BOOK REVIEW - SUPERHEROES CAN'T SAVE YOU: EPIC EXAMPLES OF HISTORIC HERESIES BY TODD MILES

 

Who says Christian apologetics can't be fun?

Todd Miles (professor at Western Seminary in Portland, OR) has given a useful and relevant understanding of who Christ is in his book Superheroes Can't Save You: Epic Examples of Historic Heresies. He looks at seven incorrect views of who Jesus Christ is through history (he refers to them as bad ideas about Jesus) and compares these distortions with various superheroes. The result is a fun, readable book that helps us understand doctrine.

Each chapter follows this format:

1. Introduction to the superhero and autobiographical insights
2. The heresy (or false teaching or "bad idea about Jesus"
3. Who follows this heresy today? (In this section, he'll mention particular groups that hold to that teaching but also ways that someone may be slipping into a particular trap of thinking that isn't accurate.
4. What does the Bible say?
5. Why does it matter?

When I was younger, I considered the three most important aspects of theology to be Bibliology (the Inspiration of the Bible), Christology (who Jesus is) and Soteriology (the teaching on salvation). While I consider all three (and also all other areas of theology) important still, I'm at the point of believing Christology is the most important. Of course, you need a solid Bibliology to have a solid Christology, and if you have a proper Christology, you will by default realize our salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thus, this book is helpful in identifying a Biblically consistent Christology.
I highly recommend this book both as a student of the Word (I considered calling myself a theologian - it sounds more intellectual and intimidating, even though "theologian" and "student of the Word" are the same thing) and as a comic book fan.

ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL CHRISTIANS, YET NOT A SAINT? A LOOK AT TERTULLIAN

 

When I first read Bryan Litfin's Getting To Know The Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, I was able to describe nine of the twelve church leaders with one sentence... or less! (There were three I knew nothing about.) Two of the three were men I consider heroes of the faith, and the third was Augustine. 

In a previous installment, I mentioned doing a term paper on six early church movements, and Tertullian had connection with two of them - a positive connection with Montanism (some believe he joined the group, others thought he just accepted them), and an advesarial relationship with Marcionism. 

As my title stated, Tertullian was not canonized as a saint - more about this later. Regardless of that, he is an important figure in church history. Pope Benedict XVI lists this non-saint in his book on church fathers. While Irenaeus was the first to mention a collection of Christian Scripture, Tertullian was the first use the term "New Testament." Another term he was the first to use is "Trinity" relating to the relationship of the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (he was also the first Church Father to write primarily in Latin). You may have heard Tertullian's question "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem" and more likely to be familiar with the line "The blood of Christians is seed" (more commonly rephrased as "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church").

In this series I've mentioned the seven letters of Ignatius, the three writings of Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus' two classics. Tertullian's bibliography consists of more than twice the listings of the other trio combined - a total of thirty one in the original Latin.  His biggest is a five volume set titled Against Marcionism.

Who is Marcion? He was a wealthy shipmaker, and had enough money to spread his heretical doctrine. Marcion is included in lists of Gnostic teachers because his theology is similar (especially in a non-physical Jesus who came to forgive sins but didn't pay for them on the cross). However, most Gnostics used their own writings as well as Scripture. 100% of Marcion's Bible is contained in our Bible.

Marcion was the first to give a canon of New Testament books, which consisted of Luke and ten of Paul's letters (excluding the Pastoral Epistles). He believed there were two different gods - the Creator who the Jews worshipped, and the true God who sent Jesus. Thus, Marcion rejected the Old Testament and anything "corrupted" with Jewish thought in our New Testament.

One reason I'm a Tertullian fan is because of how he dealt with Marcion. Two of the five books against Marcion refuted the shipmaker's teachings from Scripture - Volume 3 using Marcion's edited version of Luke, and the next one using Paul's letters. In other words, even Marcion's limited Scripture was enough to disprove him.

When I did my term paper, Tertullian was considered to have joined the Montanists. His version differed from the movement's founder Montanus version, and the authors I read gave three possible reasons: 1) Montantism mellowed between Montanus' time and Tertullian's; 2) North African Montanism which influenced Tertullian was more orthodox than the Middle Eastern Montanism of Montanus; and what I consider the most likely theory, 3) Montanus was Montanus and Tertullian was Tertullian.

If Tertullian was a conservationist, he'd probably be another Crocodile Hunter. Then, maybe you might call him the Rush Limbaugh of Church Fathers. Tertullian could be very harsh and legalistic. He wrote a list of what women could and could not wear, for example.  His crusty personality may be why he wasn't canonized as a saint. Of course, if you use the NT definition of saints as being all of Christ's followers, then Tertullian would definitely be a saint.

One last comment. In dealing with heretical movements, Tertullian said they had no authority to use Scripture. Scripture belongs to the church, and it is ours to use, not those who twist it.

Do you have any heroes of the faith that, while orthodox, can be controversial?

 

A GAME CHANGER IN CHRISTIANITY - A LOOK AT IRENAEUS OF LYONS

 

In case you've lost track in counting, this is part four of a beginning of the year series looking at the church fathers, using Getting to Know the Church Fathers: an Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin as a guide. 

One thing we often forget is that we didn't always have hundreds of Bible translations or a clear cut guide on what Christians believed. With the combination of persecution from the outside and false teaching on the inside, we can see the need for a catholic (small 'c', representing the universal church), as well as people defending against false teaching.

A primary form of false teaching was Gnosticism. In college, I wrote a 30 page term paper looking at six early church movements: Ebionites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanists, Novatianists, and Donatists. The Gnostics took up half the paper.

Gnosticism has always been a threat to Christianity. The books of Colossians and 1 John in particular dealt with early Gnosticism. Additionally, the Gnostic emphasis on knowledge shows up in two different ways: 

1. False sects that rehash old Gnostic theology (not to mention groups that call themselves Gnostic), and 
2. Individuals and groups that are orthodox theologically but have the same Spiritual elitism that was in Gnosticism.

What are some beliefs of Gnostics? They divide people into three groups - 1) the pagans who lack knowledge; 2) those with some knowledge who will save themselves by doing good; and 3) the Gnostics, who have a complete understanding and thus are free to do whatever they want. You may remember my mentioning the belief of Docetism (denying the humanity of Jesus Christ) in an earlier blog - Gnostices were Docetists. They believed that matter is evil and the spiritual is the true reality. Unlike historical Christianity, the God of Gnosticism is not the Creator of the world; the earth was made by a false god. 

If you compare Gnostic teachings with evangelical beliefs, you'll see it wasn't merely a competing form of Christianity, as we consider denominations to be. Rather, it is a different religion with differing views on creation, sin, the reason for Jesus to come (to be a wise teacher as opposed to the once-for-all sacrifice for sin). They also had their own writings contained in the Nag Hamadi library, the best known being the Gospel of Thomas. This book differs from the four canonical Gospels - the Gospel of Thomas was not a telling of the life of Christ but a collection of 114 sayings attributed to him, ending with one where Peter questioned Jesus allowing Mary Magdalene to be with them since she was a woman, and Jesus replied that He was making her male. (And you think today's Christianity is misogynist?)

This was the time of Irenaeus (pronounced Eer-eh-nay-us; I still struggle to pronounce his name correctly). He was born in the Middle East and then became bishop in what is now called Lyons. When he was young, he sat under Polycarp. Scholars consider him to have good relationship with the Bishop in Rome, and encouraged the Bishop not to ex-communicate the Asia Minor church over a disagreement on the dating of Easter, pointing out that while a previous Bishop of Rome and Polycarp had disagreements, the Bishop invited Polycarp to officiate the eucharist. Other than that, we don't know of the details of his life, including whether he died a martyr or not.

We best know Irenaeus not from historians but a pair of his writings. The better know is known under the title Against Heresies, and until the mid-20th century description of the Nag Hamadi Library it was the primary source on Gnosticism. In Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity, Alisa Childers mentioned reading Against Heresies as a step of strengthening her faith after it was challenged.

One modern day fable is that our current Bible won out over the Gnostic views due to the politics of the day. But Irenaeus' defense against Gnosticism was 0% politics and 100% doctrinal.

 Irenaeus felt there were three defenses against error:  the Church, the Scriptures (Irenaeus was the first two see a second, Christian, collection of Scripture we now refer to as the New Testament), and the Creeds. He refers to a Rule of Faith, which was a predecessor to the Apostles Creed.

 When it comes to the balance between truth and love, many Christians prioritize one over the other. Irenaeus did a great job of dealing with both truth and love, of promoting unity among the Church while fighting against false teachings.

Do you tend to favor either truth or love above the other virtue? What are you doing to promote unity in your church? Likewise, what are you doing to protect yourself, your family, and other believers from error?

THE LONG ROAD TO MARTYRDOM - A LOOK AT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

 

Ignatius of Antioch

I believe it was last year that I saw a meme which said, "If I get killed by a mountain lion, know that my last words were 'Here, kitty, kitty.'" Is it possible that those were the last words of a church father?

 

There are a pair of Saint Ignatiuses. My guess is the better known one is Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuit movement. Fourteen hundred years earlier was the Saint he was probably named after, Ignatius of Antioch. Note of interest: Before moving to Indy, Becky and I lived in the part of Nashville, TN known as Antioch, and we were about a mile from St. Ignatius of Antioch Catholic Church.

Ignatius (from here on in this blog, "Ignatius" refers to the one from Antioch) was the first Church Father dealt with in Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin. We know very few details about his life; the year his death was set approximately at 115, at that death was assumed to be via a lion or the like in the Roman Colesium. How long he lived, why was he arrested and sent to Rome for execution, and what the name of Budd Abbott's famous third baseman was all have the same answer: "I don't know."

Here are the few facts we know of Ignatius:

• He was a bishop from Antioch of Syria, the city where followers of Jesus were first called Christians, from where Paul started his three missionary journeys. It is possible that Ignatius may have known of Paul, though it might have been as a child.
• He was arrested and traveled to Rome, writing seven letters during the journey. During a holdover in Smyrna, Asia Minor. he was visited there by Smyrna's bishop Polycarp -if you're not familiar with him, look up his inspiring martyrdom defense at age 86 - and bishops from other neighboring cities including one name Onesimus (Philemon's former slave?), who came to encourage their captive brother. Five of his letters were to churches that sent representatives to him along the journey, with the other two being a personal note to Polycarp and a letter to the Church in Rome asking them not to interfere in any way with his martyrdom.
  

We often think of the church of the first three centuries as being persecuted from without but faithful to Christ. That picture is not true. In his ministry in Antioch, he faced two different forms of false teaching that despite their differences shared a dangerous similarity: Both minimized the value and necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection.

On one hand are the Judaizers. You may remember that the important Council in Jerusalem was convened due to Paul and Barnabas being confronted in Antioch following the first missionary journey by believing Pharisees who stated the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. Antioch was also the location where Paul publicly rebuked Peter for giving mixed messages about the Gospel by changing his eating partners when they had Jewish visitors sent by James. If you think the verdict of the Jerusalem Council and Paul's letter to the Galatians ended the conflict, guess again. I've seen groups today 2000 years later still Judaizing believers, as well as other forms of legalistic teaching. 

How does this teaching weaken the Christian faith? Simple. Christ's death was not enough for salvation. God's grace is not sufficient. Rather, we need to help God save us by obeying Him.

On the other hand were early Gnostics. The emphasis of Gnostics is knowledge, and they believed Jesus came to be a spiritual teacher, a guru if you will. They held to a belief called Docetism, which had little problem of Christ being deity but a big problem with His humanity. For them, it was not necessary for Him to be born, and much less for Him to die a tortuous death. Instead, we are saved by knowledge, by mystical teachings of Jesus (as well as other Gnostic leaders).

What is the solution? Ignatius proposed the concept of a single bishop in each city. The purpose was not to give authority to that bishop but for the sake of unity. The church needs to be unified by both truth and love. Too many focus so intently on one or the other that they don't focus enough on the other.

As I hinted in describing his letter to Rome, Ignatius did not consider a painful criminal's death as a mark of failure. Rather, he viewed it as the cry of a victor, that his demise validated his stands against the Judaizers and the Docetists. Ignatius asked the Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom, and added that some of the wild beasts were on the timid side, so he planned to coax them to eat him. Is it possible that Ignatius' final words were the Greek equivalent of "Here, kitty kitty?"

Are you willing to die an unpleasant death for the sake of Christ? Do you deal with either legalists (including but not limited to Judaizers) or with those who relegate Jesus to being a wise teacher rather than a Sacrifice and Savior? What are you doing to encourage (or discourage) unity in your local church? Do you support, encourage, and even submit to your church leader(s) for the sake of unity and the Gospel?