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.

The Office of the Pope and the/an "Antichrist"

I know, to my Roman Catholic friends, that sounds very harsh.  So instead of presenting the Lutheran perspective on this (which you may read at the link), I'd like to give you just the words of the Roman Catholic Church on this teaching, with minor commentary on the passages.  I've tried to keep everything in context, although some passages are rather lengthy.  I included links to where the entire documents I quote from can be read in full so that you can investigate the context for yourself if you so choose.

The purpose of this post is not so much to change the minds of my Roman Catholic friends, but rather to explain where I come from when I say that the office of the Pope is an Antichrist because I know it angers some of them (and from their perspective, I can understand why).

Before that, however, I would be remiss if I didn't define "Antichrist".  Contrary to what Dispensationalists, Classic Pre-Millennialists, and Post-Millennialists errantly teach, the Antichrist is a religious, not political, figure.  There is not only one, but many, Antichrists (1 John 2:18).  An Antichrist is anyone who puts themself in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching.  I could easily make a laundry list of protestants who certainly fit the latter portion of that definition (for example, I would include folks like Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Patricia King, Beth Moore, Charles Finney, Jacobus Arminus, and maybe to a lesser extent, even John Calvin--and we haven't even gotten to the heretics I write about weekly).

The Christian Cyclopedia defines 'Antichrist' as:

Term used in the NT (1) of all false teachers (1 John 2:18; 4:3) and (2) of one outstanding adversary of Christ (1 John 2:18). Characteristics of the Antichrist are mentioned, e.g., in Daniel 11; 2 Thessalonians 2.

As to why Lutherans consider the Office of the Pope to be an "Antichrist", I give you the following Roman Catholic documents.  Keeping the definition of Antichrists above in mind (anyone who puts themselves in the place of God or who promulgates false teaching), the words below kind of speak for themselves.


From the Bull Unam Sanctam (1302):

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].  Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' "

Vicar means "to stand in place of".  The Pope, as "Vicar of Christ", stands in place of Christ since they cannot be two, but one.  This is essentially their first argument, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, to the Pope having dominion over the Left and Right Hand Kingdoms (a discussion for another time).

"This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]*. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are subject to anyone but God (not the Pope, not Peter, not anyone).  The only way for Catholics to make the argument that all humans are subject to the Pontiff is by saying the Pope stands in place of Christ.  This, then, would fall under both false teaching and placing oneself in the place of Christ, both of which fall under the definition of an "Antichrist".

* Probably not the time for this discussion, but Jesus' statement "On this rock I shall build my Church" refers to Peter's confession ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."), not Peter in specific.  Additionally, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," etc. refers to the Office of the Keys, not Peter specifically.  A simple look at the original text in Greek makes this very clear.


From Session 6 of the Council of Florence (1439):

"We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

Again, nowhere in Scripture is the Pope (or anyone but God) given "primacy" over the world, nor is Peter or the line of Popes given authority to stand as the "Vicar of Christ", nor is anyone but God the Father of all Christians.  It is dangerous to put one's trust in man rather than God, especially when God gives no man such status.


Interestingly, The Council of Trent (following the Lutheran and protestant reformations) does not mention the Pope (at least on this topic).  Considering it was such a point of contention, and that both Lutherans and protestants raged in many ways against the Pope, one would think that would be the prime topic of such a council.


From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

"4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.   

5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41]."

Christ, not Peter (or the Office of the Roman Pontiff) is the Cornerstone and foundation of the Church.

"6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends."

The strength of the catholic church (universal church) is faith in Christ, not faith in the primacy of the Pope.



From Session 4 of Vatican I (1870), Chapter 4:

"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60]."

In other words, Peter never sinned in his teaching and the Pope (office) has never sinned in its teaching.  Nevermind that Peter was called "Satan" by Christ and told to get behind him (Matthew 16:13-23, the previous verses included for context--just after Peter's confession of faith that is the foundation of the church, he dares to rebuke the Lord and is rebuked himself), denied Christ three times (the only mortal sin is denial of God and blasphemy of the Holy Ghost--Matthew 26:71-75, Mark 14:66-68, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:15-27), hypocritically participated with the Judaizers when it suited him (Galatians 2:11-21); and nevermind that Catholic doctrine has 'evolved' and sometimes contradicts itself because of the proclamations of various Popes.  No, none have ever erred or sinned in their teaching, including Peter.  (Sorry, I really was trying to keep the snark to a minimum...)

"7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell."

See the previous comment.  Always speaking the truth and with never-failing faith.  Was Peter's faith never-failing when he denied Christ?  Was he truthful when he denied his Savior?  When he rebuked Jesus?  When he participated with the Judaizers (a heretical sect, I might add)?

"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA ["from the chair"], that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Always truthful, never-failing faith and now infallible (a person who cannot fail, as opposed to inerrant, meaning without error in fact).  And yet the evidence is to the contrary.  Peter himself was clearly not perfect, not always truthful, and not always faithful to God.  He was a man, just like the rest of us.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (note: I removed the footnotes for readability, if you want to see those, they are at the link):

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Again, the Pope as the "Vicar of Christ" or "the one who stands in the place of Christ".

"891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."

In other words, the Ex Cathedra declarations of the Pope are to be viewed and believed as if it was Scripture itself.

"892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."

And here, that the non-Ex Cathedra declarations are to be adhered to with "religious assent", while distinct from the "assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it."  In other words, not quite infallible, but it almost might as well be.


Finally, from Vatican II (1965):

"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

Once again, the Office of the Pope (the Roman Pontiff) in the place of God the Father and God the Son.  Nowhere in Scripture is this power given to any human.


A few brief notes in closing.

In Confession and Absolution, a Lutheran minister would say, "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."  This power comes from Matthew 16:19, where the Office of the Keys (all ministers of God) are given the power to bind and loose sins.  This is not the same as proclaiming oneself the "Vicar of Christ", because this power was given to ministers by Christ--anything beyond that was not a power given to the pastors and ministers.

There is no need for the office of infallibility because our doctrine is clear and does not change: our doctrine comes from Scripture, and no utterances of man should ever be held on the same level as Scripture.

An interesting thought from when we did a study on this in Church: the Roman Catholic Church has but one Sacrament, the Pope.  Because all power and authority are given to the Pope according to Roman Catholic teaching, all sacraments would lead back to him rather than God.

At some point, in a separate post, I will write about the three reasons why the Pope is not the head of both the Left-Hand and Right-Hand Kingdoms as he claims.  If anything, he would "rule" in (but not be the head of) the Right-Hand Kingdom alone and his (meaning the office as a whole) intrusion into the Left-Hand Kingdom has caused many problems throughout history.

(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.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").