Heresy Defined

In an earlier comment, a reader used a dictionary defintion of heresy. An example would be from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, as follows:

1a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

They've got it wrong. Of course, the dictionary is, really, a terrible place to find out what words mean. They can't even restrict themselves to proper English (examples: "orientate" and "irregardless"), so how can we expect a dictionary to restrict the meaning of the word to what it actually means, instead of how we use it?

Part one of our dictionary definition uses two words that have no place there: opinion and dogma. Neither is of any relevance. 1b uses the Roman Catholic Church as the source of the dogma - also irrelevant. Part Two continues with the same thoughts - relativism by using the words "dominant", "opinion", "generally accepted" and "theory".

Essentially, the dictionary defines heresy just as the mass of non-Christians do - something you believe that isn't what the current authority says is right. Thus, heresy becomes a relativistic term. This occurs because they want it to be relative - if heresy is relative, prior claims of heresy can be mocked as culturally backward. If heresy is relative, then anyone who claimed the authority to declare others as heretics were real Christians - after all, anyone who claims to be one is one, right?

Wrong. See the Firefighter Parables.

If you have looked at my quotes from the church fathers closely, you may have already realized where heresy lies.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:... But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III Chapters 1 & 2.

In order, then, as we have already stated, that we may prove them atheists, both in opinion and their mode (of treating a question) and in fact, and (in order to show) whence it is that their attempted theories have accrued unto them, and that they have endeavoured to establish their tenets, taking nothing from the holy Scriptures-nor is it from preserving the succession of any saint that they have hurried headlong into these opinions;
-Hippolytus, A Refutation of All Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 1

Subsequently, however, they have styled themselves Gnostics, alleging that they alone have sounded the depths of knowledge.
-Hippolytus, Book 4, Chapter 1

All who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to His own declaration, "I am the truth," derive the knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do not mean those only which He spake when He became man and tabernacled in the flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets. For without the Word of God, how could they have been able to prophesy of Christ? And were it not our purpose to confine the present treatise within the limits of all attainable brevity, it would not be difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the Holy Scriptures...Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of this sort, according to the precept, "Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge," if he would desire to form a connected series and body of truths agreeably to the reason of all these things, that by dear and necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of illustrations and arguments,-either those which he has discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method.
- Origen, De Principiis, Preface

Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text.
- Tertullian, The Perscription Against Heretics, Chapter 17.

It is clear what heresy is: promoting a doctrine contrary to Scripture. This can take two forms - either a supposition of a doctrine that comes from entirely without the scriptures, or an exposition of the scriptures that is not in order with the "tradition" of the church.

Now, unfortunately, just as the word "heresy" has been twisted, so has the word "tradition" been twisted to suit the user. Tradition in this sense is not something we have done for a while - it is the unbroken chain of interpretation of the apostles and early church bishops through the third century. While Dan Brown was wrong on a lot of things, he was right in this - Constantine changed the dynamic of the church by making it a source of political power, and the traditions developed after the Edict of Milan are of little value and no doctrinal importance. In fact, any doctrine that sprung up after the 4th bishop of Rome, (Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp, then Irenaeus), is likely no tradition at all in the sense of a doctrinally binding precept.

Heresy has the two forms, but it is of the same spirit. While Hippolytus addressed over an hundred heresies, the fact is that they were, and are, all gnosticism. While early gnosticism had mystical elements, they were not crucial. What gnosticism has that is the creator of the previous mystical systems, and any current ideas, is its central precept that an individual can have their own personal knowledge of the doctrines of God, which is not contained in the Scriptures.

The atheist, the "fundamentalist", the liberation theologian, the "Christians" who deny the truth of Scripture and claim that some parts are true while others are not - those are the heretics, as they not only deny God's truth, but claim that their idea is ascendant. In this they place themselves above Him and His revleation of the Word. Heretics were never supposed to be met with threats of the stake, but with a thorough refutation of their illogical tenets that are, at their root, based upon their own personal ideas. Oftentimes, they are not even worth that, as casting pearls before swine will get your pearls stomped. Save the pearls for those who are seeking pearls.

Thus, the seeker is not a heretic, however. The person who questions the truth of Christianity, honestly, without simply dismissing it based upon their own ideas without examining the historical validity or the logical validity of the actual Scriptures and the doctrines of the early church, are those whom we must meet with the truth and love in action.

I hope there are questions. I intend to follow this post with a further refutation of the DaVinci Code, based upon my minimal grasp of history, and a post on the Catholic Church and heresy.