Heresy, What Is It?

My friend Alex emailed a bunch of us asking the question, How does one define heresy? I’d been meaning to respond with a quote from Michael Haykin’s book on early church apologetics called Defence of the Truth. Because the definition he gives in the book is a good clarification on a confused issue, I thought I’d post it here for more general consumption:

What exactly is heresy? In the ancient church, that is the church up until the sixth century, the term “heresy” became a technical term to describe aberrant teaching that undermined the fundamental truth of the Christian faith. It was deemed so serious that those who were described as heretics were considered to be beyond the bounds of salvation.

Our English word “heresy” comes from a Greek word hairesis, which, in classical Greek meant “choice.” This use of this term does not occur in the New Testament. Six out of nine occurrences of the word in the New Testament are best translated by the words “sect” or “party.” Thus, for instance, in Acts 26:5, the apostle Paul claimed that “according to the strictest party [hairesin] of our religion I lived as a Pharisee.” And in Acts 24:5, Paul is described by the Roman lawyer Tertullus as a “ringleader of the sect [haireses] of the Nazarenes.” Hairesis, though, can also have a decidedly negative meaning. Paul lists it as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:20, where he has in mind factionalism, not heretical teaching.

In only one New Testament verse, however, does the word carry the full meaning of our word “heresy.” That occurs in 2 Peter 2:1 where Peter says that false teachers will “secretly bring in destructive heresies [haireseis], even denying the Master who bought them.” But even a cursory reading of the New Testament letters will reveal that although the term “heresy” is not used, this is indeed what a number of the letters are seeking to protect God’s people against. Paul, for example, had to stand against those who denied the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15 and repudiate those in Galatia who would compromise the cardinal truth of justification by faith alone. And Jude, referred to earlier, is clearly dealing with aberrant theology that we could call “heresy.”

Michael A. G. Haykin, Defence of the Truth: Contending for the Faith Yesterday and Today (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2004), 10.

A couple of helpful resources on the issue of heresy are, of course, G. K. Chesterton’s Heretics, Harold O. J. Brown’s Heresies which are now both considered to be classic treatments of the subject. More recently, Alister McGrath has written Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2010).

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under apologetics, books, church history, heresy, michael haykin, patristics, quotes

9 responses to “Heresy, What Is It?

  1. Good read from MAGH. Altho you quote Dr. Haykin talking about Paul repudiating those who stand for the truth of justification by faith-alone, you then recommend consulting Chesterton, who was RC. I am always confused by evangelicals liking Chesterton. What do you think of that?- Hans Kung, would be another.

  2. *insert those who “don’t” stand

  3. Hey Scott,

    When it comes to Chesterton, as a Protestant I’m not going to recommend anything of his dealing with soteriology. But when he deals with the heresies of the early church, he writes on a subject where RC’s and Protestants are largely in agreement. Remember, Chesterton was primarily a journalist and novelist, so reading his fiction will pose very little theological confusion. It’s like reading Tolkien who was also RC.
    That said, I think for Protestants who are theologically informed, reading classic RC’s is a good thing. There can be much to learn, both in terms of positive theological treatment and in terms of apologetics (thinking of how to answer RC challenges). John Henry Newman was a brilliant writer and helpful on patristics. Muggeridge gave good cultural critiques. Chesterton is flat-out hilarious with his wit.
    I hope that’s helpful.

  4. Carl Trueman shares some brief thoughts on the value of reading Newman: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/john-henry-newman.php
    I’m not saying that all Protestants should read Catholics, for some it may not be helpful, but dangerous. It requires have a solid grasp and belief in Protestants doctrine. Not just the what, but the why. And not just the why as in “why this doctrine,” but “why I believe it.” Otherwise, many weak Protestants will cross the Tiber a little too easily.

  5. very – thanks Ian! If it’s one thing I learned in UWO it was to be swimming on the Thames!
    BTW – speaking of RC’s – Mallonne’s streaming his new album right here
    >Bakersfield – recommended

  6. Pingback: Saturday Links

  7. Pingback: A La Carte (3/28) | Challies Dot Com

  8. Pingback: Grab bag « Words of Grace

  9. Pingback: heresy « spreading the fame

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s