# Definition of a heretic (2.0)



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2008)

As I was reading through James Fergusson's commentary on Galatians I came across this definition/description of a heretic: "those schismatic church-renders". Straightforward and to the point, I think.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 12, 2008)

You can be schismatic and split a church without being hell bound though.


----------



## TimV (Jul 12, 2008)

And it can be a good thing.

I prefer, "That belief which will keep a man out of the Kingdom".


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> You can be schismatic and split a church without being hell bound though.



Perhaps, but if the rending is in order to propagate or maintain a false doctrine, I think not. I don't have in mind the arguments over the color of the carpet in the fellowship hall, nor do I think Fergusson did either. Being hard-headed is one thing, but being factious is another.

And of coarse, as Tim mentions, there are also times when one needs to separate/divide in order to maintain doctrinal purity. And due to this very fact, heresy unrepeated of will always rend the Church.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm sure a better definition can be found. Something like, "A person who believes contrary enough to the Scripture that such beliefs bar him from the kingdom." Heresy is not all that schismatic nowadays....they are all over the place and often don't cause so much as a yawn.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2008)

By no means am I saying that this is the be all and end all definition of heresy. However, I do appreciate how these older writers tended to get straight to the point and call a spade a spade, if you will. Within the context of the book of Galatians especially, Fergusson is spot on.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 12, 2008)

I'm not trying to retread ground already covered in this thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/definition-heresy-26361/. Since it was closed I was forced to place my appendix here instead. Thus the (2.0) in this thread's title.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 12, 2008)

James,

I think that there is a theological use of the term heretic, and a linguistic use. Linguistically, the Greek term can mean one who has a self-chosen opinion, or one who is self-willed, and (by extension) one who causes division.

Also, by extension, because Christianity is a public religion, a self-chosen opinion does not fit within its boundaries. It is a system of Truth, which God Himself reveals. Therefore, if a man chooses his own opinions, he (by definition) rejects God's.

If we looked at heresy as causing division, then the Orthodox at Nicea would have been the heretics, because they were causing the division. BUT, from the vantage point of choosing man's opinion over God's revelation, the Arians were clearly the heretics.

Just my two bits.

Cheers,

Adam





Southern Presbyterian said:


> As I was reading through James Fergusson's commentary on Galatians I came across this definition/description of a heretic: "those schismatic church-renders". Straightforward and to the point, I think.


----------

