What is a Heretic?

josiah, you're a heretic.

no, i'm kidding. i'm with you brother. i've had just about enough of the apparent pleasure taken in divisiveness in the reformed tradition. not that i think "can't we all just get along," but can't we at least hope to agree, not hope to disagree? most of the time i feel like the real energy is put into how each denomination/following/church can show how different they are they their supposed christian "brothers and sisters."

um... and nice shameless plug on the heidelberg. yeesh.

I didn't mean it as a shameless plug, I wanted to use it an as example people would understand, about the effectiveness and power of a work of theology is directly related to the type of people it is directed to. You know, my whole subjectivity thing.

Watching TBN last night makes you hit home rosiah. New sectarian movements generally fall along two lines, first are those that just care about orthodoxy. This is by far the largest group. These people are usually mistaken in their desire to split off. Second are those that care about orthodoxy and the social order. In the case of Martin Luther, he was making a sectarian move away from the church not only in the interest of doctrine, but in the interest of the Christian community being a strong social order. He felt that the Catholic church was ultimately weakening the social order.

Josiah, aren't you doing precisely what you accuse these guys of doing? I tend to agree with you, but who are you to be making such public negative comments against ministers of the Word in good standing in churches that we respect?

We don't need more people yelling loudly at everyone to be quiet.

Andy, nice comments. We often like to focus on our "distinctives" in an unhelpful manner.

That's my husband. :) (Nick, that is)

And Josiah, you've got guts. The whole world is out there... :) Or am I just being paranoid? I have to be more selective in what I say anyway, since Nick is going on to seminary and all. Hence safe topics like broken mowers and food.

I know why you wrote that. And as a rule I'm pretty low-key. I don't like hurling Bible bombs. I prefer the humble, quiet/agree to disagree approach. There's just one person and following that gets my goad, because he and following think they have found the answers (which are rather frighteningly staunch and "progressive"). So I'm totally with your frustration.

I prefer Stef's approach. Let's just stick to lawn mowers and snacks. Or children's lit. I highly encourage everyone to read Arnold Lobel's "Grasshopper on the Road."

And to deal with the St. Martin syndrome some, I highly recommend Heiko Oberman's biography of Luther...downright Nietzschean in some respects.
:-)

AH JEANETTE! I TOTALLY didn't mean that as a barb at you, AT ALL. The reason I posted that come out of a discussion Nick and I were having, and from a John Robbin's e-mail I just got. I didn't have ANYTHING to do with your little thing 'bout Wilson. I'm sorry if it seemed that way, I totally didn't have it in mind.

Nick, I'd like to think a difference between what "I" am doing (with one post) as opposed to what "they" are doing with an entire life's work, is that I'm not declaring them heretics. I still read, and love, Wilson's work. Heck, I even read Robbin's Trinity Review. They're both often times edifying stuff.

I'd like to think the difference is fundamentally over where the emphasis is in our relationship to Christ. My feelings is that much of the Enlightenment Reformed Church (And yes, Wilson is a liberal, and therefor Enlightenment) views the Christian walk primarily in terms of ideas, and I feel its fundamentally rooted in people, relationships, and our relationship to Christ.

Wait a minute, Josiah. If you are going to rant against calling someone a heretic based on the fact that it does not fit the technical defintion of the term (i.e., violation of an ecumenical creed), then shouldn't you at least make sure that the term was actually used? Most of the links you provided took me to a source that claimed such charges. It may very well be right, but since this is second hand information, I can't consider it right now. However, after reading Beisner's article, I don't see that he uses this particular terminology (maybe you could point it out for me). If he hasn't, this would make you guilty of a false accusation- not a light thing to do against an elder in good standing. Even in those cases where the term is being used, it isn't fair to use the technical term as the standard. Ever since the Protestant Reformation, new ecumenical creeds have become an impossibility. Consequently, any unbiblical doctrine that now comes to our attention cannot be called a heresy. But this certainly does not mean that such a doctrine is okay. Your contention that the Westminster Confession is not an ecumenical creed is true; however, it misses the point. Within a church that subscribes to the system of doctrine contained in this confession, one should expect to take violations seriously. A charge of heresy in such a case is not out of line. I suppose that you could go the 'no creed but Christ' route. However, the creedal vacuum is more often filled by legalism rather than Christ. Having been raised in just such a church, I can attest that confessional standards are remarkably liberating.

Concerning the specific issue of Beisner on Shepherd, the issue at hand is the cornerstone of the Reformation. It cannot be about a heresy, technically so called, because the church at that time ceased to exist as a visibly ecumenical entity. However, this does not mean that the doctrine itself cannot be heterodox. I don't believe that what Beisner says is out of line here and I share his concerns. The issue, as I see it, is not only approaching lines of heresy, but of damnable heresy. Does this mean that I think Norman Shepherd is a damned heretic? Absolutley not. I believe that he takes seriously James' words that 'faith without works is dead.' In fact, a charitable reading of Sheperd's book, which I do grant him as a Christian brother, leads me to conclude that his views on justification are in accord with biblical truth. Nevertheless, when I consider Shepherd in the role of a minister of the Word, I cannot give him the same amount of charity. The problem is that Shepherd, although he may be relativley easy to read, is an incredibly sloppy writer. Basically, the way that he has expressed himself will allow those with heterodox views of justification to agree with what he says even if this is not at all what he means.

You may have just cause to be angry in many cases. But please, be more precise in your criticism. As it is, you're using much too big a brush in painting people. For example, belief in and articulation of "intrusion ethics" does not imply that one is divisive or that he thinks that those who don't concur are heretics. Yet, the context in which you use the term has placed us in just such a light. As to "hypostatic union," failure to believe what this term is teaching is, technically, heresy (Nicene Creed). Your call to be "humble, loving, and relational" necessarily lies in contrast to those who are throwing around heresy labels. In itself, there is nothing wrong with this assessment. However, since you are not dealing with the specific issue of whether or not the spirit of the charge is warranted, your call essentially degenerates into a cheap shot.

Division for its own sake is wrong and, in such a case, you have every right to be upset. But there is a big difference between being upset by false accusations and being upset because true accusations may be necessary. As it is, your reaction indicates a "can't we all just get along" mentality. I think I know you well enough to say that you don't think this way. If you're going to rant against the various heresy hounds, go ahead: I might even join you on occasion. Just be sure that you do so based on the merits of a particular case and not on the mere fact that the charge has been made.

Can I just say the I LOVE Covblogs!! I love reading Kevin Courter's comments again! That was the only thing interesting on the E-Door.

That's ok, Josiah. Sorry for being presumptuous as to the source of your comments.

Another reason I like Covblogs. The people I'm interacting with I already know. So things that may or may not get misconstrued because it's typing (and thus vocal inflections and facial expressions are lost), don't necessarily, because we have an idea of who is actually "talking."

Josiah, you like to rant on this stuff as a form of personal therapy, don't you. You accuse people of doing things that you know you've done, hoping to convince yourself that you no longer do them.

Yep, that's right. I've got you ALL figured out.

That's because I do the same thing.

Nick, I'd like to think its a bit more than personal therapy, that in fact I actually do believe the stuff I'm claiming to believe. I'm also fairly certain I'm not trying to convince myself that I no longer do them, my self-loathing and guilt pushes it in the sense that I feel bad about this stuff and want to grow, mature etc., but it's not the end (the guilt) to the concern.

And Nick, does it mean my concerns don't stand?

I'll have a response for Kevin when I get home.

Maybe he just needs more sleep...

Do you feel like I'm not taking you seriously? I just have nothing substantial to contribute, so I contribute fluff. I can refrain from it on more serious posts like this.

No, Stef! I don't care what JQ thinks, but I LOVE your comments...always have a good way about keeping things in life's perspective.

Hey thanks Jeanette. Did I give the impression that I didn't like what Stef's comments? I always find them funny. I don't understand. Did I diss her in some way?

No, I don't think you gave that impression. I was just teasing. :-)

That's what happens when part of your personality is sarcastic and you can't convey that tone of voice over the internet. :-)

How sad but true. And no, Josiah, you didn't give that impression. Just covering my imagination's back.