When Called A Heretic

It's not nice to be called a heretic :(

Having theological discussions on the net for years, I have come to learn that you need to be thick-faced enuff to face it sometimes. Just today, with some sadness, I read Dave Hunt claiming that “
those who know only the false gospel of Calvinism are not saved.”

In other words, if you consistently believe in the "doctrines of grace" you'd end up in hell. And if you teach it to others, you are heretical.

Now how should I respond to such claims?

Well, I could immediately go into a fit and rant and whine against him as "intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted, and ignorant".

Can't he be more 'open minded'? Thou shalt not judge?

Or I could turn defensive and accuse him of 'sectarianism'... How dare he destroy the unity of the church by criticizing us??

Maybe I can try to coax him to be more friendly or relational and not be too focused on propositional creeds?

Or chide him for debating theology when there are more important things to do like doing mission work?

It may even be good strategy to develop 'i'm-such-a-persecuted-victim complex' and threaten to turn into a raving atheist because of people like that...

(Oh, this trick is guaranteed to get tender-hearted folks come running to offer comfort)

"Witch trials in Salem. The Council of Toulouse in the 13th century, employing men whose sole purpose was to hunt out human kindling for the flames of the Inquisition. These are images evoked by that word, "heresy." A nasty word, it suggests more about the accuser, who is considered intolerant, bigoted, and ignorant, than about the accused.

But while there have been historical events in Christian history to remind us of the dangers of heresy-hunting, very few Christians today realize the debt they owe to those who had the courage of their convictions to call heresy by its proper name, in spite of the repercussions."

Read All About Heresy, Mike Horton

But i believe it is uncharitable for me to do all the above, without at least calmly and patiently LISTEN to see if what he says is true. Compare his interpretation with Scripture la...

It doesn't matter how he say it (in flowery language or harsh ones).

If it's true that my house is burning, the most loving thing for him to do is shout aloud and do all he can to wake me up and flee the danger!

We are all fallible creatures. We could intentionally or not hold to teachings that "directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance".

Humility should allow us to realise that possibility.

Heresies abound in the time of the prophets and apostles. They (even Jesus Himself) warned us against false teachers all over scripture. The reason we don't seem to find heresies anymore today is not because they have become extinct like the dinosaurs.

Perhaps it is because in the name of tolerance, we ceased to discern them as such.

In any case, the humble thing to do is try LEARNING from what Hunt says, instead of being preoccupied to how he says it (whether sarcasm or not) or even the motive behind his words.

Which I did, and was relieved to find tat Hunt wrongly accused Calvin of teaching baptismal regeneration (people get born again by getting baptised). It's a huge blunder on his part, since Calvin teaches that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone.

So I'm not gonna lose sleep over my future destiny tonight.

Now sometimes it is easy to exaggerate that Scripture contains stories rather than doctrinal creeds. (thus suspicion of the possibility to arrange its teachings "systematically")

But one of the oldest creeds we find in Old Testament is the Shema:
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

Monotheism is one of the touchstones of orthodoxy to the people of God.

In the New Testament, we also find early liturgical creeds like

"Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form he humbled himself
and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father"

Philippians 2 (see also Col 1:15:20)

We neglect creedal confessions of our spiritual forefathers to our own peril. Yet we live in in a non-creedal where the only credo is "No creed but Christ".

But is that so obviously true? Get a second opinion and check out The Usefulness of Creeds and Why Do We Need Creeds?