The main problem with the definition of heresy today is that it greatly differs from its biblical meaning, the meaning in Greek and the way it is being used in the New Testament. In a recent interaction with a PlanetPreterist user, he informed me of his wish to stay “biblical” as far as the use and definition of “heresy” goes; a perfectly reasonable request.

The word heresy is rooted in the Greek word “hairesis – haireseos” or airesis depending on your transliteration preferences, which literally means “opinion,” “preference,” “choice” or “sect - school.” The New Testament and Christian use of the word to describe a “school” or “doctrine” of thought does in fact indicate free choice for a specific doctrinal position. For example, the word “haireseos” appears in Acts 28:22: “But we desire to hear of you what you think, for as concerning this haireseos (preference), we know that everywhere it is spoken against.” Haireseos again appears in Acts 24:5 where we read: “For we have found this pestilence (Paul) is stirring revolt among the Jews and (is) a leader of the Nazarenes haireseos (preference).”

As it is very evident, in the New Testament the word is being used to describe Christians, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenees (see Acts 5:17, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22) Mircea Eliade does confirm that “neither in Greek nor in Hellenistic Jewish usage does the word have a negative, derogatory meaning; it is an entirely value-free designation.” (Mircea Eliade, Encyclopedia of Religions, Volume 6, page 270). This value-free designation made it possible for Paul to later use the same word to also condemn teachings opposising Jesus' teachings, sectarianism and divisive individuals (see 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1).

With the post AD 70 surge in Christian literature, the definition and usage of the word has sharply changed so basically an identification of “orthodoxy” with “truth” and “heresy” with “false” has emerged. Martin Luther challenged this usage of “heresy” in his debate with Johannes Eck at Leipzig in 1517 where just as John Hus, Luther uttered the revolutionary words “even church councils can err.”

Another fascinating fact to be pointed out is what Walter Bauer exposed in his excellent book Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum (available in English as Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity). Bauer’s sources from early Christianity show that Christian centers in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Greece regarded Gnosticism as Christianity! So as Eliade rightly observes, “From a confrontation with other doctrines and practices something emerged that was to be regarded as the orthodox doctrine and practice: a canon, an Episcopal office that drew its legitimacy from succession to the apostles (who were subsequently promoted to be the founders of the principal Episcopal sees), baptism, imposition of hands, and Eucharist.” (Mircea Eliade, ibid, page 271)

So as we clearly see, historically speaking, what has been perceived and decided as orthodoxy, was done so at the behest of the Catholic Church, councils or the Pope himself. What has been defined as “heresy” over the past two thousand years has been done so only by the Catholic Church, therefore is it quite baffling to see the word “heresy” being used in protestant circles in its late, derogatory sense, rather than the original, biblical and value-free sense. Thomas Aquinas defined heresy as follows: "The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval." Aquinas did not have a concept of the Reformed or modern “universal church” as proposed by Protestants hundreds of years later and his definition of heresy is clearly bound by the Catholic Church. And not surprisingly, the Catholic Canon Law No. 751 states that “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith." On a more interesting note, the Catholic Church has adopted the teaching that there are various degrees of heresy. The plain heresy is the intentional teaching or doctrine that directly contradicts the teaching of the church. In the case in which the church does not clearly address a certain doctrinal point, but the particular teaching could be at odds with or have logical consequences that contradict church doctrine, the teaching is only sententia haeresi proxima or a “near heresy” or a sententia de haeresi suspecta which is “an opinion that is suspect of heresy.”

What we observe taking place therefore when we look at the concept of “heresy” is a change in the morphology of heresy across the historical, political and cultural spectrum. So my observation is that there appear to be at least four stages in the metamorphosis of the definition and usage of “heresy” to our present day:

1. Biblical, value-free usage in the New Testament: hairesis, a preference, opinion, belief.

2. Catholic Church definition using Canon Law: straying from church teachings and creeds.

3. Early-Reformation definition: used to clarify errors in the Catholic Church doctrine.

4. Post-Reformation definitions: used some in a derogatory sense and also to correct post-Reformation doctrinal errors.

5. Modern definition: used mostly in a derogatory sense; anyone who disagrees with an individual or a group’s beliefs.

To again confirm my conclusions above, I quote Eliade who explains “Bauer's thesis (on the history of heresy) is therefore important also for the general study of religions. To that extent the unreflective, traditional concept of heresy is no longer applicable today; it must yield its place to the historical insight that heresy and orthodoxy are relative terms for religio-historical processes of quite different.” (Mircea Eliade, ibid, page 271)

Of course, when we really sit down and think about it, the “unreflective and traditional concept of heresy” is in fact the Catholic Church concept of heresy. This alone should bring the debate over “heresy” to a screeching halt, unless of course, the debate takes place exclusively in a Catholic environment – and it does not.

The problem of application

The main problem with the application of heresy today in protestant or reformed circles is the problem of authority. This problem is also greatly magnified by Preterism and its general dismissal of ecclesiastical structure and authority. As I already showed, historically the Catholic Church alone authoritatively designated heresy. In the pre Reformation world, the basic truth of theology consisted of the articles of faith, which were supposed to be accepted on faith by believers (Robert of Oxford, Reproof of Giles of Rome 1). Of course, “article of faith” was referring to a specific catholic truth stated explicitly via a creed or added to a creed by the authority of the church. Article of faith could also refer to the totality of catholic truth.

With the Reformation however, the concept of heresy has been again slightly modified, suddenly taking a much more personal aspect, and allowing for it to be used as ad hominem attacks. For example, in his Treatise against Pope Benedict XII, William of Ockham defined “catholic truth” as the truth “held to be catholic by all Christian and catholic peoples” while heresy was “something contrary to divine Scripture or to the doctrine of the universal church.” Early reformers like John Hus agreed, but some of his followers, like Chelcicky objected, saying that true catholic faith is now suddenly regarded as heresy and vice versa. Other Chelcicky compatriots (like Jakoubek ze Stribra) stood against what they perceived to be a wave of heresy (the early Reformation movements in Eastern Europe) by maintaining the validity of doctrine of purgatory - rejecting purgatory was an unconceivable heresy to Jakoubek. We see that as early as the 1400s, there were tendencies to use the word “heresy” by various groups of theologians against each other, and also against the Pope, whose assertion of “plenitude of power” to declare anyone a heretic, according to Marsilius of Padua, was an “effrontery” and “novelty.” (Defensor Pacis, 2.25.20)

Simony was another topic over which “heresy” was often invoked. Hus defined simony as the “conscious intent to buy or sell anything spiritual” including in his definition of the heretical simony, not only those who bought and sold church offices, but also the layman who participated in church services and paid to support the church! (John Hus, Books on Simony, ch. 9) Hus and other eastern theologians often called simony “the greatest heresy of all,” something which brought vociferous condemnation at the Council of Basel in 1431 from John of Ragusa. This use of “heresy” was a precursor to the more severe and personal attacks against the Catholic Church and the Pope by Martin Luther and his followers.

Generally speaking, the promoters of heresies, the heretics, have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church being officially denied the sacrament of Eucharist due to their heretical standing – therefore their damnation being confirmed by denial to the body of Christ. And as if excommunication was not enough, in medieval times heretics were being judged by church courts which would decide that some heresies could be punishable by torturous death by burning to the stake, hanging, pouring of melted liquids (preferably led) into the open veins of the heretic, stretch them on the wheel, etc.

The Reformation made it literally impossible for the church to deal with heresy, which explains the existence of numerous cults, sects and denominations in the post Martin Luther world. These various groups are often at odds with each other over many theological and doctrinal points, which means that quite often, one groups key beliefs may be considered to be heresies by another group and vice-versa.

Both the modern definition and the Catholic Church definition are at odds with each other AND at odds with the use of hairesis in the New Testament. This creates a very confusing and vitriolic environment for the debate and development of doctrine. The solution is of course to either meet on common ground regarding the definition of “heresy” -- which should be based on the biblical use of the word, or in my opinion, stop using the word alltogether due to the extremely negative and derogatory connotation it has associated with it today.