The term of heresy in new testament

Abstract
U>: Skipped on keyboard input #

1. Key definitions

Heresy, theological doctrine or system rejected as false by ecclesiastical authority. The Greek

word hairesis (from which heresy is derived) was originally a neutral term that signified merely
the holding of a particular set of philosophical opinions. Once appropriated by Christianity,
however, the term heresy began to convey a note of disapproval. In the Acts of the Apostles
( 5:17 ; 15:5 ; Isaiah 24:5 Isaiah 24:14 ; 26:5 ) it denotes a sect, without reference to its character.
Elsewhere, however, in the New Testament it has a different meaning attached to it. Paul ranks
"heresies" with crimes and seditions ( Galatians 5:20 ). This word also denotes divisions or
schisms in the church ( 1 Corinthians 11:19 ). In Titus 3:10 a "heretical person" is one who
follows his own self-willed "questions," and who is to be avoided. Heresies thus came to signify
self-chosen doctrines not emanating from God ( 2 Peter 2:1 ). The term heresy also has been used
among Jews, although they have not been as intense as Christians in their punishment of heretics.
The concept and combating of heresy has historically been less important
in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam than in Christianity. Heresy in Christianity denotes the formal
denial or doubt of a core doctrine of the Christian faith (J.D Douglas (ed) 1974, art Heresy) as
defined by one or more of the Christian churches (Cross & Livingstone (eds) 1974 art Heresy).
In Western Christianity, heresy most commonly refers to those beliefs which were declared to
be anathema by any of the ecumenical councils recognized by the Catholic Church  In the East,
the term "heresy" is eclectic and can refer to anything at variance with Church tradition. Since
the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation, various Christian churches have also used the
concept in proceedings against individuals and groups deemed to be heretical by those churches.

2. History and etymology of the term

The word heresy comes from α7πεατΟ (heresis), a Latin transliteration of the Greek word

signifying (1) a choice, (2) the opinion chosen, and (3) extended sense a sect or school of
thought, but in English it signifies:

1) opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church
or religious system.
2) the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3) the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4) any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
(Oxford English Dictionary 2021).
Of the first appearances of the term terms it has been mentioned it was used to denote warring
factions and a party split, this appearance in the new testament is usually translated to sect
( Bible Hub, All uses of haeresis in the New Testament). This term was appropriated by the
church to signify division and the threat to unity of Christianity  Heresy eventually became
regarded as a departure from orthodoxy, a sense in which heterodoxy was already in Christian
use soon after the year 100 (Mohr Siebeck 2005) By heresies, here, some understand no more but
divisions and sects, and conceive that heresies, in point of opinion or doctrine, are not here
meant. Titus 3:10, heretikon [an heretic] is rendered in the Tigurine Bible sectarum authorem,
and in the margin, factiosum, i.e., a man that is an author of sects (or factions), after the first and
second admonition reject; and, 1 Cor. 11:19, they read, oportet enim et sectas in vobis esse
[indeed, it is right that there are divisions among you]. The Arabic, 1 Cor. 12:25, that is in the
Greek, and our translations, 1 Cor. 11:19, repeats the word schisms out of the preceding verse,
and adds, moreover, the word heresies, reading skismata kai heresis [schisms and heresies], for
there must arise schisms and heresies among you, that those of you who are godly may be
known. It seems that they who understand only divisions to be meant by the word heresies, do
not observe the rising of the apostle’s speech; for, after he has spoken of their skismata, or
schismatical divisions, contrary to the rule of love, he adds, Dei gar kai hereseis, etc., for there
must also be heresies among you “Tertull. de Præscrip. Advers. Hæret. Cum ideo credidisse se
dictat (Apostolus) de schismalibus et dissensionibus quai scilicet etiam hæreses oporteret esse.
Ostendit enim gravioris mali respectu, de levioribus se facile credidisse. Tertullian, On
Objections Against Heretics. [ Automatic Translation] “So when he (the apostle) says, on the
subject of divisions and dissensions, that certainly he believes there should be even heresies; in
fact, by consideration of the weightier evil, he shows that he easily believes it about the less
serious cases.”. Historically, the major means that the church had of combating heretics was
to excommunicate them. In the 12th and 13th centuries, however, the Inquisition was established
by the church to combat heresy; heretics who refused to recant after being tried by the church
were handed over to the civil authorities for punishment, usually execution. A new situation
came about in the 16th century with the Reformation, which spelled the breakup of Western
Christendom’s previous doctrinal unity. The Roman Catholic Church, satisfied that it is the true
church armed with an infallible authority, has alone remained faithful to the ancient
and medieval theory of heresy, and it occasionally denounces doctrines or opinions that it
considers heretical. Most of the great Protestant churches similarly started with the assumption
that their own particular doctrines embodied the final statement of Christian truth and were thus
prepared to denounce as heretics those who differed with them, but, with the gradual growth of
toleration and the 20th-century ecumenical movement, most Protestant churches drastically
revised the notion of heresy as understood in the pre-Reformation church. It does not now seem
to them inconsistent for people to stoutly maintain the doctrines of their own communion while
not regarding as heretics those who hold different views. The Roman Catholic Church, too,
draws a distinction between those who willfully and persistently adhere to doctrinal error and
those who embrace it through no fault of their own—e.g., as a result of upbringing in another
tradition. We must not think that no man is a heretic but he who is consistorially or judicially
admonished, and thereafter continues pertinaciously in his error; for where it is said, Titus 3:10,
“A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject,” it is intimated that he
was an heretic before such an admonition.
"Philosophy was in Greece the great object which divided the opinions and judgments of men;
and hence the term heresy, being most frequently applied to the adoption of this or that particular
dogma, came by an easy transition to signify the sect or school in which that dogma was
maintained;" e.g. the heresy of the Stoics, of the Peripatetics, and Epicureans. Josephus also
speaks of the three heresies (αἰρέσεις, sects, Ant. 12 5, 9 =φιλοσοφίαι, 18, 1, 2) of the Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes. In the historical part of the New Testament, the word denotes a sect or
party, whether good or bad (Ac 5:17; Ac 15:5; Ac 24:5; Ac 26:5; Ac 28:22). In Ac 26:4-5, St.
Paul, in defending himself before king Agrippa, uses the same term, when it was manifestly his
design to exalt the party to which he had belonged, and to give their system the preference over
every other system of Judaism, both with regard to soundness of doctrine and purity of morals. In
the Epistles the word occurs in a somewhat different sense. Paul, in Ga 5:20, puts αἱρέσεις,
heresies, in the list of crimes with uncleanness, seditions (διχοστασίαι), etc. In 1Co 11:19 (there
must also be heresies among you), he uses it apparently to denote schisms or divisions in the
Church. In Tit 3:10 he comes near to the later sense; the "heretical person" appears to be one
given over to a self-chosen and divergent form of belief and practice. John Wesley says: "Heresy
is not in all the Bible taken for 'an error in fundamentals' or in any thing else, nor schism for any
separation made from the outward communion of others. Both heresy and schism, in the modern
sense of the words, are sins that the Scripture knows nothing of" (Works, N. Y. edit. 7, 286). In
the early post-apostolic Church, if "a man admitted a part, or even the whole of Christianity, and
added to it something of his own, or if he rejected the whole of it, he was equally designated as a
heretic. Thus, by degrees, it came to be restricted to those who professed Christianity, but
professed it erroneously; and in later times, the doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by the Council
of Nice, was almost the only test which decided the orthodoxy or the heresy of a Christian.
Differences upon minor points were then described by the milder term of schism; and the
distinction seems to have been made, that unity of faith might be maintained, though schism
existed; but if the unity of faith was violated, the violator of it was a heretic." In general, in the
early Church, all who did not hold what was called the Catholic faith (the orthodox) were
called heretics. At a very early period the notion of willful and immoral perversity began to be
attached to heresy, and thus we may account for the severe and violent language used against
heretics. "Charges, indeed, or insinuations of the grossest impurities are sometimes thrown out
by the orthodox writers against the early heretics; but we are bound to receive them with great
caution, because the answers which may have been given to them are lost, and because they are
not generally justified by any authentic records which we possess respecting the lives of those
heretics. The truth appears to be this, that some flagrant immoralities were notoriously
perpetrated by some of the wildest among their sects, and that these have given coloring to the
charges which have been thrown upon them too indiscriminately. But, whatsoever uncertainty
may rest on this inquiry, it cannot be disputed, first, that the apostolical fathers, following the
footsteps of the apostles themselves, regarded with great jealousy the birth and growth of
erroneous opinions; and next, that they did not authorize, either by instruction or example, any
severity on the persons  of those in error. They opposed it by their reasoning and their eloquence,
and they avoided its contagion by removing from their communion those who persisted in it; but
they were also mindful that within these limits was confined the power which the Church
received from the apostles who founded it over the spiritual disobedience of its members"
(Waddington, History of the Church, ch. 5, p. 59).
3. Relations of heresy to doctrine
"Heresies, like sin, all spring from the natural man; but they first make their appearance in
opposition to the revealed truth, and thus presuppose its existence, as the fall of Adam implies a
previous state of innocence. There are religious errors, indeed, to any extent out of Christianity,
but no heresies in the theological sense. These errors become heresies only when they come into
contact, at least outwardly, with revealed truth and with the life of the Church. They consist
essentially in the conscious or unconscious reaction of unsubdued Judaism or heathenism against
the new creation of the Gospel. Heresy is the distortion or caricature of the original Christian
truth. But as God in his wonderful wisdom can bring good out of all evil, and has more than
compensated for the loss of the first Adam by the resurrection of the second, so must all heresies
in the end only condemn themselves, and serve the more fully to establish the truth. The New
Testament Scriptures themselves are in a great measure the result of a firm resistance to the
distortions and corruptions to which the Christian religion was exposed from the first. Nay, we
may say that every dogma of the Church, every doctrine fixed by her symbols, is a victory over a
corresponding error, and in a certain sense owes to the error, not, indeed, its substance, which
comes from God, but assuredly its logical completeness and scientific form. Heresies, therefore,
belong to the process by which the Christian truth, received in simple faith, becomes clearly
defined as an object of knowledge. They are the negative occasions, the challenges, for the
Church to defend her views of truth, and to set them forth in complete scientific form"
(Schaff, Apostolic Church, § 165). Heresy and Schism. — Near akin to heresy is the idea
of schism or Church division, which, however, primarily means a separation from the
government and discipline of the Church, and does not necessarily include departure from her
orthodoxy… Thus the Ebionites, Gnostics, and Arians were heretics; the Montanists, Novatians,
and Donatists, schismatics. By the standard of the Roman Church, the Greek Church is only
schismatic, the Protestant both heretical and schismatic. Of course, in different branches of-the
Church…there are different views of heresy and truth, heterodoxy and orthodoxy, and likewise
of schism and sect" (Schaff. Apost. Church, § 165). "Heresy, as distinguished from schism,
consists in the adoption of opinions and practices contrary to the articles and practices of any
particular church, whereas schism is secession from that church, the renouncing allegiance to its
government, or forming parties within it; for surely Paul (in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere)
censures men as causing divisions who did not openly renounce allegianice. Neither schism nor
heresy, then, is properly an offence against the Church universal, but against some particular
Church, and by its own members. On the same principle, no Church can be properly called either
heretic or schismatic; for churches being independent establishments, may indeed consult each
other, but if they cannot agree, the guilt of that Church which is in error is neither schism nor
heresy, but corrupt faith or bigoted narrowness. Accordingly, our Reformers, whilst they
characterize the Romish Church as one that has erred, have very properly avoided the
misapplication of the terms 'schismatic' and 'heretic' to it. Nevertheless, if a Church has been
formed by the secession of members from another Church on disagreement of principles, each
seceder is both a schismatic and a heretic because of his former connection; but the crime does
not attach to the Church so formed, and accordingly is not entailed on succeeding members who
naturally spring up in it. If the schism was founded in error,  the guilt of error would always
attach to it and its members, but not that of schism or heresy. He who is convinced that his
Church is essentially in error is bound to secede; but, like the circumstances which may be
supposed to justify the subject of any realm in renouncing his country and withdrawing his
allegiance, the plea should be long, and seriously, and conscientiously weighed; but with respect
to distinct churches, as they can form alliances, so they can secede from this alliance without
being guilty of any crime. So far from the separation between the Romish and Protestant
churches having anything of the character of schism or heresy in it, the Church of England
(supposing the Church of Rome not to have needed any reform) would have been justified in
renouncing its association with it simply on the ground of expediency" (Hinds, Early Christian
Church).

3. Earliest forms
Following list includes the chief heresies of the first six centuries; each will be found in its
alphabetical place in this Cyclopaedia: Century I. Nazarenes, who advocated the observance of
the Jewish law by the worshippers of Christ. Simonians, followers of Simon Magus, who prided
themselves in a superior degree of knowledge, and maintained that the world was created by
angels, denied the resurrection, etc. Nicolaitanes, followers of Nicolaus of Antioch. Cerinthians
and Ebionites, followers of Cerinthus and Ebion, who denied the divinity of Christ, and adopted
the principles of Gnosticism. Many of them were Millenarians. Century I. Elcesaites, the
followers of Elxai or Elcesai, who only partially admitted the Christian religion, and whose
tenets were mostly of philosophic origin. Gnostics, so called from their pretences to
γνῶσις, superior knowledge: this seems to have been the general name of all heretics.
(1.) Among Syrian Gnostics were the followers of Saturninus, who adopted the notion of two
principles reigning over the world, assumed the evil nature of matter, denied the reality of
Christ's human body, etc. Bardesanians: their principles resembled those of Saturninus.
Tatianists and Encratitae, who boasted of an extraordinary continence, condemned marriage, etc.
Apotactici, who, in addition to the opinions of the Tatianists, renounced property, etc., and
asserted that any who lived in the marriage state were incapable of salvation.
(2.) Gnostics of Asia Minor. —  Cerdonians, who held two contrary principles, denied the
resurrection, despised the authority of the Old Testament, and rejected the Gospels. Marcionites,
who resembled the Cerdonians, and in addition admitted two Gods, asserted that the Savior's
body was a phantasm, etc. The followers of Lucian and Apelles may be classed among the
Marcionites.
(3.) Among Egyptian Gnostics were the Basilidians, followers of Basilides, who espoused the
heresies of Simon Magus, and admitted the fundamental point on which the whole of the
hypotheses then prevalent may be said to hinge, namely, that the world had been created, not by
the immediate operation of the divine being, but by the agency of sons. Carpocratians,
Antitactae, Adamites, Prodicians, the followers of Secundus, Ptolemy, Marcus, Colobarsus, and
Heracleon.
(4.) Inferior sects of Gnostics-Sethians, Cainites, Ophites.
Heresies not of Oriental origin: Patripassians, whose principal leader was Praxeas;
Melchizedechians, under Theodotus and Artemon; Hermogenians, Montanists, Chiliasts or
Millenarians. Century II. The Manichaeans, the Hieracites, the Patripassians, under Noetus and
Sabellius; heresy of Baryllus; Paulianists, under Paul of Samosata, Novatians, under Novatus and
Novatian;. the Monarchici, the Arabici, the Aquarians, the Origenists. Century IV. Tha Arians,
Colluthians, Macedonians, Agnolete, Apollinarians, Collyridians, Seleucians,
Anthropomorphites, Jovinianists, Messalians, Timothe ans, Priscillianists, Photinians, Donatists,
Messalians, Bonlosians. Century V. The Pelagians Nestorians, Eutychians,
Theopaschites. Century VI. The Aphthartodocetse, Severiani, C:)rrupticohe, Monothelites.

One of the earliest heresies afflicting the church was Marcionism, which, like most early
heresies, was sharply anti-Jewish.(Jaroslav Pelikan 1971) Marcion held that the gospel's glory
eclipsed the rest of the Bible including the creation and the whole of the Old Testament. Marcion
taught that God's plan of the salvation of men was the supreme message of Scripture to which all
else must be subordinate. He despised sex and childbirth, since they especially smacked of the
material world. Like most other heretics, Marcion was obsessed with idea of the origin of evil
and (again, like most other heretics) found it necessary in buttressing his system to posit two
deities, "`one judicial, harsh, mighty in war, the other mild, placid, simply good and excellent.'
The former was the Creator of the world, the God of the Old Testament; the latter was the Father
of Jesus Christ, who had descended to earth for the first time in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberias Caesar (ibid p74. ) Marcion was, however, one of the first patristic heretics to sever
redemption from creation, as all constant dualists eventually must. Naturally, his novel
hermeneutical axiom led him to deny that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ is in any sense just in
dealing with sin. He denied Christ had an actual body, for then the body would necessarily have
been "stuffed with excrement.( (ibid p75. ) In ostensibly exalting the gospel, Marcion stressed it
absolute newness. To speak of Old Testament authority was to deny the newness of the gospel,
which dispels the law as light does darkness. To Marcion, only Paul the apostle had correctly
presented the gospel, allegedly purging it from all Jewish elements. Like many after him (even
Luther) he established a rationalistic theological construct to which the rest of revelation must
conform; if it does not, it had to be jettisoned. He was one of the early textual critics who deleted
portions of Scripture under the guise of restoring the primitive revelation of Jesus and the gospel.
The church's response was to excommunicate Marcion, condemn his dogma, and tighten up her
own theology. She did this by reaffirming the inspiration and authority of the Old Testament
(while not always consistently applying its authority), and by spiritualizing its promises: "There
was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old
Testament and interrupted it literally (ibid., p81) They all saw the Old Testament as
a Christian revelation fulfilled in the Christian church, not a racially Jewish revelation to be
fulfilled in a future apocalyptic era: the Bible is a book both for and about Jewish and
Gentile Christians. Indeed, the early church assumed the Jewish view of the origin and reliability
of the Scriptures, as Osterhaven notes: "For the apostles no question is possible about the origin
of the Word: it is from God. Human instruments in its writing added nothing to its content. This
view corresponds with the general Jewish opinion of Scripture as coming from God. Moses and
the prophets were reckoned to have divine authority because God was believed to have spoken
through them; their word was the Word of God. Their writings were holy writings, the rule for
faith and life, with a superhuman content. Nothing in them was superfluous; everything was
there for a purpose.( M. Eugene Osterhaven, 1982 p62.) The Christian church affirms the eternal
authority of the entire canon and will admit no severance within the revelation. While divine
truth comes to its crescendo in the New Testament with the revelation of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ, the New Testament is not qualitatively superior to the Old either in doctrine or
morality. Before AD 313, the "heretical" nature of some beliefs was a matter of much debate
within the churches, and there was no true mechanism in place to resolve the various differences
of beliefs. Heresy was to be approached by the leader of the church according to Eusebius,
author of The Church History.
Early attacks upon alleged heresies formed the matter of Tertullian's Prescription Against
Heretics (in 44 chapters, written from Rome), and of Irenaeus' Against Heresies (ca 180, in five
volumes), written in Lyon after his return from a visit to Rome. The letters of Ignatius of
Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna to various churches warned against false teachers, and
the Epistle of Barnabas accepted by many Christians as part of Scripture in the 2nd century,
warned about mixing Judaism with Christianity, as did other writers, leading to decisions
reached in the first ecumenical council, which was convoked by the Emperor Constantine at
Nicaea in 325, in response to further disruptive polemical controversy within the Christian
community, in that case Arianist disputes over the nature of the Trinity.
Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202) was the first to argue that his "orthodox" position was the same faith
that Jesus gave to the apostles, and that the identity of the apostles, their successors, and the
teachings of the same were all well-known public knowledge. This was therefore an early
argument supported by apostolic succession. Irenaeus first established the doctrine of four
gospels and no more, with the synoptic gospels interpreted in the light of John. Irenaeus'
opponents, however, claimed to have received secret teachings from Jesus via other apostles
which were not publicly known. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden
knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic
Scripture as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers.
Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up,
which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.
The earliest controversies in Late Antiquity were generally Christological in nature, concerning
the interpretation of Jesus' (eternal) divinity and humanity. In the 4th
century, Arius and Arianism held that Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine
and was, therefore, of lesser status than God the Father Arianism was condemned at the Council
of Nicea (325), but nevertheless dominated most of the church for the greater part of the 4th
century, often with the aid of Roman emperors who favoured them. Trinitarianism held that God
the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all strictly one being with three hypostases.
The Euchites, a 4th-century antinomian sect from Macedonia held that the Threefold God
transformed himself into a single hypostasis in order to unite with the souls of the perfect. They
were anti-clerical and rejected baptism and the sacraments, believing that the passions could be
overcome and perfection achieved through prayer. Many groups held dualistic beliefs,
maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, usually seen as
evil, and spirit, seen as good. Docetism held that Jesus' humanity was merely an illusion, thus
denying the incarnation. Others held that both the material and spiritual worlds were created by
God and were therefore both good, and that this was represented in the unified divine and human
natures of Christ (R. Gerberding & J. H. Moran Cruz 2004 p56.) while the orthodox teaching, as
it developed in response to these interpretations, is that Christ was fully divine and at the same
time fully human, and that the three persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal. A list of
earliest forms of heresy is as follows:
.

4. Heresy in the New Testament

The New Testament canon consists of twenty sevens books which were at one point agreed upon
by a collective group. These books were recognized as the true teachings of Christianity.
However the question is how and why were these twenty-seven books chosen and the others
thrown out? The canon in the biblical sense is a collection of writings and scriptures that were
divinely inspired by God for men. The canon’s main purpose was to centralize Christian teaching
and worship behind one flagstaff collection of books. “A basic prerequisite for canonicity was
conformity to what was called the rule of faith that is, the congruity of a given document with the
basic human tradition recognized as normative by the Church. (Metzger 251). The only problem
with the canon is which collection of these sacred texts is correct and who gets to decide what is
correct? The New Testament was divided into three different stages. First and foremost there was
the rise of the New Testament writings to the status of scripture, and then there was a conscious
effort of groupings of the literature into a closed collection, and finally the formation of a closed
canonical list of authoritative text that would be use by the church to teach wide spread
Christianity. The New Testament is full of Christ centered documents. The New Testament
mainly derives of the workings of God, Christ, and the apostles. Thanks to the Holy Spirit God
could divinely inspire the New Testament. The earliest canon that the church had was Jesus
himself. Jesus spoke on behalf of God.

The word has several usages in the New Testament, but never has the technical sense of “heresy”
as we understand it today. It may be classified as follows:

1. Most frequently, especially in Acts, it has the same meaning as Josephus. In Acts 5:17 , Acts
15:5; and Acts 26:5 , where it refers to the Pharisees and Sadducees, it simply means party or
sect.

2. In Acts 24:14 and Acts 28:22 it is used in a slightly derogatory sense, referring to Christians

as they were viewed to be separatists or sectarians by the Jews. This usage conforms to that of
the rabbis.

3. Paul used the term to refer to groups which threatened the harmonious relations of the church.
In 1 Corinthians 11:19 , where he was writing about the disgraceful way in which the
Corinthians were observing the Lord's Supper, the word has to do with the outward
manifestations of the factions he mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:18 . In Galatians 5:20 , it is
one of the works of the flesh and is in a grouping including strife, seditions, and envyings. It
apparently has to do with people who choose to place their own desires above the fellowship of
the church. Titus 3:10 speaks of a man who is a heretic. Since the context of the verse has to do
with quarreling and dissension, the idea in this passage seems to be that of a fractious person.

4. In 2 Peter 2:1 it comes closest to our meaning of the term. It clearly refers to false prophets
who have denied the true teaching about Christ. Since the remainder of 2 Peter 2:1 refers to the
immoral living of the false prophets, the word also refers to their decadent living. The reference
to the heretic in Titus 3:10 may belong to this category since the verse mentions disputes about
genealogies, a doctrinal matter.

It is clear that in the New Testament, the concept of heresy had more to do with fellowship
within the church than with doctrinal teachings. While the writers of the New Testament were
certainly concerned about false teachings, they apparently were just as disturbed by improper
attitudes.

In the writings of Ignatius, a leader of the church in the early second century, the word takes on
the technical meaning of a heresy. Most frequently in the writings of the early church fathers, the
heresy about which they were concerned was Gnosticism, a teaching which denied that Jesus
was fully human. See Christology; Error; Gnosticism .

For scripture in the New Testament to be viewed as canonical its mains influences had to come
from either Jesus, the apostles, or the disciples. All of these men and women that had influence
on the New Testament were well versed in the Old Testament. In the eyes of Constantine and his
helpers the Old Testament prophets were equal to the New Testament apostles. The New
Testament writers such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter were all highly regarded
by the church and the heretics. However heretical groups viewed their writings all in different
ways.

“The formation of the New Testament was a process, extending over at least two centuries, in the
course of which the oral teaching and preaching of Jesus and the apostles was recorded in written
form and was circulated among the Christian churches, (2) was accepted by these churches in
certain formulations and no in the others, (3) was regarded first as the key to the Old Testament,
then as equal to it in authority, and (4) came to be regarded as inspired “scripture”. The process
took place within the Christian communities during the period in which great clarity and
precision were achieved in relation to doctrine, discipline, and worship.” (Campenhausen 181)

The New Testament scriptures had their origin in a story that gave identity, hope, and clarity to
the early Christians. That story is bound to the early church’s belief in God’s activity in Jesus of
Nazareth, whom the early Christians accepted as their promised messiah, who was raised from
the dead, and who delivers them from their sins and offers them eternal life . Their faith in Jesus
as the Lord lies at the heart of the origins of canon, namely a normative guide or authority, the
earliest “canon” of the church was Jesus, that is , his life, teachings, and fate were all central to
his followers and pivotal in their worship and mission. His story is what first gathered the
Christian community together after his death and resurrection, and gave rise to its written
traditions that were eventually identified as a fixed collection of Scriptures called the “New
Testament”. (Abraham 539)

“The processes which have been sketched out indicate a slow but inexorable growth of the
Christian Bible. At the beginning stood the Old Testament as primal canon. At the end of the
first century Christians would have “proudly and without hesitation said yes to the question
whether their community possessed a holy and binding book of divine revelation: the church
possessed such books, the “law and prophets”, what is now called the Old Testament” Closely
connected with this was the authority of the now present Lord Jesus, who in his words and in his
Spirit spoke to the communities. To that was directly attached the authority of those in office, the
Twelve, the apostles, the prophets.”( Lüdemann 205-206)
Many heretical groups stood against the modern canon that was produced due to these groups
and people having what they believed were holy scriptures of their own. Groups and people such
as Marcion, Tertullion, Ireneus, Gnostics, and the Montanists devised their own texts that they
believe were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The problem with the influence by the Holy Spirit was
that it would mean that the New Testament implies that God had a specific influence on the
historical events in antiquity. God having influence changed the historical importance of the texts
that were derived by Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles.

“Marcionism, Gnosticism, and the Montanists posed serious challenges to the larger church in
the 2nd cent., and all three so called heresies produced literature that supported their theological
positions. Marcion edited the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul for his own advantage, but
did not produce a closed canon of Scriptures. The Gnostics produced large amounts of literature
that challenged the common views of the church on the humanity of Jesus, and they reserved the
highest levels of salvation to those who had acquitted a special esoteric knowledge of the will
and plan of God. Many of them welcomed many parts of the OT and NT Scriptures, but they also
produced other literature that the church later condemned as heretical. The Montanists, on the
other hand, where a charismatic community that emphasized the presence of continuing
prophesy in their community, much of which was written down but evidently later destroyed.
None of their writings survive. They did not produce a fixed collection of Christian Scriptures,
however, and the greater church did not respond to their literary activity by producing one.
(Sakenfeld 542-543)

The Gnostics flourished for over four centuries. Their main beliefs consisted of the importance
of one’s soul over the body, that their physical bodies as a result of a catastrophe imprisoned
their souls and the only way to obtain salvation is by means of special knowledge. Gnosis
meaning knowledge was their main way of worship. The Gnostics believed that the world did not
come from a demiurge and they also rejected the Old Testament as a whole. They also made it a
point to establish Jesus of Nazareth as different from the rest of the world. The Gnostics posed a
major threat to the church and a central teaching. The church would counter the Gnostics and
their teachings by simply stating that their teachings could be found nowhere within the four
gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, or in the epistles of Paul. The Gnostics of course would
counter the church asserting that the truth had simply not been revealed to the non-believers.
Their main teachings against the church established that they had a special knowledge that
everyone else didn’t. Valentinus was their most known follower. Valentinus was the author of
“The Gospel of Truth”.

Irenaeus was another man that influenced the New Testament canon and its formation. He was a
man who was born in 142 (CE??). He was a man who grew up in the church and he was well
versed in the teachings of the Bible. “Irenaus’ theology is that of a churchman. He wages his war
on the heretics on the one hand to defend the Creator God and on the other to protect the simple
Christians of the church.” (Lüdemann 16). Irenaeus’ theology differed from other heretics. First
Irenaeus believed that God was the creator of heaven and earth. Second he believed that in Christ
alone creation and heaven are guaranteed. Finally Ireneaus believed that the scriptures and the
teachings of the apostles as the rule of truth.
Tertullian was a presbyter in Carthage. He had many differing ideas of the church and how the
canon should be formulated and distributed. His problems with the church were that he felt that
Rome was pre-programmed.

The Church decided that the heretics that taught against the New Testament could not be called
Christians. They couldn’t be called Christians due to their inability to conform to the ways of the
church.

“A heretic, Marcion provided the decisive stimulus towards the New Testament. When he
canonized the letters of Paul alongside the Gospel of Luke, he formally compelled the church to
give them a canonical status- or wholly to reject them. That is all the more amazing, since the
theology of the church, which canonized the letters of Paul, was utterly un-Pauline. So it is
extremely ironical that Paul in particular occupied the greatest place in the new canon and that all
the others letters came into the New Testament in the wake of this heretic.” (Lüdemann 205-206)

Montanists were a heretical group that emphasized an ascetic lifestyle. They encouraged both
men and women to become preachers and leaders of their church. They went against the
mainstream church by claiming that the Holy Spirit divinely inspired their scriptural texts. Their
most well-known leader was Tertullian. Montanists emphasized the death of martyrs and praised
them for their heroism and conviction for their cause. This specific group rose to power and
popularity at around 170 CE. Montanists would write down verses that they would come to them
in holy visions that they claimed were given to them by the holy spirit. This is where the church
had to draw the line, the church didn’t believe that their scriptures were divinely inspired, had
any bearing on the synoptic gospels, and finally their writings had nothing to do with the apostles
and disciples. The Montanists were one of the main reasons for church leading to a canonization
of a New Testament.   Constantine was the Roman emperor around the time in which the Bible
was being canonized. He was a man who believed in Christianity but it has always been question
how much he actually believed in God and Christianity. He underwent a baptism many years
after the first Council of Nicea. He was one of the leading forces behind a unified and uniform
New Testament. Constantine hosted the Council of Nicea. Church leaders were called to gather
in Nicea to determine which books and scriptures would be used in a unified canon. They had to
choose a unified and formal canon due to the confusion that it caused. “Here individuals and
groups are struggling over the right understanding of the tradition which has been handed down,
over Jesus and Paul; they are asking abut what is true and false, good and evil, but above all they
have a desire for security in faith and are exposed to every possible misunderstanding inside and
outside. IT is all this that makes the New Testament writings and the history of the canon so
attractive even or people today.” (Lüdemann 207)The Council of Nicea also help set in stone a
unification of answers that plagued heretical groups and regular followers of Christ on a daily
basis. The council answered the questions of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, how Jesus was
begotten, and most importantly the Council unified the New Testament to have one centralized
teaching for all the followers of Christ. First and foremost Jesus was to be viewed as the center
of all Christian tradition. Also the steeple of Christianity would have to be the resurrection
because Paul wrote in his letters that if the resurrection is false than Christianity is a failed
religion. The only question that remained was how were they going to do it and what criteria did
scriptures and other texts have to fit to be viewed as canonical? The criterion of the canon was
very important and caused much debate. Mainly to be viewed as a canonical book of the Bible
there had to be a heavy influence on Jesus, the disciples, and the apostles. One of those writers
had to have had influence on the writings for it to be considered holy. The Council of Nicea was
important due to the fact that the east and the west both had different beliefs, bibles, sacred
practices, and writings which influenced the way their worshipped God. The Council of Nicea
also had to deal with the problem of historical vs. religious authority in determining which
scriptures were correct and useable. Sola Scriptura was also cause for debate. Sola Scriptura in
Latin means “Scripture Alone”, faith and belief in scripture alone

The canonization of the New Testament would prove to be a never-ending task. Heretics lead to
the canonization of the New Testament. Many heretical groups went against the church. Such
groups and people include Marcion, Tertullien, Gnostics, and the Montanists. All of these groups
taught different versions of Christianity. They all had different ideals and sacred texts in which
different versions of the same religion were created. The leader of the unification of the New
Testament was spear headed by Emperor Constantine. Emperor Constantine was a questionable
Christian at best, however he did seek to unify Christians and create a widely accepted canon. At
the Council of Nicea the bishops which were under the control of Constantine answered the
questions of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. An oath was also created for all Christians called
the Nicean Creed. Constantine helped unify the church and establish the New Testament we
know today.

In the following New Testament passages, the word heresy is translated "divisions":

For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among
you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are
genuine among you may be recognized. (1 Corinthians 11:18–19 (ESV)
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,
sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,
drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do
such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19–21, ESV)

Titus and 2 Peter speak of people who are heretics:

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more
to do with him, (Titus 3:10, ESV)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you,
who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1, ESV)
Many of today's professed Christians, by contrast, are ensnared in a strange way of thinking that
perceives the message of the Old Testament as theologically and ethically abolished by the
Christ-revelation. This is a common notion of the modern church, and it, no less than
Marcionism, is heresy. This conclusion is quite ironic, for, if anything, many Jews during
Christ's earthy sojourn did not hold Scripture in sufficiently high esteem (Jn. 5:45-47). It was not
that they were "biblicists"; they were not sufficiently Biblical. Christ, by contrast, upheld the
eternal authority of the Old Testament even in its minutia: "From the manner in which Christ
quotes Scripture we find that he recognizes and accepts the Old Testament in its entirety as
possessing a normative authority, as the true word of God, valid for all time. (Pierre C. Marcel
1958) he manner in which Christ and the apostles, not to mention the united orthodox Christian
church for eighteen centuries, reverence the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments as the inspired,
infallible, and authoritative word of God contrasts starkly not only with the skeptical attitude
toward Scripture engendered by Enlightenment rationalism, but also the truncated version of the
Bible supported by so much modern evangelicalism, devotees of "New Testament Christianity."
wo prime corollaries flow from the heresy of "New Testament Christianity." Both are deadly to
the cause of Biblical Faith. Perhaps the most prominent (and pernicious) is the cancellation of
Biblical law. An early evangelical committed to this cancellation, Lewis Sperry Chafer stated
flatly, "These actual written commandments, either of Moses or the kingdom, are not the rule of
the believer's life under grace, any more than these systems are the basis of his salvation. The
complete withdrawal of the authority of these two systems will now be examined. (Findlay, OH,
1922).

The second chief corollary of "New Testament Christianity" is retreatism: a reversal from any
active engagement in the world's structures and attempt to exert dominion in the earth under
Christ's authority using his word as the basis (Nutley, 1973). This trait does not flow logically
from a denial of the relevance of Old Testament authority, since the New Testament no less than
the Old Testament requires the dominion task of Christians. (Tyler, 1990).  In reality, however,
"New Testament Christianity" subsists in tandem with a retreatist mode."New Testament
Christians" are led to this retreatism by the sharp discontinuity thy posit between the old
covenant church, comprised principally (though not exclusively) of ethnic Israel, and the new
covenant church, which consists of the multiracial Christian community. In fact, the "New
Testament Christians" often deny the church existed at all in the Old Testament (John F.
Walvoord 1979). Because "New Testament Christians" see ethnic Israel as an "earthly," kingdom
people and the multiracial church of the new covenant as a "heavenly," non-kingdom people,
they see the tasks and domains of both groups to be almost opposite (J. Dwight Pentecost 1964).
If, however, we acknowledge the Biblical teaching that the multiracial church of the new
covenant assumes the place of ethnic Israel and her promises (Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:6, 7; 11:17-24;
Gal. 3:6-29; Eph. 2:11-22; Heb. 8:6-13; 12:18-24) who forfeited her exalted position by
covenant-breaking (Mt. 21:33-43; 22:1-14), we recognize equally God's plan for his children to
serve as vicegerents of the earth and inherit it under his authority (Gen. 1:27-29; Ps. 8:4-6; 37;
Mt. 28:18-20; Rom. 4:13; 2 Cor. 5:20,21; Rev. 2:26, 27). To "New Testament Christians," no
such unity exists. The revelation and plan of God are severely and irreparably fragmented. These
individuals are therefore "principled retreatists." They assume they have discharged their
obligation with the practices of Bible-reading (mostly the New Testament!), prayer, church
attendance, personal evangelism, and (to borrow Rushdoony's parlance), "pious gush." They
retreat into their increasingly ineffectual churches, ineffectual families, ineffectual vacation Bible
schools, ineffectual seminaries, ineffectual missions programs, ineffectual AWANA clubs,
ineffectual lives. Because a large sector of "New Testament Christians" are "pretribulational
rapturists," their retreatism is eminently logical

5. Heresy through the ages

It was only after the legalisation of Christianity, which began under Constantine I in AD 313 that
the various beliefs of the proto-orthodox Church began to be made uniform and formulated as
dogma, through the canons promulgated by the General Councils. The first known usage of the
term 'heresy' in a civil legal context was in 380 by the "Edict of Thessalonica" of Theodosius I.
Prior to the issuance of this edict, the Church had no state-sponsored support for any particular
legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as 'heresy'. By this edict, in some senses, the line
between the Catholic Church's spiritual authority and the Roman State's jurisdiction was blurred.
One of the outcomes of this blurring of Church and State was a sharing of State powers of legal
enforcement between Church and State authorities, with the state enforcing what it determined to
be orthodox teaching. Within five years of the official 'criminalization' of heresy by the emperor,
the first Christian heretic, Priscillian, was executed in 385 by Roman officials. For some years
after the Protestant Reformation, Protestant denominations were also known to execute those
whom they considered heretics. The edict of Theodosius II (435) provided severe punishments
for those who had or spread writings of Nestorius. (Jay E. Thompson 2009) Those who
possessed writings of Arius were sentenced to death. (María Victoria Escribano Paño 2010).

5.1 Earliest heresies

The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: “But some men came
down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the
custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’”
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former
practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of
the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for
membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the
New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. In other words, one had to become a Jew to
become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be
baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously
defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the
Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
“Matter is evil!” was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek
philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31
(“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good”) and other
scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be
true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation,
claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old
Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity
who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in
many divine beings, known as “aeons,” who mediated between man and the ultimate,
unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to
be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor.
His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues
and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and
soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also
statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that
Jesus had promised would come (the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but
two.aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist
only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or
near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to
muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the
divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity
of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass
every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we
become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born.
Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and
said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian
community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral
and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly
necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system.
This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power,
without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through
one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one
some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who
denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”).
Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the
alternative title Christotokos (“Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two
separate persons (one human and one divine), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church
reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the
Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense
that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate (“in the flesh”).
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this
century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed
a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects
Nestorianism.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man
named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two
different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was
one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known
as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono =
one; physis = nature).

5.2 Ecumenical councils

Seven ecumenical councils were convened between 325 and 787. These were mostly concerned
with Christological disputes:

1. The First Ecumenical Council was convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine at

Nicaea in 325 and presided over by the Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, with over 300
bishops condemning the view of Arius that the Son is a created being inferior to the
Father.[note 6] Each phrase in the Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea (AD
325), addresses some aspect that had been under passionate discussion prior to
Constantine I. Nevertheless, Arianism dominated most of the church for the greater part
of the 4th century, often with the aid of Roman emperors who favoured them.
2. The Second Ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople in 381, presided over by the
Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, with 150 bishops, defining the nature of the Holy
Spirit against those asserting His inequality with the other persons of the Trinity. This
council also condemned Arianism.
3. The Third Ecumenical Council is that of Ephesus, a stronghold of Cyrillian Christianity,
in 431. It was presided over by the Patriarch of Alexandria, with 250 bishops and was
mired in controversy because of the absences of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Antioch, the absence of the Syrian Clergy, and violence directed against Nestorius and
his supporters. It affirmed that Mary is the "Bearer" of God (Theotokos), contrary to the
teachings of Nestorius, and it anathematized Nestorius. A mirror Council held by
Nestorius (Patriarch of Antioch) and the Syrian clergy affirmed Mary as Christokos,
"Bearer" of Christ, and anathematized Cyril of Alexandria.
4. The Fourth Ecumenical Council is that of Chalcedon in 451, with the Patriarch of
Constantinople presiding over 500 bishops. This council affirmed that Jesus has two
natures, is truly God and truly man, distinct yet always in perfect union. This was based
largely on Pope Leo the Great's Tome. Thus, it condemned Monophysitism and would be
influential in refuting Monothelitism.
 5. The Fifth Ecumenical Council is the second of Constantinople in 553, interpreting the
decrees of Chalcedon and further explaining the relationship of the two natures of Jesus;
it also condemned the teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, etc.
6. The Sixth Ecumenical Council is the third of Constantinople in 681; it declared that
Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of
the Monothelites.
7. The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called under the Empress Regent Irene of
Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while
forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy"
Not all of these Councils have been universally recognised as ecumenical. In addition,
the Catholic Church has convened numerous other councils which it deems as having the same
authority, making a total of twenty-one Ecumenical Councils recognised by the Catholic Church.
The Assyrian Church of the East accepts only the first two, and Oriental Orthodoxy only
three. Pope Sergius I rejected the Quinisext Council of 692 (see also Pentarchy). The Fourth
Council of Constantinople of 869–870 and 879–880 is disputed by Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy. Present-day nontrinitarians, such as Unitarians, Latter-day Saints and
other Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, reject all seven Councils.
Some Eastern Orthodox consider the following council to be ecumenical, although this is not
universally agreed upon:

1. The Fifth Council of Constantinople was actually a series of councils held between 1341

and 1351. It affirmed the hesychastic theology of St. Gregory Palamas and condemned
the philosopher Barlaam of Calabria.
2. In addition to these councils there have been a number of significant councils meant to
further define the Eastern Orthodox position. They are the Synods of Constantinople in
1484, 1583, 1755, 1819, and 1872, the Synod of Iași, 1642, and the Pan-Orthodox Synod
of Jerusalem, 1672.
Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, the role of the ecumenical councils was to better define the
Orthodox canon of faith; however, the Eastern Orthodox Church authorities are not known to
have authorized the use of violence in the persecution of heretics with nearly the frequency of
their Western counterparts. Some individual examples of the execution of Orthodox heretics do
exist, however, such as the execution of Avvakum in 1682. Far more typically, the Eastern
Orthodox response to a heresy would rather be (and still is) to merely "excommunicate" the
individuals involved.

5.3 Medieval Heresy

There were many Christian sects, cults, movements and individuals throughout the Middle Ages
whose teachings were deemed heretical by the established church, such as:

 Paulicians – an Armenian group (6th to 9th centuries) who sought a return to the purity of
the church at the time of Paul the Apostle.
 Tondrakians - an Armenian group (9th to 11th centuries) who advocated the abolition of
the Church along with all its traditional rites.
 Bogomils – a group arising in the 11th century in Bulgaria who sought a return to the
spirituality of the early Christians and opposed established forms of government and church.
 Gundolfo – an itinerant 11th century preacher near Lille, France, who taught
that salvation was achieved through a virtuous life of abandoning the world, restraining the
appetites of the flesh, earning food by the labor of hands, doing no injury to anyone, and
extending charity to everyone of their own faith.
 Cathars – a major Christian movement in the Languedoc region of southern France from
the 11th to 13th centuries. The Cathars believed that human souls were the spirits
of angels trapped within the physical creation of an evil god. Through living a pure and
sinless life, the soul could become perfect and free from the snare of matter.
 Arnoldists – a 12th century group, inspired by the example of controversial figure Arnold
of Brescia (c. 1090 – June 1155), from Lombardy who criticized the wealth of the Catholic
Church and preached against baptism and the Eucharist.
 Petrobrusians were 12th century followers of Peter of Bruys in southeastern France who
rejected the authority of the Church Fathers and of the Catholic Church, opposing clerical
celibacy, infant baptism, prayers for the dead and organ music.
 Henricans were 12th century followers of Henry of Lausanne in France. They rejected
the doctrinal and disciplinary authority of the church, did not recognize any form
of worship or liturgy and denied the sacraments.
 Waldensians – a movement that began in the 12th century in Lyon, France, and still
exists today. They held that Apostolic poverty was the way to spiritual perfection and
rejected what they perceived as the idolatry of the Catholic Church.
 Humiliati – a 12th century group from northern Italy who embraced poverty, charity
and mortification. Initially approved by the church, they were suppressed for disobedience in
1571.
 Brethren of the Free Spirit – a term applied in the 13th century to those, primarily in
the Low Countries, Germany, France, Bohemia and northern Italy, who believed that
the sacraments were unnecessary for salvation, that the soul could be perfected through
imitating the life of Christ, and that the perfected soul was free of sin and beyond
all ecclesiastical, moral and secular law.
 Apostolic Brethren (later known as Dulcinians) – a 13th to 14th century sect from
northern Italy founded by Gerard Segarelli and continued by Fra Dolcino of Novara. The
Apostolic Brethren rejected the worldliness of the church and sought a life of perfect
sanctity, in complete poverty, with no fixed domicile, no care for the morrow, and no vows.
 Fraticelli (or Spiritual Franciscans) – Franciscan through the 13th to 15th centuries who
regarded the wealth of the Church as scandalous.
 Neo-Adamites – a term applied in the 13th to 15th century to those,
including Taborites, Picards and some Beghards, who wished to return to the purity of the
life of Adam by living communally, practicing social and religious nudity, embracing free
love and rejecting marriage and individual ownership of property.
 Nicholas of Basel – a 14th century Swiss leader who, after a spiritual experience, taught
that he had the authority to use episcopal and priestly powers (even though he was not
ordained), that submission to his direction was necessary for attaining spiritual perfection,
and that his followers could not sin even though they committed crimes or disobeyed both
the Church and pope.
 Lollards – the 14th century followers of John Wycliffe. They advocated translating the
Bible into English, rejected baptism and confession, and denied the doctrine
of transubstantiation.

In the Middle Ages the notion of heresy and of its relations to the Church and the State acquired
a further development. At one time, in view of the authority of the pope in matters of faith and of
the doctrine offides implicita et explicita, the notion of heresy was so modified that the act of
disobedience to the pope in refusing to accept or reject some distinction according to his
command; was considered almost as its worst and most important feature. The Scholastics
treated the doctrine concerning heresy- scientifically. Finally the Church came to deny to the
State the right to tolerate any  heresy it had condemned. It even compelled the secular powers to
repress and extirpate heresy according to its dictates by threats of ecclesiastical censure, by
inviting invasion and revolution in case of resistance, and by commanding the application of
secular punishments, such as the sequestration of property, and the deprivation of all civil and
political rights, as was especially done by Innocent III. Nevertheless, the Church continued in the
practice, whenever it handed over condemned heretics to the secular powers for punishment, of
requesting that no penalty should be inflicted on them which might endanger their lives; but this
was a mere formality, and so far from being made in earnest that the Church itself made the
allowableness of such punishment one of its dogmas. Thus Leo X, in his bull against Luther, in
1520, condemns, among other propositions, that which says that Haereticos comburere est
contra voluntatem Spiritus  (art. 33), and recommended the use of such punishment himself.
About the same time, a special form of proceedings was adopted against heretics, and their
persecution was rendered regular and systematic by the establishment of the Inquisition (q.v.).
Thus, in course of time, a number of secular penalties came to be considered as inevitably
connected with ecclesiastical condemnation, and were even pronounced against heretics by the
Church itself without further formalities. The Church, whenever any individual suspected of
heresy recanted, or made his peace with the Church, declared him (in full court, after a public
abjuration) released either partially or fully from the ecclesiastical and secular punishment he
had ipso facto incurred. This implied the right of still inflicting these punishments after the
reconciliation (which was especially done in the cases of sequestration of property, deprivation
of civil or ecclesiastical offices, and degradation, while a return to heresy after recantation was to
be punished by death). See the provisions of the Canon Law as found in X. de haeretic. 5, tit. 7;
c. 49; X. de sentent. excommun.  5 39; tit. de Haer. in 6, 5, 2; De haeret. in Clement. 5, 3; De
haeret. in Extravag. comm. 5, 3; and comp. the Liber septimus, 5, 3, 4. and the laws against
heretics of the emperor Frederick II, which are connected with the ecclesiastical laws (in
Pertz, Monurin. 2, 244, 287, 288, 327, 328); and the regulations concerning mixed marriages and
the marriage of heretics. All these are yet considered by the Roman Catholic Church as having
the force of law, though, under present circumstances, they are not enforced (comp. Benedict
XIV, De synod. Dioc. 6, 5; 9, 14, 3; 13, 24, 21)
According to the catholic encyclopedia of inquisition, In the late 12th century, the Roman
Catholic Church instituted the Inquisition, an official body charged with the suppression of
heresy. This began as an extension and more rigorous enforcement of pre-existing episcopal
powers (possessed, but little used, by bishops in the early Middle Ages) to inquire about and
suppress heresy, but later became the domain of selected Dominicans and Franciscans. under the
direct power of the Pope. The use of torture to extract confessions was authorized by Innocent IV
in 1252. Moreover The Inquisition was active in several nations of Europe, particularly where it
had fervent support from the civil authority. The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal in its
methods, which included the burning at the stake of many heretics. However, it was initiated and
substantially controlled by King Ferdinand of Spain rather than the Church; King Ferdinand used
political leverage to obtain the Church's tacit approval. The Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229)
was part of the Catholic Church's efforts to crush the Cathars. It is linked to the movement now
known as the Medieval Inquisition. Another example of a medieval heretic movement is
the Hussite movement in the Czech lands in the early 15th century. The last person to be burned
alive at the stake on orders from Rome was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600 for a collection of
heretical beliefs including Copernicanism, belief of an unlimited universe with innumerable
inhabited worlds, opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and
Incarnation. Even in the 18th century Muratori defended the assertion that the secular power is
bound to enforce the most severe secular penalties against heretics (De ingeniorum
meoderatione in religiones negotio, 2, 7 sq.). In the beginning of the 19th century, pending the
negotiations for the crowning of Napoleon I, pope Pius VII declared that he could not set foot in
a country in which the law recognized the freedom of worship of the different religions. The
same pope wrote in 1805 to his nuncio at Vienna, "The Church has not only sought to prevent
heretics from using the properties of the Church, but has also established, as the punishment for
the sin of heresy, the sequestration of private property, in c. 10, X. d. haeret. (5, 7), of
principalities, and of feudal tenures, in c. 16, eod.; the latter law contains the canonical rule that
the subjects of a heretical prince are free from all oaths of fealty as well as from all fidelity and
obedience to him; and there is none at all acquainted with history but knows the decrees of
deposition issued by popes and councils against obstinately heretical princes. Yet we find
ourselves now in times of such misfortune and humiliation for the bride of Christ that the
Church is not only able to enforce these, ifs holiest maxims, against the rebellious enemies of the
faith,  with the firmness with which they should be, but it even cannot proclaim them openly
without danger. Yet, if it cannot exert its right in depriving heretics of their estates, it may," etc.
With this may be compared the permission granted in anticipation, in 1724
(Bullar. Propagande, 2, 54, 56), to the Ruthenes, in case of conversion, to take possession of the
properties they had lost by their apostasy; the satisfaction manifested by the Church on the
expulsion of the Protestants from Salzburg (Bull. Propag. 2, 246); and many things happening
every day in strictly Roman Catholic countries, under the eyes of the Roman See. Quite recently,
Philippi, in his Canon Law, honestly acknowledged the validity of the old laws against heretics,
and asserted their correctness. Even now, in all countries where the secular power has not put an
end to this, the bishops promise, in taking the oath of obedience to the pope, haereticos,
schismaticos, et rebelles
eidemn Domnino nostro vel successoribus praedictispro posse persequar et impugnabo. Yet the
Roman See has renounced, since Sept. 17, 1824, the use of the expression of "Protestant
heretics" in its official acts; and it has even admitted that, under the pressure of existing
circumstances, the civil powers may be forgiven for tolerating heretics in their states! Still, as
soon as circumstances will permit, the Roman See is prepared to apply again the old laws, which
are merely temporarily suspended in some countries, but in nowise repealed.
Governments, however, naturally take a different view of these laws. The secular power, even
while it freed itself from its absolute subjection to the Church, still continued to persecute in
various ways the Protestants whom the Church denounced as heretics. We even see them
deprived under Louis XIV of the right of emigration; while, in refusing to recognize the validity
of their marriage, the civil authorities showed themselves even more severe than the Church.
But, becoming wiser by experience, and taught by the general reaction which its measures
provoked in the 18th century, the State has confined itself to interfering with heresy so far only
as is necessary to promote public order and the material good of the State; thus claiming only the
right to repress or expel those whose principles are opposed to the existence of government, or
might create disorder. This right, of course, has been differently understood in different countries
according to local circumstances, and has even become a pretence for persecutions against
denominations which a milder construction of it would not have deprived of the toleration of the
State, as in the persecution of dissidents in Sweden, etc.
Let us now compare this practice of the Romish Church and of Roman Catholic states with the
dogmatic theory of the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas treats heresy as the opposite of faith,
connecting it with imfidelitas in communi and apostasia a fide. He treats schism, again, as
opposed to charitas. He defines heresy as infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos, quifidem Christi
profitentur, sed ejus dogmata corrunpunt  (1. c., qu. 2, art. 1), yet (art. 2) he remarks at the same
time that some holy fathers themselves erred in the early times of the Church on many points of
faith. In art. 3 he comes to the question whether heretics are to be tolerated. He asserts that they
also have their use in the Church, as serving to prove its faith, and inducing it diligently to search
the Scriptures, yet their usefulness in these respects is involuntary. Considered for themselves
only, heretics "are not only deserving of being cut off from communion with the Church, but also
with the world by being put to death. But the Church must, in her mercy, first use all means of
converting heretics, and only when it despairs of bringing them back must cut them off by
excommunication, and then deliver them up to secular justice, which frees the world of them by
condemnation to death." He only admits of toleration towards heretics when persecution against
them would be likely to injure the faithful. In this case he advises sparing the tares for the sake of
the wheat. He further maintains that such heretics as repent may, on their first offense, be
entirely pardoned, and all ecclesiastical and secular punishment remitted, but asserts that those
who relapse, though they may be reconciled with the Church, must not be released from the
sentence of death incurred, lest the bad example of their inconstancy might prove injurious to
others.

5.4 Reformation and the modern era

Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, who played an instrumental part in the formation of
the Lutheran Churches condemned Johannes Agricola and his doctrine of antinomianism–the
belief that Christians were free from the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments–as a
heresy (Seelye, James E.; Selby, Shawn 2018) Traditional Lutheranism, espoused by Luther
himself, teaches that after justification, "the Law of God continued to guide people in how they
were to live before God" (Seelye, James E.; Selby, Shawn 2018). The 39 Articles of
the Anglican Communion and the Articles of Religion of the Methodist
Churches condemn Pelagianism (Wilson, Kenneth 2011). John Wesley, the founder of the
Methodist tradition, harshly criticized antinomianism (Jr., Charles Yrigoyen; Warrick, Susan E.
2013)  considering it the "worst of all heresies" (Hurst, John Fletcher 1903). He taught that
Christian believers are bound to follow the moral law for their sanctification (Jr., Charles
Yrigoyen; Warrick, Susan E. 2013) according to The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume
7  Methodist Christians thus teach the necessity of following the moral law as contained in the
Ten Commandments, citing Jesus' teaching, "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (cf. Saint
John 14:15). In the 17th century, Jansenism, which taught the doctrine of predestination, was
regarded by the Catholic Church as a heresy; it concerned the Jesuits in particular. The
text Augustinus, which propagated Jansenist beliefs, was repudiated by the Holy See (Brechka,
Frank T. 2012). In Testem benevolentiae nostrae, issued on 22 January 1899, Pope Leo XIII
condemned as heresy, Americanism, "the rejection of external spiritual direction as no longer
necessary, the extolling of natural over supernatural virtues, the preference of active over passive
virtues, the rejection of religious vows as not compatible with Christian liberty, and the adoption
of a new method of apologetics and approach to non-Catholics (Heffron, Christopher 14 October
2011). The Reformation protested against these doctrines. Luther, from the first, denounced all
attempts to overcome heresy by sword and fire instead of the Word of God, and held that the
civil power should leave heretics to be dealt with by the Church. On this ground he opposed
Carlstadt. Yet it was a fundamental principle with all the Reformers, that governments are bound
to prevent blasphemy, to see that the people receive from the Church built on the Word of God
the pure teaching of that word, and to prevent all attempts at creating sects. This led to the
adoption of preventive measures in the place of the former penalties of confiscation, bodily
punishment, and death. These preventive measures confined the heresy to the individual, and
extended as far as banishment, when no other means would avail. Luther admitted the use of
secular punishment against heretics only in exceptional cases, and then not on account of the
heresy, but of the resulting disorders. Even then he considered banishment sufficient, except
when incitations to revolution, etc., required more severe punishment, as was the case with the
Anabaptists; Vet he often declared against the application of capital punishment to such heretics.
Zwingle took nearly the same stand as Luther on this point, yet was somewhat more inclined to
the use of forcible means. The Anabaptists were treated in a summary manner in Switzerland.
Calvin went further, and with his theocratic ideas considered the state as bound to treat heresy as
blasphemy, and to punish it in the severest manner. His approbation and even instigation of the
execution of Servetus gave rise to a controversy on the question whether heresy might be
punished with the sword (compare Calvini Defensis orthodoxae fidei, etc.). Calvin's views were
attacked not only by Bolsec, but also by Castellio, who, under the pseudonym of Martin Bellius,
wrote on this occasion his De hereticis
(Magdeb. 1554), quoting against Calvin the opinions of Luther and of Brentius. Lalius Socinus,
in his Dialogus inter Calvinum et Vaticanum  (1554), also advocated toleration. Among all the
German theologians, Melancthon alone sided with Calvin, consistently with the views (Corp.
Ref:  2, 18, an. 1530; and 3:195, an. 1536) which he had long previously defended against the
more moderate views of Brentius (see Hartmann and Jager, Johanns Brem, 1, 299 sq.).
Preventive measures confined the heresy to the individual, and extended as far as banishment,
when no other means would avail. Luther admitted the use of secular punishment against heretics
only in exceptional cases, and then not on account of the heresy, but of the resulting disorders.
Even then he considered banishment sufficient, except when incitations to revolution, etc.,
required more severe punishment, as was the case with the Anabaptists; Vet he often declared
against the application of capital punishment to such heretics. Zwingle took nearly the same
stand as Luther on this point, yet was somewhat more inclined to the use of forcible means. The
Anabaptists were treated in a summary manner in Switzerland. Calvin went further, and with his
theocratic ideas considered the state as bound to treat heresy as blasphemy, and to punish it in the
severest manner. His approbation and even instigation of the execution of Servetus gave rise to a
controversy on the question whether heresy might be punished with the sword (compare
Calvini Defensis orthodoxae fidei, etc.). Calvin's views were attacked not only by Bolsec, but
also by Castellio, who, under the pseudonym of Martin Bellius, wrote on this occasion his De
hereticis
(Magdeb. 1554), quoting against Calvin the opinions of Luther and of Brentius. Lalius Socinus,
in his Dialogus inter Calvinum et Vaticanum  (1554), also advocated toleration. Among all the
German theologians, Melancthon alone sided with Calvin, consistently with the views (Corp.
Ref:  2, 18, an. 1530; and 3:195, an. 1536) which he had long previously defended against the
more moderate views of Brentius (see Hartmann and Jager, Johanns Brem, 1, 299 sq.).

5.5 Modern Roman Catholic response to Protestantism

Well into the 20th century, Catholics defined Protestants as heretics. Thus, Hilaire Belloc, in his
time one of the most conspicuous speakers for Catholicism in Britain, was outspoken about the
"Protestant heresy". He even defined Islam as being "a Christian heresy", on the grounds that
Muslims accept many of the tenets of Christianity but deny the divinity of Christ.
However, in the second half of the century, and especially in the wake of the Second Vatican
Council, the Catholic Church, in the spirit of ecumenism, tended to diminish the effects
of Protestantism as a formal heresy by referring to many Protestants who, as material heretics,
"through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his Church" according to the cateachism
of the catholic church even though the teachings of Protestantism are indeed formally heretical
from a Catholic perspective. Modern usage in ecumenical contexts favors referring to Protestants
as "separated brethren” Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church
considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only supremely authoritative source and
rule of faith and practice in Christianity (sola scriptura), that only by faith alone can anyone ever
be lead to salvation and not by works (sola fide), that the Pope does not necessarily have
universal jurisdiction over the whole Church by any divine right, that the Catholic Church cannot
be "the sole Church of Christ", and that there is not a sacramental and ministerial priesthood
exclusively received by ecclesiastical ordination, but rather that the only Christian priesthood can
be a universal priesthood of all believers.

5.6 Notable sects and heresies

Most Christian heresies centered around the twin issues of the nature of the trinity and, more
specifically, the nature of Jesus Christ.  The official stand on these issues (according to all the
Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is as follows:  God is a trinity, three persons but
one essence;  Jesus Christ was one person, simultaneously human and divine.  That these two
statements are not particularly rational was considered irrelevant.  The trinity was seen as
mysterious and a matter of faith, not reason.

What follows are eight heresies, ranging from sects that see Jesus Christ as purely divine, to
others which see him as purely human.

Sabellianism:  Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century).  It is sometimes
referred to as modalistic monarchianism.  The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles,
or faces of a single person, God.  This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine,
without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism:  The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem."  Along the same
lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a
real human body.  He only seemed to be human to us.  In a nutshell...

Monophysitism:  Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body."  This heresy says
that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured
at incarnation.  He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body.  Monophysitism is very
much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism:  Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at
his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature.  Later versions sometimes suggest
that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism:  Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ
had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth.  This
is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck.  You can
still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Apollinarianism:  Named for Apollinaris of Laodicea (fl. 350), this heresy says that Jesus Christ
was not a real man, but not totally divine either.  Apollinarians suggested that he had a human
body and a human soul, but his mind was taken over by the eternal Logos.
Arianism:  Arianism is named after Arius (c. 250 - c. 336), a priest in Alexandria.  This is
considered the most serious heresy.  Jesus Christ was thought of as a special creation by God for
man's salvation. Arianism was the form of Christianity that the Goths adhered to, and it was
popular in all the areas they conquered, including Italy, Spain, and Africa.

Socianism:  A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning

"companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man.  This heresy still lives on in two
very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Not all heresies focussed on the issues of the trinity and Christ's nature.  Here are the leading
examples.

Donatism:  Named for its leader, the theologian Donatus the Great (d. 355), Donatism included a
group of extremist sects, mostly in North Africa, that emphasized asceticism.  They valued
martyrdom, found lapses of faith (even under torture or threat of death) inexcusable, and
believed that the sacraments required a pure priest to be effective.

Pelagianism:  Another group of sects, centered in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland, is associated with
the Irish monk Pelagius (fl. 410).  He believed that original sin was not transmitted from Adam
and Eve to their children (and thereby to us).  Baptism was not considered necessary, and people
could be "saved" by their own efforts, that is, they did not necessarily require the grace of God. 
Many modern liberal Christians agee with Pelagius.

Gnosticism:  Discussed in my article on Roman philosophy and religion, the Christian versions
were, obviously, considered serious heresies.  Gnosticism has never entirely disappeared, and
can be seen in the traditions of Alchemy and Astrology, and even in modern times in the works
of Carl Jung.

Manicheanism:  Also discussed in that article, Manicheanism is actually a separate religion

which blends Christianity with Gnosticism, Mithraism, neo-Platonism, and even Buddhism. 
Again, it was considered a very serious heresy.  It survived well into the Middle Ages, where it
strongly influenced the Bogomils in the Balkans and the Cathars in southern France.

The Bulgarian Heresy: In the 10th century, there arose in Bulgaria a gnostic heresy credited to
a priest by the name of Bogomil.  The beliefs of the Bogomils, as they were called, were
adoptionist, meaning that they considered Jesus to have been "adopted" by God at the time of his
baptism, but did not consider him to be a part of a trinity.  Neither did they consider Mary in any
way the mother of God

Simplicity and strict adherence characterized their practices, with priests elected from their own
groups and congregations meeting at homes rather than churches.  Infant baptism was not
practiced, marriage was not considered a sacrament, and saints were considered false idols.

The heresy had a strong Manichean flavor to it.  They believed that God had two sons, Michael
and Satan.  Satan created the material world and attempted to create Adam, but was unable to
create a soul.  God added the soul to Adam, but mankind was bound in service to Satan.  Michael
came to earth in the form of the holy spirit, which entered into Jesus.  As Christ, he broke the
original agreement which bound mankind to Satan.  But it was Satan who orchestrated the
crucifixion, and he is still working to recapture mankind by means of the mainstream churches.

The basic ideas of this Bulgarian heresy spread rapidly west, through northern Italy to Southern
France.  There, the believers called themselves Cathars, from the Greek word meaning pure. 
Others called them Albigensians, after the town of Albi, or Bougres, for Bulgarians.  This last
name is the source of the word bugger, due to (false) accusations of sodomy.

Even stricter than the Bogomils, the Cathars attempted to live simple, exemplary lives, with the
most serious believers refraining from sex and other physical pleasures.  Many adopted strict
veganism.  They had only one sacrament, the consolamentum, which was something of a last
rites in which sin was removed.

The Cathars believed that the God of the old testament was actually Satan, and that he was
responsible for the creation of the material world.  Jesus was therefore purely spirit (Docetism),
since he would have been tainted if he had had a real body.  By purity of living, anyone could
cast off the physical body and awaken in heaven.  The impure were doomed to rebirth into this
physical world.  One interesting side effect of this belief was that women were treated as equal to
men, since we have all been men or women at some time in our past lives.

The Bogomils and the Cathars were harshly persecuted by the Orthodox church in the east and
the Catholic church in the west.  By the 14th century, the Bulgarians were absorbed by the
Islamic Ottoman Empire, and the Cathars were virtually eliminated by Crusades and the
Inquisition.  They had laid the foundations, however, for the Reformation.

6. Scholarly position
The development of doctrine, the position of orthodoxy, and the relationship between the early
Church and early heretical groups is a matter of academic debate. Walter Bauer, in
his Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934/1971) proposed that in earliest
Christianity, orthodoxy and heresy did not stand in relation to one another as primary to
secondary, but in many regions heresy was the original manifestation of Christianity (Bauer,
Walter 1971),( Behr, John 2013) Scholars such as Pagels and Ehrman have built on Bauer's
original thesis. Drawing upon distinctions between Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, and
other groups such as Gnostics and Marcionites, they argue that early Christianity was
fragmented, and with contemporaneous competing orthodoxies ( Pagels, Elaine 1979),(Ehrman,
Bart D.  2003) Ehrman's view is that while the specifics of Bauer's demonstration were later
rejected, his intuitions are broadly accepted by scholars and got confirmed beyond what Bauer
might have guessed (Bart D. Ehrman 2005) According to H. E. W. Turner, responding to Bauer's
thesis in 1954, "what became official orthodoxy was taught early on by the majority of church
teachers, albeit not in fully developed form.( H. E. W. Turner 2004). According to Darrell Bock,
a Christian apologist Bauer's theory does not show an equality between the established church
and outsiders including Simon Magus. (Gregory, & Tuckett 2015),( Bock, Darrell L. 2007)
According to Mitchell et al., each early Christian community was unique, but the tenets of the
mainstream or Catholic Church insured that each early Christian community did not remain
isolated ( Frances M. Young 2006)
 7. Conclusion

U>: Skipped on keyboard input #

8. References
J.D Douglas (ed). The New International Dictionary of the Christian
Church Paternoster Press/ Zondervan, Exeter/Grand Rapids 1974, art Heresy

Cross & Livingstone (eds) Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1974

art Heresy

Oxford English Dictionary

Definition of ancient Greek haeresis

Bible Hub, All uses of haeresis in the New Testament

Jostein Ådna (editor), The Formation of the Early Church (Mohr Siebeck

2005 ISBN 978-316148561-9), p. 342

Prümmer, Dominic M. Handbook of Moral Theology Mercer Press 1963, sect. 201ff

Cross & Livingstone (eds) Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 1974

arts apostasy,schism

Bauer, Walter (1971). Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. ISBN 0-8006-

1363-5.

Behr, John  (2013). Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity. OUP Oxford. pp.  5–

6.  ISBN  978-0-19-166781-7. [Walter Bauer claimed] that Christianity was a diverse
phenomenon from the beginning, that 'varieties of Christianity' arose around the
Mediterranean, and that in some places what would later be called 'heretical' was
initially normative [...] Although some of Bauer's reconstructions are inaccurate and
have been dropped, the idea that Christianity was originally a diverse phenomenon
has now been generally accepted.

Pagels, Elaine  (1979). The Gnostic Gospels.  ISBN  0-679-72453-2.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2003).  Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths
We Never Knew. New York: Oxford.  ISBN  0-19-514183-0.

 Bart D. Ehrman (2005). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths
We Never Knew. Oxford University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-19-518249-1.
 H. E. W. Turner (2004), The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations
between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church, Wipf and Stock Publishers, from
the book-summary.

Gregory, & Tuckett 2015, p. 453.

Bock, Darrell L. The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative
Christianities / ISBN 978-0-7852-1294-2

Gregory, & Tuckett 2015, p. 453.

Frances M. Young (2006), The Cambridge History of Christianity Volume 1: Origins

to Constantine, Series: Cambridge History of Christianity ISBN 978-0-521-81239-9.

R. Gerberding and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 2004) p. 58

Jay E. Thompson (1 September 2009). A Tale of Five Cities: A History of the Five
Patriarchal Cities of the Early Church. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
p.  138. ISBN 978-1-4982-7447-0.

María Victoria Escribano Paño (2010). "Chapter Three. Heretical texts

and  maleficium in the Codex Theodosianum (CTh.16.5.34)". In Richard Lindsay
Gordon; Francisco Marco Simón (eds.). Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers
from the International Conference Held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept. – 1st
Oct. 2005. BRILL. pp. 135–136. ISBN 978-90-04-17904-2.

 "Catholic Encyclopedia Inquisition". New Advent. Retrieved October 3, 2018.

 Seelye, James E.; Selby, Shawn (2018).  Shaping North America: From Exploration
to the American Revolution. ABC-CLIO. p.  50. ISBN 9781440836695.

Wilson, Kenneth (2011).  Methodist Theology. Bloomsbury Publishing.

p.  87. ISBN 9780567317469.

 Jr., Charles Yrigoyen; Warrick, Susan E. (7 November 2013). Historical Dictionary

of Methodism. Scarecrow Press. p. 30.  ISBN  9780810878945.

 Hurst, John Fletcher (1903). John Wesley the Methodist: A Plain Account of His
Life and Work. Eaton & Mains. p. 200.

The Wesleyan Methodist Association Magazine.  12. R. Abercrombie. 1849. p. 368.

Brown, Steart J.; Brown, Stewart J.; Brown, Stewart Jay; Tackett, Timothy; Bowie,
K. Scott; Young, Frances Margaret; Mitchell, Margaret Mary; Casiday, Augustine;
Norris, Frederick W.; Angold, Michael; Noble, Thomas F. X.; Baranowski, Roberta
 A.; Smith, Julia M. H.; Rubin, Miri; Hsia, R. Po-chia; Gilley, Sheridan; Simons,
Walter; McLeod, Hugh; Stanley, Brian (2006). The Cambridge History of
Christianity: Volume 7, Enlightenment, Reawakening and Revolution 1660-1815.
Cambridge University Press. p. 307.  ISBN  9780521816052.

Brechka, Frank T. (2012).  Gerard Van Swieten and His World 1700–1772. Springer
Science & Business Media. ISBN 9789401032230.

Heffron, Christopher (14 October 2011). "Ask A Franciscan: What is

Americanism?". Franciscan Media. Retrieved 6 June2019.

 Fredericq, Paul (1900). Corpus Documentorum Inquisitionis Haereticae Pravitatis

Neerlandicae (in Latin). p. 27.

Bainton, Roland H. (1950). Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Abingdon-

Cokesbury Press., pp. 145–147.

"Daily TWiP - The Spanish Inquisition executes its last victim today in 1826". 26 July
2010. Retrieved 8 June 2013.

CCC 847

Pope Benedict XVI (1993). The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood. Ignatius Press.

p.  88. ISBN 9780898704464.

Clifton, Chas S. (1992). Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. New York: Barnes

and Noble Books.  ISBN  0-7607-0823-1.

Edwards, Mark (2009). Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church.

Ashgate. ISBN 9780754662914.

Slade, Darren M. (January 2014). "Arabia Haeresium Ferax (Arabia Bearer of

Heresies): Schismatic Christianity's Potential Influence on Muhammad and the
Qur'an" (PDF). American Theological Inquiry. 7 (1): 43–53. Archived from the
original on 2014-02-02.

Latinovic, Vladimir (2020). Who Do You Call a Heretic? Fluid Notions of Orthodoxy

and Heresy in Late Antiquity. Palgrave. ISBN 978-3-030-53425-7.

U>: Program Finished in: 00:27:32

U>: [EXIT]