28. Heresy

Schisms and heresies are strongly condemned in the Christian Scriptures. To guard against them properly, they must be considered and understood in their true and proper biblical context. We will therefore first attempt to define them.

The term schism appears only eight times in the apostolic writings. When applied to a garment, Matt. 9:16; Mark 2:21, it is properly translated rent; when applied to a gathering of people, John 7:43; 9:16; 10:19, it is translated division; when applied to the church by Paul, 1 Cor. 1:10; 11:18; 12:25, it denotes division or alienation — not because of faith, doctrines, or opinions — but because of men as leaders or chiefs among the brethren. This is always indicated by the context. It is a division regarding internal unity, or the unity of heart and affection, only tending toward a breach of visible or outward unity, and therefore condemned by the Apostle. These are its New Testament meanings.

Schisms can exist even where there is perfect agreement in faith, doctrine, and all religious beliefs. Undue attachment to certain individuals, to the detriment of others, partiality because of personal preferences, are the true elements of schism or division as it appeared in Corinth, and as the word is used in the New Testament. Few people today can fully appreciate the force of the word schisms in the apostolic age, because very few have experienced the intimacy, the oneness of heart and soul, that existed and prevailed in the Christian profession when all was genuine and uncorrupted. A union formed on Christian principles — a union with Christ and his people in views, sentiments, feelings, aims, and pursuits — a real partnership for eternity, almost eliminated individuality itself, and inseparably united into one spirit all the genuine members of Christ's body. Kindred drops do not more readily blend into one mass than the souls of early Christians flowed together in all their aspirations, loves, joys, and interests. Hence arose the Apostle Paul's jealousy when he first learned that certain individuals in Corinth began to draw attention and attachment for mere personal, individual, and fleshly reasons, as leaders or chiefs in the Christian family. In these signs he already saw the dissolution of the church. Although still one visible community, having one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one table, one apparent supreme and all-controlling interest; still, in these attachments to particular persons, he not only saw a real division or breach in the hearts of the people but foresaw that it would result in actual, visible disunity or heresy. And here we are led to inquire into the biblical meaning of the word heresy.

Hairesis, strictly and literally meaning choice or option, is anglicized as heresy, and properly translated sect or faction, and by implication discord and contention. It appears only nine times in the New Testament. In Acts 5:17, it is rendered "the sect of the Sadducees;" Acts 15:5, "the sect of the Pharisees;" Acts 24:5, "the sect of the Nazarenes;" Acts 24:14, "after the way which they call heresy (sect), so worship I," says Paul; Acts 26:5, "after the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee;" Acts 28:22, "as for this sect (of the Christians) we know that it is everywhere spoken against." Besides these six occurrences, we find it twice used by Paul in his epistles, and once by Peter. 1 Cor. 11:19, "For there must be heresies (sects) among you." Gal. 5:20, "Sedition, heresies." 2 Peter 2:1, "Shall bring in damnable heresies." In the common version, it is rendered sect five times and heresy four times.

Since the word sect or heresy, found only in the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, does not always in the former simply mean a party without regard to its beliefs, the term carries no inherently negative or positive connotation — nothing virtuous or vicious. Hence it is equally applied to Pharisees, Sadducees, Nazarenes, or Christians, without any implication about the character of the group. It is only once rendered heresy in the "Acts," and in that case, it clearly should have been sect. Paul had been accused by Tertullus (Acts 24:6) of being "a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." In defending himself against this charge, he should have addressed it under the same term. This he did in the original; for in verse 5, in the indictment, and in verse 14, in his defense, the same word hairesis is used. How unwise, then, was it for our translators and the Vulgate to have Tertullus accuse Paul of a sect, and to have Paul defend himself against a heresy, when both Tertullus and Paul used the same word in their speeches as recorded by Luke in the original!

In the new version, this word is, as it should be, uniformly rendered sect. In the Epistles, and apparently once in Acts, it is used as though it implied censure or guilt. Paul defends himself from Tertullus's accusation. Here, then, a question arises — "Why should the term hairesis imply blame in its Christian sense, but not in its Jewish sense?" We answer: Because among the Jews, sects or parties did not end, as among Christians, in separate communities or communions. They resembled the high and low church parties in the Episcopalian communion; or the different and numerous sects among the Roman Catholics, such as Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc., which never result in a breach of communion or cooperation as one church. Thus the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, etc., frequented the same temple, altar, priesthood, and united in all the same acts of worship. Not so with the Jews and Samaritans: they were real sects in the Christian sense. Again, among the Jews, the bond of union was national and fleshly; therefore, parties could not destroy it. With us, it is spiritual, social, and heartfelt — one faith, one hope, one spirit; and parties are destructive to the highest degree.

There is only one plausible objection to this view; and we address it in response to the question, 'Why did Paul defend himself from Tertullus's accusation as if it indicated censure, if sects among the Jews were such harmless and inoffensive things?' We answer: There is no blame in the simple charge of being part of a sect, but in the ideas Tertullus associated with it. The Romans had agreed to protect the Jews in the practice of their religion, and they wanted, in the presence of Felix, to make Paul appear an apostate from that religion — "a troublemaker, a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes" — so that he might lose the protection granted to the Jewish religion. From this perspective, we see the wisdom of Paul's defense. He admits the charge of being a sectarian, but not in a criminal sense — worshiping the same God with them, believing every word in their law and Prophets, and cherishing the same hope of a future resurrection of the dead; thus showing that nothing offensive or criminal could be charged against him for being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

In the Christian epistles, however, it is used negatively and always connected with censure. This may be why the King James Version changes the translation to heresies, or, as in the case of baptism, bishop, etc., anglicizes rather than translates the word. However, this is not a good or sufficient reason, because it necessarily leads English readers to believe that heresy in the epistles and sect in the Acts of the Apostles are two distinct and different things; and this, of course, not only obscures those passages but also prevents clear understanding of a matter essential to our duty and happiness. The meaning, however, is not materially different in the epistles, except in the relation of things. When the word sect is connected with a proper name, such as the sect of the Pharisees, the sect of the Sadducees, or the sect of the Christians, it is used in a neutral sense, neither implying truth or error, good or evil; but if it is applied to a party formed within a community that admits no division or subdivision in its nature, because it necessarily leads to corruption and destruction; then, in that relation and sense, a sect is a destructive and condemnable thing. Now in the Epistles, it is always taken in this sense and is ranked with factions, as a work of the flesh, carnal and destructive, and doomed to the judgments of Heaven.

Still, in its biblical application, whether used by Luke, Paul, or Peter — and it is found in no other writer — it never relates to doctrine, belief, opinion, or faith. There is no belief or doctrine in sacred usage that is called heresy or sect. Hence that ecclesiastical definition, namely — "Heresy denotes some erroneous opinion, belief, or doctrine obstinately persisted in," has no support from the New Testament. Heresy and heretical, in the mouths of Paul and Peter, and in the mouths of an ancient or modern scholar or churchman, mean very different things.

But some argue that any doctrine that causes division is heretical and therefore condemnable. It may be admitted, for the sake of argument, that any doctrine or action that causes division is heretical or divisive; but for that reason, it is not condemnable; because in that sense Jesus Christ was a heretic and his gospel heresy: for he came to cause divisions on earth, and did form a sect; and therefore, his doctrine is divisive or heretical.

Now if we say Jesus was a heretic, and his gospel heresy, and his followers sectarians, does this not strip the word of any bad or blameworthy meaning, and make heretics, heresies, and sects innocent things? It does, so far as all outside Christ's kingdom or institution are concerned. But this is the crucial difference here; Christians, distinguished from Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Infidels, are lawfully, righteously, and innocently a sect, a heresy: but a sect among these is corrupt, treasonous, and most reprehensible, according to every precept, doctrine, and saying of the New Institution. Thus a man may be a Christian, or of the sect of the Nazarenes, but not a Lutheran, a Calvinist, or an Arminian, without blame. The words schisms and heresy as explained so far—can we not see schism as the cause and heresy as the effect? Or, in other words, must we not see sects as the result of schisms? The whole philosophy of the matter, then, is that separation is the result of alienation of heart; alienation is the fruit of rival attachments, which in the church generally begin with personal sympathies or personal antipathies and end in detaching those involved from the body of Christ. In this view, Paul seems to reason in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19: — "There are schisms among you—for there must be sects among you, so that the approved may be made manifest." The schisms in Corinth began with particular preferences for great teachers such as Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. These preferences violated that unity of spirit, that oneness of heart essential to one body in Christ; and that led to parties in the church, shown in the way they celebrated the supper. The same spirit in other communities ultimately led to visible separations and distinct sects, as among professed members of Christ's body today.

Paul, commenting on this most ancient schism, further observes that there must, of necessity, be sects in such a situation, so that "the approved may be made manifest." It is so true that all strife, contention, parties, and sects grow out of corruption. Sects are the outward expression of corruption. The approved hold to Christ and thus become manifest; the disapproved follow human leaders and are also made manifest. There appears to be no other cure for a corrupt and mixed community than heresies or sects. It is as wise and benevolent a provision in a remedial system that incurable corruption should work out this way as the law in the animal kingdom that forces all harmful humors to the surface and gathers into swellings and boils those vicious particles which would otherwise poison the whole system and fatally destroy the body.

People, indeed, do not fall in love with Paul, Peter, and Cephas in a partisan sense until they have lost some of their love for Christ. Hence the first sign of personal regard or sectarian attachment is the first proof of decline, backsliding, or apostasy. Partisan attachment is at the core of the first sin and carries deeply hidden within it the first element of hatred. Thus, we observe that he loves Wesley for any sectarian attribute and hates Calvin in proportion to his attachment to his leader; just as he who loves Calvin for his humanisms hates Wesley for opposing them. But the one who loves only what is Christian in both does not hate either; rather, he grieves for the errors and faults of both. If for no other reason, we should most devoutly and ardently avoid partisanship; for this is why it should be rejected—that our hatred of one party will always be in proportion to our love for its opponent; and in all such cases, both our love and hatred are subject to God's disapproval and indeed lie under the sentence of His explicit condemnation.

For this reason, we suppose that the next place we find the word hairesis, and the only other time it appears in Paul's epistles, it stands immediately after "factions" and before "envyings" and "murders," in Paul's list and classification of the works of the flesh, Galatians 5:20-21. Paul strongly and repeatedly affirms that those who practice these things will not "enter the kingdom of God." He says, "The works of the flesh are obvious, which are these—sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, sects, envy, murders, drunkenness," etc. etc. Every sectarian is, then, Paul judging, a fleshly person and outside the boundaries of the kingdom of God. A severe judgment, truly! How should we understand it? — !

It is now even clearer that heresies are not mere opinions, beliefs, doctrines, or theories; for who would say that opinions, beliefs, or theories as such are works of the flesh? Or who would say that fleshly principles are the roots or reasons for mere opinions, beliefs, or theories? Corrupt opinions, indeed, may be more naturally spread or accepted by corrupt people; but to call opinions or beliefs—even those sectarian opinions on which some parties are founded—works of the flesh is to confuse mental weakness or poor education with depravity of heart; for nothing can be called a work of the flesh that does not involve the corruptions of the heart. Hairesis in this context, then, means sects, as it always does in the New Testament.

Still, the question remains: Are all religious sects works of the flesh? Paul makes no exceptions. We dare not make any. He is not speaking of philosophical, political, or foreign factions and sects, but of those related to the Christian institution. Among the Jews, Paul himself was a Pharisee; among political classes, he was a Roman; but in religion, he was a Christian—not a Calvinist, Arminian, or Methodist, but a Christian. Indeed, Paul himself, in his description of sectarians or founders and makers of religious parties, traces all their zeal and effort to the stomach rather than to conscience or love of truth. "Watch out," he says, "for those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the teaching you have received, and avoid them; for such people do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by flattery and smooth talk, they deceive the hearts of the naive." Surely such sectarians and sects are "works of the flesh."

But here we should define a factionist and a sectarian, since nowadays we have some sectarians who are not factionists, and some factionists and factions that are more than mere sectarians. The factionist, or as Paul calls him, the "heretic," creates the faction. The faction are those who side with him. Ordinary sectarians are those who are simply led by the heretic, deceived by his flattery and smooth talk, without any evil motive driving their course. Many sectarians, in the simplicity of their hearts, believe their party to be the true and only church of Christ and therefore conscientiously adhere to it. Others think that no party is the church of Christ, but that He has a church in all parties—an invisible church—to which they believe they belong, and therefore associate with all of similar character in all parties as far as they know. These differ greatly from the schismatics, heretics, and factionists of Paul. Those either created or worked to maintain a party or sect; and all such people are corrupt, fleshly men because, from pride in their own opinions, from rivalry, ambition, or love of money, they are motivated to create or maintain a faction or sect favorable to their views and interests. These serve their own appetites and think about earthly things. But a large number of sectarians are following, as they believe, Jesus Christ and His apostles under the name and teachings of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. They are, without realizing it, mere followers of men: for they do not examine anything for themselves by constant and habitual reference to the Bible.

Now, what the degree of carnality and fleshly or worldly influence is that keeps them there, and what the degree of patience and forgiveness exercised toward them from heaven is, I do not presume to declare; but that the factionist—the person who creates a party, and the one who works to maintain it—are certainly earthly, sensual, and demonic; and, as such, not of the kingdom of God, we cannot but assert as a deep and rational conviction, derived from the most impartial examination of the sacred scriptures—from the clearest and fullest testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking to us through the words of Prophets and Apostles.

The Christian party is "built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, with Jesus the Messiah himself as the chief cornerstone," and therefore on the Christian Scriptures alone; not, indeed, as opposed to the Jewish Scriptures, but as the development and full revelation of all that concerns Christ and His kingdom contained in those Scriptures. Now, all other parties that differ in any way from the Christian party are built on some alloy—some creed, formula, or human institution added to the apostolic laws and customs. This alloy is what makes the party. So many elements of the Apostles' doctrine combined with so many ideas of Calvin produce the compound called Calvinism. So many elements of Luther's opinions combined with the Apostles' teaching make Lutheranism. And so many parts of Wesley's ideas combined with certain parts of the New Testament make the compound called Methodism. The Christian elements in these compounds, as far as they are not neutralized by the human alloy, make the Christians among them; while the alloy makes the sectarian. Remove all that belongs to the founder of the sect in all these parties, and they would certainly come together and form one community.

Now, we do not suppose that there is the same guilt in forming a new Protestant party as there was in first forming the Roman Catholic, Greek, or any of the ancient sects. The modern sects have been started with the desire to return to primitive Christianity; the ancient sects arose directly from lust for power—from fleshly, selfish, and worldly motives. Now, however, since we have so largely tasted the gall and wormwood, the bitter fruits of sects and parties; and have learned the cause, the cure, and the prevention of sectarianism—alas for all who are found maintaining the old landmarks of strife or laying the foundation for new rivalries, partialities, and antipathies to arise and pollute many, slow the progress of the gospel abroad, and foster the spirit of unbelief at home. There remains another occurrence of hairesis (sect) in the writings of Peter, not yet formally examined. We will now specifically consider it. This Apostle says, "There will be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive sects, denying even the Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves; and many will follow their harmful ways." Paul, in his farewell to the Ephesians, also speaks of "grievous wolves devouring the flock, and men rising from among themselves to draw away disciples after them, speaking perverse things." From these indications, we learn that the Apostles Paul and Peter foresaw the rise of sectarians and sects; and both of them, it is worth noting, clearly connected the sects with sectarian teachers: for all sects have originated from false teachers or corrupt men. Sectarians, it seems, occupy the same place under Christ that false prophets held under Moses. Should we then infer the danger of maintaining religious sects, or proceed to prove that everyone who builds up a party shares the guilt with the one who founded it?

It is the responsibility of all who wish to be approved by the Lord at His coming to be active in purging and cleansing the Christian profession from every root and branch of sectarianism, and to strive to destroy those destructive sects that have been like Pandora's box to the human race; that have filled the profession with hypocrites, the world with unbelievers, and delayed for so many centuries the conversion of both Jews and Gentiles to the Christian faith.

Finally, while working to abolish the old sects, let us be careful not to form a new one. This can happen by either adding to or subtracting from the apostolic constitution a single item. Our platform must be as long and as broad as the New Testament. Every person the Apostles would accept, if present, we must accept; therefore, the one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all, must be the basis for one, and only one, table.

Factionalists, or opinionists, or those who seek to attach people to themselves because of their opinions, talents, or personal traits, whatever they may be, should be regarded as the very roots of bitterness in the Christian church—as seeking their own interests, honors, and profits, not the things of Jesus Christ. It was by such spirits that the ancient schisms and sects began; and by similar spirits, which every generation can supply in its own way, they are kept alive. Not all such people have the power to accomplish much; but now and then one arises and succeeds in drawing away disciples after him. We can suggest no better remedies or preventives than those commanded by the Apostles. Let us hold fast to their traditions; contend only for the faith; allow differences of opinion; tolerate no dogmatists; support none of the disciples of Diotrephes; and walk in love, guided by that wisdom which is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to be persuaded, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy."

From the preceding observations, it will appear, we believe, very clear to all that we need neither telescopes nor microscopes to detect heresies in the New Testament sense of that word. They are nothing more or less than sects—plain, obvious sects and parties. Every party in Christendom, regardless of any of its doctrines, opinions, or practices, is a heresy, a schism—unless there is such a party that stands exactly on the Apostles' ground. In that case, it is a sect just in the sense of the old sect of the Nazarenes, later called Christians, and all others are guilty before the Lord and must be condemned for their opposition to Christ's own party; whose party we are, provided we hold fast all, and only all, apostolic traditions, and build upon the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.