With An Apology To Arius: When And How Should We Deal With Heresies And Heretics?

By H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House is Professor of Theolgoy at Michigan Theological Seminary, Plymouth, Michigan.]

Introduction

The old adage is that heresy is the position held by the group that loses. Such a perspective may seem to be a natural result when one side triumphs over another, but it does not take into account fundamental factors relating to the lexicographical and historical sense of the word “heresy.” Moreover, a biblical and creedal view of the nature of truth surely necessitates something more substantial in defining heresies and their promoters than the above popular and glib definition.

Charges of heresy are not new to the Christian church. In fact heresy as we shall see below, has helped the orthodox church to develop and clarify its theology and heretics, in the providence of God, are responsible for forcing the church to define its thinking. Heretics are not necessarily devious individuals who hope to unravel orthodoxy or revel in destroying truth and the faithful who hold it. Rather, they regularly believe themselves to be maintaining the faith against another false teaching (such as many Arians did against gnosticism or modalism), or bringing clarification to a Christian doctrine.

Not only are heresies and heretics important to the development of theology, those who oppose heresy perform an important function. Often such individuals are maligned by those they oppose and unappreciated by the orthodox, whose faith they defend. Athanasius contra mundum is not unusual in the battle for orthodoxy. Though the post-Nicean Athanasius found himself forsaken by the emperor and opposed by the eastern church, he was willing to stand alone against the world. Such is the case of Luther when he indicated that his conscience was chained to the Word of God and that he must stand against the powerful medieval Roman church.

Recognizing the importance of these combats and combatants in the church, one must then, however, decide when heresies should be challenged and by whom. As well one must determine to what extent those who either merely hold or teaching such heterodox views should be “marked out” by the orthodox church for special discipline and expulsion from the communion of the saints versus those who teach false doctrine. Granting that the church should not tolerate false teaching in its midst, it is still incumbent to decide how one proceeds in distinguishing difference of opinion on theological points, sometimes very fine points, from truly heretical ideas, and what procedures should be instituted to deal with these ideas and false teachers. Moreover, the question of motivation and attitude should be considered by those who are the opponents of heresy and heretics.

What Is Heresy?

One of the problems with determining the nature of heresy is that sparring parties quickly use the term in an ad hominem manner to classify their opponents. Not everything can or should be classified as heresy. The Greek Latin father, Tertullian defined heresies as “human and demonic doctrines” that were opposed to the divine truth of faith.” He says elsewhere “I have no use for a Stoic, Platonic, or dialectic Christianity. After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation … When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else.”[1]

The term heresy is an English version of the Greek noun heiresses, originally meaning little more originally than the word “party.”[2] Though the word had a relatively innocent beginning, it came to be used by Jewish opponents of Christianity for Christians; and in the Christian church, heresy was used of a “separation or split resulting from a false faith (I Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20).[3]

Literally heresy means “choose” and implies the choice that one makes in choosing to break away from the orthodox perspective.[4] The word related either to a doctrine or a party holding a doctrine that was so obviously wrong that it threatened the very unity of the Christian church. Thus, heresy did not merely to refer any doctrinal disagreement but to a view that struck at the very heart of the Christian faith. Generally speaking, the term was restricted to the doctrine of God and Christ but certainly could relate to the other divisions of theology as they related to the essence of the Christian faith that centers in the person and work of Christ.

Something else that must be recognized is that heresy speaks strictly of false teaching that occurs within the Christian community, not to error that is taught outside the Christian church, even if was tantamount to the error taught by false teachers in the church.[5] Harold Brown explains:

The early Christians felt a measure of tolerance for the pagans, even though they were persecuted by them, for the pagans were ignorant. ‘This ignorance,’ Paul told the Athenians, ‘God winked at’ (Acts 17:30). But Paul did not wink at him who brought ‘any other Gospel’ within the context of the Christian community. ‘Let him be accursed,’ he told the Galatian church (Gal. 1:8). Honorable enemies are regarded with less hostility than the traitor from within one’s own camp. The Christian life is often presented as spiritual warfare; if the pagans are the enemies, the heretics are the traitors.[6]

Though the church fathers strongly attacked the erroneous ideas of many of the gnostics, often they were viewed as really outside of the community of the faithful. On the other hand, church leaders such as Marcion or Arius were treated with ferocity for their departure from the true doctrines delivered to the church from the apostles.[7] Part of the reason for this was that the heretic was the graver threat to the Christian than the pagan, for the pagan ultimately killed only the body while the heretics’ actions and teachings threatened salvation itself. Consequently the false teachers within the church were more dangerous than the savage persecutors of the temporal Roman empire. As Brown elucidates, “The persecutors couldand frequently did—put Christians to death, but they could not deprive them of eternal life, nor of the confidence they had in eternal life. This heretics threatened to do, and therefore they were regarded with the utmost loathing.”[8]

Should We Even Talk About Heresy?

Tom Oden speaks of the “Protestant smile.” He means by this the tendency of the Protestant church to be unwilling to exercise discipline in its midst. Generally, Christians do not like to be portrayed as being judgmental or condemnatory. He says,

Few have shown the courage to draw even the most elementary distinctions between the truth of the Christian faith and that which differs from it. We know that every affirmation implies the negation of its opposite. Since we do not want to be caught negating anything, we do not make any significant affirmations either. I am exaggerating, of course, but the general pattern is a deep malaise inChristian theology, which hungers inordinately for an amiable reputation.[9]

Oden ruminates on why some consider inappropriate to call to task ordained persons within the church who flagrantly violate their teaching office by teaching false doctrine. He continues to ask why a judicatory within the church may not rightly question the continuation of that person’s office who would offend their call by teaching heresy. He concludes that ordination is not a right and that withholding such office is not unfair. On the other hand, the punishment must be no more than withholding the religious body’s permission to preach.[10]

Spencer, different from Oden, believes that though there may be false teachers in the church, they are still brothers and sisters in Christ who need correction not exposure or censure. He believes that apologists who mark out these brothers and sisters are merely “self-appointed watchdogs … nit-pickers” who “masquerade as scholars.” He thinks that such action on the part of apologists to preserve the doctrinal purity of the church divides the church and defames our fellow Christians. One wonders how the champions of fourth and fifth century orthodoxy would qualify under Spencer’s criteria?

Spencer then continues with some good questions, most of which, hopefully will be addressed in this article: “The division between genuine spiritual experience and the counterfeit is often hairline thin. Who is qualified to judge in these matters? What criteria must be used? How do we uproot evil without throwing out the baby with the bath water? Who dares to speak for God? Who will say this minister is qualified to preach and that one is not?”[11]

Oden’s call for a church judiciary will not work for Spencer’s concerns since usually those being criticized by contemporary apologists are not in a formal denomination which can exercise such judicial authority.

Not only is there the tendency to avoid disciplining those in the church, especially those ordained by the church to preach the gospel; but there is in present days the difficulty of seeing anything as heresy. We live in an atheological society. What in former days would have been prima facie judged as heresy is now passed over with little more than a yawn. The only heresy seems to be intolerance. Since heresy helps us to clarify orthodoxy, when no heresy truly exists, can orthodoxy exist? When nothing is wrong, is anything right’? If we are unwilling to call heresy what it is and mark out those who depart from the faith today, do we not owe an “apology” (in the popular sense) to Arius and those like him who departed less from orthodoxy than many within the church today?

In What Way Does Heresy Help The Orthodox Church?

Heresy as a formulation of doctrine appears on the scene earlier and more complete than does orthodoxy. The implicit doctrines of the Bible required challenge to clarify the true meaning of Scripture in view of that claimed by heretics. Thus, it is due to heresy that we have explicit statements of orthodoxy. This is no less true today.

Moreover, without the concern of orthodoxy against heresy we would be absent the important theologies of eastern and western fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine.

When I say that heresy appears first and most complete, am I suggesting that it is truly prior to orthodoxy?[12] No! I am saying the formulation is earlier, not the truth of orthodoxy. Brown argues that the very constancy of orthodoxy against heterodoxy, seems to prove that heresy is secondary to orthodoxy:

Century after century, man’s religious imagination leads him to re-create ancient heresies in reaction to the same orthodoxy, which has now been constant for so long. Were the very first heresies, which we glimpse before we glimpse orthodoxy, also reactions? If they were, then it can reasonably be argued that the story of Christian theology is the story of truth. If not, it would be necessary to concede that the history of orthodoxy is the history of a usurpation-as indeed many eminent scholars have argued and still argue. It is not necessary to make this concession, and the history of orthodoxy is the history of truth.[13]

Today the followers of Pilate’s question-What is truth?-are not few in number. Truth necessarily separates, makes people unequal in understanding, is intolerant; and one who proclaims to know truth is viewed as angry or hateful toward those he seeks to correct. The postmodern culture believes itself to have certain truths, but they are in opposition to the truths of Scripture. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the truth; not all ways lead to God. Scripture tells us that we are to contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints, not that truth changes with the situation and the passing of time. Scripture tells us that the truth will make us free, not that having conviction of truth limits our experience.

What Makes A Heretic And How Does Heresy Arise?

How does one become a heretic? How would you know one if you saw one? How do heretical movements arise? In my opinion, tolerance of error and laxness of the orthodox church toward heresy and heretics help to create further heresy in the church. A little leaven, Jesus says, influences the entire loaf.

Recognizing a Heretic

Let us examine these different facets to help us develop skills needed to recognize heresy as opposed to intra-church controversies that are all within the bounds of orthodoxy. Brown gives five characteristics which tend to be present in heretical groups in the early centuries, many of which are true for heretical groups today:

1. a syncretistic blending of biblical ideas with themes drawn from other, i.e. pagan, Near Eastern sources;
2. a dualistic interpretation of the material world as hopelessly estranged, by nature, from the purely spiritual Father;
3. the teaching that a personal Savior has appeared on earth;
4. a rejection of the Jewish Scriptures as fraudulent or malicious;
5. an interest not only in secret lore, but in magic and the occult.

Conversely, orthodox Christianity held in common with Judaism several elements, namely,

1. monotheism;
2. the personhood of Cod;
3. the concept of verbal revelation;
4. the idea that God intervenes in real, space-time human history.

“The loss of any one of these” as Brown avers, “destroys Christianity, just as historic Judaism is unthinkable without all of them.[14]

For one to be a heretic does not require a rejection of the bulk of orthodox theology. Merely offending against any essential element puts one over against the entire Christian faith. Similar to James who said to break one law was to break the whole law (James 2:20), the interweaving of the essentials of the doctrine of Christ causes the unraveling of one doctrine impacts the whole. To deny the Trinity is to reject the necessary nature of Christ as redeemer, mediator, and substitutionary sacrifice. To modify the doctrine of the resurrection is to undercut the benefit of the cross.

Why does heresy arise?

Heresies and controversies regarding them are not unique to the period of the great councils of the church. Brown says they kept their voices down because of the danger of attracting official notice and further government displeasure. The immediate outbreak of a virulent controversy with personal abuse and maltreatment on both sides occurred just as soon as Constantine removed the threat of persecution. It almost makes it appear that theological wrangling is a necessary part of the Christian faith and that the ‘harmony of the brethren’ is an illusion.[15]

In fact, the major way to limit the controversies appears to have been persecution:

During the great persecutions, the state often helped to resolve differences among Christians by martyring all those involved in a dispute. Thus Maximinus Daza martyred the orthodox Peter of Alexandria, the pre-Arian Lucian of Antioch, and the outsider Methodius of Olympus. Once Constantine ended the threat of persecution, the full extent of the disunity within the early church became apparent; Arianism was its foremost manifestation.[16]

An investigation of the case of Arianism provides at least six reasons why a given heresy might arise and gain a hold, even a strangle-hold, upon the orthodox community.

The first cause of heresy is obvious, but necessary, for its existence. It is failure to hold to the historic teachings of the church. But this not require, and rarely ever consists, of explicit doctrine. Rather, it is lack of adherence to implicit teachings extracted from the Bible. The sacred text sets forth the proper and necessary information from which one develops a theology but the text itself is not a theology. Arius and his followers were not ignorant of Holy Scripture but erred by drawing wrong inferences from the teachings of the generation of the Son.[17] They were unable to accept the idea of a pre-existent Son who was not also created, contrary to passages that indicated the equality of the Father and the Son.

In concert with this mistake, was the unwillingness to live with tension in Christian theology. This is not to say that all theology must be in tension. But in understanding divine mysteries of the nature of God, often one must pronounce the understanding of God’s unity and plurality as not contrary to logic but nonetheless inscrutable. This Arius, and heretics before and after him, have chosen not to do. The truth about the trinity of God, the dual natures of Christ, as well as other doctrines, requires one not to err on the left or the right. Such action is what has given rise to most of the heresies of the first several centuries of the church.

Heresies such as Ebionism, Appollanarianism, Sabellism, Nestorianism, Euthucianism, and Arianism reside on extremes; the creeds hold the truths in tension. Richard Hooker put it well when he said “Heresy is more plain than true whereas right belief is more true than plain.”[18]

A third reason for the rise, and often staying power. of heresy is the lack of proper ecclesiastical structure for the confrontation of heretics. With the passing of the apostles, heresy was allowed to arise with little check at times because of division in the church, generally east and west, or because of extra-church imposition. Concerning the latter I speak of the power of Rome under Constantine, in which he forced a resolution on the church at Nicea. One might retort that actually Constantine proved to be the benefactor of the church by calling the council and introducing the term homoousios into the discussion. I would agree that he certainly hastened the discussion, but hardly had the ink dried on the Creed than Constantine and his successor son in the east ended up supporting the Arian cause. Gnosticism, Montanism, and Modalism had been successfully attacked by the apologists of the orthodox church without government help-actually in spite of government persecution-and I suspect that Athanasius and other defenders would have succeeded in winning the day too. In reality, this did occur as the western church had more influence due to the apostolic see in Rome and the drafting of the Constantinoplitan and Chalcedonian creeds were adopted. Whether my analysis is correct here or not, heresy was brought under greater control in the first millennium church due to greater unification of the church around the articulated faith of the fathers and the councils.

A fourth reason for the origin of heresy comes from either deliberate misuse of terms or confusion due to honest disagreement over which terms best expressed the doctrine. For example in the Arian some of the controversy was due to differences between the meaning of terms used by the western church, which spoke Latin, with the eastern church, who spoke Greek. Western terminology seemed to be modalistic to Greeks; though this was disputed in the arguments of Athanasius and Alexander, his teacher. Brown explains the results of the terminology:

In the effort to make this linguistic tangle intelligible, let us note that when the Greeks described the Trinity as mia ousia en trisin hypostasesi, ‘one substance (essence) in three subsistences (persons),’ they could be misunderstood as saying, ‘one essence in three substances,’ in other words, three gods. When the Latins, on the other hand, said, una substantia in tribus personis, ‘one substance in three persons,’ they could be understood as saying one hypostasis (‘person’) in three roles, in other words, of teaching Sabellian modalism. As frustrating as this linguistic tangle is to examine at a distance of sixteen centuries, it is hard for us to imagine the indignation and horror provoked among the orthodox by dialogue partners whom they perceived as propounding tritheism or modalism. Nevertheless, we may say in retrospect that the long linguistic confrontation was useful both theologically and psychologically. The distinction between ousia and hypostasis, substantia, and persona, ‘essence’ and ‘person,’ had to be clarified in order to permit us even to grasp what is meant by saying that Three-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-are God, yet God is not three, but One. The effort to gain a clear concept of what is meant by a person as an individual, as applied to the Persons of the Trinity, produced a better understanding of the nature of the human person as something more than a mere temporary constellation of atoms, impulses, and emotions.[19]

The orthodox sometimes undermined their own case, as in the case of Clement of Alexandria, in refuting the gnostics called Christianity the true gnosis and a Christian a true gnostic.[20]

Another reason for the development of heresy is that often orthodox Christians, even teachers of the church, are willing to compromise on doctrine. Three parties existed at Nicea, namely, the Arians, Athanasius and his supporters (the smallest group), and a large group of bishops, many of whom were neither skilled in theology nor interested in the controversy. This middle group was the largest contingent at Nicea and adopted the homoiousios perspective. Constantine desired to unite the empire by ending the dispute; at the counsel of his theological advisor, proposed homoousios, which was readily accepted. After Nicea and its condemnation of Arianism, this large contingent merely side aside the decision of Nicea by understanding the same essence as similar essence.

To clarify the troubling situation, Basil of Ancyra persuaded Constantine to take a step backward and approve a formula that was in essence pro-Nicene even though it did not use the controversial homoousios but substituted the blander homoiousios (“of similar nature”). The only difference, the iota (i), did not trouble most of the bishops, but Athanasius refused to compromise: it was Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world.” For the moment, the world, willing to compromise and say homoiousios, was victorious. The victory of the homoiousiansa rather artificial grouping, formed out of a desire for compromise rather than any strong theological impulse-was not less dramatic for being contrived.[21]

The battle was not truly won on this matter until A.D. 381. Compromise is clearly the easier path but rarely, if ever, resolves a problem.

The last reason for the rise of heresy is the rejection of the authority of the canonical Scripture, and the acceptance of the teachings of the apostles. People who reject the authority of Scripture. Do not have the apostolic word from which to develop sound doctrine. For example, “Marcion was in a sense a “fundamentalist,” in that he believed that he was correctly interpreting an authoritative, written revelation; Montanus was a “charismatic,” who maintained that he received direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.[22]

We in the English speaking world enjoy many advantages over the theologians who developed the creeds of the church. Generally, we do not have the confusion brought about by difference of meanings between languages, such as Latin and Greek. We also have a long history of the use of words in the theology and creeds of the church and should not readily surrender accepted uses of terms for novel uses that change the meaning, though giving the appearance of orthodoxy. We have the advantage of the historic creeds of the first several centuries of the Church, as well as the creeds and confessions of our perspective communion, which in general build on these creeds, though certainly reflecting particular debates not envisioned in the early creeds. Last, we have the benefits of the lessons of history surrounding the controversies, and if we will may benefit from these lessons to avoid pitfalls others have taken.

Questions To Ask In Evaluating Heresy

In his book decrying “heresy hunters,” as he calls them, James Spencer poses several questions that should be considered when deciding who is a heretic and what view is heretical. Spencer poses his questions to minimize “heresy hunting” but I believe his questions are reasonable.

How Do We Distinguish Heresy From Orthodoxy?

Previous discussion would indicate that orthodoxy and heresy are often not far apart in expression though there may be a great divide in meaning. This not so, few would be attracted to heresy. It is like the imitation desserts in the restaurants that attempt to be an identical representation of the genuine or a counterfeit bill over against the genuine bill. Heresy tries to look like orthodoxy. As Irenaeus states in Against Heresies:

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 truth itself.[23]

But another reason for this similarity is that the heresy is usually a slight, though fatal, deviation from the orthodox view due to the heretics attempt to resolve a misunderstood or unacceptable element in the true view.

How Should Heresies And Heretics Be Disciplined?

Who should judge heresy? Spencer repeatedly speaks of self-appointed persons who criticize Christian teachers of heresy.[24] He acknowledges we need to be vigilant in our task of being on guard against heresy but he is unsure as to who should do this watching.[25]

Simply because a given individual declares someone to be a heretic does not make it so, but how does anyone become judged heretical if no one begins the claim. Remember, Athanasius was in a small minority at the beginning of the Nicean Council of A.D. 325. He was merely a deacon in the church at Alexandria, and others at the council were more distinguished than he. Nonetheless, the force of his arguments and the resultant impact of the issue won the day.

Who appoints the “heresy hunter?” Does this person need an official body to speed him on his way? Could not an individual seek to raise the consciousness of the church about the heresy and then gain a consensus? What about several countercult organizations issuing a joint proclamation? Would this be equivalent to the actions of a synod? These are all considerations for the one decrying the unveiling of heresies in our day.

Every Christian is accountable to God for what they believe. Biblically the believer is called upon to study the Bible and to show himself approved to God, rightly dividing the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul called the Berean Christians more noble (eugenes) than the Thessalonians because they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching them was true (Acts 17:11). Proverbs exhorts us to get an understanding with all our ability (Prov. 4:7). Today’s church does not have the cohesion the church had at its beginning. There is no one ecclesiastical court to which one can appeal. If an individual is teaching heresy and is forced out of one organization that individual can join another, or start their an independent branch of the Church with little censure. In evangelical churches today, it is the local pastor or the elders, who are responsible for protecting the congregational flock from aberrant and heretical teachings. Most evangelical churches are independent of any organizational oversight or are loosely affiliated with some non-binding fellowships. All of this places weight on the individual believer to study the Bible as never before.

Many Christians believe that passing judgment on another Christian is in violation of Scripture against judging. This is a major misunderstanding of our Lord’s teaching. Robert Bowman in an excellent book on the matter of orthodoxy and heresy sets forth the unbiblical examples of judging and the biblically appropriate types of judging. Christians are not to be involved with hypocritical, unjust, and presumptuous judging but are to judge truth from error and good from evil. Believers are to judge unrepentant sinners in the church and teachers of false doctrines.[26]

Biblical Teaching on How to Deal with Heretics

As has been already discussed, heresy takes two basic forms: factions or party spirit, and doctrinal error. Paul lists heresies among twelve other works of the flesh in his letter to the Galatian Christians (Gal. 5:20–21), some of whom were slipping into Jewish legalism. Those given over to such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The church has taken differing measures to oppose heresies. In the early centuries without the powers of the state, heretics were purged from the Christian community while later, with the authority of government, heretics were often banished or killed. The earlier form of dealing with heretics more accords with the teaching of Scripture. For example in Romans 16:17, Paul tells the Church to mark (skopeo, take note, to consider) those that cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. He told the Church to avoid (ekklino) them because they do not serve Christ, but their own appetites. He informs Titus (Tit. 3:10–11) that a heretick (KJV) is to be admonished (nouthesia, warned) twice, after the second admonition he is to be rejected. If the individual refuses to change his attitude, the church will know that the individual is subverted (ekstrepho, perverted) and in sin and has self-condemned (autokatakritos) himself by his beliefs.

John warns the Church that if a person does not bring correct doctrine, do not (1) receive him into your house, and (2) do not bid him God speed. To do so is to partake of his evil deeds (2 Jn 1:10–11). In context, the doctrine John is writing about concerns Christology, the doctrine of Christ. At the time of his writing, the Church still met in peoples’ houses. The application for us today is that we are not to allow people who do not hold onto the cardinal doctrines of Christ to be allowed access to God’s people via the local Church.

Peter warns that as there were false prophets, even so there will be false teachers among us (Peter may have been recalling the parable of the wheat and tares in Matt. 13:28–30) who will bring in damnable heresies and many (polus) will follow their ways (2 Pet. 2:1–3). Peter considers such to be inheritors of damnation.

The Lord Jesus takes note of the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:2) whose leaders tried (peirazo) those who called themselves apostles and were not. These leaders found by examination that those so-called apostles were liars. From this, we see that church leadership is to examine those who come to them proclaiming status in the church, i.e., their belief system. If their beliefs do not conform to the faith once delivered to the saints, then they are to be rejected and marked (Rom. 16:17). Heretics are to be warned (I Thess. 5:14) (noutheteo). Those who did not acknowledge Paul’s teaching to the Corinthians were not to be recognized ( I Cor.14:37). Those who refused to obey apostolic instruction were to be (1) noted (semeioo) and (2) believers were to shun those people that they might be ashamed (2 Thess. 3:14). Those who advocate a different doctrine than that which has been delivered by the apostles is conceited, and knows nothing (I Tim. 6:3–).

Bad men will proceed from bad to worse, deceived and deceiving others. The church however, is called to continue in the things we have been taught and become convinced of knowing from whom they have come (2 Tim. 3:13–14).

False prophets will come; they will be like wolves; but the church will know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:15–23). We are called to inspect the fruit produced by those who claim to possess authority over the members of the Body of Christ.

In Paul’s closing remarks before he departed for Rome he reminded the church leaders to be on guard for themselves and the flock. Why? Because wolves would attack from without and men would rise up from within to carry off disciples after themselves (Acts 20:27–30). His remedy? He committed them to the Word of God’s Grace which was, and is, able to build up the Church and provide an inheritance for the saints.

But in judging, are we to name names? Would this not improperly defame our brothers and sisters as Spencer denounces? Should we not rather look to the fruit of their labors? Is it right to divide the body of Christ over doctrine? Are we not being too picky over words ?[27]

Bowman rightly says that division is not caused by those who “blow the whistle” on those teaching false doctrine, but on the false teachers.[28] This is borne out by Romans 16:7: The unity of the faith is to be maintained by adhering to sound doctrine (Eph. 4:13–16).

Often those guilty of teaching false doctrine hide behind the claim of being God’s anointed messenger, and people are not to “touch God’s anointed.” Bowman does a good job in explaining the development of this terminology.[29] The point for this article is that the phrase spoke of putting to death God’s anointed, not of criticizing them. No one is above the evaluation of the Word of God by the people of God. In fact, Christians are explicitly told to censure false teachers in the church (Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:3; Tit. 1:11; 3: 10–11).

When the “holy laughter” movement was just starting I was doing a radio talk show on the subject. My purpose was to hear people on both sides of the question, asking for biblical justification for or against the practice. Those supporting the phenomenon never came forth with any serious biblical teaching for it but often mentioned that I should not be asking for biblical verses for proof but instead I should look at the fruit produced from the experience. This perspective itself, however, is a doctrine. Why should this be accepted if one is not to judge based on doctrine? Second, though Jesus did give testing fruit as a test of a prophet’s ministry, it is not the only test. Other passages of Scripture argue for the doctrines of a teacher being the basis of whether to accept their ministry (I John 4:1–2). Claiming an experience is hardly proof of the appropriateness of one’s doctrine since many non-Christians also have various experiences which lead to happiness, love, etc., in as much as we can externally evaluate them. Last of all, the claim to miracles following someone’s ministry as a proof of its accuracy falls short since Scripture indicates that many false prophets produce signs and wonders (albeit false; Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; Deut. 13:1–5). One’s doctrine is, by definition, the standard of one’s truthfulness.

Some teachers are willing to criticize false teachings as long as one does not mention the specific teachers who are bringing these false teachings. This supposedly, divides the Church; however false teachers and their teachings are viewed in Scripture as dividing the Church. Except for their false teaching their is unity of the faith. Rather than backing away from naming individuals, Paul, at times, had no hesitation (Hymenaeus and Alexander in I Tim. 1:20 and Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Tim. 2:17). Bowman gives two reasons why the names of false teachers should be named:

One reason why giving names can be important is that if false doctrines are spoken of in generalities, people will often deny that their teachers are responsible for those doctrines. In many cases people will not believe that their favorite teachers are espousing false doctrines unless exact quotes are produced from their writings or sermons documenting the errors.[30]

Then Bowman says,

If someone is an unrepentant false teacher, we need to do more than reject that person’s specific false doctrines. We need to have nothing to do with that person. ‘Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned’ (Titus 3:10–11). These are strong words, even harsh, but they are also inspired words from God. The person who creates factions by teaching different, false doctrine is to be rejected. For that rejection to be consistent throughout the church, the false teacher needs to be publicly named.[31]

One might argue that a person making heretical statements is merely careless in terminology and should not be judged as a professional theologian. Bowman is correct to say that these persons then are “teaching on doctrinal or theological matters beyond their competency.”[32] If this is occurring, they should refrain from teaching doctrine. For example when Benny Hinn spoke of each of the Godhead as being nine persons, even though he is not a theologian, he must be judged by his careless words: “God the Father is a Person, God the Son is a Person, and God the Holy Ghost is a Person, but each of Them is a triune Being by Himself. If I can shock you, and maybe I should, there’s nine of Them.[33] James indicates that not many should be teachers (Jam. 3:1), and Peter says that some people “untaught and unstable” distort the Word of God (2 Pet. 3:16). The lack of training on the part of many who teach false doctrine today is no excuse (I Tim. 1:3, 7; 6:3–4) Even if Hinn does not really believe in nine persons of the Godhead, people who listen to this nonsense may very well adopt this heresy. Though one or two misstatements publicly may not disqualify one for ministry, the repeated statements of false teaching, especially after loving correction as has been given Hinn, brings into serious question whether he should continue a gospel ministry until after he has received thorough orthodox theological training.

The last excuse to explore is offered by Spencer in a section of his book on out-of-context statements.” He criticizes “heresy hunters” with oversimplifying “the complex process of human communication.” Allegedly “heresy hunters” “focus on minute slivers” of sermons, on “irregular words or phrases.” It is true that one must carefully look at the intent of an author or speaker and perceive the broad and narrow context of the author. But words are important, and communicators must be diligent to be as precise as possible in the use of terms, to use them in ways so as not to be misunderstood by the receiver of the communication. This is why, in many ways, the whole matter of heterodoxy and orthodoxy has generally been a discussion of particular terms. ‘Mere is small distinction between homoousian and homoiousian as far as sound and appearance, but same essence and similar essence means the difference between being God and being merely a creature of God. Another example is the matter of the resurrection. When one savers that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, in the same body in which He was put to death, the issue of the meaning of resurrection, the meaning of body, and same body becomes very important. Body is a word of physicality; to rise from the dead the resurrection had to be in a physical body, for there is none other. For him to rise in the same body means that the very physical body in which He died on the cross was not changed into another body. To rise in another body is reincarnation, not resurrection, This is not to question that the physical body in which He died was given unique properties of immortality and incorruptibility. We must be careful about our words to be orthodox (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13, 15–18).[34]

The Importance of Polemics and Irenics

The discipline of polemics concerns itself directly with attacks on Biblical truth from those who name the name of Christ. Irenics, on the other hand, concerns itself with striving to determine what makes for peace within the boarders of the Church.

While polemics tried to mark out the borders of Christianity, irenics talked about the conditions for peace within the borders. While polemics tried precisely to identify the forms of the dissensus falling between faith and unfaith, irenics looked for the deeper forms of consensus within the community of faith…. Polemical orthodoxy without irenic orthodoxy is combative and overly aggressive; irenics without polemics is borderless and diffuse.[35]

Those who hope to deal effectively with heretics should possess both capabilities. Oden provides a helpful and amusing want ad for this kind of position:

HELP WANTED: Christian polemicist. Ph.D. Must be courageous, honest, and thoroughly schooled both in the exacting logic of orthodoxy and the sciences of modernity; intelligent, witty, committed, tough; hard as nails in public debate, but with a warm heart and human touch; must be able to sharpen with precision the fine theological distinctions that modem audiences often find irritating and difficult to grasp, yet make them clear and as interesting to us as they have been for the ancients. Must be morally incorruptible and willing to die for the cause. Weare an equal opportunity employer.[36]

As Christians we are all called upon to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). We are all called upon to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Love is the governing principle by which all truth, corrective or instructive, is to be presented. The guide of Rupertus Meldenius must be our guide as well: “In necessariis, unitas; in non necessariis, libertas; in utrisque, caritas’ (‘in essentials, unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity’).”[37]

What standard should be used in determining heresy?

Scripture and creeds serve as the bases for orthodoxy. Scripture is norma nornians (norming norm, ultimate standard) while the creeds are norma normata (normed norm, standardized standard). One would be foolish not to accept the wisdom of the great orthodox thinkers of the past when establishing one’s own theology. Though the historic creeds must be judged by the Scripture, the creeds are not to be ignored in expressing the uniform teaching of the Church and providing a safeguard against distortion of doctrine and novelty of viewpoints. Failure to have continuity with historic Christianity leaves one wandering apart from the communion of the saints with the multitude of counselors.

The example of the Nicene homoousion and its interpretation at the close of the fourth century gives an insight into the fundamental meaning of the Scripture principle, which we may also describe as the distinction between the norma normans and the norma normata. The norma normans, or “norming norm,” is the ultimate standard, the standard by which all secondary standards are set. For all Christians, very clearly and explicitly from the time of Irenaeus on, the Holy Scripture itself has been this kind of norm (although the expression norma normans itself is of much later origin). Because the Scripture itself is complex on the one hand and lacking in precise theological definitions on the other, it has always been both a theological and a practical pastoral necessity to epitomize the Bible’s teachings in credal formulas. These became norms for Christian faith, by which the understanding and interpretation of theologians as well as of candidates for baptism could be measured. Such a creed may be called a norina norma, a “normed norm” or “standardized standard.” When the naive Christian understanding of basic doctrines was closely scrutinized or even attacked by outsiders or from within the church, it became necessary to reach an explicit consensus concerning whether the naive understanding was actually the correct one. Such an explicit consensus is exemplified in a dramatic way in the ecumenical creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Nevertheless, even a creed is only a structure made up of human terms; and creeds, like the Bible, can be interpreted in more than one way.

If the Bible, because of its size and the variety of its structure, offers many possibilities of divergent interpretations, something similar can be said for the creeds. Because of their brevity-which is a necessary attribute in a test formula they demand interpretation. We interpret the Scripture by the creeds. But by what standard shall we measure the creeds themselves?[38] The answer, of course, is clearly indicated in the distinction between normans and normata. Christians naturally turn back to the Scripture itself to test the validity of their standardized standards, the creeds. A creed is normed, not norming. This statement may sound fine in theory, but how can we be certain that it is in reality the Scripture that norms the creeds, and not the creeds or Reformation confessions of faith that norm our understanding of Scripture? At this point, it seems to be necessary to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is here that we have the difference between orthodoxy as C. K. Chesterton praised it, orthodoxy as a positive force enabling us to give to God the right glory that is his due, and orthodoxy in the negative sense in which it becomes a straitjacket for living faith and Christian freedom.[39]

We should recognize three levels of doctrinal disagreement. The first level is heresy, the rejection of essential doctrines of Christianity relating to the person and work of Christ. These matters are usually fairly clear to most of us. One would be a heretic to deny that God is one essence and three persons, or that Jesus is fully God and fully man, or that Jesus rose from the dead bodily, or that Jesus provided the only basis and means to redemption from sins through His death on the cross, or that Jesus is coming again. On the other hand, that there are diversions from these doctrines, which are not in themselves heresy, but clearly a misunderstanding of the orthodox view which is logically followed would give rise to heresy. In this classification would be the rejection of the economic trinity, the denial that Jesus rose in the same physical body of flesh in which He died, or that Jesus’ second coming is spiritually in the Church or at A.D. 70. We might debate over whether these are essential or tangential to the essentials. Last, there are honest, sincere disagreements over doctrine that though believed, and even if wrong, are not denials of essentials nor lead to heresy. In this category, I would include views of the timing of the second coming or understandings of election. Calvin elucidates on this theme:

For all the articles of true doctrine are not of the same description. Some are so necessary to be known, that they ought to be universally received as fixed and indubitable principles, as the peculiar maxims of religion; such as, that there is one God; that Christ is God and the Son of God; that our salvation depends on the mercy of God; and the like. There are others, which are controverted among the churches, yet without destroying the unity of the faith…. Diversity of opinion respecting … non-essential points ought not to be a cause of discord among Christians … It is of importance, indeed, that we should agree in everything; but as there is no person who is not enveloped with some cloud of ignorance, either we must allow of no church at all, or we must forgive mistakes in those things, of which persons may be ignorant, without violating the essence of religion, or incurring the loss of salvation. Here I would not be understood to plead for any errors, even the smallest, or to recommend their being encouraged by connivance or flattery. But I maintain, that we ought not, on account of every trivial difference of sentiment, to abandon the Church, which retains the saving and pure doctrine that insures the preservation of piety, and supports the use of the sacraments instituted by our Lord… Every member of the Church is required to exert himself for the general edification, according to the measure of his grace, provided he do it decently and in order; that is to say, that we should neither forsake the communion of the Church, nor, by continuing in it, disturb its peace and well regulated discipline.[40]

Conclusion

In conclusion, Christians have a duty to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy and to insure the purity of the Church in this matter. In so doing, we must always be on guard not to hastily judge someone as a heretic until such becomes plain to ourselves and others of like faith. The Scriptures provide the standard, and the history of the Church provides us guidelines and examples both of orthodox doctrine and how to deal with heresy. Purity in the Church is a perennial task, and diligence to orthodoxy is not an easy task. With a loving manner and commitment to the Word of God, we must endeavor to follow this straight path.

Notes

1. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 7. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 246; see Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 27.
2. Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1984), 2.
3. Ibid.
4. Thomas C. Oden, After Modernity: What? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 74.
5. Lewis Sperry Chafer distinguishes apostasy from heresy: “Apostasy is well described as ‘a total departure from one’s faith or religion; abandonment of creed and renunciation of religious obligations’ (Standard Dictionary, 1913 edition). On the other hand, heresy refers to a belief which is held in variance with standards or accepted features of doctrine. The term heretic does not imply having embraced doctrine from which one has finally departed.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. VIP Doctrinal Summarization (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 17. Thus apostasy usually refers to the actual departure from and repudiation of the Christian faith, even physical separation whereas heresy is used of persons within the Christian movement who did not repudiate the Christian faith but instead deviate in one or more crucial doctrines from orthodoxy. Rather than voluntarily leaving the Christian church they more likely would be anathematizes. This is not to deny that apostates were heretical but that heretics were not necessarily apostates from the faith.
6. Brown, 3.
7. Note the affirmation of the Second Council of Constantinople: “We hold that faith which our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy apostles, and through them to the holy churches, and which they who after them were holy fathers and doctors [teachers], handed down to the people committed to them.” Cited by Oden, 161.
8. Brown, 3.
9. Oden, 156.
10. Ibid., 171.
11. James R. Spencer, Heresy Hunters (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1993), 16–18.
12. Oden, The Living God: Systematic Theology: Volume One (1987), 346: “Clement of Alexandria argued that tradition was prior to heresy (Strom. VII.17, ANF 11, 554, 555).”
13. Brown, 5.
14. Ibid., 15.
15. Ibid., 114.
16. Ibid., 115.
17. In contrast, Brown gives an excellent example of false teaching which does not qualify as heresy, the teaching of Rudolf Bultmann on the person of Jesus Christ. In response to the World Council of Churches’ required confession of acknowledging “Jesus Christ as God and Savior” Bultmann pointed out the ancient church’s perspective that Jesus is God and man. Bultmann went on to condemn the World Council and the Council of Chalcedon of 451 saying that such teaching was totally impossible. Brown then explains: “From the perspective of our study, Bultmann’s view hardly deserves to be called a heresy. Most, if not all, of the great heresies were attempts to explain, to come to terms with the sweeping implications of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The events themselves were seen as real, if totally unique, occurrences that had to be explained… For Bultmann the events vary from the extremely improbable to the altogether inconceivable. They are not realities that need to be explained, either in orthodox or heretical terms, but rather they are themselves explanations. What they ‘explain,’ or rather attest, is how much Jesus meant to his disciples…. With Bultmann, then, theology and Christology have not merely moved beyond orthodoxy, they have moved beyond heresy. Even heresy was a doctrine about Christ, albeit a wrong one. Bultmann’s presentation is not a doctrine about anyone or anything: it is instead an urgent appeal to human beings to understand themselves in a new way, on the basis of an encounter with an amazing story, a very interesting one, but one that never actually ‘happened’ in any usual meaning of the word.” Ibid., 440-42.
18. Quoted in Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Vol. 2 (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), 269.
19. Brown, 130. Brown carefully analyzes the complex state of affairs: “The Greek term ousia is a noun derived from the verb ‘to be’; the direct Latin equivalent is essentia, from esse, ‘to be’; the English equivalents are ‘essence,’ from the Latin, and ‘being,’ from the Germanic root ‘be.’ Unfortunately the usual Latin term used to translate ousia is not essentia, but substantia, from substo, ‘to stand beneath.’ Thus consubstantialis is the Latin translation of homoousios. This is the source of numerous difficulties, especially in view of the fact that for decades the Greeks used ousia interchangeably with hypostasis. Hypostasis is derived from hyphistamai, ‘to exist’ or ‘to subsist, and hence has the Latin equivalent subsistentia, from the verb subsisto. Subsisto, which resembles substo, from which it is derived, is close to substo in meaning, but while substo and its derivatives imply the undifferentiated, underlying reality or substance, subsisto and its derivatives imply a determined, particular reality, not the underlying substance of which the reality partakes. Hence the Greek term hypostasis, and to a lesser degree its Latin cognate subsistentia, ultimately came to be used to mean what we know as a person: an individual, determined, sentient, personal reality that partakes of a general essence: the hypostasis, or subsistentia, of Mr. Jones is his person, which is his alone; his ousia, or substantia, which he shares with all other humans, is his human nature. Unfortunately this already somewhat perplexing situation is made worse by the false friendship between hypostastis and substantia; in fact, substantia is a Latin technical term coined in the imperial period by analogy with the Greek hypostasis generally was used to mean ‘underlying substance’ rather than ‘individual, determined reality,’ i.e. ‘person.’ The development of Greek theological language eventually used hypostasis in contradistinction to ousia to designate ‘individual, personal reality, while the apparently similar Latin word substantia was used to translate the Greek ousia and to mean ‘underlying reality,’ i.e. ‘essence.’ Latin borrowed the word persona, the ‘person,’ from res, the ‘thing,’ to translate hypostasis. Unfortunately persona has a direct Greek equivalent in prosopon. Prosopon was used like persona to mean a (theatrical) ‘mask,’ and also ‘face,’ but seldom to mean ‘person’ in the newly developed sense of an individual, sentient representative of a particular reality.” Ibid., 129, 130.
20. Ibid., 87.
21. Ibid., 124.
22. Ibid., 66.
23. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2, quoted by Brown, 6.
24. See Spencer, 16, 17, 50. 15
25. Ibid., 17, 18.
26. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Orthodox), & Heresy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 27–32.
27. All of these are given as reasons for apologists for orthodoxy not to criticize various persons charged by them with heresy. Spencer, 55–69.
28. Bowman, 33–35.
29. Ibid., 35-36.
30. Ibid., 37-39 for a full discussion of this.
31. Ibid., 40.
32. Ibid.
33. Spoken in a sermon on October 15, 1990 as cited by Spencer, 59.
34. See Bowman, 43–44 for further discussion.
35. Oden, After Modernity, 173.
36. Ibid., 172, 173.
37. Ibid., 173.
38. See Oden, The Living God, 344.
39. Brown, 134.
40. Hugh Thomson Kerr, A Compend of the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1939), 157.