They taught the doctrine of sinless perfection and that grace is to make salvation easier. They taught that humans are all born like Adam, able to sin or not to sin, that we are able, at birth, if we will, to live sinless lives.
They denied the doctrine of total depravity (as it has come to be known). Pelagius and Coelestius denied that in Adam’s fall sinned we all, as the colonial catechism had it. The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the errors of Coelestius, who was an associate of Pelagius, the British monk who opposed Augustine’s doctrine that humans are fallen in Adam and utterly corrupted by sin and that salvation, including unconditional election, is by grace alone. What, however, should we say about the doctrine of salvation (soteriology)? Is there an ecumenical orthodoxy on salvation? Yes. The ecumenical faith is summarized by the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed (325, 381), the Definition of Chalcedon (451), and the Athanasian. It is not possible to reject the doctrine of the ecumenical doctrine of the Trinity and be saved nor is it possible to reject the ecumenical doctrine of the two natures of Christ and be saved. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. The Athanasian Creed (mid-4th to mid-5th centuries AD) declares: There is a sin against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31), namely attributing the work of the Spirit to the devil. There is another distinction to consider and that is between heresy used in the broad sense, to refer to error and heresy used in the narrow sense, to refer to a doctrinal error that contradicts the holy ecumenical faith and puts one in jeopardy of damnation.
Today, however, we speak less frequently of moral heresy and more typically of doctrinal heresy. The ecumenical church, meeting in council (e.g., at Nicea in 325, at Constantinople in 381, at Ephesus in 431) recognized and denounced moral errors and great doctrinal errors. In the early post-Apostolic church this pattern, of recognizing the connection between doctrinal and moral error, continued. Peter and Barnabas accepted false doctrine (i.e., that Gentiles must become Jews to become Christians) for which the Apostle Paul rightly denounced their doctrine and life as out of “step with the truth of the gospel.” The Apostle Peter’s lapse was doctrinal and moral (Gal 2:11–14). The Galatian Judaizers, who were teaching that God accepts (justifies) us partly on the basis of grace and partly on the basis of our law keeping (obedience) were guilty of schismatic doctrine, which produced divisions in the congregation.
The Corinthian congregation was riven by self-described “Super Apostles,” who denigrated Paul’s office and his doctrine. In Galatians 5:20 it refers to “divisions” that must be avoided in the church.Īlready in the apostolic period the line between divisive behavior and divisive doctrine began to blur. In 1 Cor 11:19 a αἵρεσις is divisive group in the Corinthian congregation. In Acts 24:5 Tertullus describes the Christians as a αἵρεσις.
The New Testament noun αἵρεσις ( haeresis signals “faction” or “sect.” In Acts 5:17 the Sadducees are described as a “faction” or “sect.” In Acts 15:5 the Pharisees are a αἵρεσις. Whether Ames actually said that-he wrote treatises against the Remonstrants, which have not been translated-it all comes down to the definition of heresy. Somewhere I read (or heard) that William Ames (1576–1633), who served as an advisor at the Synod of Dort, regarded Arminianism as an error tending to heresy but not heresy itself. I think most confessional Reformed pastors would probably say that, though they disagree strongly with Arminianism, it is not heresy. This question comes over the transom regularly.
0 kommentar(er)
