Heresy by Eric Kyalo, Scott Theological College, Kenya

Heresy: “Sincere but Sincerely Wrong.”

By

Eric Kyalo Mutisya

GEN 413 Topics in History

30th June 2006.


Outline
Thesis statement: Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper would like to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”

Introduction:

I. Definition
A. Heresy
B. Relationship of Heresy and Schism

II. Some Particular Heresies in History
A. Gnosticism
B. Arianism
C. Nestorianism
D. Eutychianism
E. Pelagianism

III. Causes Attributed to this Major Controversies
A. Greek Culture
B. Controversial Topics
1. The Doctrine of Trinity
2. The Deity and Person of Jesus Christ
C. Not adhering to Hermeneutical Principles
D. Dogmatism

IV. Lessons for Contemporary Church.
A. TodayÂ’s Church Owes History
B. Laxity as the Cause of Heretical teachings
C. No New Heresy

Conclusion

Reference List




Heresy: “Sincere but Sincerely Wrong.”
In the history of the church there are several issues which attract the attention of the student who seeks to investigate on certain topics in history. Within this topics heresy or heresies has attracted the attention of many scholars and much has been written down on heresies in history. History will prove that some heresies have received more emphasis than others; where else some of these controversies have been going on for a long time. From this understanding there are facts which can be established as far as heresy and its history is concerned. History of heresy has great lessons for contemporaries since the way in which heresies and heretics were handled in ancient history to some extend was a good way of solving the problems, which could have otherwise brought great effects. Dealing with heresy was not a small deal since those involved, in most cases were great theologians and philosophers, and hence here laid the reason for most heresies. Since heresies were therefore associated with great theologians and leaders in the Church, this paper seeks to establish from a general approach that most heretics were “sincere but sincerely wrong.”
Before establishing this understanding it is vital to define the term heresy. It is not very clear how the term can be understood since either of those involved can refer to the other as having committed heresy. Therefore, heresy for the sake of this paper will consider several definitions as outlined by different writers.
The New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981 defines heresy as “a belief at variance with the accepted doctrine of a church.” This brings out the idea of introduction of something different from what has been accepted previously.
According to Collier’s Encyclopedia, heresy is what has been pronounced “by official church councils, ecumenical or denominational, to be in contradiction to church dogmas” (Collier’s Encyclopedia, Vol. 10). Here the idea about heresy is what has been designated by the authority as false. If the council comes together and confers that the issue before them is contrary to what the church teaches then the person who is responsible would be declared heretical by that authority.
The observation made from these definitions is that the church body was vital to establish whether a certain teaching was heretical or not. In defining heresy the Encyclopedia Britannica states that it is a “theological doctrine or system rejected by the ecclesiastical authority” (New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th Ed).
Another understanding of heresy is that, it comes from a Greek word for “choice,” bringing in the idea of choosing to follow a different direction from what the church believes, and as a result one begins another fellowship (Pelikan 1978, 17). This leads to schisms- Webster’s Dictionary, defines schism as separation from a church or religious body, on account of opinion with regard to matters of faith or discipline (New Webster’s Dictionary, 1981). This can be outlined as one of the consequences of heresy, but for the purpose of this paper, the emphasis is on heresy.
After defining heresy, and more specific having said that it is a variance from the doctrines of the ecclesiastical church, one would want to go further and analyze the doctrines in order to have what it takes to declare a certain teaching as heretical. Since most of the church leaders were great theologians, and had acquired great knowledge of what sound doctrine should entail, were able to detect anything else which was inconsistent with Christian doctrine.
However, it has been noted that it is not any other individuals who violated the doctrine of the church but it is these great theologians who ended up teaching heresies. It is impossible to clearly say that these heretics were doing so deliberately. Philosophies propagated by Greek culture contributed to a larger extend to these main heresies of history. In their efforts to establish understanding on some issues especially on the deity of Christ and the controversial topic of the doctrine of trinity, they were declared heretics and condemned by the Councils. Several reasons for such heresies may therefore be outlined.
Prior to establishing these reasons an analysis of the heresies and the individual heretics it is important. At least five great heresies have hit history and termed most controversial almost destroying the view of God in the church if they had won.
One of these earliest heresies was Gnosticism. It is one of the false teachings which Paul the apostle addressed to his contemporaries. Gnostics believed that the body was evil and only the spirit was good. They emphasized that salvation was only possible when the body was subjected to hardship. This teaching questioned the deity of Christ in his human form since having a body to them was associated with evil, something they found hard to believe as far as the divinity of Christ was concerned. They said, “…the Spirit Christ is the savior, but the human Jesus is only a shell” (Jeffrey 2002, 40). It is not until around A.D 180 when Irenaeus wrote five books against heresies that were threatening his people, the most prevalent heresy being Gnosticism that a solution began to appear (Jeffrey 2002, 37).
The other heretical teaching which shucks history is Arianism. The heretic behind this heresy is Arius who denied the deity of Jesus Christ. He argued from Proverbs 8:22 that the Son is not eternal with the Father but was created. He was a presbyter in Alexandria (Jeffrey 2002, 46). This has been considered to be the biggest controversy in history. It brought together 318 Bishops in the first Council at Nicea. Contrary to Arius who used the term homoiousios for Christ, meaning He was of like substance with the Father, Athanasias instead used the word homoousios for Christ meaning that he was of the same substance with the Father (Allison 1994, 86). Therefore the council condemned and anathematized him.
The other heresy is Nestorianism which came from the controversy arising from the two natures of Christ. The heretic was Nestorius (popular preacher and bishop of Constantinople in 428). Lane states that in his preaching at Constantinople, he denied that the Virgin Mary was theotokos (‘God-bearer’). He insisted that it was Jesus the man who was born of Mary, not God the Word (Lane 1984, 44). It therefore followed that the Council at Ephesus in 431 condemned and despised him for Emphasizing that Christ was of two natures.
Another heresy concerning the nature of Christ was Eutychianism, pioneered by Eutyches. He mixed the two natures of Christ into one, “a tertium quid or ‘third something,’ which is neither God nor man but a sort of mongrel” (Lane 1984, 47). Due to this he was condemned for confusing the two natures of Christ in A.D. 448 by bishop Flavian (Lane 1984, 47).
The last heresy, for the sake of this paper is Pelagianism, by Pelagius. He believed that,
“A Christian could lead a life without sin, with no more help f rom God than his teaching and the example of Jesus Christ. He did not believe that Adams fall had done more than introduce death and the example of sin- it did not make sin inevitable” (Lane 1984, 42).
As a result Augustine came out strongly to oppose it and said,

“sin wrought such ravages in man that he cannot save himself… no man can really love God or believe in Him savingly until the grace of God comes to him” (Renwick 2004, 58).
Having given an explanation of these major heresies, their causes can now be established. The aim is not to give a sound theological understanding and teaching about them, but to examine the circumstances under which they thrived. History has already declared them as heresies and any further investigation on them will prove the same.
When we embark on the characteristics of these ‘great heretics’ one will find out that they were key people in the church before committing this serious heresies. This is an issue which should catch the attention of many and seek to establish why only them and not other theologians outside the Church. There are several reasons which may be established.
First of all, the Greek culture has been accused of ‘blinding’ these great theologians. The Greek culture was one which was devoted to finding explanation of ‘everything.’ Lane states,
“Tertullian was strongly critical of Greek philosophy, viewing it as the parent of heresy. He emphasized the paradoxical nature of faith and the contrast between Christianity and philosophy” (Lane 1984, 18)

The issues rising great controversy over the centuries have been thos e concerning the doctrine of trinity and the person of Jesus Christ. Under this two, many were declared heretics after seeking to understand them, something which Lane says is “incomprehensible and inscrutable” (Lane 1984, 36). Athanasias who was opposed to Arius is termed by Allison as more a pastor than a theologian. He says that he did not begin with philosophical or theological concerns but with a passion for human souls (Allison 1994, 89). With such an understanding it is clear that the Greek culture of Philosophy contributed to a larger extend to these heresies.
Also since most of these heretics were great theologians, the more they ventured in trying to understand some issues, the more prone to heresy they were, probably unconsciously. It is true they had a good knowledge about God and their commitment in studying God’s word cannot be underestimated, and furthermore the controversial issues are not small. This therefore can be seen as what led to high rate of brooding heresies especially on the deity of Christ and that of Trinity. For example Eutyches who was accused of mixing the two natures of Christ was said to have been “confused or muddled, rather than willfully heretical” (Lane 1984, 47).
In addition, within there sincerity, most of these heretics tended to take scriptures out of context and did not compare with other passages of scripture. Arius for example based his teaching about the creation of Jesus Christ by the Father from Proverbs 8:22. It was evident that by referring to creation of wisdom as creation of Christ was wrong interpretation. Allison states,
“Heretics have sometimes been exceedingly selfless and sincere in their beliefs, often with a tenacious grasp of the partial truth within their teaching while blind to its context or its wider implications” (Allison 1994, 17).
However, having said that about heretics I do not nullify the fact that they were stubborn in their teachings even after having been condemned by the Councils. Therefore, the Councils gave us a clear picture of the role they played during this great controversies of ancient history which threatened to divide the church. Lane says that their aim was to protect the doctrine from denial but not to explain it in such a way as to eliminate the mystery (Lane 1984, 36).
It is therefore commendable how heresies were dealt with in ancient times. The Councils helped to maintain right teachings and correct interpretation of Scripture. It could have been otherwise if the church had been left to face these great heretics who sounded very “sincere, but sincerely wrong.” And that is why Lane stated that if any of the four heresies had won the day it would have been a distorted picture of Jesus Christ that would have been handed down to us (Lane 1984, 36).
From what has been established this far, it is quite clear that today’s contemporaries owe much to the tradition and history of the church. There is much for today’s ‘bishops’ to learn from history. There is a likelihood of falling away from right teachings of faith ignorantly and therefore the need to evaluate the prevailing teachings and see if for sure they go hand in hand with what is sound doctrine.
Martin Luther is known today as the great leader of reformation causing the separation of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants. This controversy will be argued out that, the Roman Catholic Church which was at one time the only church and was very careful to detect any heresy, was now accused of heretical teachings. They accused Luther for being heretical and asked him to recant his statements against the Pope. Renwick states, “The spirit of Martin Luther was stirred to depths. On All Saints Day, 1517, he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg where vast crowds congregated” (Renwick 2002, 109).
It is startling that after the historical church began well with emphasis on sound biblical teachings it deviated and began to follow words of men. When people failed to have proper hermeneutical principles and went just for what appealed to them, is when they committed heresy. Ignoring traditions they tolerated heretical teachings. Laursen states, “The nineteenth and twentieth centuries completed the process of changing our attitudes such that many people know little or nothing about the great traditions of heresy and persecution” (Laursen 2002, 5).
Although the Orthodoxy accused the Protestants for dividing the Church, they themselves had failed to retain that sensitivity in protecting the doctrine. The main problem being stated as misusing the term ‘faith’ to refer only to doctrine at the cost of holiness of life. But they urged that, practice by itself was not sufficient for salvation and th at both doctrine and morality were necessary” (Pelikan 1989, 151-2).
For the contemporaries we realize that there is no new heresy. Some of the controversial issues in ancient times are also the one causing much problem today. Allison says. “Scarcely any ancient heresy can be found that does not have a modern expression; scarcely is there a modern heresy that we have not seen before” (Allison 1994, 17).
It is astonishing that heretics use the Bible to make their teachings seem right. Due to negligence and increased number of Bible interpreters with theological teaching and also those who have no theological training, Bible interpretation has been misused and misapplied. Like Gnostic theology, many have employed the language of Christianity and misused the Scriptures of Christianity to develop their own system of belief (Bingham 2002, 40).
For example, today’s greatest heresy which is preached and emphasized is the Prosperity Gospel, which is a lie but incorporated with Scriptures to make it seem right. This teaching has been associated with Docentrisim which denied “Christ’s full humanity and his actual suffering was no more academic mistake of mind but the cringing withdrawal of the human spirit from the implications, risks, and responsibilities of incarnate love” (Allison 1994, 39). This understanding of Christian life as a life of prosperity and not one of suffering is a duplication of this old heresy of Docentrisim.
Heresy has expressed “cruelty” (Allison 1994, 17) in the sense that it elevates humanity. Heresies have also given a wrong representation of God distorting his character and glory.
Protestant churches cannot boast of having the right doctrinal faith and practice. They can actually be cited as to have propagated heretical teachings due to laxity and lack of a strict strategy of dealing with heresy.
“Most of them started with the assumption that their own particular doctrines embodied the final statement of Christian truth and were thus prepared to denounce as heretics those who differed with them. But with the gradual growth of toleration and the 2oth – Century ecumenical movement most protestant Churches have drastically revised the notion of heresy as understood in the pre-reformation church” (Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed).
It is therefore necessary for todayÂ’s contemporaries to seek to establish strategies on how to eradicate any form of false teaching which may be thriving in the church. Increased carelessness has been encouraged on televisions, radios and everywhere on town streets. The Church should emulate th e ancient church in formation of Councils to deal with heresy. This Councils should in turn be free from selfish agendas and emphasize on proper biblical interpretation since this is the main cause of heresy, proving that most heretics and especially in our days are lacking theological training and therefore being stubborn on what in itself is wrong sincerity.

Reference List:

Allison, Fitzsimons C. The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy. Morehouse Publishing, 1994.

Bingham, Jeffrey. Pocket History of the Church. Downers Grove, Illinois; Intervarsity Press, 2002.

CollierÂ’s Encyclopedia Vol 10. New York; Collier & Son Division of the Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 1952.

Lane, Tony. The Lion Concise Book of Christian Thought. Lion Publishing. England, 1984.

Laursen, John C. Histories of Heresy in Early Modern Europe: For, Against, and Beyond Persecution and Toleration. New York; Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 5 15th ed. Chicago; Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1990.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (Since 1700). Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). London; The University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Renwick, M. A & A. M. Harman. The Story of the Church 3rd ed. Intervarsity Press, 2004.