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.

Heresy

Image: Council of Nicea, with heretic Arius on the floor

Did you know, “heresy” originally meant choosing to associate only with people who are like you?

Heresy, if and when we use the word nowadays, is normally understood among Christians to refer to beliefs about things like God, Christ, and salvation which are wrong – dangerously wrong. Heresy contrasts seriously with orthodox belief. So, for example, if Christian belief asserts that Christ came from heaven to Earth (e.g. John 1:1-5, 9-14), a heresy might claim that he was just a normal human man who God was impressed with and decided to utilise (as in, for example, the heresy of adoptionism).

The other common use of words like “heretic” today are slightly groovy, like when someone says, “I’m a bit of a heretic”, and means something like “I’m a free-thinker, I don’t conform to society”. It usually has positive connotations, like independent thought and enlightenment beyond silly beliefs, someone who quests for truth and who is not afraid to challenge accepted assumptions to do so.

Until recently, those were the two meanings of words like “heresy” and “heretic” that I knew of. But I was recently introduced to a third – more original – meaning when I read a commentary by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on 1 Corinthians chapter 11 and the topic of heresy. In it, Williams says that the root of the word “heresy” in Greek is the verb “to choose” – ‘hairesis’ – also where the word “adhere” comes from. Heresy, then, has to do with choosing who and what you associate with.

Williams uses this meaning to argue that, for St. Paul, heresy is not holding incorrect beliefs about God, but is “choosing the people you are comfortable with… choosing something other than the full fellowship of believers” to associate with. If this is true, then both the Church’s traditional meaning of heresy as “wrong belief”, and society’s positive use of heretic as “free thinker” are inaccurate. “Heresy” would actually mean choosing to only associate with people who agree with you.

Williams develops this claim into a rather deep point about its significance. He says that what is wrong with being ungenerous in who we associate with is that we try to put a limit on God’s grace. We try to limit God’s ability to choose who he chooses, when we choose to associate less generously than he does. The inevitable consequence of this is that we end up believing in a God who is much less generous than the God who chooses to save people despite their depravity and their rebellion against him.

Ultimately, Williams suggests that the salve to this is learning to believe in the generosity of God to love whoever he chooses to love, and to learn to follow him in loving whoever he loves.

Heresy, it turns out, is not the target of when “a whole lot of extremely authoritarian bishops saying ‘We’ve got to decide what the truth is and then be really horrible to everybody else.'” Heresy is choosing to associate with just the people who are like you, instead of generously associating with whoever God chooses to associate with.

Santa Claus really existed and he punched a heretic in the head

Today is St. Nicholas’ day. The name Santa Claus is derived from Dutch for Saint Nicholas, who is celebrated for his generosity, and strong faith.

 

Santa is therefore a historic saint who was born about 270 A.D. in what is now south-west Turkey, in the coastal city of Patara. You’ll be glad to know that during his old age he had a big white beard, but he was ethnically Greek, so was probably a little more olive-skinned than most people imagine him.

 

His parents were wealthy Greeks and they were committed Christians, in what was then a culturally Greek city (Patara). Nicholas himself was a keen Christian from an early age.

 

However, his parents were sadly killed in an epidemic when Nicholas was still young.

 

He was then raised by his uncle, also called Nicholas, who was bishop of Patara. The young Nicholas was known for his commitment to the faith and for his generosity. His uncle therefore appointed him to be a Reader, and then later ordained him as a priest.

 

However, between 303 and 306, St. Nicholas was arrested and detained by the Roman Empire during what is called the ‘persecution of Diocletian’, when the pagan Romans intensively persecuted the Christians for their beliefs.

 

However, the Empire’s internal conflicts ended the persecution as various emperors overturned their predecessor’s edicts and religious tolerance was restored, and by 312 Nicholas was free.

 

In 312 to 315, when Nicholas was about 32, he went to St. George’s monastery at Beit Jala in Judea, and lived in a cave in the hills overlooking Bethlehem. During these years, he went on several pilgrimages exploring the Holy Land, including to Jerusalem and to Golgotha where Christ was crucified.

 

By 317, he had moved back north and was consecrated bishop of Myra soon after. Stories from this time report him leaving coins in people’s shoes on the sly so the recipients wouldn’t know it was him. On another occassion, he heard about a man who was so poor he was considering selling his daughters into slavery. St. Nicholas threw a bag of gold into the man’s house, and when the man found out who had done this, he came to Nicholas and said, “You have saved mine and my daughters lives from hell.”

 

 

In 325 A.D., when the Emperor Constantine convened the First Council of Nicaea, Nicholas is documented as one of the bishops attending.

 

However, he was so incandescent with rage when he heard the heretical opinions of Arius, that Nicholas stood up, crossed the floor of the council, and punched Arius in the head, decking him.

 

So, there you have it, folks. Is Santa real? Well, there is a historical Saint Nicholas who really lived and we actually even have intact a document written by him (currently in the care of the Patriarch of Jerusalem).

 

He was a committed Christian from a young age, and was known for his generosity and orthodoxy.

 

He was persecuted and arrested and spent time in prison for his beliefs.

 

He also spent time at a monastery, lived in a cave overlooking Bethlehem, and then became a bishop in what is now Turkey.

 

He was present at the Council of Nicaea where he participated in a debate about doctrine, and he was so enraged with Arius’ Christology that he clocked the heretic in the head.

 

He is the patron saint of children, Russia, and the falsely accused.