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

[Not David]

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.

None of those stuff are allowed in the Orthodox Church.

 

[Hazelelponi]

To be honest there is nothing in the Bible that says there should be only 1 denomination and all else no matter the doctrinal issues should be absorbed and eliminated.

There was disagreement, heresy and excommunication in the Bible, which is our picture of the early church, it wasn't all roses.

Why are there divisions now? I don't know, why were there divisions then? It's because we can't agree on doctrinal issues. In many cases these are not small disagreements that can be overcome.

Why does God not make sure we all who call ourself Christian believe the same exact thing?

Now that I cannot tell you... I haven't it figured out yet.

 

[Not David]

To be honest there is nothing in the Bible that says there should be only 1 denomination and all else no matter the doctrinal issues should be absorbed and eliminated.

There was disagreement, heresy and excommunication in the Bible, which is our picture of the early church, it wasn't all roses.

Why are there divisions now? I don't know, why were there divisions then? It's because we can't agree on doctrinal issues. In many cases these are not small disagreements that can be overcome.

Why does God not make sure we all who call ourself Christian believe the same exact thing?

Now that I cannot tell you... I haven't it figured out yet.

Jesus Christ founded one Church and says that his followers should be one.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus Christ founded one Church and says that his followers should be one.

The church founded by Christ is quite a different thing from a denomination.. just saying.

Seems some people haven't figured that out yet..

 

[Not David]

The church founded by Christ is quite a different thing from a denomination.. just saying.

Seems some people haven't figured that out yet..

True, there were no denominations until the Reformation.

 

[Hazelelponi]

True, there were no denominations until the Reformation.

The reformation was necessary from all I've read and learned.

But, this isn't a topic about our differences. But of why we don't care to demand to all be in one denomination these days, as in the days the RCC would kill people for following Christ according to their beliefs..

 

[Just Another User]

None of those stuff are allowed in the Orthodox Church.

Novatianism certainly wasn't allowed in the Orthodox church and the African bishops unanimously went against Pope Stephen and said that people who were baptised under the Novatianism sect had to be baptised again. The synod was lead be Cyprian around 256AD.

Montanism though still looked down upon, was never actually officially excommunicated from the church. At least in the beginning. It also appeared to be tolerated somewhat in Carthage were Tertullian was located and several other places across the Empire. Irenaeus was sympathetic to Montanism and advocated peace with them to Pope Eleutherus in the late 170s. In Fact Pope Victor (189-199) appeared to support Montanism to a degree. Most Orthodox treated Montanism with moderation according to their own beliefs and behaviour.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It is my understanding that original sin doctrine interpretation was not taught until Augustine did.

 

[concretecamper]

Sound like Original sin to me.


ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning.

 

[JohnB445]

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

I don't trust any new denomination or doctrine. Lutheran, And the Eastern Orthodox Church is my set point on where I line up with when I read the scriptures, although I still can't decide between the two.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Frankly, the further Christian thought gets from what is Tradtional and Apostolic, the more subjective the idea of heresy becomes. Much of Christian thought today is largely based on private feelings, hunches, impressions, and experiences. When everyone tries to define orthodoxy based on private thoughts and feelings, there's not much cohesion.

 

[grandvizier1006]

I'd chalk it up to freedom of religion. In the days of the early church there were numerous heresies, and all of these heresies threatened to drown out the true message of Christianity. Some Protestants, in light of being at one point a minority group and deemed "heretics", emphasized the need for religious freedom, especially after the European religious wars. Following that various "heretical" groups such as the ones you mentioned had an easier time emerging in a climate that tolerated deviations from orthodox Christian teaching. In some ways this was probably a good thing--it led to freedom of religion and an ability to choose a denomination that best fits your understanding of Christ. However, it also led to non-Christian groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses masquerading as Christians. It's the unfortunate side effect of the marketplace of ideas and people inevitably departing from the Christian faith in a meaningful sense.

 

[Rubiks]

True, there were no denominations until the Reformation.

Category:Schisms in Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[Radagast]

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

Heresies are always wrong. That's why we had a Reformation.

 

[Radagast]

.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There was disagreement, heresy and excommunication in the Bible, which is our picture of the early church, it wasn't all roses.

And they handled those things as Yeshua directed them. That's the difference then to today, and in between.

(1)Why are there divisions now? I don't know, (2)why were there divisions then? It's because we can't agree on doctrinal issues. In many cases these are not small disagreements that can be overcome.

(1)Tradition and disobedience and sin took the place of following Jesus.
(2)So that those who were not true would be seen - it was obvious as described in the NT.

Why does God not make sure we all who call ourself Christian believe the same exact thing?

Choice/ free will/ even to allow some or many to perish.

 

[dzheremi]

Montanism though still looked down upon, was never actually officially excommunicated from the church. At least in the beginning. It also appeared to be tolerated somewhat in Carthage were Tertullian was located and several other places across the Empire. Irenaeus was sympathetic to Montanism and advocated peace with them to Pope Eleutherus in the late 170s. In Fact Pope Victor (189-199) appeared to support Montanism to a degree. Most Orthodox treated Montanism with moderation according to their own beliefs and behaviour.

Don't mean to split hairs, but just so it's out there, Montanism was condemned at a synod held in Phrygia in the year 177, presided over by HG Bishop Apollinarius of Hierapolis. If I had to guess, other places were probably more lenient on them because they actually emerged in Phrygia, and hence were likely more influential/a bigger problem there than elsewhere, at least initially.

 

[ml5363]

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.

It kinda sounds like an agappa love in the comment of we just accept it because the pope said so.
Why can't be have that same trust in Christ and Christ alone?

 

[ml5363]

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.

The only power the apostles we're after was the power of Holy Spirit

 

[ml5363]

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

Why does all heresies have to be wrong? Whos to say one of those wasn't the one true? Why is Catholics always assumed when someone say Christian?

Just because majority hold onto something doesn't make it right.