Tag Archives: Roman Catholic Church

• 14 Comments

•

First, the basic definition of "heresy", since this is a word that has been used in connection with "subordinationism".

Heresy:

From merriam-webster:

1
  • a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
  • b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
  • c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2
  • a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
  • b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

I think it is important to understand that in order to have a "heresy", you have to have an authority to proclaim it OR to have an absolute, definitive theory, opinion, practice or doctrine to which to adhere (and be contrary to).

POINT: If you choose to level an accusation of "heresy", you should have an authoritative church body that represents "the Church" as a whole. If you cannot do this, you are choosing, either as a single person or small body, to proclaim orthodoxy and/or heresy outside of the "body" as a whole.

Accusations of heresy are serious business. False accusations are more serious yet. We should be very cautious when using such words as "heresy" or "blasphemy", lest we bear false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have little trouble examining doctrine against "historical proclamations" of heresy.  There was a time that was much closer to the cross and the apostles then we are now.  There was a time when the church was united; before the church in Rome and the Eastern Church separated.  Before that time, the young church had several councils that gathered together, examined Scripture and proclaimed "orthodoxy".

So...who decides?

A Church Council is an official ad hoc gathering of representatives to settle Church business. Such Councils are called rarely and are not the same as the regular gatherings of church leaders (synods, etc). An ecumenical council is one at which the whole Church is represented. The three major branches of the Church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) recognize seven ecumenical councils: Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (680), Nicea II (787). Further ecumenical councils were rendered impossible by the widening split between Eastern (Orthodox, Greek-speaking) and Western (Catholic, Latin-speaking) Churches, a split that was rendered official in 1054 and has not yet been healed. (from PBCC.org)

I'll let folks do their own search for the "seven ecumenical councils" - because which of the three major branches will cite different sources, yet all three branches recognize a group of seven councils on which all agree.

In short...if these seven councils agree that a doctrine is "heresy", all three major branches of Christianity today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) will agree.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

  • The Council of Nicea, 325
  • The Council of Constantinople, 381
  • The Council of Ephesus, 431
  • The Council of Chalcedon, 451
  • The Council of Constantinople II, 553
  • The Council of Constantinople III, 680
  • The Council of Nicea II, 787

To wrap it up, these seven ecumenical councils of the early church met to BOTH unite the church on essential doctrine and to separate those who teach heresy from those who teach truth.

I believe that if a teaching is not found (or condemned) in these seven councils, it becomes more difficult to level an accusation of "heresy". Again, we should be very careful when doing so.

•

For me, debates and controversy spark great amounts of self-examination and study.

Over the last few weeks, I've been studying the "Solas" - I've studied TULIP backward and forward, from an Arminian/Calvinist view, but not the Solas.

The first time I "did" TULIP, I changed religions (from a lifelong Arminian to Reformed). In the last four years I've learned to look deeper...but never at the Solas.

This study is taking me to some very interesting places, SOLA FIDE most of all.

The Reformed answer to Arminius' followers was capsulated in TULIP (and not all of the letters are the best ones they could have used, but the word works, especially coming out of Holland).

The SOLAS were a direct attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church in western Europe, so they actually came first.

I've studied Catholic doctrine before, because of a familial relationship, but not as a direct study of the Reformation, or how Catholic doctrine and the Reformation interacted.

A week ago today I was challenged by a dear friend to examine my reasons for my tatoo - after much time spent in prayer and contemplation, the motives for the design are more firm in my mind. It is Christ/Kristos alone on that cross that delivers.

If I put Christ squarely on that cross, there is no room for my works being involved in my salvation, either getting it, or keeping it.

I watched a movie and a documentary last night that hit home so hard (hint: there's a review coming) that bad doctrine has bad consequences. When you mess around with the finished work of Christ on the cross, when you bring works into the equation - wicked things happen.

For me, I believe that the Solas will be more meaningful than TULIP...