Heresy of the Week: Subordinationism

This week's heresy sounds like the description to a syllogism.

Subordinationism is a heretical doctrine that says the Son and Holy Ghost are subordinate (or less than) the Father in both nature and being. While sometimes confused with Arianism, they are not the same. All Arianists subscribe to Subordinationism, but not all Subordinationalists believe in Arianism. Some see this as the middle ground between Sabellianism and Socinianism/Unitarianism.

Heresy of the Week: Eudoxianism

What do you mean, at some point all the posts I queued up end?  Yes, I forgot to add more this weekend.  So here is your day-late heresy of the week!  Since we are getting close to my favorite saint feast day (6 December), you'll start to notice a theme with the next few heresies...

Eudoxianism is a Semi-Arianism heresy. It teaches that Christ is very like, perhaps even exactly like, God the Father, but that Christ does not share in the exact same being as the Father. Originally, it was seen as a compromise offered to the Arianism sect, that, had they accepted the compromise, would have made it possible to avoid their condemnation as heretics and splitting from the church. However, since this, too, is a heretical doctrine, it was condemned at the first Council of Constantinople in 381 as a Semi-Arianism heresy.

Heresy of the Week: Apollinarianism

This week's heresy is one of the most detailed of which we still have surviving documentation.

Apollinarianism (also known as Apollinarism) is a 4th century heresy that teaches Jesus could not have had a human mind, but rather that Jesus had a human body and “lower soul” (the seat of emotions), but a Divine mind. Apollinaris, for whom this heresy is named, taught that the two natures simply couldn’t coexist, and so the “lesser form” (His human nature) gave way to the “greater form” (His Divine nature). This, along with Eutychianism, is a form of Monophysitism, which errantly teaches Christ only had one nature. Some at the time considered this an overreaction in response to Arianism, whose teachings were that Christ was simply not divine in nature. Polemianism and Antidicomarianism are considered to be “sub-Apollinarianism” heresies. At the First Council of Constantinople in 381, the followers of this heresy were accused of attempting to create a “tertium quid” (a “third thing” that is neither God nor Man). Apollinaris also taught in the same vein as Tertullian that the souls of men were propagated by other souls as well as their bodies (also known as Traducianism).

Heresy of the Week: Anomœanism

Another Arian heresy this week... a somewhat hard-line sect.

Anomœanism: Anomœanism (also known as Aëtianism, Anomeanism, Eunomianism, or Heterousianism) is a 4th century Arianism sect. It comes from a Greek word, literally meaning “not similar”. They purported that Jesus (the Son) was of a different nature and in no way like God (the Father). They rejected Arian’s later confession adopted to be readmitted into the church and clung to his original teachings. They went farther than semi-Arianism, who also denied the consubstantiality of Jesus, but believed that he was like the Father simultaneously.

Heresy of the Week: Samosatenism

This week's heresy is a precursor of Arianism.

Samosatenism: Samosatenism is a pre-Arianism heresy of the 2nd century. Paul of Samosata (for whom this heresy is named) was one of Arius’ teachers. This heresy proposes that Christ was the adopted Son of the Father, not His Son by nature (in the vein of moderate Adoptionism). Christ was taught to be neither perfect God nor perfect Man. Christ was believed to be a created being, not uncreated as the Father is, and therefore less than fully divine (and thus is an antitrinitarian heresy). This heresy was condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicaea along with Arianism.

Heresy of the Week: Mohammedanism

I am largely including this in my list because it is listed in the Book of Concord as a heresy.  What say you as to its status as a heresy?

Mohammedanism: Mohammedanism is listed by Lutherans as a heresy in the 1530 Augsburg Confession. While Islam is not usually considered a Christian heresy, there is some significant evidence suggesting a link to Arianism, and that Mohammed likely based what he used in the Qu’ran from the Bible out of an Arian Bible. Clearly, the Islamic view of Jesus is in line with Arianism by denying His deity. Since they deny the Trinity, this is also an antitrinitarian heresy.

Heresy of the Week: Kenosism

This week's heresy is yet another example, as is often the case with heresies, of attempting to over-explain or understand a foundational doctrine of the Church as a way to make some of the more "incomprehensible" bits make sense to our human minds.  Rather than leaving these issues to faith, some feel it necessary to explain them into oblivion and ignore clear doctrine to "understand" some of the mysteries of our faith.

Kenosism comes from the Greek word “kenoo”, which means “to empty”, and is a 19th century Arianism heresy promoted by an errant German Lutheran theologian, Gottfried Thomasius. This heresy teaches that Christ voluntarily gave up some of His Divine attributes (specifically, omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence) in order to function as a man and better fulfill His redemptive mission. While this would make sense to humans, without Christ being fully God and fully man, His redemptive death loses its power and meaning for us.

Heresies of the Week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism, Dynmanic Monarchianism, and Sabellianism

Since I missed last week (bad way to start the New Year, no?), I thought I would give you a few "big", interrelated heresies this week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism--similar, but slightly distinct) and Sabellianism (more commonly known as Modalism).

Monarchianism is a 2nd century heresy that emphasizes God as one person—the Father (antitrinitarian). It originally rose as an attempt to combat Tritheism by overemphasizing (to the point of diminishing and eliminating two persons of the Trinity) the singularity of God. There are two contradictory models of Monarchianism: Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism) and Sabellianism (or Modalism). Psilanthropism (and, by extension, Unitarianism) is considered an Adoptionism heresy, and Noeticism and Patripassianism are considered Sabellianism heresies (although Noeticism came first, historically).

Adoptionism is a 2nd century heresy of the Arianism family. It purports that Jesus was ‘adopted’ as the Son of God at either His baptism, His resurrection or His ascension (depending on which sect to whom you were speaking) because of His godly human life up until that point. Some historians have traced it all the way back to the time of Christ on earth. It was one of two main forms of Monarchianism (the other being Sabellianism, also known as Modalism). Adoptionism is also known as “Dynamic Monarchianism”, and denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Adoptionism was condemned as heretical by a decree from Pope Victor (who was Pope from 190-198). Samosatenism was a 3rd century adoptionist heresy that taught Jesus was a man who ‘kept’ himself sinless and ultimately achieved union with God (while considered closer to Adoptionism, it appears to not fit well with either branch of Monarchianism), after which it seemed to ‘die’ out. It reemerged in the 8th century in Spain (Spanish Adoptionism), teaching then that Christ was the Son of God with respect to His divine nature, but Jesus, as a man, was merely the adopted Son of God; and again from the 12th century on as “Neo-Adoptionism”. Psilanthropism was the 18th century Unitarianism take on Adoptionism.

Dynamic Monarchianism: see Adoptionism. This is a Monarchianism and Arianism heresy. The main distinction between Adoptionism and Dynamic Monarchianism (usually used interchangeably) is that they deny the Logos, or person of Christ, and teach that the Holy Ghost is simply a force of or the presence of the Father. They teach that Jesus was only a man. Unitarianism, known then as Psilanthropism, picked up on this heresy in the 19th century, still practicing it today, along with Christadelphianism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) is an antitrinitarian Monarchianism (the other branch being Adoptionism, or Dynamic Monarchianism) heresy that teaches the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are simply different modes or aspects of One God, perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in one Godhead. They do not deny the divinity or humanity of Jesus (and while they believe in a singular God, the “mode” of the Son was imbued in Jesus), like believers of Arianism or Monophysitism. There is no way for God to be all three modes simultaneously; He may only be one at a time. The United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches still teach Modalism today, saying that the mode of God is “Jesus only” now and that baptism is required for salvation (no unbaptized person will ever be “saved”). On the other hand, believers in Unitarianism teach that God simply is one person, with no distinct “modes”.

As mentioned in the descriptions, it is important to understand these heresies because they are still being practices in several "church" bodies.  So next time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door or you run into a Unitarian, you have a conversation starter!

(Special) Heresy of the Week: Arianism (also Semi-Arianism and Macedonianism)

Happy Slappy!!!

For those not familiar with the story of St. Nicholas and Arius at the Council of Nicea, my opening remark might require a little explanation.

Rather than go into a history of St. Nicholas, Pastor and Bishop of Myra, I'd like to focus more on Arius and Arianism.  For background on St. Nicholas, please read some of the plethora of posts on the topic from places such as Ask the Pastor (Pr. Snyder), Lest Every Man Be Blind (Pr. Koch) and Aardvark Alley.  Today (6 December) is, by the way, the Feast Day for St. Nicholas.

Before we get to the fun, here's a brief synopsis of Arianism.

Arianism is the 4th century teaching of Arius which denied the divinity of Jesus and the essence of the Trinity (antitrinitarian). Arius taught that the Father created the Son as His first creation. The Son then created the Holy Ghost, and the universe after that (not the Father or the Trinity, only the Son). Christ was considered to be adopted by the Father since He was merely a creation of the Father’s, but because He had great position and authority, He was to be looked upon by humans as a God and worshiped accordingly. At the First Council of Nicaea in 325, Arius was declared a heretic (the Nicene Creed was written specifically to counter his false teachings), exonerated at the First Synod of Tyre in 335 after recanting his heresy, and condemned again posthumously in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople (where the Nicene Creed was slightly modified to combat Macedonianism). Arianism had one of the largest followings of any heresy, and it was feared that they might grow so large as to take over the church. Their main teaching, that the Son of God did not always exist, and is distinct from and “less” than the Father because He was created by the Father, existed as a human (but heretical) way to help explain the Hypostatic Union of Christ’s two natures and attempt to humanize the Trinity.

As the story goes, at the Council of Nicea there were many heated discussions between Arius and his followers, and the Orthodox Bishops in attendance.  During one of these lively exchanges, St. Nicholas is said to have slapped Arius for his heresy.  St. Nicholas was then banned from the council until he apologized.  Puts a whole new light on Santa, doesn't it?

Why would a Bishop get so worked up that he would actually resort to hitting someone?  The teaching of Arius was so pervasive at the time that many were worried it would take over the Church.  As mentioned before, it is an understandable human way to try and describe the unexplainable  but that does not make it any less heretical  

Ultimately, it comes down to how one views the relationship between God the Father and God the Son: homousian ("of the same substance", the Orthodox teaching) or heterousian ("differing in substance", the heretical, or Arian, teaching).  Now might be a good time to review my post on the Trinity for more on how the Trinity works.

While this story may be just a legend (although records of Nicholas being 'suspended' and 'reinstated' seems to verify it to a large degree), the lesson from it is very important: we should take heresy very seriously, and so what we can to stamp... or slap... it out.

And, since we're on this topic, while we don't see much pure Arianism today, we do see some Semi-Arianism (or Macedonianism) floating about from time to time.

Semi-Arianism is a slightly softer version of Arianism. Rather than teaching that the Son was created, and therefore of a different essence than the Father, Semi-Arianism teaches that the Son was neither created nor uncreated in the same sense that other beings are created (meaning He was created, just in a different sense than anyone/anything else).

Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism and Tropicism) is an anti-Nicene Creed heretical sect that denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost during the 4th and 5th centuries. While distinct from Arianism, some aspects of Macedonianism are similar in that they also reject Christ as being of the same substance as the Father (but regarded Him as of a similar substance as the Father, making them closer to Semi-Arianism). Because they believed that the Holy Ghost was a creation of the Son, the 381 First Council of Constantinople added phrases to the Nicene Creed to ensure it was known and taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and Son and is coequal with the Father and Son.

Anti-trinitarian heresies are a particular pet peeve of mine because they deny the most basic of our Christian beliefs, or attempt to make the idea of our unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity more palatable to "logic".  Doubt there, and why even bother being a Christian otherwise?  Anti-trinitarian heresies are pervasive today in various incarnations, often more subtle or in different form from Arianism, but they're still alive and kicking.  Maybe we need to take a page out of good ol' St. Nick's book and start slapping a few heretics of our own... at least mentally.