Where do we draw the line on heresy?What makes one a heretic?
We have been discussing heresy in Sunday school at Indian River Baptist Church and it raised the question in my mind: what makes one a heretic? I mean besides the obvious things, when is it OK to call someone a heretic?
Heresy is a word we toss about, and I especially do, fairly cavalierly. Phil Johnson has a whole section on his webpage of famous heretics throughout the ages. It seems the easy thing to do, when faced with something we disagree with strongly, to throw down the heresy card to end discussion.
Some things are fairly easy to diagnose as heresy. Mormonism is clearly a heresy. The same with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both cult groups deny such fundamental doctrines of the Bible that they stand clearly outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. The list of obvious heretics is pretty lengthy and easy to identify. What is far more difficult, and far more dangerous, is when we point the finger of heresy at someone within the church. On the one hand we don’t have the option to ignore or brush over false teaching and false teachers in our midst. Yet we also must be careful to not label genuine brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics without justification.
Just disagreeing with someone on a point of doctrine is not a sign of heresy. I feel baptizing infants is un-Biblical and constitutes an inaccurate way of administering the sacrament of baptism. I would not be a member of a church where infant baptism was performed. Yet some of my closest and dearest friends are paedobaptists. I would feel perfectly justified in telling them, cheerfully and in Christian love, that I think that baptizing their infant is improper, but to call them a heretic? Hardly. I would no sooner call R.C. Sproul a heretic than I would label John MacArthur the same. Both hold very different views on baptism and ecclesiology, but that doesn’t mean that one is right and one is a heretic.
Doing something differently is not a sure sign of heresy. The sign of orthodoxy is not that a church follows the traditions set forth over the last hundred years. Granted, a lot of heretical movements have very obvious oddities in their worship services, and the excessive exuberance can be a warning sign. But many heretical churches have very sober, somber services with a seriousness that would please the most starched shirt Baptist. But seriousness is not a marker of orthodoxy anymore than casual services are a sign of unorthodoxy.
We have been discussing heresy in Sunday school at Indian River Baptist Church and it raised the question in my mind: what makes one a heretic? I mean besides the obvious things, when is it OK to call someone a heretic?
Heresy is a word we toss about, and I especially do, fairly cavalierly. Phil Johnson has a whole section on his webpage of famous heretics throughout the ages. It seems the easy thing to do, when faced with something we disagree with strongly, to throw down the heresy card to end discussion.
Some things are fairly easy to diagnose as heresy. Mormonism is clearly a heresy. The same with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both cult groups deny such fundamental doctrines of the Bible that they stand clearly outside the pale of orthodox Christianity. The list of obvious heretics is pretty lengthy and easy to identify. What is far more difficult, and far more dangerous, is when we point the finger of heresy at someone within the church. On the one hand we don’t have the option to ignore or brush over false teaching and false teachers in our midst. Yet we also must be careful to not label genuine brothers and sisters in Christ as heretics without justification.
Just disagreeing with someone on a point of doctrine is not a sign of heresy. I feel baptizing infants is un-Biblical and constitutes an inaccurate way of administering the sacrament of baptism. I would not be a member of a church where infant baptism was performed. Yet some of my closest and dearest friends are paedobaptists. I would feel perfectly justified in telling them, cheerfully and in Christian love, that I think that baptizing their infant is improper, but to call them a heretic? Hardly. I would no sooner call R.C. Sproul a heretic than I would label John MacArthur the same. Both hold very different views on baptism and ecclesiology, but that doesn’t mean that one is right and one is a heretic.
Doing something differently is not a sure sign of heresy. The sign of orthodoxy is not that a church follows the traditions set forth over the last hundred years. Granted, a lot of heretical movements have very obvious oddities in their worship services, and the excessive exuberance can be a warning sign. But many heretical churches have very sober, somber services with a seriousness that would please the most starched shirt Baptist. But seriousness is not a marker of orthodoxy anymore than casual services are a sign of unorthodoxy.
Where does that leave us? What is the magic line that differentiates disagreement over doctrine with heresy. Is N.T. Wright a heretic because of his views on the New Perspective on Paul? Is Joel Osteen because of his refusal to address sin and his embracing the health, wealth and prosperity gospel? Men like Charles Finney are clearly heretics even though they are embraced by many in the church today, but as always popularity or acceptance is not a hallmark of orthodoxy. But where should we draw the line today? As hard as it is for me to admit, I am not sure I know the answer to that one...
No comments:
Post a Comment