Dropping the "H" Bomb
I recently read a story about one follower of Christ calling another follower of Christ a heretic because they disagreed over certain aspects of teaching. I’m sure that many of us have heard similar stories, and perhaps some of us have even been called “heretics”.
The “H” bomb is dropped to separate the speaker from the “heretic” or “heresy”. It is used as stronger language than “disagree” or “different”. It is used to question the person’s devotion to and possibly position with God. To the person dropping the “H” bomb, the “heretic” may be sincere, but certainly sincerely wrong when compared with the bombardier.
Looking through various definitions of the word “heretic”, you’ll find that a “heretic” (in English) is a person who holds a position that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Thus, in English, “heresy” can only be defined from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs. So, someone can be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that same person may not be a “heretic” from the point of view of the Anglican Church.
Similarly, looking through various definitions of the word “heresy”, you’ll find that a “heresy” (again, in English) is any teaching, belief, or opinion that is different from standard or accepted church beliefs. Once again, “heresy” is a valid term on from the perspective of a certain set of beliefs.
From these modern definitions, every Baptist is a heretic to every Presbyterian. Every Anglican teaches heresy from the perspective of every Charismatic. From the point of view of Methodists, everyone in the Vineyard church is a heretic. These terms have lost any meaning, but they continue to be used with force and vehemence.
Perhaps, instead of looking at the modern definitions of “heresy” and “heretic” it would be helpful to consider the source of these words, and to consider how Scripture uses these words. Also, instead of comparing someone’s opinions and beliefs to the standard beliefs of a given church, perhaps it would be better to compare that person’s opinions and beliefs to Scripture.
Of course, even before we think about the source of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, we are immediately faced with the reality that different people interpret Scripture in different ways. Does this mean that our terms “heretic” and “heresy” are completely useless? No. It means that we must humbly admit that brothers and sisters in Christ disagree concerning the meaning of Scripture. We must also humbly admit that disagreement, in and of itself, does not constitute heresy. I may disagree with someone, and neither one of us may be heretics. However, according to the modern definitions of the words “heresy” and “heretic”, if two people disagree, one of them must be a heretic.
The terms “heresy” and “heretic” are scriptural words. The noun form αἱρεσις (hairesis) is used five times in the New Testament, and is usually translated “sect”, “division”, “opinion”, or “schism”. The Pharisees and Sadducees are called “sects” (”heresies”) of Judaism (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5). Christians are called a “sect” (”heresy”) of Judaism (Acts 24:5; 24:14; 28:22). Finally, there are said to be “divisions” or “dissensions” (”heresies”) among groups of Christians (1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2 Pet 2:1). It is this last category that should interest us.
Scripture warns us about “heresies” among believers. But, in context, what are these passages telling us? In 1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul mentions “factions”. These are probably similar to the divisions mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1-4. The danger is not found in disagreements between believers, but in separation. The groups were separating from one another and treating one another differently based on their affiliations.
In Galatians 5:20, “heresies” or “divisions” or “factions” are mentioned again along with “disputes”, “dissensions”, and “envy”. All of these are listed as “works of the flesh” (Gal 5:19-21), practiced by those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God”. This is contrasted against the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22-23) which will be evident in the lives of God’s children. Since the fruit of the Spirit includes characteristics such as patience, gentleness, and self-control, we can assume that these are demonstrated in the context of disagreements, not in the absence of them. Again, this says nothing about disagreement being “heresy”.
In 2 Peter 2:1, Peter warns that false prophets and false teachers will bring “destructive heresies” with them. These false prophets and false teachers will not be known for disagreeing with other believers, but instead they will be known for “denying the Lord” (2 Pet 2:1), “sensuality” (2 Pet 2:2), “covetousness” (2 Pet 2:3). Thus, these false prophets and false teachers are not ones who simply disagree with other Christians, but those who deny that Christ is Lord, and live a life that demonstrates that they are not children of God.
Perhaps, from this connection of “heresy” with false prophets and false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1, we should also recognize why these people are called “false prophets” and “false teachers”. Perhaps one of the most important passages to help us understand what it means to be a “false teacher” is 1 Timothy 1:3-11. Here, those who teach “other doctrines” are those who teach contrary to the gospel (1 Tim 1:11). In many other passages, the authors of Scripture encourage their readers to teach and live in accordance to the gospel of Jesus Christ – that is, the good news that God has provided a way for all people to accepted as his children.
So, according to Scripture, who are the true “heretics”? Heretics are those who deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. Heretics are also those who live in a manner contrary to the gospel – that is, according to the flesh, not according to the Spirit. Similarly, heretics are those who cause and encourage divisions and dissensions among the followers of Jesus Christ.
When Person A calls Person B a “heretic” for a teaching that Person A disagrees with, but which is not contrary to the gospel, and when Person A refuses to fellowship with Person B because of that teaching, then, according to Scripture, Person A is actually the “heretic”. Person A is the one causing division among the followers of Christ and is thus promoting true heresy.
So, let’s be careful, thoughtful, and prayerful before we drop the “H” Bomb. It could be that we are the true “heretics”, not necessarily because our opinion is “wrong”, but because our words and actions are divisive – and this is the type of heresy that Scripture warns us about.
I am a PhD student in biblical theology and a web developer. My interests include PHP and ecclesiology. My dissertation topic is the purpose of the gathering of the church in the New Testament. By God's grace, I try to live what I am learning about the church.
Thanks for this excellent treatment of a tough topic, Alan. I was taught from an early age that a “heretic” was a person who denied the gospel of Jesus Christ–an unsaved person–or a person within the church who was teaching things that are blatantly false when compared to Scripture–which often engenders division in the body. Thank you for studying this issue and expanding it for us.
p.s. I don’t think you’re a heretic…:)
1Alan,
The recent situation you are referring to in your introduction regarding one Christian recently calling another Christian a heretic is a truly sad case indeed.
In that situation, I know for a fact that both of these people believe, adhere to, and have adamantly and passionately defended the gospel of Jesus Christ against false teachings.
However, because one person strongly disagrees with the other person’s position on a non-gospel related subject, the first person called the second a heretic. In actuality, the first person is being a heretic per your insightful post.
Frankly, I’m sick of this type of behavior amongst professing believers. After being involved with apologetics and ministry for several years, I have grown so terribly weary of all the “smacktalk” that has spoken by professing Christians against other professing believers. I, like most other professing Christians, have strong beliefs in several key areas. My strong beliefs show themselves in the areas of God’s sovereignty (I’m Calvinistic), apologetic methodology (I’m a modified Van Tilian), the relationship of God’s Covenants and the Law (I hold to NCT), and I prefer a non-hierarchical elder led, consensus-based decision-making model of ecclesiology. Now, all of that is usually enough to create a flame war big enough to cause the dropping of some H-bombs on my head. However, I would *never* separate from and deny Christian fellowship to another professing believer because they didn’t walk my walk nor talk my talk in the areas mentioned above. If they adhere to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are brothers and sisters and I must seek to encourage them in the Lord as He provides the opportunity.
However, those same people that I’m referring to usually have no problem dropping their “HERETIC!”-bombs from their Christianized B-52s. It is absolutely insane that folks holding to the exact same gospel that I do will often go out of their way to avoid fellowship with me as another brother in the Lord because of my views on secondary issues. As a result, they end up becoming the very thing that they labeled me.
Truth is, I think most folks realize that it’s easier to call another professing believer a heretic, than it is to test all things in light of Scripture. It’s just way too hard and messy to rethink and test their presuppositions and also some of your own precious foundational presuppositions in light of God’s word. By nature, most of us don’t like to challenge or have successfully challenged what we’ve always believed, defended, and come to love. Most of us would rather unknowingly become heretics by a willful and sinful denying of fellowship to a fellow brother or sister for the sake of holding on to our pet doctrines and staying in our sin all for the blessed sake of “doctrinal purity.” This is actually a veiled attempt at saving face, which then translates to that nasty thing called pride. But you see, that’s much easier than testing all things in light of the word of God and holding fast what’s true now isn’t it? That just takes too much legwork, right? . . . and worse, there’s the internal struggle of “I’ve got a following as a pastor, bible teacher or scholar, so I can’t change my views or I’ll lose my constituency!” . . . right? (!) I say, damn all those worldly attitudes. If someone is wrong they are wrong, but that doesn’t give them or me the right to separate from another gospel believer because I personally don’t agree with doctrines like covenantal paedobaptism . . or any type of paedobaptism for that matter.
In light of this, would to God that we’d learn to listen carefully to each other, sharpen each other, and still love one another after we’ve either come to agreement from the Scripture through mutual sharpening, or we learn to love one another in spite of our differences on secondary doctrinal issues. We’d all do well to stay intent on following James’ advice,
James 1:19-20 “But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.”
O.k., off my soapbox for now.
2Alan,
Outstanding post. I wish this understanding was so much more widespread.
I’ve had the “H bomb” dropped on me a number of times. What’s interesting is that when we say that it should only relate to the gospel of Christ, some people have a funny of relating anything to the gospel.
Don’t accept the Calvinistic definition of sovereignty? That dilutes the gospel. Believe that the Holy Spirit speaks today? That denies the sufficiency of scripture which dilutes the gospel. Don’t believe the church will be raptured out from the world seven years before Jesus actually comes for real? That affects the gospel.
Baloney. The gospel is much smaller set of “facts” than any of those things. Death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, according to Paul.
And don’t even get me started on the whole “oh, that’s a different Jesus” tactic.
3HOLY COW BATMAN I THINK YOU GOT IT.
Can you go link this at Wade’s site. Many there need to read it (as though they will).
4Alice,
I don’t think I’ve every been called “heretic” to my face. I’m sure some people think it. Thanks for the vote of confidence!
Dustin,
Climb on your soapbox anytime. I hope many people read what you say and think seriously about it before they call a brother or sister in Christ a heretic.
Steve,
You? You’ve been called a heretic? I don’t believe it!
Bryan,
I don’t think I’m going to do that. But, thanks for the encouragement.
-Alan
5Once or twice
6Alan,
You mean I’m not the ONLY one? There really are brethren who can agree to disagree?
7hey awesome post…. i think the H bomb is droped way to much…
would you say though there is cause for its use when somebody diverges from a commonly accepted creed like the nicene creed? most of our protestent and calotlic bros and sis will agree with it….
just a thought
8Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
9Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
10Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
11Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
12Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
13Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
14Kat
Too bad we don’t put as much energy into unifying as we do in dividing. Great post!
15Kat
Steve,
I’m glad that I know you as my brother. Your life (at least as far as I’ve seen it) demonstrates the opposite of heresy.
Aussie John,
I think there are one or two of us. Everyone else is wrong…
Andy,
Welcome to my blog! I think the Nicene Creed is a good creed. I would not base my fellowship with someone based on their agreement with the words in a certain creed, though. I learned recently that there were “Orthodox” Christians in 325 AD who disagreed with Athanasius over the wording in the Nicene Creed (I’m not talking about Arius and his followers). I don’t think it would be right for us to call them heretics because they disagreed over the use of certain words within the creed.
Actually, every creed and confession was created in response to something. Thus, every creed must be understood within a certain context. Since contexts change, creeds need to change as well. I think it is good that some are questioning the way certain of the historical creeds and confessions explain the faith.
Kat,
Good observation! I have to admit that (apart from writing and a few friends) I’m not expending as much energy as I could in maintaining unity.
-Alan
16You have no idea how much that blesses me, Alan. Thank you!!
17better late than never…
18