# What is a heretic?



## dimib116 (Jul 13, 2011)

Been thinking about whether Arminians are heretics or not. I would say they are, but then whats the difference between them and those who disagree with me on baptism?

So I'm wondering, what is the definition of a heretic anyway?
Please include some sort of biblical evidence if you can.


----------



## elnwood (Jul 13, 2011)

A heretic is one who denies the true gospel.
[BIBLE]Galatians 1:6-9[/BIBLE]

The word for "accursed" is ἀνάθεμα, or anathema. When church councils declared people heretics and separated them from the church, they would say, "Let him be anathema."


----------



## Christopher88 (Jul 13, 2011)

The Mormon Church are heretics; They preach another gospel while using the name of Christ. 
Jehovah Witness are Hertics: They flat out deny who God is, this denying scripture, therefore they deny the gospel in its full

I will say Arminians are drawing a very close line to being on the faith or not. Spurgeon was set they preached another gospel. I'm not sure if I can fully agree with Spurgeon, but the gospel I preach is one of Covenant relationships and fully by God. 
The one Arminians preach is by man with a deist conception of God. So the question is, are they heretics?


----------



## dimib116 (Jul 13, 2011)

Sonny said:


> The Mormon Church are heretics; They preach another gospel while using the name of Christ.
> Jehovah Witness are Hertics: They flat out deny who God is, this denying scripture, therefore they deny the gospel in its full
> 
> I will say Arminians are drawing a very close line to being on the faith or not. Spurgeon was set they preached another gospel. I'm not sure if I can fully agree with Spurgeon, but the gospel I preach is one of Covenant relationships and fully by God.
> The one Arminians preach is by man with a deist conception of God. So the question is, are they heretics?



Yeah thats my question 

I believe they are because I think even a slight variation with the Gospel distorts it and ruins it. But while I believe Arminians are heretics, I still believe by God's grace its possible for them to still be saved and be Christian. Pretty much like Romans Catholics.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 13, 2011)

Heretic
HER'ETIC, n.

1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.[Webster 1828]


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 13, 2011)

The second half of the first definition is not overly helpful. I believe that credobaptism is contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, but my Baptist brothers are not heretics. I also believe that the rapture is contrary to Scripture, but Johnny Mac is not a heretic.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 13, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> The second half of the first definition is not overly helpful. I believe that credobaptism is contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, but my Baptist brothers are not heretics. I also believe that the rapture is contrary to Scripture, but Johnny Mac is not a heretic.



I am sorry I used the Webster 1828 dictionary for that definition.

But for the sake of argument, can we say that a heretic is one that holds a contrary position on the Doctrine of Salvation?

As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 13, 2011)

> As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)



That is unfortunate.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 13, 2011)

Joshua said:


> A hairy creature that will attach itself to and suck the life out of you.





---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> > As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)
> 
> 
> 
> That is unfortunate.



why?

I am about unity. If one holds to the Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation (Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Luther, & Calvin.) I have more in common with all those men than I do with (Pelagius, Arminius, Wesley)

As for baptism I believe in the one baptism (that is in Christ alone)

And as for the end times I like what Paul Washer said, "When Jesus returns we will all know what Revealation means." What I want to know is does one have the knowledge of salvation. If they hold to the orthodox doctrine of salvation then we can walk together.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 13, 2011)

I heretic is someone who denies the central doctrines of the faith; i.e. the divinity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Trinity, inerrant Scriptures, etc. If you ask an "arminian" if they believe that salvation is by grace alone almost all will affirm with a hearty "yes". No, they are not heretics as a group.


----------



## fralo4truth (Jul 13, 2011)

I would definitely say that a heretic would be one who has departed on the fundamentals of the faith and/or any of the points of the TULIP system.

But let me ask a question here; one which is very personal to me based on my past experience.

Would you claim someone a heretic who maintained that the gospel was not used by God in the salvation of sinners? In other words, anti-means folks.

I think I would answer in the affirmative.


----------



## Tripel (Jul 13, 2011)

"Heretic" is a label that (in my opinion) is very overused and misapplied, even in Reformed circles. I often see it used to simply mean that someone's theology is wrong. 

An arminian preaches a gospel with theological errors, but that is not to say that he preaches a false gospel. 

For example, Billy Graham is NOT a heretic. He's been kicked through the mud several times on the PB and labeled a heretic, but Billy Graham preaches that salvation is by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. (and please, there's no need to post the youtube videos where he has said controversial things--I've seen them).


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 13, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > A hairy creature that will attach itself to and suck the life out of you.
> ...



Why? Because you said you would not waste time on those who you disagreed with. That is a slap in the face of those people. You are saying that they are not worth your time and fellowship. If you meant to say that you refuse to get in an argument over these secondary issues, then that is fine. Unfortunately your original post did not convey this idea.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jul 13, 2011)

Thing is, the sum total of our personal opinions really mean not a whole lot in view of what the confessions say. If you are a confessing member of XYZ church, and XYZ church confesses that this, that, and the other are heresy, then that is what you confess to believe. End story.

Quotes from theologians who know better than I what is heresy and what is not (courtesy of Dr McMahon):


> 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.
> ...



I am not listing this to try and convince everyone that Arminians are servants of Satan and will all burn in a lake of fire, ha, ha, ha.

I just think that too often today we water things down, where in reality, there is a line in the sand and it is clear as day, we just tend to want to smudge it a little for the sake of I'm not sure what. At the end of the day, there is one truth, and not 57 divergent ones. There is one Christ, not 57 of Him.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 13, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> > Joshua said:
> ...



I meant that I will not argue over the seconday issues. I am sorry if I led you down the wrong trail. 

I would argue tooth and nail for this position and I think Hodge does a great job at explaining it.

Statement of the Doctrine. The Augustinian scheme includes the following points: (1.) That the glory of God, or the manifestation of his perfections, is the highest and ultimate end of all things. (2.) For that end God purposed the creation of the universe, and the whole plan of providence and redemption. (3.) That He placed man in a state of probation, making Adam, their first parent, their head and representative. (4.) That the fall of Adam brought all his posterity into a state of condemnation, sin, and misery, from which they are utterly unable to deliver themselves. (5.) From the mass of fallen men God elected a number innumerable to eternal life, and left the rest of mankind to the just recompense of their sins. (6.) That the ground of this election is not the foresight of anything in the one class to distinguish them favourably from the members of the other class, but the good pleasure of God. (7.) That for the salvation of those thus chosen to eternal life, God gave his own Son, to become man, and to obey and suffer for his people, thus making a full satisfaction for sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness, rendering the ultimate salvation of the elect absolutely certain. (8.) That while the Holy Spirit, in his common operations, is present with every man, so long as he lives, restraining evil and exciting good, his certainly efficacious and saving power is exercised only in behalf of the elect. (9.) That all those whom God has thus chosen to life, and for whom Christ specially save Himself in the covenant of redemption, shall certainly (unless they die in infancy), be brought to the knowledge of the truth, to the exercise of faith, and to perseverance in holy living unto the end. Such is the great scheme of doctrine known in history as the Pauline, Augustinian, or Calvinistic, taught, as we believe, in the Scriptures, developed by Augustine, formally sanctioned by the Latin Church, adhered to by the witnesses of the truth during the Middle Ages, repudiated by the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent, revived in that Church by the Jansenists, adopted by all the Reformers, incorporated in the creeds of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland, of the Palatinate, of France, Holland, England, and Scotland, and unfolded in the Standards framed by the Westminster Assembly, the common representative of Presbyterians in Europe and America. It is a historical fact that this scheme of doctrine has been the moving power in the Church; that largely to it are to be referred the intellectual vigour and spiritual life of the heroes and confessors who have been raised up in the course of ages; that it has been the fruitful source of good works, of civil and religious liberty, and of human progress. Its truth may be evinced from many different sources. 

Charles Hodge (2009). Systematic Theology Volume II - Enhanced Version (Kindle Locations 7155-7175). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.


----------



## Andres (Jul 13, 2011)

What is a heretic? One who teaches heresy.


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 13, 2011)

Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.


----------



## Andres (Jul 13, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.



 My thunder has been officially stolen!


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 13, 2011)

Bob V.,
I have to say that your avatar reminds me of Christopher Lloyd in the last Back to the Future movie....


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 13, 2011)

Jim, I wish I had a throwing hawk for every time I've heard that.


----------



## Andres (Jul 13, 2011)

Theogenes said:


> Bob V.,
> I have to say that your avatar reminds me of Christopher Lloyd in the last Back to the Future movie....



Great Scott, you're right! 

View attachment 2130


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 13, 2011)

Do you give out faux autographs??
BTW, it's good to see you back on the PB!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 13, 2011)

Andres said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> > Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.
> ...



Somebody call Percy Jackson!


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 13, 2011)

> ...we just tend to want to smudge it a little for the sake of I'm not sure what.


That would be avoidance of confrontation, a reluctance to do any of the difficult things that love requires of us. A byproduct, in my view, of the effeminization of the culture syncretistically invading even the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 13, 2011)

In much the same way that some denominations have differentiated from homosexuals and those struggling with the sin of homosexuality, can we differentiate between a heretic and those that are ignorantly following heretical ideas?


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 13, 2011)

An heretic is anyone who denies the truths pertaining to the first 7 ecumenical councils... that is how the Reformers generally used the term.


----------



## dimib116 (Jul 13, 2011)

Okay let me ask you this question then.

If heresy is mainly in regards to issues pertaining to salvation then what do we call someone who (for example) claims to believe in all the basic truths of salvation but denies the need for any sort of baptism in general? Since baptism doesnt directly pertain to salvation, would that person still be a heretic?


----------



## elnwood (Jul 13, 2011)

BobVigneault said:


> Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.



So today, who exactly would (or could) "the Church" be that would have the authority to pronounce heretics? A local church excommunication? A presbytery? A General Assembly?


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 14, 2011)

That's the rub Don, THE 'invisible' CHURCH doesn't have the ability to pronounce heresy. So the local bodies or denominations or conferences has to either define the term or get rid of it and then be consistent. We can decide that 'heresy' is any deviation from the Nicene Creed. A person who openly and knowingly teaches contrary to the Nicene Creed would be a heretic. The bottom line is, the term is thrown around indiscriminately and recklessly (by individuals in the blogosphere) so it has lost it's meaning.


----------



## Parker234 (Jul 15, 2011)

Dimi, I sympathize with your question. However, let me suggest that we don't _need_ to have a title for everyone who is in error. I mean, as a Presbyterian, it would be easy for me to just say, "That Baptist over there is a heretic because he denies the truth about baptism." Or I could do the same thing with my many arminian friends whose soteriology is inconsistent and unbiblical. I could dust my hands off and walk away. However, once the "H Word" gets pulled out, there's really no need of further conversation - after all, it's black and white. I'm right and they're a heretic. Fortunately, the more even-minded Reformed folk will tell you that it takes a lot more than generic error to make one a heretic.


----------



## dudley (Jul 15, 2011)

A heretic is a person who holds and teaches religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice. Roman Catholicism is a prime example and her pope is a heretic and leads people away from the truth of salvation. It is why we as Reformed Protestants should continue to renounce Roman Catholicism , her pope , and the Roman catholic teachings which are against or nor supported by scriptures. We protest the heresy of the Romanists and proclaim the true Gospel of salvation. That is what it means to be a Protestant. It is why I openly renounced the pope , Roman Catholicism and her false teachings when I left that church and became a Protestant.


----------



## baron (Jul 15, 2011)

Here are a couple of book's you might like to read.

Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church Harold O. J. Brown.

Orthodoxy & Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

I would send them to you if I could find them, but you being down under it would cost a fortune. So sorry.


----------



## Sviata Nich (Jul 17, 2011)

Is man fallen and in need of salvation? Arminian's say, yes!
Can a man save himself? Aminian's say, no! 
Is Christ the only way a person can be saved? Arminian's say, yes!
Is it by Grace or by works that a man is saved? Arminian's say, by Grace!
Is the Bible the inspired word of God? Arminian's say, yes!
Do you deny the Triune nature of God? Arminian's say, no!
Is God sovereign over all? Arminian's say, yes! to a point 

Now I think we can argue at times they are inconsistent in their beliefs, and that they ignore/explain away some pretty clear scripture. However to say ALL Arminians are heretics goes to far.

P.S To answer the question what is a heretic? Anyone who claims to be a Christian who rejects the most basic and foundational beliefs. Although TULIP is true and very important, it is second class (so to speak).


----------



## NB3K (Jul 17, 2011)

Sviata Nich said:


> Is man fallen and in need of salvation? Arminian's say, yes!
> Can a man save himself? Aminian's say, no!
> Is Christ the only way a person can be saved? Arminian's say, yes!
> Is it by Grace or by works that a man is saved? Arminian's say, by Grace!
> ...



If one asks an Arminian if God's Eternal Election is conditional or unconditional they would say that it's conditional 
If one asks an Arminian if God's Grace is effectual they would say it is resistable, and we must co-operate with God's Grace.
If one asks an Arminian whom did Christ die for they would say everyone, making salvation possible to all mankind, but not certain for anyone.
If one asks an Arminian can one of God's Children utterly fall away from the Grace given to them, they would say YES!

These are the main points at the Synod of Dort! Which they judged the "17th centruy Arminians" as heretics. Today's Arminians are far more liberal than their conservative fathers. Look at the present state of the "visible church" most are Arminian or Pelagian. The whole reason why there was a Protestant Reformation is because of that filthy doctrine of Free Will (according to Martin Luther). 

Why is it that we in this day and age are trying to curry favor with those that preach another Gospel that is no Gospel at all. 

Sure an Arminian would say in the general sense that we are saved by grace and not of our works, but when you start to sound the depth of their teaching, you notice in the particulars that they do not believe that we are saved by Grace, but we must do this, and must do that to keep God's favor. That my friend is not Grace. Whenever we think we must do something to keep oursleves in the Grace of God we turn and make God our enemy by placing him indebted to us. 

Romans 9 is their most hated passage of Scripture. When ever you show them that God's Election is Unconditional they always give the anticipated answer that that is not fair! That it would make God an unjust and evil God if God choose whom He pleased and rejected the rest not even on the basis of what they would do. [Romans 9:11]
And when you tell them that that is not a valid argument which one can place against God, everything goes down hill from there and things seem to get personal.

The point that I am trying to make is Grace with conditions is not Grace. If God can not freely give His grace to whom he chooses than it is not Grace. Grace must be Gratuitous for it to remain Grace.


----------



## JML (Jul 17, 2011)

Sviata Nich said:


> Is it by Grace or by works that a man is saved? Arminian's say, by Grace!



I will agree with you that this is what the Arminian of today _*says*_. However, this is not what they practice. The question becomes, which is more indicative of the condition of the heart and true belief, words or actions? I think words are empty without actions that back up those words (so did James). If you truly believe that man is saved by grace alone, which they say they do, why insist that a person must do a,b, and c for salvation (walk aisle, pray prayer, etc). Sometimes it is not inconsistency but a proof of true beliefs.


----------



## Sviata Nich (Jul 17, 2011)

1) There are serious differences between us, but Arminians are not Judaizer's, or Gnostic's. They believe in the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed. They (some) love the Jesus of the Bible above the things of this world, something natural man cannot do. If someone holds to the most basic fundamentals of the faith and has a true affection for the Christ of the Bible how am I to consider them heretics? They may go wrong in some areas but they are still in Christ. I don't believe ALL Arminians are saved, but I don't believe ALL are out of Christ.

2) I admit, at times I want to be in people's favour (I'm sinful!) but my hope and prayer is that I am out to honour God. And so as I am to love my brothers and sisters in the faith - those whom God has quickened (even if they don't realize it) - I get uncomfortable denouncing ALL Orthodox's (including most Church fathers), ALL Catholic's, and MOST modern Protestants as goats and wolves. 

3) Luther's 95 Theses is more against the practice of indulgences than against free will. I don't even think it mentions free will. I'm far from an expert on the Reformation, but to my knowledge although free will came up later on (and was a very big deal), the Reformation began because of the corruption (relics, indulgences, purgatory, penance, the papacy etc..) within the church. So to say free will was the _whole _reason seems to be a bit dramatic.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 17, 2011)

Sviata Nich said:


> 1) There are serious differences between us, but Arminians are not Judaizer's, or Gnostic's. They believe in the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed. They (some) love the Jesus of the Bible above the things of this world, something natural man cannot do. If someone holds to the most basic fundamentals of the faith and has a true affection for the Christ of the Bible how am I to consider them heretics? They may go wrong in some areas but they are still in Christ. I don't believe ALL Arminians are saved, but I don't believe ALL are out of Christ.
> 
> 2) I admit, at times I want to be in people's favour (I'm sinful!) but my hope and prayer is that I am out to honour God. And so as I am to love my brothers and sisters in the faith - those whom God has quickened (even if they don't realize it) - I get uncomfortable denouncing ALL Orthodox's (including most Church fathers), ALL Catholic's, and MOST modern Protestants as goats and wolves.
> 
> 3) Luther's 95 Theses is more against the practice of indulgences than against free will. I don't even think it mentions free will. I'm far from an expert on the Reformation, but to my knowledge although free will came up later on (and was a very big deal), the Reformation began because of the corruption (relics, indulgences, purgatory, penance, the papacy etc..) within the church. So to say free will was the _whole _reason seems to be a bit dramatic.



To your first point, what Reformed Confession do you hold to? Because if we hold to a 17th century Reformed Confession we would judge the Arminians as heretics. For there is only 1 gospel, 1 baptism, 1 Lord. There are not 2 which may be up to the chosing of your "free-will". Whenever anything is added to Grace, Grace ends being Grace and becomes debt. This is what Paul stresses in Romans

Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." 

And,
Rom 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 

As for your third point here is a passage of Luther from his Bondage of the Will. He talks about how the whole Protestant Reformation swung on the hindge of the false view of "free-will"

In this, moreover, I give you great praise, and proclaim it -- you alone in pre-eminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that is, the grand turning point of the cause; and, have not wearied me with those irrelevant points about popery, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down, -- though in vain! You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you. For in this kind of discussion I willingly engage, as far as time and leisure permit me. Had those who have heretofore attacked me done the same, and would those still do the same, who are now boasting of new spirits, and new revelations, we should have less sedition and sectarianism, and more peace and concord. -- But thus has God, by the instrumentality of Satan, avenged our ingratitude! 

Luther, Martin (2010). The Bondage of The Will (Kindle Locations 4346-4353). Unknown. Kindle Edition.


----------



## Sviata Nich (Jul 17, 2011)

I hold to the Heidelberg Catechism/Confession. I am not arguing that Arminians are right in denying TULIP, there not. I don't need to be convinced that were saved by Grace through faith, and even that is not of ourselves. We did not ask for it, we did not deserve it, we do not finish it. Salvation is totally the work of God and its truly mind boggling that He would do such a thing (especially to me, why me?)! You speak so highly of Grace, as you should (there needs to be more like you). But if we condemn Arminians because they "add to Grace, they think they contribute to salvation, they think by their works they are preserved? Ha, Heretics! And then say one must believe the Orthodox Creeds, and the Reformed Confessions, and TULIP, and the SOLA's, and only two Sacraments and so and so on we do the same thing in different way. We demean Grace. 

Look to the thief on the cross, Jesus did not quiz him. Jesus did not even the initiate the conversation! Yet Jesus says the man will be with Him in paradise. Clearly the Holy Spirit worked in the thief, but still the man did not understand all that had happened. We must be careful not to make the Christian faith only for the intellectual elite. Many Christians cannot read, write, or even have Bibles! They know little to nothing of Church history, but they love Christ. If man is totally depraved, dead spiritually, rebelliousness against God, then for him to love the Christ of the Bible must mean - if we hold to our theology - the Spirit has worked in them. 

"In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." - Augustine

"Biblical orthodoxy without compassion is surely the ugliest thing in the world." - Schaeffer


----------



## NB3K (Jul 17, 2011)

Sviata Nich said:


> And then say one must believe the Orthodox Creeds, and the Reformed Confessions, and TULIP, and the SOLA's, and only two Sacraments and so and so on we do the same thing in different way. We demean Grace.



I am not saying that they the "Arminians" need to profess the Reformed Confession of Faith to be saved. What I am saying is; I do not believe one can deny the Gratuitous nature of Grace and yet be saved by it. This is why I stress the importance of teaching sound doctrine. If the Arminians believe in the Gratuitousness of Grace they would right away denounce their errors. 

As for the thief on the cross, that is a perfect example of Grace. THe thief was 100% unable to do anything but believe and make a profession of that faith. He had nothing to bring after his profession of his faith.


----------



## dimib116 (Jul 17, 2011)

Parker234 said:


> Dimi, I sympathize with your question. However, let me suggest that we don't _need_ to have a title for everyone who is in error. I mean, as a Presbyterian, it would be easy for me to just say, "That Baptist over there is a heretic because he denies the truth about baptism." Or I could do the same thing with my many arminian friends whose soteriology is inconsistent and unbiblical. I could dust my hands off and walk away. However, once the "H Word" gets pulled out, there's really no need of further conversation - after all, it's black and white. I'm right and they're a heretic. Fortunately, the more even-minded Reformed folk will tell you that it takes a lot more than generic error to make one a heretic.



Yeah i agree. The only reason I brought this up is because someone said to me that in my view, who ever disagrees with me on anything biblical must be a heretic, since they would be teaching a lie. It made me wonder whether that was true. Hence, the thread.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 AM ----------




baron said:


> Here are a couple of book's you might like to read.
> 
> Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church Harold O. J. Brown.
> 
> ...



Haha its the thought that counts!

Don't worry its all good


----------



## MW (Jul 17, 2011)

The last time we discussed this subject the following were provided as typical presbyterian views of the subject:

James Durham, Concerning Scandal (NP edition, 225): "And, first, Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate the same."

James Fergusson, Exposition of Galatians 5:19-21: "heresies, which are somewhat more than simple schism and faction, 1 Cor. 11:18, 19, even gross and dangerous error, voluntarily held (Tit. 3:11) and factiously maintained by some person or persons within the visible church, Acts 20:30, in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon, and drawn from the holy Scripture."

So heresy includes substantial error, stubborn teaching of it, and divisiveness in maintaining it.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 18, 2011)

Hello Dudley: I am in full agreement with your comments on Catholicism. Have debated several Roman Catholics on Facebook and come away with this thought: What darkness! But for the grace and mercy of God, we would also be in that state. Keep defending the faith! Jude 3


----------



## Levi Mattheus (Jul 18, 2011)

There is a saying, "all heresy is error but not all error is heresy." In scripture a heretic is mentioned in Titus 3:10, he is to be admonished twice and then rejected from the fellowship. The word "airetikos" is defined by Thayer as 1. fitted or able to take or choose a thing and 2. Schismatic , factious, a follower of false doctrine. It is therefore understood to be used of those who do not teach the Apostolic faith and are schismatic or sectarians. The word is translated "sect" in Acts 5:17 describing the sect of the Saducees and in Acts 15:5, 24:5, 26:5, 28:22. It may also refer to Christianity as a sect of Judaism. It is translated "heresy" in Acts 24:14 and 1 Cor 11:19, Galatians 5:20 and 2 Peter 2:1.
We can safely say that a sectarian from Apostolic Christianity, a teacher or espouser of unorthodox doctrine, and a false prophet or teacher of false doctrine is a heretic. Jude 19 condemns those who separate themselves from fellowship, sensual and without the Spirit. 
As regards Orthodox Christianity a heretic would be anybody denying the Cardinal Doctrines of scripture such as the Trinity, the Deity of Jesus Christ, the Manhood of Jesus Christ, the atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Virgin birth of Christ, salvation by grace and justification by faith. Although Arminius is viewed as heretic by some I do not think he was. Pelagius was a heretic and Arminius was not a complete Pelagian. Most Arminians are not as Arminian as they think and most Calvinists are not as Calvinistic as they think. In fact when Whitefield was asked if he thought he would see Wesley in heaven he said "no, because he would be that much nearer to the throne than me!" That is brotherly grace. 
We are called to "endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" Eph 4:3 with fellow Christians but to real, true heretics to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.


----------



## rookie (Jul 18, 2011)

I was saved in a Gospel Hall back in 2000 and have been a part of that movement for 11 yrs. They are what I would classify (for the general population of the movement ) as 4 - 4.5 point calvinits. Only not agreeing with the full depravity of man (they believe that God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would choose Him, so He chose them) and with the Irisistable grace.

The rest, they see (at least in the congregations I had fellowship with. 

So, they are part Arminians, part Calvinists.
Their gospel, for the most part is solid, the preaching (except for their legalism) is solid for the salvation, baptism, Trinity, and a few more.

I would classify them more as molds. They are taught a certain way, and don't explore enough on their own, and just take the preachers word for it.

Which is why I got out of it, I started reading and studying.

But to classify them as Heretics? No, Heretics usually (not always) want to bring attention and people in their church for more revenue. Not an absolute rule, but a general one.


----------



## PreservedKillick (Jul 18, 2011)

rookie said:


> I was saved in a Gospel Hall back in 2000 and have been a part of that movement for 11 yrs. They are what I would classify (for the general population of the movement ) as 4 - 4.5 point calvinits. Only not agreeing with the full depravity of man (they believe that God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would choose Him, so He chose them) and with the Irisistable grace.
> 
> The rest, they see (at least in the congregations I had fellowship with.
> 
> ...



I grew up Plymouth Brethren myself, and agree with your assessment, except maybe for the antinomian element of the theology. By God's grace, the brethren don't take it to its fullest logical conclusion and use it as a license to sin. Ironically enough, it turns, as you said, into a kind of legalism. However, they are absolutely solid on the divine inspiration of scripture and Biblical inerrancy, if a bit literalistic on how they interpret eschatology, so I don't consider it a heretical church.

Of course, I was in the Bible Chapel, so we were the liberals who thought musical instruments were ok (or so a brother in a Gospel Hall explained when I asked what the difference between us was .)


----------



## rookie (Jul 18, 2011)

PreservedKillick said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> > I was saved in a Gospel Hall back in 2000 and have been a part of that movement for 11 yrs. They are what I would classify (for the general population of the movement ) as 4 - 4.5 point calvinits. Only not agreeing with the full depravity of man (they believe that God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would choose Him, so He chose them) and with the Irisistable grace.
> ...



As far as their license to sin, the brethren I was with, the french one in the maritimes, were hugely against someone sinning after they were saved. They were huge on saying "You were saved, and are now a christian, you better act like one, or else you'll prove your salvation was never real". 

And the English one I was a part of, basically did that, you could not have seen the difference between a christian from that hall, and the drunk next door...both almost same lifestyle, for the most part. Some were very faithful, but they were the exception.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 18, 2011)

rookie said:


> PreservedKillick said:
> 
> 
> > rookie said:
> ...



Now I am not advocating lawlessness, but those brothers ought to study Peter. Jesus rebukes Peter and Paul rebukes Peter and you never hear them saying to Peter, "You were saved, and are now a christian, you better act like one, or else you'll prove your salvation was never real".


----------



## rookie (Jul 18, 2011)

NB3K said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> > PreservedKillick said:
> ...



I admit my last post was a little strong with the *You were saved, and are now a christian, you better act like one, or else you'll prove your salvation was never real*

But essentially, they watched you quite strictly, and if you missed a meeting, you almost had to write an essay and have your parents sign it on why you missed.

Looking back at it now, they ran it (that one particular congregation) like a cult. But with the accurate gospel.

They claim it was to keep the testimony of Christ. But men were making the rules...and sometimes the bible and prayer were not consulted for some of their decisions.


----------



## Levi Mattheus (Jul 18, 2011)

Good point. But, when Jesus rebuked Peter, was he even saved?! "But I have prayed for you, that your faith won't fail: and when you are converted, strengthen thy brethren" Luke 22:32.


----------



## PreservedKillick (Jul 18, 2011)

Right--when I was referring to Antinomianism, I was talking about the formal theology, not the actual behavior--I grew up surrounded by many godly men. The legalism wasn't quite on the level you described, but the Gospel Halls are generally on the stricter side.



rookie said:


> PreservedKillick said:
> 
> 
> > rookie said:
> ...


----------



## NB3K (Jul 18, 2011)

Levi Mattheus said:


> Good point. But, when Jesus rebuked Peter, was he even saved?! "But I have prayed for you, that your faith won't fail: and when you are converted, strengthen thy brethren" Luke 22:32.



I believe Peter was converted when Paul rebuked him. Peter just gets it! But that's good to know that even the Apostles were not "perfect" Christians.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Jul 18, 2011)

Keith is dead on. I think some Arminians really don't even understand what they truly believe. And their teaching contradicts itself, but you can also see many of them produce fruit, and are seeking after God and His glory and are God centered. That doesn't mean that they don't have little man centered problems. But we are saved through true faith. If they erally have true faith, if they are confused as to how they got the faith, that doesn't mean they are heretics.


----------



## NB3K (Jul 18, 2011)

dimib116 said:


> Been thinking about whether Arminians are heretics or not. I would say they are, but then whats the difference between them and those who disagree with me on baptism?
> 
> So I'm wondering, what is the definition of a heretic anyway?
> Please include some sort of biblical evidence if you can.



The difference between us and the Arminians is we hold to the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. That being the Augustinian, Calvinistic, Doctrines of Grace. That being Grace Reigns and accomplishes God's purposes.

The Arminians do not hold to the Doctrine of Grace, but to some other doctrine called Prevenient Grace! Which therefore allows the sinner to use their freewill to co-operate with the influence of grace that was previously applied. They make themsleves co-partners in their "regeneration" with God. Thus robbing God of all the glory to which belongs to Him!

That is the difference! 



There is a huge ocean of division between one who disagrees with you on baptism and one who denies Grace.


----------



## BertMulder (Jul 18, 2011)

Levi Mattheus said:


> Good point. But, when Jesus rebuked Peter, was he even saved?! "But I have prayed for you, that your faith won't fail: and when you are converted, strengthen thy brethren" Luke 22:32.



He certainly must have been. Matthew 16 occurs previous:

_*[SUP]16[/SUP]*And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. _
_ [SUP]*17*[/SUP]And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. _
_ [SUP]*18*[/SUP]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. __ [SUP]*19*[/SUP]And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. _


----------



## NB3K (Jul 19, 2011)

Here are three doctrines from the Wesleyan Church's Statement of Faith. 

8. Personal Choice 
224. We believe that humanity's creation in the image of God included ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus individuals were made morally responsible for their choices. But since the fall of Adam, people are unable in their own strength to do the right. This is due to original sin, which is not simply the following of Adam's example, but rather the corruption of the nature of each mortal, and is reproduced naturally in Adam's descendants. Because of it, humans are very far gone from original righteousness, and by nature are continually inclined to evil. They cannot of themselves even call upon God or exercise faith for salvation. But through Jesus Christ the prevenient grace of God makes possible what humans in self effort cannot do. It is bestowed freely upon all, enabling all who will to turn and be saved
Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; 1 Kings 20:40; Ps. 51:5; Isa. 64:6; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 16:15; John 7:17; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:6; Rev. 22:17. 

9. The Atonement 
226. We believe that Christ's offering of himself, once and for all, through His sufferings and meritorious death on the cross, provides the perfect redemption and atonement for the sins of the whole world, both original and actual. There is no other ground of salvation from sin but that alone. This atonement is sufficient for every individual of Adam's race. It is unconditionally effective in the salvation of those mentally incompetent from birth, of those converted persons who have become mentally incompetent, and of children under the age of accountability. But it is effective for the salvation of those who reach the age of accountability only when they repent and exercise faith in Christ. 
Isa. 52:13-53:12; Luke 24:46-47; John 3:16; Acts 3:18; 4:12; Rom. 3:20, 24-26; 5:8-11, 13, 18-20; 7:7; 8:34; 1 Cor. 6:11; 15:22; Gal. 2:16; 3:2-3; Eph. 1:7; 2:13, 16; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 7:23-27; 9:11-15, 24-28; 10:14; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. 

21. Destiny 
250. We believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that there is a conscious personal existence after death. The final destiny of each person is determined by God's grace and that person's response, evidenced inevitably by a moral character which results from that individual's personal and volitional choices and not from any arbitrary decree of God. Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ, but hell with its everlasting misery and separation from God is the final abode of those who neglect this great salvation. 
Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:34-46; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 13:3; John 8:21-23; 14:2-3; 2 Cor. 5:6, 8, 10; Heb. 2:1-3; 9:27-28; 10:2631; Rev. 20:14-15; 21:1-22:5, 14-15.


In the last point "Heaven with its eternal glory and the blessedness of Christ's presence is the final abode of those who choose the salvation which God provides through Jesus Christ"

Their salvation rests upon their choosing the salvation which God provides. Therefore they are resting in something THEY DID and not what Christ DID!


----------

