Why were heresies wrong in the Early Church, but fine now?

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

 

[Monk Brendan]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

You've never been to an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox church, have you?

When you get things right the first time, nothing has to change and nobody has to be infallible.

 

[Resha Caner]

There never was an undisputed truth. I hope you're not carrying an idealized version of the early church.

 

[Albion]

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided.

Once again, we need to say that "Protestants" (and certainly "Protestants are... divided") is misleading to use in this kind of discussion since it implies that the thousands of churches classified as Protestant have a reason to be united in some way other than in the sense that we all believe it would be desirable for ALL Christian churches to be united.

The term is simply one of classification and does not imply that they were ever united but then split or that the differences between them are trivial. A Seventh Day Adventist, for example, has relatively little in common with a Lutheran and virtually no common history.

 

[Resha Caner]

A Seventh Day Adventist, for example, has relatively little in common with a Lutheran and virtually no common history.

I'm Lutheran and I had a friend in high school who was SDA. It was kinda weird.

 

[Albion]

But when someone says that you're both Protestants, so why don't you go to the same church, he is has missed something, hasn't he? Or maybe we should say instead that he is assuming something he shouldn't.

 

[Resha Caner]

But when someone says that you're both Protestants, so why don't you go to the same church, he is has missed something, hasn't he? Or maybe we should say instead that he is assuming something he shouldn't.

Is that question addressed to me? If so, yeah. I was just having fun, but I agree with your point.

 

[sfs]

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

Not a lot has happened to the idea that's there is a fundamental truth. Lots and lots of Christians still think there is a fundamental truth, and that their sect has dibs on it. What's changed is that they lack the power (in particular, the power of the state) to coerce all of those other Christians to accept their version of the truth.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong",

Yes, we may.

 

[RDKirk]

Once again, we need to say that "Protestants" (and certainly "Protestants are... divided") is misleading to use in this kind of discussion since it implies that the thousands of churches classified as Protestant have a reason to be united in some way other than in the sense that we all believe it would be desirable for ALL Christian churches to be united.

The term is simply one of classification and does not imply that they were ever united but then split or that the differences between them are trivial. A Seventh Day Adventist, for example, has relatively little in common with a Lutheran and virtually no common history.

An SDA is outside the Nicene Creed, however, so that's a bad example.

In my travels, I have of necessity had to attend--even join--congregations outside the one I was raised in.

I've found that as long as they are within the Nicene (or Apostle's) Creed, everything else was nonsalvational detail--what Paul called "disputable matters."

 

[Albion]

An SDA is outside the Nicene Creed, however, so that's a bad example.

I thought of that, but a lot of authorities have lately decided that the SDA no longer belongs in that category, so that is why I used it. However, there are many other churches that would have served the purpose, I think you'll agree.

 

[bcbsr]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

Who do you mean by "we"? Didn't Protestants like Luther split with Catholicism because he scrutinized what he reckoned heresy in Catholicism? And, outside the safehouse forums, aren't we all scrutinizing one another's beliefs in these forums? Granted Catholicism doesn't allow itself to be scrutinized. Maybe that's the "we" you're referring to. But many of the rest of us scrutinize all ideas in light of scripture. Through maybe the Orthodox think that Orthodox traditions trump scripture.

In my opinion Catholics and Orthodox have an artificial sense of unity in their ranks due largely to not allowing themselves to be scrutinized. Protestants tend to view scriptures as the standard of truth over that of institutional tradition (to varying degrees) and thus the debate among Protestants comes down to interpretation rather than institutional allegiance.

For example in the public forums Catholics are simply not going to produce convincing arguments to the rest of us by saying "because the Pope says so", even though that may be convincing to Catholics.

 

[RDKirk]

For example in the public forums Catholics are simply not going to produce convincing arguments to the rest of us by saying "because the Pope says so", even though that may be convincing to Catholics.

As we can see happening with this Pope, "because the Pope says so" can have its limits.

Considering that Catholics can actually believe what they want as long as they don't teach it, I think the real case is that the Pope says, "We're going with this as the textbook answer for now," and everyone agrees not to fight about it.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines. Now, there's so many doctrines flying around from different branches of the Church that even fundamental issues like the Trinity and original sin aren't always taught!

What happened? Why was there a fundamental truth when the Church began, but no truth now?

And blaming the Catholics or the Protestants or any branch of the Church doesn't answer the question; you may say that "We changed teachings because the Catholics were wrong", but that doesn't answer why the Protestants are so badly divided. Luther & Calvin knew the importance of maintaining true teachings, as they both had mini-inquisitions, persecuting people who strayed from their teachings (and in Calvin's case, actually killing a few); while I'm not defending Inquisition-style persecution, why has the mentality of "We need to maintain 1 set of teachings" gone away from so many Christians?

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." --2 Timothy 4:3

The human condition is never satisfied with the simplicity of the Gospel. From the very beginning,there were those who wanted the "power" made by flesh rather than the "Power of the Holy Spirit". Jesus warned us of this. That is why He said many will go down the wide road of destruction and very few will find the narrow gate where He is. We must relinquish all man made doctrines and follow the voice of the Sheppard.

John 10:27-28
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think we have seen that calling others heretics serves no good purpose.

 

[concretecamper]

You've never been to an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox church, have you?

When you get things right the first time, nothing has to change and nobody has to be infallible.

Hmmm.....Early Eastern Churches gave us Arianism and Nestorianism. Luckily Rome was there to set things straight!!!

 

[Not David]

Hmmm.....Early Eastern Churches gave us Arianism and Nestorianism. Luckily Rome was there to set things straight!!!

It seems Rome didn't prevent the Schism nor the creation of 30,000 denominations.

 

[concretecamper]

It seems Rome didn't prevent the Schism nor the creation of 30,000 denominations.

Yep, obediance to Him is something many find tough to do.

 

[RDKirk]

Seems to be a certain discrepancy; the Early Church had a mission to make sure that only the true teachings of the Church were taught, and went out to correct people who taught false doctrines.

Did they have that as a "mission," though?

It seems that up until they gained the power of the emperor's sword, there were plenty of doctrines floating around.

 

[Just Another User]

Heresies in the early church that I are accepted now? Big topic. I'll define early church from the death of John the Apostle who died in the reign of Trajan (according to Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of John himself) so probably around 98-102AD from the Council of Nicea in 325AD.

I'll choose the only two "true" heresies if we go by what the word heresy means which is division. These two groups changed some actual actions and behaviour about the church. Believe it or not, the early church were quite relaxed on doctrine in most cases. They were more concerned about righteous living than beliefs.

Montanism. Founded in the in the mid 2nd century by Montanus.
and
Novatianism. Founded in the mid 3rd century by Novatian.

I could do other major heresies like Modalism or Arianism but I'm assuming most people have heard of such things. Arianism lives on with Jehovah's Witnesses and Modalism lives on with Oneness Pentecostalism. The reason why I won't delve into such groups is because their actual actions didn't inherently change while joining such heretical sects and I'm more concerned about actions than beliefs.

I won't delve into Gnosticism because it's too big a issue. It denied the authority of the Apostles so it's probably incorrect to even class them as heretics because they had more differences than similarities. It was probably founded by Simon Magus (man mentioned in Acts 8) and various of subsects of this group existed apart of the church until the early 2nd century were in was purged. Nevertheless it still existed outside the established church from that time onwards and elements of it exist in the New Age movement.

Montanism (or New Prophecy)

Montanism was very similar to Orthodox Christianity is a number of ways. In fact it would appear that most weren't even outright excommunicated as a group. Nevertheless by today's standard's they'd be classed as heretics. One difference were the stricter moral code such a more ascetic lifestyle and no remarriage after divorce. The other major difference was the prophetic revelations received by it's members. Despite rumors, these revelations never overruled scripture or even added doctrines but lead to clearer understanding of it. In addition their prophesies were very different to mainstream Christianity usually being less controlled and to put it crudely, really crazy! God apparently spoke through the founder/s of the sect.

The biggest defender of Montanism was Tertullian. Though he was sympathetic of the movement he never left the Orthodox church despite what many claim. works like the Shepard of Hemas and Athengoras' A Plea for the Christians do appear to have some Montanism leaning in respect to personal ethic but it's inconclusive to say if they were actually of this group.

Charismatics and Pentecostals are probably the closest to Montanism in respect to their prophetic revelations. Montanism would probably have an easier time in some respects in thriving in the modern culture I guess it could be considered to be fine today to a degree. The stricter personal ethic might not stick though.

Novatianism ( or The Purists)

Novatianism was even closer to Orthodox Christianity and only differed on one issue. The remission of Christians after lapsing in persecution. the Orthodox stance was to bring back those that had lapsed in faith. After the Decian persecution of 250-252AD many a person was returning to the church after such fierce persecution ended. Followers of Novatian felt this was corrupt and immoral and he was made Pope by three other bishops. He was later excommunicated and his entire sect was denounced. Despite agreeing more with the Orthodox church than the Montanists his sect were wiped from the Church but nevertheless thrived until the combination of church and state by Constantine in the early 300s which rendered their sect useless.

Though the sect did have some support among some members of the church I can't recall any work which is popular which had Novatist leanings beside maybe the Shepard of Hemas but once again this is debatable (and the book was written about 100 years earlier than the rise of Novatianism).

Novatianism might exist in places were the church is persecuted but nowhere in the Western World does such a sect exist.