Comments on: The Definition of Heresy

By: Mamahubel

Mamahubel — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:16:03 +0000

I unfortunately stumbled upon several heresy-hunting, finger-pointing bloggers a while back, and after becoming thoroughly upset, I turned to the Bible to see what perspective I might find. I believe I am right in saying that each time a disciple came to Jesus and said, “What about him?”, Jesus’response was, “Don’t worry about him; worry about yourself.” E.g., Mk. 9.38ff, Jn. 21.21ff

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:41:40 +0000

Technically, you’re definition of heresy is correct. The problem is that, not being God ourselves, we cannot know what truth ultimately is in many cases. Of course, we have the Word and the Spirit, but that hasn’t stopped Christians from arguing about many issues.

Which brings the question back to what is a “functional” definition of heresy that we can examine our own opinions and ideas through?

Ultimately your final sentence is the answer, even though it does not answer the question:

The best we can do is accept our failure to understand and articulate the truth and accept the grace that is given to us.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:09:53 +0000

If heresy describes merely unorthodoxy, that is, going against established tradition, then Jesus was a heretic.

Theologically, I prefer to define heresy as a proclamation of theology or doctrine which is not truth, regardless of what the majority belief is or what the historical belief has been. To me, the majority can be heretics.

To take this further, I believe strongly in two things: (1) there is an ultimate truth, and (2) no human has (or can) proclaim this truth correctly.* Thus, we are all heretics in one aspect or another. The best we can do is accept our failure to understand and articulate the truth and accept the grace that is given to us.

*Ok, ok, the obvious exception to #2 is Jesus, before you all jump down my throat for being a heretic.