God bless you, brother, you're probably right. And even if you're wrong, even if we do disagree over terminology, so what? Obviously, we're on the same page. The Heavens do not quake, and the earth does not shudder, if we're not on precisely the same paragraph.

Right. Except that an apostate need not embrace a new theology or ideology; he may simply cease (consciously) to believe in any system at all. (Behaviorally, and practically, he will, like all human beings, hew to whatever personal standards suit his temperament and desires, be they altruistic or hedonistic.) A "Christian" who ceases to believe in Christ does not need to embrace Buddha in order to be an apostate: it's the departure from the faith that defines him as an apostate, not the arrival at some new belief.

Um, perhaps. Joseph Smith and the Popes are good examples:they claim to believe in the Biblical revelation, but then add their own accretions. However, I would hesitate to call Ian Paisley a "heretic" because he believes in TULIP and baby-sprinkling, nor would I call a charismatic a "heretic" for believing his own daffy conceits. Such people, I believe, are sincerely mistaken: some out of ignorance (a kid raised in a Foursquare Gospel church), some out of intellectual pride or stubbornness (the typical Reformed elder).

Now, I believe that the baby-sprinklers and the faith-healers each believe in certain heresies: but that does not make them genuine heretics in my judgment. To me, a full-blown heretic is one who has utterly abandoned the foundational truths of Scripture, in favor of his own mad whims. Most Calvinists and charismatics aren't that far gone. I have brothers in each group who are, false modesty aside, far better Christians than I; and I will rip out my tongue by its tender young roots before I will call them "heretics." But, sitting at the table with my dear brother Keith the Charismatic, I will say, plainly, "Brother Keith, you're talking heresy."

This is a fine, fine line I'm treading, and if it is invisible to some, I'm not surprised.

My reservations about the atheist/agnostic examples are simple: what if the man or woman never believed in God to begin with? He or she cannot be said to have "apostasized." They haven't "fallen away" from anything.

(In my previous post, I said that this was my position before I was saved. I must retract that statement, or amend it, lest I grieve the Holy Spirit. It is conceivable that I was saved at 11 or 12. I believe that I was saved exactly one month before my 20th birthday; but there's a real possibility that I first believed as an adolescent. If I did, then I was an apostate [although saved] throughout my teenaged years.)

That's good enough (or bad enough): we needn't be more precise in our taxonomy than the Scriptures. God divides mankind into three groups: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). Mormons and Bahais and atheists and Democrats are Gentiles, unless born Jewish. We're the church of God, by His grace.

In my own day-to-day thinking, of course, I just think, like my old Presbyterian pastor, in terms of Christians and pagans. That gives me more than enough to think about!

God bless you, brother. Thank you for helping to sharpen my all-too-often dull iron.




I was not asking you to name the non-Trinitarian, and in fact I commend you for not doing so. I also freely acknowledge the point that many genuine heretics prefer the KJB. But, in this forum, when we (too loosely, perhaps) refer to "Bible believers," we're referring to people who have submitted to the Book's absolute and final authority: charismatics and "black theology" people, while often using the KJB, have not truly done that. Am I "judging" them? No, I'm judging their beliefs, and quite cheerfully dismissing them - - - along with the fruits they produce.

As to your own choice of venue for your further reflections, it is a matter of small consequence to me. I wish you well, and expect to spend eternity with you. But I'm not interested in bandying words with you from now 'til then.