by Adam Linton » September 17th, 2005, 6:01 pm
Warm greetings to all here.
Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all can (and have) done the bit on explaining (in cogent detail) how the other traditions are heretical.
The problem is this: too ready recourse to the words "heresy" and "heretical" empties these words of their meaning. If they are used for a position which we simply believe is mistaken (even very seriously mistaken), they are then no longer available in their classic sense: i.e., referring to a belief so alien to or so utterly corrosive of the church's historic faith that its adherent(s) can no longer meaningfully be understood to be Christian. Therefore, as I see it, "heresy" is a "choice" which really involves opting out of the project (albeit with at least some claim, mistaken, of continuing loyality to Christ). There might be valid disagreement about what these might be, of course. I would include in such a list Arianism, Docetism, and at least most of the more emphatic forms of Gnosticism. (None of these, by the way, would I at all list as "favorites" of mine.)
But I believe we need to distinguish between intra-confessional debate (itself an interesting and important thing) and the discusion of heresy. Otherwise, we find ourselves in the position where Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can label C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity as "heretical," Protestants and Eastern Orthodox label the Council of Trent as "heretical," and Roman Catholics and Protestants label the Eastern Orthodox as "heretical" for being unwilling to accept the late western addition to the Nicene Creed (i.e., the filioque.)
Last edited by
Adam Linton on September 17th, 2005, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream