Should the Early Church have persecuted heresies?

[URA]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

 

[football5680]

Yes. Saying you follow Jesus doesn't really tell you much. Even the Muslims would say that they follow Jesus because they think all the Prophets taught the same thing that their false prophet did. What constitutes a true follower of Jesus should be defined and that is what the Saints and Early church did.

 

[bcbsr]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

If you read books like Galatians, I think they did "persecute" heresies.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Of course. It was right for the early Christians to protect what they believed Jesus taught.

What would we have now if they didn't??

 

[dreadnought]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

One problem with heresies is that people will have different understandings of the gospel, and the next thing you know, they are accusing each other of being heretics.

 

[dqhall]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

The church in Rome decided it was a heresy to have the Bible translated from Latin into English. John Wycliffe disobeyed the church. I am glad of it as I can not read Latin.

 

[URA]

The church in Rome decided it was a heresy to have the Bible translated from Latin into English. John Wycliffe disobeyed the church. I am glad of it as I can not read Latin.

This article was written by a guy (Dave Armstrong) who was an evangelical Protestant campus minister who did an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism, and ended up converting. He's since become a very prolific author of Catholic apologetic, and his background makes him more authentic than a "crib Catholic" such as myself.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/was-the-catholic-church-historically-an-enemy-of-the-bible

 

[dqhall]

This article was written by a guy (Dave Armstrong) who was an evangelical Protestant campus minister who did an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism, and ended up converting. He's since become a very prolific author of Catholic apologetic, and his background makes him more authentic than a "crib Catholic" such as myself.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/was-the-catholic-church-historically-an-enemy-of-the-bible

People who possessed Bibles translated into English were sentenced to death by your venerated Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

 

[HTacianas]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

The early church was adamant about preserving Christian orthodoxy. The notion of "following Jesus" is refuted by the bible itself. The early gnostics "followed Jesus" but believed he was on the earth as a spirit only, with no material body, leading the writer of 1 John to label them antichrist.

The Nicene Creed was written to establish the orthodox beliefs of Christianity and to refute, line by line, heresies that had crept into the Church.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, it is important that they stood against false teaching.

 

[Tolworth John]

You cannot use todays ideas to question how people behaved in different times.
In the past respect. The removing of hats, bowing, getting out of the way of ones betters was all part of daily life.

That included dictating on matters of clothing, food, behaviour and belief.

We are not that different from them. What people belief is still being dictated.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

Just so we know where you stand, are you saying it's more important to follow your church than to follow Jesus Christ?

 

[FireDragon76]

Heresies, not heretics. I'm talking about doctrines here; persecuting the people is a different matter.

Given the modern environment, with the widespread idea that "As long as you're following Jesus, that's all that matters!", I find it interesting how strongly the early Church would disagree. Paul's letters make many references to false doctrines, about keeping the traditions & teachings from him, not from others, and the Church Fathers are very adamantly against such diversions form Church teachings (especially those who deny the Real Presence of the Eucharist), it's clear that the early church put a lot of effort into maintaining specific teachings, instead of saying "As long as you're following Jesus, you're okay!".

So the question: Should the earliest Christians have been so determined to teach a specific set of doctrine? Or should they be like modern Christianity, and say that following Christ is the only thing that really matters?

Persecution of heretics did not really start until post-Constantine. Indeed, some Christians such as Martin of Tours opposed the persecution of heretics by the empire.

Martin was a true Christian saint. No religious doctrine is worth killing anybody over, that's not the way of Jesus.

 

[football5680]

Just so we know where you stand, are you saying it's more important to follow your church than to follow Jesus Christ?

The Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Gnostics all claim to follow Jesus Christ. Do they?

 

[Phil 1:21]

The Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Gnostics all claim to follow Jesus Christ. Do they?

Would you mind answering the question? Thanks.

 

[lismore]

Yes, it is important that they stood against false teaching.

Yes, agreed. However I think 'persecution' as I understand it is a huge step further than 'taking a stand'. 'Persecution' would also involve ill-treatment, violence, abuse and torment, perhaps physical torture and murder.

I believe taking a stand is laudable.

'Persecution' is evil.

God Bless You

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, agreed. However I think 'persecution' as I understand it is a huge step further than 'taking a stand'. 'Persecution' would also involve ill-treatment, violence, abuse and torment, perhaps physical torture and murder.

I believe taking a stand is laudable.

'Persecution' is evil.

God Bless You

I agree, which is why I said it the way I did.

I think a lot of what we consider "persecution" is associated with other times and places than the early Church though. They definitely sanctioned heresies but not really a lot of persecution, especially compared to other situations.