Referring to the claim of Heresy in regards to belief in Heresy, I was reading the following article on A Puritan's Mind found here and I noticed the Mr. McMahon declares that adherents to the federal vision embrace a 'damnable' heresy. He then goes on the claim that their beliefs are Lutheran and High Episcopalian. So, what I am asking is, does he believe that all who do not adhere to a reformed confession are lost?
The Federal Vision and Heresy (Mr. McMahon)
- Thread starter travis
- Start date
- Status
Travis, is this what you gleaned from the article: that Dr. McMahon says FV theology is Lutheran and high Episcopalian and, therefore, heretical and damnable because it isn't Reformed?
I really think you need to re-read the article because your understanding is really far off the mark. Did you carefully read the article or skim over it?
I read th article of concern. He claims that the doctrine is a damnable heresy. He then goes on to quote a person he calls their views on baptism Lutheran. All in all I am honestly just curious as to the belief on this board in general. Do most people here believe that if you do not hold to a Orthodox Reformed point of view that you are not regenerate/elect?
And please, please do not take this as an attack. I am just wanting to learn more about the whole situation.
And please, please do not take this as an attack. I am just wanting to learn more about the whole situation.
Travis,
Not an attack but just a poor summation of what the issue is. Busy right now but if nobody takes it up by tomorrow (my time), I'll explain the article to you. Read it again, though, and don't focus on the Lutherand and Anglican dealie but on the article as a whole.
Not an attack but just a poor summation of what the issue is. Busy right now but if nobody takes it up by tomorrow (my time), I'll explain the article to you. Read it again, though, and don't focus on the Lutherand and Anglican dealie but on the article as a whole.
Okay I read it again. I have dropped the whole Luther/Anglican thing because I misread it, my apologies. However, I am still interested to know if people on this board believe that the only way one can be saved is if they hold to the 5 Solas of the Reformation.
For example, would you consider your typical American non-reformed SBC'er to be regenerate?
For example, would you consider your typical American non-reformed SBC'er to be regenerate?
If God has regenerated him, yes.
I deny one has to have maturation of theology (DoG) to be saved.
turmeric
Megerator
In my humble opinion, the reason Matt is calling it heresy hasn't got to do iwth Calvinism per se, it's about how we are saved - is it our good works, or is it Jesus' works imputed to us?
If the SBC'er is trusting Christ for his salvation, he's regenerate - but he might be woefully ignorant.
If the SBC'er is trusting Christ for his salvation, he's regenerate - but he might be woefully ignorant.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I believe that Scripture tells us that the absolute bottom line is that we are saved by WHO we know and not by WHAT we know. Unfortunately that kind of statement is quickly mishandled by those who believe doctrine is cold, stale and dead. The WHO is revealed by the WHAT - Christ is only revealed through the teachings of scripture. The WHO must be consistent with the WHAT - we are saved by the biblical Christ.
That being said, it's the WHO that does the saving.
That being said, it's the WHO that does the saving.
I don't know what the irreducible minimum of true belief is that is necessary for salvation. Also I don't know how much error and of what type one can hold at the same time.
But this is not the only issue about heresy. If heresies are not opposed, and the teaching of them in the churches prohibited, the will grow. Around them practices will grow up that train people to put their faith in the wrong things, as has happened historically with the sacrifice of the mass, penances that are ordeals that expiate sin, indulgences, etc. These practices training the belief of subsequent generations.
Some of the debate today is over what must be believed for saving faith to exist. There are those that claim, for example, that we can be justified by faith alone, by believing that Jesus saves us some how or other, and without that believing including the doctrine of justification by faith alone as part it its content. But when the church begins to teach that we are not justified by faith alone, then the people will resort to something other than faith. They will resort to works, submission to institutions, rituals, etc., placing their trust in something other than Jesus. Then the faith in Jesus, however, minimal it must be to be saving, is altogether gone.
But this is not the only issue about heresy. If heresies are not opposed, and the teaching of them in the churches prohibited, the will grow. Around them practices will grow up that train people to put their faith in the wrong things, as has happened historically with the sacrifice of the mass, penances that are ordeals that expiate sin, indulgences, etc. These practices training the belief of subsequent generations.
Some of the debate today is over what must be believed for saving faith to exist. There are those that claim, for example, that we can be justified by faith alone, by believing that Jesus saves us some how or other, and without that believing including the doctrine of justification by faith alone as part it its content. But when the church begins to teach that we are not justified by faith alone, then the people will resort to something other than faith. They will resort to works, submission to institutions, rituals, etc., placing their trust in something other than Jesus. Then the faith in Jesus, however, minimal it must be to be saving, is altogether gone.
T.E. - couple of different issues at play here.
First, the church has made definitive statements on heresy. The early church creeds and the latter confessions (WCF and LBC as examples) have stated what is the orthodox faith.
For the elect your statement is an impossibility. The elect cannot resort to something other than faith. Those who do embrace salvation by means other than sola fide are outside the faith. Jesus said:
[bible]John 10:1[/bible]
First, the church has made definitive statements on heresy. The early church creeds and the latter confessions (WCF and LBC as examples) have stated what is the orthodox faith.
For the elect your statement is an impossibility. The elect cannot resort to something other than faith. Those who do embrace salvation by means other than sola fide are outside the faith. Jesus said:
[bible]John 10:1[/bible]
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Ultimately it is for church courts to decide who is a heretic (hold undeniably heretical views) and who is not. Seminaries and individuals are not charged with that task. They may provide useful input to the ecclesiastical process, but the final judgment rests with those properly called to the task.
If someone wishes to name someone as a heretic they need to do it by offering proper judicial charges to support their claims.
I find it particularly repugnant when folks in one denomination make changes against ministers in another denomination with which they have some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship. It tends to undermine the unity of the church by questioning the judicial integrity of the other body.
If someone wishes to name someone as a heretic they need to do it by offering proper judicial charges to support their claims.
I find it particularly repugnant when folks in one denomination make changes against ministers in another denomination with which they have some sort of ecclesiastical fellowship. It tends to undermine the unity of the church by questioning the judicial integrity of the other body.
I believe, Tom, you meant "charges."
Matt can correct me, but I don't believe he was attacking a particular denomination.
There's certainly nothing wrong with defending doctrine, though. Especially with brothers in Christ.
Really? So are Baptists heretics (if the WCF defines the boundaries between heresy and orthodoxy) or are the Presbyeterians heretics, if the LBC does so?
The point being?
In the area of faith's role in regeneration the WCF and the LBC are essentially in agreement. I don't see any material difference between them.
W.C.F. on saving faith:
1689 L.B.C. on saving faith:
Regarding the elect not being able to resort to something other than faith; the point is that the elect will respond to the effectual call by faith. If they do not respond by faith they prove themselves not to be elect. Try as they might, enemies of sola fide cannot prevail because faith is not conveyed by man, but by God.
W.C.F. on saving faith:
1689 L.B.C. on saving faith:
Regarding the elect not being able to resort to something other than faith; the point is that the elect will respond to the effectual call by faith. If they do not respond by faith they prove themselves not to be elect. Try as they might, enemies of sola fide cannot prevail because faith is not conveyed by man, but by God.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Yes, I did.
And neither was I claiming that he was directly attacking another denomination, but comments against “the Auburn Four” (“If they do not repent of it, they will be damned for believing it.”) have the effect of denigrating a denomination in which some of these ministers are members in good standing, and will remain so until such time as their courts say otherwise. It must first be impartially established that "they" believe or teach any of the things which others have claimed for them.
By contrast, the statement from Mid-America Seminary has the distinction of tackling error without naming the “heretics” in advance.
All I’m suggesting is that there are proper ways of approaching the problem.
Therefore what?
You wrote:
What church are you talking about? It can't be the true church. The "what" you are asking about is more of a "why." Why won't the true church teach something other than faith? Because the true church is made up of God's elect, who became so because of faith.
I am talking about the church of Jesus Christ, founded by the Apostles, which has many times fallen in errors of all sorts. You can read about some of these in the Epistles and in Revelation.
OK, here goes...
This thread somehow took a strange turn. It's evident that the bulk of the respondents responded to this question posed by you:
That may be an interesting dialogue (and we've had many such here) but it is really not germane to Dr. McMahon's article. Dr. McMahon's article focused on the errors of the Federal Vision proponents. His article can be summed up by the following:
It's not really important to this discussion about the nature of McMahon's work: "The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant". Nevertheless, the article focuses on distinguishing between his work and what the Federal Vision teaches.
Now, it should be said, the RPCGA, of which Dr. McMahon is a member, has declared the Federal Vision to be heterodox teaching so he is not declaring something heresy on his own authority.
That aside, I'm puzzled by this question:
The controversy is not one between classic Arminianism and Calvinism but, rather, a peversion of Covenant theology within Reformed theology. You won't find any but paedo-baptists who are even remotely attracted to the error.
The summary by Dr. McMahon about its fundamental error is a good one. Let me break it down more fundamentally.
If I ask you: How is one saved? I hope your answer is "By grace through faith." That is, that all who are saved are gifted grace and faith by God to believe upon Christ. We abhor our sins and turn to Christ for our righteousness. Historically, the Reformed confessions have insisted that only the elect have this faith for all others are depraved and hate God. It is only by the regenerating work of the Spirit that we are able to trust in Christ and are thereby united to Christ and all the benefits that accrue from that union (justification, santification, and glorification).
NOW, here is where the shell game begins so pay attention. FV people, if you're talking to them, will say I'm misrepresenting them. If they tell you that then my answer is that they are misrepresenting me.
Federal Vision proponents will claim that the Reformed Confessions do talk about election and union with Christ but they don't say everything that the Scriptures say about these subjects. The proponents claim that, when a person is baptized, he/she is really united to Christ. They deny that the person is merely joined to the visible Church but that the person is really united to Christ. While in the Church, then, the person is said to be in Christ in some way by virtue of being in Covenant. The person then remains in Christ through faithfulness to the Covenant.
Now, they will say that the elect have a sure and final union with Christ but that even the non-elect, by virtue of their baptism, have a type of union with Christ and a type of participation in all the benefits.
Travis, this is simply sub-Christian.
First, it is disingenuous to argue that the Confessions only teach a portion of what it means to be united to Christ. The Confessions exclude their position from being Biblical in terms of what it means to be united to Christ.
Second, I hope you noted what I italicized. What is the instrument of your union with Christ? I hope you don't say: my baptism. No, it is your faith. Baptism signifies union but the benefits of baptism only accrue to those who embrace the promise by faith. The idea that we are united to Christ by baptism and kept united by our faithfulness is simply wrong.
Heresy? Damnable? Not for me to say. The OPC and PCA have rejected the teaching and I am hopeful that that all ministers who are found guilty through a proper judicial process will be appropriately censured.
One thing is for certain: it is disingenuous for any man to claim that the Federal Vision is consistent with the historic Reformed Theology on the nature of baptism and the nature of our union with Christ.
This thread somehow took a strange turn. It's evident that the bulk of the respondents responded to this question posed by you:
That may be an interesting dialogue (and we've had many such here) but it is really not germane to Dr. McMahon's article. Dr. McMahon's article focused on the errors of the Federal Vision proponents. His article can be summed up by the following:
There is a huge disconnect between what you want information on and what Dr. McMahon's article is about. If you want to see an article/discussion that centers around what your question is (and caused a maelstrom of activity and accusations, as well as board resignations) then you can view this thread: The arminian "god" is not worshippable
It's not really important to this discussion about the nature of McMahon's work: "The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant". Nevertheless, the article focuses on distinguishing between his work and what the Federal Vision teaches.
Now, it should be said, the RPCGA, of which Dr. McMahon is a member, has declared the Federal Vision to be heterodox teaching so he is not declaring something heresy on his own authority.
That aside, I'm puzzled by this question:
I figured you must be ignorant of who those men were given that you asked if Dr. McMahon's work was against the "non-Reformed." Just out of curiosity, how is it that you know the above names but are unfamiliar with the controversy?
The controversy is not one between classic Arminianism and Calvinism but, rather, a peversion of Covenant theology within Reformed theology. You won't find any but paedo-baptists who are even remotely attracted to the error.
The summary by Dr. McMahon about its fundamental error is a good one. Let me break it down more fundamentally.
If I ask you: How is one saved? I hope your answer is "By grace through faith." That is, that all who are saved are gifted grace and faith by God to believe upon Christ. We abhor our sins and turn to Christ for our righteousness. Historically, the Reformed confessions have insisted that only the elect have this faith for all others are depraved and hate God. It is only by the regenerating work of the Spirit that we are able to trust in Christ and are thereby united to Christ and all the benefits that accrue from that union (justification, santification, and glorification).
NOW, here is where the shell game begins so pay attention. FV people, if you're talking to them, will say I'm misrepresenting them. If they tell you that then my answer is that they are misrepresenting me.
Federal Vision proponents will claim that the Reformed Confessions do talk about election and union with Christ but they don't say everything that the Scriptures say about these subjects. The proponents claim that, when a person is baptized, he/she is really united to Christ. They deny that the person is merely joined to the visible Church but that the person is really united to Christ. While in the Church, then, the person is said to be in Christ in some way by virtue of being in Covenant. The person then remains in Christ through faithfulness to the Covenant.
Now, they will say that the elect have a sure and final union with Christ but that even the non-elect, by virtue of their baptism, have a type of union with Christ and a type of participation in all the benefits.
Travis, this is simply sub-Christian.
First, it is disingenuous to argue that the Confessions only teach a portion of what it means to be united to Christ. The Confessions exclude their position from being Biblical in terms of what it means to be united to Christ.
Second, I hope you noted what I italicized. What is the instrument of your union with Christ? I hope you don't say: my baptism. No, it is your faith. Baptism signifies union but the benefits of baptism only accrue to those who embrace the promise by faith. The idea that we are united to Christ by baptism and kept united by our faithfulness is simply wrong.
Heresy? Damnable? Not for me to say. The OPC and PCA have rejected the teaching and I am hopeful that that all ministers who are found guilty through a proper judicial process will be appropriately censured.
One thing is for certain: it is disingenuous for any man to claim that the Federal Vision is consistent with the historic Reformed Theology on the nature of baptism and the nature of our union with Christ.
Thank for the well thought out response. I did not mean to imply that I am unfamiliar with the situation, because I am currently reading up on the whole discussion. I know the names of these folks because I have read their works. I plan on finishing up Against Christianity and Reformed is Not Enough in about two weeks and then picking up the critiques of it (Guy Waters and the like)
Again, thank you very much for the response. Do I believe that it is heresy? I don't know yet. I have submitted to the government of my church, a PCA church, and if they deem it so then I shall submit and drop the subject as whole. Do I consider the authors mentioned as apostates? No, I consider them brothers, as the PCA report does in it's initial statements.
Again, thank you very much for the response. Do I believe that it is heresy? I don't know yet. I have submitted to the government of my church, a PCA church, and if they deem it so then I shall submit and drop the subject as whole. Do I consider the authors mentioned as apostates? No, I consider them brothers, as the PCA report does in it's initial statements.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Well, I'm a day late and a dollar short.
Thanks Rich for your summary. It was excellent. Travis, listen to what Rich said - he's spot on.
I'm, for the most part, a parrot of Westminsterian and Reformation theology. Don't shoot the messenger.
FV theology (not any denomination that has an FV advocate in them) is heretical. Again, that is the position of the RPCGA, but even if I was not a minister in the RPCGA I'd still think that FV is heretical.
One of the most ridiculous aspects of the FV is that they claim to be Reformed. Not only are they not Reformed, and they do not hold to the WCF or the Reformation's teaching on justification, but they teach a modified Roman Catholicism, and are Anti-Reformation (but they won't tell you that). That is why the RPCGA wasted no time in condemning it as anti-Christian. And if you have FV advocates that teach a contrary Gospel, the Scriptures, very plainly, label them as false teachers and false shepherds.
Part of the bigger problem, is that on the surface, they sound so good to Auntie Mary and Grandfather Joe, to little Johnny and mommy Sue that sit in the pews, that people are swept away with their peddling of Romanism as Covenant Theology because it uses Christianese. That is what happened with Norman Shepherd and NT Wright - they taught the unsuspecting and up and coming ministers, and those unsuspecting who thought they were learning good stuff in seminary now filter it down into the pews.
Matthew 23:15, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
As for salvation, I think there is a grave and important distinction to be made about one's salvation, and the fruit of one's salvation.
On the Sovereign Grace side, salvation is of the Lord. He regenerates the heart, and He saves His people through the work of Christ.
Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation..."
Christ is the complete source of salvation for His elect. He regenerates them. He saves them.
But Hebrews makes an important point in this verse on the fruit side-
Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"
We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
If we are elect, we will believe the Gospel, unless we are murdered in infancy, or happen to be under the frowning providence of being mentally retarded, or the like.
But if we are elect, and God is pleased to allow us to grow up into a likeness of the image of Christ with no mental impairments, then the fruits of salvation are evident - which include a belief in the one true Gospel.
Next question, which is a matter of debate among believers on this board, ---- What is the Gospel?
I'll leave that there for now. My answer remains here:
http://apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonSubstanceGospel.htm
and here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahonArminianGodNotWorshippable.htm
and here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonComingToFaith.htm
Keep in mind the Divine's of the WCF summarize salvation here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/SumSavingKnowledge.htm
(The link above is in MHO one of the best overall treatments of answering "What is the Gospel? in print in any language ever outside of the Bible.)
Thanks Rich for your summary. It was excellent. Travis, listen to what Rich said - he's spot on.
I'm, for the most part, a parrot of Westminsterian and Reformation theology. Don't shoot the messenger.
FV theology (not any denomination that has an FV advocate in them) is heretical. Again, that is the position of the RPCGA, but even if I was not a minister in the RPCGA I'd still think that FV is heretical.
One of the most ridiculous aspects of the FV is that they claim to be Reformed. Not only are they not Reformed, and they do not hold to the WCF or the Reformation's teaching on justification, but they teach a modified Roman Catholicism, and are Anti-Reformation (but they won't tell you that). That is why the RPCGA wasted no time in condemning it as anti-Christian. And if you have FV advocates that teach a contrary Gospel, the Scriptures, very plainly, label them as false teachers and false shepherds.
Part of the bigger problem, is that on the surface, they sound so good to Auntie Mary and Grandfather Joe, to little Johnny and mommy Sue that sit in the pews, that people are swept away with their peddling of Romanism as Covenant Theology because it uses Christianese. That is what happened with Norman Shepherd and NT Wright - they taught the unsuspecting and up and coming ministers, and those unsuspecting who thought they were learning good stuff in seminary now filter it down into the pews.
Matthew 23:15, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
As for salvation, I think there is a grave and important distinction to be made about one's salvation, and the fruit of one's salvation.
On the Sovereign Grace side, salvation is of the Lord. He regenerates the heart, and He saves His people through the work of Christ.
Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation..."
Christ is the complete source of salvation for His elect. He regenerates them. He saves them.
But Hebrews makes an important point in this verse on the fruit side-
Hebrews 5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"
We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
If we are elect, we will believe the Gospel, unless we are murdered in infancy, or happen to be under the frowning providence of being mentally retarded, or the like.
But if we are elect, and God is pleased to allow us to grow up into a likeness of the image of Christ with no mental impairments, then the fruits of salvation are evident - which include a belief in the one true Gospel.
Next question, which is a matter of debate among believers on this board, ---- What is the Gospel?
I'll leave that there for now. My answer remains here:
http://apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonSubstanceGospel.htm
and here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/McMahonArminianGodNotWorshippable.htm
and here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonComingToFaith.htm
Keep in mind the Divine's of the WCF summarize salvation here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/WCF/SumSavingKnowledge.htm
(The link above is in MHO one of the best overall treatments of answering "What is the Gospel? in print in any language ever outside of the Bible.)
Hey, four spiritual laws!!!
Now we only need a campus crusade!!!
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
The paper in the original post claims that baptismal regeneration is heresy. Yet, I believe that Luther's view of baptism is baptismal regeneration also, and is identical or nearly identical to the Auburn Avenue view of baptism.
So, according to McMahon, is Lutheranism also a damnable heresy? Should we regard Martin Luther as a heretic?
So, according to McMahon, is Lutheranism also a damnable heresy? Should we regard Martin Luther as a heretic?
- Status
