouse the doctrine of immaculate conception and that Mary was herself sinless takes away from Christ's humanity. Arminianism like Catholicism smothers the Gospel in man-centered religion and like some cankerous sore, it needs to be removed from the church, but the vast majority of Christians are not Calvinists or Reformed... that much I am sure of. 

I ran into a few enthuiastic Calvinists who were quick to damn their brethren to hell because of their failure to exegete Romans 9... I kind of got tired of the haughtiness. Sovereign grace properly understood should humble a person anyway. I don't think we should fall into ecumenical or creedal agree-to-disagree dialogues with Arminians, but I leave their salvation to God. It's a personal race anyway.

Maybe, I'll be a stalwart stubborn Puritan in my old age... but in the interim, I'll just stay "soft."

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

Ryan,
I must assume your post is intended for me as you quote me. In the future, please either read over the post thoroughly or u2u me with clearifications. 
Just for the record:
1) Dordt condemned Arminius as a heretic!
2) Dordt condemned Arminianism as heresy
3) I have never met an Arminian.
4) People today are not practicing Arminians ( at least not intentionally)

I add: my ability to articulate the _ordo saludis_ is NOT quasi-gnostic.


----------



## Puritanhead (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ryan,
> I must assume your post is intended for me as you quote me. In the future, please either read over the post thoroughly or u2u me with clearifications.
> Just for the record:
> ...



fair enough-- the quasi-gnostic insinuation was a very bad play on words... but was to hint at the knowledge assent thing-- 

i need to just goto sleep and quit taken issue with people i'd otherwise normally agree with..

*The Bane of Neo-Gnostic Calvinism 
by Greg Fields* 

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/neo_gnostic.html

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Puritanhead]

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

Cool 

Just for the record. Understanding is not an essential, it is a requirement:

Isa 6:8 *Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying,* Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 

Gods word says that _understanding_ brings conversion..........


----------



## Arch2k (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ryan,
> I must assume your post is intended for me as you quote me. In the future, please either read over the post thoroughly or u2u me with clearifications.
> Just for the record:
> ...



What do you mean by "people today are not practicing Arminians"? What is an Arminian if not Normon Geisler and the like? He fits the Remonstrance to a T In my humble opinion.

Can you qualify what you meant Scott?

Thanks,


----------



## Mayflower (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Can someone please explain me my question ?


----------



## Scott (May 17, 2005)

The PCA does not view Arminianism as heresy and likely never will. A person can be an Arminian and a member in good standing of a PCA church, although he will not be allowed to hold office. Dordt is not binding on us, although it is often persuasive. Dordt is not an ecumenical council (Ben's instincts were right) but a provincial council. 

In terms of process, I think it is safe to say that a denial of the Reformed doctrine of justification would be viewed as heresy in the PCA and most conservative churches. If AA / FV is this (not saying that it is), then it will likely be ruled heresy. On AA/FV, I don't know enough about it to state any substantive views one way or the other. 

During the formative debates of the early ecumenical creeds, the participants did not wait for formal rulings to call each other heretics. Athanasius, for example, was challenging people with strong terms before official rulings. That was common. A doctrine is heresy or it is not. A council simply confirms that. 

However, there should be a general willingness to submit to one's denomination on disputed points or controversies of faith. If the denomination rules against you, then you should give that ruling substantial weight.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Mayflower asks:



> Maybe this already discussed before, but can someone explain me, what the difference is between the arminianisme of arminian and what we called the modern arminianism ?



My 2 cents:

Arminianism ala the Remonstrants is not anything like todays prevalent contemporary theology. We Calvinists believe that if one does not hold to all 5 points of tulip that they are by default Arminians.
The term is tossed around erroneously. It is very rare to hear that someone is practicing semi-pelagianism, yet, it is quite possible that a good number of people we qualify as Arminian are actually semi-pelagian. The Arminianism of J. Arminius was much more staunch than the weak stuff we see today. 

Can someone be considered _Calvinist_ if they hold to only 3 points of tulip? 

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

> Can someone be considered Calvinist if they hold to only 3 points of tulip?



No. TULIP represents an interdependent sytem of thought. If you pull two out (or one) it doesn't work.


----------



## raderag (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> The PCA does not view Arminianism as heresy and likely never will. A person can be an Arminian and a member in good standing of a PCA church, although he will not be allowed to hold office. Dordt is not binding on us, although it is often persuasive. Dordt is not an ecumenical council (Ben's instincts were right) but a provincial council.
> 
> In terms of process, I think it is safe to say that a denial of the Reformed doctrine of justification would be viewed as heresy in the PCA and most conservative churches. If AA / FV is this (not saying that it is), then it will likely be ruled heresy. On AA/FV, I don't know enough about it to state any substantive views one way or the other.
> ...



Scott, that was a great post, thanks.


----------



## Arch2k (May 17, 2005)

Scott,

I agree with you in principle, however, from my vantage point, I see a lot more people being proponents of classical Remonstrance Arminianism. Like I said before, Normon Geisler is a perfect example. He believes all points of the remonstrance, and In my humble opinion, he is a fair representation of the main-stream. We must remember that the remonstrance (that the Synod of Dort condemned) left open the discussion of perseverance. How many free-will Baptists fit this particular brand of Arminianism?

Without discounting proper individual examination, I agree with Sproul, that most "2-pointers" or "3-pointers" are no more than 5-point Arminians in disguise. Because of their lack of knowledge of what the points REALLY mean, they profess them in ignorance. On many occasions Sproul has pointed this out, that in most cases, even a "four-point" Calvinist is really a full-fledged Arminian. However, I am by no means promoting a blanket statement for all who profess this, but I agree that in a mixed "theological soup" each brand must be judged individually. 

Like I said, in principle, it seems we mostly agree. Putting numbers to things can become a lot more subjective.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > Can someone be considered Calvinist if they hold to only 3 points of tulip?
> ...



Exactly. Thats the point. hence, unless one holds to the full details of Arminianism, they are'nt really practicing arminianism; Hence, I have never met a true Arminian!

Having said that, Arminianism is heretical and those whom subscribe to it are heretics.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (May 17, 2005)

"Dan Corner" - Good point. He certainly comes the closest.


----------

