defining heresy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate
Recently learned that in the high middle ages there were different schools of thought on how to define heresy. At a minimum, it was deviation from accepted Christian belief or practice by someone who was at least nominally Christian (baptized). Some argued that a belief did not constitute heresy unless the adherent additionally defended it obstinately and publicly, even when confronted with true teaching or practice.

What do people think of the last requirement (obstinate refusal to recant after encountering correct teaching)? Seems to make sense of the way things really work. For example, if you ask the average guy in the pew to describe the Trinity, there is a good chance you will get some form of Trinitarian error. It is hard stuff and allot of people don't even know the orthodox terminology. Yet, their failure is more from a lack of understanding than from obstinate disbelief. And many would be naturally disposed to accept whatever they were taught.

Also, how did the reformers define heresy? I know that some distinguished b/t damnable heresy and other types too. I am curious about whether they had an obstinate refusal element built in.

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top