Is there a standard definition of what 'heresy' is across Protestant denominations?

Upvote:1

I assume you mean an enumeration rather than a definition, right?

If the definition is 'that which contradicts true church teaching', then, as who is in the church is only known for sure to God, then the enumeration is uncertain.

If the definition is 'that contrary to the Word of God and prejudicial to salvation', then doctrinal disputes over what the Bible says and over salvation makes the enumeration uncertain.

The good news is, like in matters pertaining to who is in the church, the Holy Spirit is a good and reliable guide, and 90% of us will agree on 90% of heresies.

Upvote:2

I believe C. Matthew McMahon’s definition here accurately sums up the majority view (emphasis mine):

Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian.

By that definition, true heresy not just an erroneous or unscriptural system of belief, but a belief system that denies a doctrine that is essential to salvation, and is therefore damning.

The primary biblical example is the “circumcision party” mentioned in Galatians 2, who taught that salvation was available only to those who kept the entire Mosaic Law over and above having faith in Christ. This is heresy because it denies that faith alone in Christ alone is all that is necessary to justify believers (cf. Galatians 2:15-16.) Paul pronounced these teachers anathema (meaning “accursed” or “damned”) because they were preaching “a gospel contrary to the one we” (that is, the Apostles) “preached to you” (Galatians 1:8, ESV.)

Another example would be Hymenaeus and Philetus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:17-18. They were “upsetting the faith of some” by teaching that the resurrection had already happened (spiritually). This is heresy because it denies a bodily resurrection.

EDIT: Which Christian doctrines are “essential to salvation” and which are not? You will get varying answers from Protestants. Unfortunately, a large part of that is due to the rise of biblicism, which tends to downplay the very important role that the historic creeds of Christianity play in helping us define and defend biblical orthodoxy. The first seven ecumenical councils were convened to address a number of theological and Christological heresies plaguing the church, including Arianism, Docetism, Apollinarianism, Sabellianism, Nestorianism, and Pelagianism (among others.) The formularies produced by these councils—especially the Apostle’s Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon—are arguably the best resource for understanding which specific doctrines the Christian church has long considered to be necessary for salvation. These are not meant to add to Scripture or to be equally authoritative with Scripture, but to summarize and defend the clear teaching of Scripture.

As @rhetorician mentioned in the comments section, the Apostle’s Creed is the most fundamental and widely accepted of these. You could view that as the “bare minimum” standard of teaching which a professed believer must affirm in order to be saved. Although not all Protestant denominations would formally subscribe to the Apostle’s Creed, in practice it would be hard to find a Protestant church that would take issue with its teaching.

More post

Search Posts

Related post