HERESY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE PRE-NICENE CHURCH

Several of my friends have commented on my not posting on this blog. I've been kind of busy taking some classes, and just couldn't get this fit into the mix. BUT, here is a paper I wrote for my church history class.

HERESY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE PRE-NICENE CHURCH

BY

JEFFREY A. NORRIS

MAY 7, 2008

INTRODUCTION

In the early church, doctrinal clarity developed and solidified gradually, primarily in response to emerging heresies. Within modern Christendom, there is a tendency to think that all Christendom understood and believed common orthodox doctrines that were fully developed by the time the documents of the later canonized New Testament were written, circa A.D. 96. Because we hold to sola scriptura, that the scriptures alone are the authority for faith and practice, and because we have a copy of the Old and New Testaments for almost every room in the house, we forget the depth and breadth of thought that went into formalizing and finalizing the core doctrinal beliefs. What follows is a brief study of the four largest historical threats to the key doctrinal beliefs about God, the Trinity, and Christ, and how the early churches clarified doctrine in response to them. This paper will explore the specific heresies of Docetism, Monarchianism, Subordinationism, and Arianism.

HERESY

A heresy is any doctrine that is contrary to clear biblical doctrine, and that is “sufficiently intolerable” so as to “destroy the unity of the Christian church.”[i] Pelikan points out that the earliest Christian use of the term “heresy” (from hairesis, meaning “party”, from the Latin verb “to cut”) was not sharply distinguished from the word “schism,” since both were divisive in nature.[ii] However, as Augustine would define it, heresy is the holding of false beliefs regarding God that do injury to the Christian faith.[iii] There are four heresies in the first three and half centuries that historically had the greatest potential for injury to the faith.

DOCETISM

Docetism was the first Christian heresy, though it was rooted in Gnosticism.[iv] Gnosticism as a whole predates and was outside Christianity, though it was prominent in the Greco-Roman world before, during, and after the birth of the Church. Kelly points out that Gnosticism “was older and wider than Christianity…the product of syncretism,” taking pieces of “Jewish, pagan, and oriental sources.”[v] Docetism, from the Greek dokeo “to seem, to appear to be,” was the heretical belief that Jesus only appeared to have a human body. This thinking is linked to Gnosticism, since one of Gnostism’s basic tenets is that the material world and the physical body are evil. The reasoning goes, Jesus could not really have had a physical body, because a physical body cannot be good. If Jesus is God, and God is good, then Jesus could not have a fleshly non-good body. To get around this, the heresy says Jesus only appeared to be human, or only appeared to suffer on the cross.

Grudem points out that no prominent church leader ever advocated this heresy[vi], but the essence was prevalent enough even in the first century that the Apostle John wrote that “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”[vii] One of the main refutations came in pointing out all the human activity attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. As one example, Athanasius mentions Jesus’ eating as an indication of his having a real body, and not just one in appearance.[viii] But the more poignant reality of Christ’s suffering on the cross was frequently appealed to, as Christians faced persecution and martyrdom on a daily basis. Ignatius challenged the falsehood of this heresy by suggesting if Christ only appeared to suffer, then all other Christian suffering was a false witness against the cross of Christ.[ix] In his letter to the Smyrneans, he says, “For if the Lord were in the body in appearance only, and were crucified in appearance only, then am I also bound in appearance only? And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, in fact, I endure all things for Christ, not in appearance only, but in reality, that I may suffer together with Him.”[x]

Irenaeus is by far the most thorough in writing against Docetic beliefs, though he is never known to refer to them by the name Docetist. He refutes the Gnostic teachings of Simon Magus who taught that he was actually the incarnation of both the Father and Jesus the Son, and had only appeared to suffer on the cross.[xi] Irenaeus also refutes the teachings of Basilides, who taught that Simon of Cyrene had died on the cross instead of Jesus. Basilides taught that a last minute switch had occurred and that Simon of Cyrene had been changed to look like Jesus, and therefore suffered in his place.[xii] In many other places, Irenaeus appeals to scripture and shows that none of these false teachers truly believed that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God.[xiii]

Up to this early stage in Christendom, there were threads of common orthodox beliefs, but they were passed down verbally and informally. The Apostles Creed itself, taken out of the early church baptismal liturgy, is a doctrinal confession and statement of belief that refutes the Docetic and Gnostic heretical ideas that Jesus was either not human, only appeared to suffer, or that once dead, he was freed from a physical body.[xiv]

Docetism undermines the true nature of the Lord Jesus Christ’s incarnation and subsequent atonement, without which we cannot be saved. To suggest that Jesus was neither truly man nor truly suffered denies the propitiation by His blood that purchased our salvation, which is why Docetism is considered one of the more dangerous heresies in the early church.

MONARCHIANISM

Another dangerous heresy in the early church was Monarchianism, which was rooted in the monotheistic conviction that God is one[xv], over against Gnostic and Greco-Roman polytheism. Christianity did not consider itself a new religion, but a true form of Messianic Judaism, with significant history in the Old Testament, which was well known to the early church. But in affirming strict monotheism, Brown points out that two different heresies grew out of it, tightly bound up under the heading of the defense of God’s monarchy, Adoptionism and Modalism.[xvi] Both undermine the triune nature of God, and by so doing, either deny the deity of Christ, or the distinct persons of the trinity.

Adoptionism

Adoptionism is reported to have appeared as a distinct heresy in A.D. 190 in Rome[xvii], as evidenced by Eusebius[xviii]. Theodotus actively proclaimed that Jesus was only a man and not God, but that God had adopted him at his baptism, making him God’s son, but not a deity. Adoptionism was further espoused by Paul of Samosata, who suggested that Jesus was God or God-like, but only in the sense that he had been adopted as such by God the Father, because of Jesus’ moral excellence. Paul of Samosata was formally renounced as a heretic at an assembly in Antioch in A.D. 268.[xix] Irenaeus refuted the teachings of Cerintus who taught that the Christ had come and indwelt the human Jesus at his baptism, but had departed before the suffering leading up to the crucifixion.[xx] Cerintus taught aspects that sound both Docetic and Adoptionistic. In any case, Adoptionism denies the true nature and deity of Christ in all aspects of His incarnation.

Modalism

Modalism upholds the deity of Christ and is actually anti-adoptionistic, but blurs or loses the distinction of the separate persons in the Triune, Monotheistic Godhead. It is the belief that God takes on different forms or modes, depending on His purpose.[xxi] For example, Modalism says that God is the Father in the Old Testament. Later, He is the Son as Jesus in the incarnation. And finally, He is the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

There are all kinds of implications in Modalism. Patripassianism comes from Modalism, by the belief that there is only one person in the Godhead, so the Father is the Son, and therefore the Father suffered in the crucifixion. If the Father didn’t suffer, but is the Son, then Docetism comes into play, as He only then appeared to suffer.

There were two main heretics identified with Modalism, Praxeas (fl. A.D. 190) and Sabellius (fl. A.D. 200), and both were extensively refuted by the early church fathers. Tertullian wrote an entire volume against the modalistic teachings of Praxeas.[xxii] Athanasius and Hippolytus of Rome were both strong antagonists against modalistic Sabellianism.[xxiii]

Although Praxeas strongly upheld the deity of Christ, he taught that Christ was the Father. Brown says that this rise of Modalism indicates that both Gnosticism (and hence Docetism) and Adoptionism had been defeated by theological orthodoxy by the late 2^nd century, primarily because of the overwhelming evidence of the New Testament witness to the deity of Christ and his co-equality with the Father.[xxiv] Brown also points out that what finally defeated modalistic Sabellianism “was the conviction that [Jesus] Christ really is distinct from the Father [and the Holy Spirit], a conviction that naturally results from all the New Testament passages in which the Father and the Son deal with one another as distinct persons.”[xxv]

SUBORDINATIONISM

If Jesus really was a man, both in appearance and in reality, and really suffered on the cross, and if He is God within the Godhead, Subordinationism suggests Jesus’ role within that Trinity is inferior and at a lower status than the Father. Ultimately, Subordinationism is based on the difficulty in grasping the twofold nature of Christ, being both divine and human, and so relegates Christ to a subordinate position to the Father.

As the early church wrote and thought about the deity of Christ and the triune nature of God, there were subordinationist tendencies in some of the writings of Justin Martyr[xxvi], Origin[xxvii], and Tertullian[xxviii], who all had some difficulties reconciling the mutual submission within the Godhead with the clear humanity of Christ. It is this extreme difficulty in grasping the balance and fullness of the person and nature of Christ that would lead to the most dangerous heresy of all in the early church, that of Arianism.

ARIANISM

Arianism, named for its chief proponent Arius, an ordained presbyter in Alexandria in A.D. 311, was also rooted in monotheism, but it misunderstood the person and nature of Jesus Christ. Arius believed that Jesus was divine, but that He was not eternal with the Father.[xxix] Arius and his followers articulated that God had not always been a Father, that the Word of God was not always so, but that He had been made, and therefore there was when He was not. From this, Arius and others believed that because Jesus was created, He was not of the eternal nature of the Father, and therefore could not be of the same substance or nature as the Father.[xxx] Arius and his followers appealed to an incorrect exegesis of Proverbs 8:22 that they took to mean that God had created wisdom before He created the world, and that since Christ is the wisdom of God, then therefore Jesus was a created being.[xxxi]

This heresy was so divisive and so prevalent within Christendom that Emperor Constantine called a council to Nicaea in Bithynia to settle the issue once and for all. Out of that council, one of the most significant milestones of church history was reached, the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed, though expanded slightly and modified at two other councils, significantly defined orthodox, Trinitarian theology that still holds firm to this day. The Creed of A.D. 325 in its original (translated into English) version affirmed that:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. (emphasis added)[xxxii]

There are two reasons Arianism was so dangerous. First, if Jesus was created and not eternal, then He was not unlike all the other polytheistic deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon. Interestingly enough, this appealed to Emperor Constantine, who favored Arianism. Secondly, and most importantly, if the Christ was only a created being, then He could not have saved mankind by taking the sin of the world upon Himself and satisfying the wrath of God upon that sin. Neither could He provide the righteousness that is imputed to our account. Without the co-eternal, same nature, co-equality with the Father, there would be no salvation for mankind, and the Gospel would be lost.

CONCLUSION

Although this is barely scratching the surface of the four heresies of Docetism, Monarchianism, Subordinationism, and Arianism, it is clear that they dramatically shaped the orthodox beliefs of the early church as it was forced to respond to them. These heresies had profound implications on the theological thinking in the early church. In fact, it took two and a half centuries to clearly articulate both the relationship of Christ as deity to His humanity, and the relationship of Christ as deity to the deity of the Father.

It was in this thinking and searching of the scriptures that the early church eventually articulated the “twofold” nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man, co-equal and of the same substance as the Father, which we hold so closely to today. And as it was true in the early church, and throughout history, so it is proving true today that Christian orthodoxy has been forced to define itself in response to heretical ideas.[xxxiii]

---

[i]. Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, in (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 2.

[ii]. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 69.

[iii]. E.P. Meijering, Augustine, De Fide et Symbolo: Introduction, Translation, Commentary (Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1987), 10.21.

[iv]. Brown, Heresies, 52.

[v]. J.N.D Kelly, Early Church Doctrines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1978), 23.

[vi]. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 540.

[vii]. 1 John 4:2-3 ESV (English Standard Version)

[viii]. Athanasius, The Treatise De Incarnation Verbi Dei, in On The Incarnation, trans. a religious of C.S.M.V (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, n.d.), 46.

[ix]. Ignatius, Epistle to The Trallians, 10.1

[x]. Ignatius, Epistle to The Smyrneans, 4.1.

[xi]. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.23.

[xii]. Ibid., 1.24.4.

[xiii]. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.3, 3.16.1, 3.18.3-6, 3.22.1-2.

[xiv]. Phillip Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume 1,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.ii.html (accessed May 7, 2008).

[xv]. Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV

[xvi]. Brown, Heresies, 95.

[xvii]. Ibid., 96.

[xviii]. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius--the Church History: A New Translation with Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1999), 201.

[xix]. Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Wilmington: DE: M. Glazier, c1983; reprint, Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 41.

[xx]. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.26.1.

[xxi]. Brown, Heresies, 99.

[xxii]. Tertullian, Against Praxeas.

[xxiii]. Kelly, Early Church Doctrines, 121-3.

[xxiv]. Ibid., 101.

[xxv]. Brown, Heresies, 103.

[xxvi]. Kelly, Early Church Doctrines, 146.

[xxvii]. Ibid., 281.

[xxviii]. Ibid., 152.

[xxix]. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence Fo The Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 195 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

[xxx]. Philip Schaff, ed., “Deposition of Arius,” in A Select Library of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Erdmanns Pub. Co., <1989>).

[xxxi]. Ibid., 112.

[xxxii]. Phillip Schaff, “Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume 1,” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.iv.iii.html (accessed May 7, 2008).

[xxxiii]. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walther A. Elwell, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 550.