Intimations were given in Scripture while the apostles lived of the errors exposed which disturbed the peace and purity of the Church, and predictions of continuance and extension of these and others were given also. And these heresies were prominent and dominated the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, flourished in the latter second century and wrote against these errors through a Latin translation. Hippolytus, along with him, is the main source as to early heretical doctrine.

The successors of these men were Epiphanius and Augustine; but the word "heresy" is not the same as our definition or usage of the word which is to denote an important deviation from sound doctrine made by adherents of the divine mission of Jesus and divine authority of the Scriptures. But it is a definition of any system initially leading into errors with any referencing to Christ and Christianity by those not of by any propriety called Christians or the member of any Christian church. This is an important distinction.

Errors of this sort of apostolic condemnation disturbed the Early Church, and they engaged the Early Fathers who called them "heresies," so this name continues in ecclesiastical history, though the term is used now in a limited sense which is called properly "forms of infidelity." Heresies of the first and second centuries were ravings of madmen without a standard of scriptural or rational bases, but gave full unbridling to their imaginations. Their influences passed due to no foundation.

Therefore, historical investigation of first and second century heretics, even into the third century, is more peculiar than useful. Their monstrous systems had no effects directly on subsequent church views. Some of their subjects still occupy men's minds: the origin and causes of evil and the creation of the world connected to the subject of evil. They threw no light on these subjects. Men of substance under the guidance of sound philosophy and deference to God's revelation have succeeded.

Gnosticism, which is a general name for heretical systems of the first two centuries and of some measure of the third; and Manichaeism, which gave the greater prominence, provide useful, instructive lessons for observers of human nature and philosophical expounders. These heresies illustrate scriptural doctrine of man's natural darkness of understanding and a striking commentary on the Apostle's (Paul's) reflection of the World's wisdom not knowing God; and men, not wise, becoming fools.

These are of little purely theological viewpoint in usefulness, but only of a practical use of the early heresies: some light on Scriptural references to them. In other words, an acquaintance with them does throw some light on some portions of the Word of God which referred to them. This is an object of the highest value, and should be the standard by which we should estimate the real value of all knowledge. The highest object of understanding is to obtain an accurate and comprehensive knowledge of the revealed will of God by ascertaining the true meaning and application of every portion of God's Word.

Only one exception, that is, in the Apostles' lifetime, which communicates information to us by subsequent writers which does give us some assistance in understanding the meaning and application of some passages of the New Testament, which is the key practical purpose to which a knowledge of the early heresies is to be applied, is Paul's statement regarding Hymenaeus and Philetus. All of the other names: Hermogenes, Phygellus, Demas, Hymenaeus, Philetus, Alexander, and Diotrephes are mentioned in the New Testament, but we have no certain or trustworthy information in early writers concerning them or any additions to the very brief notices given us of them in Scripture.

The most specific New Testament heresy and the mentioning of names is Paul's statement concerning Hymenaeus and Philetus and that they have erred in stating the resurrection is passed already and will overthrow the faith of some. Of these two men, we learn nothing from subsequent writers and no light upon the specific statement of Paul as to the nature of the heresy held by them. But in general we learn from subsequent writers as to the view of some of the Gnostic sects which denied the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The Docetae denied the reality of Christ's body and denied the reality of His death and resurrection. Having denied these things, it was easy to deny the resurrection altogether. However, some explanation must be given of this situation. Paul stated they said the resurrection had already passed, and our natural inquiry arises "What past thing was it to which they pointed as being the resurrection?” Now Irenaeus informs us that Menander, who was one of the leading Gnostics of the first century, taught that Gnostic baptism was the resurrection and the only one to be expected. Hence we learned there was a sect of Gnostics in the Apostolic Age who allegorized away the Resurrection into baptism; therefore, we can have no difficulty in seeing what Hymenaeus and Philetus meant when they said the Resurrection had already passed.

Regarding Simon Magus and the Nicolaitanes, who are mentioned in Scripture, we have a good deal of information given us by subsequent writers; however, the information throws no light on the statements of Scripture concerning them, is purely historical in its character and application, and is even historically accompanied with considerable difficulties and no small measure of uncertainty.

The heresies most frequently referenced in Scripture and knowledge which throws the most light upon interpretations are those Cerinthus and the Docetae. As of the first century advanced and the Apostles died, Gnostic heresies became prevalent, brought numerous subjects comprehended in Christian revelation, and affected the state and condition of the Church most of all. The Docetae denied the reality of Christ's body and His sufferings, maintaining these were mere phantasms of appearances. The Apostle John repeatedly referred to these heresies throwing light upon the true import of some of his statements.

We find in the epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp and in the Gospel of John references to the doctrines of Cerinthus. In these, we find the doctrine of the crucifixion was to the Jews a stumblingblock and to the Greeks foolishness. In accordance with this, we find very soon some who did not altogether deny Christ's divine mission began to explain away His crucifixion. Even in the Apostolic Age, these attempts were made, and full accounts evolved in second-century Gnostic heretics, such as Saturninus and Valentinus. Some speculated Paul referenced them when he spoke "of enemies of the cross of Christ”; but the expression in that passage seems rather to be taken in a wide and specific sense. But there can be no doubt John referred to Cerinthus and the Docetae in his epistles. In I John 1:1, this may be fairly regarded as bearing a reference to the heresy of the Docetae. The two complete names for them are Docetae and Phantasiastae, so-called because they held that Christ's body was such only in appearance, that it was a mere phantasm which appeared indeed a body to the eyes of men but would not admit of being handled. The heresy of the Docetae implied a denial of the Incarnation of Christ, a denial that he had taken to himself a true body, in short, a denial that he had come in the flesh. Even Jerome made a statement illustrating that even while the apostles were alive and the blood of Christ still fresh in Judea, men arose and maintained that his body was a mere phantasm or deceitful appearance. This statement of Jesus coming in the flesh clearly implied is that he existed previously to his coming. This goes against the then modern Socinians and the ancient Docetae. The knowledge of the views of the ancient Docetae throws light on Scripture.

John clearly, in these passages, contradicted these heresies, but also showed that Christ did not merely come in the flesh, but he assumed human nature and likewise took a reasonable soul. The controversy as to the soul of Christ is one of later origin than the Apostolic Age, or the first century. There is no difficulty in proving from Scripture that Jesus Christ took a reasonable human soul as well as a true body. Incarnation, in the literal meaning of the word, ενσαρκωσις, proves these. A previous existence, an assumption of a true and real body as contemporaneous with his coming and appearing in the world in the reality of it is flesh or body and a soul are all proved conclusively against the modern as well as the ancient heretics under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now we study the heresy of Cerinthus. Irenaeus tells us John wrote his gospel principally to oppose the propagation of his doctrines. We learn from subsequent writers that Cerinthus, as well as second-century Gnostic heretics; that "Jesus" and "Christ" must be separated since Jesus was a mere man; and that Christ, one of the αιωνες, descended upon Him at His baptism, dwelt in Him until He was about to suffer death, and then left Him, and return to the pleroma. This heresy is contradicted and exploded by the fact that Jesus is Christ, and, in terminis, denied the Cerinthians’ separation and gave the contrarily factual position that at no time Jesus existed that He was not Christ. John gives us the answer in 1st John, Chapter 5. We also have a similar statement in the book of Acts. These verses enlighten us in the manifest fact that Jesus was the Messiah promised to the Fathers and predicted by the Prophets. But by the time of the writing of John, men had arisen who were disturbing the purity and peace of the Church by making a distinction or separation between Jesus and Christ. John is warning us about a branch of the heresy concerning Christ's person which existed not only in his time, but continued to infest the Church for several succeeding generations. The important issue is that the vital or fundamental importance of the right or correct views of the person of Christ are intimately and directly tied to the salvation of men's souls.

The Gnostic system exerted a considerable influence upon the views and conditions of the Church in early times, especially in regard to two points -- first, the Trinity and the person of Christ; and secondly, what has been called "the ascetic institute or discipline," which includes celibacy and monasticism, which began to prevail so widely in the church and which exerted so injurious an influence. The orthodox, especially in the 3rd century, gave indications that these are rash and presumptuous speculations and not clearly revealed in Scripture. This orthodox view was maintained by the great body of the church, when in the 4th and 5th centuries, these issues were settled by councils of the church, and creeds and decrees were adopted which were accordant with Scripture to secure the general concurrence of subsequent generations.

This next point is very important. However, this was not so with "the ascetic institute," which holistically confluenced itself with the leaven of the Gnostic system into the great body of the Church itself, even when its formal doctrines were openly condemned. The infestation of the Gnostic system, however absurd and ridiculous the formal and specific doctrines were, was developed with great ingenuity and sagacity. This is documented and noted in Mr. Isaac Taylor's "Ancient Christianity," which was written in opposition to the Tractarians. All need to study this work who wish to understand the true condition of the church, both in regard to the doctrine and practice in ancient Christianity, that is, the latter half of the 4th and the first half of the 5th centuries, which was held by the Tractarians as a great model according to which the church should now be regulated.

Celibacy and monasticism were clear manifestations of Gnostic principles and which were fully developed afterwards in Popery.

Gnosticism was a general description of a system abstracted from special absurdities and extravagances traceable to a sort of combination all of Oriental theosophy, the Jewish Kabala (cabbala), and Platonic philosophy. In the course of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, we see traces on the one hand of this philosophical speculation being modified by the influences of Christian revelation and its contents, and, on the other hand the views held by those that prevailed in the church among those who professed a great respect for the sacred Scriptures while being influenced by the prevailing philosophy. The results of this process was a class of man, remaining to this day, a subject of controversial discussion as to whether or not they were Christians in any sense, which also may be applied to many modern philosophers. This can be very true of our psychiatrists, churches, and theologians.

The question should be did these people affirm to Scripture as the ultimate standard in regard to every subject which statements apply? There are three stages, or more correctly, categories of faults in these men: they openly denied Scripture's authority, they explained away its statements by manifestly unfair and nonutilitarian processes (in other words, they rendered Scripture of no real utility), and thirdly, they just left Scripture out of view altogether and went about their vain speculations about God, man's relation to God, and man's duties and destiny without any reference to what the word of God teaches.

Each of these three methods distilled into one general category: casting off the controlling authority of God's word and leaving full scope for indulging in their own theories of speculations bringing all high and exalted subjects to be tried by the standard of their own understandings, feelings, fancies and inclinations which have prevailed at different times, in different countries, and according to the diversities of circumstances and influences.

The second mode stated above consisted in substantially and arbitrarily rejecting some parts of Scripture, while explaining away and perverting the rest. This mode was prevalent in the early times of the church, as it is today. It was generally adopted by the Gnostics of the 2nd and 3rd centuries; by the Manichaeans of the 3rd and 4th centuries; Origen, though remaining connected with the church, came very close to it; and it is this which has been followed by the modern rationalist and neologians on the Continent. The Gnostics and the Manichaeans formed the modern German Rationalists. Cunningham gives a quotation which accurately gives a complete portrait of modern German rationalism from the Manichaeans of the 4th and 5th centuries.

The contemplation of these early heresies should remind us of the paramount necessity of settling clearly and definitively the important questions of whether God has really given us a positive supernatural revelation of his will, and if so, in what book or revelation is it to be found. We need to know whether it was really intended to be understood by man in general through the ordinary processes of interpretation and is it fitted to be a standard of faith and practice. Then having settled this, we should make our minds familiar with the ground on which our judgment rests making an honest, tireless, constant, and unshrinking application to these subjection of every thought and deed into captivity.

Be first to comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved

---