My working definition: A heresy is a teaching which denies or corrupts a foundational doctrine of the Christian faith. The most widely accepted creed which defines these essential doctrines would be the one adopted by the first Council of Nicea.

Now, on to the examples.

1. Nestorians: No. They do not deny the human and divine natures of Christ, but at worst, differ on their conception of it. While I accept the Hypostatic Union, I believe one could make a cogent argument that support for it is not necessarily to be found in Scripture to the extent that a doctrine like the Trinity is.

2. Open theists: Yes. While not denying an essential doctrine, per se, the doctrinal implications of their argument contradict fundamental ideas of the nature of God and, rather stupidly, limit him and elevate human understanding to a point that is risible.

3. Eastern Orthodox: I know too little to say, but I'll go with no. Again, they do not deny the Trinity, but their conception of it is different and, I would say, flawed, but it does not deny the essential doctrine that is at th heart of the debate.

4. Roman Catholics: No. They have many aberrant doctrines, but the essentials are still professed. It should be noted that many of the most contentious doctrines were added at relatively late dates. And it should also be noted that we receive much of our theological heritage from the Catholic tradition.

There is, of course, the danger of a slippery in accepting too many "differing conceptions" of a doctrine, as you risk letting in teachings that re-interpret essential doctrines to the point of being unrecognizable.

The problem that I see is that implicit in this discussion is the idea that heresy or theological error automatically determines whether that person has received Christ. There are any number of heretics, who teach "minor" and "major" heresies, who began professing orthodox beliefs and who lived or continue to live lives that seem to show Christ's love.

When I'm not sure, I look to what Scripture says, which is that I will recognize my brothers by the fruit produced in their lives. It I meet others that profess a Christ that is recognizable and they live in a way which exudes the love of Christ, then what am I to do? It is arrogant to too quickly pronounce them outside of the Body, thus I must in good faith set aside my doubts and accept them as brothers until they give me reason to believe otherwise.

That isn't to say you accept what people say uncritically. Far from it. We too often we do not pronounce heresies enough when we see them, despite what they plainly are, yet there are many cases where Christians--often in the present day, living in the developing world without Bibles--who adopt or are lead into clearly erroneous doctrines out of simple ignorance.

I guess what I'm saying is that the subject has to be approached with love and humility, but with a commitment to pursue the truth.

Actually, I wouldn't agree Mormons and JWs are heretics--I'd simply say they aren't Christians, that the doctrinal divergence is too great and carries them clean out of the discussion.

1. Nestorians: as commonly understood, yes; the consequences of Nestorian Christology are significant enough.

2. Open theists: heck, yes. The ETS should have given both Pinnock and Sanders the boot and not thought twice.

3. Orthodox: is this a serious question? No way. Granted, their Trinitarian theology (derived from the Cappadocians) is different than the Augustinian understanding in the West; but no less a Reformed thinker than J. I. Packer argues for its superiority.

4. Catholics: no. At least, unless you want to argue that Arminians are heretics after all. Which leads me to

5. Semi-Pelagians. Here's a question, because semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the church (sixth c., I think) as a heresy, but is very much alive. Roger Olson has argued cogently that Arminianism isn't truly semi-Pelagian, but I think much popular Arminianism is (like that awful song that was linked here a couple of weeks ago); and I think Catholic soteriology post-Aquinas veers awfully close. So, do we take this seriously as heresy or not? And what about

6. Oneness Pentecostals. Phillips, Craig & Dean always argued they were Christians, not heretics, but collapsing the Trinity into Jesus sounds a lot like heresy to me; I don't see the practical difference between them and

7. Unitarians. Who seem to me to be clearly heretical, just like

8. Gnostics. There are a lot of them around, and the church has been clear on defining them as heretics since the first couple of centuries.

So, if this is the exercise . . . thoughts?

Oh, right, Alan's question: And should we distinguish between those who preach heresy, and those who might hold to erroneous doctrine out of naivete or innocent confusion? Is there such a thing as innocently believing false doctrine?

Yes, we should, and yes, there is; I have no doubt about that. One group are the misleaders, and the other are the misled, and at least some in the latter group simply don't know any better. We are not held responsible for what we don't have the opportunity to know.

Here's a question: at what point is wrong understanding so great as to produce wrong faith? Put another way, at what point is doctrinal divergence from the truth so serious as to mean that we're worshiping a false God? This, it seems to me, might be the line that divides unacceptable wrong belief (heresy) from acceptable wrong belief (Arminianism--or whatever your favorite target is); but I'm not sure. I wonder if there might be teachings false enough to qualify as heresy but not so false as to condemn those who hold them to Hell. Are there heretics who will nevertheless be in the kingdom? If so, I think we might find Nestorius and all his followers there.

Oneness Pentecostals.

This is interesting. In The Mosaic of Christian Belief Olson said that "something like Modalism is believed by the United Pentecostal Church." That's not an exact quote (the book's not right in front of me), but it was something along those lines.

Personally, I don't see the distinction between what Oneness Pentecostals believe and pure modalism. I do, however, think that a lot of Oneness people are simply confused about what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. When talking to Oneness people they seem to always get hung up on the idea of "three gods." Naturally, that is tri-theism -- an outright heresy.

I tend to think that Oneness Pentecostalism is a heresy, but I also think that all branches of Christianity have their fair share of heresies. Granted, some are more dangerous heresies than others.

Oh dear, do I really want to put my foot in this water??? No. But I can't help it.

I will stick with my understanding of what I think "heresy" originally meant: A doctrine masquerading as Christian, but something no saved and regenerated person could possibly believe. The heretic is not merely in severe error, but is riding his error down the path to hell. (Which doesn't mean we shouldn't fight severe error, by the way.)

So, for instance, JWs are heretics because, as I understand it, they preach works righteousness. But, to be fair (oh I'm going to put my foot in it now) I think Mormons, or at least several Mormons, are not. As I understand it they believe they are sinners justified by Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. I take umbrage with almost all of their "theological distinctives," but on the simple question of whether they are saved, I will let Jesus sort them out. If I am wrong about their understanding of salvation, please feel free to correct me and I will change my opinion.

And I'm also going to have to weigh in for the open theists. The apparent conflict between divine foreknowledge and human free will (or, more precisely, human moral responsibility) was a really big issue for me about six years ago. Maybe there was no need for it to be, but there I was. I did a ton of reading on this from several perspectives. I learned all about Molinism and "counterfactual resolution" and "accidental necessity" and all kinds of things I had no desire to know anything about. When the dust settled, I was pretty much a Wesleyan/Arminian, but I have to say the open theism has been really villified and (sometimes intentionally) misunderstood by the greater evangelical community. You really need to know that there is open theism (OT) and open theism once removed (OTOR). OTOR is that truly heretical thing you can read about in writers like Bruce Ware, for instance. The problem is that it is a pure straw man. Of all the critics of OT I have read (and there are many) the only one who seems to truly get it is David Hunt in IVP's "Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views." And my memory gets a little hazy but I think William Alston and Alfred Freddoso have some helpful things to say as well. At the risk of sounding arrogant, if you haven't read these guys, you probably don't understand what OT is about. In the end, I think the open theists have made a "theological mistake," but I think their salvation is secure, their faith in God is as strong as their more traditional brethren (straw men to the contrary notwithstanding), and their manner of life is pretty much indistinguishable from other evangelicals (both good and bad), so I say live and let ive in this instance.

This is a good question, and good stuff to think about. Something tells me God is a little more forgiving than I feel comfortable being when it comes to doctrine and beliefs about him. I think about a student who comes to a youth group meeting or someone who walks into a church service - they may have all sorts of screwed up beliefs about who or what God is. But when they hear the gospel presented they put their faith and trust in Christ. Then they walk out the door and get hit by a bus. I have to believe they will be spending eternity with Christ because they've responded to the gospel by repenting.

I know situations like that are highly unlikely...but it still might have something to say about this doctrinal thing. I want to do my best to be theologically accurate and to influence others in the right direction...but when it comes down to it it's a hard thing to declare someone or something a "salvation-nullifying" heretic.

The Orthodox actually hold to the original version of the Nicene Creed.

Yes. That's how I always understood the filoque and its relationship with both versions of the Creed.

I guess I'll throw in my two cents on the original four "heresies" mentioned by Alan:

1. Nestorians -- Yes. They're heretics. But I'm quite certain that 99 percent of Christian laymen have absolutely no idea what the hypostatic union is and how it relates to whether or not they're going to go to heaven or not. If you polled church-goers on the nature of Christ and the Trinity, I'm sure that probably 50 to 70 percent of avg. Christians would come up with some sort of heretical idea of what the Trinity (or nature of Christ) actually is.

2. Open theists -- I have no idea. Honestly, I have not read enought about open theism to give any sort of intelligent opinion on whether or not they're heretics. At first glance, though, they look like heretics to me.

3. Eastern Orthodox -- No way. They're not heretics. They shouldn't even be in the discussion. Although I'm sure some Eastern Orthodox blog out there somewhere is discussing whether or not Protestants and Catholics are heretics. ;-) Like I said before, I think all branches of Christianity have their own special heresies but the Gospel exists in Eastern Orthodoxy.

4. Roman Catholics -- See my answer to number three.

I think Mormons, or at least several Mormons, are not. As I understand it they believe they are sinners justified by Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.

I'd agree with Mariner on this. JW's and Mormons are not so much heretics as completely un-Christian to begin with. Some historians and theologians consider them to be flat out new religions. I'd agree with that assesment. The Mormons may believe they are justified by Jesus' sacrifice but they have no idea who the biblical Jesus actually is. Their ideas on the nature of God are so far from orthodox Christianity that they can not even be considered Christian at all.

With all that said, I think we'll be surprised by who we see in heaven. Most folks' idea of orthodoxy is very narrow and it's easy to point the finger at other heretics and claim they're going to "fry."

True enough, Karl, but just about everyone who has been labeled a heretic by the church down through history has a similar story, since nearly every case involves the church formulating new language to identify as heresy something that was ambiguous or otherwise unresolved before the controversy arose.

It is interesting that no one here has wanted to declare EO or RC as heretical, though we get different answers on open theism, Nestorianism, and oneness pentecostals. I wonder, at least on open theism & oneness, if that has anything to do with those two actually creeping into evangelical churches.

I've often wondered what result you would get if you went into a good ol' protestant church somewhere (one like Shrode's, not one overloaded with theology geeks). What would be the result if you gave them a heresy check test? It's not always easy to figure out which side of a past theological battle one should be on, until you've read through both sides and figured out what was at stake. I'm sure we have a lot of Christians out there who couldn't summarize the Trinity or analyze the divine/human aspects of Christ to save their lives.

From the NT, the picture I get is that we ought to come down really hard on those who teach erroneous doctrine, especially what is characterized as a false gospel-- usually in the NT that is either gnosticism or Judaizing. There's much less emphasis on ensuring the theological precision of the granny in the pew, let alone any kind of salvation by theology exam.

From that, I would differ with the Mariner on the question of JW and Mormons (they're heretics, not outside the pale of discussion). Gnostics and Judaizers would seem outside the pale of true Christian faith, and yet those are the kinds of scenarios the NT warns us against in the context of false teaching-- people who claim to be Christians, but don't resemble them except superficially.

It is interesting that no one here has wanted to declare EO or RC as heretical.

While EO and RC have heresies within them, they, in themselves, are not heresies. Let's contrast it with, say, Oneness. Oneness is not a denomination; it's a belief within a denomination. That belief is a heresy, I think. The RC's view on Mary is a heresy, but the entire RC is not, IMO, a heretical faith. Ditto with EO.

So I don't think comparing RC and EO to Open Theism and Oneness is necessarily a good comparison. Open Theism and Oneness are particular doctrines while RC and EO are entire branches of Christianity (made up of several doctrines).

Alan:

My question to those who aren't willing to condemn either Nestorians, EO, or oneness types-- all of whom have significant differences with us on Christology or Trinitarianism-- who are you willing to condemn?

Oneness I'm willing to condemn as heretics and I already condemned one other group on that list, but I have to differ in opinion with you that Nestorians have a "significantly different" conception of Christology. In fact, I wonder if their Christology is simply under-defined, or if we might accept their own explanation, which I've read is the opinion of quite a few experts.

What if some guy tells you, "I believe in The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that Jesus, who is in some sense divine, but not in quite the same way as the Father, became man and died for my sins." Is that good enough?

No, it's not, but if that is an extension of your previous question, then it doesn't strike the mark; as far as I can tell, none of the three groups you mentioned teach that. Part of trying to understand what is a heresy is trying to understand what they are actually teaching. Arguments that a teaching are unfairly characterized have to be considered. I know I have had my share of personal experience being misunderstood.

The Arians would present a fictitious Christ as well. I didn't get that last question as talking about Arians in particular, I guess it was too broad for me. Now if you would have said something along the lines of Jesus being a created being, that would have been another story! ;-)

But do we really believe that? Is being mistaken about the exact nature of the Trinity enough to send someone to hell for eternity? What about open theists?

No, I don't think so.

Frank, I think that anyone we term a "heretic" should be understood as consigned to hell. Otherwise, how do we understand the stern warnings for those who teach and embrace false doctrine despite rebuke and exhortation?

Here's the counterweight to that-- I wouldn't call someone a heretic who has an innocent conceptual confusion over, say, the Trinity. Defining terms-- I'd say someone is innocent in their confusion when analysis reveals that the difference is semantic. One of the questions that's relevant there is whether someone embraces what we identify as the gospel-imperiling consequence of that error.

For example, I think if someone's quibbling with us over how best to express the deity of Christ, or the nature of the Trinity, then I'm not going to condemn them for that, though I might say, if I think their doctrine is wrong, that they shouldn't be a teacher in the church.

But if someone says, "Christ was created, not eternal like the Father," or "Christ was divine, but didn't become a man-- he only appeared to have a body," after having been exhorted as to why that's wrong and dangerous to the faith, then I think we have to say that the person isn't rightly identifying Christ, and therefore is in peril of hell.

There are two extremes here: one is to assert that you have to have an A++ on your theology exam in order to be sure of your eternal destination, or that it's all good, as long as you believe in "Jesus," however you understand him, and you're sincere. Both of those notions are mistaken.

Adding a comment here, because I'm just searching down places that are defining heretical lists, and Oneness caught my eye, seeing as I am one.

I was raised Roman Catholic, so I would say that the Trinity is not a foreign concept at all to me, it's just one I believe to be false. Now, under definitions of Catholicism, I'm certainly labeled a heretic. To myself, I'm simply insisting that the Trinity is just a bad compromise between monotheism and tritheism based on Greek philosophy (and I do understand the argument that the Trinity is not Tritheism).

The question is, especially going from a "universal" faith to one that knows it's outside the mainstream is this: Heresy works both ways. If I my beliefs are grounded in the original Apostolic teachings (which I do, and I'm a major contributor to the Wikipedia Oneness Pentecostal page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostal), don't all Trinitarian faiths look heretical to me? Even if I go by history, wouldn't I find Tertullian a heretic by historical and modern standards?

And to me, that's fine that we understand who differs from us, and why, and to what degree. Iron sharpens iron, and we can't ignore what others say. However, I ask this, about condemnation, would not all agree that there is but one unforgivable sin? So then, while debate is good on every other topic, why would any of us "condemn" others? Sure, I could engage any of you on the topic of Trinity v. Oneness, but I think condemning you, while there may be scripture that condemns heresy, is not my place as a Christian. I would work to convince you of what I believe is truth... I would give you a conviction, but I think condemn is far to harsh a word for Christians to be throwing around. You see, when it comes to heresy, it's very easy to sit in a judgment seat, but can't every doctrine sit in judgment of every other doctrine? It is one thing to disfellowship with someone, as is instructed of us. But it is a far more dangerous thing to condemn, especially when it is without serious thought.

I think the answer is actually no. I don't think Christianity sits in judgment in this life. We're workers of salvation, not to pass judgment prematurely. I think rebuking and reproof are wonderful tools. But condemnation carries with it that phrase many people use, who say, "You're going to hell for that!"

I'll certainly speak up when someone says something I believe is wrong. For instance, I may ask all of you which is true: That all the apostles disobeyed Jesus in Matt. 28:19 with their actions in Acts, or did they successfully understand and act on it correctly (baptism "in the (singular) name" of Jesus)?

By the strictest interpretation, Peter was a heretic in Acts 2:38, was he not? But I didn't read where anyone stood up and accused him of it. The only difference between me practicing Acts 2:38 with others condemning me, and Peter, is that nobody disagreed at that time.

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." - I Thess. 5:21

I actually spent months working out the doctrine of Oneness against Trinitarianism on my own, using mostly anti-Oneness essays and papers as my reference, and I found truth in Oneness. I looked for any biblical argument that disproved Oneness, and I found not a single one. I wonder how many of any faith or denomination actually take the time to prove or disprove what they believe, or if they are simply a product of their environment? I was born Roman Catholic. I chose Oneness Pentecostalism. I certainly was not blind going in.

Some might ask,"But did you test any other faith?" Absolutely! I tested every major religion looking for what flaws, which is why I was out of church for many years of my life. I even tested non-Christian religions. And to go further, I say that I don't stop testing. If any one of you proposed a doctrine I have not tested and argued for it to me, I would test it, and hold fast to that which is good. It's either true or not, and I'm not one who is content to rely on others interpreting when my own two eyes are more than capable of reviewing scripture.

As for whether I'm condemned or not, do we not know we must work out our own salvation? Thus, it may be my responsibility to testify truth to you, it is not my responsibility if you fail to listen, is it? Do I have to take that extra step in condemning you? I think that statement would be applicable to all Christians, especially those who wish to set in the seat of judgment. Let us reserve judgment for ourselves first. Let us test our own iron in fire. I set up my entire doctrine as a wall for others to tear down. If any fails, then I have no use for it either. But isn't blind condemnation as dangerous as blind faith in "heresy"... even more so, is it not?

Then, lovers of Christ, let us not be blind. Let us walk, either to heaven or hell with eyes wide open. As for the condemned, they are condemned by their own words, as the bible teaches. And if Jesus came not to condemn as a man, and I'm to be like Him, I'll certainly not "exceed" Him. But rather, would I not fall short the further I am from who He was?

Or I ask, who here exceeds Christ that they will do in this world which He didn't do?

"Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Romans 8:34

"Condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned" - Luke 6:37

In Jesus' name, peace to you all.