Not all error is heresy (John Duncan)

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is a monstrous thing that that horrible word "heresy" is now used on all occasions so freely, and applied so recklessly to all error. All error is not heresy.

John Duncan, Colloquia Peripatetica, ed. William Knight (Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 1870), p. 35.

From what I have observed, people are much too quick to drop H-bombs nowadays.

 

[Grant]

From what I have observed, people are much too quick to drop H-bombs nowadays.

So true. I think you did need a meme for your Hydrogen-Bomb though.

 

[Tom Hart]

So true. I think you did need a meme for your Hydrogen-Bomb though.
View attachment 6297

Mr. Jones, you have a gif for every occasion.

 

[RJ Spencer]

This is true.
I do hope that you are not including Arminianism and dispensationalism in the not heresy group though.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is true.
I do hope that you are not including Arminianism and dispensationalism in the not heresy group though.

I regard Remonstrant Arminianism as heresy, as they were basically sly Pelagians and Socinians. Later evangelical Arminianism, however, is a tougher nut to crack. As for Dispensationalism, given the variety among Dispensationalists, I would need to answer that question on a case by case basis. At present, I would prefer to say that it is a serious error that tends to heresy, rather than assert that it is heresy simpliciter.

 

[Pergamum]

Amen. I get tired of hearing the H-Bomb dropped.

 

[rookie]

I would have to agree with the above. My parents go to a French Gospel Hall in the area. They are part Arminianist, and Calvinist, but dispensationalists as well. Their gospel is solid (invitation a bit on the free will side) but they make no error on the sinfulness of man, nor the Holiness of God. And they preach a strong hell as a consequence of not repenting and believing in Christ.

So I would hesitate to say they are heretics on everything due to the strong gospel they have. The only thing I might say, is due to no one having a seminary training/education, most of the teachers there are self taught, or very basic.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Not vlassifyAS hrredy

Brother, I am not being a scold, but are you aware of the following PB rule?

4. Use Proper Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

If English is not your second language, then you are expected to show other board members the courtesy of properly punctuating and capitalizing your posts. It is commonplace on the web to disregard these rules but improper grammar does not demonstrate consideration toward others who are trying to understand what you communicate. Mistakes in grammar are understandable but willful sloth may result in posts being deleted if they are consistently sloppy.

 

[Jack K]

Ah, it appears to be heresy to be slightly off, one key to the right, on the qwerty keyboard.

In seriousness, I agree the word is much overused. In some cases, the person using the word is simply unaware of the term's past or of church history, not realizing that the label heresy may be taken to mean you believe the fellow in error has so struck at the essentials of the faith, and refused to repent of it, that he ought to be burned at the stake.

In other cases, the person using the word is very well aware of its usage history but doesn't care. He sets himself up as a one-man, condemnatory church council, and he wishes to use the strongest possible label in order to present his opponent's views in the worst possible light. In such cases, misapplying the label may be a greater sin than the error itself, because of the arrogance and malice involved. We should use the word sparingly, with gravity and caution, and with concern for the good name of those who may indeed be our brothers and sisters in Christ despite their errors.

 

[Dachaser]

Brother, I am not being a scold, but are you aware of the following PB rule?

4. Use Proper Grammar, Punctuation, and Capitalization

If English is not your second language, then you are expected to show other board members the courtesy of properly punctuating and capitalizing your posts. It is commonplace on the web to disregard these rules but improper grammar does not demonstrate consideration toward others who are trying to understand what you communicate. Mistakes in grammar are understandable but willful sloth may result in posts being deleted if they are consistently sloppy.

I am sorry, thought had cancelled intended reply, cancelled that now.

 

[Dachaser]

This is true.
I do hope that you are not including Arminianism and dispensationalism in the not heresy group though.

Both of them hold to mistaken views, but not heretical ones.

 

[RJ Spencer]

I would not call "traditionalism" (mix of Arminianism and Calvinism) heresy, because they understand that a person cannot lose his salvation.
The reason why I view Arminianism to be heresy is because they focus on man centered free will combined with a denial of perserverance of the saints. That is clear man centered heresy, it is an outright denial of the sovereignty of God. The God they serve is a small idol and is therefore not the Real God of the Bible.

Dispensationalism is heresy in that it attributes works of Christ with the Antichrist. Jesus made peace on the cross, yet dispensationalists claim the verse in Daniel is pointing to the Antichrist. They also deny the finality of Jesus sacrifice on the cross, by claiming that the sacrificial system will be brought back. Have any of you ever talked to a hardcore dispensationalist? They will not listen to reason and they get very heated (cult like) in defense of their system. They tend to be unloving, even to the point that some of them will get right in your face while defending Darby. Even Spurgeon had to deal with this in your face attitude from the Darby cult.

 

[Dachaser]

I would not call "traditionalism" (mix of Arminianism and Calvinism) heresy, because they understand that a person cannot lose his salvation.
The reason why I view Arminianism to be heresy is because they focus on man centered free will combined with a denial of perserverance of the saints. That is clear man centered heresy, it is an outright denial of the sovereignty of God. The God they serve is a small idol and is therefore not the Real God of the Bible.

Dispensationalism is heresy in that it attributes works of Christ with the Antichrist. Jesus made peace on the cross, yet dispensationalists claim the verse in Daniel is pointing to the Antichrist. They also deny the finality of Jesus sacrifice on the cross, by claiming that the sacrificial system will be brought back. Have any of you ever talked to a hardcore dispensationalist? They will not listen to reason and they get very heated (cult like) in defense of their system. They tend to be unloving, even to the point that some of them will get right in your face while defending Darby. Even Spurgeon had to deal with this in your face attitude from the Darby cult.

Very few true Arminians though, as many hold with truth of Jesus alone saved, but middtaken how exactly how He does that fact. Many who hold to free will salvation also accept eternal security. Many Dispensational agree on the finality of the work of Christ on the Cross, as they see it more as the nations remembering Jesus thtu the sacrifices, kind of how one views Communion as memorial today.

 

[Tom Hart]

I would not call "traditionalism" (mix of Arminianism and Calvinism) heresy, because they understand that a person cannot lose his salvation.
The reason why I view Arminianism to be heresy is because they focus on man centered free will combined with a denial of perserverance of the saints. That is clear man centered heresy, it is an outright denial of the sovereignty of God. The God they serve is a small idol and is therefore not the Real God of the Bible.

Dispensationalism is heresy in that it attributes works of Christ with the Antichrist. Jesus made peace on the cross, yet dispensationalists claim the verse in Daniel is pointing to the Antichrist. They also deny the finality of Jesus sacrifice on the cross, by claiming that the sacrificial system will be brought back. Have any of you ever talked to a hardcore dispensationalist? They will not listen to reason and they get very heated (cult like) in defense of their system. They tend to be unloving, even to the point that some of them will get right in your face while defending Darby. Even Spurgeon had to deal with this in your face attitude from the Darby cult.

You might need to start a new thread.

Consistent Arminianism is heresy. (I'm not sure about a consistent Dispensationalism, though. Which version?) Just thank God that a lot of people don't carry things to their logical ends.

 

[jwithnell]

Heresy has come to mean "really bad theology." One can make an analogy to those who use extreme vulgarity: after the word is dropped there is no way to express a greater degree of concern. Nuanced language is lost.

 

[Tom Hart]

Heresy has come to mean "really bad theology." One can make an analogy to those who use extreme vulgarity: after the word is dropped there is no way to express a greater degree of concern. Nuanced language is lost.

Without doubt that problem has become more pronounced in this age of Facebook theologians.

 

[Dachaser]

You might need to start a new thread.

Consistent Arminianism is heresy. (I'm not sure about a consistent Dispensationalism, though. Which version?) Just thank God that a lot of people don't carry things to their logical ends.

How many really hold to a classic Aminianism theology, as very few hold to loss of salvation?And I know of none holding to Dispensational that deny saved by grace alone through faith alone?

 

[RJ Spencer]

How many really hold to a classic Aminianism theology, as very few hold to loss of salvation?And I know of none holding to Dispensational that deny saved by grace alone through faith alone?

I would argue that classic Arminianism is less heretical than modern Arminianism. Jacob Arminius understood pelagianism and did everything to attempt to differentiate his beliefs from the pelagians. His view of prevenient grace for example, though still wrong, was a way to explain that God must work in a persons life before that person can show any inclination to accepting Christ. It is the modern semi-pelagian Arminianism that I find heretical.
As far as dispensationalism goes, I understand that they hold to orthodox beliefs about the gospel, but my concern is that they serve a different God all together. To suggest that God would set aside the sacrifice of Christ, accomplished once for all the elect, and turn again to a sacrificial system shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the atonement. They also ignore the urgency for people to accept Christ, giving them 7 years after a "rapture" to turn to Christ. The Bible is clear that when Christ returns that is it, there will be no more time to turn to Him.
Sorry if I have hijacked this post. I still agree completely with the OP, the term "heresy" is thrown around way too often. Perhaps it would be better to point out specific heterodox views of Arminianism and Dispensationalism, rather than declaring all of those entire systems to be heretical.

 

[Tom Hart]

I would argue that classic Arminianism is less heretical than modern Arminianism. Jacob Arminius understood pelagianism and did everything to attempt to differentiate his beliefs from the pelagians. His view of prevenient grace for example, though still wrong, was a way to explain that God must work in a persons life before that person can show any inclination to accepting Christ. It is the modern semi-pelagian Arminianism that I find heretical.

I refer you to the Canons of Dort.

 

[Dachaser]

I would argue that classic Arminianism is less heretical than modern Arminianism. Jacob Arminius understood pelagianism and did everything to attempt to differentiate his beliefs from the pelagians. His view of prevenient grace for example, though still wrong, was a way to explain that God must work in a persons life before that person can show any inclination to accepting Christ. It is the modern semi-pelagian Arminianism that I find heretical.
As far as dispensationalism goes, I understand that they hold to orthodox beliefs about the gospel, but my concern is that they serve a different God all together. To suggest that God would set aside the sacrifice of Christ, accomplished once for all the elect, and turn again to a sacrificial system shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the atonement. They also ignore the urgency for people to accept Christ, giving them 7 years after a "rapture" to turn to Christ. The Bible is clear that when Christ returns that is it, there will be no more time to turn to Him.
Sorry if I have hijacked this post. I still agree completely with the OP, the term "heresy" is thrown around way too often. Perhaps it would be better to point out specific heterodox views of Arminianism and Dispensationalism, rather than declaring all of those entire systems to be heretical.

most of them would say that after the Rapture, only those who had never had the Gospel preached to them will be saved, as rest will follow Antichrist.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I refer you to the Canons of Dort.

While article 10 draws a comparison between pelagianism and arminianism, it does not declare them equivalent or unambiguously declare arminianism heretical. I hope no one thinks I'm giving a novel reading of the canons - many reformed divines from the orthodox period described the arminianians in terms other than heretical. For example, Hoornbeeck, in what is perhaps the most important work of elenctic theology from the Netherlands, Summa Controversiarum, classifies them as schismatic, the same designation he uses for Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Dachaser]

While article 10 draws a comparison between pelagianism and arminianism, it does not declare them equivalent or unambiguously declare arminianism heretical. I hope no one thinks I'm giving a novel reading of the canons - many reformed divines from the orthodox period described the arminianians in terms other than heretical. For example, Hoornbeeck, in what is perhaps the most important work of elenctic theology from the Netherlands, Summa Controversiarum, classifies them as schismatic, the same designation he uses for Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Were they seen as being fellow Christian's then?

 

[Charles Johnson]

Were they seen as being fellow Christian's then?

They were seen as heterodox, justly excluded from the communion of the reformed churches, but not beyond possibility of salvation. "Fellow believers" to my ears implies a sort of communion that was not present. For example, after the Synod, the Remonstrant ministers were all exiled.