"Do you get that, blue-duncan? This definition of heresy which you dismiss as being merely Catholic special pleading was the definition of heresy held by B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary"
Are you saying that Warfield and Hodge agreed that this is the only definition of heretic?
"her·e·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hr-tk) n. A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church."
Are you saying you can only be a heretic if you "publicly dissent from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church"?
Why would Warfield and Hodge or Calvinists care whether Finney held beliefs contrary to "the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church" when as Presbyterians, they also held opposing beliefs? He was deemed a heretic because he was espousing doctrine contrary to their beliefs, not those of the Roman Catholic Church.
You have an extremely literalist mind. Obviously Warfield and Hodge substituted Calvinist orthodoxy which they would have called "true Biblical Christianity" for Catholic orthodoxy. At issue was whether to a heretic one has to know one is dissenting and be stubborn about it. Hodge and Warfield agreed on those points. The Webster definition would have been laughed at by Hodge and Warfield. No court of law of any sort will punish someone for what he does unknowingly. And the Church is judicious enough to insist that a person has to be given a chance to change is mind before he is found guilty of heresy. Not all courts do that with all crimes, but knowledge of right and wrong is fundamental to all culpability in any justice system.
By the way, the definition you post is the one from Webster and thus not the one I said Hodge and Warfield held. The one I said they held was the one Bohemund posted some time back which included the pertinacious aspect (which presumes the knowing aspect).