Heresy as Self-Correction

Thank you! It's nice to see this line of thought! I love to think of Christianity as one of the most flexible religions, I don't mean lax, I mean that it keeps applying to concerns of today's society, which are not the same as 200 years ago. Putting it down in core doctrines only prevents this flexibility from becoming alive.
Thanks Loved the post!

How do you know that both the Methodists and Presbyterians are equally valid expressions of the very same Christian faith? How do you know that either are? To make this determination either requires some sort of doctrinal norm or there is no doctrinal norm. If there is no doctrinal norm for within Christianity, then there can't really be a doctrinal norm that distinguishes Christianity from any other expression of faith in the "very same God." So, is your conclusion that all religions are equally valid? If so or if not, what is the basis for your conclusions?

In your last statement you seem to suggest that there is no such thing as genuine heresy. And if there is such a thing as heresy, what would qualify?

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org

You have read far too much into my post. However as measure of what may or may not be acceptable within the bounds of Christian faith, I would hold to the Apostle's Creed. That certainly provides a deal of flexibility in other matters and an honoring of other traditions..

How did I read too much into it? You clearly made the point of suggesting that the flexibility within Christianity might be the way to honor both M. and P. denominations - or heresy might be a basis for ambiguity while finding our way. So, I am just pursuing the logic of this - not reading too much in. Perhaps you wrote more than you thought.

Your reply begs the question, because the Apostle's Creed presumably has a biblical basis. But how do you know the Apostle's creed isn't heresy? Are you saying that anything the Apostle's Creed doesn't explicitly state - then those areas where the P and M denominations depart from it (or add to it) - when they have mutually exclusive areas of doctrine - they are still compatible and not heresy. But to what degree is heresy allowed - and how far apart can you be doctrinally be and avoid heresy. What defines those parameters?

You have said enough to require a lot of clarification. Your brief statements provide more important fodder than perhaps you intended.
Dave James
The Alliance For Biblical Integrity

The problem for thems of us in the Reformed Tradition is that heresy is our orthodoxy. How are we to judge whether we're within the boundaries of authentic Christian faith? Heretic John Calvin put it best:

"..it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones...love will best judge what may hurt or edify; and if we let love be our guide, all will be safe." (Institutes IV.x.30)

that sounds like a pretty good standard to me. thanks for the Calvin quote!