Why the Heterodoxy Hall of Shame? (3)

Part 3 of, “Why we have a Heterodoxy Hall of Shame?” (slightly edited for clarity):

Hi again Marc

I was reading through old posts today in the yahoo group and found some posts regarding the “Heterodoxy hall of shame”. May I ask you why you first decided to have such a page on the website?

I’m not answering for Marc of course but one reason for such a page is to show true believers the heresies of certain popular men whom they thought were orthodox, thus keeping true believers from unknowingly endorsing heretics. For instance, a true believe who has read nothing but orthodoxy from Calvin and is unaware of Calvin’s heterodox quotes. Many of the hall of shame quotes are from Calvinists, and thus it is our intention that any true believers out there after seeing quotes from genuine Calvinists would cease to call themselves Calvinists if they are presently doing so. There is also the edification of believers when error is exposed and revealed by the light of truth (cf. Ephesians 5:5-13).

Also, the so-called “stalwarts of the faith” are shown NOT to be instrumental in the promotion of truth, but instrumental in the promotion of damnable heresy.

There is also a kind of “when the rubber meets the road” test, for those who may say in the abstract that all who knowingly speak peace to Arminians are lost. But as soon as they are shown a famous Calvinist speaking peace, they do what has been called the “backpedal shuffle.” But some backpedal so fast that one can hardly call it a “shuffle” — it appears to be more of a blur, than a shuffle.

Anyway, this serves to show us that agreement in general regarding a faceless peace-speaker is one thing; but put a respected face to the peace-speaking heresy and watch the backtracking begin. Said backtracking/backpedaling is the “fancy-foot-work” of those who make their judgments based on things like outward zeal, morality, religious fervor, and popularity, RATHER THAN ON GOD’S TESTIMONY.

Some questions to think about:

Why do we have a “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” in which the views of professing Christians are exposed as heretical? (Related to this, why does Chris Duncan have the “Genuine Historical Calvinism” web site?) What benefit is there?

The intros of both sites (http://www.outsidethecamp.org/heterodoxy.htm and http://www.calvinism.us/intro.htm) explain just that, I think. I am not sure what I could add to what they already say.

Is it bad that the “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” gets too much attention?

Methinks “too much attention” is because many are too much respecters of the faces of men — which is bad. At the same time, “too much attention” will also be given to the orthodox “WHY?” they are listed in the heterodoxy hall of shame in the first place — and that is good.

Is it bad that the “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” is controversial?

No. It’s only controversial to those who are respecters of men, and for those who care more for the glory of man than for the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Does the “Heterodoxy Hall of Shame” take attention away from the “real issues”?

With the dark backdrop of falsehood we see that God’s truth shines in all its glory. The “real issue” is the gospel of the Person and Work of Christ, and the only way that you can expose anything as heterodox is in light of what is orthodox — one can never take attention away from the real issue of orthodoxy in exposing heterodoxy, since the darkness of heterodoxy is always exposed by the light of orthodoxy.

Should we stay away from everything that is controversial to unbelievers? If so, what would be left on the web site?

Regarding the first question, I’d say no way. Concerning the second question, I’m going to go with the two-word response: not much.

Is gospel truth controversial?

True believers realize that gospel truth will always be considered controversial to unbelievers. But true believers do not consider gospel truth as controversial — for they will never be scandalized or offended by His truth (cf. John 10:1-30).

Is calling professing Christians unregenerate controversial?

Of course. And Paul did so to some who had “crept in unawares” in order to spy out the freedom that true believers had in Christ (cf. Galatians 2:4; Paul called certain professing Christians, “pseudadelphos”).

Should we change our web site to be “less controversial” if unbelievers tell us we should?

Only if it can be shown that Jesus and the apostle Paul “toned down” their message to accommodate the sensitivities and sensibilities of the self-righteous religionists of their day.

-Chris Duncan