Featured On Heresy

I think it is a family argument, but we live in different homes.

What I mean is we have to honestly look at these theologies honestly and objectively. At the same time we should recognize the differences are not of eternal significance (they are within the Christian faith and Christians are in both camps).

Think of an apartment building. The building is Christianity. Each apartment is related to the building, but they share different relationships to their direct neighbor and their floor.

While Arminianism is not a branch of Calvinism, it is "Calvinistic thinking" to a very large extent (it was a difference within Calvinism until it was declared heresy in relation to Calvinism). It shares a Calvinistic way of looking at redemption whereas other non-Calvinistic views do not as they were never a part of Calvinism.

Likewise, there is a commonality between Reformed doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine that is not shared by other Christian theologies.

The reason for this is often (perhaps always) in doctrines answering for or trying to correct what it sees as fault within its own theology. The theology splits (Calvinists declare Arminianism heresy, Arminianism considers Calvinism an error).

 

I agree except maybe within the SBC (we have have had a lot of hoopla about Calvinism in the past). Even here, though, most probably only know or care that it's a topic that have captured the minds of some.

I personally agree with @Barry Johnson that both should be dropped altogether.

 

Once anything "takes hold" it is hard to come out.

Calvinism is just one understanding of Scripture. There are many others. But the majority of the time people will stick with their first indoctrination until they find something that they cannot reconcile. Most who moved to Calvinism did so for this reason (they found an "error" in their first teaching that Calvinism addressed to their satisfaction). The same goes for those who have left Calvinism.

You do point out something I believe most Calvinists miss - and that is that Calvinists (some, not all) often stop growing once they take that system on board. The "growth" becomes directed towards Calvinism and not Scripture or God (it becomes less about God and more about Calvinism as a system). But I suspect this depends on how people hold to Calvinism and does not apply to all...perhaps not even most....Calvinists. It is easy to broad brush, but often the loudest segment is not even close to representing the whole.


Years ago I wrestled with some "errors". I became a Calvinist because Calvinism provided an answer to those "errors". But over time I noticed other "errors" and ended up leaving Calvinism for the same reasons. I took with me an appreciation for Calvinists and aspects of the theology. Calvinism provided biblical answers for those things I was considering. However after years of study I began to see cracks in the foundation..

I believe we are led from glory to glory in terms of sanctification. But I also believe this applies to our understanding. We should never stop growing closer to God in mind and spirit.

 

I disagree, then, but just based on my experience.

I lived in Middle Tennessee (which may be the reason, perhaps regional?) and there was a time when our congregations were aware of Calvinists "creeping" into church staff. Our church added a few questions to address concerns (not so much as to keep Calvinists from being hired but to prevent hiring a "cage stage" Calvinist who would sow discord). At the local convention level we also payed attention to David Platt's interview process (a few years ago Platt was being considered and chosen for president of IMB).

So within our area there was concern that Calvinism could be a divisive element, and our churches were fairly vocal about focusing not on Calvinism but on more significant doctrines and leaving Calvinism up to the individual.

But this may have been more because of the area I was in, I suppose. It may not have been a larger SBC issue. I am not judging the broader landscape by looking at my own yard, just telling you we were concerned about weeds.

 

Interesting.

I can think of two reasons our areas viewed these things differently (but am not sure how much either applied). First, I wonder if it is because we were close to the SBC headquarters. But second, and probably more importantly, I wonder if it is the influence of Presbyterian schools in our area. Most of our pastors sent their children to private schools (and most to a Presbyterian school). Several members of our churches worked as teachers at these schools (for their children's tuition) and often were outspoken about some of the things the children would say regarding election.

Do you think it is healthy for SBC churches to be ignorant of these issues when they have taken such a role in the academic and at the Convention level in the SBC?

As a SBC pastor I know that you were informed (if I recall correctly, you even posted on the BB about young Calvinistic pastors splitting churches). Is this something that is appropriate for one level (perhaps a staff level at a church) but should be hidden from the congregation to keep a focus on the Kingdom?

 

I agree but at the same time I think that we have to guard against "outside doctrines".

 

I am not using the Greek word hairetikos, nor quoting Scripture. I was using the word "heresy".

heresy (n.)
"doctrine or opinion at variance with established standards" (or, as Johnson defines it, "an opinion of private men different from that of the catholick and orthodox church"), c. 1200, from Old French heresie, eresie "heresy," and by extension "sodomy, immorality" (12c.), from Latin hæresis, "school of thought, philosophical sect." The Latin word is from Greek hairesis "a taking or choosing for oneself, a choice, a means of taking; a deliberate plan, purpose; philosophical sect, school," from haireisthai "take, seize," middle voice of hairein "to choose," a word of unknown origin, perhaps cognate with Hittite šaru "booty," Welsh herw "booty;" but Beekes offers "no etymology."

The Greek word was used by Church writers in reference to various sects, schools, etc. in the New Testament: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and even the Christians, as sects of Judaism. Hence the meaning "unorthodox religious sect or doctrine" in the Latin word as used by Christian writers in Late Latin. But in English bibles it usually is translated sect. Transferred (non-religious) use in English is from late 14c. heresy | Origin and meaning of heresy by Online Etymology Dictionary

Traditionally "heresy" means a departure from Roman Catholic doctrine. I am, under the traditional use of "heresy" a "heretic" because I am a Baptist. "Heresy" means "unorthodox". A "heretic" is a person who holds "unorthodox" views ("heresies"). You called my views "unorthodox" in the past. I did not complain because I knew that in terms of Christianity they were orthodox (in terms of Reformed Theology they were not).

But I gave you how I was using the word. I defined it for you in the context of my own post. I defined it in the micro (as a departure from the doctrines of a specific sect of Christianity).

You are being dishonest that I used "heresy" to bully because I cannot answer with Scripture. I used the word to say that certain beliefs are "unorthodox" or "heresies" by necessity to smaller sects (infant baptism is "unorthodox" to Baptist doctrine; your view of "spiritual death" is unorthodox to SBC doctrine, etc.). Nowhere did I bully anyone (I also said that my belief is "unorthodox" or heresy to the RCC and Reformed Theology.

The argument had nothing to do with Scripture. It had to do with the use of the English word applied to Christian sects and denominationalism.


Do you not think it an overreaction to have such an outburst over one word when I have given you the context and definition of how I am using the word?


This is a "politically correct" issue, not a proper usage of a word debate. You simply do not like the word because of the meaning you - not I - would provide. But since it was my post and I defined it so that it would not be an issue, do you not see how childish it is to have such a tantrum and demand all bow to your expectations?


If the Administration bans words like "heresy" then I'll of course comply. We will have to include synonyms like "unorthodox" and of course "orthodox" as its inverse. But until then I respect the English language and will use words to convey its meaning rather than the "feelings" others may associate with the terms. A while back you took exception to "Reformed Tradition". What about "unorthodox"?