Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.
The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
No Crucifix can keep Him on the Cross. It is a depiction in bronze or wood or plastic. The figure is not Him, merely a likeness.
The kind of analysis I quoted just above in this post makes the Crucifix into some kind of voodoo doll.
I’m certain someone who places no stock in the writings of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Pope Peter I and the other fathers of the Catholic Church would also have no problem laughing at them and what they did.
Just a reminder for ya...
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
But you guys don't let Jesus get off the Cross in your Eucharist celebration...He never leaves it...
Or do you suggest we dismantle the Statue of Liberty, nuke Mount Rushmore and obliterate the contents of Statuary Hall on Capitol Hill?
But you guys don't let Jesus get off the Cross in your Eucharist celebration...He never leaves it...
That is a false witness of Catholic teachings and practices.
What is the point in arguing with someone who is so uncivil as to tell other people what THEY believe, in the face of repeated denials. He has ESP and knows what others believe better than they do! Looks like Simon Magus is still with us.
Popping foolish balloons is fun.
This is a demeaning and personal remark.
I’m surprised it isn’t pointed out as such by others besides me.
And I ask myself—of what value are such types of “drive-by” comments?
They provide filler where no other answer is available.
This is a statement that is patently false and it’s a shame that it is even made.
There is surely an accounting to be made for statements that bear false witness.
I admire your tenacity in defense of the Catholic faith, but you are dealing with willful ignorance (at best).
It makes absolutely no difference what church I belong to...I don’t follow church teaching, I follow the scriptures...
Well, I disagree with you here. The fact that you belong to an Independent Baptist Church is the theological lens you interpret the scripture. Other than your local Pastor, you make yourself the “infallible” determiner of what is theologically orthdox, apart from the ancient Creeds of the Church (Apostles and Nicene), which were defined and developed by the “Church”. The scriptures you read, i.e. which ones were approved for the NT canon, were determined by the “Church”, both guided by the Holy Spirt, but it was the Church that was the instrument through which God worked.
As for John The Baptist, the term “Baptist” in this context refers to the fact that John used Baptism has a call for preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of God (i.e. “Prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths” [c.f. Mk 1:3]). Christ did not found an “independent Baptist Church”, he found one Church (Mt 16:16-19) and the Church is “one body (c.f. 1 Cor 12:12-14)” and is his “Bride, c.f. Eph 5:32” and all those who are baptized into the Church are the “people of God” as 1 Peter 2:9-10 states Christ acquired a people “who were not a people” and these people are “a Chosen race, royal priesthood, a Holy Nation”.
Your ecclesiology is implicitly unorthodox, in that the notion that Christ founded a invisible Church made of believers, contradicts the Scriptures and the reality that Christ is the incarnate word made flesh. Thus, a body is not a body which is invisible only. Christ as a Divine Person is True God and True Man, thus the Divine Nature and Human Nature are fully present in the person of Christ (c.f. Council of Chalcedon 451 AD). Accordingly, your theology of the Church is “inconsistent” with one of the core Christological Doctrines of who Christ is. Thus, the Church, as Christ Body is a Divinely founded communion that is both visible (earthly) and spiritual, consisent with the person of Christ Jesus.
I am not going to convince you with the Church Fathers, I am aware of that. However, there are numerous Protestant scholars in the field of Patristics who have read the data and have come to conclusions consisent with the Catholic Church as to which writings are authentic, and which are spurious. Perhaps you can ask some of the Reformed-Calvinist or Lutheran Protestants here for a Protestant compilation of The Church Fathers. While those Protestant groups do not accord the same weight to the Tradition of the Church Fathers as Catholics and Eastern Orthdox do, they do have a greater respect for the Church Fathers and don’t discount them to the degree that you do as an independent Baptist.
Regards
What are you talking about??? It means exactly what it says...
Or do you suggest we dismantle the Statue of Liberty, nuke Mount Rushmore and obliterate the contents of Statuary Hall on Capitol Hill?
You read what God says...Don't make em'...Don't bow down to them...You don't like it??? Build another statue...A giant monstrance, or something...
What did I claim you believe that you don’t??? I’ve claimed a lot of things you SHOULD believe and you don’t...
And which remark is that???
In the event that I am wrong in my understanding I'll ask my question for the third time.
Do you believe any Ecumenical Council has ever erred?
Please address that question and only that question. Thank you.
Like I said, one can read Exodus 20:4, or one can read the entirety of the context: Exodus 20:2-6.
Do you favor the destruction of the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore and the others?
AMEN.
And further, because God's justice is all-holy and requires a perfect satisfaction which no man can perform, Christ was ordained the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" to pay one-time, in-full, for all the sins of His flock, according to the purpose of God in creating in the first place.
There are lots of questions still floating around the universe regarding God and men and eternity. But a firm understanding of election, based on who God says He is and what He has required from the very beginning, rightly aligns our eyes and hearts and lives toward Christ alone.
When I read Colossians 1, I finally understood election. It's all Christ, everywhere, for all time.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And then I read Ephesians 1 and realized that "all" Christ really means "all" because that's the way God determined life to be, "declaring the end from the beginning" - "by, for, and through Jesus Christ."
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
God's grace "makes us accepted in Christ." Our rebirth by the Holy Spirit is the only thing that permits a man to love God before himself and so "to be without blame." And this rebirth is a free, unmerited gift from God by the Holy Spirit, determined by God "according to the good pleasure of His will"..."before the foundation of the world"..."to the praise of the glory of His grace."
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places" -- Ephesians 1:17-20"That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
All Christ, according to God's will.
Further, it's important for Christians to realize this is not what Rome teaches. Rome teaches that God's hand in salvation begins at the moment of baptism and is alternately removed and replaced with every "act of sin/act of confession" that is made. Rome teaches that our blessed assurance that Christ has paid in full for our sins, according to God's will and purpose is actually a sin!
But Scripture denies Rome's condemnation.
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." -- Romans 5:8-9"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Assurance of our election by God through Christ is no sin. It is Christ's promise to us that He will lose none of His flock given to Him by God.
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." -- Hebrews 7:24-25 "But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
So the bottom line is not that the Christian needs to earn his salvation through good works or piety or sacraments since Christ's atonement has already paid the price for their redemption in full (Hebrews 10.)
The proper perspective for the Christian is "after-the-fact" gratitude because we know from Scripture that we have been justified by Jesus Christ on the cross. And from this correct understanding of what Christ has already done for us, the Christian presses forward "toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" in repentence, in obedience, in certainty, living a life that glorifies God by the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
lol. That thread was wrong the first time you posted it and it hasn't improved in the interim.
Rome still misunderstands Christ's justification of His flock and therefore, Rome very nearly denies the atonement, replacing God's grace with human merits and a works-based salvation.
I can worship God, or I can worship the creepy, petty god created by Cauvin in his own image.
No contest.
The Catholic Church rejects Cauvin's distorted confection of justification and perseveres as the Church which Christ Himself founded.
As for Rome, well, I didn't know that Italian city had a collective misunderstanding (or understanding for that matter) of anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.