Wednesday, June 23, 2004 AD
Recantation, schmecantation
On reflection, I agree with Josh that it is a mistake to use a narrow definition of "heresy". In response to comments from Josh and Chris J, here are some assorted further thoughts on the subject, in no particular order:
But in essence, I pretty much agree with what Josh had to say yesterday.
- I found the following point from Josh particularly helpful: that "heresy" does not mean, "a belief that will send you to hell", but instead "a teaching that cannot be taught in the church". Chris J also put it well in the comments: "Heresy doesn't mean that those who believe it aren't saved. It's a belief that, if true, means that none of us is saved, because if the heresy is the truth, the Gospel isn't the truth."
- There is indeed, as Josh put it, a need to be "serious and sober" about heresy, as were the framers of the Lutheran Confessions. Primarily, this involves (for me at least) learning to be less embarrassed about saying, lovingly but firmly, "that is a heresy". But it also includes being careful in how we use the word, particularly in the context of debate with other Christians who hold heretical views. The words, "that is a heresy" will be heard by many people as, "you are going to hell". That's not to say we shouldn't use the word, but that effective communication requires us to understand how our words will be received. "You are a heretic" shuts down debate (and sometimes debate does need to be shut down, of course). "What you are saying is in fact heretical, because..." may help us win our brother.
- Indeed, the argument that Calvinistic teachings on the Lord's Supper are heretical played no small part in persuading me of the Lutheran teaching. "How can you, who profess to be an orthodox, catholic Christian, hold to a heretical teaching, or a teaching with heretical implications?" was a persuasive argument.
- Josh raises the difficulties Protestants have in rejecting open theism, perfectionism, "re-baptism" and other heresies (there, I said it). One wonders if modern "evangelical" writers would be quite so quick to put forward views such as "open theism" or to reject substitutionary atonement or traditional teachings on hell, if there were a greater willingness to use the "H" word.
I'm not thinking here about people's reluctance to be branded as heretics themselves, so much as what these new teachings say, by implication, about earlier generations of the church. If God lacks foreknowledge about the future - if He is not sovereign over His creation - if Christ's death was not a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the world - if unrepentant sinners are annihilated rather than suffering eternal punishment in hell - then our forebears, who held these doctrines, were heretics. I suspect that if some people saw that this is the implication of what they are saying, they would think twice before indulging in such speculation or theological innovation. - However, another aspect to being "serious and sober" about heresy does involve making the sort of distinction I was driving at in my original post. There are some teachings which immediately threaten the salvation of those who hold them - for example, the recent assertion by one Episcopal bishop that Jesus was a sinner, or holding to Mormon/JW teachings.
Other heresies are held by those who will indeed be with us in eternity. Their heretical views do not necessarily imperil their salvation, but that does not mean these teachings are tolerable - not least because taken to their logical conclusion (and sooner or later, as I said before, all teachings are taken to their logical conclusion, even if not by their original adherents) they will indeed cause immeasurable damage to the church and imperil the salvation of others. I accept that I was wrong to deny that teachings of the latter type are properly called "heresies", but the distinction does still need to be made.
But in essence, I pretty much agree with what Josh had to say yesterday.
