Those who get into as many theological discussions as I do know of quite a few conversations that have involved the term “heresy” and less so the term “apostate.” Unfortunately, most people don’t use these terms properly, often they don’t know that those words mean anything other than something to call someone who you do not agree with. Heretic or apostate is not the equivalent of a Christian expletive, and if we reduce them to that sentiment then we will have no definitive statement for those who truly are heterodox or who have defected from the faith.
Heresy is the opposite of orthodoxy. Meaning that it is doctrine that promotes a false view of the truth; this is not the same as, however, as a difference of opinion because it deals with fundamental necessities of the Christian religion. An apostate is one who had been accepted into the Christian community, participated with God’s people and has rejected the faith. In other words:
Heretic = A person that must be expelled from the Christian community because of turning his back on sound doctrine.
Apostate = A person that has left the Christian community because of turning his back on the faith.
Both involve those who are not, or should not be, part of the church’s community. (I do not say part of the church for we know that the gates of hell will not prevail against her, and that those who truly are the church are kept by his hand.) As we can see the charge of heresy or apostasy is a very serious one, and we should not throw it around lightly. I will be the first to stand up against those who are truly heretics, and to label them as such, so that they will not lead others astray; however, I never want to call my Christian brother or sister one as that would necessitate their breaking of fellowship from the people of God. It is important to remember that in the ancient world there was at most one church per city, so excommunication is not only leaving a church but is being cut off from the entire Christian community. So what doctrines are important enough that, if defected from, we are to excommunicate people? First, let’s look at the scriptural passages.
We know that there are those who “pervert the gospel of Christ” and scripture tells us that these people should be anathema to us (accursed or exiled). (Galatians 1:6-9). The gospel of Christ can be seen in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 and Romans 10:9-10, some of the main tenants of these verses are that Jesus Christ physically lived as a man, physically died, and physically rose again. Each of these doctrines, if denied, can be properly called heresy. We know that our salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and that God from the beginning has declared that he is One God. Therefore, the five main tenants from scripture that must be held to for the Christian faith are as follows:
- Adherence to the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-9, Jude 1:3-4, 1 Corinthians 15:1-7, Romans 10:9-10)
- The Deity and Humanity of Christ (1 John 4:1-3, 1 Timothy 2:5-6)
- The Bodily Resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:14-20)
- One God in Three Persons (Isaiah 43:10-11;44:6, Genesis 1:26, Deuteronomy 6:4, Matthew 28:18, 1st Corinthians 13:14, 2nd Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-7, 1st Peter 1:2, Jude 20-21)
- Salvation by Faith (Romans 5:1, Ephesians 2:8-9)
Scripture itself says that these doctrines are important enough for excommunication; I would say that without these doctrines, a given set of beliefs is not Christian. One need not understand these fully to be a Christian, but in order for a doctrine to be called a Christian doctrine it must adhere to these tenets. There is a Christian, and there is then an orthodox Christian. To me Orthodoxy means that it is compliant with the ecumenical creeds of the church. These creeds were universal declarations of the church in order to combat heresy. Some have rejected creeds as being man made, however they are statements of the entire church and thus must be taken seriously, while they may speak of things beyond the above five they are all related to the five and without the doctrines contained in the creeds those tenets would be distorted.
Those universal creeds are the Apostle’s Creed, Nicene Creed, The Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athenasian Creed. (Each link is provided to the text of the creed and I have tried to find those with scripture references for their biblical support, though it is not at all exhaustive.) I was recently in a situation at church in which one Christian had previously called another brother a heretic and then called him a carnal apostate. The brother he was talking to then declared that he had made a foolish statement and that if he called him such things again that he would go before the elders (and rightly so) The problem is not that the first brother honestly thought the other was a heretic, but that he did not understand the severity of his accusation. Words mean little today and so we must be careful in their usage. We cannot flippantly throw around such terms, and we must always seek reconciliation and unity, even with those who are actual heretics if we can bring them back into proper faith. Hopefully this post will prevent some from miss identifying fellow Christians, and also help us to understand the severity of heresy and apostasy.
I have moved from Arminianism to Calvinism. The two sides have thrown the word heretic at each other. It seems to be how the Scripture is interpreted and what Scriptures are given greater emphasis.
First, I am sorry that I just now read this post in its entirety. I am definitely guilty of “casually” throwing around the word heretic in a sinful way. However, I don’t believe that it is enough to say that teaching must simply coincide with the creeds and the vitals of the faith merely in the meanings of the words. One must go a step further and assert that, the implied hermeneutics must also logically support the creeds. This is what the study of theology is all about. As I am a Calvinist, this is an example of what I see to be one of those situations.
The comparison of Free Will and Total Inability. The Calvinist view of Total Inability states that we are 100% unable to atone for our own sin. Only through the gift of grace freely given through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are we saved. Period. The Armenian view of Free Will, however assumes that God has given us the ability to atone for our sins through good works. Salvation is dependent upon man’s decision to choose God. Thus Jesus, died and it’s a crap shoot to see who wants in. Thus Jesus doesn’t know who will choose him. Is he then sovereign? This goes directly against Matthew 11:27. Is Jesus then not who he says he is?
Hermeneutically speaking, this goes against all the aforementioned creeds and thus falls under the definition given above of Heresy.
Culturally, we are in a far different state than the Christian community in early Christianity. (ie. Florida…sorry I couldn’t help it). A pastor or member can easily leave a church and find a new one even within walking distance. There is a veritable buffet of Christian teaching, especially in America, we have the options to choose whatever form of God we like. Ultimately, therein lies the problem. I can see it on headline news: “PCA brands Pastor Tom of Tampa FL a heretic for…(it doesn’t even matter)…” Everyone would change the channel thinking, “What else is on?” “Consequently, Pastor Tom decides to plant a independent church in Lutz.” There is no cultural use or relevance for the branding of heretics. My point is that Heresy happens regularly due to various things like buffet Christianity, post modernism, modernism, falsely-called teachers, pastors with no spiritual checks, elders serving out of habit or a lack of options, etc, the list goes on. Heresy is casual or flippant part of everyday life in Christianity. However, love the sinner not the sin. But what are we to do about unrepentant sinners and what does Matthew say about that? Perhaps, a conversation for another post.