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?