Heresies

The Arian Heresy and the Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Kairos Podcast 6: Biblical-Nicene Trinitarianism vs Early Heresies. Part 4/6
Video Link – The Arian Heresy and the Council of Nicaea (AD 325)

Essence of Arianism: God the Father is absolutely unique and transcendent. Since the being or essence (ousia) of the Godhead is unique, transcendent and indivisible it cannot be shared or communicated. Therefore, whatever else exists must have come into existence by an act of God’s creation.

Deductions: 1) The Son must be a creature, 2) As a creature the Son must have a beginning, 3) The Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of His Father, 4) The Son must be liable to change and even sin.

Conclusion: The Son of God was not eternal, was not always with God, but was made by the Father before all time. Key phrase of Arianism: “there was [a time] when he was not.”

For Arianism, the Son of God is of similar substance/essence (homoiousios) with the Father.

Refutation by the Nicene Creed (325 AD): the Son of God is of the same substance/essence (homoousios) with the Father – “We believe…the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

Early Heresies – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

Kairos Podcast 6: Early Heresies Part 2/6

Video Link – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

One paramount issue facing the early church was how to harmonize belief in the deity of the Son of God with monotheism. The early church had to clarify the relationship between Jesus and the one God of the Old Testament.

Prominent heretical sects which offered one-sided solutions include 1) Gnosticism and Docetism which deny the humanity of Christ and 2) Ebionism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchism) which denied the deity of Christ.

The early church countered these heresies with the Rule of Faith which affirmed that belief in 1) the one God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and 2) the life, death, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ to be non-negotiable. The affirmation was called the Rule of Faith. Because the Rule of Faith was so universal and consistent, the early “Church Fathers” could use it against heresies. The Rule of Faith eventually took the form of the Apostles’ Creed.

Video Link – Ebionism, Gnosticism and Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism)

Doctrine of Trinity: A Primer

Trinitarian Pattern in Greetings, Prayers & Worship in the New Testament

Kairos Podcast 6: Biblical-Nicene Trinitarianism vs Early Heresies. Part 1/6
Video Link – Trinitarian Pattern in Greetings, Prayers & Worship in the New Testament

Critics of Christianity claim that the doctrine of Trinity was created by the church in the 4th century during the Council of Nicaea convened by Emperor Constantine to serve his political agenda.

While the word “Trinity” is not found in the New Testament, nevertheless, the Trinitarian pattern found throughout the New Testament, that is, the invocation of God in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, and their divine functions and mutual relationships in the prayers and worship throughout the New Testament confirms that the Triune God was foundational in the life and practice right at the beginning of the New Testament church.

The problem of the Trinity was being raised and answered in the New Testament. It arose because of the development of Christian experience, worship, and thought. It was rooted in experience, for men were conscious of the power of the Spirit and the presence and Lordship of the risen Christ. It was rooted in worship, because men worshipped in the Spirit, offered their prayers to God the Father through Christ, and sometimes worshipped Christ himself. It was rooted in thought, because the writers tackled first the Christological problem, and then, at any rate in the Fourth Gospel, the threefold problem. The whole matter was based on the life and resurrection of Jesus himself, who received the Spirit during his earthly life and imparted the Spirit to others after his resurrection (Oscar Cullmann).

In short, the New Testament account of the work of God through Christ in the Spirit, which was based on the believers’ concrete experience of salvation rather than speculative, abstract metaphysics, provides the basis for Christian thought about the Triune God.

Video Link – Trinitarian Pattern in Greetings, Prayers & Worship in the New Testament

Related Post:
Doctrine of the Trinity: A Primer

The Miracle of Christmas Pt. 2/2: The Incarnate Christ is truly God and truly Man

Speaker: Dr. Ng Kam Weng

You are welcome to view the talk at:
The Incarnate Christ is truly God and truly Man

A brief explanation of the two natures of Christ according to the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451)

Chalcedonian Creed (451)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Part 5 – Was the Early Christian Belief in the Deity of Jesus Influenced by Non-Christian Ideas?

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity

Part 4: Question: Bart Ehrman asserts that Jesus never claimed to be God. Instead the later Christians attributed divinity to Jesus because they were influenced by surrounding pagan ideas and especially by the influence of Jewish angelology at that time. How would you evaluate the historical basis for Ehrman’s assertion?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:

Was the early Christian belief in the deity of Jesus influenced by non-Christian ideas?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Part 4: What Was the Apostles’ Fully Developed Confession of Their Belief in the Deity of Christ?

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity

Part 4: What was the apostles’ fully developed or definitive confession of their belief in the deity of Christ?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
What was the apostles’ fully developed confession of their belief in the deity of Christ?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Part 3: How Did the Apostles and Early Christians Come to Believe in the Deity of Christ?

Question: How did the apostles and early Christians come to believe in the deity of Christ?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEkm-BqnCFo

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Part 2: Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Question: But critics like Elaine Pagels & Bart Ehrman argue that this traditional history of orthodoxy is skewed because it grants greater authority to the canonical gospels and ignores the other (gnostic ) gospels. Why do you think the canonical four gospels provide more accurate historical information about Jesus than the gnostic gospels?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity Part 1: Was there diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed for influence?

Question: Many secular university scholars argue that there was diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed with one another for influence. When the sect in Rome gained power it declared itself orthodox and condemned the other sects like Gnosticism to be heretical. What is your response?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 1: Was there diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed for influence?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 2/3. Relegating Orthodoxy in Early Christianity

A. Bauer-Ehrman Revisionist History – “Heresy Preceded Orthodoxy”
Ehrman’s assertion that the early Christians took liberty with scripture flows from his contested claim that there was no defining leadership in the early church. According to Ehrman, there was no notion of orthodoxy in early Christianity. Instead, a variety of “christianities” like the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics and “proto-orthodoxy” [Ehrman’s coins the term “proto-orthodoxy” as he refuses to acknowledge that there was orthodoxy in early Christianity] vied for power and influence. Ehrman argues that alternative forms of “christianities” and their sacred writings which include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Peter should be regarded to be of equal authenticity (or in Ehrman’s real estimation, of equal inauthenticity) as the four canonical gospels. Indeed, he questions the special regard given the canonical gospels by orthodoxy since to him, the New Testament canon as it is, came to be only when the politically powerful “proto-orthodox” Christians in Rome unilaterally decided which book to be included in or excluded from Christian Scripture, and then applied ecclesiastical machinations and coercive policies to force other Christians to accept their decision. The other forms of “christianities” were then stigmatized by the victorious “proto-orthodox” party to be heretical and their writings were erased from history until some of them were discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Ehrman writes, Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 2/3. Relegating Orthodoxy in Early Christianity”