Heresy
When the word, “Heresy” is spoken, what comes to mind? For some, it is some old church word no longer used, but they know it is a negative term. For many, myself included, it brings to mind thoughts of the Inquisition and the burning at the stake of Joan of Arc and William Tyndale. These types of attachments to the word "heresy" have essentially removed it from public discourse altogether.
However, it should not be so. A study of the history of the church shows that the struggle against heresy within the church was of prime importance in the second and third century A.D. What makes this a significant note is that the church was suffering its worst years of persecution at the same time. While the government and the populace was oppressing the church physically from without, the primary concern of the church leaders was the internal batlle against heresy. While the edificatory writings of encouragement in the face of persecution were important, it is clear from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus and their contemporaries that the focus of the church had shifted from the apologies of the first century that explained and defended Christianity to the polemical writings of the second and third centuries that aggressively pointed out, revealed, explored and vetted the heresies of the day.
Why is this relevant to today? Heresy is among us, and we do not call it what it is. Because we seek “unity”, we tolerate heresy to avoid looking like fractured political groups to unbelievers. Consider this – how can we present a united body when there are all manner of foreign objects within the body? Isn’t it better to point out the beam in our eye, remove it, and then we can do both better? Consider the words of Irenaeus in 160 A.D.:
"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself." Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
An examination of the heresies of the day is in order. What we shall find is that there is truly nothing new under the sun, and that the heresies of today are the heresies of the second and third century. As Irenaeus pointed out, they look attractive and “Christian”, but neither they nor their proponents belong in the community of the faithful. Those who are children of the living God can be corrected by exposing the heresies and their logical conclusions (a favorite tactic of the church fathers) and those who refuse to call their heresy as such will be exposed as the heretics they are – not to be burned at the stake, but to remove their influence over the body.
From the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
“Theologically, the Bible teaches condemnation upon false doctrines and false teachers. Gal. 1:8-9 says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (NASB). See also 11 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:1315; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Titus 3:10. Why is this taught in the Bible? The reason is simple. Christians are saved by faith in the work of Jesus on the cross. But faith in itself is not enough. Faith is not a substance you can put in a jar. It is belief in something. Faith is only as good as who it is placed in. If you put your faith in a false God, you are lost because a false god cannot save anyone. This is why God says in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before Me." Faith is not what saves, but faith in the true God is what saves…Heresy has the ability to damn because they have the ability to confuse the gospel sufficiently to make it powerless.”
Team Hammer will be conducting a weekly post on heresy – what is, what is not, and how to combat it when we see it. We hope to see you here checking it out and contributing.
However, it should not be so. A study of the history of the church shows that the struggle against heresy within the church was of prime importance in the second and third century A.D. What makes this a significant note is that the church was suffering its worst years of persecution at the same time. While the government and the populace was oppressing the church physically from without, the primary concern of the church leaders was the internal batlle against heresy. While the edificatory writings of encouragement in the face of persecution were important, it is clear from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus and their contemporaries that the focus of the church had shifted from the apologies of the first century that explained and defended Christianity to the polemical writings of the second and third centuries that aggressively pointed out, revealed, explored and vetted the heresies of the day.
Why is this relevant to today? Heresy is among us, and we do not call it what it is. Because we seek “unity”, we tolerate heresy to avoid looking like fractured political groups to unbelievers. Consider this – how can we present a united body when there are all manner of foreign objects within the body? Isn’t it better to point out the beam in our eye, remove it, and then we can do both better? Consider the words of Irenaeus in 160 A.D.:
"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself." Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
An examination of the heresies of the day is in order. What we shall find is that there is truly nothing new under the sun, and that the heresies of today are the heresies of the second and third century. As Irenaeus pointed out, they look attractive and “Christian”, but neither they nor their proponents belong in the community of the faithful. Those who are children of the living God can be corrected by exposing the heresies and their logical conclusions (a favorite tactic of the church fathers) and those who refuse to call their heresy as such will be exposed as the heretics they are – not to be burned at the stake, but to remove their influence over the body.
From the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry:
“Theologically, the Bible teaches condemnation upon false doctrines and false teachers. Gal. 1:8-9 says, "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (NASB). See also 11 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 11:1315; 1 Tim. 1:18-20; Titus 3:10. Why is this taught in the Bible? The reason is simple. Christians are saved by faith in the work of Jesus on the cross. But faith in itself is not enough. Faith is not a substance you can put in a jar. It is belief in something. Faith is only as good as who it is placed in. If you put your faith in a false God, you are lost because a false god cannot save anyone. This is why God says in Exodus 20:3, "You shall have no other gods before Me." Faith is not what saves, but faith in the true God is what saves…Heresy has the ability to damn because they have the ability to confuse the gospel sufficiently to make it powerless.”
Team Hammer will be conducting a weekly post on heresy – what is, what is not, and how to combat it when we see it. We hope to see you here checking it out and contributing.
posted by Hammertime at
9/27/2005 11:56:00 AM
8 Comments:
Good start, Hammer. I look forward to a substantive discussion of “what is and what is not” heresy. Certainly, unity is the goal, if indeed the Truth is that which unifies.
By
Robert, at 9/27/2005 10:28:00 PM
Me, me me me!!
(That's me raising my hand at the back of the class. I know a heretic when I see one and it is me!)
Guilty as charged, sir!
By
Xactiphyn, at 9/27/2005 10:52:00 PM
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, what did the "fathers" consider heresy? Weren't they loyal followers of "Catholic" teachings? Heretics? If not them, when did the heretics get control of the church? I look forward to your future posts on the subject.
By
gomatter, at 9/28/2005 02:04:00 PM
It is unity which is the goal, Robert, as you said. As we've both seen, unity achieved by ignoring the twisting of the Gospel is no unity at all, but begrudging silence in the face of, well, heresy.
Mark - you'll find that you are not a heretic at all!
GoMatter,
Good questions all. I'll address all of these issues in longer posts, but the short answers are:
1) You'll see.
2) There was no papal church, or capital "C" catholic church. Thus, they cannot have been followers of its teachings!
3) Some were branded as such in times during and after their age. Many of them went back and forth between the label over time!
4) Heretics do not control the church, but they may control a church or even a denomination labelled as Christian.
Check back soon!
By
Hammertime, at 9/29/2005 02:11:00 PM
I'll assume I don't qualify as a heretic because I don't claim to be Christian. (I recently summed up my belief as believing in the Holy Sprit but not the other two parts.) If you are talking about some other reason, though, I'm very curious to learn more.
I'm even more curious how you keep between the twin goal-posts you set for yourself: fundamentalism and heresy.
To me the big problem is confusing spiritual faith with physical faith. When you start using faith to understand the physical world you are setting yourself up to oppose observation and science.
The Garden of Eden. the Flood, those are just stories. Good stories, but stories nonetheless. Now, like the battle of Troy, it may turn out that some of these stories are true, but you shouldn't take it on faith.
By
Xactiphyn, at 9/29/2005 06:59:00 PM
Obviously, despite his intelligence, Ingersoll did not understand what heresy means. Instead, he takes the misappropriation of the term by others, and assumes they are the same.
He did not understand heresy because he did not seek to understand. His worldview would not allow it.
By
Hammertime, at 10/04/2005 02:31:00 PM
LiberPaul,
I'll be explaining heresy, and will address the Catholic question, too. Unfortunately, there are several "denominations" which practice heresy. It has little to do with orthodoxy and nothing to do with who is in power. You'll find the defintion is different than you thought.
Ingersoll was not only willfully ingorant of what heresy is, but he clearly is willfully ignorant of its origin. He chose the example that best fit his atheistic/agnostic worldview - that of the "heresy" of the medieval Catholic church. We'll find that was a misuse of a term - as is common with many terms today. Liberal, conservative, choice and civil rights come to mind.
My first heresy post will be written on the plane ride to my reunion. I am not sure if I will be able to get it up on Thursday or if it may be all the way until next Monday. I apologize for the delay.
By
Hammertime, at 10/05/2005 02:13:00 PM
SAH-
You cannot agree with my definition of heresy...because I have not given it. My next post will be up today.
By
Hammertime, at 10/10/2005 10:47:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home