On Heresy

[Marooncat79]

If I tell you I’ll have to kill you

Just so we understand each other, you are threatening me w heaven?

 

[Derf B]

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.

From Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.

It seems to me that if there is a particular doctrine or set of doctrines that are causing division, we should work to resolve it, rather than just continuously splintering into more and more denominations “implying no reproach”.

I believe I have the answer to the Arminian/Calvinism debate. Both are working from the assumption that God knows everything that will come to pass, but say there is difference in how he knows it, leading both into irreconcilable contradictions.

Thus the resolution is to let go of the presupposition that God knows everything that will come to pass—remembering that He has the power to make His purposes come to pass and that He wants a people to relate to Him.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

From Webster’s 1828 dictionary:
A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion. But in countries where there is an established church, an opinion is deemed heresy when it differs from that of the church. The Scriptures being the standard of faith, any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines, is heresy; but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another. In Scripture and primitive usage, heresy meant merely sect, party, or the doctrines of a sect, as we now use denomination or persuasion, implying no reproach.

It seems to me that if there is a particular doctrine or set of doctrines that are causing division, we should work to resolve it, rather than just continuously splintering into more and more denominations “implying no reproach”.

I believe I have the answer to the Arminian/Calvinism debate. Both are working from the assumption that God knows everything that will come to pass, but say there is difference in how he knows it, leading both into irreconcilable contradictions.

Thus the resolution is to let go of the presupposition that God knows everything that will come to pass—remembering that He has the power to make His purposes come to pass and that He wants a people to relate to Him.

Are you trying to get yourself labeled a heretic by both sides?

 

[Derf B]

Are you trying to get yourself labeled a heretic by both sides?

Equal opportunity heretic!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Barry Johnson]

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.

As bible believers we would do well to drop Calvinsm and Arminism altogether. Neither of these systems are useful for Christianty . Its a ' in house ' squabble . Both systems are false for the same reasons . Because they are so popular it confuses the Body . Calvinism comes and goes in strength roughly every five years . We are currently in the up swing of calvinism infiltration. You only have to type in a bible question on Google and the top hits will be Reformed sites .Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

 

[JonC]

As bible believers we would do well to drop Calvinsm and Arminism altogether. Neither of these systems are useful for Christianty . Its a ' in house ' squabble . Both systems are false for the same reasons . Because they are so popular it confuses the Body . Calvinism comes and goes in strength roughly every five years . We are currently in the up swing of calvinism infiltration. You only have to type in a bible question on Google and the top hits will be Reformed sites .Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

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).

 

[Revmitchell]

As bible believers we would do well to drop Calvinsm and Arminism altogether. Neither of these systems are useful for Christianty . Its a ' in house ' squabble . Both systems are false for the same reasons . Because they are so popular it confuses the Body . Calvinism comes and goes in strength roughly every five years . We are currently in the up swing of calvinism infiltration. You only have to type in a bible question on Google and the top hits will be Reformed sites .Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

The average church member knows nothing about either.

 

[JonC]

The average church member knows nothing about either.

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.

 

[Barry Johnson]

The average church member knows nothing about either.

I agree , but sadly they are like frogs in boiling water . They don't realise until its too late . I believe once calvinism takes hold its hard to come out . What's the harm some might say?Well in short the Gospel . I believe calvinists can no longer grow once they take the system on board. I don't believe anyone is saved because of calvinism, its inspite of it . I believe the errors of Lordship salvation / perseverance of the saints causes so much damage to believers . ( i do not hold to loss of salvation but make a sharp distinction between the P in Tulip )

 

[AustinC]

As bible believers we would do well to drop Calvinsm and Arminism altogether. Neither of these systems are useful for Christianty . Its a ' in house ' squabble . Both systems are false for the same reasons . Because they are so popular it confuses the Body . Calvinism comes and goes in strength roughly every five years . We are currently in the up swing of calvinism infiltration. You only have to type in a bible question on Google and the top hits will be Reformed sites .Arminianism is a branch of Calvinistic thinking, and it is wrong for all the same reasons that Calvinism is wrong.

Since 99.99% of people don't know anything about Arminius or Calvin, it would be good to stop using their names as a cheap way to get out of an argument. Just address scripture and let the observation of scripture (in its context) stand on its own merit. It would be lovely if you would do this.

 

[Barry Johnson]

Since 99.99% of people don't know anything about Arminius or Calvin, it would be good to stop using their names as a cheap way to get out of an argument. Just address scripture and let the observation of scripture (in its context) stand on its own merit. It would be lovely if you would do this.

Since 99.99% of people don't know anything about Arminius or Calvin, it would be good to stop using their names as a cheap way to get out of an argument. Just address scripture and let the observation of scripture (in its context) stand on its own merit. It would be lovely if you would do this.

I think your percentages maybe a little strong . And I have been refuting many Calvernist and Arminian proof texts on here .

 

[JonC]

I agree , but sadly they are like frogs in boiling water . They don't realise until its too late . I believe once calvinism takes hold its hard to come out . What's the harm some might say?Well in short the Gospel . I believe calvinists can no longer grow once they take the system on board. I don't believe anyone is saved because of calvinism, its inspite of it . I believe the errors of Lordship salvation / perseverance of the saints causes so much damage to believers . ( i do not hold to loss of salvation but make a sharp distinction between the P in Tulip )

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

Not even in the SBC

 

[JonC]

Not even in the SBC

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

I have pastored 4 churches in two different states. None of them or anyone I came across in those associations new or cared.

 

[JonC]

I have pastored 4 churches in two different states. None of them or anyone I came across in those associations new or cared.

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

It might be better to look at what the word of God says rather than at secular sources. The Greek word is hairesis.
In Acts of the Apostles 24:14, heresy was the way that the Jews looked upon Christians (they stoned Stephen).
In 1 Corinthians 11:19, heresies showed who were true Christians and who weren't.
In Galatians 5:20, heresies are the work of the flesh.
In 2 Peter 2:1, heresies are secretly brought in by false teachers and are damnable.
In Titus 3:10, a heretic (Gk. hairetikos) is to be expelled from the church after two warnings.

So if we use the word 'heretic,' we should be clear that we are talking about someone who is unsaved, on his way to hell, and who should be expelled from his church.
If the moderators believe that someone is a heretic, they should warn him and then exclude him from the board. 'A little leaven leavens the whole lump' (Galatians 5:9).

I have never, and would never, accuse anyone of heresy on this board or any other. What Calvin may or may not have done in the 16th Century is not relevant.

The word 'heresy' should never, ever be used on a discussion forum. People who use it willfully, should be warned and then disciplined. If a member genuinely believes that someone on the board is a heretic, he should report it to the moderators, and if they agree, they should do their duty in expelling him.

Unfortunately, one moderator uses the word to bully people whom he can't answer with Scripture, and the other mods are too gutless to stop him.

I am finished on this board so long as people are allowed to go on accusing others of heresy; not because I care two hoots what @JonC thinks of me, but because it is a form of online bullying that should not be allowed. I have made a copy of this post, and if it is deleted or snipped in any way I shall keep on posting it until I am banned.

 

[Revmitchell]

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 dont think it should be an issue. Preach the truth clearly and when calvinism shows its ugly head they will know the difference. Any time I have brought it up they are surprised and concerned about both.

 

[JonC]

I dont think it should be an issue. Preach the truth clearly and when calvinism shows its ugly head they will know the difference. Any time I have brought it up they are surprised and concerned about both.

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

 

[JonC]

It might be better to look at what the word of God says rather than at secular sources. The Greek word is hairesis.
In Acts of the Apostles 24:14, heresy was the way that the Jews looked upon Christians (they stoned Stephen).
In 1 Corinthians 11:19, heresies showed who were true Christians and who weren't.
In Galatians 5:20, heresies are the work of the flesh.
In 2 Peter 2:1, heresies are secretly brought in by false teachers and are damnable.
In Titus 3:10, a heretic (Gk. hairetikos) is to be expelled from the church after two warnings.

So if we use the word 'heretic,' we should be clear that we are talking about someone who is unsaved, on his way to hell, and who should be expelled from his church.
If the moderators believe that someone is a heretic, they should warn him and then exclude him from the board. 'A little leaven leavens the whole lump' (Galatians 5:9).

I have never, and would never, accuse anyone of heresy on this board or any other. What Calvin may or may not have done in the 16th Century is not relevant.

The word 'heresy' should never, ever be used on a discussion forum. People who use it willfully, should be warned and then disciplined. If a member genuinely believes that someone on the board is a heretic, he should report it to the moderators, and if they agree, they should do their duty in expelling him.

Unfortunately, one moderator uses the word to bully people whom he can't answer with Scripture, and the other mods are too gutless to stop him.

I am finished on this board so long as people are allowed to go on accusing others of heresy; not because I care two hoots what @JonC thinks of me, but because it is a form of online bullying that should not be allowed. I have made a copy of this post, and if it is deleted or snipped in any way I shall keep on posting it until I am banned.

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"?