Definitions of "Heretical" and "Apostate"

[JJB]

Quote

Originally Posted by: rmwilliamsll

The emotions engendered by this issue are making social and cultural conservatives mad enough to leave when in the past theology itself, potentially even the very definition of the Gospel was not sufficient to push them to schism. I only wish people had, like Machen, been as zealous for the heart of theology as they are over the sin of homosexual behavior.

this section of rmwilliams post is something I have been wrestling with for awhile. It really has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality -- feel free to move the post, mod, if I am going too far afield. It also kind of relates to another post -- sorry i've forgotten the post number and the poster. I believe it is the one above this one.

Here's my wrestling issue: Where exactly is the dividing line for apostates and heretics? The reason I have been wrestling with it is because I see many reformed brothers and sisters who do not/will not say that a church is a heretical or apostate when they stray from classical biblical ideas. So it causes me to ponder whether the fault lies within me and my definitions. Are my definitions too narrow? or the fault lies in my brethren because they do not want to be divisive? Hint: I have in mind the two biggies, one that caused Luther to post his 95 Theses.

I moved this post from another thread, because I would like to hear from anybody here in Semper who is interested in this topic on how does one go about defining heretical beliefs or apostate beliefs.

Here are the definitions I use, which others seem to agree with on occasion, and not agree on other occasions:

Heretical: A different Jesus than the one in the Bible. A different H.S. than the one in the Bible. A different Father than the one in the Bible. God's word is not infallible. In other words, a low view of the Godhead or any person therein; and/or a low view of the Bible.

Apostate: One who has walked away from fellowship with Christians.

How do you do define the two words above?

 

[mlqurgw]

Heresy is any perversion of truth, apostacy is leaving truth. I honestly believe that what is called "Christianity" in this day is both heretical and apostate.

 

[JJB]

Here's a quote I found today that I may start using for a grid:

"Whatever religion or doctrine condones or makes allowances for sin is not of Christ. The Doctrine of Christ everywhere teaches self-denial and mortification of worldliness and sin. The whole stream of the gospel runs against those things. Scripture emphasizes the 'holy' and the 'heavenly' (not the sinful and the worldly). The true gospel has not even the slightest tendency to extol corrupt nature, or feed it's pride by magnifying it's freedom and power. And it rejects everything that undermines or obscures the merit of Christ, or tries to give any credit to man, in any way. And it certainly never makes the death of Christ a cloak to cover sin, but rather it always speaks of it as an instrument that destroys it!"
-John Flavel, puritan

I still have a question as to why there are so many Christians who just continually espouse: Can't we just get along?

If Mary is coredemptrix, does that not make RCC heretical?

If the Jesus of Arminians is so weak that he cannot save those whom He desires, is that heretical? Poor weak Jesus.

Sorry, I am ranting and tired of feeling like I stand alone.
I do not mean here in SR -- I'm thinking of real-life conversations.

 

[frumanchu]

Ron's brief definitions are correct.

What is very important to understand is that neither term necessarily implies not being saved.

The historical Reformed position is that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution formally apostasized at Trent in explicitly rejecting the doctrine of sola fide. From a Scriptural standpoint, all doctrines which are contrary to Scripture are heresy. From an institutional standpoint, all doctrines which are contrary to the normative rule of faith (creed, confession, etc) are considered heresy.

I don't have time to go more in depth at the moment but hopefully I will later. Suffice it to say that these terms are often both misunderstood and misapplied.

 

[JJB]

Thanks Fru. Is there a book you can point me to or a website? I really want to get a handle on this and seem to be vexed by it continually.

Your statement regarding one's salvation is puzzling to me. If Jesus has a "helper" to dispense grace, is that not a different Jesus? If I can figure out how that does not affect salvation, it would be very enlightening.

Remaining in prayer,
JJB

 

[arunma]

I moved this post from another thread, because I would like to hear from anybody here in Semper who is interested in this topic on how does one go about defining heretical beliefs or apostate beliefs.

Here are the definitions I use, which others seem to agree with on occasion, and not agree on other occasions:

Heretical: A different Jesus than the one in the Bible. A different H.S. than the one in the Bible. A different Father than the one in the Bible. God's word is not infallible. In other words, a low view of the Godhead or any person therein; and/or a low view of the Bible.

Apostate: One who has walked away from fellowship with Christians.

How do you do define the two words above?

Well regarding your definition of apostate, I would just add one clarification. There are some Christians who do not fellowship with other Christians simply because they are unfamiliar with the local churches in their area. And other believing Christian simply think that they don't need church to grow spiritually.

Now I want to be clear in saying that avoiding fellowship with the body of Christ is a very bad idea. Moreover, the Bible encourages us to fellowship. That said, I would not go so far as to call such a person apostate. Perhaps it would be best to say that an apostate is a person who denies that Jesus is the Christ. What do you think?

 

[Catholic Dude]

By definition it is impossible to define heresy outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why? Because in order for us to know what is error we need to know what is truth. The Catholic Church sets forth an infallible decree on what the Truth is on any given point of doctrine and anyone who knowingly rejects that teaching is a heretic.

Apostasy on the otherhand is more along the lines of totally abandoning one's faith.

What is very important to understand is that neither term necessarily implies not being saved.

The historical Reformed position is that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution formally apostasized at Trent in explicitly rejecting the doctrine of sola fide.

For your first point, I would disagree, to knowingly reject a Christian teaching is by definition heresy, infact it is one of the gravest sins because the individual has separated themself from the truth. In order to be separated from the truth one has had to first be really part of the Church.

As for the "historical" Reformed position, is that an infallible decree and who decides that the CC is officially dead? The Catholic Church doesnt have this problem because it existed before the "reformation" and infact the "reformers" came out of the CC. Truth cant emerge from apostasy so therefore the protestants if you want to claim they held the truth had to have emerged from the truth of the CC.

From a Scriptural standpoint, all doctrines which are contrary to Scripture are heresy. From an institutional standpoint, all doctrines which are contrary to the normative rule of faith (creed, confession, etc) are considered heresy.

Scripture has to be interpreted, infact in order to condemn someone (ie put them at risk of hell) you have to have an infallible decree made clearly stating the error.

 

[CCWoody]

By definition it is impossible to define heresy outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why? Because in order for us to know what is error we need to know what is truth. The Catholic Church sets forth an infallible decree on what the Truth is on any given point of doctrine and anyone who knowingly rejects that teaching is a heretic.

Hardly. Despite the presumption that certain men think they get to tell God what is truth and what is not truth, I think I'll stick to what is ACTUALLY universally agreed upon by all orthodox Christians as Truth revealed by God.

Sola Scriptura!

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[frumanchu]

By definition it is impossible to define heresy outside the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why? Because in order for us to know what is error we need to know what is truth. The Catholic Church sets forth an infallible decree on what the Truth is on any given point of doctrine and anyone who knowingly rejects that teaching is a heretic.

The problem is that the very teaching to which you appeal is itself a heresy. We'll disagree about that, no doubt, because you and I have a different authority to which we appeal.

Every time I hear this doctrine promoted where only the Roman Catholic Church can infallibly interpret Scripture, I ask "According to who?" I'm invariably pointed to Scripture, at which point I ask "what if the Catholic Church is wrong about that Scripture?"

The answer is always the same: "She can't be."

"Why? "

"Because of xyz Scriptures."

Scripture has to be interpreted, infact in order to condemn someone (ie put them at risk of hell) you have to have an infallible decree made clearly stating the error.

And as I said, when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church they appeal to Scripture as establishing their authority to infallibly interpret Scripture, and appeal to that infallibility as proof they are interpreting those Scriptures correctly. It's self-reinforcing, circular logic.

 

[JJB]

Man, I thought this would be a safe place for me to ask this question without bringing in ppl of different faith backgrounds and starting what it has quickly become. I'm sorry everybody.

I'll continue to be in prayer and would appreciate any reading material that anybody knows about (with the exception of references by Catholic dude -- sorry.).

PM me if you want.

 

[frumanchu]

Here is one way I've heard it put:

Heresy may be defined in a number of ways. One is that it contradicts traditional confessional symbols/standards. Another way to define heresy is as an “error worth dividing over.” A third way to define “heresy” is simply as “error.” I sometimes use the word in this way, but I try to be careful that people understand me clearly so that they do not get the false impression that I mean something else. The third use of this word is too easily misunderstood to be used to refer to honest errors by true Christians in good standing.

 

[frumanchu]

And here is a more extensive article on the topic:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieHeresy.htm

 

[frumanchu]

And an article from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals explaining apostasy:

http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,,PTID307086|CHID559376|CIID1939698,00.html

 

[inchristalone221]

If Mary is coredemptrix, does that not make RCC heretical?

If the Jesus of Arminians is so weak that he cannot save those whom He desires, is that heretical? Poor weak Jesus.

Both very fair assessments.

The Catholic Church surrendered it's claim to being a part of the visible church when it anathematized the gospel at Trent (in the formal sense; this loathing of the truth of Christ was de facto in place long before that). They've become another religion entirely, and they teach another gospel "which is no gospel at all."

 

[JJB]

Thanks again, Fru. I will go have a read....

His,
JJB

 

[JJB]

Well regarding your definition of apostate, I would just add one clarification. There are some Christians who do not fellowship with other Christians simply because they are unfamiliar with the local churches in their area. And other believing Christian simply think that they don't need church to grow spiritually.

Now I want to be clear in saying that avoiding fellowship with the body of Christ is a very bad idea. Moreover, the Bible encourages us to fellowship. That said, I would not go so far as to call such a person apostate. Perhaps it would be best to say that an apostate is a person who denies that Jesus is the Christ. What do you think?

Hi Arunma,

I'd like to be clear on something that I wasn't clear on in the OP. I would refrain from calling anyone one of those things, unless I was sure. I don't go around saying, "Well, you're such a heretic or apostate!" But, if someone were to begin to preach to me about heretical ideas, at an appropriate time and place, I would not hesitate to point out that what they are saying is not biblical. I have often heard ppl blather on and on about how we should be ecumenical and "just get along". That's not a possibility within Christendom. that being said....

I have heard many ppl who will not attend a church on a regular basis, say many of those things you are telling me. It takes awhile to visit churches to find a home church. Sometimes it takes years. But to continue to flit from church to church does the body no good. How does one decide how to serve if you are only there once a month, or once every two months, or only when you "feel like it"? As for Christians that espouse you do not need the church to grow......ridiculous! Iron sharpens iron.

I actually think, so far, Catholic dude had a definition of apostate that will cause me to think a bit. Of course, the slant against protestants I do not agree with. But as I told Fru, off to do some reading....

THanks for participating in the thread. Sometimes I think I bring up things that folks don't want to answer so I don't always get much response. Sometimes I"m totally way off base, which is why I asked here. IT's a safe haven for me, until ppl come in who don't want to fellowship but just argue.

BTW, Fru, was Catholic Dude's participation in this thread a violation of a rule? just wondering...

 

[calmcoolandelected]

JJB,

Sometimes I don't post replies because I am unsure of what is allowed on certain forums. I suppose I should go back and read the posting rules, eh?

There have been other times when I have been very interested in a thread but because of specific situations our church has gone through, felt it inappropriate to ask questions or comment. I haven't wanted to add fuel to the fire in those instances, in case there is someone here that is familiar with the situation.

CC&E

 

[JJB]

CC&E,

I post less regularly now than I have in the past. End of school year blitz, so my time is demanded elsewhere. It is wise on your part to not put specific situations out here in the interspace. I pray I do not do that. THere is nothing specific going on other than discussions with friends that I am referring to in my OP. I am just seeking clarification of terms, and praying other ppl will consider this topic as well.

I have bookmarked the pages Fru pointed out to me. The language of Gillespie is archaic, so it's a slow plow for me. I will work through it until The Lord Delivers it to Me, "It Must Yeild!" as Luther said on particular passages.

As for the rules, I take a gander at them on occasion. Sometimes they are so vague, it's hard to tell if it applies to particular posts. Other times, it's clear as crystal. I suppose that's why it is necessary to have a modicum of moderators to make decisions on issues of rule violations. (I really wanted to say a "gaggle of moderators," because that conjures up a funny image in my head....but it wasn't alliterative. *sigh*)

His,
JJB

 

[arunma]

Both very fair assessments.

The Catholic Church surrendered it's claim to being a part of the visible church when it anathematized the gospel at Trent (in the formal sense; this loathing of the truth of Christ was de facto in place long before that). They've become another religion entirely, and they teach another gospel "which is no gospel at all."

Well...I wouldn't personally go so far as to say that the Catholic Church is entirely apostate. I have met Bible-believing Catholic Christians. But I admit, the Catholic Church isn't the best place to develop one's faith in Christ.

Hi Arunma,

I'd like to be clear on something that I wasn't clear on in the OP. I would refrain from calling anyone one of those things, unless I was sure. I don't go around saying, "Well, you're such a heretic or apostate!" But, if someone were to begin to preach to me about heretical ideas, at an appropriate time and place, I would not hesitate to point out that what they are saying is not biblical. I have often heard ppl blather on and on about how we should be ecumenical and "just get along". That's not a possibility within Christendom. that being said....

I have heard many ppl who will not attend a church on a regular basis, say many of those things you are telling me. It takes awhile to visit churches to find a home church. Sometimes it takes years. But to continue to flit from church to church does the body no good. How does one decide how to serve if you are only there once a month, or once every two months, or only when you "feel like it"? As for Christians that espouse you do not need the church to grow......ridiculous! Iron sharpens iron.

I actually think, so far, Catholic dude had a definition of apostate that will cause me to think a bit. Of course, the slant against protestants I do not agree with. But as I told Fru, off to do some reading....

THanks for participating in the thread. Sometimes I think I bring up things that folks don't want to answer so I don't always get much response. Sometimes I"m totally way off base, which is why I asked here. IT's a safe haven for me, until ppl come in who don't want to fellowship but just argue.

Thanks for elaborating.

 

[mlqurgw]

Well...I wouldn't personally go so far as to say that the Catholic Church is entirely apostate. I have met Bible-believing Catholic Christians. But I admit, the Catholic Church isn't the best place to develop one's faith in Christ.



Thanks for elaborating.

Arunma, have you ever studied what Catholics actually teach? I am not talking about their apologetics to make themselves seem ecumenical but what they actually teach.