Heresy in the Church

"The quickest way to prevent heresy is to teach all truths, and the most certain way of refuting it is to expose them all."

The Puritans were masters of defending the Gospel against the attacks of those who sought an attempt at destroying the Christian faith. They wrote masterful treatises (writings characterized by sound biblical arguments, biblical rationalism and logic) by which many great polemical and apologetic arguments are still helpful today.

For all intents and purposes, I do pray for those who may be entrenched in some type of false doctrine, and for those who may have become deceived into believing some sort of heresy. My prayer is that they may see the biblical light which shines in the darkness, and to repent of their heresy and come to an understanding of the biblical record which promotes its truth, and true Christian piety. The Bible exposes that which is false, and nurtures those in the truth.

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:6

Heresy takes only a moment to enter into the church, yet it takes many years to get it out. May we be on guard against such things.

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies." 2 Peter 2:1

The following is an article comprised of excerpts from "The Nature and Danger of Heresies" by Obadiah Sedgwick, published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications.

What is Heresy?: The word "heresy" admits a threefold signification and use. 1) Sometimes it is taken for any new and select opinion, contrary to the common and usually-received opinions of other men; in which the word "heresy" may sometimes bear a good construction, Acts 24:14, "For after that which the Jews called heresy, did Paul worship the God of his fathers." 2) Sometimes it is taken for any false opinion whatsoever, wherein a person recedes from any divine truth, and, thereby, creates division, sects, and contentions. 3) But strictly among divines, it is taken for some notorious, false, and perverse opinion, opposing and subverting the faith once delivered to the saints, as Jude says, or overthrowing the form of wholesome words, as Paul says. Thus, it may be described: "Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian. To make an erroneous opinion amount to heresy, two things must occur: 1) The error must be about faith; matters of divine faith. 2) It must be against the faith. This type of error is heresy two fold: 1) When it is not concordant to every truth in Scripture, and 2) When it is repugnant to the truth, or any truth, which is necessary to salvation, and here, no doubt, the error against faith will prove to be heresy.

Of the Danger of Heresies: 1) The Scriptures charge sin, perniciousness, and damnation upon them. Paul reckons them among those works of the flesh which shut persons out of the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Peter calls them pernicious and damnable, and such as bring swift destruction; and, speaking of the authors of them, he says that their damnation slumbers not (2 Peter 2:1-3). 2) Heresies are compared in Scripture sometimes to gangrene or canker, 2 Timothy 2:17, "Their word will eat as doth a canker." The canker is an invading ulcer, creeping from joint to joint, corrupting one part after another till, at length, it eats out the very heart and life. 3) Jesus Christ and His apostles give special charges and caveats against them, to take heed and beware of them, which they never would have done had they not been dangerous. Mark 8:15, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Matthew 7:15, "Beware of False Prophets." Philippians 3:2, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." 2 Peter 3:17, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

The Greatness of the Danger of Heresies: Every heretical opinion buys a soul or stabs a soul. Its stabs the soul of him who maintains it, and still trades it on to murder more souls. Heresy turns the glory of God into a lie. O sirs, what is God without truth? And what is all the goodness of the Gospel without truth? And what is the fabric of man's salvation without truth? Truth is, as it were, the pin, the clasp, the knot that ties all. And a church is never more close to dying when it gives up the truth. Heresy is like the circles in a pond; one begets another, the smaller to the greater. So one heresy begets another, a lesser to a greater.

2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.

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.

Take Heed: Let everyone take heed lest he be carried away with any part of this flood of heresy. Be on guard that you are not light or proud Christians. Be on guard that you are not loose Christians. If ungodliness is in the heart, it will not be hard for error to get into the head. Take heed that you are not weak Christians. Take heed that you are not , worldly, nor hypocritical, nor unstable. Let everyone strengthen his soul that he may stand and withstand, and not be carried away. Take all in word: A judgment solidly principled, a heart sincerely renewed, a faith truly bottomed, truth and love of it cordially matched; profession and practice well joined, a fear of ourselves and dependence upon God still maintained, God's ordinances and the society of the humble and growing Christians still frequented, watchfulness and prayer still continued are the best directives that I can deliver to keep us in the truth, and the best preservatives that I know to keep us from error.

Obadiah Sedgwick is biblically correct. The information above ought to be wisely heeded. Heresy is cancer of the mind. It destroys churches, souls, pastors, deacons, men, women, and the children who grow up to be them. It has infected contemporary Christendom more than most are aware of, simply because they are not reading their Bibles. May the God of understanding bring those who are in error to the truth of His Word, for the glory of His Son.

Gee, a Calvinist 'shilling' for another Calvinist, what a shock!

To repeat the immortal words of Hank Kerchief, 'I could care a fig what any of you think'

This is from New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII: Liutpra http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=279&view=thml

4. As Theologian. As a theologian, Melanchthon did not show so much creative ability as a genius for collecting and systematizing the ideas of others, especially of Luther, for the purpose of instruction. He kept to the practical, and cared little for connection of the parts, so his Loci were in the form of isolated paragraphs. The fundamental difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies not so much in the latter's ethical conception, as in his humanistic mode of thought which formed the basis of his theology and made him ready not only to acknowledge moral and religious truths outside of Christianity, but also to bring Christian truth into closer contact with them, and thus to mediate between Christian revelation and ancient philosophy.

Melanchthon's views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas. Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical and intellectual elements.

After giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but resisting its own weakness. Since 1548 he used the definition of freedom formulated by Erasmus, "the capability of applying oneself to grace."(emphasis mine) He was certainly right in thinking it impossible to change one's character without surrender of the will; but by correlating the divine and the human will he lost sight of the fundamental religious experience that the desire and realization of good actions is a gift of divine grace. His definition of faith lacks the mystical depth of Luther.

In dividing faith into knowledge, assent, and trust, he made the participation of the heart subsequent to that of the intellect, and so gave rise to the view of the later orthodoxy that the establishment and acceptation of pure doctrine should precede the personal.

Melanchthon's views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas. Dec that was Luthers Foundation..so how can the author say he ONLY "modified " some ideas. dec jean has closed you down..give it up

Hey, I wonder what it is about Calvinists that they love being wrong!

The strained relation between these two men never came from external things, such as human rank and fame, much less from other advantages, but always from matters of Church and doctrine, and chiefly from the fundamental difference of their individualities; they repelled and attracted each other "because nature had not formed out of them one man." However, it can not be denied that Luther was the more magnanimous, for however much he was at times dissatisfied with Melanchthon's actions, he never uttered a word against his private character; but Melanchthon, on the other hand, sometimes evinced a lack of confidence in Luther. In a letter to Carlowitz he complained that Luther on account of his polemical nature exercised a personally humiliating pressure upon him. Luther certainly never intended to exercise such a pressure, and if it existed at all, it was Melanchthon's own fault.

But as I said before I gave up a long time on your ability to grasp simple facts. That 'modification' was rejected by the Lutherian Church at the Forumula of Concord when they rejected the 'will' as being part of the conversion process.

Moving toward Erasmus is some 'modification'

Couldnt have anything to do with a contrary heart could it? Amen! New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, This is Melanchthon,

To say that the beginning of repentance is in man, would be inverting the order; man turns to God on the ground that God first turns to man. Melanch thon later modified this view, first, by relinquishing the deterministic conception of the doctrine of pre destination (Scholia on Colossians, 1527). The special properties of the nature with which God en dowed man in distinction from the other creatures are " reason " and " choice." The natural man is capable of a " carnal and civil righteousness."
The thought of God as the author of sin formerly not avoided is now repudiated. In the Commentary on Romans (Wittenberg, 1532) he teaches the universal ity of divine grace, and shuns all closer investiga tion of the mystery of divine election. Melaneh thon now regards the pity of God as the cause of election, but recognizes in non-rejection a negative cause of acceptance.
The development of his doc trine of free will and conversion gains momentum with his growing desire to understand the act of di vine grace at the same time as a psychological proc ess in the human consciousness and will, consist ently with his explanations of the mental powers presented in his commentary on the Ethics of Aris totle (1529) and in De anima (1540). Besides, there was his practical motive to make man responsible for his own salvation. With respect to the former, the will is the formal power which responds, either by willing, not willing, or neutrality, to the sub jects manifested by the intellect; it may follow the beckoning of the desires or the admonitions of the reason. The will produces nothing original, but assumes an attitude toward what approaches it.
This power was not lost through original sin. Like wise, when the grace of God contained in his Word draws nigh, and, through the hearing of it, the Holy Spirit enters man and produces the spiritual effects of repentance and faith, there yet remains to the will the alternative attitude of acceptance or re jection. In this sense Melanchthon mentions the " three concurrent causes of good actions" in re generation: " the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, not absolutely inert, but struggling against its own infirmity."
In this sense he lets the definition of Erasmus hold: " Free will is the power of apply ing oneself to grace." This synergism was taught in the Leipsic Interim, which affirmed among other things that God does not deal with man as with a block, but The Leipsic so regenerates him that his will coop Interim. crates. Matthias Flacius (q.v.) pro fessed to divine in those words a pa pistical meritum de congruo and a fragment of free will.
Johann Pfeffinger published Melanchthon's doctrine in two disputations: De libertate voluntatis humance (Leipsic, 1555); and De libero arbitrio (1555). The concurrent. active causes are " the Holy Spirit moving through the. Word of God, the mind in the act of thinking, and the will not resist ing, but complying whenever moved by the Holy Spirit." If the attitude of man were ut status when the Holy Spirit has kindled reason, will, and feel- ing, then there would be no inner struggle to secure faith; if man was idle or " purely passive," then the distinction between pious and impious, elect and non-elect, as well as the impartiality and justice of God, would disappear. " Therefore, there was in us -some cause why some assent and others do not assent."

And this is Wesley

5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.

And this is Arminius

— Arminius — In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. (Vol 1, p 252, italics in original)

I guess we all must really be Calvinists!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.