Three (more) heresies and why they’re (also) wrong

I posted last week about three heresies which claim Jesus is not God, and I showed why these would mean his sacrifice was not enough to save us from our sins. Christianity’s good news, on the other hand, is that God has become incarnate and taken on himself the penalty for our sins.

In this post, I’m going to continue my exploration into ancient heresies. I’ll list another three classics, and show why they, too, are just not good enough news to be the good news of salvation.

The Council of Ephesus

1. Nestorianism:

This heresy teaches that that there were two separate natures, divine and human, in Christ. ‘Jesus’ (a normal human) and ‘the Son’ (2nd person of the Trinity) shared a body, but were two separate beings. Also called dyophysitism, from ‘duo’ (two) and ‘physes’ (natures).

Key dates: 5th Century

Key text: “God is not human” Numbers 23:19

Key supporter: School of Antioch, Nestorius

Implications: Jesus is not God. It also implies there are two Christs – the human Jesus, and the divine Son. Which one died for us? Is it okay to worship the human Christ? Nestorius seems to think so.

Answer: Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Scripture asserts this repeatedly. His humanity and divinity are in perfect union. He is therefore fully human and fully divine, and not divided or separated.

Key dates for answer: 431, Third Ecumenical Council (Council of Ephesus), and 451, Fourth Ecumenical Council (Council of Chalcedon)

Cyril of Alexandria

Key hammer: Cyril of Alexandria

Key text: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” – John 1:14

Implications: Jesus has to be fully human AND fully God, or his death on the cross is basically meaningless. He has to be fully human – God taking on our humanity and redeeming it – and he has to be fully God, because no normal human could pay the price for all the rest of humanity’s sins.

If his divine and human nature were separate, he was not incarnate. It would mean that his body was somehow not his, not part of him. This endorses pagan Greek gnostic beliefs that bodies are bad, totally contrary to Christianity, which says humanity is wonderfully made. And the fact that God came down, took on human flesh and lived among us, is wonderfully affirming of our bodily humanity.

“the fact that God came down, took on human flesh and lived among us, is wonderfully affirming of our bodily humanity”

The Eastern Mediterranean

2. Monophysitism:

This heresy teaches that Christ had a single – divine – nature, and not a human one. It claims that Jesus’ humanity was ‘absorbed’ by God’s divine nature, “dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea”. This is an extreme opposite of Nestorianism, above.

Key dates: 1st-5th Centuries

Key supporter: School of Alexandria, Eutyches

Key text: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” – Colossians 2:9

Implications: Christ is not human. This might mean denying the incarnation, which is kind of a big deal.

Answer: The Bible shows that Christ is God incarnate. This means he has two natures, in that he is fully God and fully human. Such verses as Matthew 4:1-10 show he faced temptation as a human. Reconciling these with verses like Colossians 2:9 (quoted above) shows he is both human and divine.

Key dates for answer: 381, Second Ecumenical Council (Council of Constantinople), 451, Fourth Ecumenical Council (Council of Chalcedon)

Key hammer: Eusebius of Dorylaeum

Key text: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are…” – Hebrews 4:15

Implications: It is essential for our salvation that Jesus is both human and divine. His humanity helps show he is relatable and not some distant deity or spirit, while his divinity is necessary for his sacrifice on the cross to be sufficient to pay the price for all of humanity’s sins. Christianity therefore asserts that Jesus is both “fully God”, and “fully human”.

3. Docetism:

This heresy teaches that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross. He just ‘seemed’ to. (Docetism is from Greek ‘dokein’, ‘to seem’)

Key dates: c.144

Key supporter: Marcion of Sinope

Key text: Interestingly, Islam teaches docetism. Quran 4:157-8 says, “they slew him not nor crucified him… Allah took him up unto Himself”. You won’t find a Bible verse claiming this, though. The Bible is explicit about Christ’s crucifixion.

Implications: God can’t suffer, so it can’t have been God on the cross. The crucifixion was therefore an illusion.

In the most extreme versions of docetism, God’s divine nature cannot be poluted by mixing with a human nature, so even the incarnation itself is an illusion – Jesus didn’t even have a body. Like monophysitism above, this denial of Christ’s humanity is pandering to mean gnostic Greek beliefs which think that bodies are gross.

Answer: Christ’s literal bodily death on the cross is the crux of the gospel of salvation. This also depends upon a literal bodily incarnation. The gospel is that God incarnate came and died to pay the price for our sins.

Key dates for answer: 320, First Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Nicaea), and 381, Second Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Constantinople)

Ignatius of Antioch

Key hammer: Ignatius of Antioch

Key text: “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” – 1 John 4:2

Implications: It is essential for the Gospel of salvation that Christ actually died for us. If he only ‘seemed’ to die but didn’t really die, then surely our sins only ‘seem’ to have been forgiven, but haven’t really been forgiven! If this was the case, the price for our sins would not have been paid and we would be guilty before the holiness of God.

But the Bible shows very clearly that Christ has died so we don’t have to – this is the Good News of eternal life.

John 19:18 says, “There they nailed him to the cross.” Mark 15:24 includes the detail that the soldiers who crucified him stole his literal, physical clothes – clearly not an illusion. Matthew 27:35 even points out that this detail was foreseen in prophecy, and even in this Jesus is fulfilling scripture.

Christ’s literal, physical death, clearly stated in the scriptural record of events, pays the price for our sins. For example, Romans 5:9 says, “we have been justified by his blood“. Ephesians 1:7 explains, “we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses”. And 1 Peter 1:18-19 states, “you were ransomed… with the precious blood of Christ”. He physically, bodily bled and died for us.

Conclusion

Similar to the heresies in my earlier post, there is a common theme to the heresies in this post, and in the Christian responses to them. Nestorianism implies that Jesus is not God, monophysitism suggests he is not human, and docetism claims he didn’t really die or may not even have really come at all.

However, that Jesus is fully God and fully human, and that he literally came in the flesh and died on the cross for us, are all essential for the Gospel of salvation.

In Revelation 5:9, the saints in heaven sing to Jesus, “Worthy are you… for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people”.

In Christ, God humbly became incarnate, dignifying our humanity. On the cross, he died for our sins. It is necessary, then, for Jesus to be fully human, fully God, and for him to have literally died for the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and the entire Gospel of Christ to have any meaning.

As his incarnation dignifies our bodies, his crucifixion pays the price for our sins, his resurrection shows he has the power to defeat death, and serves as a guarantee that we too can be raised from death to life thanks to him.

Prayer: Thank you Lord Jesus that you came from heaven to earth, took on human flesh, and walked among us, teaching, healing, and delivering. You are Jehoshua, ‘my Lord has become my salvation’; Emmanuel, ‘God with us’; our creator and saviour, so worthy of worship. We give you thanks and praise that you bled and died for us, and we receive salvation from your grace. Help us to live lives that reflect our gratitude for what you have done for us, and empower us to give our lives in your service. Amen.

3 common heresies and why they’re wrong

Some dudes with beards. Stern, but fair

I recently wrote a blog post about the doctrine of the trinity and why it is a necessary synthesis of the claims of scripture that there is only one God, and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all divine persons, for example in the work of creation and salvation, and are thus worthy of worship.

I thought it might be fun to follow up with a blog post or two about some historic heresies which still pop up from time to time today, and outline why their understanding of God is inadequate compared to orthodox Christian belief.

So, here is my first list of three Christological heresies, and why they are wrong…

 

1. Subordinationism:

This heresy claims that Christ the Son is not equal to the Father.

Key dates: 1st-4th Centuries

Key supporter: Arius of Alexandria

Key text: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28)

Implications: Christ is not God

Examples: LDS (Mormons)

Answer:

The fact that the Son consents to do the will of the Father does not prove he is inherently inferior to the Father. Scripture shows that the Son shares the Father’s divine nature and is therefore ontologically equal with the Father, by nature.

Key dates for answer: 320, First Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Nicaea) and 381, the Second Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Constantinople)

Key hammer: Athanasius of Alexandria

Key text: “all may honour the Son, just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honour the Son does not honour the Father” – John 5:23

Implications: the Son is equal to the Father in divine nature. He is therefore God, worthy of worship.

However, the Son consents to be ‘relationally’ and ‘operationally’ subordinate to the Father, despite their equality of natures.

For example, Christ is the mediator between God the Father and humanity, so that he can bring us to the Father.

“Christ is the mediator between God the Father and humanity, so that he can bring us to the Father.”

Nevertheless, only God is good enough to pay the price for our sins. So, for Christ’s death on the cross to be enough to pay for our sins, he has to be God in incarnate.

In subordinationism, Christ cannot offer salvation. In Christianity, that is exactly what he offers.

 

2. Adoptionism:

This heresy claims that Jesus was just a human, and that God chose (‘adopted’) him to be the Messiah, perhaps because of exceptional goodness or faithfulness on Jesus’ part. Adoptionists vary as to when they think Jesus was chosen – possibly at his baptism, possibly the transfiguration, possibly some other time.

Key dates: 2nd & 3rd Centuries

Key supporter: Praxeas

Key text: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” – Psalm 2:7

Implications: Christ is not God.

Examples: Christadelphians

Answer:

Jesus is God incarnate. Scripture asserts this repeatedly.

Key date for answer: 213, ‘Adversus Praxean’

Key hammer: Tertullian

Love the hair, Tertullian

Key text: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” – John 1:1

Implications: Christ is God come to Earth. This means that God is not uncaring and distant, but reaches out to us and can be known. Additionally, as with subordinationism above, only God is good enough to pay the price for our sins. So, for Christ’s death on the cross to do this, Christ has to be God incarnate.

 

3. Arianism:

This heresy claims that Christ was created by the Father at some point in time. Even if he is semi-divine, he doesn’t have the same divine nature as God, and is a junior god at most, or maybe just an angel.

Key dates: 3rd & 4th Centuries

Key supporter: Arius

Key text: The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old. – Proverbs 8:22

Implications: Christ is not God

Examples: Jehovah’s Witnesses

Answer:

We can deduce from scripture that the Son is of the same – co-eternal – substance as the Father. Although he is a different person to the Father, scripture shows they are both part of the same one God.

Key dates for answer: 320, First Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Nicaea) and 381, the Second Ecumenical Council (the First Council of Constantinople)

Key hammer: Athanasius

Key text: “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning” – Proverbs 8:23

Implications: Because the Son is consubstantial with (of the same divine nature as) the Father, they are equal by nature. As with the answer to subordinationism above, which is closely related to Arianism, just because the Son chooses to do the Father’s will does not mean he is of a different, inferior nature. They are equally God.

To some people, the debate over whether Christ is of the same or similar nature to the Father has seemed like a fairly insignificant debate. Arianism admits that Christ is of a “similar” nature to the Father, the first creature created, and therefore very important. It might seem like splitting hairs to insist that he is not just of “similar” nature but of “the same” nature.

Nevertheless, in terms of salvation, this is essential. As with the answers to subordinationism and adoptionism above, only God is good enough to pay the price for our sins. For Christ’s death on the cross to be sufficient, he has to be God incarnate, not a ‘semi-divine’ junior ‘god’ who is “similar” to God. Christ has to be God incarnate for the crucifion to be enough.

Conclusion:

There is a common theme throughout all three of these heresies, and a common reason for rejecting them. The common theme is that they all claim that Christ is not God, whereas orthodox Christianity points out that Christ has to be God incarnate for his death on the cross to adequately pay the price for our sins.

If Christ is somehow ontologically inferior to God, like a human adopted by God, or just a semi-divine being or angel who is not God, then he isn’t good enough to pay the price for all our sins. We need Christ to be God, and the fact that he is God incarnate means that he alone can pay the price for our sins.

Pray: Hallelujah. Thank you Lord that you took on human flesh and came to the earth you created, walked among us, taught us and guided us, and healed and delivered us from our sicknesses and demons. Thank you for taking our sins on yourself, suffering brutal death so the price of our guilt is paid. Thank you that your resurrection proves you have power to defeat death, and promises our own resurrection to life forgiven by you.

What is the Trinity, and why does it matter?

The ‘shema’, from Deuteronomy 6:4

The Bible states very clearly that there is only one true God. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 says, “the Lord our God is One”. This has been the red line of monotheism since, like, forever.

God is God and worthy of worship for a number of reasons. For example, scripture asserts that he is the eternal creator of the universe. Isaiah 40:28 says, “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.” He is everlasting (existed before creation), and created all of creation.

Another characteristic of God that makes God God is that he is our saviour. In Isaiah 45:21, God says, “there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and Saviour“. Likewise, Jeremiah 3:23 says, “salvation is in the LORD our God”. One of God’s ‘Godliest’ attributes, then, is that he is our saviour.

God’s greatness – as creator and saviour – means he is worthy of our worship. Psalm 145:3, for example, sings, “Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise”. This states a key ontological difference between God and everything else: only God is worthy of worship.

Scripture’s monotheism, then, also condemns worshipping other creatures – even awesome angels – because only God is the creator, only God saves – only God is worthy. Thus Exodus 20:3, for example, commands, “you shall have no other gods besides me”. Worship should be reserved only for God.

“Worship should be reserved only for God”

However, the Bible also worships Christ and the Holy Spirit as divine creator and saviour, worthy of praise. For example, John 1:3 says of Jesus “through him all things were made”. In Ephesians 1:13, the Holy Spirit “seals” believers’ salvation. Scriptures like these, in showing Christ and Spirit as being creator and saviour, suggest that Christ and the Holy Spirit are God and worthy of worship.

Nevertheless, Jesus himself is clear that he is the Son of God, and is not the Father. He routinely prayed to his Father, and taught his disciples to do likewise, for example in the famous “Our Father” prayer (e.g. in Matthew 6:9-13). There is, therefore, an undeniable distinction in scripture whereby the Son is not the Father.

And yet, scripture also praises Jesus as worthy of worship, for example in Revelation 5:12, where the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, were saying in a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” In response, “the elders fell down and worshiped” (Revelation 5:14).

This creates a tension in scripture, then, where God is stated to be one, and worship of anything other than God is idolatry, yet three identified persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are shown to be worthy of worship.

Unsurprisingly, some confusion arises from this.

But Christianity reconciles these facts by asserting nine wonderful things:

The Father is God

The Son is God

The Spirit is God

The Father is not the Son

The Father is not the Spirit

The Son is not the Father

The Son is not the Spirit

The Spirit is not the Father

The Spirit is not the Son

This has been helpfully shown in the following formula:

This understanding is called trinitarian Christianity, exemplified for example in the Atahanasian Creed. In my view, it is the only way to reconcile the tension in scripture which I noted above, whereby God is one, yet three persons are worshipped.

The Athanasian Creed therefore states that we worship “one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity”; not confusing the persons (i.e., confusedly thinking the Son is also the Father!), but also not dividing the essence (for example saying the Son is not God):

“For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one… the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.”

You can see how the ‘Shield of the Trinity’ above depicts each of these truths – that there are three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who are distinct from one another as separate persons, but that they are all God, and yet they are not three gods, but one God.

Athanasius’ Creed goes on:

“For as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.”

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the trinitarian understanding of God neatly synthesises the various statements which scripture claims about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Scripture shows that there is only one God: “the Lord our God is One” – Deuteronomy 6:4

God is God because he is the creator: “there is only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things” – 1 Corinthians 8:6

God is God because he is the saviour: “The LORD is my strength and my song. He has become my salvation. This is my God, and I will praise him” – Exodus 15:2

It is fairly uncontentious to identify God with the Father: “O LORD, you are our Father.” – Isaiah 64:8

However, Jesus is also worshipped as creator: “For by him all things were created” – Colossians 1:16

Jesus is also our saviour: “for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” – Luke 2:11

Likewise, the Holy Spirit is the creator: “The Spirit of God has made me, the breath of the Almighty gives me life” – Job 33:4

Similarly, the Holy Spirit saves: “God chose you to be saved by the Spirit’s power” – 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Christianity reconciles these facts

Collectively, the above scriptures show that God is one, active and knowable as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as our creator and saviour, entirely worthy of worship.

I see no way of reconciling scripture’s claims about God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while remaining a monotheist, unless we use the Athanasian Creed’s trinitarian synthesis of these facts.

The Creed’s first section thus ends, “the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.”

Anything else either fails to adequately worship one or more of the persons of the trinity, not praising them as worthy, or separates them out into three gods, thus breaking from monotheism. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can only be understood as a mystery of three persons in one God.

It matters that we worship God correctly, as only God is worthy of worship. And we should worship the fulness of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and not overlook the creative and salvific worth of any person of the trinity.

The Moment of Creation

The Eagle Nebula

Tomorrow is the Feast of St Francis, who is famous for tenderness towards animals. Francis loved creation – animals, plants, nature – and experiencing God in it.

St. Francis’ day marks the end of the Season of Creation, a period in the church calendar when churches all over the world give thanks to God for our world, and seek to be better stewards of the resources he has given us, for example by switching to green energy.

But the word ‘creation’ is of course a verb as well as a noun.

As well as applying to eveything that has been created, it properly applies to the moment when the universe began.

I read recently a quote by theologian Sean McDonagh, who said that as well as celebrating God in creation (as in, the created universe), it is potent to remember the moment of creation itself.

He said:

“We should celebrate that most sacred moment – the initial fireball. Without that mystery of energy and fire, nothing in time or space would ever have existed. The formation of the stars, the birth of our sun and planet Earth present unique opportunity for ritual.”

It is very Franciscan to see a bird flutter by, or hear a stream babbling, or taste home-grown fruit or vegetables and praise God for his creativity and generous love with joy.

But what about recognising that the same creator who caused the tomato to ripen also formed the stars and planets.

Quite a challenging scope of reflection, but awesome and humbling, too. Here are just three verses from scripture to get you started:

“Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars: The One who leads them forth like an army, He calls them all by name” – Isaiah 40:26

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” – Psalm 19:1

“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” – John 1:3

Why not spend some time reflecting on the awesomeness of the origin of creation today?

Plausibility

I blogged recently about belief and knowledge, and how it is possible to believe things that are not true, and to believe things that are true.

This was key in my accepting that belief and knowledge are not opposites. In fact, all our knowledge requires belief, and therefore it is inherently possible for belief to be true.

This model, taken from the epistemology of Michael Polanyi, is usually depicted with this Venn diagram, showing the overlap where beliefs in things that are true is called “justified knowledge”:

An important follow-up point, then, is ‘plausibility’. For this, I found the work of Lesslie Newbigin revelatory.

Newbigin identified that people have what he called “plausibility structures” – preconceived assumptions about what beliefs can plausibly be true, and what beliefs cannot be true.

This follows sensibly from Polanyi’s theory of belief and knowledge. Where Polanyi argued that justified knowledge is just beliefs which are true, Newbigin points out that some people will nevertheless be unable to accept some truths. They have made up their minds a priori about what is plausible.

They have made up their minds a priori about what is plausible.

The consequence of this is that some people will persist in believing things that aren’t true, and not believing the truth, because they can’t accept that the truth is plausible.

In my view, the example par excellence of this is the resurrection of Jesus. We have more evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead than we do that Julius Caesar conquered Gaul.

For example, the evidence for Caesar’s Gallic Wars comes from copies of an account which were written 800 years after the events they’re reporting, whereas the eyewitness testimony for the resurrection of Jesus is as early as the 1st Century.

But if someone has made up their mind beforehand that Christ’s resurrection is impossible, they won’t accept the evidence (“It must be fabricated”, or “It must be interpolated”, etc.).

Likewise, Jesus’ fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy is astronomically improbable. The odds of him fulfilling just eight of the dozens of prophecies foretelling his life, death, and resurrection has been calculated to one in ten to the 21 (that’s 1:10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) – pretty long odds. And yet his fulfillment of all these prophecies is meticulously and specifically documented by men who were willing to die rather than forsake their earnest claim that these things actually happened.

But again, if someone has made up their mind beforehand, they won’t be able to accept it as plausible, assuming that some other explanation must exist.

This means that no matter how much evidence there is for something, if it doesn’t conform to someone’s preconceived expectations of what is plausible, they won’t be able to accept a thing as true.

In this case, if someone has prejudged that resurrections can’t happen, they won’t be able to receive the evidence as true. This may mean that responses like, “There must be some other explanation” means, “Your explanation does not conform to my plausibility structures. Therefore, no matter the evidence, I can’t believe it as true.”

“There must be some other explanation.”

Before I became a Christian, I lived in a world where I assumed that people can’t get raised from the dead. My materialist assumptions meant that such an explanation defied my plausibility structures.

However, thankfully, I was also committed to changing my mind in the face of evidence. I was willing to adapt my plausibility structures to conform to the evidence, rather than dismiss the evidence if it didn’t fit my plausibility structures.

In Western missiology today, this may still be one of the most valuable and applicable theories around.

It suggests that we don’t just have to persuade sceptics that Christian belief is in response to evidence. We have to open people’s minds to what evidence is admissable.

Many people haven’t thought about the possibility that they are unconsciously wedded to uncritical plausibility structures that cause them to disbelieve certain truth claims no matter the evidence.

In my case, I was taught to accept materialist plausibility structures which limited what I could accept as true. It took a conscious act to rethink my plausibility structures and open my mind to compelling evidence which I would otherwise have dismissed out of hand.

John Beans and Cabbage

John Koukouzelis (c.1280-c.1360) was a composer, singer, and monk, who lived at Mt. Athos in Greece.

He born in Durrazo around 1280, but no one knew he was going to be famous when he was born, so we don’t know the exact date. He was orphaned while still young, but went on to join the choir at the court school at the imperial capital, in Constantinople. Under emperor John Comnenos (1118-1143), he became chief court singer.

However, the luxury of the court troubled him. He became known for eating simple meals – his surname Koukouzelis is actually a nickname meaning “beans and cabbage” (‘koukia’ and ‘zele’)!

As such, he left Constantinople to become a monk in the great Lavra at Mt. Athos, where he was tasked as a goatherd. Out in the remote wilderness, he sang where only the animals could hear him.

Nevertheless, his talent was rediscovered, and put to use singing in church on Sundays and feast days, and he went on to become master teacher and overseer of the monastery’s singers.

He developed didachtic chants, wrote and arranged lyrics and melodious music, and compiled and edited texts of hymns which replaced those in use in his time.

After his death, he has been revered in the East as patron saint of church singers. An icon, the “Koukouzelissa”, in his memory, is located in the monastery of Saint Athanasius. He is commemorated annually today, on 1st October.