Can the heretic be saved?

[ZackMartin]

There is also a difference in not believing something out of ignorance and rejecting something by choice.

The Trinity for example: It is a doctrine about the very nature of God - it means that if you don't believe it, then the very nature of the God you believe in is different from the true God - for example: Mormons reject it and claim that there are three Gods, and they themselves can become Gods one day. Their God is nothing like the Christian God. So the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential doctrine in that if you reject it on purpose after knowing it and being taught what it means, you do not have a saving faith. But if you don't believe in the trinity because of ignorance, then you are not rejecting it, you just don't know any better.

Hi Sparko

So I guess... the Mormon who has never heard a clear explanation of the orthodox view on the Trinity could still have saving faith. But suppose the Mormon buys the best apologetic book around on the orthodox view of the Trinity, and earnestly studies it, and in the end concludes that they still believe the Mormon version. Then they couldn't have saving faith?

Does one have to get everything - that one believes by educated choice rather than ignorance - right about nature of God to have saving faith? Or are some errors - again, by educated choice, not ignorance - about the nature of God not going to eliminate the possibility of saving faith?

Do you think someone could actually draw up a list of what beliefs are essential to saving faith not to reject by choice, and which beliefs one could reject by choice yet still have saving faith?

Regards
Zack

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko

So I guess... the Mormon who has never heard a clear explanation of the orthodox view on the Trinity could still have saving faith. But suppose the Mormon buys the best apologetic book around on the orthodox view of the Trinity, and earnestly studies it, and in the end concludes that they still believe the Mormon version. Then they couldn't have saving faith?

Does one have to get everything - that one believes by educated choice rather than ignorance - right about nature of God to have saving faith? Or are some errors - again, by educated choice, not ignorance - about the nature of God not going to eliminate the possibility of saving faith?

Do you think someone could actually draw up a list of what beliefs are essential to saving faith not to reject by choice, and which beliefs one could reject by choice yet still have saving faith?

Regards
Zack

I believe I already answered your questions, Zack. God knows our hearts and the reason we believe or don't believe something. And he is a good God and just. He will do what is right.

[fm93]

This is where the Wisdom Theology model of the Trinity comes into play. According to this model, the person of Jesus is actually God's attribute of wisdom personified. So if a person decides to live his life by loving and following and honestly yearning for wisdom/rationality (which, if you think about it, is basically the same thing as wisdom), then he/she technically is loving, following, and honestly yearning for Jesus.

So if someone who holds heretical beliefs holds to those beliefs out of ignorance (or arrives at them from some sort of rational process), then he/she could be saved. But if the heretic has been given sufficient evidence to believe the true doctrine, yet deliberately rejects it anyway, he/she may not be saved, since rejecting that which you have sufficient evidence to believe isn't exactly a mark of rationality. So if someone didn't do a good job of explaining or defending a doctrine, that's nothing against the heretic for honestly deciding that a heretical position fits the evidence better. But if the evidence is on the side of the true doctrine, and the heretic is shown this and acknowledges it yet still refuses to accept it...well, that's a problem.

[RBerman]

Footwasher's position does not represent evangelical Christianity. "How little can you believe and still be saved?" is a really poor way to approach the topic of Christianity in the first place. It's kind of like asking your wife, "How little can I show my love for you, before you leave me?" Why would you ever handle either topic in such a manner? Bad questions get bad answers. The Bible certainly never encourages us to think in terms of what the minimum profession is, though in various contexts we see various elements of what is expected: e.g. "Jesus is κύριος" was crucial for the Roman audience, and "Jesus died and rose again" was "of first importance" to the Corinthian audience, and "Jesus is Son of God" and "Jesus came in the flesh" were non-negotiable for readers of John's first Epistle. These are all test cases for the general question: Do you believe the Word of God, or not? (Our own culture has its own flashpoint test cases for this question; perhaps you can think of some, but I don't want to derail this thread by discussing them.)

Now, church leaders are regularly called upon to evaluate the professions of faith made by prospective members. And that evaluation is not simply about doctrine, but about the whole life of the person. We look for different things, in both life and profession, from a forty year old father of three than we do from a ten year old girl who grew up in the church, or a twenty year old who's only been attending church for a few months. We do expect some ability to articulate the Trinitarian nature of God, but not (for most people) an exposition on the work of the ecumentical councils. We look for an awareness of sin and its consequences, and an appreciation for how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus propitiate God's holy wrath. We look for a growing desire for personal holiness and involvement in the life of Christ's body, the Church.

Discussions of fringe cases not discussed in Scripture ("What about babies?" or "What about people with little to no cognition?") do not help us to establish the norm. The Bible addresses the normative situation of an adult listener who is capable of comprehending basic abstractions. Nor is discussion of an abstract person (e.g. "The Mormon.") Which Mormon? The Mormon who grew up in an evangelical church, married a Mormon, and joined a Mormon church with no real understanding of their idiosyncratic beliefs? The 18 year old bicycle missionary who comes to your door, having been attending Young Life for years in high school? The First President of the LDS? I can say with confidence that the Mormon Church is a false church, as the Roman Church is a false church, because on paper its doctrines stray so far from the gospel message presented in the Bible. But when it comes to the individual Mormon, or the individual Roman Catholic, it's very wrong to pigeonhole him, ascribing all his church's beliefs to him. I have a neighbor down the street who grew up Lutheran and married a Roman Catholic. When she teaches Sunday School to children at the local Roman church, she teaches the faith of her youth, the Bible songs of her youth. On paper, my pastor (conservative Presbyterian) has most in common doctrinally with the independent Baptist churches in town. In practice, when he goes to meetings of the ministerial association, he finds most commonality with the Seventh Day Adventist minister.

[RBerman]

This is where the Wisdom Theology model of the Trinity comes into play. According to this model, the person of Jesus is actually God's attribute of wisdom personified. So if a person decides to live his life by loving and following and honestly yearning for wisdom/rationality (which, if you think about it, is basically the same thing as wisdom), then he/she technically is loving, following, and honestly yearning for Jesus.

So if someone who holds heretical beliefs holds to those beliefs out of ignorance (or arrives at them from some sort of rational process), then he/she could be saved. But if the heretic has been given sufficient evidence to believe the true doctrine, yet deliberately rejects it anyway, he/she may not be saved, since rejecting that which you have sufficient evidence to believe isn't exactly a mark of rationality. So if someone didn't do a good job of explaining or defending a doctrine, that's nothing against the heretic for honestly deciding that a heretical position fits the evidence better. But if the evidence is on the side of the true doctrine, and the heretic is shown this and acknowledges it yet still refuses to accept it...well, that's a problem.

Where does the Bible encourage us to think in this way? Where does it show a heretic being saved in his ignorance, rather than being saved from his ignorance by the proclamation of the gospel?

[fm93]

I'm not saying that he's being saved in his ignorance, but despite it, if he honestly and rationally seeks and evaluates whatever truth is available to him.

[RBerman]

I'm not saying that he's being saved in his ignorance, but despite it, if he honestly and rationally seeks and evaluates whatever truth is available to him.

You're saying that he's saved in his ignorance, because he doesn't come out of his ignorance and yet is saved. Regardless of the wording, my question still stands: Where did you get this idea?

[footwasher]

You would be surprised how similar the requirement for salvation for Jews, Christians and other faiths are.

God reveals His presence to men
Men believe He exists by setting aside their assumptions
Men see the natural world with no modulation by conscience
Men recognize the presence of conscience in themselves
Men recognize their special status in Creation
Men recognize their responsibility to that status
Men recognize also the powerful drives that reside in their beings
They understand the need to control those drives on seeing the futility of the natural world without the presence of that reigning in
They realize the need for God's help in the endeavor
They realize also God's goodness requires He sends help

These are God's children! Others have a liar and a murderer as their father.

These are the children God gives to Christ, whom He will never lose!

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” Matt 2

25 And there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout, looking for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to carry out for Him the custom of the Law, 28 then he took Him into his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 “Now Lord, You are releasing Your bond-servant to depart in peace, According to Your word;

30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,

31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,

32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION TO THE GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel.” Luke 2

29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! John 1

[RBerman]

These are God's children!

Where does the BIble define "God's children" in that way?

[seanD]

Hi

My question is: Can the heretic be saved? Can the heretic or unorthodox have saving faith?

Are there some doctrines you have to accept in order to have saving faith, such that you could be sure that a person who failed to accept them or even rejected them could not have saving faith?

Are there some doctrines you could be wrong about and yet still have saving faith?

Is there a way we can distinguish the "doctrines necessary for saving faith" from the "doctrines not necessary for saving faith"?

Are the creeds a good summary of what is necessary to believe to be saved? If so, any of them in particular (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian, etc)? Are there any beliefs necessary for saving faith to exist which are not present in the creeds? Are there any beliefs expressed in the creeds which a person could fail to accept, or even outright deny, and still have saving faith?

Are your standards for fellowship the same as for judging beliefs as necessary for saving faith? If not, how do you determine what difference in beliefs make fellowship still possible, versus what differences are too big for fellowship to be possible or advisable?

I'm not trying to start a debate here (or at least, not a debate between myself and anyone else - if respondents want to debate each other, go ahead.) I'm just trying to understand what Christians believe the answers to these questions are (and more particularly, the sort of Christians who would be considered orthodox by the standards of the TWeb moderators.)

Thanks
Zack

To answer the question in your first sentence; my feeling is that what constitutes heresy is sometimes pretty grayish. IMO, there are two extremes. One extreme is the type of over-the-top Christianity you see on Christian networks like TBN, where you’ll find hyper-spiritual actors and con artists. On the other extreme you’ll find liberal Christianity, which I regard as a denial of the historical resurrection of Christ, and typically you’ll find this as the spawning ground for academicians like John Crossan and Elaine Pagel. Everything in between those two extremes is up for debate. It’s sort of like driving down a highway and you come across multiple turn points and crossroads along the way. Just because you happen to take a few wrong turns here and there, doesn’t mean you automatically fall from grace. But eventually, you’ll take so many wrong turns that you’ll just end up at one extreme or the other. Some say that prayer and diligent study of the word is the way to avoid this, but sometimes we can lead ourselves astray, especially if we’re influenced by the wrong sources of information. Some say church and fellowship is the way to go, but then which church is the right church and what if they lead you astray, or just fill you with so much formulaic doctrine and ritualism that you become an empty shell of religious pretension and artificiality? So basically the answer to your question is that there is no easy answer. I think prayer and diligent study is the way to go, as long as you start from the fact that Jesus was physically resurrected, and then let every else flow from that belief. If you can’t believe that much, then you have a major Christian issue to deal with.

[footwasher]

Where does the BIble define "God's children" in that way?

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2


6And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. Hebrews 11

And how does He reward them? By giving them to Christ!

13And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."Hebrews 2


John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

John 18:9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

[RBerman]

Where does the BIble define "God's children" in that way?

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2

6And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him. Hebrews 11

And how does He reward them? By giving them to Christ!

13And again, "I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM." And again, "BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME."Hebrews 2

John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

John 18:9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

Of those texts, only Hebrews 2 even mentions "children." That passage links sonship to a profession of faith in YHWH in particular, not just a vague humanistic good-doing:

Hebrews 2:10-13

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying,

“I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.” (Ps 22:22)

The John 17 and 18 quotations you gave are in the context of the Twelve disciples. The New Testament is very clear that true sonship of God is not a matter of descent from Israel, but rather of faith in the resurrected Christ as God and Son of God. That's what the Romans 2 quotation you cite shows, as do these:

John 1:9-13

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

1 John 3:21-24

Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. Whoever keeps his commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

1 John 4:13-15

By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

1 John 5:1-2

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

We have life by being in Christ through faith in his name, not by following the rules, even good rules, of some Christless religion.

[Phat8594]

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. Romans 2

I must admit, I am a little lost as to how a passage that relates to the Jews and their futile reliance on the fleshly ordinances of the law with regard to all men being transgressors has anything to do with your earlier post....??

[footwasher]

RB wrote:
.. ..

RB, how does God reward the one who believes He exists and seeks Him?
Who are the sheep of other folds?

John 10:16 NET
I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Why do only His sheep listen to His voice?

What made only the ones the Father gave to Christ "come" to Him?

What were Old Testament believers waiting for?

How did Abraham "see" Christ?

How did Job know his Redeemer existed?

Phat wrote:
I must admit, I am a little lost as to how a passage that relates to the Jews and their futile reliance on the fleshly ordinances of the law with regard to all men being transgressors has anything to do with your earlier post....?

Replace circumcision with baptism and Jew with Christian, and see how that works!

[theblueprint_Ni]

The Bible pushes hard for the necessity of explicit confession in Jesus Christ. Anything less than that should be approached with caution and remain as unmerited speculation. We certainly shouldn't build our theology around fringe cases and unlikely scenarios. There's nothing wrong with meditating on difficult questions, but unless the Scriptures directly address the problem, we shouldn't compromise the center to justify the perimeter; and downplaying explicit confession in Jesus Christ compromises the center.