Recent discussions on the various forums here makes me wonder what are the marks of heresy as opposed to just being schismatic?<br><br>For instance what would be the definite doctrines that would determine that a particular body was being heretical as opposed to just being schism of say the main body. (For instance the difference between general baptist and particular baptist I would refer to as a schism).
[d]octrine which is erroneous in such a way that Christians must divide themselves as a church from all who teach or accept it; those adhering to heresy are assumed to be lost, although Christians are unable to make definitive judgments on this matter. The opposite of orthodoxy. Adj.: "heretical."
Source: A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy Part One: The Case For Doctrinal Discernment" (an article from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1990, page 28) by Robert M. Bowman.
[F]rom a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character. Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks "heresies" with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).
Easton's Bible Dictionary
(Note: the term is used in other religions as well.)
A person who teaches heresy is called a heretic. A church, movement or organization that claims to be Christian, but which nevertheless teaches heresy, is a cult of Christianity. Christians who have not learned discernment easily fall prey to such groups.
Charges of heresy are most serious where they involve deviation from the central doctrines of Christianity:
"Central doctrines" of the Christian faith are those doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.
The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite content (Jude 3)
Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central importance (e.g., Matt. 28:19; John 8:24; 1 Cor. 15; Eph. 2:8-10).
Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these.
Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.
Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the timing of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of church government. For example, one can be wrong about the identity of "the spirits in prison" 1 Peter 3:19) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven, but one cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ (John 8:24) and be saved.
All Christian denominations -- whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant -- agree on the essential core. The relatively minor disagreements between genuinely Christian denominations, then, cannot be used to argue that there is no objectively recognized core of fundamental doctrine which constitutes the Christian faith.
Source: Alam Gomes, Cult: A Theological Definition, excerpt from "Unmasking The Cults"
Within late twentieth-century North American Christianity, heresy has become an unpopular word. Can't we all just get along and live together in peace? Unfortunately the answer is no. Peace cannot be purchased at the expense of truth. In 1 Timothy, Paul writes that we are to pay close attention to ourselves and the doctrine and to continue in it, for in doing so we shall save both ourselves and those who hear us (1 Tim. 4:16 ). There is an inviolable core to the Christian faith. Harsh as it sounds, to violate that core is to place ourselves outside the Christian tradition. This is the essence of heresy, and heresy remains a valid category for today. This is not to endorse a McCarthyism that finds heretics under every rock. Nor is it to end the action of God's grace in anyone's life. But it is to own up to the fact that truth is never supplemental but always fundamental to Christian community.
Source: Dembski, William A, The Task of Apologetics, in Unapologetic Apologetics, edited by William A. Dembski and Jay Wesley Richards, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2001. Page 43.
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Most Catholics don't believe in salvation by grace through faith alone...
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
That's an interesting question. I guess I would say heresy is a doctrinal matter, where at least one party involved has fallen into theological error; schism might not necessarily involve theological error. I could see schism arising from lack of orthopraxy as well as lack of orthodoxy, as when a church splits over money or power issues.
My pastor is always speaking of "our Baptist friends" (not Reformed Baptist) yet I have asked him if Calvinism is true doctrinal theology, then isn't Arminianism "another gospel". Would that not then be heresy, and not just a misunderstanding?
This may be off topic, and if so, please move me to a new thread, but what if Arminianism is not "another Gospel"? What if Calvinism and Arminianism are 2 sides of the same coin so to speak? Not that I nedessarily hold this view, but it is something a friend of mine, who does indeed hold this view, said to me one day during a discussion we were having.
Last edited by Kalled2Preach; Wed Jul 09, 20032:43 PM.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]What if Calvinism and Arminianism are 2 sides of the same coin so to speak?
I suppose if there was no such thing as objective, proposition truth, then this suggestion might be feasible. However, since what Arminianism teaches is diametrically opposed to what Calvinism teaches, the suggestion is impossible. For example, how can it be both true that God elects according to His own will without any reference to men from eternity AND God elects according to having foreseen faith in an individual who acts independently of God and hasn't even been created yet?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] My pastor is always speaking of "our Baptist friends" (not Reformed Baptist) yet I have asked him if Calvinism is true doctrinal theology, then isn't Arminianism "another gospel". Would that not then be heresy, and not just a misunderstanding?
Timmopussycat meows
1) Some who do not use the label Reformed Baptist (such as myself) are Calvinistic in soteriology. Hence we are not Arminian. I don't really think you are overlooking us, but it is well to get the picture clear for others. 2) Those who want to prove Arminianism a damning offense in God's eyes rather than a forgiveable theological error need to show two things from Scripture. First, they must show that God's way of salvation is by choosing and regenerating those he will save. This can be done without too much trouble. Second, they must also go on to exegetically demonstrate from particular Scriptures that a sinner's mere faith in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins (i.e. trusting that God is willing, faithful and just to forgive our sins) is not in itself salvific but must be accompanied by faith in the way in which God provides salvation as described in point 1. To date I have seen point 1 biblically expounded many times and point 2 not at all.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Second, they must also go on to exegetically demonstrate from particular Scriptures that a sinner's mere faith in Christ Jesus for the forgiveness of his sins (i.e. trusting that God is willing, faithful and just to forgive our sins) is not in itself salvific but must be accompanied by faith in the way in which God provides salvation as described in point 1.
First of all, I think that this second point is an arbitrary one and its source questionable. Secondly, the phrase, simple faith begs the question, What is this faith in its simplicity? For example, it is the popular semi-Pelagian/Arminian "Sandamanian faith"? or is it biblical "Fiducia"? The fact is, true saving faith is very complex and anything but "simple". [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] Thirdly, if an individual truly believes what semi-Pelagian/Arminianism teaches theologically, then whatever faith is expressed is clearly not salvific. For the individual is actually trusting in his/her "decision/faith" to save and not in Christ alone and His finished work which saves. (see my article: Do Really Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone?.
Another fact is that there are those who intellectually defend the semi-Pelagian/Arminian doctrines but aren't resting in them for salvation. In short, there is a stark inconsistency between what is in their heads and what resides in their heart. Personally, I would say that this group is under-represented and that the vast majority of professing believers are yet unregenerate.
Is semi-Pelagianism/Arminianism a false gospel and a damnable heresy? Without a doubt! The history of the Christian Church reveals that this system of error has been rejected and deemed "damnable heresy". ( cf. The Canons of the Synod of Dordtrect ).
My thoughts exactly [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] I just found the notion entertaining and thought I'd share.
If this "two sides of a coin" so to speak were the true gospel, then there would really be 2 ways that a man is converted. One based on the sovereign electing love of God for His people, and another, one based on ones faith. <br><br>I have always believed it is another gospel, yet most pastors won't tell that for fear of offending.
The "two sides of the coin" some of us in England call "Calminianism"<br><br>It does"nt work!<br><br>As a former baptist, was I a heretic or just generally decieved by Satan ?<br><br>howard
In reply to:[color:"blue"]isn't Arminianism "another gospel"
Me thinks yes, as well.
Background of Edwards’s Sermons on Justification, Samuel T. Logan, Jr.
In the fall of 1734, writes Jonathan Edwards in his “Introduction” to A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, “began the great noise in this part of the country, about Arminianism, which seemed to appear with a very threatening aspect upon the interest of religion here.” With masterful understatement, Edwards continues, “There were some things said publicly on that occasion, concerning justification by faith alone.”
The things “said publicly” were Edwards’s own sermons on that subject, sermons consciously preached to counter the perceived Arminian threat. Was Edwards’s perception of that threat accurate? Probably so, as Ola Winslow indicates in her summary of the situation into which Edwards spoke.
The battle was already at hand. By 1734 heresy had filtered into his own parish. Men were beginning to take sides. He set himself to resist the oncoming tide. The result was a series of sermons designed to combat point by point what he believed to be the false doctrines of his theological opponents. His refutation was in Calvinistic idiom: the sovereignty of God, his inexorable justice, particularly justification by faith alone. Some of the more influential members of his congregation, particularly Israel Williams, the “monarch of Hampshire”, opposed the bringing of so controversial a theme into the pulpit. Their opposition was strongly put, but Jonathan Edwards chose to disregard their protests. His decision was the beginning of disharmony in the parish. It was also the beginning of the revival. According to his scale of values he had suffered “open abuse” in a good cause Because this series of sermons in their published form constitutes Edwards’s most careful, most thorough exposition of the doctrine of justification by faith, a firm grasp of their cause and effect elucidates their content significantly. Edwards’s own further description of the events of late 1734 thus provides helpful insight.
Although great fault was found with meddling with the controversy in the pulpit, by such a person, and at that time—and though it was ridiculed by many elsewhere—yet it proved a word spoken in season here; and was most evidently attended with a very remarkable blessing of heaven to the souls of the people in this town. They received thence a general satisfaction, with respect to the main thing in question, which they had been in trembling doubts and concern about; and their minds were engaged the more earnestly to seek that they might come to be accepted of God, and saved in the way of the gospel, which had been made evident to them to be the true and only way. And then it was, in the latter part of December, that the Spirit of God began extraordinarily to set in, and wonderfully to work amongst us; and there were, very suddenly, one after another, five or six persons, who were to all appearance savingly converted, and some of them wrought upon in a very remarkable manner.
In the context of Edwards’s preaching on justification, the Spirit of God worked mightily and the bulk of Narrative of Surprising Conversions describes the results of that work. Indeed, this work was the firstfruits of the Great Awakening which the Spirit brought to Northampton, to New England, and to much of America six years later.
So Edwards’s remarks on the doctrine of justification by faith alone must be understood, in at least one sense, as his response to a genuine Arminian challenge. But in the shadows of the Northampton meetinghouse lurked another threat, a threat of almost exactly one hundred years duration in New England Puritanism. On October 8, 1636, John Winthrop had noted in his Journal, “One Mrs. Hutchinson, a member of the church at Boston, a woman of ready wit and bold spirit, brought over with her two dangerous errors:
1. That the person of the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person.
2. That no sanctification can help us to evidence to us our justification.”
The wedge that Anne Hutchinson was driving between justification and sanctification, by seeking full identification of the Spirit with the believer, threatened the Holy Commonwealth because it undermined the Puritan attempt to identify visible saints, those who would structure and operate both church and state. Thomas Shepard answered this antinomian threat in his massive and pivotal The Parable of the Ten Virgins and Mrs. Hutchinson was banished by the General Court on November 2, 1637, and was excommunicated by the Boston church on March 22, 1638.
But the effects of antinomianism lingered, particularly in terms of the question of criteria for full admission to the Lord’s Supper. Relationships among ideas, beliefs, and political and sociological realities are always complex, and never more so than in seventeenth-century New England. Without seeking to unravel all these relationships, we can say that the question of the visibility of God’s saving work, the question of whether there is a reasonably discernible connection between faith and works remained a vital one throughout the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth.
Solomon Stoddard was Edwards’s grandfather and predecessor in the Northhampton pulpit and it was very shortly after he became the pastor there in 1669 that Stoddard began to reject the notion that regenerating grace may have visible effects (cf. Stoddard’s Appeal to the Learned). Critics differ as to whether Stoddard was an “arch-Calvinist” or a “Liberal.” Regardless of the label, the effect was to relax the criteria for admission to the Lord’s Supper and, more important for our purposes, to sever the visible connection between justification and sanctification in a manner similar to the proposals of Anne Hutchinson.
Stoddard’s unofficial title, the “Pope” of the Connecticut Valley, reflected the genuine reality of his overwhelming influence both on his people and on those of neighboring parishes. Thus, when Edwards arrived in 1726 to assist Stoddard, he was entering a situation where, ecclesiologically, a type of practical antinomianism predominated. Surely this judgment is open to misinterpretation and must be carefully qualified, but, in terms of the perceived relation between actual justification and visible sanctification, it remains accurate.
Edwards apparently accepted and practiced “Stoddard’s way,” even after Stoddard died in 1729. But by the time he wrote A Faithful Narrative (published in 1736) Edwards gave clear evidence of moving away from Stoddard back toward what he considered standard Puritan practice. In describing the conversions and new church memberships which occurred after the justification sermons, Edwards said this:
This dispensation has also appeared very extraordinary in the numbers of those on whom we have reason to hope it has had a saving effect. We have about six hundred and twenty communicants, which include almost all our adult persons. The church was very large before; but persons never thronged into it, as they did in the late extraordinary time.—Our sacraments are eight weeks asunder, and I received into our communion about a hundred before one sacrament, fourscore of them at one time, whose appearance, when they presented themselves together to make an open explicit profession of Christianity, was very affecting to the congregation. I took in near sixty before the next sacrament day: and I had very sufficient evidence of the conversion of their souls, through divine grace, though it is not the custom here, as it is in many other churches in this country, to make a credible relation of their inward experiences the ground of admission to the Lord’s Supper.
Of course, it was disagreement over precisely this issue which exacerbated the tensions between Edwards and his congregation and which contributed to his dismissal from the Northampton pulpit on June 22, 1750. That the matter of the necessary and visible relationship between justification and sanctification remained critical for Edwards is clearly manifested by the subject of his greatest work, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections (1746) and by the fact that, as John Smith points out in his introduction to the Yale edition of the Affections, the primary human influence evident in that treatise is Thomas Shepard’s Parable of the Ten Virgins.
Clearly, then, when Edwards mounted his pulpit in late 1734 to address his congregation on the subject of justification by faith alone, he was doing so in the context of the perceived opposite dangers of Arminianism and antinomianism. Exactly how is a man justified? What roles do God’s sovereign grace, human faith, and evangelical obedience play in the process? In his answer to these questions, Edwards sought to walk the razor’s edge of biblical truth while avoiding the illusory appeal of both Arminianism and antinomianism.
I would say you were just misled by Satan. I've grown up Southern Baptist, not the Founder's Movement SB, but modern, Arminian SB. It just seems to me like a misunderstanding for the most part.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/scratch1.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Dunno.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
