The Root of Heresy

The Root of Heresy “And ye shall be as gods; knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5b The word “heresy” and the related word “heretic” are pejorative terms. This means that they stir up emotion, especially anger. These create an “us versus them” mentality. We can look into the history of the church and see the devastating effects of heresy. We think of one groups of “Christians” burning another set of people who also consider themselves “Christian.” Heresy is an ugly word which has had a violent history. I would suppose that it would be good to define what “heresy” is, before we go further. Heresy is closely related to schism with which it is inseparably yoked. The first heresy in the Bible goes back to the Book of Genesis. Satan tempts Eve by first questioning whether God should have the final say on everything. Should God be taken at His word is what the serpent was intimating Eve. “Should you not investigate further? You need to know everything from good to evil.” The idea of opposites in Hebrew includes every shade between good and evil. If Even and Adam would only eat of this fruit, they would have the knowledge necessary to make their own moral decisions. The first heresy caused a schism between God and man and brought a curse on all humankind. The effects of this curse can be seen everywhere in history to the present as the human race tries to autonomously make its own path apart from God. Man was thrown out of the garden, and without the restraining grace of God would already have destroyed himself. This is the first realm of heresy, one that only God can fix. Man could no longer love God, but railed against God and cursed Him. Heresy is also a covenantal term. We don’t call those who are totally different “heretics.” It is a term used within a faith group or national group. We see the effects of the Fall early on. Man becomes estranged from the woman and disharmony results. This is a split in the family. Then Cain kills his brother Abel. The twelve tribes of Israel split over Rehoboam and proceeded to anathematize each other. Even Paul and Barnabas split over whether John Mark should accompany them. I could cite examples ad nauseum, but these examples demonstrate sufficiently the family nature of schism. The term of heresy was used to describe sectarian difference between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Each claimed the prerogative of being the true representation of Israel. Of course, they each had to exclude the other. The Christian church has by no means been a stranger to heresy and schism. Paul writes to a Corinthian Church that was wracked with division. Some followed after the teaching of Paul, others, Apollos, others in perhaps less than a genuine siprit Jesus and others Cephas. What here is broadly defined as schism and usually not heresy as it was dividing the unity of the church. But the unity of the church is a doctrine and therefore the divisions in the church could also be defined as heresy. There were divisions there at the Lord’s Supper in which the believers ate it at several seatings according to social rank which Paul strongly condemns. He even suggests that the judgment of the Lord in making some sick even to death was upon them for not correctly discerning the body of Christ. Paul actually uses the word “heresy” in I Corinthians 11:19 to describe the sectarian spirit. God would use it though to bring out the genuine believers. And just who are the genuine believers? Of course, those who agree with our position, many would say, are the true believers. But we need to think this over carefully before we give an answer to this question. This idea of a church which is united under its head Jesus Christ is not a suggestion of secondary importance. Again, we need to prayerfully and thoughtfully ponder the idea of “Who is my brother?” This question led to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The early church was wracked by several serious theological disputations. One was the relationship between Jew and Gentile. God did not paper over this issue with a simple “Can’t we just get along.” The debate over this question was hot and heated. It is always harder to unite under a common faith which has content than an empty faith devoid of any content or meaning such as we have today. This is a problem with the ecumenical movement today that just wants to unite in a common faith in a possible and nebulous god who nobody knows other than this god, if it has any personality at all, is an ooey-gooey fresh baked cookies and milk god of love. It is a faith which needs to be earnestly contended for. And contended for it was. They contended over the person of God. They argued over the Trinity. They argued over the person of Jesus Christ. Was He human or divine and in what proportions. I can not in the space of this sermon deal with all of these issues. Besides the necessary moral reforms at the time of the Reformation, another conflict broke out between the relation of faith and works. Of course, this was no new debate, as Augustine and Pelagius had fought over this and other related doctrines such as free will. Is faith formed by acts of love, or do works of love proceed from faith. Debate led to mutual hatred and schism which resulted in much innocent blood being shed throughout Europe. Totay there are about as many view on the Christian faith as there are Christians. We are hardly united by a common faith. It seems that the easy answer is to let everyone believe anything they want. One persons ideas are as valid or invalid as anyone else’s. This is hardly the unity of faith Paul was inspired to proclaim to us. This seems to put us in a terrible dilemma. Do we have to choose a narrow sectarian view of who is a Christian or to throw all Christian doctrine under the bus and unite in an empty and powerless faith? There has to be a different way to look at this dilemma. God help us to find this way. When we are cornered like Jesus was when they tried to trap him with the question whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not, we need the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to find the third way. I do not purpose to tell you what the third way is. This question needs to be deliberated and debated in the context of the counsel of the church as a whole. All I can offer is some sort of guidelines by which this discussion might be made. 1. As the root of heresy seems to be related to the fall of Adam, this should serve as a starting point. When we try to define doctrine with more precision than Scripture provides, this becomes a means of division among the body. I saw this as a visitor to a PCA presbytery meeting where a candidate for ordination was being questioned over the seven days of creation were seven 24 hour days, or whether they were seven longer periods of time. Much heat came from the discussion. The truth is the Bible does not say that it was seven twenty-four hour periods or seven undefined periods of times. It says six days of creation and one of rest. One might also mention the heat between the order of the creation decrees. We can also debate infant baptism versus adult baptism and numerous other issues. It is necessary to commonly affirm what Scripture explicitly affirms like that God created the universe out of nothing and be at liberty to agree to disagree on this issues without excommunicating one another. 2. We must understand that Satan wants to destroy the church. Debate can be healthy in certain circumstances as there needs to be a distinction made as to who is included and who is excluded from the covenantal relationship. But debate can also destroy people’s faith, people for whom Christ died. I am not going as far as some’s understanding of a generous orthodoxy, but on the other hand, we must never forget that love is a doctrine, it is the basis of the covenant itself. We need to tread carefully. What god wants is a strong and united church which is characterized by love for Him first and then each other. 3. Let us not fall into philosophical traps of feeling we have to know everything to know anything. Philosophy says you have to know everything about God to know anything about God. This means we have to be God or we can know nothing about God. Theologians like Karl Barth try to bridge this Gap by saying both are true at the same time. We know everything exhaustively about God, hence his exhaustive Church Dogmatics, but at the same time we know nothing correctly about Him at all. I could only assume that he prefers the latter over the former as I could describe nothing in far fewer words. 4. The correct approach is a humble approach that confesses that even though we do not know everything about God, and at times even know wrongly about God, that God has revealed what He wants us to know through Scripture and its application by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is both the author of Scripture as well as its proper interpreter. Faith says that it is far more important that God knows us completely than we know Him completely. Faith says that God is who He reveals to us in Scripture. Faith says that what God reveals to us is sufficient. Faith says that God is one who decided to redeem creation after the fall rather than destroy it and start again. This God who sought to redeem us came to Adam and Eve with words of judgment and condemnation for sure, but also with words of redemptive hope. We believe that this ultimate expression of the saving will of God is expressed by Jesus, God the Son, dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the dead as the Old Testament prophesied and the New Testament confirms. I leave this for your humble consideration. We as a church ust not give up on the struggle to find the common faith. God does want us to fully understand what He had gracefully revealed to us. Let us debate these issues in a covenantal spirit of love and pray that God gives us wisdom and grace that we might properly glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.