I got in an argument regarding what is heresy vs anathema vs adiophora/best practice the other day. How do you draw those lines?

For a false doctrine to be considered a "heresy", it has to be taught with some sort of stubbornness and zeal. It's the way the person goes about teaching it. Anathema is a damnable heresy.

Easy. Pre-reformation Christian = heretic. All 1,000,000 Protestant denominations = saved.

AggieRain said:

---

Easy. Pre-reformation Christian = heretic. All 1,000,000 Protestant denominations = saved.

---

Who was pope in 1410?

I've always considered heresy to be regarding the trinity/nature of God.

I tend to view it as anything that runs counter to the foundational creeds of the church or any teaching that places something in competition with God. When I was a baptist, though, it was anything that we disagreed with.

1) Nature of God
2) Nature of the Gospel

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

For a false doctrine to be considered a "heresy", it has to be taught with some sort of stubbornness and zeal. It's the way the person goes about teaching it. Anathema is a damnable heresy.

---

Nailed it.

"If someone desires to become a thing that clears out a colon, let him be an enema."

Compromises the fundamentals of God or the Gospel. Trinity, deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, resurrection, justification by faith alone, etc.

Wouldn't include: other atonement specifics, mode of baptism, views on election, theological frameworks like covenantalism/dispensationalism, etc.

I wait for my church leaders to define these things for me and then accept their religious authority without question. To do anything less is heresy.

Having looked into a lot of early Christian debates, disagreements over things as basic as the Trinity and salvation are common for hundreds of years in the Early Church. And a lot of "fundamental" concepts look like compromises between militant factions, for example the Trinity as a compromise between Ariansim and Modalism.

To me it seems heresy is a two way street. Some authority has to set a hard line on belief, and some subject group has to reject that authority. Both have to be willing to break fellowship over the issue, and suddenly you have a heresy

Win At Life said:

---

I wait for my church leaders to define these things for me and then accept their religious authority without question. To do anything less is heresy.

---

Touch

So that was more of the question .... I hate the pink vestments and paraments that some churches use, but no amount of arguing about them will make me think pink is heretical.

Arguing against infant baptism is certainly something to break pulpit fellowship about, but not enough to say "these are not Christians".

Quote:

---

Arguing against infant baptism is certainly something to break pulpit fellowship about, but not enough to say "these are not Christians".

---

I think this distinction exists in your practice and thought but not universally. I'm not Catholic, but from what I've read breaking fellowship is the same thing as declaring someone non-Christian. If this is over incompatible beliefs then it is heresy. I don't know if there is some other word for incompatible practice (or lack of practice) of compatible belief.