From time to time I read a blog or hear someone call another person a “heretic.” Recently a blogfriend asked me how I would define “heretic” or “heresy.” I’ve been asked this about two people, and I won’t use names but it wouldn’t be hard to figure out about whom it was asked.
You would get different answers from different theologians. Technically it never rose to the level of explicit words in the creeds themselves, that is, Constantinople II, but it was part of the discussions leading to the creedal formulation. You might need to ask a heresiologist on that. The topic went more or less silent for centuries but arose again post Enlightenment and has settled, a bit like Origen (Rowan Williams), into less of a vituperative subject in theology. Barth and von Balthasar surely pushed against making universalism a heresy.
You article is a clear definition of ways that the term Heretic has been used but I have two questions that are related: 1. Your statement that ones views of inerrancy or transubstantiation for example cannot be considered heretical because these views were never condemned by an early church council at that is true. But I think this limitation is a mistake because there are many views that are unorthodox that were not officially condemned by a council. If heresy is limited to that than no one today has any authority to condemn a certain view no matter how unorthodox it is. So 2: if we can only consider heretical that which was condemned by a council then how are we to deal with error in our own day? Not all Heresies were dealt with by the early church there are new forms of heresy today. For example the church's view of justification was not affirmed by a council and yet it was the cornerstone of the Reformation, how to deal with that today ?
Blake, I remember asking a question like these to Joe Brown, who wrote a book on heresies. What I have learned from the heresiologists is that any teaching today that is heretical will undermine one of the central pillars of the orthodoxy established in those major creeds.
Thank you for this post! I appreciate your thoughts here. I was hoping for a bit of clarity, if that is alright. You mention that you "don't care if someone thinks they can connect egalitarianism to Trinity, or complementarianism to Trinity." I think of those who use eternal subordination of the Trinity as an underlying theology or justification for subordination in the home or church. While the latter can refer more to "tribe," the former was dealt with at the early councils (Arianism), so would those who use that argument primarily be considered heretics? Maybe I am implying things on Arianism that was not the case.
Yes, some do that. The Comps did that for awhile and the Egals turned it around, but neither was theologically as sound as one should be. But, if someone roots complementarianism in the eternal subordination of the Son they are walking on the lines of heresy. If they are overtly Arian, that's heresy.
This is a fantastic summary, and I love the reflection questions at the end. I would hazard saying that, yes, such churches CAN use the term "properly", to the degree that they are using it in alignment with such orthodoxy (whether intentionally or accidentally). In addition, I wonder that the role of shared definition might need to play in this? You mention how neither egalitarianism nor complementarianism can be heretical views, even if one roots their definitions or arguments in something which can be a heretical issue (i.e. expressions on Trinity). This seems right, and yet in our time (as in times of old) we come across people who SAY they believe in or affirm creedal statements but do so by redefining such statements internally/externally. So, one can say that they are orthodox, and yet intentionally hold unorthodox views. Does this make them "heretical"?
One can believe a heresy but not be called a "heretic" unless they've gone through a process of investigation. This is what I have been told by expert heresiologists. Using "the term" -- heresy or heretic? Neither of the roots of egalitarianism or complementarianism, so far I know that story, were not originally derivatives of some theory of Trinity. Both sides have brought Trinity into play as legitimating devices -- hierarchicalism and social Trinitarianism. Volf has spoken well on this. On redefining orthodoxies, that's an issue. I saw this in Luke Timothy Johnson's book on the creed at times. The meaning of the creed is what it meant when the creedal writers were writing, which is why theologians like Ayres and McCormack are important for creedal definitions.
Does Christian Universalism (Talbot, Parry, Origen, Nyssa) constitute a heresy under this definition?
You would get different answers from different theologians. Technically it never rose to the level of explicit words in the creeds themselves, that is, Constantinople II, but it was part of the discussions leading to the creedal formulation. You might need to ask a heresiologist on that. The topic went more or less silent for centuries but arose again post Enlightenment and has settled, a bit like Origen (Rowan Williams), into less of a vituperative subject in theology. Barth and von Balthasar surely pushed against making universalism a heresy.
You article is a clear definition of ways that the term Heretic has been used but I have two questions that are related: 1. Your statement that ones views of inerrancy or transubstantiation for example cannot be considered heretical because these views were never condemned by an early church council at that is true. But I think this limitation is a mistake because there are many views that are unorthodox that were not officially condemned by a council. If heresy is limited to that than no one today has any authority to condemn a certain view no matter how unorthodox it is. So 2: if we can only consider heretical that which was condemned by a council then how are we to deal with error in our own day? Not all Heresies were dealt with by the early church there are new forms of heresy today. For example the church's view of justification was not affirmed by a council and yet it was the cornerstone of the Reformation, how to deal with that today ?
Blake, I remember asking a question like these to Joe Brown, who wrote a book on heresies. What I have learned from the heresiologists is that any teaching today that is heretical will undermine one of the central pillars of the orthodoxy established in those major creeds.
Thanks for your reply. Which Creeds are you including ?
Thank you for this post! I appreciate your thoughts here. I was hoping for a bit of clarity, if that is alright. You mention that you "don't care if someone thinks they can connect egalitarianism to Trinity, or complementarianism to Trinity." I think of those who use eternal subordination of the Trinity as an underlying theology or justification for subordination in the home or church. While the latter can refer more to "tribe," the former was dealt with at the early councils (Arianism), so would those who use that argument primarily be considered heretics? Maybe I am implying things on Arianism that was not the case.
Yes, some do that. The Comps did that for awhile and the Egals turned it around, but neither was theologically as sound as one should be. But, if someone roots complementarianism in the eternal subordination of the Son they are walking on the lines of heresy. If they are overtly Arian, that's heresy.
Thanks for replying and clarity! Appreciate your work
This is a fantastic summary, and I love the reflection questions at the end. I would hazard saying that, yes, such churches CAN use the term "properly", to the degree that they are using it in alignment with such orthodoxy (whether intentionally or accidentally). In addition, I wonder that the role of shared definition might need to play in this? You mention how neither egalitarianism nor complementarianism can be heretical views, even if one roots their definitions or arguments in something which can be a heretical issue (i.e. expressions on Trinity). This seems right, and yet in our time (as in times of old) we come across people who SAY they believe in or affirm creedal statements but do so by redefining such statements internally/externally. So, one can say that they are orthodox, and yet intentionally hold unorthodox views. Does this make them "heretical"?
One can believe a heresy but not be called a "heretic" unless they've gone through a process of investigation. This is what I have been told by expert heresiologists. Using "the term" -- heresy or heretic? Neither of the roots of egalitarianism or complementarianism, so far I know that story, were not originally derivatives of some theory of Trinity. Both sides have brought Trinity into play as legitimating devices -- hierarchicalism and social Trinitarianism. Volf has spoken well on this. On redefining orthodoxies, that's an issue. I saw this in Luke Timothy Johnson's book on the creed at times. The meaning of the creed is what it meant when the creedal writers were writing, which is why theologians like Ayres and McCormack are important for creedal definitions.
Yes, that's helpful. Thank you!