Warning: Heresy contains biohazardous materials
17 Apr 2007
Jason has recently written a couple of posts on heresy, one of which was inspired by the site of Martin Downes. Martin has kindly agreed to write an post that introduces us to the subject in a bit more detail. [Warning long post!]…
Heresy! What do you associate that word with? Torches and pitchforks? Burning someone at the stake? The incessant barking of theological watchdogs? “Health and wealth†preachers? Unbelieving bishops who deny the gospel but stay on the payroll of the church?
What is heresy?
One writer defines it as “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.†Heresy is the kind of doctrinal error that is so serious that it redefines the gospel. Error is always costly. It dishonours God and damages the Church. But not all errors are heresies. A heretic is not someone who fails to explain adequately the doctrine of the Trinity, or that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, the nature of the atonement, or justification by faith alone. No, a heretic denies these truths and is fundamentally unsubmissive to apostolic doctrine and authority as it is given in Scripture.
Heresy is not a matter of opinion. We have an objective standard when we want to find out which theological view is correct or orthodox (meaning “right beliefâ€), as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 15, and which ones are wrong. In the end, the fight against heresy is always won by the clear, patient, and thorough exposition of Scripture. Perversely, successful heretics themselves often claim to be truly orthodox and biblical.
Heresy is a matter of choice. It is the choice to believe a different gospel. Augustine said that heretics are men “who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith.†A heretic chooses to tell lies about the God of the Bible because he doesn’t want to tell the truth. And a heretic is someone who refuses admonition and is divisive (Titus 3:10-11). Putting it mathematically, heretics take away from the truth of the gospel (and adding to the truth always takes away from it), they divide true churches and aim to multiply new disciples.
Where do heresies come from?
It is vitally important to realise that heresies do not originate in the minds of men and women. Ultimately heresy originates with the devil. When the apostle Paul takes the Corinthian church to task for tolerating false teachers he compares their approach to the deception of Eve by the serpent (2 Cor. 11:3). But the deception in the Garden is more than a useful illustration for Paul. The super-apostles at Corinth are the servants of the devil disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
Similarly Paul warned Timothy about “deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons†(1 Tim. 4:1), and of false teachers who are caught in the snare of the devil (2 Tim. 2:24-25). After all the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). The connection between other gospels and the demonic, which is integral to a biblical world view, has been largely lost. If it were regained it would keep us from ever thinking that heresies are interesting, intellectually stimulating, tolerable, or in any way benign. Cyprian of Carthage, in the third century, made this insightful comment about heresy and the devil:
“There is more need to fear and beware of the Enemy when he creeps up secretly, when he beguiles us by a show of peace and steals forward by those hidden approaches which have earned him the name of the ‘Serpent’…He invented heresies and schisms so as to undermine the faith, to corrupt the truth, to sunder our unity. Those whom he failed to keep in the blindness of their old ways he beguiles, and leads them up a new road of illusion.â€
Or as one writer put it “renouncing the devil means denouncing heresy.â€
Secondly, it is vitally important to understand that heresy is the takeover of Christianity by an alien worldview. Paul warned the Colossians about “plausible arguments†and those who were trying to take them captive by “philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition,†(Col. 2:4, 8). Heretics often use the words of the Bible, change their meaning, and hide false ideas under them. The label may still say “Christ,†“salvation,†or “atonement,†but the meaning of these words have been radically altered. The early church fathers were alert to this danger. They wrote books to expose the fact that heretics were really saying the same thing as pagan philosophers, only the heretics were dressing up these ideas in Christian language. This deceitfulness makes heresy morally as well as doctrinally wrong.
Why would anyone embrace heresy?
You would think that someone would have to be out of their right mind to believe heresy. Who, after all, wants to believe something that isn’t true? But, to quote Lucifer in Milton’s Paradise Lost, the anthem of heresy is that “it is better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.†Every heresy appeals to our sinful wishes and desires, the “way that we want things to be†and not the way that God has provided in the gospel, “which is infinitely better for us†as Bishop Allison put it. Consider all the major heresies and you will find that they appeal, directly or indirectly, to our sinful reason, affections, and will. Heresy appears to be beneficial, posing as good news and proclaiming Jesus (2 Cor. 11:4), but in reality like gangrene it destroys spiritual life (2 Tim. 2:17).
Of course there will be people who believe things that are heretical without realising it. It may well be the case that they simply believe what they have been taught from a young age, or what their respected teachers have always led them to believe was the truth.
Heresy always presents itself as an improvement on the biblical gospel. For the Colossians it promised to overcome their struggle with sin and bring them closer to God. For the Galatians it would keep them from persecution and fuel their desire to justify themselves before God by their works.
Heresy never appears in its true colours. In his monumental work Against Heresies Irenaeus wrote that “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 an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself.â€
What are the effects of heresy?
Heresy brings confusion for unbelievers since they hear several different and contradictory voices all claiming to be telling them the authentic good news.
Heresy also brings trouble for the Church. Unless false teachers are silenced, as Paul tells Titus that they should be, they will ruin households and upset the faith of some (Titus 1:11). Genuine believers can be unsettled by the teaching of these men (2 Tim. 2:18). In addition to this damage, false teachers also drain the time, energy, and resources of churches when they are not dealt with. Drawn out conflicts with false teachers can divert and distract churches from evangelism and the planting and nurturing of new congregations.
Heresy places those who embrace it, and refuse to be corrected, in danger of eternal condemnation. At the very least the salvation of those who are deceived by gospel denying error cannot be affirmed. There is hope that God may grant such people repentance. But the apostles did not shrink back from spelling out the danger of turning to a “different gospel.†Paul makes it clear that whether the “false brothers,†an angel from heaven, or even the apostles themselves preached another gospel than the one that Paul had preached then they should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
Harold Brown summed up the consequences of truth and error by saying that “just as there are doctrines that are true, and that can bring salvation, there are those that are false, so false that they can spell eternal damnation for those who have the misfortune to be entrapped by them.â€
Why do heresies persist?
Church history tells the story of the battle between truth and error. Heresies arise, gain a following, are opposed and refuted from Scripture, and then the Church moves on and advances in the truth. Because of this we have great statements like the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon. But if these errors have been dealt with in the past why do they come back again and again? Why do people today believe old heresies? There are three reasons.
The devil still deceives people into believing heresies by using human instruments to promote attractive and plausible teaching. He will continue to do this until Christ returns in glory.
The warnings and lessons from history are ignored or unknown. If we are ignorant of the past we will fail to see that heresies that today appear new, innovative, and interesting are as old as dirt. Many of the errors finding a home in evangelicalism today were tried and found wanting by our great-great-grandfathers in the faith at the bar of Scripture.
Throughout history those who deny the truth and choose a different gospel are limited in the options available to them. In his study of heresies Harold Brown concluded that “over and over again, in widely separated cultures, in different centuries, the same basic misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the person and work of Christ and his message reappear. The persistence of the same stimulus, so to speak, repeatedly produces the same or similar reactions.â€
8 comments
Trackback
Comment by Helen
5.32 pm on 17 Apr 2007
Heresy is a matter of choice. It is the choice to believe a different gospel.
Martin, I have a question about this: is what we believe a choice? Could you decide “I’m not going to believe in God any more” if you wanted to? What would you do about the evidence (personal or otherwise) that has given you reason to believe until now? How would you change your mind and convince yourself that it’s no longer sufficient?
This is something I’ve wondered about for a while.
Comment by Martin Downes
9.23 am on 18 Apr 2007
Hi Helen,
I guess this is slightly off topic but nonetheless is an important question. Perhaps, as with heresy, the mix of the intellectual, moral, and emotional aspects of life and truth are all related here. I once knew of a student who declared himself as atheist after returning from a missions trip to Eastern Europe. It was not that he saw things that that made him question the existence of a good and loving God but because his parents were unbelievers and nothing had changed. He may have been led to expect that they would come to faith. Last Sunday we had a new family with us in church. The husband came in at the end of the service. He is now an atheist, although they were once involved in a Charismatic church nearby. Outwardly he was saying that evolution turned him into an atheist. But I suspect that more was going on than this.
I’m sure it is quite possible for people to believe in God with untested assumptions. And I’m sure that some people can be shaken in their belief by the imposition of unacceptable criteria for believing by skeptics (i.e. enlightenment rationalism). In other words the bar is set too high for belief by unbelieving criteria that are unprovable assumptions.
And I should add we haven’t got to the heart of unbelief until we probe aspects of human nature, desire, and motivation beyond the intellectual.
Comment by Helen
5.45 pm on 18 Apr 2007
Thanks Martin.
Comment by steven hamilton
6.05 pm on 17 Apr 2007
O, you foolish Galatians – who has bewitched you?
martin – your points are well-taken and stir us to many thoughts and likely in many directions. i like your initial salvo, so-to-speak, though…in terms of heresy being linked to the truth and clarity of the gospel, or as you put it: “any teaching that directly contradicts the clear and direct witness of the Scriptures on a point of salvific importance.â€
this is very, very much what i see (or at least saw several years ago) in the heartbeat of the emergent church: a concern for the gospel of Christ Jesus full-orbed rather than some Westernized reductionist bullet-point formula intellectually ascented to. but too often, in my own limited experience, the heresy-hunters cannot discern (or rather over-extend) the heart of the gospel and its fullness to denounce (and at times burn at the stake) those who disagree on matters of odiafera (greek for ‘indifference’)…like sabbath and feasts, and maybe much more to list here…
may we never be as the foolish Galatians, and even though surprising, or possibly not-so-surprising, Paul’s words to the Galatians stand: “But even if anyone, we ourselves or an angel from heaven, announces any gospel that is contrary to the gospel we brought to you, let him be accursed. I have said it before, and I say it again now, if anyone brings you a gospel contrary to the one you have been given, let him be accursed.”
strong words penned in a certain context with a certain relationship proceeding them…so let the interpretations fly like dice on the street corner…in a humble way
Comment by Martin Downes
9.26 am on 18 Apr 2007
Good thoughts Steve. Do you think that heresy could become a lost concept in a postmodern culture?
Comment by steven hamilton
11.49 am on 18 Apr 2007
…it has the potential to be under-valued at anytime – postmodern or otherwise…in a postmodern milieu possibly it is adrift or suspended in order to engage with ancient truths anew through challenging them and deconstructing (with the heart and intent not to just deconstruct but to re-build the ruins, so-to-speak, see jason’s recent post on this for more)…but my hope and fervent prayer is that the concept and accountability of it would never be lost…
Comment by Peter Aschoff
2.52 pm on 18 Apr 2007
One of the troubles with heresy is that judgement is fairly easy with hindsight but it is – as church history teaches aus time and again – very difficult to spot while it develops. I like the way David Bosch explains this in “Transforming Mission” with Montanism oder Gnosticism. It seems that each culture has its unique potential for heresy. I wonder whether at the heart of most heresies there is the inability (or unwillingness) to live in a creative – but sometimes painful! – tension between the gospel and the surrounding culture.
And the trouble with heresy hunters (as Steven called them in his above comment) is that they tend to a view where any kind of innovation is seen as a threat because it is quetsionbs the theological and ecclesiastical status quo.
But my real question is: How do we respond to heretical tendencies when we see them, other than saying: “this is the work of the devil” – which may or may not be true but is not particularly helpful in the disussion?
Comment by Martin Downes
3.30 pm on 18 Apr 2007
Peter,
My understanding is that there are different types of error in the New Testament, different types of people being influenced by it, and different responses from the apostles to these groups. For example Peter in Galatians 2 was temporarily inconsistent and not in step with the gospel, and Paul calls him on this. Apollos in Acts 18 had been inaccurate in his public teaching and was instructed by Priscilla & Aquila. Apollos was clearly teachable and accepted correction. But there is no indication that he was denounced by P & A. Peter on the other hand got a public telling off for his inconsistency. So even though Apollos was deficient in knowledge, and Peter inconsistent, both were brought to a positive point of understanding and behaviour in line with the gospel. There is obviously a different approach going on with the case of “another gospel” in Gal. 1.
With regard to your question I take it that Paul introduces the deception of Eve in 2 Cor. 11 and compares it to the deception of the church by the super-apostles in order that the Corinthians would have a clear understanding of what was going on and what was at stake for them. It was not merely that the false teaching was wrong, it was also deceptive and seeking to destroy the marriage relationship of the church to Christ. It was error that threatened to destroy that relationship. The Corinthians needed to know this since his other Jesus they were hearing about was neither true nor benign in his influence. Grasping the relationship of error to the devil I take it is part of a Christian world-view.
Comments are now closed.