Heretics

[Grafted In]

What makes a believer a heretic? Can you give an example of a heretic from your personal experience?

 

[ViaCrucis]

What makes a believer a heretic? Can you give an example of a heretic from your personal experience?

First one needs to make a distinction between formal heresy and material heresy.

Material heresy refers to views which are heretical which a person might have, however the person holding to such views does not necessarily know any better. Let's imagine someone raised in a church which taught them something which is at odds with orthodox teaching, this person's only experience is what they grew up believing. They simply don't know any better. Or, let's imagine a Christian who has misunderstood a point of doctrine, and believes something that is heretical but simply does not know it. What we are dealing with here is simply wrong belief (heterodoxy), opinions contrary to established Christian truth (heresy), but the individual holding to it may not even be aware that they are.

In contrast formal heresy refers to knowingly holding to heretical views, and engaging in active perpetuation of these views, even--and especially--when they are confronted with true doctrine. When Scripture condemns false teachers it is talking about these sorts of people--those who are actively against apostolic, solid, Christian teaching and going out of their way to teach contrary to it, and seek converts to their position.

We would refer to someone who holds to formal heresy, who is active in promoting it and is working against the historic, orthodox teaching of the Christian faith, as a heretic. Someone who is merely mistaken, whose ideas are material heresy, but who don't know any better, who merely believe something wrong, is not a heretic.

A heretic is someone who is actively spreading heresy, and therefore sowing division and discord, harming the Body of Christ.

I have met many people who have heretical ideas, I'd say over 90% of the time it's a lack of proper teaching, they simply haven't been exposed to good, solid, orthodox theology and why it matters. These are not heretics, just Christian people who need good teaching and to be in a church environment where they can grow and mature in their faith.

But I have also met people who want to establish themselves as though they are teachers, intent on making converts to their wrong views, they are actively trying to attack the basic norms of Christian teaching. Such persons are, by a basic historic and biblical definition, heretics.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RileyG]

What tradition are you in?

For example, the RCC no longer calls Protestant "heretics" but separated brethren and recognizes them as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Those who reject Nicene Christianity- such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians- can be called by some Christians as "heretics" but the term is very rarely used.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What tradition are you in?

For example, the RCC no longer calls Protestant "heretics" but separated brethren and recognizes them as our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The founders of various schismatic groups may have been heretics (or maybe just schismatics) but today’s followers are not in themselves formal heretics. We don’t want to scream at people about them being heretics. Better to figure out how to just talk.

Those who reject Nicene Christianity- such as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians- can be called by some Christians as "heretics" but the term is very rarely used.

They would basically be considered simply not to be Christian. To be a Christian heretic there is a basic starting point where you had to be an actual Christian first.

 

[RileyG]

The founders of various schismatic groups may have been heretics (or maybe just schismatics) but today’s followers are not in themselves formal heretics. We don’t want to scream at people about them being heretics. Better to figure out how to just talk.

They would basically be considered simply not to be Christian. To be a Christian heretic there is a basic starting point where you had to be an actual Christian first.

Thanks for clarifying.

God bless

 

[ozso]

A heretic is someone who holds a theological view that's unorthodox. Their overall theology might be sound other than that one issue.

Then there are those who hold radical unorthodox views across the board. They're usually the "lone wolf" type who disagrees with most everyone else and claim to have been given special insight. A self-styled prophet.

Then there are those who belong to a fringe group who hold to a particular unorthodox view as the centerpiece of their theology.

 

[dzheremi]

Rejection of the faith as outlined in the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.

There are many such groups today, often masquerading as Christians of the "Bible-only" variety (which is not to say that all Christians who call themselves that are automatically heretics; far from it, thankfully!), who reject the faith as outlined there specifically because it is put forth in creedal form, rather than being found in that exact form in the pages of the Biblical text as they know it. This definitely makes them a bunch of silly gooses, as the Creed is nothing more than a summation of the main points of the faith as found within the same scriptures (hence each line can be backed up with scriptural reference, as here), but that's still not good enough for some. In this same category we would also put Muslims, Mormons, Bahai, and any others who have a different gospel to sell people on, even as they often either claim to be Christians outright (in the case of Mormons), or believers in "the true teachings of Jesus" (as Muslims often claim) before they were corrupted by the boogeymen of Christian history (e.g., Paul, Constantine), according to the ahistorical narratives that they themselves prefer.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Rejection of the faith as outlined in the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.

So are Buddhists to be called heretics? I think you have to have some connection to historic Christianity to become a heretic.

 

[dzheremi]

So are Buddhists to be called heretics? I think you have to have some connection to historic Christianity to become a heretic.

I disagree. St. Ephrem tackles Mani, for instance, in some of his hymns against heretics (I can't remember the exact ones at the moment, but I've read them in English via a translation commissioned by Roger Pearse, so I'm assuming they're on his website somewhere), as St. Augustine also does in his "Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus", wherein he writes: "My prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom, and through whom, and in whom are all things, has been, and is now, that in opposing and refuting the heresy of you Manichæans, as you may after all be heretics more from thoughtlessness than from malice, He would give me a mind calm and composed, and aiming at your recovery rather than at your discomfiture." (From here; emphasis added)

Neither Mani nor the Manichaeans were never Christians (though some of them, like St. Augustine himself, later became Christians), so if it is somehow wrong to call heretics heretics because they originate outside of Christianity, then apparently nobody told him or St. Ephrem about it (and I'm sure they aren't the only ones; they're just the first that come to my mind).

It may be helpful to consider here that the root of the English word "heresy" is the Greek αἵρεσις, which means something more like "choice". Therefore, heretics are those who choose what they can personally accept of the truth (i.e., the Christian religion) in fashioning their heresies so as to be attractive to the weak. Long before the more developed theological language of the 4th century, we can even see this in such foundational apologists as St. Justin Martyr, who in his day critiqued the Roman mystery cult of Mithras for what he saw as its horrific and mocking imitation of the Eucharist in its own pagan rituals.

 

[concretecamper]

From the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 1170. Name the different classes of unbelievers and tell what they are.

A. The different classes of unbelievers are (1) Atheists, who deny there is a God; (2) Deists, who admit there is a God, but deny that He revealed a religion; (3) Agnostics, who will neither admit nor deny the existence of God; (4) Infidels, who have never been baptized, and who, through want of faith, refuse to be baptized; (5) Heretics, who have been baptized Christians, but do not believe all the articles of faith; (6) Schismatics, who have been baptized and believe all the articles of faith, but do not submit to the authority of the Pope; (7) Apostates, who have rejected the true religion, in which they formerly believed, to join a false religion; (8) Rationalists and Materialists, who believe only in material things.

 

[The Liturgist]

The founders of various schismatic groups may have been heretics (or maybe just schismatics) but today’s followers are not in themselves formal heretics. We don’t want to scream at people about them being heretics. Better to figure out how to just talk.

They would basically be considered simply not to be Christian. To be a Christian heretic there is a basic starting point where you had to be an actual Christian first.

The actual term for the founder or leader of a heretical movement is “Heresiarch”, from the Greek words hairesis , which means “choice” but has the context of meaning party or sect, and which in antiquity was used non-perjoratively as well as polemically, and the word archon, meaning ruler.

 

[The Liturgist]

So are Buddhists to be called heretics? I think you have to have some connection to historic Christianity to become a heretic.

Buddhism actually did have a connection to historic Christianity via the St. Thomas Christians in India, and the Church of the East extended into China, Mongolia and Tibet, and also Sri Lanka, stretching right across Asia and many historically predominantly Buddhist areas, before the 12th century Muslim warlord Tamerlane began a genocide that was continued by his sons that led to the murder of most Asian Christians. As far as the Church of the East was concerned, only its dioceses in India and the Fertile Crescent (chiefly Iraq, but also Iran and Syria) would survive this genocide. But before that happened, there was interaction between the Buddhists and the Christians, and we see archaeological evidence of this in China, and we also see it reflected in the hierarchy of the Tibetan Buddhists, who began to structure their lamas hierarchically like bishops, with the Dalai Lama taking up a position analogous to that of the Catholicos of the East (the primate of the Church of the East, who historically for many centuries was hereditary, which turned out to be uncanonical, but the last hereditary patriarch was assasinated in 1974.* From my observations of Tibetan Buddhist devotional services, which are quite different from those of some other Buddhist groups, I am additionally of the view that their worship was structured, and even their music influenced by, that of the Church of the East.

*Since the Church of the East believed that bishops should be celibate, except for Chorepiscopi (Choir bishops, who are glorified archpriests, basically, with limited powers of ordination and consecration, for example, they can usually ordain people as readers on their own, but not to the diaconate or the priesthood), the hereditary system worked on the principle that the Patriarch would be the younger of two brothers, and his nephew would inherit the cathedra.

 

[The Liturgist]

A heretic is someone who holds a theological view that's unorthodox. Their overall theology might be sound other than that one issue.

Then there are those who hold radical unorthodox views across the board. They're usually the "lone wolf" type who disagrees with most everyone else and claim to have been given special insight. A self-styled prophet.

Then there are those who belong to a fringe group who hold to a particular unorthodox view as the centerpiece of their theology.

Well I think all three of these could be called heretics.

One important point should be made however, and that is that calling people heretics does not endear them towards being receptive to whatever doctrinal edification you are seeking to impart to them. It can be extremely counter-productive. Hence the utility of more mild terms such as “heterodox” and the term “theological error” instead of “heresy.”

Also, the word heresy, since it did originally mean sect, I think really does require a schismatic element to be applicable. This does not have to mean it is fully schismatic, but rather that it is either in a state of schism or contumacy (defiance of ecclesiastical authority, for example, rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or denial of the Apostolate of St. Paul would be two examples of contumacy, and there are some progressive mainline churches where one can advertise having such views without even being informed that they are in error. And this in some places extends to entire parishes. For example, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which now calls itself herchurch, is a particularly egregious case - having carefully studied their worship and practices, I can’t figure out a basis for regarding them as Christian, and I am really profoundly disturbed by the fact that the local ELCA bishop has not done anything to remediate the situation, nor is anyone apparently trying to raise the issue nationally within the ELCA.

 

[The Liturgist]

But I have also met people who want to establish themselves as though they are teachers, intent on making converts to their wrong views, they are actively trying to attack the basic norms of Christian teaching. Such persons are, by a basic historic and biblical definition, heretics.

Indeed, were you particpating in the thread a few weeks ago where that guy was talking about wanting to set up a denomination reserved for people of Irish Celtic ethnicity? It came out towards the end of the discussion that he also rejected the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity, and did not believe that the Jews of today are among the descendants of the Jews of the New Testament. And some other guy came out of the woodwork briefly in that discussion, when I mentioned, as a historical example of a person of Mennonite ethnicity, but not Mennonite belief, President Eisenhower, and expressed views in support of the Irish Celtic-exclusive non-Trinitarian guy, and also criticized President Eisenhower “for serving the Jews.” So it seemed like the two of them, whoever they were, were both adherents of some kind of anti-NIcene Gaelic or Celtic fascist heresy.

It was very strange. Perhaps those people embrace the heresy of Arianism because they think its related to Aryanism. XD

But seriously, all jokes aside, that was very disturbing. The mods took care of it, but I am very curious to know if anyone is aware of who those people were, or if anyone has heard of similar racist anti-Trinitarian cults. I recall coming across one such cult many years ago.

 

[ozso]

Well I think all three of these could be called heretics.

One important point should be made however, and that is that calling people heretics does not endear them towards being receptive to whatever doctrinal edification you are seeking to impart to them. It can be extremely counter-productive. Hence the utility of more mild terms such as “heterodox” and the term “theological error” instead of “heresy.”

Also, the word heresy, since it did originally mean sect, I think really does require a schismatic element to be applicable. This does not have to mean it is fully schismatic, but rather that it is either in a state of schism or contumacy (defiance of ecclesiastical authority, for example, rejection of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or denial of the Apostolate of St. Paul would be two examples of contumacy, and there are some progressive mainline churches where one can advertise having such views without even being informed that they are in error. And this in some places extends to entire parishes. For example, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which now calls itself herchurch, is a particularly egregious case - having carefully studied their worship and practices, I can’t figure out a basis for regarding them as Christian, and I am really profoundly disturbed by the fact that the local ELCA bishop has not done anything to remediate the situation, nor is anyone apparently trying to raise the issue nationally within the ELCA.

I usually say "unorthodox" and or "fringe" to the person. And I'm not necessarily completely against everything that fits into those categories. “Heterodox” is a good one too.

 

[eleos1954]

What makes a believer a heretic? Can you give an example of a heretic from your personal experience?

Heresy refers a belief or opinion that does not agree with the official belief or opinion of a particular religion ... and many opinions vary among and within the various religions (a matter of interpetation)

A heretic is a person who believes and practices false doctrines not found in the Bible.

Jews generally considered Jesus to be someone who taught things contrary to Judaism, and as such he would be a heretic (of course He was not).

We would be wise not to call anyone a heretic as that is passing judgement and we are not supposed to pass judgement ... that is up to Christ alone.

Nothing wrong with discussing different understandings of scripture ,,, but refrain from calling anyone a heretic ... it serves no good purpose.

 

[The Liturgist]

We would be wise not to call anyone a heretic as that is passing judgement and we are not supposed to pass judgement ... that is up to Christ alone.

It’s not judgemental to declare someone a heretic for teaching doctrines contrary to the apostolic faith - that is to say, preaching another Gospel - indeed, St. Paul requires us to anathematize people who do that in Galatians 1:8-9, and such an anathema is more stigmatizing than merely calling someone a heretic.

 

[zippy2006]

Rejection of the faith as outlined in the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople.

Is this the criterion singled out by the Oriental Orthodox? Is adherence to later councils not required?

 

[chevyontheriver]

It’s not judgemental to declare someone a heretic for teaching doctrines contrary to the apostolic faith - that is to say, preaching another Gospel - indeed, St. Paul requires us to anathematize people who do that in Galatians 1:8-9, and such an anathema is more stigmatizing than merely calling someone a heretic.

Sometimes the loving thing is to explain to someone that they have adopted a heretical position, and explain it carefully so they understand what’s what. Not necessarily calling them a heretic, because most people with odd views are not deliberate formal heretics.

Other people are deliberate formal heretics by choice and conviction so calling them that is a matter of accuracy. Still, gently explaining the matter may just possibly result in a re-evaluation. So saying ‘Heretic!’ as an epithet isn’t a very winning way. Saying it with reluctance may be simple accuracy.

The Church needs to occasionally use excommunication, and to call things as they are. To not do so is a dereliction of duty.

 

[zippy2006]

The founders of various schismatic groups may have been heretics (or maybe just schismatics) but today’s followers are not in themselves formal heretics. We don’t want to scream at people about them being heretics. Better to figure out how to just talk.

Or in the words of Wikipedia:

Separated brethren is a term sometimes used by the Catholic Church and its clergy and members to refer to baptized members of other Christian traditions.[1] The phrase is a translation of the Latin phrase fratres seiuncti.[2] It is largely used as a polite euphemism in contexts where the terms "formal heretics" or "material heretics" might cause offense.​

​

PR says there are no heretics anymore.