# what is a damnable heresy?



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 4, 2008)

I was talking to my headmaster today about one of my classes (reformed doctrine). He taught it in the past, therefore is chronically interested in how I am going to teach it. I am following the WCF as it is the confession that the school subscribes to, but there is a very eclectic mix of denominational backgrounds. 

So here is my question, what is a damnable heresy? I have lots of thoughts on this, and will jump in when they are relevant.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 4, 2008)

Liberalism, Barth!


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 4, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Liberalism, Barth!





Pretty cheeky from a mainline PCUSAer. The bulk of them are either liberal OR Barthian. Actually, you cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect without doing violence to the law non-contradiction. But, my wife has said the same thing since she took a class from a Barthian in college back in the early 70s. It took me years to get her to get the chip off her shoulder towards systematic theologians generally.


----------



## TimV (Aug 4, 2008)

> Liberalism, Barth!



You don't give up, do you?

OK, name something held by Barth (no, I'm not a fan of Barth) with quotations by Barth, that will send someone to Hell.

If you can't, please stop with the Rush type hit and run, and come out and say that you've falsely accused someone, because it's getting old.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 4, 2008)

What is a damnable heresy? And why? 

I say damnable, for while I disagree and find women elders, and many other things to be unbiblical, I do not find these theological positions to be damnable. 

Ones that might be *potentially* damnable is NT Wright's recasting of justification (See Piper's book for a wonderful critique), John Stott's formerly held position of annihilationalism, a denial of the trinity, and/or inspiration of Scripture.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 4, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > Liberalism, Barth!
> ...



Oh I know. They are all over my church, that's why they are at the top of my list!! Barth in particular. I like your law of non-contradiction comparison.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 4, 2008)

Heresy and Truth by George Gillespie
Heresy - What is heresy? by George Gillespie


----------



## Davidius (Aug 4, 2008)

In the NT, people normally are kept out of heaven for moral reasons, rather than believing the wrong propositions. The only cases I can think of off the top of my head which involves condemnation for an incorrect belief is John's discussion of the antichrists who teach that Christ "did not come in the flesh," and Paul's warning that those who preach "another Gospel" are anathema (meaning in context that those who say that faith in Christ wasn't enough, but that people had to become Jewish).


----------



## Grymir (Aug 4, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Liberalism, Barth!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hi TimV! No, I don't give up, and won't either. I'm complimented that you compared me to Rush. You do have the freedom to ignore what I am saying, but I think a good question to ask is why? Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.

Obviously, you don't know my past to much. I used to be a long haired liberal. To the core. I blame my public schooling and my parents upbring. I wish I could go back and sue my school for the liberal education they gave me. The fact of evolution; that marriage doesn't matter and shacking up is a viable alternative; and the bad philosophy that underpins everything are a few of the items. I noticed that you home-school your children. They are soo lucky! You haved saved them from the years of heartache and pain that I had to go through because of the ideas that mine put in my head. (Mega-Dittos by the way to getting home school legalized). Ayn Rand explains it best in her book "The Return of the Primitive". Ideas do have Consequences. Serious Consequences.

Now on to Barth. Have you read his 'Prayer and Preaching'? He says that sin should never be mentioned unless it is about/with the cross of Jesus. He specifically excludes saying to people that they are sinners. Since admitting that you are a sinner IS a requirement to be saved, how would somebody get into heaven without admitting such?

For both Liberals and Barthians in general, how can somebody be saved if they don't know their need for a savior? Many people attend church without hearing the true gospel from Pastors who have been taught Liberalism and Barth. My church is no exception. A self-help/man-centered solution pop psycology sermon is a damnable herasy. That life is better with God than without is at the core of Barthian/Liberal theology. And that won't save.

I have friends who are heavy into Barth, and see the consternation that it caused later in their lifes when the going gets tough, and there's no answer in a God who is wholy other. He left the Church's of Christ and sits in my Sunday School class. His wife passed away recently, and I wonder how he holds on sometimes. He's an ex-Pastor, and everybody gives him the Pastor treatment, so nobody realy cares, though they put on a show, because they think that if they are nice to a Paster, they earn brownie points with God. Which is also a damnable herasy. Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Nothing!

Now to those who have noticed that I've shown the damnable part, but what about the heresy part? hmmm

Only by reading the Bible did I get to know God (Although He grabbed me!) and by the power of the Holy Spirit did my scales fall away, and my eyes were opened to the TRUTH! I make no apologies and take no quarter. And it never gets old. 

Barth denies that the Bible is the written Word of God. Oh yeah, he 'uses' the words, but it's only when we pick up and read the Bible and become 'moved' like the writers does it become the 'Word of God' to us. The Bible isn't propositional truths, but statements about relationship to Him. And that we can't know God in propositional truths, but only in relational terms. Philosophicaly, that's not good. And if a little person like me can see it, why did people buy into it? (But that's another thread that I did long ago, which was quite interesting) If the Bible is laying in the woods, and there's nobody their to read it, is it the Word of God?

There's the heresy part for Barth, but what about the liberals? Any person grounded in the truth can answer that one, because it's so self-evident. I could go on, but I've gone on to much and have to finish this post for now.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 5, 2008)

Davidius, 
You are right that if you place your trust in works you are condemned. Moreever, Paul told Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine. There must be a balance for the believer. Some of the most ungracious people are ones who have all their eggs in order. Then on the other spectrum lots of "grace" but no sound doctrine. I agree with you... But where is the line drawn in the sand with respect to the doctrine?


----------



## TimV (Aug 5, 2008)

> Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.



And then follow eight paragraphs of typical Rush-like rhetoric. Timothy, every hour that you listen to the man requires 5 hours of solid research to correct your thinking. Telling people to read Edward Gibbon to understand history or Ayn Rand to understand philosophy on a Puritan board composed largely of educated people just doesn't score points.

I will leave the "liberal" part out for now, since you don't know that Rush in both his life style and political beliefs including supporting the Iraq war and entangling alliances with Israel make him much more liberal than conservative.

But please, and again, not many people here like Barth, but please quote something by Barth which, if someone believes, will send them to Hell.

Timothy, please don't talk about your friends, or your background, or refer us to books you haven't read or understood, or even books that you have read and understood.

Please quote Barth directly, and show us something that Barth has said which believing will send someone to Hell.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 5, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Davidius,
> You are right that if you place your trust in works you are condemned. Moreever, Paul told Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine. There must be a balance for the believer. Some of the most ungracious people are ones who have all their eggs in order. Then on the other spectrum lots of "grace" but no sound doctrine. I agree with you... But where is the line drawn in the sand with respect to the doctrine?



How can we take it upon ourselves to be more stringent than apostolic example would allow? We're talking about souls here.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 5, 2008)

Davidius, 
That is in part a question I want to answer. Might a person be damned if they do not see the need for the church? Scriptures clearly teach that if you are a Christian you cannot do it alone. (I am sure in heaven there will be a few exceptions, like a saint exiled and isolated for his/her faith to Siberia). Romans 10:9 I believe is a litmus test for the faith. However I see men like NT Wright who distort the meaning of that passage. He argues that Christ came as Lord first, not to be our savior. 

I think I can say that people can be Christians if they distort ecclesiology - I do not believe presbyterians, baptists, Anglicans or Lutherans are condemned on the basis of their church government. But if one would deny justification by faith alone, or Imputation of Christ's active obedience, our need for Jesus Christ as our Savior, the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and things like these? 

Can this be the line: Any denial of the pillars of the Christian faith (Being the resurrection, unity of the Godhead (the Father sent the Son), the incarnation/humanity of Jesus (so a denial of the hypostatic union = heresy), Christ coming again.... 

Can a person be a Christian if they reject the purity of Scripture?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 5, 2008)

My "guess" is that most of us would be more stringent than the Lord. I try to avoid prejudging in areas "above my pay grade" such as what is the lowest common denominator of true faith and highest percentage of heretical error possible to escape damnation.

If the issue is what we proclaim, what we discipline for, or what we are willing to separate over, however, the issue is quite different. I do not feel a need to determine that all mainliners are going to hell to recognize that it was wrong to stay in the ABCUSA. For reasons of theology, practice, and practical ecclesiology, the place was close enough to apostate for me to "git goin'."

In other threads I have objected to the tendency to pronounce heretical that which represents a legitimate understanding of scripture. Yet, on any number of issues, I am happy to proclaim some views heretical without concluding that the holder (in some cases rather passively holding) is hell-bound. Deut. 29:29 ("The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.") reminds us that our legitimate responsibility is limited to things revealed in God's word, not the secret counsels of his will. Who is damned would seem to fit in that category rather nicely.

The problem comes, not at the level of church life but in our wider fellowship. Does a difference over baptism or eschatology require anathemas? No! But, would I "fellowship" with Mormons in a Christian council of churches? No.


----------



## Davidius (Aug 5, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> My "guess" is that most of us would be more stringent than the Lord. I try to avoid prejudging in areas "above my pay grade" such as what is the lowest common denominator of true faith and highest percentage of heretical error possible to escape damnation.







> The problem comes, not at the level of church life but in our wider fellowship. Does a difference over baptism or eschatology require anathemas? No! But, would I "fellowship" with Mormons in a Christian council of churches? No.



My amen up there was serious, but I want to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

What gives you the authority to decide that a difference over baptism does not require an anathema? This will be a particularly useful question for me to ask you since you have been recently talking about your newly developed understanding of infant baptism. So step into my shoes for a moment. As a covenantal paedobaptist, I believe that the baptism of infants is a principle going back to the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At that time, God told Abraham that children who did not receive circumcision would be cut off from their people. Not only that, but later, in Exodus, when Moses had neglected to circumcise his children, God came to kill him for it. Now, on what grounds today do we Presbyterians have the right to treat the issue any less seriously, if we truly base our practice on God's dealings with Abraham? Do we treat it as a less severe issue simply because there are a lot of people who disagree with us? What kind of reasoning is that? We don't change our stance on the exclusivity of Christ because a lot of people disagree with us on that. 

Furthermore, if paedobaptists view the refusal to baptize one's children as sin, there's a more indirect line of reasoning, according to which one may ask why we don't enact discipline. Do we discipline individuals who persistently and willfully commit other sins? Adultery? Theft? Cruelty and mean-spiritedness? Gossip? If so, why do Presbyterians fellowship with Baptists? Is it because we're not so sure that we have the correct interpretation? If we don't, why are we Presbyterians? If we are, shouldn't we be sure that not baptizing infants is a sin? If we're sure that baptizing infants is a sin, why don't we treat it like other sins? Again, is it because there are a lot of people who would be unhappy with us? 

What makes something a "legitimate interpretation of scripture," such that it can be tolerated as a divergent viewpoint? Who gets to decide what the "essentials" are? I happen _not_ to think that the Credo position is a legitimate interpretation of scripture. If someone disagrees with me, where are we left? We're left with one who for whom it's clear, and another guy for whom it's unclear. Does a vote decide this issue? Can a majority declare that a particular stance is within the bounds of legitimate interpretation and choose with whom I should and should not have fellowship?


----------



## Grymir (Aug 5, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.
> 
> 
> 
> And then follow eight paragraphs of typical Rush-like rhetoric. Timothy, every hour that you listen to the man requires 5 hours of solid research to correct your thinking. Telling people to read Edward Gibbon to understand history or Ayn Rand to understand philosophy on a Puritan board composed largely of educated people just doesn't score points.



Thanks again to the comparison to Rush. It means that I am right on track with what I'm saying. Gibbon and Rand are good sources of history and philosophy, although I wasn't mentioning Rand to explain philosophy, but to give an example of the problems of public education.



TimV said:


> I will leave the "liberal" part out for now, since you don't know that Rush in both his life style and political beliefs including supporting the Iraq war and entangling alliances with Israel make him much more liberal than conservative.



Who cares about his private life? He's an entertainer. For example, Rob Halford is gay, but I think that Judas Priest does the best heavy metal music. Rush's private life is irrelevant to his show persona, and why you keep saying that is questionable and the ad hominum species of logical fallacies. I also support the war in Iraq. And we don't have an entangling alliance with Israel, but a good alliance that helps both our countries.



TimV said:


> But please, and again, not many people here like Barth, but please quote something by Barth which, if someone believes, will send them to Hell.
> 
> Timothy, please don't talk about your friends, or your background, or refer us to books you haven't read or understood, or even books that you have read and understood.
> 
> Please quote Barth directly, and show us something that Barth has said which believing will send someone to Hell.



To say that I haven't read and understand the books is not necessary. People who speak of what they don't know/read is a annoying. I teach Sunday School, so I have to be real accurate in how I present opposing ideas/people, and get commented on how accurate and fairly I present them before debunking them. Polemics is my forte. I've read more Barth than I care to admit, because how can I speak out against him if I haven't read him? I got his books from people at church so that I could debunk him to them. And gave the books back, except his letters, because that was his most 'real' writings. So I don't have them handy to quote. But what I say is very common knowledge to those who read his works, and not debatable, inaccurate, nor mis-leading.

Robbie Schmidtberger, I'm sorry to have to take up your thread with my defense of what I say, but I couldn't let my statements be impugned. A Damnable Heresy isn't only what a person says, but also those who follow them. Libs/Barthians use the right words, but define them differently. And that's the problem. And the Damnable part, because they lead people away from God and into the ditch.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 5, 2008)

All heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. Anything that denies/distorts justification is damnable, because that will lead/leave people in hell.


----------



## sotzo (Aug 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Admin Note:
> 
> This is not the Political Forum. If you have a side remark to make, please make a new thread.



Better yet, start a new thread in the music forum on the true Rush - that is the amazing, musical, heroic trio comprised of Lee, Lifeson and Peart.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 5, 2008)

Or the best Rush.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 5, 2008)

A pastor friend of mine just forwarded the following quote to me (it's from van Til). Since it concerns Barth, I thought this would be appropriate.



> Total depravity. That means that the whole glass is poisoned. It’s not as poisoned as it could be, but it is all poisoned. The faculties of soul are all turned against God by nature, all are poisoned by sin. Wherever there is evidence of God, which is everywhere, man will deny it. So you see, God must reach down and save dead men in their trespasses and sins. You do not heal a dead man. You resurrect him. Man is not sick, not drowning, but dead. Dead is dead. You can’t throw him a rope. A dead man can’t grab anything. Your mother is dead without Christ. Your culture is dead without Christ. This is the problem with Karl Barth, there is no space-time redemption by Christ. There’s no change of the unbeliever into the believer. There’s no challenge to the natural man. That’s why Barth is poison. Water and sulfuric acid look the same, right? If you drink sulfuric acid, it will kill you. Barth has placed sulfuric acid in our water bottles and told us it is water. Barth has created the systematically most Satanic philosophy ever devised by the mind of man. Salvation is like cleaning a bad tooth. It’s no good if your dentist tells you that your tooth is OK when it’s rotten. The dentist has to go down, drill out the decay and replace it with gold. That is what salvation is.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 5, 2008)

Obadiah Sedgwick in his "Nature and Danger of Heresies" gave this list as a list of heresies in his day:

10 chief heresies:
1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) That the will of man is still free.
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace.
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men.
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel.
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.

Heresy in the Church


----------



## wturri78 (Aug 5, 2008)

Davidius said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > What makes something a "legitimate interpretation of scripture," such that it can be tolerated as a divergent viewpoint? Who gets to decide what the "essentials" are? I happen _not_ to think that the Credo position is a legitimate interpretation of scripture. If someone disagrees with me, where are we left? We're left with one who for whom it's clear, and another guy for whom it's unclear. Does a vote decide this issue? Can a majority declare that a particular stance is within the bounds of legitimate interpretation and choose with whom I should and should not have fellowship?
> ...


----------



## Davidius (Aug 5, 2008)

Bill,

Honestly, I don't see how the _analogia fidei_ solves the problem. In fact, the problem probably compounds itself as more text is brought into the equation. The legitimacy of using verse Y to interpret verse X, the meaning of verse Y to begin with, etc. 

This is, in fact, one way in which I believe we Protestants are dishonest with ourselves, and one way in which we leave ourselves open to deserved criticism. We dismiss the non-Protestant deference to tradition and then pull in our own method as if it's the problem-free silver bullet. The EO and RCC may be wrong, but that doesn't make our position solid. An affirmation of A is not necessarily a negation of B, and all that. This issue is one that, no matter how many assurances or explanations I get from other Christians, never seems to come to a satisfactory conclusion in my mind, and continues to rear its ugly head every now and then.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Aug 5, 2008)

Interesting topic.

I would agree with David and Dennis (in general) that any view of "damnable heresy" is to certain degree subjective by human standards, and that we are likely more restrictive than God is. A precise list is difficult to come up with, but I would go by the Apostles' Creed for a good starting place. It covers the Trinity, contains accurate (though very basic) Christology and Soteriology, and Eschatology. Anything directly contrary to the Creed, in my mind, is damnable heresy.

However, clearly that doesn't include everything. Roman Catholics, after all, use a virtually identical version of the Creed, yet there are clearly elements of damnable heresy in their beliefs, including salvation through the RCC only by sacraments, the immaculate nature of Mary, etc. Likewise, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have many beliefs we would consider heretical. 

So, based on the WCF and Apostles' Creed here's a short list I would come up with, which is by no means all-inclusive:

1. Belief that either the OT or the NT is anything other that the infallible and authoritative Word of God, or adding anything to the existing Canon.

2. Belief in any means of salvation other than by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's Death and Resurrection alone, which are literal, historical events. 

3. Belief that the Trinity does not exist, or in some altered form of it.

4. Denial of the Virgin Birth and/or Christ's diety.

5. Denial of Christ's return, including the resurrection of our physical bodies to spend eternity either with God in heaven or eternally apart from God in hell.

This is my human, imperfect list, which I believe is (hopefully) aligned with Scripture....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## christianyouth (Aug 5, 2008)

Hey David, 

I guess the only solution to the problem would be to have a governing authority that decides what is anathema and what isn't. I have some reservations about that though, like, what if the authority becomes corrupted? What if the authority decides that Trinitarian theology is anathema? I just don't see an answer to this problem.

In Christ,
- Andrew


----------



## wturri78 (Aug 5, 2008)

Davidius said:


> Bill,
> 
> Honestly, I don't see how the _analogia fidei_ solves the problem. In fact, the problem probably compounds itself as more text is brought into the equation. The legitimacy of using verse Y to interpret verse X, the meaning of verse Y to begin with, etc.
> 
> This is, in fact, one way in which I believe we Protestants are dishonest with ourselves, and one way in which we leave ourselves open to deserved criticism. We dismiss the non-Protestant deference to tradition and then pull in our own method as if it's the problem-free silver bullet. The EO and RCC may be wrong, but that doesn't make our position solid. An affirmation of A is not necessarily a negation of B, and all that. This issue is one that, no matter how many assurances or explanations I get from other Christians, never seems to come to a satisfactory conclusion in my mind, and continues to rear its ugly head every now and then.



I didn't mean to imply that the _analogia fidei_ actually solves the problem. Your point is well taken, that interpreting verse Y in light of verse X when the meaning of Y may itself be dependent upon something else, results in something of an infinite regression that will just drive you bonkers (that's a theological term )

Something like the Marian dogmas (and similar doctrines in the EO tradition, although not dogmatized as I understand it...) clearly come from _outside_ Scripture, and with very few exceptions RC and EO people don't claim that they do come from within the Bible (a few appeals to the "Mary as Ark of Covenant" motif notwithstanding). I guess the doctrine of perspicuity has to be presupposed, such that enough X and Y verses are clearly understandable to serve as guideposts for interpreting the rest of Scripture. Of course the RC and EO sides will say that perspicuity was dreamed up by the Reformers to get around not having an infallible tradition by which to interpret Scripture--then each will claim to be that infallible tradition and say the other side fell off the turnpike and sling quotes from church fathers at each other to prove it, assuming (evidently) the perspicuity of Tertullian and Irenaeus? 

I also have a tough time with this rearing its ugly head, and I know people who've gone into RC or EO churches by finally throwing up their hands and taking the leap of faith into trusting those bodies to give them their certainty (only to remain uncertain about how exactly to interpret their newfound Traditions). I admit, I can see why it's attractive to get rid of the burden and let someone else put up the guideposts for you.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 5, 2008)

Davidius said:


> What gives you the authority to decide that a difference over baptism does not require an anathema? This will be a particularly useful question for me to ask you since you have been recently talking about your newly developed understanding of infant baptism. So step into my shoes for a moment. As a covenantal paedobaptist, I believe that the baptism of infants is a principle going back to the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At that time, God told Abraham that children who did not receive circumcision would be cut off from their people. Not only that, but later, in Exodus, when Moses had neglected to circumcise his children, God came to kill him for it. Now, on what grounds today do we Presbyterians have the right to treat the issue any less seriously, if we truly base our practice on God's dealings with Abraham? Do we treat it as a less severe issue simply because there are a lot of people who disagree with us? What kind of reasoning is that?



David, as usual you are amazingly insightful and raise several very good questions. I do not, at this point, have a snappy answer for you. 

As to who gives me the "authority," that one is a little simpler. Every denomination (or micro-denomination in the case of our Presbyterian brethren) has a "right" to define what they agree to among themselves as the most accurate reading of the Word of God. The Baptists have the LBCF, you Presbyterians have the 3FU or some version of the WCF, and lots of groups have next to nothing in writing to define their identity.

As to fellowship with others outside our own group . . . YIKES! If you really want to restrict fellowship to you and one of your closest friends, beware. Sooner or later, one of you will doubt the salvation of the other one. That is where fundamentalism got into trouble with secondary and tertiary separation. They argued that it was not good enough to separate from the world. We must separate from those who fellowship with those who do not separate from the world.

I would think that you (or your Devil's advocate alter ego) could content yourself with some of the consensus ecumenical creeds of the church as sufficient for defining the boundaries of fellowship. But, even here, just as some of those (in your paedo understanding) baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian church (to use but one example) prove not to be elect, so do some who give verbal assent to the Apostles' Creed or Chalcedonian definition. And, some who, for reasons too arcane to tease out completely here, do not belong to a group teaching a pure message will also be saved in the end.


----------



## wturri78 (Aug 5, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> I would think that you (or your Devil's advocate alter ego) could content yourself with some of the consensus ecumenical creeds of the church as sufficient for defining the boundaries of fellowship. But, even here, just as some of those (in your paedo understanding) baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian church (to use but one example) prove not to be elect, so do some who give verbal assent to the Apostles' Creed or Chalcedonian definition. And, some who, for reasons too arcane to tease out completely here, do not belong to a group teaching a pure message will also be saved in the end.



If I may comment, perhaps the consensus ecumenical creeds are better used for determining the bounds of "damnable heresy" than the boundaries of fellowship? RC and EO adhere to the councils also, but certainly cannot have fellowship (at least not within the same visible body) with those who hold to the Five Solas. Whether veneration of Mary, sacramental grace, etc. constitute damnable heresy still isn't resolved, of course...


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 5, 2008)

Yes the Apostle's, Nicene, and subsequent creeds are a great barometer when determining heresy, but what also must be considered are the "subordinate standards" of a particular Christian body. (Christian is used loosely here). For Rome they do have the Trentine councils, declarations, and anathemas. They did declare Martin Luther anathema, cursed, for his rejection of the pope. Luther's rejection was rooted in this very question - he saw the pope, and much of catholicism, to be contrary to Scripture as the RCC rejected justification by faith alone.

Our authority does come from Scripture. Yes God commands us to be gracious and concerned with plank before speck. But we also are to judge one's faith by their fruit. These judgments must have at their core wisdom, discernment, and love. When we make such a judgment we are to show unmerited kindness to the one we judge.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 5, 2008)

1 Tim. 4.16: Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

A few more resources for study:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

1647 Massachusetts Body of Liberties:

Online Library of Liberty - 1647: Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts



> heresie.
> 
> although no humane power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therfore may not constrein them to believe or professe against their Consciences: yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith, and destruction of the soules of men, ought duly to be restreined from such notorious impiety, it is therfore ordered and decreed by this Court;
> 
> That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or mainteining any damnable heresie; as denying the immortalitie of the Soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins, or shal affirm that wee are not justified by his Death and Righteousnes, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the moralitie of the fourth commandement, or shall indeavour to seduce others to any the herisies aforementioned, everie such person continuing obstinate therin after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to Banishment. [1646] ...



1647 London Ministers' Testimony

A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, & Our Solemn League and Covenant.

William Lyford, _The Instructed Christian_

Thomas Watson, _A Preliminary Discourse To Catechising_:

Discourse to catechising



> The apostle calls them 'damnable heresies.’ 2 Pet 2: 1. A man may go to hell as well for heresy as adultery. To be unsettled in religion, argues want of judgment. If their heads were not giddy, men would not reel so fast from one opinion to another. It argues lightness. As feathers will be blown every way, so will feathery Christians. Triticum non rapit ventus inanes palae jactantur. Cyprian.



Thomas Adams on 2 Peter 2.1:

Links and Downloads Manager - The Epistles - An Exposition Upon the Second Epistle General of St. Peter -- Thomas Adams - The PuritanBoard

Abraham Hellenbroek, _A Specimen of Divine Truths_:

Links and Downloads Manager - Confession of Faith - Abraham Hellenbroek's A Specimen of Divine Truths - The PuritanBoard



> Compendium of the Principal Errors of Those that are Outside the Reformed Church
> 
> 1. Q. Which are the principal parties outside the reformed church?
> 
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 5, 2008)

wturri78 said:


> If I may comment, perhaps the consensus ecumenical creeds are better used for determining the bounds of "damnable heresy" than the boundaries of fellowship? RC and EO adhere to the councils also, but certainly cannot have fellowship (at least not within the same visible body) with those who hold to the Five Solas. Whether veneration of Mary, sacramental grace, etc. constitute damnable heresy still isn't resolved, of course...



Interesting point. Ultimately, however, I would argue that my word "fellowship" should be interpreted as acknowledgment that the other person is a fellow believer, even if we confess that he/she is one in error. Back to David's issue, do you really want to consign a credo baptist to hell for the "error" of our convictions regarding baptism? If not, can you say that it is "damnable" heresy? 

I will "fellowship" with (NOT join the same church as) any Christian who holds to historical Christian orthodoxy. This does NOT require a particular eschatological schema, determination regarding Israel and the Church, or conclusion regarding the objects and mode of baptism. People on both sides of those divides can be, are often, and have proven to be orthodox Christians. 

When it comes to my "confession of faith," it ought to reflect as accurately as possible the consensus of the people in my particular tribe and what we can agree to accept as true. Necessarily a credo baptist will consider a paedo baptist to be in "error" and vice versa; a dispensationalist will excoriate the hermeneutics of a covenant thinker; an amillennialist will be shocked by the "mishandling" of scripture by those preterist postmils and historic premils. However, since all of these people hold to orthodox Christian beliefs, their errors are not damnable, regardless of how greatly we might want to consider them serious.

BTW, in my observations, the doctrines of Christ and the Bible are good litmus tests. I have never met an orthodox Christian who denied either of them.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Aug 5, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> What is a damnable heresy? And why?
> 
> I say damnable, for while I disagree and find women elders, and many other things to be unbiblical, I do not find these theological positions to be damnable.
> 
> Ones that might be *potentially* damnable is NT Wright's recasting of justification (See Piper's book for a wonderful critique), John Stott's formerly held position of annihilationalism, a denial of the trinity, and/or inspiration of Scripture.



I believe a damnable heresy is a teaching that influences a man to partake in religion instead of Christ's suffering. Works-based, graceless messages generate the unsaved man to become hard-working, deeply-devoted religious folks misdirected in religious zeal about the reverence of "God." (Romans 12:2,3)

These messages produce people who use all the biblical words and give eloquent sermons, but are driven by sensuality of mind and of mysteries (2 Peter 2:2,3 & Colossians 2:18,19) Waterless clouds.

I imagine there came a time in the early church when the offspring of these Christless Christian teachings began to blend in with believers, camoflauged with the Bible's doctrine in word, but not in power - Christless. (2 Timothy 3:3-9) I imagine once their heresy was revealed, they were able to branch off and form their own church along with those who followed them.

Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.

I believe God allows born-again believers to be subjected first-hand to heresy (light manifests).


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 6, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.
> 
> I believe God allows born-again believers to be subjected first-hand to heresy (light manifests).



I think that is how I would "draw" the line.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 6, 2008)

Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity. 

R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 6, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity.
> 
> R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.



Right. I greatly appreciate both RC (he is a panmil) and MacArthur. When I went to Together for the Gospel this past April I saw two PCA brethren, two SBC (maybe three as I do not know if Thabiti is associated with the SBC), Piper, MacArthur and Mahaney. They do not differ in their theology of God, nor their soteriology. They stand for the gospel. It is a good expression of how men can come together, from various persuasions with respect to eschatology, hermeneutics, and ecclesiology. But even more than those 8 who spoke, there were 5000+ brothers, and a few sisters, sitting in the audience.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 6, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> But even more than those 8 who spoke, there were 5000+ brothers, and a few sisters, sitting in the audience.



I was one of those 5000+! And it was a great conference!


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Aug 6, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity.
> 
> R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.



 Couldn't agree more!

Just out of curiosity, who were the PCA pastors at the conference?


----------



## Davidius (Aug 6, 2008)

Dennis,

Perhaps this is somewhere in the thread and I've missed it, but could you explain what you mean by "historical orthodoxy" and "creedal orthodoxy"?


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 6, 2008)

Speaking was RC Sproul and Ligon Duncan... others there included Tullian Tchividjian, my advisor from college also was there (while a professor, he is a teaching elder in the PCA serving out of bounds)... I was extremely blessed there and hope to go in 2010, perhaps I'll go to the Gospel Coalition in 2009 (Keller, Ryken, Reeder, Chappell, and many more). First I have to see if I can get off work, also find others in the area to go with.


----------



## wturri78 (Aug 6, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.
> ...



These seem to me to be two very good categories--if we compromise the nature of God (Trinity, Christology) we in effect create other gods of our own making. A god who is not Trinitarian is not the God and Father of our Lord and thus not the God of the Bible. As to the nature of salvation, that still seems to me to be a category that can be subdivided almost indefinitely, and I've run across people who've so narrowly defined their soteriology that they're left standing inside a tiny box of lines they've drawn in the sand. Some would say that any form of synergism in justification constitutes a denial of the _solas_ and therefore of the Christian Gospel itself. Others allow true Arminians (as opposed to the true Semi-Pelagians who've run amuck in "Arminian" churches...wait, make that true Pelagians!) to fit under the umbrella of "grace alone" while still considering them in error, but not so far as to be outside of the Gospel itself. Certainly if the Reformed understanding (or even a more general "Protestant" understanding) of salvation is used to determine damnable heresy, then RC and EO churches are damned and cannot be called Christian churches--many would affirm that, while many would consider them Christian because they confess orthodox belief about the nature of God and Christ.

I'm not sure whether the RCC is in _damnable_ heresy historically, but I do think they are in the modern era, because I find their teachings to now contradict the very nature of God himself:

"The Church’s relationship with Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; *these profess to hold the faith of Abraham*, and together with us *they adore the one, merciful God*, mankind's judge on the last day (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)." -- emphasis mine

Muslims worship a god who is not trinitarian, who had no son, and who did not raise a messiah from the dead. This deity cannot be the same God worshiped by Christians. The "us" refers to the RCC, and this implicitly admits that the RCC worships and adores a merciful god who may or may not be Trinitarian and may or may not have had a Son...apparently it's negotiable? Or maybe God just changed his mind in the 1960s...

So perhaps we can add to the list of damnable heresy any teaching that anyone can be saved through their own religion, or outside of faith in Jesus Christ.

(As an aside, the "Old Rite" type Catholics who reject Vatican II also see the universalist statements as denials of the nature of God).


----------



## davidsuggs (Aug 8, 2008)

I would think that anything which claims to be in accord with the Word, but in some way clearly violates its premises. One in which there is some strange distortion of the Trinity, anything that places any kind of mediator in place aside from Christ, anything which basically denies or fundamentally alters the basicmost tenants of our faith.

_"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, of anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." _(Galatians 1:6-9 NKJV)


----------

