What is heresy?
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgement.
Titus 3:10-11
This term "heretic" and "heresy" is one widely used in today's Christian spheres and deserves a little attention and defining to understand what is actually being conveyed. On the most basic level, the label is used and applied to "those who are wrong" about any given doctrine or difference where any group finds disagreement with another.
According to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary, heresy generally means:
A fundamental error in religion, or an error of opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine of religion.
If you happen to read that definition, you might notice that this definition is rather relative, though it does use strong language such as "fundamental error". He goes on to explain that:
The Scriptures being the standard of faith [...]
And here is where our definition collapses into relative opinion. I have yet to find a Christian sect that denies Scripture as the standard of their faith. All Christian denominations and sects (correct me if I'm wrong) place Scripture as the final and only infallible authority for faith and practice; they call this Sola Scriptura. And with a great many of these differing sects comes difference is doctrine - difference in practice, difference in what they term "the essentials". And with "The Scriptures being the standard of faith", as Mr Webster says, they conclusively all agree on this singular point and vastly disagree on the rest of the specifics.
And Mr Noah Webster continues to explain this obvious issue:
but as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another.
And so, there you have it. A powerful word, a term used by the Apostles is indiscriminately reduced to a mere conjecture. For the Baptist to call the Methodist a "heretic" is meaningless, as "men differ in the interpretation of Scripture", as Mr Webster so bluntly and honestly put it.
Why would the Methodist care if the Baptist called his group heretical?
He maintains a differing interpretation of Scripture.
Why would the Baptist care if the Anglican called their denomination heretical? They have a differing interpretation of Scripture.
Why would the Mennonites care if Mark Bullen claims they are teaching heresy? They have a differing interpretation of Scripture!
Do you see the problem? The apostolic term αἱρετικός (heretic) has no functional usage and no "bite" if it is a relative term that means nothing to another and is reduced to one's opinion.
Yes, yes; but you object and insist that we must get back to the apostolic understanding of the term; we must classify things as heresy by the apostolic standard. We must study the Scriptures to learn what the Apostles deemed as heresy and what they deemed as truth. We must let the Scriptures be our guide and love what God loves and hate what God hates! You insist that if everyone had the same fervor and zeal to study the Scriptures with self-abandoning honesty to let the Scriptures reveal the truth we could all be on the same page, all have the same faith and words like heretic and heresy could functionally mean something if we all could agree on the plain words of Scripture!
Again, if you agree with such an objection, you miss the obvious.
The Scriptures being the standard of faith [...] but men differ in the interpretation of Scripture.
Men differing in the interpretation of Scripture is the crux.
If "an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another" due to "men differing in the interpretation of Scripture", then functionally you have Scripture supporting both truth and error. "Scriptures being the standard of faith" looks like a solid anchor, but in reality it's a smoke screen for individual private interpretation.
When Mark Bullen first printed his new book "The Alien Exposed", he mails it out to his Mennonite friends and made this generous and pious offer:
I have a challenge for you, which in a real and most sobering way will help you determine whether you are a true disciple of Jesus or just an Ism-ite like the Scribes and Pharisees who held their pet dogmas higher than the Scripture.
We have recently published a book and mailed one to many of you, called The Alien Exposed. Have you read it? I am offering $1,000 to any person who can disprove the book's message from the Scriptures. Why am I doing this?
If I am wrong, I want to know why and where. I see a grave need in our day: People claiming to be disciples of Christ yet closing their minds and hearts to the clear Word of God because it is correcting some dear dogmas they have held for generations. Are you a true disciple of Jesus Christ or just an Ism-ite? I am challenging you to face this issue squarely and let the inspired Word of God have its proper place in your life.
In his debate emails with Joshua Geiser, on his website under Objections Answered, page titled The Third Letter, we find Joshua unveils the deep rooted issue and hits it right on the head. He writes:
Before we go there, however, let's talk about your offer for a 1,000 dollar reward to anyone who can refute, with Scripture, the message of The Alien Exposed. First of all, who is to be the judge? If you are the judge, no one will ever refute the book's message. The reason? You have already interpreted all the Scriptures that will be used against you in such a way as to nullify any opposing argument, It all boils down - not, as you suppose, to Scripture- but to Scripture interpretation.
Thus, one determines right or wrong, truth or error, by one's own interpretation of Scripture. That makes the individual interpreting Scripture the judge. And if the individual is judging, that means they are assuming a position of authority.
Authority is granted, not assumed.
So this entire discussion regarding this term heresy is not about opinion, but rather authority.
In this definition: "The Scriptures being the standard of faith"
It ought rather to say: "The individual's opinion of the Scriptures being the standard of faith" [...] "as men differ in the interpretation of Scripture".
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone.
If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
-Matthew 18:15-18
Tell the Church.
What an important statement!
"And if he will not hear the Church"... x, y, z.
And then Christ gives authority to bind and loose!
Jesus Christ contrasts individuals from authorities. Notice the language: "thy brother", "hear thee", "two or three witnesses". These terms are contrasted with "the church". Arguably, the "two or three witnesses" would be "the church" to some, per verse 20 of the same chapter. But Christ sets these two groups in contrast, and the distinction is ecclesiastical authority. The "brother", "thee" or "two or three witnesses" did not have the ecclesiastical authority to pronounce the offender to be "heathen and publican".
So if the individuals (who make up the Church), including those "two or three witnesses" who undoubtedly were "gathered together in [Christ's] name", could not of their own authority pronounce the brother who caused the offense as a "heathen and publican", who could?
Christ says: "the church".
St Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica writes:
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith.
[...]
Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things;
ST II-II Q5A3
Per Bp. Athanasius Schneider in his book Credo - Section 3, Q563, Pg 79:
Who are heretics?
Those who have received baptism, yet obstinately deny some article of Faith which must be held (e.g., Protestants, Modernists).
So what does this say of Christian sects and denominations who pronounce judgement regarding doctrine against those whom they disagree with, and label them heretics? Would they argue that they are the "two or three gathered together in [Christ's] name" and therefore have ecclesiastical authority to make such a judgement? Who gets to determine right and wrong, truth and error?
Noah Webster implicitly makes truth relative.
"men differ in the interpretation of Scripture, an opinion deemed heretical by one body of christians, may be deemed orthodox by another"
When you collapse the knowledge of right and wrong, truth and error to your interpretation of Scripture, you have functionally elevated yourself to the role of judge and assumed the position of authority.
This topic of heresy, at it's core, is a topic stemming from authority. When one begins to label another as "heretic" or their beliefs as "heresy", they are invoking something higher than themselves; something that must judge the situation - something that must have authority. Scripture alone can not be the final and only infallible authority for faith and practice. It must be interpreted.
Who does Christ appoint to judge the situations? The Church.
What does Scripture say is the pillar and ground of truth? The Church.
Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things;