Heresy

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

I am having a hard time understanding what exactly a heresy is. Can something be a heresy but not be damning? I would consider Arminianism a heresy but I wouldn’t say that all Wesleyan’s are going to hell. I was just reading someone that called Anabaptists heretics.

I guess my original presumption was that they’re such thing as an error, and such thing as a heresy. An error is something significant that you disagree on according to scripture and a heresy is something that damns you if you are in it. Am I wrong with my definitions?

Or is there another division heresy and damnable heresy??

Obviously, disagreeing on some things are damnable such as the denying doctrine of the Trinity, denying Christ as fully God and fully man, ect.

But then we have things like how we take the Lord supper, credo versus Peto baptism, Calvinism versus Arminianism, or regulative principle versus normative principle. Could such things be considered heresy that are not necessarily damnable?

Again, I’ve been calling all of this stuff error, except that which damns you

 

[MW]

James Durham (Concerning Scandal, 225): "Heresy is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavour to propagate the same."

William Perkins (Galatians, 382): "there are three things in heresy, an errour, in the maine doctrine, conviction of the party touching his errour, and obstinacy after conviction."

 

[davejonescue]

I am having a hard time understanding what exactly a heresy is. Can something be a heresy but not be damning? I would consider Arminianism a heresy but I wouldn’t say that all Wesleyan’s are going to hell. I was just reading someone that called Anabaptists heretics.

I guess my original presumption was that they’re such thing as an error, and such thing as a heresy. An error is something significant that you disagree on according to scripture and a heresy is something that damns you if you are in it. Am I wrong with my definitions?

Or is there another division heresy and damnable heresy??

Obviously, disagreeing on some things are damnable such as the denying doctrine of the Trinity, denying Christ as fully God and fully man, ect.

But then we have things like how we take the Lord supper, credo versus Peto baptism, Calvinism versus Arminianism, or regulative principle versus normative principle. Could such things be considered heresy that are not necessarily damnable?

Again, I’ve been calling all of this stuff error, except that which damns you

It might be helpful to really stick to isolating damnable heresies to those things that are contra to the scope of fundamentals. Otherwise, it is easy to get to a point of believing Heaven was created specifically for your denomination, group, clique, etc.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Heresy is not just any error, but error that produces schism and divides the church, especially between the orthodox and a sect.

As MW points out, that division usually happens through the error being pointed out, and the erroneous party doubling down on it, requiring their separation from the body.

 

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

Heresy is not just any error, but error that produces schism and divides the church, especially between the orthodox and a sect.

As MW points out, that division usually happens through the error being pointed out, and the erroneous party doubling down on it, requiring their separation from the body.

So with that being in mind, all major denominations could & will accuse the others of heresy. However, not all heresy is damnable by this definition?

 

[Charles Johnson]

So with that being in mind, all major denominations could & will accuse the others of heresy. However, not all heresy is damnable by this definition?

Not necessarily. Sometimes splits aren't because there was a heretical doctrine on one side or the other, but because someone couldn't get along with others. In that case, we call the offending party "schismatic" rather than "heretical."

The Reformed have historically maintained that Baptists, Brownists / Independents, and Lutherans are schismatics, not heretics.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Generally, our private opinions should be guarded in expression. We might reserve the "Heretic!" declaration for such men and their heresies which a church body has formally recognized. Till then, auch men may be or have tendency toward heresy and its tragic outcome, but they are not yet enemies of the faith and the faithful. If that case should come, then we are in a state of warfare, a perilous moment for all. We still must love our enemies, especially those who are of such kind as only hold to what their trusted superiors led and taught them for truth.

 

[Afterthought]

"9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Titus (3:911)

Usually, the word heretic is reserved for damnable error. However, it does have a biblical use of divisiveness. Note some of the examples: foolish questions, genealogies, and strivings about the law. To help people understand when I use the word in that sense, I've taken to calling this sort a "Titus 3 heretic." I agree with the posts by Charles Johnson and MW on this more expanded use of heresy and how to identify it; here is the biblical support for its usage.

 

[Pictet]

James Durham (Concerning Scandal, 225): "Heresy is some error in doctrine, and that especially in fundamental doctrine, followed with pertinacy, and endeavour to propagate the same."

William Perkins (Galatians, 382): "there are three things in heresy, an errour, in the maine doctrine, conviction of the party touching his errour, and obstinacy after conviction."

These are such helpful quotes.

They are particularly valuable in terms of showing the way in which the same opinions, held by different people, can be or not be heresy.

If a random Christian in the pew who hasn't thought about or read about something, and has a substantially wrong opinion, it may not really be heresy - indeed, how many modern Christians who haven't read their Christology even have a well-formed understanding of dyothelitism? It may be a serious mistake and one that needs immediate rectification, but that person is open to being corrected as soon as they see the consequences of their view, the Biblical argument, or simply the fact that the church has judged that view to be heretical. This isn't true of everything (denying the Trinity!) of course, but it should shape the way we react to such error.

If a minister, or still more a theologian who has studied the issue, advocates the same view, it may be damnable heresy, as it is a deliberate, informed rejection of something that impinges on the gospel or creeds. They have the 'pertinacity' Durham mentions; and the 'conviction' and 'obstinacy' Perkins speaks of.

James 3:1 'we who are teachers'....

 

[Jack K]

All words have a range of meaning, depending on who is using them, to whom, and in what context. "Heresy" is a very serious word to many people. They may hear it and feel it comes with the sense that the speaker wants to burn someone at the stake and would like to be the guy who lights the fire. For this reason, I suggest it be used sparingly, and only for doctrines the wider church has condemned in the ecumenical creeds. If you want to use the word more broadly than that, be sure you also explain how you are using it.

 

[The Calvinistic Methodist]

Yeah, I guess my original working definition was that most disagreements were errors. However, anything damnable would be a heresy. I’ve been surprised (with my definition) how frequently people use that sort of language. My sister is a Pentecostal, my parents are Wesleyan, and my grandmother is free-will Baptist. I would say that they are all in error, but would feel very uncomfortable using language like heresy. (Though all of them have formal education at a seminary level to “back” their beliefs)

 

[LightBringer]

I sort it between heterodox and heresy. The line between the two can be fine.