The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Hank Hanegraff on calvinism

In reply to:

---

My question is, how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism?

---

[*]how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? I believe that the findings of the Synod of Dordt are true and should be accepted as a subordinate authority in matters of doctrine within the entire Christian Church. Let's keep the historical situation in mind when we consider the Synodical decision. At that time, most all the Protestant Churches embraced what was later to be nicknamed, (an unfortunate reality), Calvinism; the Protestant Church in contradistinction to the Roman State Church embraced monergism which was summarized in the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. Thus, this gathering of men from various denominations who met at Dordtrect, represented the vast majority of Protestants and therefore can be seen as being a united voice which spoke for all who held to the biblical doctrines of salvation. The fact that the evan-jelly-cal churches of today have forsaken their roots and have adopted the doctrines of Arminius and even Pelagius doesn't diminish the findings and judgment of Dordt.[*]Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Yes, this is possible but not likely, IMHO. Because of the nature of Arminianism, in that it teaches that man's decision to alleged historical facts, e.g., the deity of Christ, salvation by faith in Him, etc., results in salvation (Sandemanianism, aka: Easy Believism) is contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the essence of saving faith, the necessity of sanctification, the preservation/perseverance of the saints, and other fundamental doctrines. Yet, God has called some to Christ from within such churches and eventually leads them out when the doctrines of grace are made known to them. Consider Martin Luther! [*]Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism? I think the problem here is that often people begin to use that which is extreme as the standard by which they judge other heretical doctrines and thus conclude that something less heretical/offensive than the "standard" should be tolerated or viewed with less strictness. Such, IMHO, had happened since the time when German Liberalism and Existentialism (Neo-orthodoxy) came into popularity in the mid to late 1800's. Up until that time, Arminianism was not "tolerated" and deemed heretical. But when Liberalism came onto the scene, Arminianism had the appearance of being almost acceptable in comparison. This backing off, or turning a blind eye, to Arminianism has become like an infectious disease at this time in that many consider Arminianism to be nothing more than biblical Christianity which only has a few "flaws" added to it.[/LIST]

In reply to:

---

Another question, if in fact the Arminian theology of most of the church is damnable heresy, why should a baptism in such a circumstance be accepted even upon examination of the profession of faith?

---

That's a more difficult question to answer, at least it is for me. I do not accept Roman baptism as being legitimate, but such men as Charles Hodge and other "notables" did and many still do. I would accept the baptism of an infant which was done in an Arminian church, but not that of an adult. Yes, this view will surely be challenged by some here. But what is most important to me is one's profession of faith. Since the fruit of Arminianism is "Easy Believism", I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has made a profession of faith in an Arminian Church. In practical terms, I am saying that if someone desired to transfer their membership or join a Reformed Church, having previously been members of an Arminian Church, I would not take them in automatically, based upon their previous "profession of faith". In fact, I reject any type of "transfer of membership" regardless of the origin of the petitioner(s). I hold that ALL who desire to join a particular congregation should be required to make a valid profession of faith, even if such individual(s) have been members in a sister church within the same denomination. Thus, their baptism is, de facto, suspect.

In reply to:

---

But are we to say that the bulk of evangelical churches today have placed themselves so far from the trunk of Christian orthodoxy that we ought to consider them to be cut off?

---

In my estimation, yes!

In His Grace,