Understanding Heresy

“Reject a factious man after a first and second warning,knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.” Titus 3:10

Millard Erickson’s Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology defines “heresy” as
“a belief or teaching that contradicts Scripture and Christian theology.”  The English term “heresy” is derived from the Greek term “αἵρεσις” which Strong’s Concordance defines as “a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention.”  Thus, if a man believes or teaches something that contradicts biblical doctrine, he is a heretic.   Despite the simple definition of heresy, Christians may struggle with classifying or judging heresy.

For example,  someone might ask “Is modalism damnable heresy?”

Such a question presupposes that there are heresies which aren’t damnable.  Surely, if an idea contradicts what is revealed God’s word it is damnable.  All heresy is damnable and should be corrected.  Yet, not all heresy is eternally damnable in that believing or teaching the particular heresy will result in the heretic spending an eternity in Hell.  For example, the Presbyterian practice of paedobaptism  is heretical.  Presbyterians (even such respected theologians as RC Sproul and Matt Slick) are heretics.  However, they do not believe a different gospel than the one contained in the New Testament.  Presbyterians, like all true Christians, believe that God’s people are saved by grace through faith and not by works.  Presbyterians will not be consigned to eternal Hell for their heretical view of baptism.  By contrast the Roman Catholic practice of paedobaptism is an eternally damnable heresy.  This is so because the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the act of paedobaptism is salvific.  In other words, the Roman Catholic teaching posits a different gospel.  Perseverance in this belief will lead to eternal damnation.

All heresy is damnable but not all heresy is eternally damnable.

Some Christians may view heresy in terms of “primary” and “secondary” doctrines, where “primary” doctrines are those doctrines which people must believe in order to go to Heaven (and eventually dwell in the New Jerusalem).  Under such a view, a “heretic” is one who denies a primary doctrine. Such delineation is completely arbitrary and has no basis in biblical theology.  It assumes that purpose of the Christian life is to “get to heaven” rather than live out a biblical faith on Earth.  All biblical doctrine is inherently important and authoritative.  Denominational splits are evidence of this.  Baptists don’t sprinkle babies; Presbyterians don’t immerse adults in water.  Neither sect believes members of the other are Hell bound and, in practice, both would be loathe to refer to one another as “heretics”.  Yet, that is exactly the implication of their membership in different churches which are part of different denominations.

Heresy is that which separates Christians (and sometimes false brethren)  into different factions.  For the sake of the health of the local church, heresy cannot be tolerated within its ranks.  Members of the same local church should be of one accord when it comes to both “primary” and “secondary” doctrines (which are essentially false categories).  Christians should not let heresy become a term loaded with any meaning other than what is included in Millard Erickson’s simple definition.  All heretics aren’t going to Hell.  However each occurrence of heresy should be recognized for what it is and corrected in Christian love.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.




2 thoughts on “Understanding Heresy

  1. Chris

    Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is listed as an unpardonable sin. The example given in the Bible referred to pharisees attributing the source of the miracles performed by Jesus to the powers of Bael.

    I believe the unpardonable nature and severity of this sin was very important to God since it was referenced by more than one author. In your opinion Seth, do the televangelists such as Benny Hinn blaspheme the Holy Spirit when/if they pretend to hear direct revelations from God, the Holy Spirit, that require people to transfer money to them to “plant a seed” first before a miracle is performed, and they are making this up? What about when they perform false miracles like the leg lengthening trick which is an old huckster scam, but claim it is God healing the person? That seems like a form of blasphemy to me but I am not a theologian.

    If neither of these activities constitute blaspheming the Holy Spirit could you possibly provide an example of what might constitute this? I would be grateful for any insight you could provide. Thank you.

    1. sethdunn88 Post author

      1. I wouldn’t put stock in the number of Bible references. If God said (inspired it) once then it’s important.

      2. Benny Hinn et all aren’t really doing miracles. Jesus was and his detractors knew it. Their attribution of real miracles to the devil was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. This isn’t what Hinn et al do. Hinn and company engage in fraud, which is itself sinful.

      3. The example is provided in scripture – attributing the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit to the Devil.

      I hope this is helpful. I apologize for the slow response.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s