What is a heretic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dimib116

Puritan Board Freshman
Been thinking about whether Arminians are heretics or not. I would say they are, but then whats the difference between them and those who disagree with me on baptism?

So I'm wondering, what is the definition of a heretic anyway?
Please include some sort of biblical evidence if you can.
 
A heretic is one who denies the true gospel.
[BIBLE]Galatians 1:6-9[/BIBLE]

The word for "accursed" is ἀνάθεμα, or anathema. When church councils declared people heretics and separated them from the church, they would say, "Let him be anathema."
 
The Mormon Church are heretics; They preach another gospel while using the name of Christ.
Jehovah Witness are Hertics: They flat out deny who God is, this denying scripture, therefore they deny the gospel in its full

I will say Arminians are drawing a very close line to being on the faith or not. Spurgeon was set they preached another gospel. I'm not sure if I can fully agree with Spurgeon, but the gospel I preach is one of Covenant relationships and fully by God.
The one Arminians preach is by man with a deist conception of God. So the question is, are they heretics?
 
The Mormon Church are heretics; They preach another gospel while using the name of Christ.
Jehovah Witness are Hertics: They flat out deny who God is, this denying scripture, therefore they deny the gospel in its full

I will say Arminians are drawing a very close line to being on the faith or not. Spurgeon was set they preached another gospel. I'm not sure if I can fully agree with Spurgeon, but the gospel I preach is one of Covenant relationships and fully by God.
The one Arminians preach is by man with a deist conception of God. So the question is, are they heretics?

Yeah thats my question :)

I believe they are because I think even a slight variation with the Gospel distorts it and ruins it. But while I believe Arminians are heretics, I still believe by God's grace its possible for them to still be saved and be Christian. Pretty much like Romans Catholics.
 
Heretic
HER'ETIC, n.

1. A person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice.

2. Any one who maintains erroneous opinions.[Webster 1828]
 
Last edited:
The second half of the first definition is not overly helpful. I believe that credobaptism is contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, but my Baptist brothers are not heretics. I also believe that the rapture is contrary to Scripture, but Johnny Mac is not a heretic.
 
The second half of the first definition is not overly helpful. I believe that credobaptism is contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, but my Baptist brothers are not heretics. I also believe that the rapture is contrary to Scripture, but Johnny Mac is not a heretic.

I am sorry I used the Webster 1828 dictionary for that definition.

But for the sake of argument, can we say that a heretic is one that holds a contrary position on the Doctrine of Salvation?

As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)
 
A hairy creature that will attach itself to and suck the life out of you.

:lol:

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)

That is unfortunate.

why?

I am about unity. If one holds to the Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation (Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Luther, & Calvin.) I have more in common with all those men than I do with (Pelagius, Arminius, Wesley)

As for baptism I believe in the one baptism (that is in Christ alone)

And as for the end times I like what Paul Washer said, "When Jesus returns we will all know what Revealation means." What I want to know is does one have the knowledge of salvation. If they hold to the orthodox doctrine of salvation then we can walk together.
 
I heretic is someone who denies the central doctrines of the faith; i.e. the divinity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Trinity, inerrant Scriptures, etc. If you ask an "arminian" if they believe that salvation is by grace alone almost all will affirm with a hearty "yes". No, they are not heretics as a group.
 
I would definitely say that a heretic would be one who has departed on the fundamentals of the faith and/or any of the points of the TULIP system.

But let me ask a question here; one which is very personal to me based on my past experience.

Would you claim someone a heretic who maintained that the gospel was not used by God in the salvation of sinners? In other words, anti-means folks.

I think I would answer in the affirmative.
 
"Heretic" is a label that (in my opinion) is very overused and misapplied, even in Reformed circles. I often see it used to simply mean that someone's theology is wrong.

An arminian preaches a gospel with theological errors, but that is not to say that he preaches a false gospel.

For example, Billy Graham is NOT a heretic. He's been kicked through the mud several times on the PB and labeled a heretic, but Billy Graham preaches that salvation is by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. (and please, there's no need to post the youtube videos where he has said controversial things--I've seen them).
 
A hairy creature that will attach itself to and suck the life out of you.

:lol:

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)

That is unfortunate.

why?

I am about unity. If one holds to the Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation (Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Luther, & Calvin.) I have more in common with all those men than I do with (Pelagius, Arminius, Wesley)

As for baptism I believe in the one baptism (that is in Christ alone)

And as for the end times I like what Paul Washer said, "When Jesus returns we will all know what Revealation means." What I want to know is does one have the knowledge of salvation. If they hold to the orthodox doctrine of salvation then we can walk together.

Why? Because you said you would not waste time on those who you disagreed with. That is a slap in the face of those people. You are saying that they are not worth your time and fellowship. If you meant to say that you refuse to get in an argument over these secondary issues, then that is fine. Unfortunately your original post did not convey this idea.
 
Thing is, the sum total of our personal opinions really mean not a whole lot in view of what the confessions say. If you are a confessing member of XYZ church, and XYZ church confesses that this, that, and the other are heresy, then that is what you confess to believe. End story.

Quotes from theologians who know better than I what is heresy and what is not (courtesy of Dr McMahon):
Edwards called Arminianism "darkness" of highest order.
Owen called it "a spawn of the devil."
Dordt denounced it as "heresy" and expelled all those who held to it out of the country.
Westminster called it "heresy" "plaguing" the church.
Turretin liked it to "pelagianism" which is heresy of the highest order.
Calvin, fighting with Pighius, called it the brain child of the devil.
Luther denouced Erasmus' take on it (and free will) as "dung" on a silver platter.

I am not listing this to try and convince everyone that Arminians are servants of Satan and will all burn in a lake of fire, ha, ha, ha.

I just think that too often today we water things down, where in reality, there is a line in the sand and it is clear as day, we just tend to want to smudge it a little for the sake of I'm not sure what. At the end of the day, there is one truth, and not 57 divergent ones. There is one Christ, not 57 of Him.
 
A hairy creature that will attach itself to and suck the life out of you.

:lol:

---------- Post added at 10:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

As for baptism, and the eschatology, I will not waste time with people that hold different views (we all really don't know as we ought)

That is unfortunate.

why?

I am about unity. If one holds to the Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation (Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Luther, & Calvin.) I have more in common with all those men than I do with (Pelagius, Arminius, Wesley)

As for baptism I believe in the one baptism (that is in Christ alone)

And as for the end times I like what Paul Washer said, "When Jesus returns we will all know what Revealation means." What I want to know is does one have the knowledge of salvation. If they hold to the orthodox doctrine of salvation then we can walk together.

Why? Because you said you would not waste time on those who you disagreed with. That is a slap in the face of those people. You are saying that they are not worth your time and fellowship. If you meant to say that you refuse to get in an argument over these secondary issues, then that is fine. Unfortunately your original post did not convey this idea.

I meant that I will not argue over the seconday issues. I am sorry if I led you down the wrong trail.

I would argue tooth and nail for this position and I think Hodge does a great job at explaining it.

Statement of the Doctrine. The Augustinian scheme includes the following points: (1.) That the glory of God, or the manifestation of his perfections, is the highest and ultimate end of all things. (2.) For that end God purposed the creation of the universe, and the whole plan of providence and redemption. (3.) That He placed man in a state of probation, making Adam, their first parent, their head and representative. (4.) That the fall of Adam brought all his posterity into a state of condemnation, sin, and misery, from which they are utterly unable to deliver themselves. (5.) From the mass of fallen men God elected a number innumerable to eternal life, and left the rest of mankind to the just recompense of their sins. (6.) That the ground of this election is not the foresight of anything in the one class to distinguish them favourably from the members of the other class, but the good pleasure of God. (7.) That for the salvation of those thus chosen to eternal life, God gave his own Son, to become man, and to obey and suffer for his people, thus making a full satisfaction for sin and bringing in everlasting righteousness, rendering the ultimate salvation of the elect absolutely certain. (8.) That while the Holy Spirit, in his common operations, is present with every man, so long as he lives, restraining evil and exciting good, his certainly efficacious and saving power is exercised only in behalf of the elect. (9.) That all those whom God has thus chosen to life, and for whom Christ specially save Himself in the covenant of redemption, shall certainly (unless they die in infancy), be brought to the knowledge of the truth, to the exercise of faith, and to perseverance in holy living unto the end. Such is the great scheme of doctrine known in history as the Pauline, Augustinian, or Calvinistic, taught, as we believe, in the Scriptures, developed by Augustine, formally sanctioned by the Latin Church, adhered to by the witnesses of the truth during the Middle Ages, repudiated by the Church of Rome in the Council of Trent, revived in that Church by the Jansenists, adopted by all the Reformers, incorporated in the creeds of the Protestant Churches of Switzerland, of the Palatinate, of France, Holland, England, and Scotland, and unfolded in the Standards framed by the Westminster Assembly, the common representative of Presbyterians in Europe and America. It is a historical fact that this scheme of doctrine has been the moving power in the Church; that largely to it are to be referred the intellectual vigour and spiritual life of the heroes and confessors who have been raised up in the course of ages; that it has been the fruitful source of good works, of civil and religious liberty, and of human progress. Its truth may be evinced from many different sources.

Charles Hodge (2009). Systematic Theology Volume II - Enhanced Version (Kindle Locations 7155-7175). Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Kindle Edition.
 
Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.
 
Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.

:doh: My thunder has been officially stolen!
 
Bob V.,
I have to say that your avatar reminds me of Christopher Lloyd in the last Back to the Future movie....:lol:
 
Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.

:doh: My thunder has been officially stolen!

Somebody call Percy Jackson!
 
...we just tend to want to smudge it a little for the sake of I'm not sure what.
That would be avoidance of confrontation, a reluctance to do any of the difficult things that love requires of us. A byproduct, in my view, of the effeminization of the culture syncretistically invading even the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
 
In much the same way that some denominations have differentiated from homosexuals and those struggling with the sin of homosexuality, can we differentiate between a heretic and those that are ignorantly following heretical ideas?
 
An heretic is anyone who denies the truths pertaining to the first 7 ecumenical councils... that is how the Reformers generally used the term.
 
Okay let me ask you this question then.

If heresy is mainly in regards to issues pertaining to salvation then what do we call someone who (for example) claims to believe in all the basic truths of salvation but denies the need for any sort of baptism in general? Since baptism doesnt directly pertain to salvation, would that person still be a heretic?
 
Close Andrew, I almost agree but a believer can be in error and teach heresy from ignorance. To become a full fledged heretic, he (or Joyce Meyers) would have to be charged by the Church, a trial held and the Church pronounces that the person is indeed a heretic. One person cannot judge another to be a heretic, it takes a convocation of orthodox believers.

So today, who exactly would (or could) "the Church" be that would have the authority to pronounce heretics? A local church excommunication? A presbytery? A General Assembly?
 
That's the rub Don, THE 'invisible' CHURCH doesn't have the ability to pronounce heresy. So the local bodies or denominations or conferences has to either define the term or get rid of it and then be consistent. We can decide that 'heresy' is any deviation from the Nicene Creed. A person who openly and knowingly teaches contrary to the Nicene Creed would be a heretic. The bottom line is, the term is thrown around indiscriminately and recklessly (by individuals in the blogosphere) so it has lost it's meaning.
 
Dimi, I sympathize with your question. However, let me suggest that we don't need to have a title for everyone who is in error. I mean, as a Presbyterian, it would be easy for me to just say, "That Baptist over there is a heretic because he denies the truth about baptism." Or I could do the same thing with my many arminian friends whose soteriology is inconsistent and unbiblical. I could dust my hands off and walk away. However, once the "H Word" gets pulled out, there's really no need of further conversation - after all, it's black and white. I'm right and they're a heretic. Fortunately, the more even-minded Reformed folk will tell you that it takes a lot more than generic error to make one a heretic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top