Orthodoxy & Heresy: The History of the Church at odds with itself
If there is one thing that Protestants are often guilty of it is most certainly being ignorant or at least naive of Church History. Historical Theology is more or less left to the academic world and often considered to be too “Catholic” to be of any use. This is unfortunate. I have found that we are “surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1) and these witnesses from the past can greatly enhance our passion for the Lord and our passion for truth. I’m often amazed that people hold beliefs or at least consider holding certain beliefs that were dealt with early in the first four centuries. Whether dealing with the low Christology of Liberal Protestantism or the concept of Jesus not being God as taught by Mormons & Jehovah Witnesses, we can look back nearly 1500 years (or more) and find that the questions and answers have not changed. We would do well to pay attention to Church History and the subject of Historical Theology in order to trace the development of doctrines which may help keep us from reinventing the wheel.
But what is heresy? Better yet, what is orthodoxy? Do these terms have clear definitions or are they simply words that scholars toss around in the hopes of confusing the general reader? If orthodoxy is “good,” than is it safe to assume that heresy is always “bad”? Has heresy served a purpose? How has the authority to declare that which is heretical and that which is orthodox? Does the Roman Catholic Church have this power or do the Orthodox Churches (e.g. Greek Orthodox, Roman Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox)? What about Protestants and their insistence that the Scriptures alone carry the truth (Sola Scriptura)? But then we must ask, how has the correct interpretation of the Scriptures?
I’m convinced that there is much we can learn from Church History and yet I’m equally impressed with the reality that time is precious and that most people will probably not purchase Philip Schaff’s eight volume History of the Christian Church (despite it being excellent). I doubt most will pick up Bruce Shelley’s Church History in Plain Language, Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church, or any of the other fantastic works on the subject (the above picture of Brown’s Heresies is another excellent work on the subject). It’s just simply not a priority for most people aside from seminarians or scholars. And, if we’re being honest, most pastor’s would probably rather read a copy of the Leadership Journal.
So, since I’m convinced that Church History is important and I’m also equally impressed that time is precious, what is our solution? The Internet! Most specifically, thinktheology.org. Yes, come to us for all of your theological needs… okay, that sounds quite excessive, rather depressing, and extremely arrogant! But we certainly have something to contribute. At any rate, I’m going to share some interesting stories and insights into the development of what many of us take for granted. We’ll come to terms with just how awesome Athanasius really was and how he more or less single-handedly dealt Arianism, the belief that simply asserted that Jesus was not fully God, the death blow. This is helpful for those who may be dealing with current belief systems that also deny this (e.g. Mormons). We’ll also come to terms with men such as Polycarp, Origin, Tertullian, Augustine and then work our way into the lives of men such as St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and what ultimately led to the Reformation.
Studying Church History is filled with many stories of redemption and ridicule. It has its ups and its downs. On one hand you see orthodoxy rise and on the other heresy spreads. It is the “battle” of the orthodox against the heretics, or at least it seems to often be reduced to such. Perhaps my favorite quote concerning the topic of heresy and orthodoxy comes from the late Harold Brown, who stated,
“Heresy… presupposes orthodoxy. And, curiously enough, it is heresy that offers us some of the best evidence for orthodoxy, for while heresy is often very explicit in the first centuries of Christianity, orthodoxy is often only implicit. If we hope, today, that the orthodoxy we believe is the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude v. 3), then it is necessary to assume that it is older than heresy. But heresy appears on the historical record earlier, and is better documented, than what most of the church came to call orthodoxy. How then can heresy be younger, orthodoxy more original? The answer is that orthodoxy was there from the beginning, and heresy reflected it. Sometimes one catches a glimpse of another person or object in a mirror or a lake before seeing the original. But the original preceded the reflection, and our perception of it. The same, we would argue, is true of orthodoxy — the original — and heresy — the reflection. The heresy we frquently see first, but orthodoxy preceded it.” - Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, p. 4
Thus, we can recognize that heresy has played its part within the development of what is often considered orthodox and essential. From these initial thoughts, let’s consider some questions:
- How do you define “Orthodoxy” and “Heresy” and who do you believe can determine those terms?
- Do you view “Heresy” as a positive or a negative or are you unsure how to react to it?
- Why do you think many Christians ignore Church History? Does it matter?
Since this will more than likely be a weekly series, I’ll give you a heads up on next weeks subject: the early churches first major disagreement.
Anybody care to guess what is both scripturally and historically the first major problem? I’ll give you a hint: I don’t consider Acts 6’s problem between the “Hellenistic” Jews and the “Hebrew” Jews to be the first major problem.
“Infra” or “Supra”: take your pick!
Since our discussion on God’s Sovereignty has been so popular and somewhat controversial, I figured I could enhance the discussion by beginning another on a somewhat related subject. Perhaps the most interesting area of discussion was in regards to God’s Decrees. Well, here’s some homework for you folks. I realize not all of you are Reformed (yet) but I’d like to know your thoughts on infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism.
Perhaps I lost you already. Unless you’ve sat through endless lectures in Seminary or you really like to study, you have probably never heard of those words. Well, today you’re going to learn something new (aren’t you excited?!?!). Your homework is to read Divine Decrees, an article by Dr. Sam Storms. It’s a fairly quick read and simply provides a short explanation of the various positions regarding the Decrees. For those who are not willing to read our homework, Storms provides the following explanations:
- “Supralapsarian” is derived from two Latin words which, when combined, reflect the view that the decree of predestination (that is, the decree to elect and reprobate) precedes or is “above” (supra) the decree concerning the fall (lapsus).
- “Infralapsarianism” contends that the decree of predestination is subsequent to or “below” (infra) the decree concerning the fall.
So, what do you think? “Infra” or “Supra”? Storms (and most Reformed folks I know or follow) would clearly fall into the infralapsarian category, but I’m curious to know what you think. Perhaps you are an Arminian Infralapsarian, that’s fine too. Just explain your thoughts and reasons!
Do you “fear” God or… not?
“We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man’s terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.” — William Gurnall
William Gurnall was the 17th century author who wrote The Christian in Complete Armour, a pragmatic commentary of sorts based on the apostle Paul’s sixth chapter of Ephesians. The book was loved by men such as Richard Baxter, John Flavel, and Charles Spurgeon. In fact, Spurgeon said, “peerless and priceless; every line full of wisdom. The book has been preached over scores of times and is, in our judgment, the best thought-breeder in all our library.” John Newton, the infamous Anglican Priest, former slave-ship captain, and author of Amazing Grace said that if had to choose one other book besides the Bible, Gurnall’s The Christian in Complete Armour would have been his choice.
In light of Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7; 9:10; 15:33; Isa. 11:2; 33:6; and Mic. 6:9, what do you think about the concept of “fearing” God? Can you relate to the awe and splendor of a Holy God that causes you to tremble or is it difficult to relate in this way to a God who is love (1 John 4:8, 16)?
TGIF - Links to the weekend…
In celebration of Friday, here are some interesting links from this week…
Is it possible to be fired up about God and still be lost in sin, without Christ, and heading towards eternal destruction? Cary writes about the apostle Paul’s thoughts on the matter from Rom. 10:1-4.
Scot McKnight asks, “What do Evangelicals do well?” What an interesting question. McKnight states that (1) we are good at being properly ecumenical, (2) we are good at urging everyone to experience the new birth, (3) we are good at the importance of theology, and (4) we are good at the need for personal transformation. What do you think we are good at (assuming you are an Evangelical)?
I’m not sure if any of you read Christians in Context; if you don’t, start. Andrew Faris has written an interesting article, “Hermeneutical Guidelines for a Theology of Worship, pt. 1,” that I think is interesting enough to suggest everyone reads. I have no idea if we’d reach the same conclusions, but from what I read, I like. Next week, Faris will give us a guiding principle in regards to worship. I look forward to that!
Can you marry the wrong person? Whoa. Have fun!
Well, that kind of sums up some blogs I visited today. Hope you enjoy!
How do you define “Church”?
I’m in the midst of writing an essay on the nature of the Church, specifically hoping to address what exactly the church is and I thought it’d be fun to get the opinions of everyone here. I guess I need a break from my research and writing. So the question is:
What is the Church?
Feel free to write a paragraph or two in answer to this question. Explain your beliefs using Scriptures, opinions, references, etc. Everything and everyone is welcome. I’ve “ranted” about this subject before. I’m excited to read your thoughts… and read your comments and responses to each other!
You’ve Been Left Behind!
For those of you who buy into the PreTribulational Rapture theory, perhaps you can take advantage of this business ministry: You’ve Been Left Behind!
The websites purpose is to inform Christians’ unbeliving loved ones that the “rapture” has taken place. There are currently four active couples (and one alternate) who log into the system to ensure that the website does not email your loved ones. The assumption is that once Christians have been “raptured,” the system will notice that they have not logged in and will then send an informative email alerting your loved ones about the Gospel, thus this is “one last chance to bring them to Christ and snatch them from the flames!”
Boy, for those of you who are going to escape the Great Tribulation, I’d make sure to sign up! The cost is $40 a year! Well worth the price 
Sowing into the local church…
As a resident “church junkie,” as most of you know, I’ve been around churches for a long time. And as such, I’ve heard some startling statistics about most Christians’ participation and contribution. According to the Barna Group, fewer than 10% of “born again” Christians give 10% to their Church (read the article here). Even more surprising from this research is that those who do contribute are generally not considered “well off.” Those who contribute are those who, by all logical reasons, shouldn’t!
Read more
Videoblog: testing 1, 2, 3…
The #1 way to lose my attention in a discussion…
There are certain ways to hold a conversation about any given subject, along with certain rules that apply to having a discussion on a matter where two opposing people are attempting to interact on opposing ideas and opinions. The rules of logic are important for obvious reasons, but I’d like to suggest that there is another extremely important principle that would help many people in their ability to communicate.
Congrats to Mr. Obama!
Though I did not vote for Mr. Obama, I have an interesting mix of emotions right now! I’m greatly troubled that we may lose a great deal of ground in regards to extremely important moral issues (e.g. abortion, the definition of marriage, etc.). Yet, I’m also excited that we now have an African American President!
It just goes to show that times have greatly changed in the last twenty years. It was just 20 years ago that Jesse Jackson failed to become the Democratic nomination for the second time (Jackson attempted to capture the Democratic nomination in 1984 as well).
Read more
Polls
Loading ...
