what is a damnable heresy?

[DMcFadden]

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...

Interesting point. Ultimately, however, I would argue that my word "fellowship" should be interpreted as acknowledgment that the other person is a fellow believer, even if we confess that he/she is one in error. Back to David's issue, do you really want to consign a credo baptist to hell for the "error" of our convictions regarding baptism? If not, can you say that it is "damnable" heresy?

I will "fellowship" with (NOT join the same church as) any Christian who holds to historical Christian orthodoxy. This does NOT require a particular eschatological schema, determination regarding Israel and the Church, or conclusion regarding the objects and mode of baptism. People on both sides of those divides can be, are often, and have proven to be orthodox Christians.

When it comes to my "confession of faith," it ought to reflect as accurately as possible the consensus of the people in my particular tribe and what we can agree to accept as true. Necessarily a credo baptist will consider a paedo baptist to be in "error" and vice versa; a dispensationalist will excoriate the hermeneutics of a covenant thinker; an amillennialist will be shocked by the "mishandling" of scripture by those preterist postmils and historic premils. However, since all of these people hold to orthodox Christian beliefs, their errors are not damnable, regardless of how greatly we might want to consider them serious.

BTW, in my observations, the doctrines of Christ and the Bible are good litmus tests. I have never met an orthodox Christian who denied either of them.

 

[Matthew1034]

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.

I believe a damnable heresy is a teaching that influences a man to partake in religion instead of Christ's suffering. Works-based, graceless messages generate the unsaved man to become hard-working, deeply-devoted religious folks misdirected in religious zeal about the reverence of "God." (Romans 12:2,3)

These messages produce people who use all the biblical words and give eloquent sermons, but are driven by sensuality of mind and of mysteries (2 Peter 2:2,3 & Colossians 2:18,19) Waterless clouds.

I imagine there came a time in the early church when the offspring of these Christless Christian teachings began to blend in with believers, camoflauged with the Bible's doctrine in word, but not in power - Christless. (2 Timothy 3:3-9) I imagine once their heresy was revealed, they were able to branch off and form their own church along with those who followed them.

Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.

I believe God allows born-again believers to be subjected first-hand to heresy (light manifests).

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.

I believe God allows born-again believers to be subjected first-hand to heresy (light manifests).

I think that is how I would "draw" the line.

 

[DMcFadden]

Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity.

R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity.

R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.

Right. I greatly appreciate both RC (he is a panmil) and MacArthur. When I went to Together for the Gospel this past April I saw two PCA brethren, two SBC (maybe three as I do not know if Thabiti is associated with the SBC), Piper, MacArthur and Mahaney. They do not differ in their theology of God, nor their soteriology. They stand for the gospel. It is a good expression of how men can come together, from various persuasions with respect to eschatology, hermeneutics, and ecclesiology. But even more than those 8 who spoke, there were 5000+ brothers, and a few sisters, sitting in the audience.

 

[Marrow Man]

But even more than those 8 who spoke, there were 5000+ brothers, and a few sisters, sitting in the audience.

I was one of those 5000+! And it was a great conference!

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Robbie, I'm probably functionally about where you are. My concern was that the term "damnable" says more than I want to say about errors held by those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible and orthodox creedal Christianity.

R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur both participate in the Ligonier conferences despite the fact that one is a dispensational credo-baptist pretribber and the other is a covenant paedo-baptist [what is R.C.'s eschatology this week?]. The fact that they both hold to a Calvinist soteriology places them securely in the "orthodox" camp (in my opinion). They cannot both be correct in their views of hermeneutics, ecclesiology, and eschatology. And, even though these are important doctrines that we ought to study hard to be correct about, both men are correct (in my opinion) in seeing the other as a brother in Christ. If any of those doctrinal errors were "damnable," it would be wrong for the other to participate in the conference with him as a speaker.

Couldn't agree more!

Just out of curiosity, who were the PCA pastors at the conference?

 

[Davidius]

Dennis,

Perhaps this is somewhere in the thread and I've missed it, but could you explain what you mean by "historical orthodoxy" and "creedal orthodoxy"?

 

[Robbie Schmidtberger]

Speaking was RC Sproul and Ligon Duncan... others there included Tullian Tchividjian, my advisor from college also was there (while a professor, he is a teaching elder in the PCA serving out of bounds)... I was extremely blessed there and hope to go in 2010, perhaps I'll go to the Gospel Coalition in 2009 (Keller, Ryken, Reeder, Chappell, and many more). First I have to see if I can get off work, also find others in the area to go with.

 

[wturri78]

Bottom line, I see damnable heresy as having to do with the nature of salvation (of God alone - the solas) and/or the nature of God. When the pure teachings of the Bible are breached in either of these two areas, let no assurance be had of the Spirit's involvement. Other heresies, such as female pastors or jibberish tongues, are not damnable in and of themselves, but are most-often the result of damnable heresy regarding the nature of salvation and of God.

I believe God allows born-again believers to be subjected first-hand to heresy (light manifests).

I think that is how I would "draw" the line.

These seem to me to be two very good categories--if we compromise the nature of God (Trinity, Christology) we in effect create other gods of our own making. A god who is not Trinitarian is not the God and Father of our Lord and thus not the God of the Bible. As to the nature of salvation, that still seems to me to be a category that can be subdivided almost indefinitely, and I've run across people who've so narrowly defined their soteriology that they're left standing inside a tiny box of lines they've drawn in the sand. Some would say that any form of synergism in justification constitutes a denial of the solas and therefore of the Christian Gospel itself. Others allow true Arminians (as opposed to the true Semi-Pelagians who've run amuck in "Arminian" churches...wait, make that true Pelagians!) to fit under the umbrella of "grace alone" while still considering them in error, but not so far as to be outside of the Gospel itself. Certainly if the Reformed understanding (or even a more general "Protestant" understanding) of salvation is used to determine damnable heresy, then RC and EO churches are damned and cannot be called Christian churches--many would affirm that, while many would consider them Christian because they confess orthodox belief about the nature of God and Christ.

I'm not sure whether the RCC is in damnable heresy historically, but I do think they are in the modern era, because I find their teachings to now contradict the very nature of God himself:

"The Church’s relationship with Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)." -- emphasis mine

Muslims worship a god who is not trinitarian, who had no son, and who did not raise a messiah from the dead. This deity cannot be the same God worshiped by Christians. The "us" refers to the RCC, and this implicitly admits that the RCC worships and adores a merciful god who may or may not be Trinitarian and may or may not have had a Son...apparently it's negotiable? Or maybe God just changed his mind in the 1960s...

So perhaps we can add to the list of damnable heresy any teaching that anyone can be saved through their own religion, or outside of faith in Jesus Christ.

(As an aside, the "Old Rite" type Catholics who reject Vatican II also see the universalist statements as denials of the nature of God).

 

[davidsuggs]

I would think that anything which claims to be in accord with the Word, but in some way clearly violates its premises. One in which there is some strange distortion of the Trinity, anything that places any kind of mediator in place aside from Christ, anything which basically denies or fundamentally alters the basicmost tenants of our faith.

"I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, of anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9 NKJV)