Is it valid to use the heretic label?

You see, Tim, that is where people fail to understand true Calvinism. Man can change, once he has been saved. So, there is hope that he can change for the better, and we shall pray that it be so.

Cheers,

Jim

Famous prayer reputedly made by Spurgeon, that great historical Calvinist; :Lord, save the elect, and elect some more."

 

Well, I'm not Arminian,so I wouldn't know. :tongue3:

But I guess we can only pray if it's ordained, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

That doesn't make sense. I thought the elect are saved. How can one pray for the Lord to save the elect? Are there elected people who will not be saved?

 

I heard that report myself a few decades ago and have always wondered if there's any truth to it. Spurgeon could be pretty wry, so it wouldn't surprise me if he popped that one off; yet it still seems improbable; and knowing how much fiction clutters Christian folklore, the improbability seems all the more improbabilistic.

 

In answer to the thread title, yes, it is valid to use the heretic label. This alone is not necessarily a 'negative', but a descriptive term. Likewise the use of the term heresy. In practice, it is usually used in a 'negative' sense. And in accordance with Scripture, is is stated that 'heresies must arise', as well. However as some have observed, all differences are not 'heresy' in the usual sense of the word. where does one "draw the line"? For example, I have recently been posting on "What day of the week was the crucifixion?" And I seem to find that not all agree with my POV, here. But this disagreement is not what I would call heresy, in any fashion. Ignorance or stupidity, maybe it is. :laugh: Heresy, it is not.

However the question of "Did the Lord Jesus Christ 'really die' on the cross?" or "Did only 'the fleshly body' die there?" would rightly be called an heresy, for one or the other view, IMO, for that question goes to the heart of "Who Jesus was and is?", and "Did the Lord Jesus Christ have one or two natures?" Other good examples would be "the Triune God", and "Is the Son 'less than' the Father?". These are 'heretical' types of issues.

Ed

 

Jim, surely you can't be serious, here. Pick one! I'll give just a few of many possible suggestions, bein' as I like to be so helpful- :tongue3:

Eastern Orthodox

Western Orthodox

Russian Orthodox

Greek Orthodox

Antiochian Orthodox

Manichean Orthodox

Coptic Orthodox

Armenian Orthodox

Anglican Orthodox

Ukrainian Orthodox

Georgian Orthodox

Orthodox Baptist - -Yep, there actually is a "First Orthodox Baptist Church" in Ardmore, OK

Orthodox Primitive Baptist Church - Again, Yep it do exist! "Zion Orthodox Primitive Baptist Church" in Cocoa, FL. This one is listed for you, BrotherBob! {laugh} {laugh}

Orthodox Presbyte...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Well, I'll be! I am an official Cockney, having been born under the sound of Bow bells,,,,I guess that makes me an Orthodox Cockney:smilewinkgrin:

Cheers,

Jim

 

And since 'le Bow' appears to be Anglican, guess you'd consider the Orthodox Anglican or Orthodox Episcopal Church (Yeah, there are some of these, too.) from whence to derive orthodoxy - no? :tongue3: :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

Ed

 

I grew up and was schooled in Church of England church and schools. I am quite familiar with orthodox Anglican churches............consider All Soul's Church in London for example...most everyone has either read a book by him or heard of him......Stott.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hi Marcia,

It's a little off topic, but you've got a misunderstanding. Not all of the elect are already saved even though they surely will be. Consider what Paul says in 2 Timothy 2:10: "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." If Paul can endure hardship so that the elect will obtain salvation then surely we ought to pray that the elect would obtain salvation.

 

Jim, what are your thoughts on J.C. Ryle. Was he not in the Anglican church?
He does happen to be a favorite author of mine.
(sorry to jump off topic here)

 

I'd say that before you condemn somebody else as a heretic because you believe they misunderstand some point of doctrine that you hold, you'd better make absolutely sure you have perfect understanding of all doctrines yourself. Remember, by what ever measure you judge....

I don't believe I am called to a gospel of condemnation. I'm told that if I have to correct a brother who is in error I am to do it in love. Too often I see brothers and sisters going after those who have a different understanding of certain doctrines in an agressive way that seems to have a spirit of condemnation rather than of love.

In 1 Corinthians 4:21 Paul asks: "What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?"

I'm also taught that the love of Christ surpasses all knowledge. It is far better to express Christ's love that to proclaim what I think is my perfect understanding of doctrine.

 

2bhizown,

There are many, many good Anglican authors, Bishop Ryle being one of them. I am simply amazed at many things I read in here about Anglicans, and wonder who they are talking about.

I was led to the Lord Jesus during my confirmation at age 13..many years ago. As a matter of fact, there is a condition in Anglican circles to immerse an adult upon conversion, and at their request. The minister must abide by the request.

The church is quite split to-day, but there are more evangelicals than liberals in both Canada and England, and especially in Africa.

I became a Baptist through my PB friends in London who directed me to the British Baptist Union, where I was schooled and ordained to ministry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The use of the term heresy has nothing to do with misunderstanding some point of doctrine, nor does it have to do with minor doctrines. It has to do with denying the essentials of the faith.

The love of Christ surpassing knowledge does not mean we are not to be discerning and that we are not to warn believers of false teachings. If you think that, you have not read 1 or 2 Timothy lately, and other passages, which urge us to hold to sound doctrine (or teaching - doctrine just means teachings).

The Christian faith does have content to it - it is not a feeling or experience or just knowing the love of Christ. We were given teachings in the Bible.

Paul himself rebuked false teachers by name in a few places, and we are told that false teachers would arise in the church. Paul, in one of his last messages to the church (in Acts 20), and knowing he might be imprisoned, warns of this:

This is still going on today! We can point these things out in love, but we cannot compromise with the wolves, or be silent.

 

I am so glad I didn't have liquid in my mouth when I read this!

 

Is it not better to go to the person via email or IM rather than calling him/her a heretic?

It's been my experience that once terms like heretic start getting thrown around, the topic is no longer reconcilable. If you really believe someone is a heretic, calling him one isn't going to change him, but rather make him/her dig their proverbial feet in.

 

And that was really what the OP was about, should the C/A call each other heretics on this Board? I have but it usually ended up in a heated battle. Don't know if I will do it again or not for there is always nature to deal with but think we could handle this like adults and call each other doo doo heads instead.

 

Calling someone a heretic usually tells me more about the person making the charge than about the one to whom it’s being charged.

Rob

 

Sometimes it is valid, by dictionary definition, to call one an heretic, but it is seldom prudent to do so.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Does this include Paul?

How about 'heresy'?

Would you include Paul and Peter?

Ed