Definition of heresy.

[toddpedlar]

How can you really say

Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.

?
God is in charge of salvation, so can it ever really be in jeopardy?

Of course it cannot - what's meant is not that their salvation is at risk in some sense. Perhaps better
put is "Heresy is an error which casts grave doubt on one's claims of salvation"? The point is that the
term "heresy" should be reserved to those cases in which holding the teaching so labelled causes serious
doubt about the validity of the person's profession.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is the following a sufficient/thorough definition of heresy?

We are in heresy when we pick and choose what to believe in Scripture rather than receiving it all as the word of God. Instead of being received, the faith is chosen selectively by the heretic.

I'll credit the quote to it's author later, as I do not want to bias the discussion based on his identity.

That sounds like a quote from R.J. Rushdoony.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The classic understanding of heresy has been:

Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.

Hence, Christians can be in error, but not be heretics. Thus, denial of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian formula of Christ, etc. etc. are heresies. Arminianism is not.

I would not agree with this. If one fully understands Arminianism (most people we call Arminians don't) then one must be a heretic, as they believe that salvation is ultimately dependant upon man.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

James Durham, Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 1990). Part Four (Concerning Scandalous Divisions), Chapter One (How Heresy, Schism AND Division Differ), page 225.

WHAT HERESY IS.
And, first, Heresy, is some error in doctrine, and that especially in
fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavor to propagate
the same.

I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:

"Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 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...."

--James Fergusson, in his An Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians.

I think this is much better than the first definition I cited. What say ye?

I like both quotes because they say and imply the same thing.

If heresy is nothing more than error in doctrine then we're all heretics of some sort. It's simply a matter of degrees of error.

I don't even agree that a man who propagates and teaches a false doctrine can necessarily be labeled a heretic if he simply does it out of ignorance.

This is the main problem with the facile arguments that the Federal Vision proponents put forth when they argue that "...if you say this then you're saying you'd put Augustine out of the Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (sorry, I can't add more exclamation points to make their point)

In fact, what distinguishes the person who holds an error in doctrine from a heretic (even a key doctrine) is whether they are fractious or unwilling to submit to Truth when someone testifies what the Scriptures teach. Heretics stop their ears to the Truth when the Church rightly divides it for them. He then purposefully separates himself from the Church, calls it false, and establishes an authority in himself to propogate the error.

I believe we ought to be very careful to utilize the term to allow for ecclesiastical discipline to occur with men to see if they are willing to submit before we throw around the term and create a roadblock to their recovery. It should only be utilized after the Church has tried and declared a man to be the case. I don't believe we have the right, individuallly, to classify another man as a heretic on our own authority.

We also ought to be careful to take each man, one by one, to determine how teachable they are. I have a dear brother in Christ at our current Church who has been transformed by the renewing of his mind over the past year as I've taught through Romans. He admitted to me a few weeks ago that he is ashamed by the things that he used to believe and perform from the front of the Church as the music minister. Aren't we all ashamed, however, of the ways we used to dishonor Christ with our doctrine?

Hope for the best in a man and don't try to go for the throat immediately to bring out the worst in him.

 

[shelly]

I don't care about the heretics just heresy

Okay, so as individuals we don't have the authority to go around labeling people as heretics, but should leave that to the church/elders/session. I understand that. The sermon yesterday at church was very clear on that score. The church has the authority to judge, but not individuals. BTW that was a completely new idea to me. Good thing he took his time with that point.

But the question remains about a teaching that is heresy. Is there a difference between all the various levels of error and heresy? One man's error is another man's heresy. So is it really going to matter in the long run which errors/heresies one holds to? I don't care about the heretics just heresy.

In a practical way, I can pick up any book by anyone claiming to be Christian and learn from it, and it isn't going to be that big of a deal if along the way I pick up a few more errors/heresies because we all hold to some sort of errors. And I should keep in mind that arminians/semi-pelagians are our brothers in Christ, so anything they teach isn't really that bad.

I don't really believe that, yet to distill what I have learned on the PB and from pastors in real life over the last few years, that is what is true. Am I missing something here? At least when I was IFB I knew we were right and everyone else was wrong. Now, when I put it all together, everyone is at least a little bit right so I shouldn't worry about heresy.

 

[shelly]

When does error become heresy?

I just came across this definition of heresy while reading this evening:

"Heresies... gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 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...."

--James Fergusson, in his An Exposition of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians.

I think this is much better than the first definition I cited. What say ye?

What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?

what's meant is not that their salvation is at risk in some sense. Perhaps better
put is "Heresy is an error which casts grave doubt on one's claims of salvation"? The point is that the
term "heresy" should be reserved to those cases in which holding the teaching so labelled causes serious
doubt about the validity of the person's profession.

What is the criteria used to determine whether one should "doubt about the validity of the person's profession"? You can't truly say that's it's a departure from the confessions because you call them brothers in Christ whom have never subscribed to any of them and quite possibly never even read through them, even in a cursury manner.

 

[py3ak]

What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?

Maybe we could arrive at an inductive answer looking at the examples that Scripture gives. So the first step would be a list. Here's a couple items off the top of my head.
1. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach an inadequate gospel (though not on those who preach the gospel inadequately) --Galatians 1, Philippians 1.
2. John declares that anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and is the Messiah is definitely out of bounds.
3. Paul says that those who say that the resurrection is already past overthrow the faith.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

What is the criteria for defining an error as "gross and dangerous" and therefore an heresy?

Maybe we could arrive at an inductive answer looking at the examples that Scripture gives. So the first step would be a list. Here's a couple items off the top of my head.
1. Paul pronounces an anathema on those who preach an inadequate gospel (though not on those who preach the gospel inadequately) --Galatians 1, Philippians 1.
2. John declares that anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and is the Messiah is definitely out of bounds.
3. Paul says that those who say that the resurrection is already past overthrow the faith.

In relation to the first point, is Arminianism an inadequate gospel, or the gospel preached in adequately.

As for point two, surely there are errors on the person of Christ which could be described as heresies, but perhaps not damnable heresies.

 

[JohnOwen007]

The classic understanding of heresy has been:

Heresy is an error which puts one's salvation in jeopardy.

Hence, Christians can be in error, but not be heretics. Thus, denial of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian formula of Christ, etc. etc. are heresies. Arminianism is not.

I would not agree with this. If one fully understands Arminianism (most people we call Arminians don't) then one must be a heretic, as they believe that salvation is ultimately dependant upon man.

Yes, Daniel you are right, most Arminians don't know that they are Arminians. However, Arminianism is a very misunderstood system, if by that one means the actual beliefs of Arminius himself. For example, Arminius believed in total depravity. However, he also believed that God gives a special grace to humanity to give them an ability to choose. This is very different to saying that humans have a completely free will.

We must distinguish between Arminianism (or Semi-Pelagianism) and Pelagianism. Lots of people in the above discussion have confused Pelagianism with Arminianism. They are not the same beast. In Pelagianism grace = example (of Christ), whereas in Arminianism grace = spiritual power (via Christ's cross-work). In Pelagianism the will is completely free, in Arminianism the will is completely fallen, but made slightly free by universal grace.

Pelagianism is a heresy. I'm unwilling to say that Arminianism is.

Blessings.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.

What do you mean?

 

[shelly]

There were two books I read first as I began studying things out. I cannot remember the titles of both of them.

One was Beginning at Moses by Michael Barrett (It's packed right now, so I can't quote from it)
I think it was p 12, near the bottom of the page, that had a startling definition of semi-pelagianism. It was startling because it was the teaching I had grown up with in a very well respected(at the time) IFB baptist church.

I think that book is why I'm just not persuaded that semi-pelagian baptists(or any semi-pelagian) are "brothers in Christ". I became persuaded that the God I knew of was not the God that was really in the Bible. I realized that I believed in a different gospel and a different God. I've always taken things all the way out to what seems like a logical conclusion to me. When I was about 15 I asked my pastor about all the verses I was seeing that seemed to teach election. He put me in my place and that was the last question I asked him. From that point on I kept my eyes open for something better than being baptist. Nothing came along until I was over 30.

 

[Amazing Grace]

I will add that Jacob Arminius was more calvinistic than some conditional calvinsts today.

What do you mean?

If you read his writings, you find will that he is not "that far off" in certain areas. I could give him the right hand of fellowship on issues.

Take for instance the neonomian heresy propogated and allowed by the presbytery in the Church of Scotland against the "marrow men' regarding the clause. the Auchterarder Creed: “It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.”

This staement is 100% true, yet teh GA of Scotland said the creed was detestable.

I detest this flavor of theology. It is the worse legalism, one can speak of. Repentance is not a condition of the gospel offer nor a condition of salvation, strictly speaking. Repentance is never a cause of grace or a condition of grace but always a consequence of grace.

Arminius would never speak as such. Thats why i made this statement. See Daniel, very few if any have read his own words, we read a charicature of him painted by polemical diatribes in the heat of anger.

One example. Of Arminius:



V. THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

My sentiments respecting the perseverance of the saints are, that those persons who have been grafted into Christ by true faith, and have thus been made partakers of his life-giving Spirit, possess sufficient powers [or strength] to fight against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to gain the victory over these enemies — yet not without the assistance of the grace of the same Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ also by his Spirit assists them in all their temptations, and affords them the ready aid of his hand; and, provided they stand prepared for the battle, implore his help, and be not wanting to themselves, Christ preserves them from falling. So that it is not possible for them, by any of the cunning craftiness or power of Satan, to be either seduced or dragged out of the hands of Christ. But I think it is useful and will be quite necessary in our first convention, [or Synod] to institute a diligent inquiry from the Scriptures, whether it is not possible for some individuals through negligence to desert the commencement of their existence in Christ, to cleave again to the present evil world, to decline from the sound doctrine which was once delivered to them, to lose a good conscience, and to cause Divine grace to be ineffectual. Though I here openly and ingenuously affirm, I never taught that a true believer can, either totally or finally fall away from the faith, and perish; yet I will not conceal, that there are passages of scripture which seem to me to wear this aspect; and those answers to them which I have been permitted to see, are not of such a kind as to approve themselves on all points to my understanding. On the other hand, certain passages are produced for the contrary doctrine [of unconditional perseverance] which are worthy of much consideration.

230

VI. THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION

With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a Son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ. Such a certainty is wrought in the mind, as well by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly actuating the believer and by the fruits of faith, as from his own conscience, and the testimony of God’s Spirit witnessing together with his conscience. I also believe, that it is possible for such a person, with an assured confidence in the grace of God and his mercy in Christ, to depart out of this life, and to appear before the throne of grace, without any anxious fear or terrific dread

He is pretty good on Justification being in line with the confessions and unanimous beliefs.

He stated:'I am not conscious to myself, of having taught or entertained any other sentiments concerning the justification of man before God, than those which are held unanimously by the Reformed and Protestant Churches, and which are in complete agreement with their expressed opinions.

In no way am I making a blanket endorsement of what he later taught once splitting the ranks amongst calvin. But we must also be careful to stae all he taught was heretical

 

[JohnOwen007]

I think that book is why I'm just not persuaded that semi-pelagian baptists(or any semi-pelagian) are "brothers in Christ".

So you're saying that no-one in the church (or you whilst in the church) are Christians? They're all really unbelievers who are hell-bound?

I became persuaded that the God I knew of was not the God that was really in the Bible. I realized that I believed in a different gospel and a different God.

"Different" is a word that needs some qualification. The issue is how different. Certainly semi-pelagians are able to affirm the basic gospel of 1 Cor. 15:3-4, that Christ died for sins, was buried, and raised. So, at least, they'd have that in common, even if there are differences as we begin to unpack their understanding of these points. But despite differences there is common ground.

I've always taken things all the way out to what seems like a logical conclusion to me.

That can be both a blessing and a curse. Some doctrines are taken to their logical conclusion in Scripture, because they need to be (e.g. Paul's teasing out of a denial of the end time resurrection of all people in 1 Cor. 15).

However, when it comes to the doctrines of election and predestination, we need to be very careful about attempting to logically tease these out beyond what Scripture tells us. Paul gives his sober warning in Rom. 9 once we start going on that track. Calvin says that when we try and logically tease out predestination to its end conclusions we enter a labyrinth of which we cannot escape. Having finite minds means that we can't see all the logical connections and conclusions of an infinite God (Rom. 11:33ff.).

When I was about 15 I asked my pastor about all the verses I was seeing that seemed to teach election. He put me in my place and that was the last question I asked him. From that point on I kept my eyes open for something better than being baptist. Nothing came along until I was over 30.

Yes, it's very sad when pastors respond in this way about election. I've had similar experiences. However, I don't therefore want to condemn them as unbelievers. (I know my own biases and sin). BTW aren't there plenty of baptists who affirm election? There certainly are on the PB.

 

[cih1355]

I have talked with people who believe that they can lose their salvation. They also told me that their obedience does not justify them in whole or in part. They claim that their obedience does not retain their salvation. I tried to point out the inconsistencies in their beliefs, but they say, "There is no inconsistency. I'm just going by what the Bible says." I asked them if they believe that they have their own righteousness and they said that they did not have their own righteousness at all. Some people don't see the logical connections between their beliefs, which is why they can have beliefs that undermine each other without knowing it.