Heresy & The Elect

[Shadow Forge]

It is commonly known in reformed circles that Arminianism is the Fifth Column in Christianity. Ergo, Arminianism is heretical. Setting aside various strands of Arminianism and all the buts and what if's.. Do you believe that the Lord would allow one of His true elect to remain in heresy, regardless of what it is? Or do you think that He will and then judge them later based on their actions? If so, would you agree that undermines God's Sovereignty? Love to hear your thoughts.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

... Arminianism is the Fifth Column in Christianity.

What does this mean?

Ergo, Arminianism is heretical.

And how does it follow that Arminianism is heretical?

 

[Shadow Forge]

Fifth Column:

1. A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims.

 

[Shadow Forge]

Arminianism is The Road to Rome – by Augustus Toplady | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Talib,

I don't think "fifth column" is an apt term – according to your definition – as it certainly is not clandestine, but in open opposition to Biblical / Reformed doctrine. Heretical is, according to the Greek, "schismatic, factious, divisive, a follower of a false doctrine" (Tit. 3:10), so yes, to us – the Reformed – it is heretical in the Biblical sense. If I find Arminianism being promoted in my flock I will address it, condemn it, teach the truth, and urge any who differ to repent. If they do not, to avoid a schism – division – among us, I will ask that person to cease and desist, or else find an assembly in agreement with him, for Arminianism is too dangerous to allow it to infect the body of Christ over which I am given to care and protect.

As for the Lord allowing one of His "true elect" to remain in such heresy – and this undermining His sovereignty – I would say it does not undermine it, for we have freedom of conscience to choose what doctrines appear right to us. Thus He says through James 3:1 that we should not become many masters or teachers as we will be judged with stricter judgment.

When we stand before Him on the great Day of Judgment, we who presume to teach His children will be openly corrected by Him in those things concerning which we erred. Am I 100% correct in all I teach? Although I do ask of Him to not let me teach anything false, but to guide me into His truth, there are areas where I am uncertain as to what the truth is. I may well find myself reproved – mercifully – on that day.

HIs sovereignty will be manifest in correcting us then.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

It is commonly known in reformed circles that Arminianism is the Fifth Column in Christianity. Ergo, Arminianism is heretical. Setting aside various strands of Arminianism and all the buts and what if's.. Do you believe that the Lord would allow one of His true elect to remain in heresy, regardless of what it is? Or do you think that He will and then judge them later based on their actions? If so, would you agree that undermines God's Sovereignty? Love to hear your thoughts.

I have always took the stand that Arminianism is heretical. For it teaches that one can lose the free gift in which you would have to either 1)work to keep OR 2) work to get back. I think Jerusalem Blade put it very well, that as a shepherd of his flock if this type of doctrine would arise in it, he would address it, teach the truth and call the person(s) to repentance. Unfortunately I have this conversation far to often that goes along the lines of "they are our brothers, and you can't let satan bring division". However I see a clear message in Galatians 1, and through out the NT that warns us of these types of doctrines. I do believe that God would have mercy on people who stay in this doctrine as lay-persons, as the scriptures clearly state: "1 Timothy 2:3–4 (LSB) This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." But as teachers of the Word, I am not so sure? We can only pray that God would grant these people repentance and knowledge of His truth. I stand firm on my belief of this, and this article looks pretty interesting that was posted.

Arminianism is The Road to Rome – by Augustus Toplady | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

[Polanus1561]

If wrong teachings are a spectrum… then credo/paedo baptism, worship styles would be included in this as well?

 

[Jack K]

As with most words, heresy has a range of meaning and usage. Some people apply it broadly (perhaps, "any dangerous and wrong teaching") and some people apply it more narrowly (as in, "teaching that is anti-credal"). Clear communication requires that we keep this range in mind and don't conflate the two usages.

With this particular word, I prefer the narrower usage, reserving heresy for anti-credal teaching. That's because this seems to be the most common usage today, and therefore best avoids misunderstandings. It also provides us with a word that distinguishes condemned-by-the-universal-church error from other errors, which is a good distinction to maintain. When speaking or writing, a word's current usage is a more important consideration than its origin or past usage.

And of course, God is not constrained to punish a person who believes heresy in the broad sense as if that person believed heresy more narrowly just because the English usage overlaps or the person technically fits into a certain column. That would be a bad way to think about salvation (though personally, I wouldn't call it heresy. )

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I have always took the stand that Arminianism is heretical. For it teaches that one can lose the free gift in which you would have to either 1)work to keep OR 2) work to get back.

Wow. I never actually considered this. I almost feel like a whole thread should be started on this.

 

[MyCrows]

It was this, the seemingly arbitrary gain and loss of salvation, that caused me to see the fallacy of arminianism.

I became convinced, that if all I had was man's faith, and not faith that was from God, I was damned.

A state of salvation that can be gained, and subsequently lost, and gained again, by man's efforts, is works-righteousness. No more, no less.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This may be of help. The Synod of Dordt Condemned Arminianism as Heresy.

 

[ReformedChristian]

James 5:19-20 comes to mind.

 

[DanSSwing]

As someone who is quite sure that I was saved even back when I held some very different beliefs, including some Arminian ones, I think we need to give other Christians a lot more grace and take the process of sanctification more seriously. We should definitely be growing in the faith to be sure, but I'm not going to say someone was not elect simply because he died before fully subscribing to the WCF, 1689, or Three Forms of Unity.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

Wow. I never actually considered this. I almost feel like a whole thread should be started on this.

No one really looks at it like this unfortunately, because they claim all thee essentials of the Gospel. The problem is, so do Mormons, and Catholics, but these 2 "faiths" are considered heretical to any protestant.

As someone who is quite sure that I was saved even back when I held some very different beliefs, including some Arminian ones, I think we need to give other Christians a lot more grace and take the process of sanctification more seriously. We should definitely be growing in the faith to be sure, but I'm not going to say someone was not elect simply because he died before fully subscribing to the WCF, 1689, or Three Forms of Unity.

Should we just let them continue in their unbelief and fallacy than? No, absolutely not. Being graceful towards them would be understanding they are in false doctrine, need to repent, and believe on the Gospel. By ignoring this fact, or top shelving it, we are neglecting them and whats scarry is that we allow then to continue in this, and/or would be willing to fellowship with them as they're our brothers and sisters.

Unacceptable. They need the Gospel and we are called to preach it to them. No one is saying that they are or are not elect. Faith comes by hearing the Word, and by the Word of Christ. Without holding true to this very fact we are neglecting them of the saving power of God. Would you allow a Mormon or Jehovah Witness' to pass by you and preach their version of the gospel to your friends or family? Not unless you're spineless. The same thing goes here.

 

[Deleted member 11804]

If wrong teachings are a spectrum… then credo/paedo baptism, worship styles would be included in this as well?

This does not pertain to Salvation, though I strongly hold to the anabaptist position, as a Reformed Baptist, I don't see anything heretical from baptizing children. They are baptized into the covenant of Grace, not into Salvation, regardless if it is true or not. Ones election is not based on the salvation of their parents, or family members, but by the Grace of God and His own choosing.

 

[alexanderjames]

No one really looks at it like this unfortunately, because they claim all thee essentials of the Gospel. The problem is, so do Mormons, and Catholics, but these 2 "faiths" are considered heretical to any protestant.

The obvious difference is that Arminians hold to justification by faith apart from works..

 

[alexanderjames]

The other thing that has not been made clear here is that Arminianism as we know it today is very broad.
Whether you accept the term or not, "reformed Arminian" is much closer to reformed theology and practice than most of Protestantism today. The London Lyceum podcast had a guest of this stripe on the other week.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I have always took the stand that Arminianism is heretical. For it teaches that one can lose the free gift in which you would have to either 1)work to keep OR 2) work to get back.

This may be a feature of classic Arminianism, such as was condemned by the synod at Dordt; however, while the vast majority of modern evangelicalism would not identify with some of the other particulars of Reformed theology, they would certainly ascribe to that tenet, which they describe as "once saved, always saved." Thus, for them, this critique would fail.

 

[Solparvus]

Charles Spurgeon was an outspoken and thoroughly committed Calvinist, and he was not afraid to nail Arminianism on its own principles. Still, Spurgeon recognized that in our imperfect state there can be strange disconnects between head and heart. I think there's some wisdom in this bit from Spurgeon's sermon "Election and Holiness," and I trust I won't get taken as saying that creeds and formulations don't matter, nor that the ramifications of Arminianism aren't serious:

Preaching a few months ago in the midst of a large congregation of Methodists, the brethren were all alive, giving all kinds of answers to my sermon, nodding their heads and erring, "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" "Glory be to God!" and the like. They completely woke me up. My spirit was stirred, and I preached away with an unusual force and vigor; and the more I preached the more they cried, "Amen!" "Hallelujah!" "Glory be to God!"

At last, a part of text led me to what is styled high doctrine. So I said, this brings me to the doctrine of Election. There was a deep drawing of breath. "Now, my friends, you believe it," they seemed to say. "No, we don't." But you do, and I will make you sing "Hallelujah!" over it. I will so preach it to you that you will acknowledge it and believe it.

So I put it thus: Is there no difference between you and other men? " Yes, yes; glory be to God, glory!" There is a difference between what you were and what you are now? "Oh, yes! oh, yes!" There is sitting by your side a man who has been to the same chapel as you have, heard the same gospel, he is unconverted, and you are converted. Who has made the difference, yourself or God? "The Lord!" said they, " the Lord! glory! hallelujah!" Yes, cried I, and that is the doctrine of Election; that is all I contend for, that if there be a difference the Lord made the difference.

Some good man came up to me and said, "Thou'rt right, lad! thou'rt right. I believe thy doctrine of Election; I do not believe it as it is preached by some people, but I believe that we must give the glory to God, we must put the crown on the right head."

After all, there is an instinct in every Christian heart, that makes him receive the substance of this doctrine, even if he will not receive it in the peculiar form in which we put it. That is enough for me. I do not care about the words or the phraseology, or the form of creed in which I may be in the habit of stating the doctrine. I do not want you to subscribe to my creed, but I do want you to subscribe to a creed that gives God the glory of His salvation.

Every saint in heaven sings, "Grace has done it;" and I want every saint on earth to sing the same song, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood, to him be the glory for ever and ever." The prayers, the praises, the experience of those who do not believe this doctrine prove the doctrine better than anything I can say. I do not care to prove it better, and I leave it as it is.

(Broken up in paragraphs for post)

 

[jwithnell]

No one really looks at it like this unfortunately, because they claim all thee essentials of the Gospel. The problem is, so do Mormons, and Catholics, but these 2 "faiths" are considered heretical to any protestant.

Should we just let them continue in their unbelief and fallacy than? No, absolutely not. Being graceful towards them would be understanding they are in false doctrine, need to repent, and believe on the Gospel. By ignoring this fact, or top shelving it, we are neglecting them and whats scarry is that we allow then to continue in this, and/or would be willing to fellowship with them as they're our brothers and sisters.

Unacceptable. They need the Gospel and we are called to preach it to them. No one is saying that they are or are not elect. Faith comes by hearing the Word, and by the Word of Christ. Without holding true to this very fact we are neglecting them of the saving power of God. Would you allow a Mormon or Jehovah Witness' to pass by you and preach their version of the gospel to your friends or family? Not unless you're spineless. The same thing goes here.

The courts of the church settled all this 1500 years ago. The creeds establish what is heresy and what is not. An individual Christian cannot declare a church or great swath of believers to be heretical. Nor can you speak for all Protestants who do not as a whole declare Roman Catholicism as heretical. The Roman Catholic institution affirms the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation through Christ. That it adds more may give it the stench of hell, but it holds to basic Christian dogma. JWs and Mormons do not affirm the creeds, and at best, try to talk their way around them. They are heretics.

I am not an ordained minister of the gospel, so no, I am not called to preach the gospel to anyone. Should I give a reason for the hope that is within me? Sure. Should I speak truth where and when I can, absolutely.

 

[JvMill]

I have always found Sproul’s “happy inconsistencies” to be very helpful when considering Arminians.

I was born again and placed faith in Christ under the preaching of a Wesleyan at summer camp. God was faithful in bringing me to a more sound understanding of His gospel, but He nonetheless used an inconsistent and emotionally driven message to save me.

The main thrust of the message? Christ is the only way, trust Him.

 

[Shadow Forge]

William Ames, Sec of the Synod of Dordt, once said: "Arminianism is not heresy rather trending in error towards it. Rational Arminianism is a heresy". Today, we have rational Arminians, for the most part.

 

[MyCrows]

This may be a feature of classic Arminianism, such as was condemned by the synod at Dordt; however, while the vast majority of modern evangelicalism would not identify with some of the other particulars of Reformed theology, they would certainly ascribe to that tenet, which they describe as "once saved, always saved." Thus, for them, this critique would fail.

The problem is, that what many who cling to "once saved, always saved" in America, when they say that, what they mean is "free from the law, O blessed condition, I can sin as I please, and still have remission."

Is that compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

 

[Shadow Forge]

The problem is, that what many who cling to "once saved, always saved" in America, when they say that, what they mean is "free from the law, O blessed condition, I can sin as I please, and still have remission."

Is that compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

I agree 100%. We are all sinners and fall very short of the Glory of God. However, those who do not truly fear the Lord will not try to curb their sinning. One doesn't hear from pastors on this topic of OSAS vs Election.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Nor can you speak for all Protestants who do not as a whole declare Roman Catholicism as heretical. The Roman Catholic institution affirms the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation through Christ. That it adds more may give it the stench of hell, but it holds to basic Christian dogma. JWs and Mormons do not affirm the creeds, and at best, try to talk their way around them. They are heretics.

Thanks for this thought. A few questions. So there are no denominations or creeds that declared Roman Catholicism as heretical? Also, with Jehovah's witnesses and mormons, are there any creeds or denominations that have declared them heretical? If not, does that make them a legitimate institution? I'm just trying to sort out the logic in my head.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks for this thought. A few questions. So there are no denominations or creeds that declared Roman Catholicism as heretical? Also, with Jehovah's witnesses and mormons, are there any creeds or denominations that have declared them heretical? If not, does that make them a legitimate institution? I'm just trying to sort out the logic in my head.

JWs are Arians, and they were declared heretical in 325 and 381

 

[Steve Curtis]

The problem is, that what many who cling to "once saved, always saved" in America, when they say that, what they mean is "free from the law, O blessed condition, I can sin as I please, and still have remission."

Is that compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ?

That's an entirely different question. I specifically referred to his critique that Arminians believed that they could lose their salvation.

 

[MyCrows]

That's an entirely different question. I specifically referred to his critique that Arminians believed that they could lose their salvation.

Strictly speaking, most of them do.

Once saved always saved is usually a band-aid to ease that burden, but it's built on the premise of God upholding man's sovereignty in salvation, not the biblical premise of God preserving his elect.

It's an escape hatch for a salvation based on man's faith. It's not the same thing as the perseverance of the saints.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I have always found Sproul’s “happy inconsistencies” to be very helpful when considering Arminians.

I was born again and placed faith in Christ under the preaching of a Wesleyan at summer camp. God was faithful in bringing me to a more sound understanding of His gospel, but He nonetheless used an inconsistent and emotionally driven message to save me.

The main thrust of the message? Christ is the only way, trust Him.

Agreed. As I noted in a related post:

The Arminian hymn writer Charles Wesley wrote:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quick'ning ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth and followed Thee.

 

[Shadow Forge]

Thanks for this thought. A few questions. So there are no denominations or creeds that declared Roman Catholicism as heretical? Also, with Jehovah's witnesses and mormons, are there any creeds or denominations that have declared them heretical? If not, does that make them a legitimate institution? I'm just trying to sort out the logic in my head.

Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists, Church of Christ, etc.. ARE ALL Heretics.