A moderator on this board said that limited atonement and unconditional election are "damnable heresies" (his exact words). I wonder if the honorable moderator understands exactly what a damnable heresy is? The term "damnable heresy" has been used to describe a teaching or teachings that are contrary to the Gospel and believing in these damnable heresies will consign the person believing in them to hell. A perfect example of this is found in Galatians 1 where Paul rails against the Judaizers. Now, I am not attempting to put words into the mouth of the esteemed moderator. I am accusing of him of careless speech, theological ignorance, and inflammatory rhetoric. By calling limited atonement and unconditional election "damnable heresies" he is, by extension, accusing those who believe in those doctrines to be damnable heretics. Not just heretics but damnable heretics. The implication is that those who believe in these doctrines are not saved. Whether he actually believes that or not is inconsequential. The term he used suggests the implication. I believe that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are heresies. I am not prepared to call them damnable heresies and suggest that those who believe them are damnable heretics; i.e. consigned to hell. Words mean things, folks. We need to take great care in what we say and how we say it. We will give an account.