Will God save those led astray by heresy?

[boydwgrossii]

This depends on how you define heresy. Biblically, we see heresy as destructive and damnable meaning one cannot believe these things about God and be worshipping the God of the Scriptures.

Dr. Walter Martin is a great source on this in Kingdom of the Cults.

In the Scriptures, Judaism became heretical when they denied that Jesus is the Messiah. Paul believed this and was delivered from it (Acts: Damascus road). The New Testament epistles are written to Christians surrounded by paganism and some are trying to mix paganism into Christianity and it is being confronted.

Paul points this out in Galatians in saying some have turned to another gospel (not that there is another).

Christianity is full of people who were enslaved by heresy and saved from it.

 

[Roymond]

If one has received truth and is culpable for rejecting it. In that measure they have rejected Our Savior.

But that's really the question: has a heretic rejected the Savior, or do they just misunderstand?

This was discussed (argued about) in the early church all through the first four centuries or so. There was a sort of general consensus that the heresiarchs, the teachers whose teaching about who Jesus was crossed the line, were the only ones certain to be doomed if they refused correction; their followers who were in positions of authority who also refused correction had similar (but less harsh) status, but the ordinary Christian who believed what was taught by such heretic teachers were not to be condemned, but gently taught to hold to the truth instead.

In my university student days there was a seminar where the question was raised of the status of the heresiarchs when the church had met in council and a decision made: were they good Christians one moment, and the next they were cut off? or were they only cut off if they persisted in their heresy? And what if they truly believed their interpretation was right and still trusted Jesus? And what of those who heard the heretical teaching and lacked the capability to judge -- if they respected the one teaching heresy, and so because of their trust believed that heresy, are they condemned?

The consensus of our seminar was that the latter group were like the Prodigal Son except that the father had to send servants to drag the wayward son home, while those who had been teaching what they heard from a heretic teacher but agreed to be silent once the Church had spoken would be fine -- but as for the heresiarchs themselves we never reached a consensus.

It's a tough topic, and ultimately the final outcome is in God's hands, though the temporal outcome can't be avoided; the procedure Jesus set down as reported by Matthew in the eighteenth chapter of his Gospel must be followed.

 

[Roymond]

I don't know if heresy can be said to be a matter of ignorance, as part of rising to the level of being a heretic is continually resisting correction. Heretics aren't simply mistaken about some doctrine or other, but flagrantly and defiantly denying an essential aspect of the faith.

Back in the early centuries the only ones who got called heretics were those who taught something about Jesus that was contrary to the descriptions in scripture of who and what Messiah had to be. So those who taught that Jesus had a human body but no human soul were adjudged heretics because if He wasn't fully human Jesus couldn't redeem us, and the same for those who taught that He wasn't really born of Mary but the Father created a new and special body for Him because if He wasn't born from a 'daughter of Eve' then He couldn't redeem us, and so on.

That principle is why the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon organizations are heretical: they have a different Christ, and their version of Him can't be a redeemer.

Once Christology had been settled, other teachings were sometimes called heresy, but always it was because if you followed it through to the end it meant that Jesus wasn't who the scriptures say He was. Thus a heretic was by definition an antichrist: he was quite literally opposing the Jesus of the scriptures who is the core of the faith.

Today the charge of heresy gets thrown around far too flippantly.

 

[Roymond]

There's a difference between believing heresy and being a heretic and there is also a difference between being a heretic and being apostate. One may, relatively innocently, believe heresy if it is what you were taught and never heard the truth. But being a heretic means that one has known the truth and rejected it in favour of a heresy.

That's pretty much what the early church decided, and is why they were very careful about calling someone a heretic, and even more careful in calling someone a determined heretic, i.e. someone who has been plainly shown the truth not by one other but by the church, which for really prominent teachers meant by a church council. Matthew 18 was held to carefully.

 

[Fervent]

Back in the early centuries the only ones who got called heretics were those who taught something about Jesus that was contrary to the descriptions in scripture of who and what Messiah had to be. So those who taught that Jesus had a human body but no human soul were adjudged heretics because if He wasn't fully human Jesus couldn't redeem us, and the same for those who taught that He wasn't really born of Mary but the Father created a new and special body for Him because if He wasn't born from a 'daughter of Eve' then He couldn't redeem us, and so on.

That principle is why the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon organizations are heretical: they have a different Christ, and their version of Him can't be a redeemer.

Once Christology had been settled, other teachings were sometimes called heresy, but always it was because if you followed it through to the end it meant that Jesus wasn't who the scriptures say He was. Thus a heretic was by definition an antichrist: he was quite literally opposing the Jesus of the scriptures who is the core of the faith.

Today the charge of heresy gets thrown around far too flippantly.

Yes, absolutely. The church has historically recognized two different forms of serious error, heresy and schism. Unfortunately, heresy is thrown around because schismatic has lost its sting from the fractured nature of the church. If we could return to an ecumenical understanding of essentials, while respecting the serious conscientious disagreements it would be far easier to separate authentic Christian movements from non-Christian cults like JW and Mormonism.

 

[Roymond]

Teaching that Jesus is God but not man is what Gnostics were teaching.

Actually many Gnostics refused to concede that He was God; God was "the fullness" and other terms, a being so far above us that He would never come to us directly, only through layers of intermediaries passing down the truth needed to work our way up the layers of being. That's what Paul is addressing when he writes that "in Hm all the fullness of God dwells bodily": he connects "the fullness" (which he identifies as God) directly to the merely material realm, something the Gnostics denied was possible (I love that whole passage; he slams the Gnostics to the mat and practically rubs their faces in truth, making clear to his audience that those teachers actually lacck the thing they say is critical -- they have no knowledge of the Truth!).

 

[Jonaitis]

I would like to think that those who fall victim to erroneous doctrines and teachings about the Christian faith, God would redeem by their sincerity. He is merciful, after all. Is it really anyone's fault if they are taken in by a deceiver but mean well in their profession? We know so little and are so limited in our understandings. Paul warned about believing a different (heretical) gospel though, a gospel that doesn't save. Will God excuse our ignorance, which may be great, if we are spiritually attached to faith in Christ's propitiation? A verse for context below:

2 Peter 2
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping

I think we first need to define heresy and find the perimeters of what is considered 'orthodoxy.'

Christendom doesn't quite know what is orthodoxy, although the historical and general consensus favors the Nicene tradition, that is, in matters of Christology. It seems from my investigation into the matter is that a narrow understanding of Christology is the general reception of what is considered "orthodox."

 

[Roymond]

I think a problem though is heresy is subjective. I'm sure both you and I are considered heretics at least in part by some segments of Christianity.

The early church considered heresy to be quite the opposite: heresy was a term that only applied to a teacher whose presentation of who Jesus is was so far off they had a different Jesus. And they addressed those teaching very logically and objectively, always asking, "Who do the scriptures say the Redeemer must be?" In other words, heresy was something that taught so wrongly about Jesus that their preaching could bring no one to the faith because no one would understand what it meant to have a Savior.

 

[Roymond]

I think we first need to define heresy and find the perimeters of what is considered 'orthodoxy.'

Christendom doesn't quite know what is orthodoxy, although the historical and general consensus favors the Nicene tradition, that is, in matters of Christology. It seems from my investigation into the matter is that a narrow understanding of Christology is the general reception of what is considered "orthodox."

Not just the Nicene; the Chalcedonian Definition is pretty definitive -- though that can be misleading; many hold to the same beliefs as the Definition expresses but disagree with the emphasis. The core, though, is critical: that Jesus is fully God and fully man, "Without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".

I hear far too much preaching, especially in so-called non-denominational churches, that stray from that Definition.

 

[Jonaitis]

Not just the Nicene; the Chalcedonian Definition is pretty definitive -- though that can be misleading; many hold to the same beliefs as the Definition expresses but disagree with the emphasis. The core, though, is critical: that Jesus is fully God and fully man, "Without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".

I hear far too much preaching, especially in so-called non-denominational churches, that stray from that Definition.

Generally, Chalcedonian Definition is not well-known and is largely absent in the doctrinal statements of many orthodox-claiming conservative churches. Most reference the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed (like this Forum, matter of fact).

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I believe that the LORD is merciful. In reality, if we were to present perfect doctrine as the saving factor even I in a church that I feel follows wholeheartedly after the word of God would perish. For there are points of doctrine which do not align with the word of God. We are quick to condemn Jehovah's Witnesses, for false doctrines, but there are so many false doctrines in accepted churches that it makes my face blush. Now I am not standing up for JW's, they need to come out from that organization. But the reality is we are all born into some falsehood. When we see "falseness" we need to come out from it, but you want the truth, I don't know of one church that completely follows the truth. Jesus is the truth, He is the only way, but believe me, no one will be saved by being in the perfect church.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I believe as long as we're on this Earth, we have time to seek the truth (The truth, way and life is Jesus). God is merciful, he gives us time.

John 3

16 “For this is how God loved the world: He gave[g] his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.

John 16

The Work of the Holy Spirit

5 “But now I am going away to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking where I am going. 6 Instead, you grieve because of what I’ve told you. 7 But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate[a] won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world of its sin, and of God’s righteousness, and of the coming judgment. 9 The world’s sin is that it refuses to believe in me. 10 Righteousness is available because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more. 11 Judgment will come because the ruler of this world has already been judged.

12 “There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future. 14 He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine; this is why I said, ‘The Spirit will tell you whatever he receives from me.’

 

[ozso]

The early church considered heresy to be quite the opposite: heresy was a term that only applied to a teacher whose presentation of who Jesus is was so far off they had a different Jesus. And they addressed those teaching very logically and objectively, always asking, "Who do the scriptures say the Redeemer must be?" In other words, heresy was something that taught so wrongly about Jesus that their preaching could bring no one to the faith because no one would understand what it meant to have a Savior.

Yes, I've heard that before from good authority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If we could return to an ecumenical understanding of essentials, while respecting the serious conscientious disagreements it would be far easier to separate authentic Christian movements from non-Christian cults like JW and Mormonism.

It really is not so hard to point to what makes JW and Mormon beliefs heretical; just ask, "can you, in good conscience, say the Nicene creed and say it because you believe it to be the truth revealed by God?" The answer from JW's governing body will be no, I think that the leaders of the CJC-LDS (Mormons) would say no too.

 

[benadamm]

Actually many Gnostics refused to concede that He was God; God was "the fullness" and other terms, a being so far above us that He would never come to us directly, only through layers of intermediaries passing down the truth needed to work our way up the layers of ation rxposed lbeing. That's what Paul is addressing when he writes that "in Hm all the fullness of God dwells bodily": he connects "the fullness" (which he identifies as God) directly to the merely material realm, something the Gnostics denied was possible (I love that whole passage; he slams the Gnostics to the mat and practically rubs their faces in truth, making clear to his audience that those teachers actually lacck the thing they say is critical -- they have no knowledge of the Truth!).

Just to add.

With the breath of his mouth

Truth exposes error by contrast.

I imagine; the belief that an evil demiurge created material reality and the good God created spiritual reality the Incarnation would put my love for truth to the test.

If I accept the Incarnation I love Truth.
If I reject the Incarnation I lacked the love for Truth that could have saved me.

 

[Roymond]

Generally, Chalcedonian Definition is not well-known and is largely absent in the doctrinal statements of many orthodox-claiming conservative churches. Most reference the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed (like this Forum, matter of fact).

Without the Definition it's pretty easy to end up doing false teaching without knowing it. Even in churches that hold to the Apostles' Creed I've encountered Modalism and other errors.

 

[friend of]

Even in churches that hold to the Apostles' Creed I've encountered Modalism and other errors

Just out of curiosity what's wrong with Modalism? I don't know too much about it myself tbh.

 

[Roymond]

Just out of curiosity what's wrong with Modalism? I don't know too much about it myself tbh.

In modalism there's just one Person who acts in different roles, a view which isn't just contrary to plain statements of scripture but fundamentally messes with the Incarnation and thus with salvation. It also entangles God with time and space in ways that make Him subject to them rather than the other way around, which messes with God being all-powerful. That is ends up having God talk to Himself is minor, while it makes a mockery of the scene at Jesus' baptism when the Son is standing right there, the Father speaks from Heaven, and the Spirit descends "as a dove".

 

[Jonaitis]

Without the Definition it's pretty easy to end up doing false teaching without knowing it. Even in churches that hold to the Apostles' Creed I've encountered Modalism and other errors.

So for you, it more than Christology, but a proper understanding of the Trinity? I wonder, though, if someone can still truly be a believer of the gospel who may be also, and perhaps unconsciously, a Modalist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is a saying by one of the saints of the Eastern Churches, St. Theophan the Recluse that I have heard a number of times, (I apologize if my quoting from memory butchers it a bit), "Do not worry about the salvation of the heterodox, for they have a Savior who cares very deeply for their salvation too." Theophan then goes on, however, to warn against knowingly turning away from the truth.

In other words, leave the salvation of the heterodox to God, but as for those of us who believe in the truth, abide in it. If we knowingly turn away from the truth, rather than merely being ignorant of it, we jeopardize ourselves by making shipwreck of our faith.

Not because salvation is about "having the right beliefs" or making sure all our i's are dotted and t's are crossed. But because Jesus calls us to abide in Him, and outside of the Safe Harbor of Jesus Christ there is only the tumultuous waves and storms of the open sea.

-CryptoLutheran