"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

11/26/07
Comments (14)

Apostasy and Heresy

The Banner of Truth web site features a host of useful articles (1302 at last count). One that I’ve found worth reading and bookmarking is entitled simply “Apostasy.” In the article the author, David Samuel, makes a distinction between two terms that many people mistakenly use synonymously – apostasy and heresy. Apostasy he defines as a rejection of truth that a person once believed. Hence I would be apostate if I were to suddenly reject the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine I now hold dearly. Heresy, one the other hand, is the addition of foreign doctrines. Thus I would be heretical if I added the worship of some foreign deity to my beliefs.

The first apostasy was when man rejected God. Having once held that God was perfectly trustworthy, man rejected Him and attempted to thrust himself into God’s role. In so doing he dragged himself and the rest of Creation into this state of horrible sin. This first apostasy is the source of all further apostasy. We do not need to look much further into history to find the first heresies and, in fact, much of the Old Testament is a history of early heresies.

The author then turns to the Church of Rome to show an example of a church that is both apostate and heretical, for she has both rejected doctrines she once believed and has added unbiblical beliefs to them. He calls Catholicism “wickedness under a form of godliness cunningly managed” and with Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and many other eminent Protestant theologians, considers Catholicism Satan’s masterpiece. Catholicism seeks to undermine Christianity not with an obvious frontal assault, but with careful, deliberate and veiled attacks. Francis Turrentin wrote:

“Christ wills that sola Scriptura, inspired by God be received by us as the perfect rule of faith and morals. The Pope denies Scripture alone is an adequate rule of faith, unwritten traditions must be attached. These traditions, together with Scripture, are to be equally adopted and venerated. They are to be held alike as the means of influencing godliness.

“Christ wishes His Word to be believed on its own, because it does not take its authority from man. In our estimation, the Pope wishes the authority of the Word to be derived from his Church. Christ wishes no supreme judge to be acknowledged in ruling on controversies other than God speaking through Scripture. The Pope sacrilegiously claims this prerogative for himself.

“Furthermore, Christ teaches that He alone is the Mediator, appointed by the Father, who alone is the way, the truth and the life, without whom no man can Conic to the Father. Yet the Pope forces innumerable mediators upon us. Mediators who, he says, are to reveal the way to heaven for us. Also, Christ testifies that there is no other sacrifice apart from His own; no other satisfaction by which we may obtain remission of sins and the reward of salvation. But the Pope insists on human punishments and satisfactions, while demanding a new propitiatory sacrifice called the Mass.

“Though Christ established that men are to be saved by grace through faith alone. the Pope includes works as well. Whereas Christ institutes only two sacraments, the Pope decrees seven. Christ ordains that no one but God be the object of cult and adoration, yet the Pope worships creatures as well. Christ declared Himself the sole Head and Groom of the Church, but the Pope grants this to himself as well. Christ subjects Himself to the magistrates, ordering His servants to be likewise subject. Nevertheless, the Pope subjects the magistrates, rulers and emperors to himself.

“Can it truly be said that those who teach such doctrines and defend such dogmas keep the faith of Christ? Or are they not adjudged guilty by the deserts of defection and the fact of apostasy?

Doctrine after crucial doctrine is discarded in the Roman system, only to be replaced with something that is more appealling to man’s sinful nature. Words are changed, meanings slightly altered, so that what is false seems so very close to the truth.

All this leads to the author’s assessment of the evangelical churches. “The Protestant Churches, having largely abandoned the biblical doctrines of the Reformation, which were their raison d’être, are capitulating to the leadership of the papacy and to Roman Catholic doctrine. There are, indeed, other ways that men and Churches may apostatize from the faith - into liberalism, for example, or other faiths - but Rome remains the great threat to the Protestant churches, Satan’s great masterpiece, his counterfeit Christianity by which he deceives the nations.”

With many other Christians, I have often mourned the fact that the contemporary church has so little identity with its Reformation roots. Each year Americans celebrate Thanksgiving and Independence Day, days that hearken back to their roots as a nation. They celebrate Memorial Day and Veterans Day which also look to the great victories of the past. All nations celebrate similar days – here in Canada we celebrate the anniversary of our confederation on Canada Day, remembering each year the events of the past. Yet Christians have little identity with the Reformation, the event which gave birth to the church as we know it. Along with the loss of the historical view has come the loss of the historical doctrines. The beliefs that gave birth to Protestantism are rarely articulated or taught to evangelicals. Is it any wonder, then, that many churches have capitulated “to the leadership of the papacy and to Roman Catholic doctrine?” And many who have not capitulated have developed apathy towards, a respect of, or even an envy of Catholic doctrine.

A few paragraphs later, in a discussion of the causes of idolatry (which he identifies as: enmity against God in spiritual matters, spiritual darkness and ignorance), the author writes about the critical difference between dialogue and controversy.

I think this explains the ease with which many in recent years have been able to enter into dialogue with Roman Catholics and even Muslims and Hindus. It demands a certain detachment from the truth to be able to do that. You are obliged to put a question mark over it, otherwise you are not genuinely engaging in dialogue, which means, at least in principle, you are prepared to change and qualify your beliefs. I think we must be very careful to distinguish between dialogue and controversy. Dialogue carries with it implicitly this assumption, that you will be prepared to modify and change your position, in the light of the debate, if it so requires you. But controversy, in which all the Reformers engaged, is quite a different thing. You start from what you know and believe to be the truth, and your object is to expose the error and confusion of the opponent’s position and, if possible, persuade him of the truth. It was dialogue in which Satan engaged Eve in the garden. She would have been safe if she had insisted on controversy. When men have not a fervent love of the truth and no sense of abhorrence of error they are in the anteroom of apostasy. It is said that the apostle John fled from the public baths, where Cerinthus the heretic appeared, lest they should fall on him. Today some evangelicals would be glad to stay and engage in friendly dialogue.

He is correct that dialogue carries with it the assumption that there is a question mark hovering over my beliefs. It is very postmodern, in that I acknowledge that though I believe what I believe quite strongly, it might just be all wrong. Those who dialogue enter into their dialogue with that attitude and it is no wonder that they are often persuaded that they are indeed wrong. As Christians we have no need, no right, to dialogue about our faith. We are not on equal footing with others when it comes to the fundamental doctrines.

Perhaps the most important part of the article is the author’s wisdom, culled from John Owens, about how we can avoid apostasy. He lays out several important steps:

  1. A preeminent concern with God’s glory. Meditating upon God’s glory and the current state of the church may well lead us to mourn for all we have lost.
  2. Continual prayer. We are to continually pray for the restoration of the primacy of proper doctrine in the church.
  3. Constant testimony. An open and avowed profession of, and contending for the faith and the truth of the Gospel.
  4. Keep careful watch over your heart. We must remember that our hearts are deceitful and wicked and will seek to lead us from the inerrant and holy word of God.
  5. Beware of the world. We must be careful not to allow the customs and habits of the time to indiscriminately infiltrate the church.

The article, then, provides a brief overview of apostasy and provides the most prevalent example of apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church. But best of all, it instructs us how we can guard ourselves against falling into such error. You may like to read the article yourself. If so, you can find it here: Apostasy.

More on this subject tomorrow.

Apostasy and Heresy

Comments (14) »


1. Seth
November 26, 2007
12:23 PM

Implicit in dialogue is listening and authenticity on the part of the speaker. In my experience, I see far more monologue coming out of evangelicalism than dialogue. We don’t listen to people, and yet expect people to listen to us? If we don’t listen, it’s far too easy to not hear someone in the first place, and to not be sure they have heard us in the first place.

Genuine confrontation is also dialogue, and in principle, I’ll agree that we, as Christians, prefer to keep things pleasant rather than love someone enough to tell them the truth.

On the topic of dialogue, Reuel L. Howe wrote a great book called, The Miracle of Dialogue. It’s well worth the read.


2. Tim
November 26, 2007
1:09 PM

I like what Ligon Duncan wrote concerning your book:

“One of my favorite John Murray sayings is “the difference between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor’s edge.” Spurgeon said something like it too: “Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between what is right and wrong; rather, it is the difference between right and almost right.”

Discernment, then, is necessary in determining whether to have dialogue or controversy. I cannot talk with my sister-in-law because she is a devout Catholic and our conversations quickly turn into controversy. I am trying to have a dialogue with the pastor of the Baptist church we are attending regarding things that I hold strongly to and to which he disagrees.

If I am Monergistic (Reformed) in my beliefs and I join a church that is Synergistic (Arminian) in their doctrines and practices, am I an Apostate or a Heretic? Both, Either, Neither? I would appreciate anyone’s opinion on this as my wife and I are trying to decide whether to join this church or not.


3. Lou G.
November 26, 2007
1:33 PM

Tim, it would seem to me that if you joined an Arminian/Synergistic church, then to them, you, as a Reformed/Monergistic individual, would be a heretic. If you then stopped believing the Reforrmed/Monergistic view and began believing Arminianism/Synergism, then you would become apostate to your original faith, yet no longer a heretic to your new church.

My first church was Arminian and to them I was somewhat of a heretic because as I learned about the Reformed faith, I pressed the elders on various points in scripture. The more exchanges we had, the more clear it became that their views were set, and the Holy Spirit was leading toward the reformation. Ultimately, I had to move to a reformed church, otherwise I would have had to become apostate in my views in order to stay or be viewed as a heretic by the elders/congregation.


4. Dennis
November 26, 2007
5:46 PM

Tim, I appreciate this entry. I was not aware of the Banner of Truth website and it looks like an amazing resource. Thanks again.


5. Jeri
November 26, 2007
6:32 PM

Thanks Tim, this is a helpful article, providing a lot to think about.


6. Jim Swindle
November 27, 2007
2:04 AM

This is a comment for Tim of theirvins.com. Whether you are apostate if you join any particular church depends in large measure on whether they are apostate. It also depends on whether they require you to agree with them on doctrine that is false.

Some people believe every true believer needs to agree on virtually every doctrine. Others believe some doctrines are much more important than others. In my opinion, people of the first sort are tempted to withdraw from true Christians with whom they disagree on very minor issues. People of the second sort are tempted NOT to withdraw from people from whom they should withdraw: from those who profess to be Christians, but who are severely deficient in theology or in practice or in both.

Here’s another way of looking at it: Are the people of that church truly disciples of Jesus Christ, growing in him, loving God and people, believing in the Jesus of the Bible and walking in the power of the Holy Spirit? Or are they disciples of their particular theology or of their particular pastor or of their particular method?


7. Trish
November 27, 2007
8:01 AM

Wonderful post!

I entered into a dialogue with Barbara Curtis at her Mommy Life blog (google Mommy Life…I don’t want to link from here) concerning her apostasy. She chose not to publish any of my comments, save for a snippet she pulled from one dealing with ‘sola fide’.

I am grieved that she chose not to dialogue with me on her blog, as she is truly leading many women astray with her writings. Perhaps someone here would enter into conversation with her? Or perhaps direct her attention to this article? She will no longer accept or rely to any of my e-mails or comments. Her apostasy needs to be addressed!

Trish

P.S. Mr. Challies, I will understand if this post is not published. I am very frustrated with those who write about their beliefs, their ‘spiritual journey” and yet will not dialogue with those who wish to expose their error. I am hoping someone here can do what I could not. Thanks.


8. Trish
November 27, 2007
8:43 AM

A post-script:

To locate the apostasy I am speaking of on the Mommy LIfe blog, click on Categories and then click Catholicism. The posts are titled WIBAWIB 1 through 7.

Please know I am not wanting this to come accross as gossip or slander. I am grieved by her sin and want other Bible believing Christians to address her apostasy.


9. Patrick O'Hannigan
November 27, 2007
11:11 AM

Francis Turrentin and his co-writers seem zealous. One hopes they are also prayerful. But based on the excerpt you’ve cited here, they know very little about the so-called “Roman system” that they wrongly take to be a masterpiece of apostasy. They would doubtless appeal to the authority of scripture for backing their claims on what Christ wills, Christ wishes, and Christ teaches, but quite obviously there are millions of people through the ages who’ve read and understood scripture differently. To John Owens’ five helpful steps for avoiding apostasy, I would add a sixth, from Ignatius of Antioch in A.D. 110: “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop.”


10. Tim
November 27, 2007
1:07 PM

Jim,

Thanks for your comments.

We have been attending an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church for about 2 months now. I’ve never been around one before but they’re not too much different from Baptists that I’m acquainted with.

We really like the pastor and his preaching. I want to join the church but my wife is a little hesitant. The pastor is very authoritative, almost to the point of being dictatorial but not quite.

He can preach 2 or 3 sermons that sound like they’re coming from a reformed perspective. He’ll preach about God’s Sovereignty and our inability. Then he’ll stand at the front during the invitation and make comments like, “God can’t do anything until you decide to step out and come.”

I hate stuff like that. Wouldn’t you say that that statement is Synergistic? Am I using that word right? Is a statement like that suggesting that we contribute to our salvation? Perhaps I’m nit-picking. I am under the conviction that I do nit-pick too often. I want to join and fellowship with the people but I don’t want to make a rash decision either way.

The church is in a struggle right now because they’ve never had “Deacons” and the men who run things are called “Trustees” and the pastor says that the name was changed to “Trustee” because some of the men couldn’t meet the qualifications to be a Deacon. The pastor has done away with the “Trustees” which has resulted in several of them leaving the church.

I like the Pastor’s boldness to stick with what he believes the Bible is teaching and to hold his ground. However, I’m afraid he sticks a little too hard on some issues that are merely his opinion. Example: He is a strong King James Only believer.

Thanks again for your thoughts.


11. Steve Burlew
November 27, 2007
1:45 PM

Tim - Thanks for the “Banner mention.” Indeed, I have often thought that the Articles section of the Banner of Truth Web site was a secret that’s been kept secret for far too long! With a Challies mention, however, that certainly won’t be the case any longer. Blessings to you, brother. Still looking forward to our next in-person meeting. Let’s get it scheduled, ya hear? :-) Steve B. (with The Banner of Truth) Blog: www.trophiesofhisgrace.blogspot.com


12. Truth Unites... and Divides
November 27, 2007
7:03 PM

“More on this subject tomorrow.”

I eagerly look forward to the continuation Tim!


13. matthew lipscomb
December 3, 2007
8:56 AM

Tim -

I think you should add “acceptance of the appophatic” to your list. A great deal of heresy is well-intended, but grounded in the human desire to articulate knowledge and truth within cogent terms: this is, and I should have no need for a list of scriptural references, something that is not always possible; and more often then not, explicitly dangerous. Reliance on Reason over the scripture and an adamant refusal to celebrate the “mysteries” of doctrine and the scripture are in invitation to disaster. Prohibition does this, Calvinism as well. Augustine, either by nature of being a pre-modernist or just out of pure wisdom had no difficulty accepting the concept of Free Will; read On The Freedom of the Will; especially those parts where he says that those who don’t believe are in Free Will as an actual choice are “dummer then rocks” and as harsh at it may sound “not fit to be a part of the human race.” I think that there is a strong argument to be made that Augustine would call the double-predestination of Calvinism heresy.


14. John Coombes
December 5, 2007
9:43 AM

Hi Tim

What happened to “More on this subject tomorrow.”?