What is Heresy?

[Reformed]

This thread is NOT about Monergism or Synergism. That is why I put this topic in this forum. It is about what rises to the level of heresy. What is heresy and what does it say about the person who believes in something heretical? Moderators/Admins, I am writing this opening post with an olive branch, not a poison dart. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, so long as others are willing to discuss it in a civil manner. Of course, I understand if you want to squash the conversation.

In another thread I was preparing this reply but did not post it there:

I do not mean to derail your thread but since I was mentioned I want to add a bit more about heresy and heretics.

Heresy has a few different definitions that all revolve around a similar theme. Donald McKim in his Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms defines heresy as, "A view chosen instead of the official teachings of a church." Webster provides a few more options. I will cut and past them to make it easier:


Definition of heresy

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma (see DOGMAsense 2)
//They were accused of heresy.
b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma

2a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
//To disagree with the party leadership was heresy.
b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
//our democratic heresy which holds that … truth is to be found by majority vote— M. W. Straight

At its core, heresy is false teaching. The reason I use small "h" and big "H" to bifurcate heresy is that not every false teaching is damnable, i.e. outside of Christian orthodoxy and imperils the soul. Let me give two examples. I believe the day-age theory of creation to be a false teaching. However, it not outside Christian orthodoxy and does not imperil a person's soul. Arianism is a false teaching. It denies or warps the deity of Christ. It is outside of Christian orthodoxy and does imperil the soul. Practically speaking, you seldom hear/read of heresy being used in the small "h" vein. Most of the time it is reserved for damnable doctrines. Instead, we just say a teaching is wrong or false.

Practically speaking, I try to avoid the "H" word to describe non-damnable doctrines because it inflames tensions and make profitable dialogue all but impossible.

If someone posts on this board denying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, I expect they will be opposed by all and the mods/admins will make swift work of such dangerous teaching. The same with denying the Trinity. Things get a little stickier when it comes to justification by faith or evolutionary theory in creation. I am not sure where the mods/admins stand on someone denying justification by faith or promoting evolutionary theory in creation. Where is the line? I guess there is no good answer and we will find out soon enough after someone posts about those things.

I guess my point is that "H" word should be used to describe only those doctrines that imperil the soul of the person holding to them. Even then, on a message board, there are other ways to address falsehood. After all, should not our attitude be to win our brother?

 

[Reynolds]

This thread is NOT about Monergism or Synergism. That is why I put this topic in this forum. It is about what rises to the level of heresy. What is heresy and how what does it say about the person who believes in something heretical? Moderators/Admins, I am writing this opening post with an olive branch, not a poison dart. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, so long as if others are willing to discuss it in a civil manner. Of course, I understand if you want to squash the conversation.

In another thread I was preparing this reply but did not post it there:



If someone posts on this board denying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, I expect they will be opposed by all and the mods/admins will make swift work of such dangerous teaching. The same with denying the Trinity. Things get a little stickier when it comes to justification by faith or evolutionary theory in creation. I am not sure where the mods/admins stand on someone denying justification by faith or promoting evolutionary theory in creation. Where is the line? I guess there is no good answer and we will find out soon enough after someone posts about those things.

I guess my point is that "H" word should be used to describe only those doctrines that imperil the soul of the person holding to them. Even then, on a message board, there are other ways to address falsehood. After all, should not our attitude be to win our brother?

It's a very interesting discussion about a somewhat gray area. There are very few things I will call Heresy. If I do label a teaching heresy, I also label the teacher a heretic.
ie. Jesus did not die, He was in a deep coma. Heresy
ie. Jesus and Satan were brothers. Heresy

 

[Reformed]

It's a very interesting discussion about a somewhat gray area. There are very few things I will call Heresy. If I do label a teaching heresy, I also label the teacher a heretic.
ie. Jesus did not die, He was in a deep coma. Heresy
ie. Jesus and Satan were brothers. Heresy

I agree. We may be technically correct in labeling error a small "h" heresy but once that word gets used...well...we have used the nuclear option. I like to keep a high threshold on that word.

 

[Reformed]

Of course, none of this precludes vigorous debate over something we believe to be in error.

 

[Deacon]

Hersey? you guys are way off base.

Isn’t it a kind of chocolate?

Rob

 

[tyndale1946]

Hersey? you guys are way off base.

Isn’t it a kind of chocolate?

Rob

The one that doesn't believe in the birth, life, death and resurrection of The Son Of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ... IS A HERETIC!... Brother Glen

 

[church mouse guy]

There are essential doctrines to measure by. I use the doctrines outlined in the Nicene Creed as essential and consider other doctrines as secondary even though some other doctrines are heresy and I actively oppose them, such as evolution and deep time.

I believe every word of the SBC Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

 

[edcar]

most informative post.

 

[Deacon]

I believe every word of the SBC Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

Easy to say but each of believes so much more than that.
This is where the differences are and where a soften form of heresy begins.

Even the OP blurs the distinction with the examples "justification by faith" (a biblical truth) and "evolutionary theory in creation" (a scientific and theological theory).

Rob

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Those who would deny the deity of Christ and the doctrines that would stem from that false doctrine are teaching 'H'eresy, in my opinion.

 

[Reformed]

Even the OP blurs the distinction with the examples "justification by faith" (a biblical truth) and "evolutionary theory in creation" (a scientific and theological theory).

Well, you can substitute theistic evolution if I did not use the proper terminology, but there are those who consider that a big "H" heresy. I think we need to peel back the layers of the onion to see if other beliefs go with evolution. Some people who believe in theistic evolution also believe in the "Genesis myth", that the creation account is basically Christian mythology. Sometimes the dominos fall and reveal that a person is outside of Christ. This is not always the case but just do a Toucan Sam, follow your nose.

 

[Reformed1689]

Heresy is anything that goes against Scripture. I agree with the big h/little h to distinguish damnable heresy.

 

[Mikey]

This thread is NOT about Monergism or Synergism. That is why I put this topic in this forum. It is about what rises to the level of heresy. What is heresy and what does it say about the person who believes in something heretical? Moderators/Admins, I am writing this opening post with an olive branch, not a poison dart. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, so long as others are willing to discuss it in a civil manner. Of course, I understand if you want to squash the conversation.

In another thread I was preparing this reply but did not post it there:

Well worded question on a important topic.

I would not say that error = heresy. Heresy is more than just error. If error did = heresy then anyone who disagrees with you on any topic/interpretation of scripture is believing in heresy and is a Heretic. Paedobaptists= heretics, you dont believe in six literal days of creation = heretic, etc etc.

Heresy is serious error, error that affects the very core of Christianity. denying the deity or humanity of Christ, denying the Trinity

 

[Danthemailman]

Heresy is false teaching about the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, the ones we must adhere to, in regards to the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, second coming of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, not works, etc.. Non-essential beliefs are worth discussing, but not to the point where those who hold opposite non-essential views are considered heretical.

*In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

 

[church mouse guy]

Easy to say but each of believes so much more than that.
This is where the differences are and where a soften form of heresy begins.

Even the OP blurs the distinction with the examples "justification by faith" (a biblical truth) and "evolutionary theory in creation" (a scientific and theological theory).

Rob

No, I said previously that the essentials were the doctrines outlined in the Nicene Creed. The SBC Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is a fuller statement but not all of the doctrines in the SBC BFM 2000 are essentials. I am not worried about non-essentials but that does not mean that there is not a regular line of thinking in non-essential issues. I don't think that justification by faith is an essential and I do not think that the RCC really agrees with Protestants on this issue because they still insist that there is no salvation outside the walls of the Catholic Church. I think that a person such as Norman Geisler might believe in deep time or evolution but I think that he is still a Christian in spite of this error because he clearly believes the essentials. The same for Richard Land, as far as I know. It gets a little more difficult in the cases of liberals worried about homosexuals and other social issues such as Albert Mohler, J.D. Greear, and Russell Moore. Don't we agree or not?

 

[church mouse guy]

Those who would deny the deity of Christ and the doctrines that would stem from that false doctrine are teaching 'H'eresy, in my opinion.

Well, yes, of course, but I think that we need to be more specific about what is essential and not call a person a heretic who believes the essentials but errs in a non-essential. So one God, the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Death of Jesus, the burial, the Resurrection, and the Ascension to Heaven, the Second Advent, the resurrection of the dead and Judgement. That is a sketchy list but it tries to head in the right direction. A Christian should believe all of those things in my opinion, but I am only a back-pew layman.

 

[church mouse guy]

most informative post.

Thanks.

 

[37818]

. . . about a somewhat gray area. . . .

I do not believe heresy, which denies essentials of the explicit teaching of the word of God by which one must believe to be a genuine Christian is in any way a gray area.

 

[37818]

. . . Nicene Creed . . .

The Nicene Creed teaches the Son of God is caused. ". . . begotten of the Father before all ages . . . ." Teaches baptism for the forgiveness of sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

This thread is NOT about Monergism or Synergism. That is why I put this topic in this forum. It is about what rises to the level of heresy. What is heresy and what does it say about the person who believes in something heretical? Moderators/Admins, I am writing this opening post with an olive branch, not a poison dart. I think this is a worthwhile discussion, so long as others are willing to discuss it in a civil manner. Of course, I understand if you want to squash the conversation.

In another thread I was preparing this reply but did not post it there:



If someone posts on this board denying that Jesus is fully God and fully man, I expect they will be opposed by all and the mods/admins will make swift work of such dangerous teaching. The same with denying the Trinity. Things get a little stickier when it comes to justification by faith or evolutionary theory in creation. I am not sure where the mods/admins stand on someone denying justification by faith or promoting evolutionary theory in creation. Where is the line? I guess there is no good answer and we will find out soon enough after someone posts about those things.

I guess my point is that "H" word should be used to describe only those doctrines that imperil the soul of the person holding to them. Even then, on a message board, there are other ways to address falsehood. After all, should not our attitude be to win our brother?

Heresy would be holding to theology and doctrines against the historical understanding of Christian theology.
Examples would be holding to Jesus as not God, no resurrection, no atonement by the Cross, and belief that one can still speak in tongues not heresy, but holding to one must do that to be saved is!