Accusations of heresy are thrown around quite liberally at times. This has been seen most pertinently in recent times in the dispute about Eternal Functional Subordination. Some of those on the EFS side have been quick to presume that their interlocuters were slipping into heterodoxy and falling for modalism. However, the louder accusations have come from the critics of EFS accusing EFS proponents, firstly of subordinationism, treating The Son as unequal in nature with the Father.
Additionally, there has been some discussion about whether or not it is possible for the Son to eternally submit to the Father because God has one will and so this would, to their mind preclude the Son voluntarily submitting to or obeying the Father. From that perspective, it is only possible to talk about the Son submitting with reference to his human nature
There are clear problems with that position. It is certainly the case that historically, theologians have concluded that we should properly talk about God having one will. This expresses a few things, first that God has one nature and is of one substance. We do not believe in a social Trinity, a club of divine beings coming together. Secondly, we want to be clear that the Son and the Spirit cannot be rivals to the Father with their own agenda.
However, we also want to be careful that when we talk about the one will of God, we do not do so in a manner which diminishes the distinction between the three persons God really is Father, Son and Spirit, he does not just appear as such at certain times. Do we truly believe that the Father knows the Son in eternity and that the Son loves the Father? Or do we believe that something changed in God at the incarnation?
Now, my expectation is that those in what I’ve called the neo-classical-theist movement do believe that there is a genuine and eternal distinction between the persons of the Trinity. So, I’m careful not to suggest that they are heretics, I don’t think that they believe and teach something false about God, they are not heterodox. I do think that their way of communicating has been clumsy, open to misunderstanding and suggesting some confusion in thinking but I don’t think that they are Modalists.
Nor do I think that the EFS position is heterodox either. I probably sit closest to that view, particularly as formulated by Michael Ovey. I do think that there were examples on that side of the debate too of clumsy communication. I thought it unwise for them to talk in terms of subordination. There was also some confused thinking going on, especially when Grudem and Ware tied themselves up in knots over Eternal Generation. In that respect, I think that they have made errors and I note that Grudem has acknowledged some of these and changed or clarified his position. However, error is not the same as heresy. It does not stop you from being orthodox, it does not make you heterodox. We all will have aspects of our theology that we have got wrong.
So, I remain saddened when I hear people throwing about accusations of heterodoxy. I don’t tihkn this is conducive to healthy discussion between brothers and sisters. Of course, there is such a thing as heterodoxy and there are heretics. When we see examples we should not shy away from naming them as such. So, when can and should we do that.
Historically, the tendency has been to identify heterodoxy as anything that contradict the historical creeds that were agreed by church councils. It is important to note that this is not because we see the creeds as in and of themselves the final authority on such matters. Rather, those creeds are recognised as good summaries of what Scripture teaches. This does open up the possibility that you could disagree with the creeds without being heterodox, they were after all a work in progress for some time. However, I would suggest that if you disagree with a credal forumulation then the onus is on you to show from Scripture why it is wrong.
This takes me to the crucial point. Scripture is the full and final authority on such matters. So, we must not accuse someone of heresy without backing up that accusation with careful exposition of Scripture.
I note two things in the light of this. First, that I’m yet to see any serious objections to Grudem, Ware, Ovey etc in terms of departure from the Creeds. This is because in essence the Creeds set up the boundaries of orthodoxy in terms of no denial of the oneness of God, the distinction of persons and the equality of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Secondly, I have not seen much of anything in terms of serious engagement with Scriputral exegesis to show where EFS proponents fall down Biblically. This is markedly different to how we deal with, for example Arain type teaching. Although Arius and his modern day successors in contemporary cults attempt to argue from Scripture, it is possible to demonstrate the failings in their exegesis and the way in which they manipulate Scripture so as to contradict the clear meaning what the whole Bible says.
This should be a major concern. The same problem arose during the COVID pandemic when we saw falling out on other matters such as the place of Zoom gatherings, whether we should disobey the State and what counted as communion. There was, and remains an abject absence of Scripture and yet people were condemned in the most strident of terms.
My friend Steve Kneale frequently insists that we should not demand of anyone, something that God’s Word does not clearly command. We might add that we should not accuse people of heresy unless God’s Word clearly does.
One further thing to consider. We cannot glibly accuse people of hersey of getting wrong and teaching wrongly on things central to who God is and what the Gospel is. We cannot make the accusation and treat it as just knockabout stuff. It has huge implications. It is impossible to be in gospel fellowship with those who speak heresy. Indeed, the creeds make that clear. If you are going to drop the H word then you need to be ready tomorrow follow through on the implications.
Faithroots 