Quote:
Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter  I believe the Federal Vision is Heresy. What do you think Tom? Or would you rather just call it error? |
Is this the post?
Anyway, since the Federal Vision controversy is contemporary, how 'bout we use something a bit more 17th century.
The Canons of Dordt were written to specifically combat the heresy of Arminianism. I would contend that the legitimate errors of the Federal Vision are heresy in the same sense as Arminianism.
However, if you read Dordt they simply speak with language like "the Synod rejects the errors of those … ." I would speak similarly of the legitimate errors of FV.
I believe the Protestant Reformers saw the novelties of the (Ana)Baptists in much the same light, charging that such views were heresy in the sense that they deviated from the historic views of the Church on things like paedobaptism and immersionist baptism.
A legitimate question might be, where do we draw the line of error -> heresy -> damnable heresy? I think we would agree that things like Unitarianism are damnable heresies. I might suggest the same is true of Pelagianism. What about Arminianism? Are all Arminians damnable heretics or just garden-variety heretics? What about dispensationalism?
I’m not trying to evade your question unless you are trying to box me into a corner.
