what is a damnable heresy?

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

I was talking to my headmaster today about one of my classes (reformed doctrine). He taught it in the past, therefore is chronically interested in how I am going to teach it. I am following the WCF as it is the confession that the school subscribes to, but there is a very eclectic mix of denominational backgrounds.

So here is my question, what is a damnable heresy? I have lots of thoughts on this, and will jump in when they are relevant.

 

[Grymir]

Liberalism, Barth!

 

[DMcFadden]

Liberalism, Barth!

Pretty cheeky from a mainline PCUSAer. The bulk of them are either liberal OR Barthian. Actually, you cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect without doing violence to the law non-contradiction. But, my wife has said the same thing since she took a class from a Barthian in college back in the early 70s. It took me years to get her to get the chip off her shoulder towards systematic theologians generally.

 

[TimV]

Liberalism, Barth!

You don't give up, do you?

OK, name something held by Barth (no, I'm not a fan of Barth) with quotations by Barth, that will send someone to Hell.

If you can't, please stop with the Rush type hit and run, and come out and say that you've falsely accused someone, because it's getting old.

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

What is a damnable heresy? And why?

I say damnable, for while I disagree and find women elders, and many other things to be unbiblical, I do not find these theological positions to be damnable.

Ones that might be potentially damnable is NT Wright's recasting of justification (See Piper's book for a wonderful critique), John Stott's formerly held position of annihilationalism, a denial of the trinity, and/or inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Grymir]

Liberalism, Barth!

Pretty cheeky from a mainline PCUSAer. The bulk of them are either liberal OR Barthian. Actually, you cannot be both at the same time and in the same respect without doing violence to the law non-contradiction. But, my wife has said the same thing since she took a class from a Barthian in college back in the early 70s. It took me years to get her to get the chip off her shoulder towards systematic theologians generally.

Oh I know. They are all over my church, that's why they are at the top of my list!! Barth in particular. I like your law of non-contradiction comparison.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Heresy and Truth by George Gillespie
Heresy - What is heresy? by George Gillespie

 

[Davidius]

In the NT, people normally are kept out of heaven for moral reasons, rather than believing the wrong propositions. The only cases I can think of off the top of my head which involves condemnation for an incorrect belief is John's discussion of the antichrists who teach that Christ "did not come in the flesh," and Paul's warning that those who preach "another Gospel" are anathema (meaning in context that those who say that faith in Christ wasn't enough, but that people had to become Jewish).

 

[Grymir]

Liberalism, Barth!

You don't give up, do you?

OK, name something held by Barth (no, I'm not a fan of Barth) with quotations by Barth, that will send someone to Hell.

If you can't, please stop with the Rush type hit and run, and come out and say that you've falsely accused someone, because it's getting old.

Hi TimV! No, I don't give up, and won't either. I'm complimented that you compared me to Rush. You do have the freedom to ignore what I am saying, but I think a good question to ask is why? Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.

Obviously, you don't know my past to much. I used to be a long haired liberal. To the core. I blame my public schooling and my parents upbring. I wish I could go back and sue my school for the liberal education they gave me. The fact of evolution; that marriage doesn't matter and shacking up is a viable alternative; and the bad philosophy that underpins everything are a few of the items. I noticed that you home-school your children. They are soo lucky! You haved saved them from the years of heartache and pain that I had to go through because of the ideas that mine put in my head. (Mega-Dittos by the way to getting home school legalized). Ayn Rand explains it best in her book "The Return of the Primitive". Ideas do have Consequences. Serious Consequences.

Now on to Barth. Have you read his 'Prayer and Preaching'? He says that sin should never be mentioned unless it is about/with the cross of Jesus. He specifically excludes saying to people that they are sinners. Since admitting that you are a sinner IS a requirement to be saved, how would somebody get into heaven without admitting such?

For both Liberals and Barthians in general, how can somebody be saved if they don't know their need for a savior? Many people attend church without hearing the true gospel from Pastors who have been taught Liberalism and Barth. My church is no exception. A self-help/man-centered solution pop psycology sermon is a damnable herasy. That life is better with God than without is at the core of Barthian/Liberal theology. And that won't save.

I have friends who are heavy into Barth, and see the consternation that it caused later in their lifes when the going gets tough, and there's no answer in a God who is wholy other. He left the Church's of Christ and sits in my Sunday School class. His wife passed away recently, and I wonder how he holds on sometimes. He's an ex-Pastor, and everybody gives him the Pastor treatment, so nobody realy cares, though they put on a show, because they think that if they are nice to a Paster, they earn brownie points with God. Which is also a damnable herasy. Nothing but the blood of Jesus. Nothing!

Now to those who have noticed that I've shown the damnable part, but what about the heresy part? hmmm

Only by reading the Bible did I get to know God (Although He grabbed me!) and by the power of the Holy Spirit did my scales fall away, and my eyes were opened to the TRUTH! I make no apologies and take no quarter. And it never gets old.

Barth denies that the Bible is the written Word of God. Oh yeah, he 'uses' the words, but it's only when we pick up and read the Bible and become 'moved' like the writers does it become the 'Word of God' to us. The Bible isn't propositional truths, but statements about relationship to Him. And that we can't know God in propositional truths, but only in relational terms. Philosophicaly, that's not good. And if a little person like me can see it, why did people buy into it? (But that's another thread that I did long ago, which was quite interesting) If the Bible is laying in the woods, and there's nobody their to read it, is it the Word of God?

There's the heresy part for Barth, but what about the liberals? Any person grounded in the truth can answer that one, because it's so self-evident. I could go on, but I've gone on to much and have to finish this post for now.

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Davidius,
You are right that if you place your trust in works you are condemned. Moreever, Paul told Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine. There must be a balance for the believer. Some of the most ungracious people are ones who have all their eggs in order. Then on the other spectrum lots of "grace" but no sound doctrine. I agree with you... But where is the line drawn in the sand with respect to the doctrine?

 

[TimV]

Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.

And then follow eight paragraphs of typical Rush-like rhetoric. Timothy, every hour that you listen to the man requires 5 hours of solid research to correct your thinking. Telling people to read Edward Gibbon to understand history or Ayn Rand to understand philosophy on a Puritan board composed largely of educated people just doesn't score points.

I will leave the "liberal" part out for now, since you don't know that Rush in both his life style and political beliefs including supporting the Iraq war and entangling alliances with Israel make him much more liberal than conservative.

But please, and again, not many people here like Barth, but please quote something by Barth which, if someone believes, will send them to Hell.

Timothy, please don't talk about your friends, or your background, or refer us to books you haven't read or understood, or even books that you have read and understood.

Please quote Barth directly, and show us something that Barth has said which believing will send someone to Hell.

 

[Davidius]

Davidius,
You are right that if you place your trust in works you are condemned. Moreever, Paul told Timothy to watch his life and his doctrine. There must be a balance for the believer. Some of the most ungracious people are ones who have all their eggs in order. Then on the other spectrum lots of "grace" but no sound doctrine. I agree with you... But where is the line drawn in the sand with respect to the doctrine?

How can we take it upon ourselves to be more stringent than apostolic example would allow? We're talking about souls here.

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Davidius,
That is in part a question I want to answer. Might a person be damned if they do not see the need for the church? Scriptures clearly teach that if you are a Christian you cannot do it alone. (I am sure in heaven there will be a few exceptions, like a saint exiled and isolated for his/her faith to Siberia). Romans 10:9 I believe is a litmus test for the faith. However I see men like NT Wright who distort the meaning of that passage. He argues that Christ came as Lord first, not to be our savior.

I think I can say that people can be Christians if they distort ecclesiology - I do not believe presbyterians, baptists, Anglicans or Lutherans are condemned on the basis of their church government. But if one would deny justification by faith alone, or Imputation of Christ's active obedience, our need for Jesus Christ as our Savior, the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and things like these?

Can this be the line: Any denial of the pillars of the Christian faith (Being the resurrection, unity of the Godhead (the Father sent the Son), the incarnation/humanity of Jesus (so a denial of the hypostatic union = heresy), Christ coming again....

Can a person be a Christian if they reject the purity of Scripture?

 

[DMcFadden]

My "guess" is that most of us would be more stringent than the Lord. I try to avoid prejudging in areas "above my pay grade" such as what is the lowest common denominator of true faith and highest percentage of heretical error possible to escape damnation.

If the issue is what we proclaim, what we discipline for, or what we are willing to separate over, however, the issue is quite different. I do not feel a need to determine that all mainliners are going to hell to recognize that it was wrong to stay in the ABCUSA. For reasons of theology, practice, and practical ecclesiology, the place was close enough to apostate for me to "git goin'."

In other threads I have objected to the tendency to pronounce heretical that which represents a legitimate understanding of scripture. Yet, on any number of issues, I am happy to proclaim some views heretical without concluding that the holder (in some cases rather passively holding) is hell-bound. Deut. 29:29 ("The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.") reminds us that our legitimate responsibility is limited to things revealed in God's word, not the secret counsels of his will. Who is damned would seem to fit in that category rather nicely.

The problem comes, not at the level of church life but in our wider fellowship. Does a difference over baptism or eschatology require anathemas? No! But, would I "fellowship" with Mormons in a Christian council of churches? No.

 

[Davidius]

My "guess" is that most of us would be more stringent than the Lord. I try to avoid prejudging in areas "above my pay grade" such as what is the lowest common denominator of true faith and highest percentage of heretical error possible to escape damnation.

The problem comes, not at the level of church life but in our wider fellowship. Does a difference over baptism or eschatology require anathemas? No! But, would I "fellowship" with Mormons in a Christian council of churches? No.

My amen up there was serious, but I want to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

What gives you the authority to decide that a difference over baptism does not require an anathema? This will be a particularly useful question for me to ask you since you have been recently talking about your newly developed understanding of infant baptism. So step into my shoes for a moment. As a covenantal paedobaptist, I believe that the baptism of infants is a principle going back to the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At that time, God told Abraham that children who did not receive circumcision would be cut off from their people. Not only that, but later, in Exodus, when Moses had neglected to circumcise his children, God came to kill him for it. Now, on what grounds today do we Presbyterians have the right to treat the issue any less seriously, if we truly base our practice on God's dealings with Abraham? Do we treat it as a less severe issue simply because there are a lot of people who disagree with us? What kind of reasoning is that? We don't change our stance on the exclusivity of Christ because a lot of people disagree with us on that.

Furthermore, if paedobaptists view the refusal to baptize one's children as sin, there's a more indirect line of reasoning, according to which one may ask why we don't enact discipline. Do we discipline individuals who persistently and willfully commit other sins? Adultery? Theft? Cruelty and mean-spiritedness? Gossip? If so, why do Presbyterians fellowship with Baptists? Is it because we're not so sure that we have the correct interpretation? If we don't, why are we Presbyterians? If we are, shouldn't we be sure that not baptizing infants is a sin? If we're sure that baptizing infants is a sin, why don't we treat it like other sins? Again, is it because there are a lot of people who would be unhappy with us?

What makes something a "legitimate interpretation of scripture," such that it can be tolerated as a divergent viewpoint? Who gets to decide what the "essentials" are? I happen not to think that the Credo position is a legitimate interpretation of scripture. If someone disagrees with me, where are we left? We're left with one who for whom it's clear, and another guy for whom it's unclear. Does a vote decide this issue? Can a majority declare that a particular stance is within the bounds of legitimate interpretation and choose with whom I should and should not have fellowship?

 

[Grymir]

Why does Grymir dislike liberals and Barth soo much? Hmm....and now for some history.

And then follow eight paragraphs of typical Rush-like rhetoric. Timothy, every hour that you listen to the man requires 5 hours of solid research to correct your thinking. Telling people to read Edward Gibbon to understand history or Ayn Rand to understand philosophy on a Puritan board composed largely of educated people just doesn't score points.

Thanks again to the comparison to Rush. It means that I am right on track with what I'm saying. Gibbon and Rand are good sources of history and philosophy, although I wasn't mentioning Rand to explain philosophy, but to give an example of the problems of public education.

I will leave the "liberal" part out for now, since you don't know that Rush in both his life style and political beliefs including supporting the Iraq war and entangling alliances with Israel make him much more liberal than conservative.

Who cares about his private life? He's an entertainer. For example, Rob Halford is gay, but I think that Judas Priest does the best heavy metal music. Rush's private life is irrelevant to his show persona, and why you keep saying that is questionable and the ad hominum species of logical fallacies. I also support the war in Iraq. And we don't have an entangling alliance with Israel, but a good alliance that helps both our countries.

But please, and again, not many people here like Barth, but please quote something by Barth which, if someone believes, will send them to Hell.

Timothy, please don't talk about your friends, or your background, or refer us to books you haven't read or understood, or even books that you have read and understood.

Please quote Barth directly, and show us something that Barth has said which believing will send someone to Hell.

To say that I haven't read and understand the books is not necessary. People who speak of what they don't know/read is a annoying. I teach Sunday School, so I have to be real accurate in how I present opposing ideas/people, and get commented on how accurate and fairly I present them before debunking them. Polemics is my forte. I've read more Barth than I care to admit, because how can I speak out against him if I haven't read him? I got his books from people at church so that I could debunk him to them. And gave the books back, except his letters, because that was his most 'real' writings. So I don't have them handy to quote. But what I say is very common knowledge to those who read his works, and not debatable, inaccurate, nor mis-leading.

Robbie Schmidtberger, I'm sorry to have to take up your thread with my defense of what I say, but I couldn't let my statements be impugned. A Damnable Heresy isn't only what a person says, but also those who follow them. Libs/Barthians use the right words, but define them differently. And that's the problem. And the Damnable part, because they lead people away from God and into the ditch.

 

[Grymir]

All heresy begins with a mis-conception of the nature of God. Anything that denies/distorts justification is damnable, because that will lead/leave people in hell.

 

[sotzo]

Admin Note:

This is not the Political Forum. If you have a side remark to make, please make a new thread.

Better yet, start a new thread in the music forum on the true Rush - that is the amazing, musical, heroic trio comprised of Lee, Lifeson and Peart.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Or the best Rush.

 

[Marrow Man]

A pastor friend of mine just forwarded the following quote to me (it's from van Til). Since it concerns Barth, I thought this would be appropriate.

Total depravity. That means that the whole glass is poisoned. It’s not as poisoned as it could be, but it is all poisoned. The faculties of soul are all turned against God by nature, all are poisoned by sin. Wherever there is evidence of God, which is everywhere, man will deny it. So you see, God must reach down and save dead men in their trespasses and sins. You do not heal a dead man. You resurrect him. Man is not sick, not drowning, but dead. Dead is dead. You can’t throw him a rope. A dead man can’t grab anything. Your mother is dead without Christ. Your culture is dead without Christ. This is the problem with Karl Barth, there is no space-time redemption by Christ. There’s no change of the unbeliever into the believer. There’s no challenge to the natural man. That’s why Barth is poison. Water and sulfuric acid look the same, right? If you drink sulfuric acid, it will kill you. Barth has placed sulfuric acid in our water bottles and told us it is water. Barth has created the systematically most Satanic philosophy ever devised by the mind of man. Salvation is like cleaning a bad tooth. It’s no good if your dentist tells you that your tooth is OK when it’s rotten. The dentist has to go down, drill out the decay and replace it with gold. That is what salvation is.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Obadiah Sedgwick in his "Nature and Danger of Heresies" gave this list as a list of heresies in his day:

10 chief heresies:
1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) That the will of man is still free.
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace.
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men.
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel.
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.

Heresy in the Church

 

[wturri78]

What makes something a "legitimate interpretation of scripture," such that it can be tolerated as a divergent viewpoint? Who gets to decide what the "essentials" are? I happen not to think that the Credo position is a legitimate interpretation of scripture. If someone disagrees with me, where are we left? We're left with one who for whom it's clear, and another guy for whom it's unclear. Does a vote decide this issue? Can a majority declare that a particular stance is within the bounds of legitimate interpretation and choose with whom I should and should not have fellowship?

Interesting point you raise, and it's exactly here that I've found people to go round and round, hard pressed to explain how anyone can claim that a particular interpretation of Scripture is right, or at least "more right" than another. And it's here that those adhering to "sacred tradition" will jump in and say "Aha, you need the Church (i.e. bishops and councils) to ultimately determine what's acceptable and what's not." They'll argue that any protestant who cites the Bible for his interpretation of the Bible is going in circles (and then they'll cite the Bible to support their claims of tradition, which of course is what they say gives us the Bible...maybe they just have bigger circles?). Nobody will say that truth is determined by majority vote, but matters throughout history have been decided by majorities of bishops, elders, etc. And all will claim the guidance of the Spirit so that their decisions aren't actually "truth by majority" but rather "the Spirit speaking through the majority."

I've found the Reformed hermeneutical principal of "scripture interpreting scripture" (as outlined in the WCF) to be the most reasonable approach. Many who offer their own interpretations make it painfully obvious that they're citing verses out of context or in isolation...or else that they're reading something into the verses from outside the Bible. Still, it gets hairy when someone can find merit in both sides of an argument.

Does denying "inherited guilt" in favor of "ancestral sin" (ala Eastern understanding) place one outside the bounds of Christianity in the same way as denying the divinity of Christ, or denying the very resurrection itself? I would see the former as placing one outside of Western orthodoxy (and it has serious implications for how one understands atonement and other critical doctrines), but I would see the latter as placing one in the "outer darkness"...and being a damnable heresy.

Now, how about someone outright denies the Trinity (for example), vs. someone who has never really been thorougly taught and slips into modalism or something similar, simply out of ignorance (and very flimsy teaching by those who are over them)? Is one damned and the other not? Tough questions!

 

[Davidius]

Bill,

Honestly, I don't see how the analogia fidei solves the problem. In fact, the problem probably compounds itself as more text is brought into the equation. The legitimacy of using verse Y to interpret verse X, the meaning of verse Y to begin with, etc.

This is, in fact, one way in which I believe we Protestants are dishonest with ourselves, and one way in which we leave ourselves open to deserved criticism. We dismiss the non-Protestant deference to tradition and then pull in our own method as if it's the problem-free silver bullet. The EO and RCC may be wrong, but that doesn't make our position solid. An affirmation of A is not necessarily a negation of B, and all that. This issue is one that, no matter how many assurances or explanations I get from other Christians, never seems to come to a satisfactory conclusion in my mind, and continues to rear its ugly head every now and then.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Interesting topic.

I would agree with David and Dennis (in general) that any view of "damnable heresy" is to certain degree subjective by human standards, and that we are likely more restrictive than God is. A precise list is difficult to come up with, but I would go by the Apostles' Creed for a good starting place. It covers the Trinity, contains accurate (though very basic) Christology and Soteriology, and Eschatology. Anything directly contrary to the Creed, in my mind, is damnable heresy.

However, clearly that doesn't include everything. Roman Catholics, after all, use a virtually identical version of the Creed, yet there are clearly elements of damnable heresy in their beliefs, including salvation through the RCC only by sacraments, the immaculate nature of Mary, etc. Likewise, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have many beliefs we would consider heretical.

So, based on the WCF and Apostles' Creed here's a short list I would come up with, which is by no means all-inclusive:

1. Belief that either the OT or the NT is anything other that the infallible and authoritative Word of God, or adding anything to the existing Canon.

2. Belief in any means of salvation other than by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's Death and Resurrection alone, which are literal, historical events.

3. Belief that the Trinity does not exist, or in some altered form of it.

4. Denial of the Virgin Birth and/or Christ's diety.

5. Denial of Christ's return, including the resurrection of our physical bodies to spend eternity either with God in heaven or eternally apart from God in hell.

This is my human, imperfect list, which I believe is (hopefully) aligned with Scripture....

 

[christianyouth]

Hey David,

I guess the only solution to the problem would be to have a governing authority that decides what is anathema and what isn't. I have some reservations about that though, like, what if the authority becomes corrupted? What if the authority decides that Trinitarian theology is anathema? I just don't see an answer to this problem.

In Christ,
- Andrew

 

[wturri78]

Bill,

Honestly, I don't see how the analogia fidei solves the problem. In fact, the problem probably compounds itself as more text is brought into the equation. The legitimacy of using verse Y to interpret verse X, the meaning of verse Y to begin with, etc.

This is, in fact, one way in which I believe we Protestants are dishonest with ourselves, and one way in which we leave ourselves open to deserved criticism. We dismiss the non-Protestant deference to tradition and then pull in our own method as if it's the problem-free silver bullet. The EO and RCC may be wrong, but that doesn't make our position solid. An affirmation of A is not necessarily a negation of B, and all that. This issue is one that, no matter how many assurances or explanations I get from other Christians, never seems to come to a satisfactory conclusion in my mind, and continues to rear its ugly head every now and then.

I didn't mean to imply that the analogia fidei actually solves the problem. Your point is well taken, that interpreting verse Y in light of verse X when the meaning of Y may itself be dependent upon something else, results in something of an infinite regression that will just drive you bonkers (that's a theological term )

Something like the Marian dogmas (and similar doctrines in the EO tradition, although not dogmatized as I understand it...) clearly come from outside Scripture, and with very few exceptions RC and EO people don't claim that they do come from within the Bible (a few appeals to the "Mary as Ark of Covenant" motif notwithstanding). I guess the doctrine of perspicuity has to be presupposed, such that enough X and Y verses are clearly understandable to serve as guideposts for interpreting the rest of Scripture. Of course the RC and EO sides will say that perspicuity was dreamed up by the Reformers to get around not having an infallible tradition by which to interpret Scripture--then each will claim to be that infallible tradition and say the other side fell off the turnpike and sling quotes from church fathers at each other to prove it, assuming (evidently) the perspicuity of Tertullian and Irenaeus?

I also have a tough time with this rearing its ugly head, and I know people who've gone into RC or EO churches by finally throwing up their hands and taking the leap of faith into trusting those bodies to give them their certainty (only to remain uncertain about how exactly to interpret their newfound Traditions). I admit, I can see why it's attractive to get rid of the burden and let someone else put up the guideposts for you.

 

[DMcFadden]

What gives you the authority to decide that a difference over baptism does not require an anathema? This will be a particularly useful question for me to ask you since you have been recently talking about your newly developed understanding of infant baptism. So step into my shoes for a moment. As a covenantal paedobaptist, I believe that the baptism of infants is a principle going back to the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15 and 17. At that time, God told Abraham that children who did not receive circumcision would be cut off from their people. Not only that, but later, in Exodus, when Moses had neglected to circumcise his children, God came to kill him for it. Now, on what grounds today do we Presbyterians have the right to treat the issue any less seriously, if we truly base our practice on God's dealings with Abraham? Do we treat it as a less severe issue simply because there are a lot of people who disagree with us? What kind of reasoning is that?

David, as usual you are amazingly insightful and raise several very good questions. I do not, at this point, have a snappy answer for you.

As to who gives me the "authority," that one is a little simpler. Every denomination (or micro-denomination in the case of our Presbyterian brethren) has a "right" to define what they agree to among themselves as the most accurate reading of the Word of God. The Baptists have the LBCF, you Presbyterians have the 3FU or some version of the WCF, and lots of groups have next to nothing in writing to define their identity.

As to fellowship with others outside our own group . . . YIKES! If you really want to restrict fellowship to you and one of your closest friends, beware. Sooner or later, one of you will doubt the salvation of the other one. That is where fundamentalism got into trouble with secondary and tertiary separation. They argued that it was not good enough to separate from the world. We must separate from those who fellowship with those who do not separate from the world.

I would think that you (or your Devil's advocate alter ego) could content yourself with some of the consensus ecumenical creeds of the church as sufficient for defining the boundaries of fellowship. But, even here, just as some of those (in your paedo understanding) baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian church (to use but one example) prove not to be elect, so do some who give verbal assent to the Apostles' Creed or Chalcedonian definition. And, some who, for reasons too arcane to tease out completely here, do not belong to a group teaching a pure message will also be saved in the end.

 

[wturri78]

I would think that you (or your Devil's advocate alter ego) could content yourself with some of the consensus ecumenical creeds of the church as sufficient for defining the boundaries of fellowship. But, even here, just as some of those (in your paedo understanding) baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian church (to use but one example) prove not to be elect, so do some who give verbal assent to the Apostles' Creed or Chalcedonian definition. And, some who, for reasons too arcane to tease out completely here, do not belong to a group teaching a pure message will also be saved in the end.

If I may comment, perhaps the consensus ecumenical creeds are better used for determining the bounds of "damnable heresy" than the boundaries of fellowship? RC and EO adhere to the councils also, but certainly cannot have fellowship (at least not within the same visible body) with those who hold to the Five Solas. Whether veneration of Mary, sacramental grace, etc. constitute damnable heresy still isn't resolved, of course...

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Yes the Apostle's, Nicene, and subsequent creeds are a great barometer when determining heresy, but what also must be considered are the "subordinate standards" of a particular Christian body. (Christian is used loosely here). For Rome they do have the Trentine councils, declarations, and anathemas. They did declare Martin Luther anathema, cursed, for his rejection of the pope. Luther's rejection was rooted in this very question - he saw the pope, and much of catholicism, to be contrary to Scripture as the RCC rejected justification by faith alone.

Our authority does come from Scripture. Yes God commands us to be gracious and concerned with plank before speck. But we also are to judge one's faith by their fruit. These judgments must have at their core wisdom, discernment, and love. When we make such a judgment we are to show unmerited kindness to the one we judge.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

1 Tim. 4.16: Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

A few more resources for study:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

1647 Massachusetts Body of Liberties:

Online Library of Liberty - 1647: Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts

heresie.

although no humane power be Lord over the Faith & Consciences of men, and therfore may not constrein them to believe or professe against their Consciences: yet because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian Faith, and destruction of the soules of men, ought duly to be restreined from such notorious impiety, it is therfore ordered and decreed by this Court;

That if any Christian within this Jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the christian Faith and Religion, by broaching or mainteining any damnable heresie; as denying the immortalitie of the Soul, or the resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the Regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin: or denying that Christ gave himself a Ransom for our sins, or shal affirm that wee are not justified by his Death and Righteousnes, but by the perfection of our own works; or shall deny the moralitie of the fourth commandement, or shall indeavour to seduce others to any the herisies aforementioned, everie such person continuing obstinate therin after due means of conviction shall be sentenced to Banishment. [1646] ...

1647 London Ministers' Testimony

A Testimony to the Truth of Jesus Christ, & Our Solemn League and Covenant.

William Lyford, The Instructed Christian

Thomas Watson, A Preliminary Discourse To Catechising:

Discourse to catechising

The apostle calls them 'damnable heresies.’ 2 Pet 2: 1. A man may go to hell as well for heresy as adultery. To be unsettled in religion, argues want of judgment. If their heads were not giddy, men would not reel so fast from one opinion to another. It argues lightness. As feathers will be blown every way, so will feathery Christians. Triticum non rapit ventus inanes palae jactantur. Cyprian.

Thomas Adams on 2 Peter 2.1:

Links and Downloads Manager - The Epistles - An Exposition Upon the Second Epistle General of St. Peter -- Thomas Adams - The PuritanBoard

Abraham Hellenbroek, A Specimen of Divine Truths:

Links and Downloads Manager - Confession of Faith - Abraham Hellenbroek's A Specimen of Divine Truths - The PuritanBoard

Compendium of the Principal Errors of Those that are Outside the Reformed Church

1. Q. Which are the principal parties outside the reformed church?

A. They are either without or within Christendom.

2. Q. Which are those outside of Christendom?

A. Heathens, present-day Jews, and Mohammedans.

3. Q. What are Heathens?

A. The Heathens have principally sprung forth from Ham and Japhet, who have departed from the word of promise and live without the revelation of God.

4. Q. Wherein doth their religion consist?

A. Concerning the manner, this varies greatly; but it consists therein, that they revere and serve the creature above the Creator, since they know neither God nor Christ.

5. Q. What are Jews?

A. The Jews are the descendants of Abraham, the ninth from Shem, and are called Jews, since the Babylonian captivity, after Judah the son of Jacob. Before the coming of Christ, the true church was amongst them.

6. Q. What is their present-day conception?

A. They say, that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah promised of God, therefore they deny the Divinity and the authority of the New Covenant Scriptures, and are yet waiting for the coming of the Messiah, whom they fancy to be a worldly and mighty prince.

7. Q. What are Mohammedans?

A. Followers of a certain Mohammed, who was an Arabian, and lived in the beginning of the seventh century.

8. Q. Wherein doth their religion principally consist?

A. In a mixture of Judaism, Heathenism and Christendom. In addition to their doctrine: there is one God, they own Mohammed as His prophet and consider him greater than Moses and Christ.

9. Q. Which are the principal present day factions within Christendom?

A. Romanists, Lutherans, Socinians, Mennonites, Remonstrants or Arminians.

10. Q. From where have the Romanists their origin?

A. The Roman Catholic church is indebted for her origin to the ever increasing corruption, which already manifested itself early in the Christian Church. However, in the beginning of the seventh century, the Bishop of Rome, Boniface III, was declared the head of the church, with the assistance of the Emperor Phocas, and since that time the errors have increased considerably.

11. Q. Which are their principal errors?

A. (1) That the pope of Rome is the visible head of the church here on earth, the vicar of Christ, and an infallible interpreter of the differences in faith, and can sell letters of indulgence for the remission of sins.

(2) That the traditions of the church are of equal authority and are as credible, as the Holy Scripture itself.

(3) That the Holy Scripture may not be translated from Latin into other languages, neither be read by the laymen.

(4) That the Holy Scripture is obscure and does not perfectly contain that which is necessary unto salvation.

(5) That the angels and saints in heaven are mediators and advocates before God, for the believers on earth and therefore they should be called upon.

(6) That it is permissible to make images of the Divine Trinity, of Christ and the saints, to kneel down to them and to worship God thereby.

(7) That the unbaptised children go to hell but, after baptism they no longer have original sin, that one after baptism and by fasting and chastisements is able to give satisfaction for sins and by good words can merit heaven and eternal salvation.

(8) That, besides both Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, there are five more, viz.: marriage, confession, priestly ordination, confirmation, and the holy unction.

(9) That the bread and the wine in the Lord's Supper are essentially changed into the body and blood of Christ. This they call Transubstantiation.

Therefore, they withhold the cup, from the laymen in the Lord's Supper, and say, that in the mass the priest conducts a true sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead.

(10) That, besides hell there is also a purgatory, wherein the souls of men, before they enter into heaven. are purified by torture, and that one therefore must pray for the delivery of the souls of the departed.

12. Q. From whom are the Lutherans derived?

A. They are named after Luther, the great reformer of the sixteenth century.

13. Q. What is their principal error?

A. That the body of Christ at the ascension has become omnipresent, from which follows, that Christ is also bodily present with and in the bread of the Lord's Supper, which they term Consubstantiation.

14. Q. To whom are the Mennonites indebted for their origin?

A. To a Menno Simons, a Frisian by birth, who before was a Catholic Priest, and in 1536 deserted the Roman church.

15. Q. Which are their principal errors?

A. Their errors for want of mutual agreement, are not easily to determine. However, the principal ones, wherein all agree, are: 1. The rejection of infant baptism. 2. The denial, that it is lawful for a Christian to swear an oath by the name of God, to hold public office and to employ the sword against the evildoers.

16. Q. Who were the founders of the Socinian doctrine?

A. Lelius Socinius and Faustus Socinius, who were living in the middle of the sixteenth century.

17. Q. Which are their principal errors?

A. 1. They teach, that there is but one Divine Person, namely the Father; that Jesus Christ is not a Divine Person with the Father from eternity, and that the Holy Ghost is not a Person, but merely a power of God.

2. They deny the satisfaction and the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, and seek the salvation through their own Evangelical obedience.

3. They disown God's foreknowledge and eternal decree concerning the particular cases, and the spiritual death of all men, because they set forth, that man has a free will.

18. Q. From whom have the Arminians or Remonstrants their origin?

A. From Jacob Arminius, Doctor of Divinity and Professor at Leiden, who lived in the beginning of the seventeenth century and whose followers were later called Remonstrants after a petition, named remonstrance, which was presented by them to the government, in which they defended themselves and requested liberty to practice their religion.

19. Q. Which are their errors?

A. They teach:

1. That the election occurred due to a foreseen faith and good works.

2. That Christ has satisfied for all men.

3. That the will of man is free, to choose the good as well as the evil.

4. That the Spirit of God does not work irresistibly in the conversion.

5. That the believers can fall out of the state of grace.