Marcion (85-160 A.D.) was the son of a bishop in Pontus, on the shores of the Black Sea in northern Turkey. He struggled with reconciling the God of the Old Testament with Jesus of the New Testament and concluded they must describe two separate gods.
Marcion showed up in Rome sometime around 140 A.D. and became a generous member of one of the congregations there. In July 144 A.D., he was given a hearing with that city's church leaders about his belief system. He did not win a lot of friends that day. They were shocked, promptly rejected his views as heretical, excommunicated him from the church, and even returned the money he had given to the church.
From that point, Marcion went on a church planting spree all over the Roman empire. After his death, these Marcionite churches continued to spread. By the 4th century they had fizzled out in the western empire, but continued to exist in Syria until the 10th century.
The early church leaders and theologians were largely unanimous in opposing Marcion's teachings. Tertullian, who was sympathetic to the Montanists, vigorously opposed Marcion. In fact, he wrote a 5-volume treatise against his teachings. While Marcion's own writings have not survived, one can infer his main doctrines from the works of his opponents like Tertullian.
Marcion's book was called Antitheses (Contradictions) and he described what he considered to be irreconcilable contradictions between the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. He resolved it by deciding there must be two separate gods: one who is good and who sent Jesus, and another who is just and cruel, who created the world, and who is described in the Old Testament. To his credit, Marcion recognized that the Bible didn't support his theology in the least, but instead of concluding his theology was wrong, he concluded the Bible was wrong! He promptly threw out the entire Old Testament, all of the Gospels except for portions of Luke, and a large part of the remainder of the New Testament. He only kept 10 of Paul's epistles, and freely modified them when they didn't suit his purposes.
While he taught that Jesus was only spirit and not human (hence the need to get rid of the Christmas story in Luke), Marcion did not seem to share any other gnostic doctrines that were causing problems for the early church. His particular brand of heresy was unique.
Despite Marcion's shameless arrogance in molding Scripture and God to meet his preconceived ideas, he did help speed up a process in the orthodox churches that had already begun: the establishment of a canon of authentic and accepted books. As Marcion rejected various books, churches clarified which books they accepted as authoritative. As Marcion edited and modified books, churches preserved and reproduced the original versions of those books with greater urgency. Marcion unknowingly helped establish and preserve the Bible that he so desperately tried to get rid of and modify.
While an ancient heresy like Marcion's may appear irrelevant to the church today, there are a few who are still drawn to his doctrines. (See this website for one example, but don't believe everything you read there!) The idea of creating God in one's own image is still very much in vogue.
As Broadbent states (p. 38), "Any error may be founded on parts of Scripture; the truth alone in based on the whole."
Showing posts with label canon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label canon. Show all posts
Friday, 1 March 2013
Sunday, 24 February 2013
Montanus and the Prophetic
Montanus lived in Phyrgia (modern Turkey) in the 2nd century A.D. He is one of the more difficult Christian leaders of the early church to get a handle on because he left no written records himself. However, the renewal movement he initiated lasted long after his death, so it suggests his personality was not as important to the movement as were his teachings and methods.
What we do know is that sometime around 157 A.D. Montanus began teaching in Phyrgia and gained a following. His main emphasis was on speaking prophetic messages from God while in a trance. These ecstatic utterances caused a lot of controversy among church leaders, in part because they had a strong resemblance to pagan practices. In fact, Montanus may have been a pagan priest for the god Cybele before his conversion, as that god was quite popular in that region. Two women, Maximilla and Priscilla, also began giving prophecies with Montanus and they left their husbands to carry out this ministry. He declared their revelations to be from God and called them "virgins of the church," which sounds eerily similar to pagan temple terminology.
By 177 A.D. all the bishops in the neighbouring region, as well as in Rome and France (Gaul), declared Montanus' practices to be heretical and his prophecies to be from Satan rather than from God. However, that did not stop the spread of Montanism. Where they were excommunicated from the Catholic churches, separate Montanist churches sprang up. Even Tertullian defended and joined the Montanists and as a result was excommunicated from the Catholic church.
It seems Montanus' ecstatic methods of delivering the prophecies were the main source of the controversy in the church. There is no record of bishops having any problem with the content of his messages (despite concluding they originated from Satan). Montanists defended their ecstatic methods by pointing to uses of the Greek word for ecstasy in Scriptures. One is Peter's vision in Acts 10:10 where he fell into a trance (ekstasis). Their opponents pointed out that Peter still disagreed with God during the vision ("Surely not, Lord!") so he was not without control of his will. By implication, Montanus must have been losing control of himself while in his prophetic trances.
The Bible is clear that when the Holy Spirit brings a message through a person, that person does not lose control of their will. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:32 that "the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets." The Holy Spirit never takes away control of our own behaviour even as He works through us.
The Montanism debate of the second century seemed to condense into two questions, which are still relevant for the church today:
1) How can one know if a prophet is actually receiving a supernatural message or is just pretending to?
2) If it is a supernatural message, how can one know if it is from God or from Satan?
In reality, those two questions boil down to one question: Is the prophecy from God or not? Whether a false prophecy is from the prophet's own imagination (i.e. they are pretending) or from Satan, we do the same thing with it: we throw it out. 1 Thess. 5:19-21 says, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good." In the context prophecies, we are not to despise them but rather test them and keep what is good. That means whatever is not good, we do not keep. If a prophecy (or a part of a prophecy) does not line up with the Bible, we throw that part out.
But what about the prophecies that are tested and appear to be from God? What authority do those prophetic words carry? The Montanists believed they could add to and bring clarity to Scripture. The orthodox bishops disagreed. In fact, the Montanist debates showed that churches had already effectively closed the New Testament canon by the late second century in the sense that they had New Testament books they considered to be Scripture and other books that were not of the same authority. The Montanists however used prophetic words to support their theological doctrines in addition to the accepted books of the Bible.
One reason the Montanist churches spread so far and wide was that their behaviour was very Godly. They fasted regularly and celebrated more religious holidays than the mainline church. Sometimes doctrinally they stayed true to Scripture where the Catholic church was veering into error. For example, Tertullian and the Montanists opposed the emerging Catholic practice of bishops absolving people of their sin if they performed sufficient penance, arguing that God was the one to forgive sins and not bishops. Broadbent states (The Pilgrim Church, p. 35) that "the Montanists constantly pressed for definite evidences of Christianity in the lives of applicants for fellowship" in the church, unlike the Catholic bishops who wanted as many adherents in the church as possible.
The story of the Montanists actually sheds some light on how the Catholic church was functioning by the mid-second century:
a) The Catholic church was already in need of renewal; and
b) The Catholic church was lacking the functioning of and direction of the Holy Spirit.
The Montanists sought to correct and strengthen the church in these areas, and like many movements of renewal throughout church history, they made some errors. The Catholic bishops, in correctly identifying those errors, wrongly presumed that everything the Montanists did was therefore wrong. As a result, the Catholic church lost the function of the gift of prophecy and sought to control the working of the Holy Spirit rather than follow Him. Essentially they threw the baby out with the bath water.
What we do know is that sometime around 157 A.D. Montanus began teaching in Phyrgia and gained a following. His main emphasis was on speaking prophetic messages from God while in a trance. These ecstatic utterances caused a lot of controversy among church leaders, in part because they had a strong resemblance to pagan practices. In fact, Montanus may have been a pagan priest for the god Cybele before his conversion, as that god was quite popular in that region. Two women, Maximilla and Priscilla, also began giving prophecies with Montanus and they left their husbands to carry out this ministry. He declared their revelations to be from God and called them "virgins of the church," which sounds eerily similar to pagan temple terminology.
By 177 A.D. all the bishops in the neighbouring region, as well as in Rome and France (Gaul), declared Montanus' practices to be heretical and his prophecies to be from Satan rather than from God. However, that did not stop the spread of Montanism. Where they were excommunicated from the Catholic churches, separate Montanist churches sprang up. Even Tertullian defended and joined the Montanists and as a result was excommunicated from the Catholic church.
It seems Montanus' ecstatic methods of delivering the prophecies were the main source of the controversy in the church. There is no record of bishops having any problem with the content of his messages (despite concluding they originated from Satan). Montanists defended their ecstatic methods by pointing to uses of the Greek word for ecstasy in Scriptures. One is Peter's vision in Acts 10:10 where he fell into a trance (ekstasis). Their opponents pointed out that Peter still disagreed with God during the vision ("Surely not, Lord!") so he was not without control of his will. By implication, Montanus must have been losing control of himself while in his prophetic trances.
The Bible is clear that when the Holy Spirit brings a message through a person, that person does not lose control of their will. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:32 that "the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets." The Holy Spirit never takes away control of our own behaviour even as He works through us.
The Montanism debate of the second century seemed to condense into two questions, which are still relevant for the church today:
1) How can one know if a prophet is actually receiving a supernatural message or is just pretending to?
2) If it is a supernatural message, how can one know if it is from God or from Satan?
In reality, those two questions boil down to one question: Is the prophecy from God or not? Whether a false prophecy is from the prophet's own imagination (i.e. they are pretending) or from Satan, we do the same thing with it: we throw it out. 1 Thess. 5:19-21 says, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good." In the context prophecies, we are not to despise them but rather test them and keep what is good. That means whatever is not good, we do not keep. If a prophecy (or a part of a prophecy) does not line up with the Bible, we throw that part out.
But what about the prophecies that are tested and appear to be from God? What authority do those prophetic words carry? The Montanists believed they could add to and bring clarity to Scripture. The orthodox bishops disagreed. In fact, the Montanist debates showed that churches had already effectively closed the New Testament canon by the late second century in the sense that they had New Testament books they considered to be Scripture and other books that were not of the same authority. The Montanists however used prophetic words to support their theological doctrines in addition to the accepted books of the Bible.
One reason the Montanist churches spread so far and wide was that their behaviour was very Godly. They fasted regularly and celebrated more religious holidays than the mainline church. Sometimes doctrinally they stayed true to Scripture where the Catholic church was veering into error. For example, Tertullian and the Montanists opposed the emerging Catholic practice of bishops absolving people of their sin if they performed sufficient penance, arguing that God was the one to forgive sins and not bishops. Broadbent states (The Pilgrim Church, p. 35) that "the Montanists constantly pressed for definite evidences of Christianity in the lives of applicants for fellowship" in the church, unlike the Catholic bishops who wanted as many adherents in the church as possible.
The story of the Montanists actually sheds some light on how the Catholic church was functioning by the mid-second century:
a) The Catholic church was already in need of renewal; and
b) The Catholic church was lacking the functioning of and direction of the Holy Spirit.
The Montanists sought to correct and strengthen the church in these areas, and like many movements of renewal throughout church history, they made some errors. The Catholic bishops, in correctly identifying those errors, wrongly presumed that everything the Montanists did was therefore wrong. As a result, the Catholic church lost the function of the gift of prophecy and sought to control the working of the Holy Spirit rather than follow Him. Essentially they threw the baby out with the bath water.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (~140 - 203 AD) was Bishop of Lugdunum, now Lyons, France. He was born in Smyrna, raised in a Christian family, and heard Polycarp's teaching in his younger days. It is unclear if he was martyred or not.
Irenaeus wrote a number of books, but only two complete works survive. The most important is Against Heresies, a five-book series refuting Gnosticism. The second is A Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, which may have been used to instruct new believers.
Gnosticism gets its name from the Greek word gnosis, meaning knowledge. There were many different schools and variations of it, but they all taught some special kind of knowledge was required for salvation. They freely borrowed from various religions, including Judaism, Roman and Greek traditions, Zoroastrianism, and eventually Christianity. Because it included Christian concepts and terminology, increasing numbers of Christians were adopting these gnostic beliefs and Irenaeus argued strongly to show how they were contrary to scripture and the apostles' teaching.
In the process of refuting Gnosticism, Irenaeus helped establish what we now call the New Testament. Because heretical writings started surfacing falsely claiming to be written by one of the apostles, Irenaeus cited those writings that were authentic. He referred to both the Old Testament and the apostles' writings as "Scripture."
Irenaeus introduced some new concepts, including apostolic succession and the authority of church tradition. Because the heretics claimed to know more than the apostles did, Irenaeus not only pointed to the apostles' writings, but also to the fact that some of the apostles appointed the first church elders. Implied in that is that there was first-hand instruction, which ensured clear inheritance of doctrine. Since heretics were introducing new ideas, church traditions were seen as another way of ensuring consistent doctrine.
But again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. ... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 2.
By documenting a clear succession of appointments of church leaders, later generations would use that as a justification for the authority of the pope. Pointing to church tradition was fine for the doctrinal points that the church got right, but as the church accepted unbiblical practices, tradition became a justification for ignoring scripture and elevating the decisions of church leaders above all else.
Irenaeus wrote a number of books, but only two complete works survive. The most important is Against Heresies, a five-book series refuting Gnosticism. The second is A Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, which may have been used to instruct new believers.
Gnosticism gets its name from the Greek word gnosis, meaning knowledge. There were many different schools and variations of it, but they all taught some special kind of knowledge was required for salvation. They freely borrowed from various religions, including Judaism, Roman and Greek traditions, Zoroastrianism, and eventually Christianity. Because it included Christian concepts and terminology, increasing numbers of Christians were adopting these gnostic beliefs and Irenaeus argued strongly to show how they were contrary to scripture and the apostles' teaching.
In the process of refuting Gnosticism, Irenaeus helped establish what we now call the New Testament. Because heretical writings started surfacing falsely claiming to be written by one of the apostles, Irenaeus cited those writings that were authentic. He referred to both the Old Testament and the apostles' writings as "Scripture."
Irenaeus introduced some new concepts, including apostolic succession and the authority of church tradition. Because the heretics claimed to know more than the apostles did, Irenaeus not only pointed to the apostles' writings, but also to the fact that some of the apostles appointed the first church elders. Implied in that is that there was first-hand instruction, which ensured clear inheritance of doctrine. Since heretics were introducing new ideas, church traditions were seen as another way of ensuring consistent doctrine.
But again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. ... It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Against Heresies, Book III, ch. 2.
By documenting a clear succession of appointments of church leaders, later generations would use that as a justification for the authority of the pope. Pointing to church tradition was fine for the doctrinal points that the church got right, but as the church accepted unbiblical practices, tradition became a justification for ignoring scripture and elevating the decisions of church leaders above all else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)