What is heresy?

by Peter Phillips

Roughly, I would define heresy as false teaching that would not be in keeping with Christian Orthodoxy. Biblically, the term (αἵρεσις) was used to point out sects within Judaism or even pejoratively of Christians by 1st century Jews. Paul used the term to speak of those professing believers that taught false doctrine or had habitual immorality in their lives. The Easton Bible dictionary defines heresy as follows: ‘heresy’ is derived from…

…a Greek word signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) the sect holding the opinion. In the Acts of the Apostles (5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14 ; 26:5) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character.

Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks “heresies” with crimes and seditions (Gal. 5:20). This word also denotes divisions or schisms in the church (1 Cor. 11:19).

In Titus 3:10 a “heretical person” is one who follows his own self-willed “questions,” and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God (2 Pet. 2:1).

As I did a bit of research, I realized that heresy has a really nuanced definition in the Catholic church. Here is something from their website, “Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.” However we nuance the term, our final standard ought to be Scripture when determining heresy. Sola Scriptura should always be the definitive locus for any discussion of heresy.

Is the Council of Nicaea an adequate standard of Orthodoxy for a 21st Century Christian?

What about Nicaea? I think that Nicaea is helpful to define basic Christian belief, but for the 21st century Christian, it would not help him deal with several clearly heretical teachings. For instance, Pelagianism would not be considered heresy if one only held to Nicaea as their standard for Orthodoxy. Let me list a few more problematic teachings which aren’t addressed by Nicaea, and then we will be able to see the necessity of examining modern and post-Nicaean heresy in the light of Scripture. One could hold to Nicaea and be a universalist, inclusivist, and deny the existence of hell or Satan. He could deny justification by faith (alone), preach a works based gospel, deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, (and simply affirm a spiritual one), and many more modern heresies would get through. I propose what the church has done historically, and that is to respond to false teaching as it arises on the basis of scripture. We must recognize Nicaea’s limitations historically, but affirm it completely.

How does Paul respond to false teaching?

In light of Paul’s continual fight against false doctrine and false brethren, how should we approach these issues today in the church? Paul, in Gal 2:4, calls the Judaizers false brothers because they preached another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), so therefore we ought to handle those who preach a false gospel in a similar manner (Of course, false teachers are to be distinguished from those who believe them). We need to guard the purity of the gospel from all those that would seek to oppose sound doctrine. Paul handles the false teachers in a stern fashion, but he lovingly corrected those who were sucked into their heretical teachings. I think that is a good model. I even noticed that he makes a judgement about their spiritual standing, calling them false brothers. Can we judge a false teacher as not a Christian, if he or she distorts the gospel? I would say so, given what Paul tells us in this passage. We are called to judge teaching, doctrines and fruit, but not hearts (Mt. 7:1-7, 18: 15-20; 1 Cor. 6:1-11; 1 Thes. 5:21; 1 Jn. 4:1-4). Paul considered doctrinal apostasy grounds enough to exclude people from the Church, but always with a desire for their repentance, if possible. I am not advocating we all go on a heresy hunt or legalism, but the healthy biblical examination of doctrine and teaching, especially when it comes to the gospel. In our post-modern culture it is easy to lose sight of the vital need to examine doctrine in the light of Scripture, because heresy did not die out in Paul’s day, or even the 4th century, but it is alive and seeking to devour the truth. Although it may have been given a face-lift, Christians need to be able to recognize heresy when they see it.