What is Heresy?
- a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine
Orthodox- conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true













































... so as time goes by a belief can become a heresy or stop being a heresy as the majority of opinion on a religious subject can change over time. There doesn't seem to be a direct relationship between truth and what is or is not a heresy as people determine what they think is theologically right or wrong, not God. (Aside: God determines everything but for this answer I'm not going there ... giggle)














































Orthodoxy is not decided by consensus. That would make orthodoxy an appeal to the majority (a logically fallacious endeavor). While it is true most of what we now call "core" doctrines, or orthodoxy were established through debate, but the debate was vigorous and
prayerful. God had a hand in deciding what was orthodox.
I'm asking this in earnest, not as a critique but out of genuine curiosity. I’ve spent a lot of time over the last few years trying to sort out what actually constitutes
Christian belief, and in that process I’ve written off quite a bit as “not Christian.” So I want to be thoughtful in how I evaluate things going forward now that I am sure of home.
As many probably already know (and has been pointed out) Dispensational premillennialism is not typically treated as a heresy, even if it's in opposition to a classical doctrine. That got me wondering:
Are there other issues—especially ones that might appear more peripheral to some—that would
actually be considered heterodox or even heretical by historic, conservative Christian standards?
For instance:
- The ordination of women as pastors, elders, or deacons
- The acceptance of homosexual marriages
Would either of those positions be seen as heretical? Or are they generally considered secondary issues that fall within the bounds of orthodoxy as long as someone affirms core creeds like the Trinity, the resurrection, and salvation through Christ?
I guess what I’m really asking is:
How do we rightly discern what marks the boundaries of the church’s teaching? How do we evaluate the visible church when serious disagreements exist over things that touch on moral and ecclesial order?
Again, I'm not trying to stir controversy—I truly want to understand how to think through these matters.
Outside of core doctrine, there exists a degree of diversity because God's revelation to us is either not exhaustive or not yet fully grasped and understood. Because of this there exist sectarian orthodoxies, and that usually encompasses as limited spectrum of beliefs because of the aforementioned limits of scripture or our understanding thereof. There is, for example, a core set of beliefs and doctrines within Reformed theology but outside of those beliefs and doctrines there is some debate. A. W. Pink, for example, is much more determinist than someone like Sproul. Vos' soteriology, at least to the extent he embraced his own view of
Pauline Eschatology, is slightly different than Luther's or maybe Spurgeon's. For us commoners

, the tendency is to advocate in the vein of whoever we last read

., and that is why it is
always best to start with the most explicit statements in scripture. Doctrine built on the explicit never varies. Doctrine built on what is thought to be implicit often varies.
@CrowCross' list is very good but it is very behavioral. It's also worth noting heresy is often worded in the negative (like that list od denials). That being said, as a presuppositionalist, I encourage everyone to grasp the principles asserted in scripture, not merely the letter. When we correctly grasp the principles asserted by scripture, we always better grasp the letter because too rigid an adherence to the letter breeds legalism, not just bad doctrine, and legalism kills. A principled reading of the explicit helps prevent wayward inferences. Presuppositionalism starts with the basics.
God exists.
Anything and everything else is heretical.
Jesus is the Son of God who is God made flesh.
Anything and everything else is heretical.
Basics.
One last word. During my career I networked with a hugely diverse set of congregation and my clients were even more diverse. I am wholeheartedly Reformed in my thinking but because of the necessity to meet my clients wherever they may be took it upon myself to listen, read, and learn all about the diversity within Christendom and have discovered that although someone may say they are not Reformed they usually accept Reformed positions when they hear them....... as long as they are not specifically labeled Reformed

. It is as if Christians tend to be more reformed than they know. That goes for RC's, too, not just Prots. It's kind of like talking individual positions with a Democrat. They'll agree with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the third, fourth, etc. and if and when the two of us sit, listen and reason together a lot of consensuses can be had, but the minute the R-word is mentioned disagreement ensues. And
that is one of the ways to tell if you're dealing with a heresy: the heretic gets upset and acts like
you are the problem (not the doctrine = post, not poster, position, not person).
As far as RT goes, take your cues from our example because
@Carbon,
@Arial,
@John Bauer,
@Fred,
@makesends,
@ReverendRV, and I (and whoever I left out) do not always agree but we usually disagree within a set of limits still well within the spectrum of RT orthodoxy. You'll find the same condition(s) exist in most Dispensationally-heavy forums, or a Zionist-heavy forums. Most, not all. Puritan Board would be an example of rigid orthodoxy in the RT arena.