On Heresy

[JonC]

Heresy is a theological doctrine or system rejected as false by ecclesiastical authority (Britannica). It is an opinion contrary to church dogma, a dissent from dominant theory or practice, or an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to generally accepted standards (Merriam-Webster). The first known use is the 13th Century AD.

In 1618 Arminianism was condemned as a heresy (by the Reformed Church) and Arminius along with his followers (the Remonstrance) were condemned as heretics. Part of this became what is known as the “Five Points of Calvinism”. This was the entire purpose for the Synod of Dort (and the Five Points of Calvinism) – to judge whether or not the Five Articles of the Remonstrance and the doctrines associated with James Arminius were a departure enough to constitute heresy in regards to Reformed Theology.

I do not understand why a Calvinist, whose own theology holds Arminianism to be a heresy, is offended to learn that non-Calvinists in turn view their doctrine in much the same manner. But repeatedly this seems to be the case.

It appears that one group (here Calvinists) want to stick together and fight against doctrine in opposition to their opinion while at the same time being offended when non-Calvinists hold firm to their non-Calvinistic views. This does not make sense.

 

[InTheLight]

I do not understand why a Calvinist, whose own theology holds Arminianism to be a heresy, is offended to learn that non-Calvinists in turn view their doctrine in much the same manner. But repeatedly this seems to be the case.

I don't understand why you continually attempt to explain this to them. And I will say that the problem isn't that you are not explaining your position clearly enough. You are doing a great job delineating what heresy means to you.

It's obvious that this clique of Calvinists on BB are offended by just about anything you say, so my advice would be to simply let it go.

A Calvinist on another thread just said that footwashing was part of the Big Stuff that all Pentecostals get wrong.

 

[JonC]

I don't understand why you continually attempt to explain this to them. And I will say that the problem isn't that you are not explaining your position clearly enough. You are doing a great job delineating what heresy means to you.

It's obvious that this clique of Calvinists on BB are offended by just about anything you say, so my advice would be to simply let it go.

A Calvinist on another thread just said that footwashing was part of the Big Stuff that all Pentecostals get wrong.

Good advise. I guess I was starting to think I typed in a different language. But this is encouraging to me.

 

[Sai]

Heresy is a theological doctrine or system rejected as false by ecclesiastical authority (Britannica). It is an opinion contrary to church dogma, a dissent from dominant theory or practice, or an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to generally accepted standards (Merriam-Webster). The first known use is the 13th Century AD.

In 1618 Arminianism was condemned as a heresy (by the Reformed Church) and Arminius along with his followers (the Remonstrance) were condemned as heretics. Part of this became what is known as the “Five Points of Calvinism”. This was the entire purpose for the Synod of Dort (and the Five Points of Calvinism) – to judge whether or not the Five Articles of the Remonstrance and the doctrines associated with James Arminius were a departure enough to constitute heresy in regards to Reformed Theology.

I do not understand why a Calvinist, whose own theology holds Arminianism to be a heresy, is offended to learn that non-Calvinists in turn view their doctrine in much the same manner. But repeatedly this seems to be the case.

It appears that one group (here Calvinists) want to stick together and fight against doctrine in opposition to their opinion while at the same time being offended when non-Calvinists hold firm to their non-Calvinistic views. This does not make sense.

My observation is that the doctrine of predestination is a milk doctrine. And that both sides have very intelligent men of God arguing their sides. However, the scriptures are not given to men of higher or lower education but equally to all believers and the single most important tool in mastering the whole counsel of the word of God is humility.

Hyper Calvinism is the logical conclusion of how God’s sovereignty overshadows everything pertaining to mankind in soteriology. But because of the scriptures that call for man’s cooperation in his salvation by faith, there are those on opposite sides that want to point out inconsistencies in the teachings of limited atonement and predestination of the non elect to hell.

I admire the strengths of arguments on both, it’s quite entertaining. But once again, it is not, even if it appears to, and does incorporate the brilliant minds of both sides, a meat doctrine. It is a milk doctrine for baby believers, one needs to settle the issue in their own heart and move on to the meat of the word of truth.

Perhaps the lack of one’s Israelology which is imperative in establishing a solid foundation in eschatology, is the lure that entraps believers in the endless cycle for victory in this realm of biblical understanding.

 

[JonC]

My observation is that the doctrine of predestination is a milk doctrine. And that both sides have very intelligent men of God arguing their sides. However, the scriptures are not given to men of higher or lower education but equally to all believers and the single most important tool in mastering the whole counsel of the word of God is humility.

Hyper Calvinism is the logical conclusion of how God’s sovereignty overshadows everything pertaining to mankind in soteriology. But because of the scriptures that call for man’s cooperation in his salvation by faith, there are those on opposite sides that want to point out inconsistencies in the teachings of limited atonement and predestination of the non elect to hell.

I admire the strengths of arguments on both, it’s quite entertaining. But once again, it is not, even if it appears to, and does incorporate the brilliant minds of both sides, a meat doctrine. It is a milk doctrine for baby believers, one needs to settle the issue in their own heart and move on to the meat of the word of truth.

Perhaps the lack of one’s Israelology which is imperative in establishing a solid foundation in eschatology, is the lure that entraps believers in the endless cycle for victory in this realm of biblical understanding.

When I started seminary (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away) I had a professor that said something similar.

He told us that the Calvinism debate was an undergraduate topic we should have outgrown. The theological topic for graduate school was Divine Love. This is a move toward spiritual truth while the latter was a Christian philosophical exercise.

The older I get the more I see truth in his comments. I probably should have long ago, but I wasn’t the quickest student.

Time helps where youthful intellect has failed me. I may not remember what I’m talking about any more, but I"m at the point where I am pretty sure that I do not have to be too dogmatic about it.

 

[Sai]

When I started seminary (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away) I had a professor that said something similar.

He told us that the Calvinism debate was an undergraduate topic we should have outgrown. The theological topic for graduate school was Divine Love. This is a move toward spiritual truth while the latter was a Christian philosophical exercise.

The older I get the more I see truth in his comments. I probably should have long ago, but I wasn’t the quickest student.

Time helps where youthful intellect has failed me. I may not remember what I’m talking about any more, but I"m at the point where I am pretty sure that I do not have to be too dogmatic about it.

Thank you. I did not attend seminary but have been discipled by some of today’s leading scholars.

Before my acquaintances I too felt that love of the brotherhood was the top goal for the teaching elders. However, although true, this too is only a part in the whole counsel of the word of God. Because prophecy makes up 27% of the Bible I would argue for this topic to be at the top of the hidden meat teachings of God’s word.

In the book of Revelation everything with the exception of the teaching on the eternal order after the Messianic Kingdom was already spoken by the Old Testament prophets. What Revelation does is to put into chronological order what was impossible to do by the reading of the OT prophets by themselves. Daniel can not be fully understood without Revelation and visa versa.

Because all of the dealings of God to us-ward since Abraham has been contractual through the Jewish nation of Israel, it is imperative to study the prophetic portions of scripture from a first century Jewish perspective. And not just that, but a first century believing Jew’s perspective which is who the authors of the New Testament were, including Luke.

To ignore this underlying truth as students of the Hebrew Bible is ignorance and in much of the cases, willful ignorance as is taught from the replacement theologians. Although not heretical it is not beneficial for us if we desire to live skillfully for God as Ps 90 instructs.

 

[atpollard]

It appears that one group (here Calvinists) want to stick together and fight against doctrine in opposition to their opinion while at the same time being offended when non-Calvinists hold firm to their non-Calvinistic views. This does not make sense.

Of course it makes sense, God is Sovereign and the view that places man in the salvation drivers seat is simply wrong.

[See, there was a simple explanation.].

 

[atpollard]

He told us that the Calvinism debate was an undergraduate topic we should have outgrown. The theological topic for graduate school was Divine Love. This is a move toward spiritual truth while the latter was a Christian philosophical exercise.

Yet the board has a “Calvinism & Arminianism Debate” section, but no “Divine Love” section ... just sayin’

 

[JonC]

Yet the board has a “Calvinism & Arminianism Debate” section, but no “Divine Love” section ... just sayin’

The Divine Love topic is a difficult topic (and much more complex). It brings up the real issues and makes demands of us.

 

[atpollard]

The Divine Love topic is a difficult topic (and much more complex). It brings up the real issues and makes demands of us.

Well then, as Christians, we certainly don’t want to go there.
Pass the milk and ... Calvin was not responsible for the death of Servetus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Heresy is a theological doctrine or system rejected as false by ecclesiastical authority (Britannica). It is an opinion contrary to church dogma, a dissent from dominant theory or practice, or an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to generally accepted standards (Merriam-Webster). The first known use is the 13th Century AD.

In 1618 Arminianism was condemned as a heresy (by the Reformed Church) and Arminius along with his followers (the Remonstrance) were condemned as heretics. Part of this became what is known as the “Five Points of Calvinism”. This was the entire purpose for the Synod of Dort (and the Five Points of Calvinism) – to judge whether or not the Five Articles of the Remonstrance and the doctrines associated with James Arminius were a departure enough to constitute heresy in regards to Reformed Theology.

I do not understand why a Calvinist, whose own theology holds Arminianism to be a heresy, is offended to learn that non-Calvinists in turn view their doctrine in much the same manner. But repeatedly this seems to be the case.

It appears that one group (here Calvinists) want to stick together and fight against doctrine in opposition to their opinion while at the same time being offended when non-Calvinists hold firm to their non-Calvinistic views. This does not make sense.

Not all of us would see non cals as into heresy, as I reserve that for any who would hold that we still have sufficient free will to save ourselves without any gracing by God required, but many into Arm theology just misunderstood biblical salvation proper!

 

[JonC]

Not all of us would see non cals as into heresy, as I reserve that for any who would hold that we still have sufficient free will to save ourselves without any gracing by God required, but many into Arm theology just misunderstood biblical salvation proper!

But Calvinism (in the Synod of Dort) itself defines Arminianism as heresy. That is all I am saying.

 

[atpollard]

But Calvinism (in the Synod of Dort) itself defines Arminianism as heresy. That is all I am saying.

Are you advocating the burning of General Baptists unless they recant? [Yes, I am a troublemaker ... it is my "spiritual gift".]

 

[JonC]

Are you advocating the burning of General Baptists unless they recant? [Yes, I am a troublemaker ... it is my "spiritual gift".]

Scripture calls for us to burn heretics and Yankee fans

 

[Yeshua1]

But Calvinism (in the Synod of Dort) itself defines Arminianism as heresy. That is all I am saying.

Did the scriptures themselves do that though?

 

[JonC]

Did the scriptures themselves do that though?

No. But our reasoning through Scripture may. There is a difference between what is in the text of Scripture and what people understand is being taught by that text. This is often the placed where doctrines diverge from one another.

 

[atpollard]

Did the scriptures themselves do that though?

[Rev 20:15 NASB] 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
[Luke 10:37 NASB] 37 ... Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

[Did I mention that I am a troublemaker?]

 

[Yeshua1]

[Rev 20:15 NASB] 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
[Luke 10:37 NASB] 37 ... Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same."

[Did I mention that I am a troublemaker?]

Usually heard that applied to "and Judas went and hung himself!"

 

[atpollard]

Usually heard that applied to "and Judas went and hung himself!"

Plucking verses (and parts of verses) out of context is VERY flexible. Ask Joel Osteen.

 

[JonC]

Plucking verses (and parts of verses) out of context is VERY flexible. Ask Joel Osteen.

When you tell them all these things they will not listen to you - Jer 7:27.