Second excerpt with regards to Warren's embrace of the Arminian and even semi-Pelagian heresy which is taught in the Purpose Driven Life (PDL):
Arminianism in particular and synergism in general both deny predestination and make the free will of Man the determining factor in his/her salvation. It is thus a damnable heresy which is justly condemned in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. Regardless of its practical detriments, it has serious theological consequences, besides the enormous exegetical problem it poses for the discipline of hermeneutics. The major theological consequence of the Arminian system is that the glory and power of God is compromised. If Man has the free will to choose whether to accept God and thus be saved, and God has done all He can do to make Man choose him, then the reason why one person is saved and the other is not saved depends on the person's free choice, therefore in salvation Man can claim a small part of the glory and God's power and glory is thus compromised. Logically, this would entail a works-righteousness system of salvation, the work being the continuous choice to accept Christ. Thankfully, most Arminians are inconsistent and thus, in principle accept salvation by faith alone, but this does not mean that the Arminian heresy is any less serious.
In the PDL, the Arminian system is ubiquitous throughout the book. We will look at some examples here.
One area where Warren often shows his Arminian tendencies is in the application of verses which concerns the elect of God to that of the general public. (p. 36)
...
However, it seems that Warren is indeed an Arminian, as later on, [Richard] Abanes [in his book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives him] quoted from Warren's Easter 2004 sermon, where Warren has said,
You were created to last forever. And you're going to live forever in one of two places— heaven or hell. God says ... I've done everything possible to get you into heaven including sending (sic) My Son to die for you. To go to hell you have to reject the love of God. Why would anybody do that?(Emphasis original)
This well displays Warren's Arminianism, with his ignorance of the depravity of Man ('Why would anybody do that [reject the love of God]?' – which cast doubt on Warren’s subscription to Total depravity). The highlighted sentence also exactly displays Warren's Arminianism, whereby God made salvation possible for all Man (Universal atonement) instead of the biblical doctrine that God made actual salvation for the elect (Limited or Definite Atonement). However, even if this was not the case, which it certainly is, judging from the PDL book itself, Arminian concepts are taught in it, and thus the charge against the book stands. (p. 43-44)
(Chew, D.H., Driven Away by Purpose, 2nd Ed., published by Xulon Press, 2006)
3 comments:
I have some friends who are Arminian. They say that the doctrine of election is heresy. When I asked them if they thought I was a heretic, they said no but that I tought heresy.
What do you think? Can someone teach heresy and not be a heretic?
I struggle with the idea so I'm curious what you think?
If you think those that teach heresy are heretics, would you say anyone that that teaches Arminianism is a heretic? Would that include those in the middle?
Rick,
For a person to be a heretic, they must not only say that they believe in the heresy, but that they show it through their actions (ie teaching it and vehemently opposing the biblical position, especially if they are able to articular the biblical position correctly). Most people who believe in 'milder' heresies like Arminianism are not true Arminians at all. Very few Evangelicals believe in classical Arminianism, and most people do not even know what Calvinism actually teaches. Even if they teach heresy, most of them do so without any knowledge of what they are actually teaching.
For example, in the case of Arminianism, most modern day Arminians are in the same plight as most Evangelicals; they are a mile wide and an inch deep. As such, their theology is very superficial and they do not even dig deep into what they say they embrace or what others have taught them. Instead, most people would probably just give surface level answers and never think through what they are saying. In the case of Arminianism, those who believe it buy into the humanistic concept of free will and do not realize that such a view logically entails that they would take some credit for their salvation, to say nothing about making God subservient to the wishes and fancies of Man.
As such, to answer your question, a person can teach heresy and not be a heretic. However, if that person is confronted with and is able to understand the truth and the implications of his postions, and yet willfully rejects correction, he is to be treated as a heretic.
Of course, having said that, there are those who struggle through the issue. There are also some who try to avoid the implications of their professed position by inventing new theological positions like Wesley and his idea of 'prevenient grace'. For such people, there is hope.
Anyway, regardless of whether the person who teaches heresy is a heretic of not, the teaching would indeed by heresy and should be strongly opposed. That I am sure we both agree on.
I hope this helps answer you question. =)
SDG,
Daniel Chew.
Yes - thank you ... makes sense.
Post a Comment