Watch how you use the "H" word
In Ecclesiology and Eschatology, we have been studying the topic of degrees of error, and a very helpful chart was given in class by Dr. Peterson, who borrows it from Dr. Jones.
Anyway, it was very helpful to me because of how cavalier in tossing out the word "heresy" many can be when discussing that with which they disagree.
Many times I have heard (and I used to talk this way as well) of the "heresy" of, say, Arminianism, Charismatic churches, or even dispensationalism or Covenant theology.
Now, that is plain silly if you consider what heresy actually is: it is teaching something that is a damning error.
By damning error, we are talking about denying basic truths of Christianity. This would be someone not believing in the Trinity, or denying that Jesus is God. That is heresy.
But if we consider varying degrees of error, we can find much better terminology to describe that with which we do not agree.
DEGREES OF ERROR (from bad to worst)
– Wrong opinions: Misunderstanding of Verses
– Errors: less serious… more serious.
– Systemic Errors: errors that affect other parts of the system of truth
– Heresy: damning doctrine
Now discussing things that one does not agree with can fit better in that framework, rather than dropping an "h" bomb on the idea you dislike.
For instance, if I were to critique an idea with which I disagree such as out and out Arminianism, I would not label it a heresy. I would approach it either as "error" or "systematic error" depending on how much it affected the particular person's theological framework.
This does several things:
It helps to still affirm aspects of the unity of the Church. (John 17)
It also makes me approach the topic as being something complex, instead of generalizing
It also acknowledges that my brother who holds particular view X is still my brother and there are still essentials we affirm together.
Disagreements approached within a framework of understanding various degrees of error allows for better interaction between God's people frees them from becoming heresy hunters, etc.
Anyway, it was very helpful to me because of how cavalier in tossing out the word "heresy" many can be when discussing that with which they disagree.
Many times I have heard (and I used to talk this way as well) of the "heresy" of, say, Arminianism, Charismatic churches, or even dispensationalism or Covenant theology.
Now, that is plain silly if you consider what heresy actually is: it is teaching something that is a damning error.
By damning error, we are talking about denying basic truths of Christianity. This would be someone not believing in the Trinity, or denying that Jesus is God. That is heresy.
But if we consider varying degrees of error, we can find much better terminology to describe that with which we do not agree.
DEGREES OF ERROR (from bad to worst)
– Wrong opinions: Misunderstanding of Verses
– Errors: less serious… more serious.
– Systemic Errors: errors that affect other parts of the system of truth
– Heresy: damning doctrine
Now discussing things that one does not agree with can fit better in that framework, rather than dropping an "h" bomb on the idea you dislike.
For instance, if I were to critique an idea with which I disagree such as out and out Arminianism, I would not label it a heresy. I would approach it either as "error" or "systematic error" depending on how much it affected the particular person's theological framework.
This does several things:
It helps to still affirm aspects of the unity of the Church. (John 17)
It also makes me approach the topic as being something complex, instead of generalizing
It also acknowledges that my brother who holds particular view X is still my brother and there are still essentials we affirm together.
Disagreements approached within a framework of understanding various degrees of error allows for better interaction between God's people frees them from becoming heresy hunters, etc.
posted by Bobby's blog at 3:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home