Podcasts about Adoptionism

Thursday of the First Week in Ordinary Time Saint of the Day: Saint Paulinus of Aquileia, 726-802; born near Friuli, Italy, and grew up a farmer with an excellent education; summoned to the court of Charlemagne in 774; sent back to Italy in 776 and was appointed Patriarch of Aquileia; he represented Charlemagne at various Church Councils, wrote against and denounced the heresy  of Adoptionism, and sent missionaries to attempt the evangelization of the Avars Office of Readings and Morning Prayer for 1/11/24 Gospel: Mark 1:40-45

In the third century, the heresy of the Ebionites evolved into a more general form of adoptionism, still denying the divinity of Christ, and now emphasizing his status as an anointed, but adopted, son of God, much like the kings and prophets of the Old Testament. Adoptionism is also known as “dynamic monarchianism,” in part for its claim that it was preserving the oneness (monarchy) of God by denying the divinity of Christ. Links For more information on Justin Martyr, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 9: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/justin-martyr-everything-good-is-ours/ To read Justin Martyr's First Apology: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1610&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2368540 For more information on Irenaeus of Lyons, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 10: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/irenaeus-lyon-putting-smack-down-on-heresy/ To read Irenaeus of Lyons' Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/irenaeus_02_proof.htm For more information on Tertullian, listen to Mike Aquilina's Episode 13: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/tertullian-and-theology-sarcasm/ and Episode 14: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/tertullian-man-who-forged-words-and-invented-freedoms/ To read Tertullian's Against Praxeas: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1670&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2368544 Read the Vatican document, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation”: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology-liberation_en.html For more detail on the heresy of adoptionism, see the books:  Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/reading-the-church-fathers/ and The Earliest Christologies: Five Images of Christ in the Post-Apostolic Age: https://www.ivpress.com/the-earliest-christologies   SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's Newsletter:  https://www.catholicculture.org/newsletters/ DONATE at:  http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio   To connect with Dr. James Papandrea, On YouTube - The Original Church:  https://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginalChurch Join the Original Church Community on Locals:  https://theoriginalchurch.locals.com/ Dr. Papandrea's Homepage:  http://www.jimpapandrea.com   Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed:  https://www.ccwatershed.org/

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts For centuries heresy hunters have labeled those who deny the pre-existence of Jesus "adoptionists." This ancient category was based on the idea some Christian groups denied the virgin birth, thinking instead that Jesus became the son of God at his baptism when God adopted him. Modern scholars such as Bart Ehrman and Michael Bird employ this term to describe several early unitarian Christian groups. My guest today is Dr. Jeremiah Coogan, a scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity. He's written a really helpful journal article analyzing the early so-called adoptionist groups. His conclusion? None of them actually qualifies as adoptionists. https://youtu.be/zPL25MPwvbM —— Links —— Read Jeremiah Coogan's article here Visit Professor Coogan's faculty page More episodes on adoptionism See also my class on early church history Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Interview Questions —— - Today I'm interviewing Dr. Jeremiah Coogan. He is the Assistant Professor of NT at the Jesuit School of Theology. He has a PhD from Notre Dame in Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity. Welcome to Restitutio, I'm so glad to talk with you today.- Today we're talking about your article "Rethinking Adoptionism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category," published in the Scottish Journal of Theology early this year. In this article you argue that the label of adoptionism is a problematic anachronism. To make sure everyone is up to speed on this issue, could you briefly describe what adoptionism is?- Describe the problem with modern scholars retrojecting Nicene controversies into earlier Christian history.- You argue that though there may have existed adoptionists somewhere in the ante-Nicene period, we have no evidence for them. What about Cerinthus?- Let's talk about the Ebionites? Weren't they adoptionists?- Do you think there's a connection between the Christian community of James in Jerusalem and the Ebionites?- What about Theodotus? He and his followers are often cited as adoptionists, but they affirmed the virginal conception of Christ, right? - Let's move on to Paul of Samosata. I see you cited Paul Sample. I got a hold of his dissertation from Northwestern a little while ago and was impressed to see he had collected and translated so many sources about Paul. What do you make of Paul of Samosata's christology?- So your conclusion after analyzing the evidence is that none of these authors were adoptionists? Why then, do you think scholars for so long have clung to this category? Do you think it was a delegitimizing tactic? Oh, they're not real Christians since they deny what Matthew and Luke say about the virgin birth…- What I look for in a source is virgin birth. If I find that, I know that the group can't hold adoptionism. - Let's talk about early high christology. You steered clear of it in your article, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts?- Have you had any feedback on your paper? - What are you working on now? - How can people find out more about you?- Thanks for talking with me today.

Adult Bible Class Discussion of the heresy of Adoptionism

The Nazareth to Nicaea vodcast discusses the historical Jesus, the Christ of Faith, and everything in between. We look at the many texts and traditions, the stories and artifacts, the heroes and heretics of the christological controversies. We cover the debates, the doubts, and the dissenters about all things related to Jesus and the early church. In this episode, Dr. Mike Bird talks to Dr. Jeremiah Coogan and Dr. Michael Kok about "adoptionism" as a (mistaken) category for understanding the early christologies of the early church. Further Reading: Jeremiah Coogan, "Rethinking adoptionism: An argument for dismantling a dubious category," Scottish Journal of Theology 76 (2023): 1-13. Michael Kok, "The utility of adoptionism as a heuristic category: The baptism narrative in the Gospel of the Ebionites as a Test Case," Scottish Journal of Theology 76 (2023): 153-63. Peter Ben-Smith, "The end of early Christian adoptionism? A note on the invention of adoptionism, its sources, and its current demise," International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 76 (2015): 177-99. Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son: Answering Adoptionist Christology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017). Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman world: divine sonship in its social and political context (Oxford: OUP, 2012). Otherwise keep up with me on: Twitter: @mbird12 Blog: michaelfbird.substack.com #Christology #Jesus #JesusChrist

Episode 3/6 in a series on Christian heresy. This episode considers Adoptionism, Arianism, Monophysitism, and Modalism.

This is part 3 of the Early Church History class. Today we begin to look at the second century. We'll start by considering Jewish Christian movements, including the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. Next we'll shift gears and explore the cultural pressure of asceticism and how it began infiltrating Christianity. We'll briefly survey the influence of Marcion and his followers before sketching out the various christologies of second century. This episode is a hodgepodge of unrelated topics that overlap in the same time period. This will serve as a good introduction before we get into other topics in the second century. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxFkeSR6LGg&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=3 —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on history More classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Outline Jewish Christianity Asceticism Marcion Gnostics Christologies in the 2nd c. Jewish Christianity Patricia Crone: “Originally, the bastion of law-observing Christianity was the Jerusalem church, the undisputed center of Christianity until the first Jewish war with Rome (AD 66–70). When this war broke out, the Jerusalem Christians reportedly fled to Pella (Ar. Fiḥl) in the Decapolis in Transjordan, and though some returned to the devastated city in 70, they were expelled again after the suppression of Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135, when Hadrian forbade Jews to reside in Jerusalem. Thereafter, Jewish Christians were concentrated in the Aleppo region in northern Syria, in the Decapolis around Pella…and in the Dead Sea region, as we know from Epiphanius (d. 403) and Jerome (d. 420). They would seem also to have been present in the Golan, where excavators of an abandoned village have found lintels decorated with a combination of crosses, menorahs, and other mixed Jewish and Christian symbols, probably indicating that the building was a Jewish Christian synagogue. After Epiphanius and Jerome, however, we have no certain evidence for the existence of Jewish Christians in Greek, Latin, or Syriac sources written before the rise of Islam.”[1] For Nazarenes see Epiphanius, Panarion 29.7.1-6; 29.9.2-4 For Ebionites see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.27.1-6 Asceticism ἄσκησις, askesis = exercise, training asceticism is the rigorous pursuit of discipline in avoiding bodily pleasures Examples Acts of Paul and Thecla Proto-Gospel of James Acts of John Marcion of Sinope Lived from 85 to 164 Founded his own churches God of the OT is not the God of the NT Docetism: Jesus only appeared human Canon: list of books in the Bible Gnostics believed in pre-creation myth they were Platonists who accepted his creation account, called Timaeus Valentinus streamlined Gnostic religion and brought Jesus to a more central role followers attended mainstream churches on Sunday, but then studied “deeper truths” during the week Christology in the 2nd Century Dynamic Monarchians (Ebionites, Nazarenes, Didache, 1 Clement, Hermas, Theodotus of Byzantium) Docetists (Marcion, Gnostics, Valentinus) Logos Subordinationists (Psuedo-Barnabas, 2 Clement, Justin, Irenaeus) Modalistic Monarchians (Praxeas) [1] Patricia Crone, “Jewish Christianity and the Qurʾān (Part One)”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol 74, no 2 (October 2015), 226.

The podcast continues in Spain. Mauregatus & Bermudo I are the next kings of the Kingdom of Asturias. Tune in to learn about Adoptionism, how to screw up a three-dragon lead, and men's fashion in medieval times.   If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review us on ApplePodcasts and don't forget to like, share, and subscribe! You can follow us on Instagram or Facebook @royalmalarkey Check out our website at royalmalarkey.com We'd love to hear from you! Send us a message at info@royalmalarkey.com  

1 John 2:18-27Rev. Erik Veerman1/15/20231 John 2:18-27Knowing that You Know Him: the Doctrine TestOur sermon text this morning is from 1 John 2:18-27. You can find that on page 1211 in the pew Bibles.Before we read our sermon text, there are two concepts which we haven't come across in 1 John before. Without some background, they may be a little confusing, so, I thought it would be helpful to explain them before we read. • The first is the phrase “the last hour.” You'll see that twice in verse 18. John says to his readers that they are in “the last hour.” By it he means that in all of history, they are living in the time right before the end of the world - the end of history on the earth as we know it. The end will happen when Christ comes again. And when he does he will bring a new heavens and new earth. The reason that the phrase “the last hour” may be confusing is that John wrote this 1900 years ago. To us that is a long time, and we may be tempted to think that John was wrong, that it was not the last hour. However, when we look at the New Testament as a whole, we see that the concept of the last hour is referring to the era after Christ's first coming. The last days are a time when two things are happening. First, Jesus is exalted and reigning in heaven, and second, false teachers and false Christs are prevalent on earth. Jesus himself referred to the last times this way in Matthew 24. Also, the books of Hebrews, 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, refer to these last days in that way. In other words, we are in the last times still. Jesus has already come in the flesh and has ascended to heaven, while at the same time Satan is seeking to undermine true faith through false teaching. So, that's the first helpful concept to know in this passage.• Second is the word “antichrist.” Or the plural “antichrists.” The apostle John is the only one who uses that word in the Bible. It literally means against Christ. The Antichrist (capital A) is someone who will come and be the opposite of Christ. The apostle Paul spoke of the man of lawlessness – same idea. Jesus spoke of false Christs and false prophets. And all throughout history, people have been distracted trying to figure out who is the Antichrist (capital A). And let me say, the Protestant reformers were also distracted by this. In fact, in the original version of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it says that the Pope is the antichrist. One of the minor changes to the confession that our church uses today was the removal of that. The more important concept in these verses is the plural antichrists. John uses it in a general sense to mean false teachers who are teaching false doctrines about Jesus. In that sense, they are anti-Christ, against Christ. We'll get into that more but I didn't want you to be distracted thinking about THE Antichrist as I read.Hopefully that will help you as we now turn our attention to God's Word.Stand as you are able. Reading of 1 john 2:18-27PrayerAs you know, this is our third Sunday worshiping in the school here. It's great to have more space to spread out and grow. But one of the drawbacks is setting up every week, and then taking everything down and putting it in the storage closet. The many hands have made that helpful.One of the little things is not having a place for our plants… our pulpit plants. They obviously need sun, and the storage closet is pretty dark. So, we couldn't bring them here.You are probably thinking right now, “wait a second, I see two plants next to the pulpit, what are you talking about?” Well, the thing is, these are not real. They may look real. They appear to be genuine. The leaves are green. They are shaped like a small plant. But they are not a living organism. They don't grow. They don't need light or water. They are fake. In fact, the company name that made them is called Faux Real. That's faux – f-a-u-x. The French word for “fake.” They are not “for real” they are “faux real.” Cute.If you closely examine these plants, you would realize they are fake. Even close up they look good, but when you feel the leaves and look at the stems, it's pretty obvious. Well, in 1 John, chapter 2, the apostle is revealing false teachers. They were faux real – false. They may have looked real and sounded real. Their words may have been smooth, but they were not alive in Christ. They were dead. If I could borrow one of John's analogies, these false teachers were not in the light of God. They did not reflect the light. They did not walk in the light. They were utterly fake.We are nearing the end of chapter 2, and here is where we finally learn what was going on in the church – what John's readers were dealing with. And I want you to notice something. It's past tense. These false teachers, called “antichrists,” were no longer in the church. They had left. Verse 19, “they went out from us, but they were not of us.” But even though they were no longer part of the church, they were still trying to deceive the church. We see that in verse 26, “I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.”That's why John needed to write about them. These false teachers were still around – out there. Breathing out their lies. Trying to look real… trying to steal sheep from God's flock.So, it was very important for John to call them out AND to call out their false teaching.Now, before we get into their false teaching, let me first remind you what John has been writing about. Because it directly relates to his words here. John has been giving us life tests. Tests for you and me to examine our faith and our lives – to see if we have an authentic faith.The first test was the test of obedience. The first few verses of chapter 2. Are you seeking to pursue God's commands which are in his Word? It's really important to realize that we do not come to faith through obedience to God's commands. No, John has been clear about that. Rather, the test was about whether you are seeking to live out God's commands, which testifies to a genuine faith.The second test was the love test. A true believer in Christ has a heart that desires to love others and demonstrate that love. We don't have a perfect love for others. No, we still sin (John has also been clear about that, too) but we should be striving to love others which includes forgiving and asking for forgiveness and listening well, among other things.The third test from last week – what Coleman preached on, was the world test. Are you in love with the world? Meaning the things of the world – the various idols in our culture; the cultural entrapments; the things that replace God; all which give empty hope. Do you love the world in that sense, more than you love God?Let me remind you of one very important thing here. John's desire is to give true believers assurance. Remember, if you truly know God in Christ, he wants you to know that you truly know God in Christ. And he has said that in many different ways. He said in chapter 1, “if we walk in the light, we have fellowship with him [God].” Or earlier in this chapter, “whoever keeps his word, in him truly is the love of God.” And also “whoever loves his brother abides in the light.” The apostle is not trying to get you to question your faith if you are a believer. These are pretty cut-and-dry life tests. Because part of giving assurance to true believers in Christ, is revealing what does not reflect true belief.Well, that same assurance is part of John's goal for this fourth test. Look at verse 21. “I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.” So, this test is about truth and error. And John's readers, by in large, know the truth. He wants, therefore, to affirm what is true and what is false. That's why I'm calling it the doctrine test. It's the test of what you believe. And John does not just say that there are false beliefs and false teachers. No, he gets specific about the false teaching. And it boils down to one main question. One central belief. And it's the most important question in your life… In fact, I would say, it's the most important question for everyone in the whole world. The question is this, “who is Jesus?” Who do you believe that Jesus is? There is not a single question more important in your life than that.In other words, the doctrine test is not about secondary matters – like your view on baptism or the end times. To be sure, those are important discussions, but those are secondary matters. They don't determine whether you are a Christian. The doctrine test here is about the center of Christianity, your faith in Christ. Who is Jesus… which by the way, includes his relationship to God the Father and God the Spirit. We'll also see that in these verses.And I don't think I'm overstating the importance of the matter. John calls these false teachers antichrists. He can't be any stronger than that. Even though they claim to be Christians, their teaching reveals that they are totally opposed to Christ. Anti-Christs. And because of that, they are not “of us” even though they came out “from us” as John puts it in verse 19. And in verse 26, as we already considered, John plainly says that they are trying to “deceive you.”Over the last few years, the superhero genre has been dominating the box office. Marvel. X-men, Transformers, DC comics. And of course, there are endless villains. Really evil villains like Thanos, the Green Goblin, Ultron, the Joker, Megatron. My favorite, Doctor Occ. Good versus evil. Light versus darkness. But the thing is, these villains rose to their evil dominance from outside of the superheroes. They don't claim to be superheros. They didn't begin good and turn evil. No, they were evil. They started that way. Now, I'm pretty sure one of the middle school boys is going to correct me. I'll probably hear, “you forgot about so and so. He was good before he was evil.”Well, the difficult thing in 1 John 2, is that these antichrists didn't arise outside the church, no they and their false teaching arose from inside the church. Which, as you can imagine, wreaked havoc in the church. And John was writing them to affirm that their departure was good for the church, and also so that they would be on guard against other false antichrists who would seek to destroy the church from within.But what was it? What was it that these false teachers had been teaching?Give a look at verses 22 and 23. There's a word in those verses that is repeated three times. It's the word “denies.” It says, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who,” again, it says “denies the Father and the Son.” And John says one more time, “No one who denies the Son has the Father.”The central false beliefs of these antichrists, these false teachers, was rejecting Jesus as the Christ. They were denying that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Oh, they believed in a man named Jesus, the person, but they denied that he was God in the flesh. They denied the incarnation. They denied that Jesus was God's Son.Some may have taught that Jesus was born as an ordinary man, but later in life God bestowed upon him his Spirit, and that's when he became the Messiah. But beloved, that is not what the Scripture teach about Jesus. It's not what Jesus taught about himself. No, in Jesus the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. Colossians 2. He is the Word made flesh, John 1. The baby, the Christ child, is Immanuel, God with us, Matthew 1. God took on the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. Philippians 2. [Jesus] is the radiance of the Glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. Hebrews 1.Any denial of Jesus as God's son or the denial of the incarnation in any way is a rejection of God's truth. And that could be flipped around. A denial of Jesus humanity is also antithetical to true belief.And I want you to notice something. These verses are not just about Jesus, God's Son. They also include God the Father and the Holy Spirit:• The reference to God the Father is clear. He's explicitly mentioned in verses 22, 23, and 24. • The Holy Spirit is also referenced in these verses. Verse 20, “you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you have all knowledge.” The reference to Holy One is a reference to Jesus Christ. He is referred to in the Scriptures as the Holy One or the Holy and Righteous One. And he anoints his people with the Holy Spirit. This anointing, verse 20, is associated with pouring out of the Holy Spirit. In fact, in his Gospel, John is very clear about the giving of the Holy Spirit to those in whom God abides. All true believers. And one of the roles of the Holy Spirit, as John explains in his Gospel, is the giving of knowledge through God's Word. That's also right there in verse 20. And finally, verse 27 continues the theme of this anointing, pointing to the Holy Spirit as our main teacher of God's Word. So all of those elements together – the Holy One, the anointing, the giving of knowledge all point to the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.To summarize, these verses center on a true understanding of who Jesus Christ is, but they also include Jesus' relationship to God the Father and God the Spirit. It teaches about the Trinity. You see, we can't separate a correct understanding about Jesus from a correct understanding of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Spirit.If you look in your bulletin, you'll see that we are going to recite the Nicene Creed in a little bit. Last week we affirmed the Apostle's Creed. We usually use them once a month or every other month. But given this content in 1 John, I thought it would be helpful to affirm them. These creeds have been very helpful to the church over the years. But they were written 200-300 years after John's letters. These creeds summarize what we believe the Scriptures teach about the Trinity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And they came about because of a variety of false teaching that had arisen.Like the false teaching that John was experiencing. The early church fathers, in fact, identified several heresies – several false teachings about Jesus. I've mentioned Gnosticism, but there was also Nesorianism, Docetism, Arianism, Adoptionism, and Donatism, plus a couple of others “isms.” And what the creeds do is help bring clarity and unity and protection to the church around the person and work of Christ, including God the Father and the Holy Spirit. And these verses in 1 John 2, tell us why that is important. Because when the doctrine of God is compromised, it strikes at the heart of Christianity.A few years ago, I had an ongoing dialog with a pastor friend. He was very much about holiness… pursuing holiness in our lives. Which is great. God calls us to pursue holiness and Godliness. That's clear in the Scriptures.But when I would preach a passage like this, my friends would sometimes say to me, “you didn't get to any application!” By that he meant more of the behavioral response to the text. To which I would reply “What do you mean, the application in this passage is the doctrine!”You see, the beauty of the Scriptures is that in them we learn who God is, what he has done for us, our hope in him, and our response to his character and love. Our doctrine and our lives both need to reflect the truth. The apostle John is clear about both. You see, the heart of these verses is believing the truth. I'll come back to what it means to believe the truth in a minute.But first, I want you to jump over to the beginning of chapter 4. Give a quick look down at it. The first 6 verses of chapter 4 are very similar to our text this morning. Antichrists, denials of Jesus, false teaching. In fact, I almost preached them together. But I changed my mind on Friday.When we get to those verses, which will be in the middle of February, I plan to apply this doctrinal test to false teaching in the church today. In other words, what teaching has or is arising today, which strikes at the core of Christianity. And they are many, and I plan to be specific. Worldly philosophies that are attempting to hijack the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's the reason that I decided to just focus on chapter 2 this morning, so we would have more time at the beginning of chapter 4 on those ideologies.Let's go back to the creeds for a minute …while they have helped the church unify around a true understanding of Jesus as the Scriptures teach, there is still false doctrine about Jesus out there. I think the most obvious example of this are the Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim to be the true church, yet they deny Jesus' divinity. They believe that Jesus was a perfect man, but not God in the flesh. They fail the test of doctrine. Their teachers, as John describe them, are antichrists. Opposed to Jesus Christ.For the last 2-3 weeks, there have been a couple of JW followers on Main Street. Right downtown. They are trying, as verse 26 says, to deceive. I'm not saying they don't believe what they are teaching, rather that their teaching is a violation of the core beliefs of Biblical Christianity about Jesus, as the Scriptures teach.So, to summarize so far:• First, this fourth life test is the test of doctrine• Second, John is writing to the church because false teachers and false teaching had infiltrated the church. These antichrists had left the church, but their impact was still being felt.• Third, John was writing to the true believers to assure them of their truth belief.• And forth, this true belief centers around Jesus as God's son, who is fully and truly God and man. Jesus Christ is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit.So, now you know! These plants are not real. And neither is anyone who denies Jesus' nature as God or as man. They are rejecting the very foundation of our Christian faith. They are small “a” antichrists, rejecting him and rejecting the truth.As we come to a close, John includes for us, one more thing. What to do about this all.He calls you to believe and trust in Jesus.Look at the language at the end of verse 23. “Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” Confessing is more than just believing. It's taking to heart and professing not just who Christ is but believing in the hope and redemption he offers to you. Verse 24 even expands on that. “Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you.” Deep within. Why? Verse 25 answer, because of the promise he made to us, “eternal life.”Friends, this is the hope of knowing and believing in Jesus. When you believe in him by faith, when you abide in him, he will abide in you, forever. Forever in his presence.After we sing this next hymn, we will declare together what we believe about God, and then we will celebrate the Lord's Supper, what we believe Jesus has done for us on the cross…. paving the way for that eternal life in him.Will you believe?

Pastor Bramwell discusses the 2nd-century heresy of adoptionism and how it is still alive and actively held by Unitarians today. How did the ancient church confront this false teaching and how does Scripture refute it?  Host Rev. Tyrel Bramwell, St. Mark Lutheran Church in Ferndale, California, and author of the book Come in, We are Closed, talks about curious topics to excite the imagination, equip the mind, and comfort the soul with God's ordering of the world in the Law and Gospel. Send him your questions at stmarksferndale.com. You can find his videos at youtube.com/c/tyrelbramwell.

Hey, y'all! Throughout Catholic history there have been occasions when a rival, anti, pope will be elected by a breakaway group. That hasn't happened officially since the 15th century, but that didn't stop people from just making themselves pope anyway...But first, we have part 1: a primer of all the history and context you need for the next episode to make the most sense.

Tuesday of the First Week in Ordinary Time Saint of the Day: St. Paulinus of Aquileia, 726-804; with the intervention of Charlemagne, he was chosen archbishop of Aquilieia in 787; he was a zealous defender of the faith, refuting the heresy of Adoptionism; he reiterated the Church's Trinitarian teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son; and he stressed the need to seek to please God in all our actions Office of Readings and Morning Prayer for 1/11/22 Gospel: Mark 1:21-28

Introduction In the fourth century, the Council of Nicea settled the question of the Lord's deity, and consequently became the touchstone that enables us to address various Trinitarian heresies. A Trinitarian heresy has to do with the unity of the Godhead, and the tri-personal nature of God's existence, and all without reference to the creation. What is God like in Himself? In the fifth century, the Council of Chalcedon addressed the relationship of the human and divine in Jesus of Nazareth, a question that arose as a result of the Incarnation. Errors on this question are usually called Christological heresies. The Text “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven” (Col. 1:18–20). Summary of the Text We have seen that the apostles held two very distinct conceptions of the Lord Jesus. On the one hand, they recognized His full humanity. We saw Him, John says, and we touched Him (1 John 1:1). At the same time, they also speak easily and readily of Christ as a cosmic Lord, as in our text this morning. And moreover they speak of Him as one integrated personality. Our Lord Jesus is the head of the whole body, the church (v. 18), and He is the arche of all creation (v. 18). He is the integration point of all things, which is the word underneath “beginning.” He is the firstborn from among the dead, and this privileged position makes it plain that He is to have the preeminence (v. 18). All the fullness of all things dwells in Him, and this was the pleasure of the Father (v. 19). Everything in this fragmented creation order was shattered and broken, and Christ's mission was to make peace for all of it, reconciling all of it to Himself (v. 20). But this soaring rhetoric comes down to earth with a crash when we see that it is to be accomplished through the “blood of His cross.” This was blood that was shed, remember, because of the collapse of Pontius Pilate in the face of a mob. The Nub This is the heart of what Chalcedon is testifying to. “our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man . . . not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.” Remember that we are simply stating what Scripture requires us to state, and is not an attempt to “do the math.” This confession is admittedly miraculous, and this means that you won't be able to get your mind fully around it. You can get your mind around the fact that we confess two distinct natures united in one person, without any muddling of them. A Quick Run Down of Some Heresies Heresies often arise as the result of people trying to make all the pieces fit together within the tiny confines of their own minds. Some people have an itch to make it all make sense to them, and the result is tiny (and tinny) dogmas. Ebionism holds that Jesus was the Messiah, but just an ordinary man, with Joseph and Mary as his parents. The Ebionites were Jewish Christians in the early years of the church. People who want to say that “Jesus was a great moral teacher” represent a modern form of this. Docetism holds that Jesus was completely divine, and that His humanity was only an apparition. The word comes from the Greek verb dokein, which means “to seem.” Adoptionism holds that Jesus was fully human, and was “adopted” as the Son of God at a point in time, whether at his baptism or at his resurrection. Apollinarianism taught that the Word (a perfect divine nature) took on a human body in Jesus, replacing his human soul and mind. Thus Jesus was God inside and man outside. Nestorianism is the view that denies the unity of the person of Christ, suggesting that there were two natures, two persons going on, loosely joined. In the interests of fairness, it should be mentioned that there are good arguments suggesting that Nestorius himself was not a Nestorian. Through the Blood of His Cross And so here is our confession, here is our faith. We are Christians, which means that our lives center on the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. If we get Chalcedon wrong, we are corrupting the doctrine of His person. And if we do that, then we empty the cross of its dynamic power. The cross has the ability to fascinate all men, and to draw them to God, precisely because of the identity of the one who died there. Unless Jesus were a man, He could not die. He could not shed His blood for us unless He had blood. Unless Jesus were God, His death would not have the ultimate salvific meaning that it does. And so it is that we acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth, fully God and fully man, died on the cross for the sins of the world. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16–17)

What is adoptionism? Why is it a heresy to believe that Jesus was adopted as God's Son?

How does Adoptionism fit into the evolution of historic Christology? My question is about the range of meanings that adelphoi can take. Can it mean ‘brothers in Christ' which could be understood as ‘believers' (regardless of gender)? There are various examples of Matthew ‘cleaning up' Markan originals to beef up the Jesus character into a much more divine figure. So why did Matthew leave in ‘my god my god why have you forsaken me?' Is there ANY decent critical scholarship that argues FOR the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals? Might the “Doubting Thomas” episode be an attempt to rebut the resurrection doctrine as taught by Thomas Christians? Have you ever heard if the origins of Saint Patrick's Day can be traced back to ancient Christians who co-opted Pagan holidays? What are your thoughts on the James Moffatt Bible? What do we really know about "the twelve"? Do you happen to know the history of hand gestures incorporated into prayer, and what role they play?

On today's episode of Table Talk Radio we Church Sign Theology and then introduce a new game called What's On Your Pastors YouTube Channel so we can truth to false teaching – in love.

We are continuing a series of episodes comparing Jesus to superheroes. This series will tackle wrong ideas about Jesus from church history in chronological order. A superhero will represent each of these ideas. Is Jesus Like the Green Lantern? Who is the Green Lantern? There are 7200 Green Lanterns in the intergalactic corps. They each have a ring that gives them their power. Hal Jordan was the first human being from earth to become a Green Lantern. The 2011 DC film wasn't successful. What is Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism)? Monarchianism is unitarianism--only one God Who is only one Person Dynamic monarchianism allows for this divinity to change (adopt a Son). Modalistic monarchianism is God manifesting in three modes. Adoptionism teaches that Jesus became divine either at his baptism Who were the early adoptionist teachers? Theodotus the tanner of Byzantium (late 100's) taught that Jesus became the Christ at his baptism and became divine at his resurrection. Paul of Samosata (bishop from 260-268) taught that Jesus had God indwell him from his baptism. Questions for adoptionism: Did man become the Son of God, or did the Son of God become man? (John 1:1,14; 8:58) Was the Son sent to earth or adopted from the earth? (Heb 2:14; 1Jn 4:9) Doesn't this deny monotheism and worship of one God? (Isa 43:10; 45:21-23; Phi 2:6-11) What is the main problem with adoptionism? It denies substitutionary atonement by denying the problem of original sin. (Rom 5:12; Heb 2:14; 4:15) Sources Cited: DC Universe Infinite, "https://www.dcuniverseinfinite.com/encyclopedia/green-lantern-corps (Team Green Lantern Corps)" Scriptures Referenced: John 1:1 John 1:14 John 8:58 Hebrews 2:14 1 John 4:9 Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 45:21-23 Philippians 2:6-11 Romans 5:12 Hebrews 4:15 ***** Like what you hear? https://www.truthspresso.com/donate (Donate) to Truthspresso and give a shot of support! *****

St. Thomas refutes the heresy of "Adoptionism."

Something More!Objective Statement: God has offered us SOMETHING MORE than we ever could have imagined in His Son Jesus Christ. What The SOMETHING MORE is, is described in minute detail in Hebrews 1.I. He Something More because he is Ultimate and Superior over all Heavenly Heirs(1) “Long ago, at many times and in many ways (Many Portions) , God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,a. These whole bits of information might not have made full sense to these prophets like pieces of a puzzlethey just knew that their part was to add a piece to the whole picture that would make up the picture of Messiah.b. (Narrative, Historical, Gospels, Poetry, Wisdom, Law, etc. just like Instagram, Email, Whatsapp, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc)c. Our communication is finite, and fallible, and often not even understandable (Text that Simone sent). But God’s communication is perfect and now “something more” in revealing himself to us in his son."Will u stop for grass seeds dirt and maybe some fury elixir?"(2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.a. God didn’t have to speak through the prophets at all, but NOW THERE IS SOMETHING BETTER! God Spoke to us personally through his SON!b. The Apostles and Prophets were the writers of God’s word, but Jesus IS GOD’S WORD! He himself is the everlasting LOGOS the EVERLASTING WORD OF GODc. He is better because he is the SON of God. This means that he is God.d. Through whom he created all things: This is important because Adoptionism and early heresy says that he was only a great man an Israelite prophet “became God’s son” or was adopted as God’s son, but Jesus the Israelite prophet could not have been adopted because he was there when it all started, not only was he there when it started, but he carried the creation of all things out by his own power!(3) He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,a. Radiance: Vividly Bright and Shining. Emitting or transmitting of God’s glory. Jesus the Son transmits the glory of God perfectly and when we see him we see God’s glory. The light flashing forth from GodG541 ἀπαύγασμαPronounced ap-ow'-gas-mahfrom a compound of 575 and 826; an off-flash, i.e. effulgence:--brightness.This is the only occurrence of this word in the entire NT and it is used in relationship to how Jesus is the only one who can emit or transmit God’s glory to man. He is the ultimate light flashing forth from God. He is the radiant splendor of the one that we cannot see otherwise our sins would be too much for us and we would die in his presence.b. Glory of God:c. Exact Imprint: Representation Illustration (Address Stamp, Wedding invitation “Prägung”)d. Nature:e. Upholds the Universe: How is he able to uphold the universe without having made it? Or being God?f. Word of His power: He speaks and holds the world with the words, “Exist, Exist, Exist, Exist”g. HAS MADE IT! “Once for All” “eternal Redemption” we do not add too it! We cannot take away from it, “nor did he offer himself often” but now once at the consummation of the ages. He put away sin. he has offered himself, He “having been offered once for the sins of many.” “having been offered once for all time” For b one offering he has perfected for all time he has perfected for all time those who are being saved (Hebrews 10:14). (like the high priest) “Definite Atonement” eternal purification for the bride of Christ!h. Purification for sins: “Purging” our sins from us. Illustration: The Movie “The Purge” (Ceremonial, Ablution, Morally, Expiation, purging, purify).G2512 καθαρισμόςPronounced kath-ar-is-mos'from 2511; a washing off, i.e. (ceremonially) ablution, (morally) expiation:--cleansing, + purge, purification(-fying).Katharismos: The group of words denotes physical, religious, and moral cleanness or purity in such senses as clean, free from stains or shame, and free from adulteration. In the LXX it is most often clean, free, or innocent.Catharsis is a term in dramatic art that describes the effect of tragedy on the audience, usually the purging of emotions such as pity and fear through art. A purification of purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension.Jesus has afforded us complete Catharsis and purging from every evil not just the release from emotions, or the cleansing of pity and fear or some cathartic release from tension, but rather a true and full Cathartic purging of every evil, sin, and stain that indwells us all.JESUS IS THE ULTIMATE CATHARTIC EXPERIENCE and not that we have to go after it and make it happen to us, but rather “HE HAS MADE” Katharismos for our sins once and for all time, never to be needed again and again like the priests had done, or like we try to do when we go to another retreat or conference and try to let Jesus “purge” us again. HE HAS DONE IT IF YOU BY FAITH HAVE RECEIVED IT!i. Sat down at the Right Hand: Kings sit at right hands that symbolizes powerj. Majesty on High:(4) having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.a. Become superior to the angelsb. As a result of his effectual work on the cross he has inherited a NAME that is more excellent that any other name under heaven.Application: Let us fix our eyes on Jesus the Author and Perfector of our Faith. “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”Hebrews 12:2 NASB-make the meditation on the work of Christ a pattern of your life.-fix it to your calendar, your pocketbook, your thoughts, actions, and your rhythms of life-be sure to know and acknowledge that Jesus is the author, He is writing the story of your redemption and salvation.-Be sure to know that he is the perfecter of that story. He does that work of perfecting your salvation with your cooperation in the process.- What distracts you from fixing your eyes on Jesus?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45LaxLoP0eI

This week's episode picks up where we left off last week in the 2nd century. We go over the Gnostic understanding of who Christ was characterized by Docetism. We then contrast that understanding by outlining the other end of the spectrum which is the position of Jewish Christians called Adoptionism. These two ends of the spectrum pave the way for the first creed of the Church to be covered next week as we allude to the debate between Athanasius and Arius as formalized in the Nicene Creed.

Superheroes Can't Save You-Part 5

Superheroes Can't Save You-Part 5

The Adoptionist belief teaches that Jesus was human and simply adopted by God to be his Son. This belief grew from the influence of the Ebionites and throughout church history under different leaders and teachers. What grew in Europe in the first millennia came to America as the new nation was launching with some prominent forefathers and Americans holding to the teaching. The teaching still exists today and unwittingly, some actually adhere to it, believing they are truly holding to the biblical text.

Oh h*ck yeah! Your hosts done done it again, y'all: we goofed around and talked a whole lot about the Gospel of John. You'd think after going through this stuff four times, we'd be a little more efficient, but no. It turns out that there have been centuries of debate focused entirely on John 1:1, and it goes like you'd expect from there. Join us on the first part of our journey through the final canonical gospel (and by far the weirdest) as we meet a new and unknowable Jesus who is known by His first sign: turning Purple Stuff into Sunny D. Plus, we meet like eight Johns who might actually be one John, because who even knows anymore. You, uh, might want to familiarize yourself with Grant Morrison before you listen to this one, because we go deep. Topics of discussion: John 3:16, Austin 3:16, the Invisibles, the Matrix, Dark City, They Live, and other pop cultural touchstones, Gothy Magic Stuff, God's Fiction Suit, Benito's extremely bad joke, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, John the Presbyter, John the Revelator, Prester John, the Beloved Disciple, Homer and Chris's incredible disillusionment with the ancient world, John's virulent anti-semitism, dunking on Moses, 009, HaShem, the Word (aka the Discourse aka the Tiger Force), Desiderius Erasmus, the Heresy of Sabellianism, the Arian Heresy, Adoptionism, the Great Baptism Fight, Nathaniel the Secret Apostle, Simon Peter "The Rock" Johnson, Jesus being really mean to Mary for no discernible reason like what the h*ck, Jesus's good good wine, Jesus's whip and how the Castlevania franchise dropped the ball hard, Nicodemus and the most ridiculous question in the entire Bible, Samaritans explained at last, Jesus's Secret Food, the angel jacuzzi, boataportation, Undercover Jesus. Happy Hanukkah, everybody! If you liked the show, why not head over to ko-fi.com/apocrypals to give us a love offering?

Michael F. Bird OnScript Podcast Interview on Jesus the Eternal Son with Matthew W. Bates

Michael F. Bird OnScript Podcast Interview on Jesus the Eternal Son with Matthew W. Bates The post Michael Bird – Jesus the Eternal Son first appeared on OnScript.

Michael Bird joins us to discuss his book "Jesus: The Eternal Son", where he shows us the problems with an adoptionist approach to Jesus

Matthew Bates joins us to talk about his book "The Birth of the Trinity."

Was Jesus merely a man who became divinely adopted as the Son of God after being obedient to the law? Join us as we discuss Ebion and Adoptionism with Dr. Jim Papandrea.

Grant and Peter Tackle an interesting Patreon supporter question about sandbox games and then move in to the very meaty and historically-important topic of Arianianism, a Christological heresy named after a guy who didn't come up with it, and also responsible for the first council of Nicea. Links: Our Patreon page, Episode 70: Adoptionism and Ebionism Scirpture: Proverbs 8:22-23, 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

According to the revelation of God in the New Testament, Jesus was the Son of God and God the Son, fully God, fully man. How was that possible? What did that mean? A lot of controversy took place over the nature of Jesus in the first few centuries after His death and resurrection. We explore three of them in this lesson: Adoptionism, Docetism, and Arianism. Christological Controversies (1) | Sermon Outline Adoptionism Also known as: dynamistic monarchianism, adoptianism Claim: Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was a good person, adopted as the Son of God at His baptism. Difficulties: Gabriel’s announcement of His Messiahship (Luke 1); Jesus as child prodigy (Luke 2); Jesus as Word becoming flesh (John 1). Docetism Inherent in Gnosticism; part of Islamic view of Jesus Claim: Jesus only seemed to be human and/or to die. Difficulties: Explicitly considered heretical in 1 John 4:1-5, 2 John 1:9-11; if Jesus did not really die, He was not really raised; the dead are thus not raised, and we are lost in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:1-20)! Arianism In modified form, present today among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Claim: the Son not equally divine with the Father, but created by the Father (Proverbs 2:7, 8:23-24, John 14:28, 17:20-26, Hebrews 1:5). Difficulties: Jesus accepted worship, which is not due the creation but the Creator (Matthew 28:20, John 20:28, Romans 1:18-25); Jesus as fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2:9); how can the Word be God if there were a time when the Word were not?

Grant and Peter kick off a new Historical Heresies series, analyzing heresies from the early Church! Without much additional news, we dive right into our Scripture and topic, starting with Adoptionism and Ebionism. Along the way, we explain what we hope our listeners can learn from this new series and what we hope they can use in their games. As always, feedback is appreciated—especially for a new series—so let us know what you think and what you'd like to hear in future episodes in the comments! Also mentioned in this episode: Richard Beck's book Unclean. Scripture: Isaiah 56:6-8, John 1:1-5, John 10:16

Welcome to this week’s episode of A History of Christian Theology. Getting back into the standard format, Chad Tom and Trevor take a look at the Shepherd of Hermas. Given the tedium of most of the book, the three of us, in a few rabbit trails, primarily take on what is the task of theology, is there Christian perfection and what does it mean for the church to change and grow. I’ll tease this a bit, by saying that we do give all of our opinion of whether or not this text fits within historic orthodoxy at the end of the podcast, but let’s just say you’ll want to listen to the summary, so you don’t have to read it for yourself. Please check out our blog at ahistoryofchristiantheology.com

In this podcast the home team start a new short series on 'Heresies' and why they don't work. This time they look at Adoptionism.

In this podcast the home team start a new short series on 'Heresies' and why they don't work. This time they look at Adoptionism.

In this podcast the home team start a new short series on 'Heresies' and why they don't work. This time they look at Adoptionism.

We're going to go forward in time from our last episode nearly a millennium. Last time we talked about the Gnostics and the serious challenge they presented the Early Church. The dualism that lay at the heart of Gnosticism continued to rear its hoary head in the centuries that followed. It was part & parcel of the Zoroastrianism & Manichaeanism rooted in Persia and was the official faith of the Sassanid Empire. Dualistic ideas were so popular, they managed to infiltrate many Christians communities in both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire. When Rome fell and Byzantium carried on in its place, the influence of dualism lingered. Church leaders were able to hold it at bay by using the work of earlier fathers who fought Gnosticism. But as those works fell out of use, dualism resurged.This dualism came in many forms, as we'll see. But the basic idea was that the forces of Light, Good, and God are on one side with the powers of darkness, evil and the devil on the other. And if your response to that is, “Wait! Isn't that what the Bible says?” There's another important component we need to insert: In dualism, the two sides are equal in relevance and power. They are co-eternal, and going way back to the beginning, they were originally joined into a whole that somehow got split and led to the creation of the physical universe.If all this sounds vaguely like the plot for an upcoming Superhero movie, it's all just a coincidence. à Or is it?The expression most forms of dualism take is to make the immaterial spiritual realm the side of light, good, and God while the physical realm of space & matter are the domain of darkness & corruption. So, as with the Gnostics, salvation in dualism get's hijacked from being redemption from the Fall to an awareness of your innate inner goodness.But I'm getting ahead of myself.Dualism appears to have experienced a resurgence in both the East & West at about the same time in the 12th C, though the two streams probably weren't connected. They became so popular, a couple Crusades and the Inquisition were used to stop them.The first we'll deal with was called Bogomilism and arose in the region of Bulgaria.Bogomil is Slavonic for “beloved of God.” That was the name of the man who began the movement associated with him. He was a priest who lived at the in Bulgaria during the mid-10th C. Bogomil was influenced by a group known as the Paulicians, sometimes called the Paulicans. These were a moderately heretical group that was reconciled to the Roman Church in the 17th C and exists to this day as an affiliated group with Catholicism, though with their own rites.There's debate about the origin of the title “Paulician.” They said they took their name from the Apostle Paul, claiming that their ideas were derived from the famous Apostle. Others say they drew their name from Paul of Samosata, a 3rd C heretical bishop of Antioch. Since so many of the Paulician beliefs ride tandem with the errors of Paul of Samosata, it's safe to conclude that's where they got their title. They flourished from the mid-7th to mid-9th Cs in Armenia.Armenia has the distinction of being the first officially Christian nation. About AD 300, King Tiradates III became a believer and turned his court into a Christian concern. During the 4th C, the Armenian church was under the influence of the ultra-orthodox Cappadocian Fathers. But after the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Armenia sided with the Egyptian monophysites. Not long after the orthodox Faith was brought to Armenia, disciples of Paul of Samosata arrived and began spreading his adoptionistic ideas. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus wasn't the eternal Son of God. Adoptionists said God adopted a man named Jesus at His baptism to BE the Messiah.  He was a kind of first round draft-pick.Armenia's location next to Persia saw some of the dualistic ideas of Manichaeanism also infiltrate the church there. But 300 yrs would go by before the Paulicians would emerge as an identifiable group. When they did, the Byzantine Emperors alternately ignored and persecuted them. When Theodora became Empress, she had the Paulicians forcibly relocated to Thrace in the mid-9th C, hoping they'd act as a bulwark against the hostile Bulgars. That's where they came into contact with the group that would later be called Bogomils.The Bulgars were a Turkish people recently Christianized by missionaries. Their ruler, Boris, asked the Franks to send missionaries to help his people with their new Faith. He didn't appeal to the much closer Constantinople because he was already wary of their influence and authority. But that was not about to stop the Byzantines from asserting their control over a region they deemed within the sphere of their hegemony. Constantinople not only sent missionaries to Bulgaria, they sent an army. Boris had to capitulate and was baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Faith, taking the new name and title Czar Peter.Byzantium then had a slew of weak & mostly worthless emperors. They suffered a major defeat at the hands of Muslim forces at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. A decade later, relief arrived in the form of a new & vital leader, Alexius I Comnenus. Comnenus was more than a talented and decisive ruler. He was also an astute lay theologian. He formed the Paulicians in his hinterlands into an allied force & led them into a campaign against the Normans who'd been seizing territory in the West. But as they entered battle, the Paulicians proved false and deserted. Comnenus' remaining army managed to pull off a victory. When the triumphant Emperor returned to Constantinople he imprisoned the Paulicians leaders. The remaining Paulician population, bereft of leadership, became an easy target for round two of Comnenus' strategy in dealing with them. He sent in orthodox missionaries and priests who evangelized them into Orthodoxy. The imprisoned Paulician leaders were also evangelized by orthodox apologists, with many of them converting. Even the Emperor engaged in this proselytizing work. Their two chief leaders, Cusinus & Phulus, remained firm in their devotion to their heretical tenets and so were kept in prison in comfortable accommodations until they died.It was this phase of Paulician history that saw the movement shed its more aberrant ideas in favor of an orthodoxy that allowed it later to become affiliated with Roman Catholicism. That it chose to merge with that branch of the Faith rather than the nearer Greek Orthodoxy of Byzantium stands as a reminder of the tension and animosity between the Paulicians and the Eastern Church.And that leads us to another heretical movement: The Bogomils.In the last 2 yrs of his reign, Emperor Alexius Comnenus was made aware of another religious movement that had sprung up in the Western reaches of his realm but had grabbed disciples right in Constantinople. By the time he was made aware of it, it had already established an underground church with its own bishop. Alexius pretended to be interested & invited that Bishop, named Basil, to the palace to share what this new movement called Bogomilism believed. Scribes hidden behind drapes recorded every word. As Basil listed off Bogomilian doctrine, he supposed he was speaking to a theologically un-informed civil ruler. He didn't realize he was ticking off heretical ideas to an astute theologian who was mentally dismantling each and every idea. So when Basil was done, it was Alexius' turn. He proceeded to list Basil's erroneous doctrines, then he called on the bishop to renounce them. Basil refused and was imprisoned. Alexius then visited Basil in his cell several times in the following week, reasoning with & urging him to be converted to an orthodox faith. Basil refused, and was condemned to be burnt at the stake for heresy.While such executions would became common in the West, they were a rare occurrence in the Eastern Empire.Sorting out the beliefs of Bogomilism is a challenge because it was a faith in flux that evolved over time. But from Alexius's diligent secretaries, here's what their Bishop Basil said they believed . . . And get ready, because it's a wild ride . . .Bogomils said A singular supreme God who was utterly spiritual, had 2 sons: the elder was Satanael, while the younger was Jesus. The elder son rebelled and was banished from heaven. In exile, he created the material world and humanity. But he was unable to give the first man, Adam, life & asked God for help. Actually, he tricked God into it, saying the man would be a diligent servant to God. So God complied and man became a living being. But the man was a divided identity. Having a spirit, his potential was to be a servant to God, but possessing a body, he in fact became a servant and ally of Satanael. After fashioning Adam, Bogomils said Satanael created Eve, had sexual relations with her, the product of said union being Cain. Then, tempted by Eve, Adam begat Abel. Later in history, the human race produced a person who plead with God to save them. God answered by sending His Son, the Logos, who entered a Virgin's ear, took flesh from her, and emerged with a body from the same era. Although, how He did that is difficult to fathom. The Son, known as “Jesus” grew to maturity, only appeared to die, descended into hell, where he defeated and bound Satanael, revoking his suffice –el and turning him into the more familiar Satan.And this is where it gets really confusing, in case you aren't already.Even though The Son took flesh from somewhere inside Mary's head, He didn't really have a body; He only appeared to, which for those of you who are keeping track, is the ancient heresy known as à Docetism. Hey, seriously, if you said that to yourself before I said it, give yourself a pat on the back and go buy yourself your favorite hot or cold drink.Here we see the inevitable internal contradiction that comes with dualism. How can Satanael, who ever & always remained a spirit BE evil, when Jesus the Son, Who took on a body, BE the Holy One Who affects salvation? “Well,” the Bogomilian replies, “Jesus didn't really have a body; He only SEEMED to.” Okay, even if we give them that, we're still faced with the fact that the Holy One, the Good Son, then play-acted at having something that was corrupt and evil, while the Evil One & Bad Son remained a pure spirit.Listen: If my 15 yr old son tells me he wants to be a missionary, and gives every indication that he has a solid and mature walk with God, but one day I find him sitting on the couch in the living room reading a pornographic magazine, we're going to have a chat. But let's say once I sit down and start in on him, he smiles and turns the magazine toward me to reveal that it is in fact nothing but the cover, I'm going to be immensely relieved. But the question remains: WHY would he even have the cover? What's going on in him that would move him to the appearance of evil – which of course God's Word waves His people off from.The dualism of Docetism, and it's later manifestation in Bogomilism, fails epically right there. How could Jesus as the Son and Word of God even APPEAR to have a body, if a body was unalterably corrupt & evil?Well, Jesus prevailed over Satan, whose realm of authority and power was then confined to Earth. Which of course according to the usual dualistic machinations was a realm of evil because it's made of matter. But on that evil Earth dwell those dualistic creatures called man who are both body & spirit. So God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell his faithful ones, AKA Bogomils.The Bogomillian End of the Age has the Holy Spirit ascending back to Heaven & together with Jesus the Word, both are reabsorbed into the Father, or one true God.Bogomilism rejects such orthodox doctrines such as the Trinity. It regards the Cross as repugnant and has nothing to do with either baptism or communion, since such things require contact with physical matter. But Bogomilians often lived highly-disciplined lives of an apparently laudable morality that proved attractive to Orthodox believers who weren't so impressed with the casual indifference some Orthodox leaders displayed. The same happens today. Some of the cults show a fastidious diligence in pursuing the rigors of their faith, in the mistaken hope of earning points with God and maybe getting into heaven. That religiosity can appear attractive to nominal believers who are used to seeing professing Christians failing to follow through on a consistent lifestyle of devotion to Christ. So converts were made from the ranks of orthodoxy into the Bogomilian camp, not out of doctrinal persuasion by but by the practical theology of daily life. Like the Gnostics before them, Bogomilians divided their followers into ordinary, everyday believers and the choice elect. These elect had to face special trials  and challenges. If they proved their worthiness, they were given a secret and complex initiation that ushered them into the exalted ranks of the Bogomilian Elite. They were regarded as being equal to such lofty figures as the Virgin Mary and each were even called Theotokos = Mother of God. They only prayed one rote prayer; The Our Fa­ther, which they repeated several times a day.After the conquest by Western armies of Constanti­nople in 1204, the Byzantine government's check on the spread of Bogomilism was nearly shattered. The movement grew until the Balkans where they were centered was conquered by the Turks in the 15th C.Like the Monophysites some 8 Cs before them, the Bogomils were receptive to conversion to Islam when it took hold of their homeland.As we wrap up this episode, let's consider how and why Bogomilism presented a challenge to orthodoxy.1) Probably most telling for the average Christians was the fact that Bogomilians practiced their faith more zealously than the many of the Orthodox.2) While Christianity seemed to struggle and to some, even stumble when it came to answering the age-old dilemma of evil, Bogomilism seemed to provide an answer.3) Because too few Christians were equipped to dispatch the ideas of the Bogomils, authorities resorted to force, turning what had been a Church of the Martyrs into the Martyr-makers.Those 3 points will shape our next episode, because they prove to be compelling issues in our examination of Heresy & Heretics.

This 63rd episode is titled InvestedWe've just concluded a series on medieval monasticism and return to the narrative of the Church during the Middle Ages in Europe.Before we do, let's remember the story of Church History is much bigger than just what happened in Europe. Until recently, church history spent most its time on the Western Church and only touched other places as it related TO the Western narrative. We're trying to broaden our horizons, although it's tough because the source material for the history of the Church beyond the Western realm is much slimmer. It isn't that there isn't any; there's quite a bit; but it's not presented in the popular format that commends a layman's format. And an historical layman is certainly what I am So it's thick wading through most of it.With that said – back to the Church in the European Middle Ages . . .We have several themes and topics to develop. It's going to take a few episodes to do so. The first we'll look at, because it ends up being a recurring problem, is what's called the Investiture Controversy.This was a theological and political dustup that came about as a result of the fusion of Church and State in Feudal Europe. Church officials had both religious and secular roles. Though they weren't part of the official nobility, they did hold positions in the very strict social structure of the Feudal system. Serfs didn't just work the lands of the nobility. Many of them worked church lands and holdings. So, many bishops and abbots not only oversaw ecclesiastical duties, they were secular rulers. You can imagine how these clerics were torn in their loyalty between the Pope far off in Rome, and the much closer secular feudal lord; whether a duke, earl, count, or baron, to say nothing of the emerging kings of Europe.When the Roman Empire dissolved in the West, the role and responsibility of civil government often fell to church officials. Most people wanted them to step in. So when feudalism took hold, it wasn't a difficult transition for these religious leaders to be invested with the duties of secular rule.Because bishops, abbots and other church officials had secular as well as spiritual authority, many of Europe's nobility began to take it upon themselves to appoint those bishops and abbots when vacancies occurred. It's not difficult to see why they'd want to, instead of waiting on Rome to make the selection. Local rulers wanted someone running things amiable to their aims. Also, with the inheritance rules the way they were, with everything going to the firstborn son, a lucrative and influential career as a bishop was a plum job for all those second and third sons.  This investing of church offices by secular rulers was called Lay Investiture, because it was done by the laity, rather than by ordained clergy. And as you can imagine, it was NOT something Popes were happy about.Though the details are different today, imagine you're a church member for thirty years. One day your pastor says he's retiring. You expect your denomination or elders to pick a new pastor. How surprised would you be to find out the local mayor picked your pastor? Oh, and by the way; if you squawk about it, the Police will arrest and toss you in jail till you learn to shut your yap and go along with the new arrangement. è Welcome to lay investiture.While Rome for the most part opposed lay investiture, because administrating the Church all over Europe was a monumental task, for centuries the Popes begrudgingly consented to allow secular rulers to assist in the appointment of church officials. Some of these appointments were wise and provided good and godly men to lead the Church in their domain. Other times, nepotism and crass pragmatism saw, at the best inept and at the worst, corrupt officials installed.The issue became a controversy when the Popes decided to reign things in and required that church officials be appointed by the Church itself. Secular rulers were no longer allowed to do so. But just because the Popes said “No” to lay investiture, didn't mean secular rulers stopped. And that's where the brueha kicked in.It came to a head in 1076 when Pope Gregory VII and the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV came to a loggerheads over the archbishop of Milan. Both men proposed different candidates, and both believed it was his right to appoint the office. The Pope threatened excommunication if the Emperor refused to comply. Henry answered by calling a synod of German bishops at Worms in 1076. The Synod deposed Pope Gregory. Not to be outdone, Gregory excommunicated Henry and absolved his subjects of allegiance to him. A deft move—since at the time, Henry and his Saxon nobles were at odds. These nobles then demanded Henry reconcile with Gregory within a year or forfeit his throne. So the Emperor was forced to make peace with Gregory in a famous meeting at Canossa. Henry demonstrated his contrition by walking around the castle for 3 days in the snow, barefoot! The Pope reversed the excommunication and received the Emperor back into the faith.That's the end of the story – a happy one, right? Not quite.Henry leveraged his return to favor into a campaign against the Pope. He marched on Rome and set up a new Pope. Gregory died in exile. Still, Pope Gregory's position on investiture eventually prevailed.In 1099, Pope Urban II decreed that anyone who either gave or received lay investiture was excommunicated. In 1105 a moderate compromise was reached at Bec and ratified in a Council at Westminster two yrs later.Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV was followed by, can you guess? Yep; Henry V. It was during his reign the papacy ultimately won the investiture struggle. At Worms in 1122, a Concordat was drawn up in which the Emperor agreed The Church could elect bishops and abbots and invest them with their office. Although elections were to be held in the presence of the king, he was prohibited from influencing the decision by simony or the threat of violence. While it was the Church who selected her clergy, it was the secular rulers who handed them the symbols of their authority in the form of a crozier and a ring, representing their role as Shepherd of God's flock and that they were married to the Church. By allowing secular rulers a hand in the bestowal of the symbols of office, it conveyed the idea of the bishop's duty to support the secular ruler.The political intrigues that flowed from this dual loyalty of church officials across Europe is a thing of legend; literally! I'm guessing most listeners have seen at least one movie that captures the intrigues that ruled the political and religious scene at this time.Despite the Concordat of Worms in 1122, there were a few of Europe's nobles who continued to practice lay investiture. And there were plenty of their appointees willing to go along with them because they were being appointed to some pretty cushy posts. But eventually, lay investiture was set aside as feudal society gave way to the modern world.We round out this episode with a review of an aberrant doctrine that kept resurfacing in the Church of both the East and West. It was an attempt to understand the Person of Christ.Adoptionism had an early origin, being advocated by the Ebionites in the 2nd C. The famous Gnostic heresiarch Cerinthus taught a form of adoptionism.While the details of Adoptionism vary from time to time and place to place, the basic idea is that Jesus was merely a human being who was adopted by God into His role as Messiah and Savior. The nature of this adoption, that is, what it effected IN Jesus is where Adoptionists differ. That and when exactly God the Father adopted Jesus the man to become the Son of God. Some think it occurred at his baptism, others at his resurrection, and still others at His ascension. Adoptionists all concur with Jesus' humanity, but deny His eternal essence as God the Son. They say he BECAME the Son of God, due to his morally excellent life.The Church declared Adoptionism a heresy at the end of the 2nd C, but it continued to find a home in the work of several teachers and groups in the following centuries, right up thru the Middle Ages and into small groups today.The term “Adoptionism” is used to describe another but very different flavor of the idea that arose in Spain during the 8th and 9th Cs. To differentiate it from classic adoptionism, which starts with a human Jesus who becomes the divine Christ by adoption, historians refer to this later heresy as Spanish Adoptionism. It begins with God the Son, adopting a human form, but not really the human NATURE that went with it.The first to articulate this view in the late 8th C was Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo. His views were quickly seized on by his opponents and declared heretical. His supporters were summoned to appear before Charlemagne, whose clerics were able to persuade them away from their aberrant beliefs. That ought to have been the end of the matter. They'd been treated civilly and with respect by the Emperor, but when they arrived before the Pope in Rome they were publically humiliated. This seems to have only inflamed the adherents back in Spain who determined to resist Rome's efforts to reign them in.This came at an unfortunate moment as the Church in Spain was at this time dealing with Moorish-Muslim rulers.While Adoptionism can rightly be labeled a heresy, especially its early manifestation, Spanish Adoptionism is a more tricky wicket. I don't want to get into the technical details of the theology, so let me just say that there is in the NT some passages in the Gospels and letters of Paul that seem to speak of Jesus' 2 sonships. When these passages are viewed through the lens of some of the early church fathers, one can see a subtle nod toward the core ideas of Spanish Adoptionism.It gets back to that issue we've spoken of often here in CS; how to understand, then how to ARTICULATE the nature, person, and identity of Jesus. Theology is the fine art of distinctions – distinctions that have to be expressed in words. Finding the exact, right word has proven to be the angst-filled work of centuries and some of the keenest minds in history.Though Spanish adoptionism was effectively quelled by the 10th C, it resurfaced in the 11th and 12th, to once again enjoy a moment in the sun, then to be sprayed with some more theological Roundup, and die out once more.It's the ancient, classical adoptionism that's enjoyed a resurgence in modern times in a flavor of liberal Christianity. In this brand of Adoptionism, Jesus is a man, who by his exemplary moral path becomes an enlightened agent for God's Spirit to work through.  This Liberal Jesus isn't a Savior so much as an Example.

This episode is titled “The Eucharistic Controversy.”As we round out the Middle Ages in Europe, we have several topics we need to cover before we launch into the Era of Scholasticism. Last time we took a brief look at the Investiture Controversy and an even briefer look at a doctrinal error that had a long lifespan and several flavors – Adoptionism.Now we'll consider another controversy that raged in the church of both East and West for a long time; how to understand the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.For Protestant listeners, the issue was; What do we mean when we say Jesus is present at Communion or the Lord's Supper.I need to begin by making clear à This is not an attempt to expand on ALL the various theories of the Eucharist. That's a discussion way beyond my ability. It took me a while to compose this episode because I had to work out exactly how to phrase things. Words are the tools theologians work with. Those words carry precise meanings. But we're dealing with multiple languages; typically, Greek and Latin. And once the ancient theologians worked out some theological formula over decades, and in some cases, centuries, picking just the right words to express truth, then refining those words, as problems with their earlier choices became clear, then we have to find words in English to accurately translate those. THEN, we face the problem of people pouring different meanings into those words.So, if I get some of this less than totally accurate or clear, I beg your forgiveness ahead of time. I'm no Sheldon Cooper. Just a little guy with a pea-brain.The Eucharistic Controversy owes its origin to the tension between the Bible's call to worship God in Spirit and truth, and the desire to have something tangible to venerate and make focus attention on. The use and veneration of icons in the East had a correlation in the West with the elevation of the Communion elements.While Christians had long discussed the true nature of the elements of Communion, the real controversy got under way in the mid-9th C by a Frankish monk named Paschasius Radbertus. In 831, he published a book titled On the Body and Blood of the Lord; the first complete treatise on the Eucharist.The most significant part of Radbertus' work was his insistence that the elements were the  REAL, corporeal, body and blood of Jesus.Let me back up: All Christians believed Jesus was present at Communion. Jesus said, “When two or three of you are gathered in My Name, I'm there in your midst.” Communion was just that; a time for Christians to gather in a special way together IN CHRIST. So when they passed round the bread and wine, they regarded it as a holy moment when the Spirit of God mediated the Person of Jesus in a uniquely way. Simply stated, Jesus was present in Communion.But, people understood that presence in different ways. Augustine, with his massive influence on Medieval theology, said Jesus was spiritually present at Communion, but not physically. His presence was a mystery to be acknowledged by faith. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus said Jesus was bodily present in the Eucharist, but they meant His resurrection body, which was spiritual, not corporeal. So for them Christ's presence in the Eucharist was also a mystery.Radbertus now proposed that the elements of Communion became the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. They were the same stuff as the body born to Mary, as he put it. Phenomenologically, they didn't look or taste like flesh and blood because that would have been too much for people to deal with, so God graciously allowed the bread and wine to retain their outward properties, but in reality, WERE Jesus' body and blood. Radbertus said it was in the act of partaking the Eucharist that eternal life was maintained and nurtured. They were the “medicine of immortality.”The elements became Jesus' body and blood, not by an act of creation but of transformation.This raised the question: If the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ, do unbelievers who partake of the elements chew Christ. Radbertus denied it; saying while the elements were the corporeal body of Jesus, they still had to be taken by faith. So while unbelievers might participate in the sacrament, they didn't in fact partake of Christ.Radbertus got around the lack of correspondence between the reality of Jesus' bodily presence and its appearance as bread by saying God allowed this to make sure when the elements were taken, they were done so by faith; so their spiritual benefit could accrue to the partaker. So, the bread and wine were made over as symbols once again, which moved back toward Augustine's position, the very thing Radbertus had set out to undo.Hrbanus Maurus, abbot of Fulda, detested Radbertus' ideas. He denounced any view of the Eucharist that made it a materialistic manifestation of Jesus' body. Maurus said the value of Communion lay in the communicant's faith, not in a piece of bread or drop of wine.Gottschalk, who we'll come back to later, agreed with Radbertus and said the Eucharist WAS Jesus' body and blood. But he refused to take it as far as Radbertus, who said every time Communion was celebrated, it was a fresh sacrifice of Christ, a re-crucifying.This is where we need take a closer look at how the early church understood Communion. The ante-Nicean Fathers, that is, those church leaders before the Council of Nicaea in 325, referred to the Lords' Table, Communion, the Eucharist, whatever you want to call it, as a commemoration of Christ sacrifice. They linked it to the Last Supper where Jesus made it an ordinance for His followers. He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” That's the way the Apostles passed it on, as a commemorative moment to reflect on Christ's sacrifice on the Cross when his Body was broken and His blood was shed. The value of Communion was the spiritual link forged between follower and their rabbi through this remembering as they were reconnected in a specific and tangible way to what Jesus did for them.Later Christians moved away from this commemorative core of Communion to a more mystical view of Communion. And since mystery craves expression, it's inevitable someone made the elements of Communion more than mere symbols. Then to say each time they were transformed into the corporeal body of Christ, it wasn't just a commemoration of His sacrifice, it was a fresh sacrifice.Radbertus was the abbot of a monastery in Corbie. King Charles the Bald asked one of his fellow monks, Ratramnus, to evaluate his abbot's work. Ratramnus effectively agreed with Radbertus, but denied that a miracle of transformation took place with the elements. Ratramnus said communicants do indeed partake of Jesus' body and blood. But they do so by faith, rather than by the elements being mystically transmuted into the corporeal body of the man born by Mary.The Eucharistic Controversy of the 9th C opened a door that eventually brought about a new understanding of faith, grace and even the Church. Radbertus' ideas eventually triumphed in the Roman Church because he set them forth in a clear way for an age that ached for assurance of salvation. Now there was a tangible way to be assured people were doing something that maintained and nurtured immortality. His ideas prevailed as well, because his opponents' arguments were vague, complex, and frankly, not as appealing.Radbertus also laid the ground for a paradigm shift in the ministry of the clergy and Church. With a growing emphasis on the fresh sacrifice of the Mass, a bodily presence of Christ provided the rationale for a shift in Christian devotion from its original base in the Word and Faith, to a religious life that centered on the new reality offered in a sacrament. To put it bluntly, interest shifted from what Christ did at the Cross, to what the priest does with Christ in the elements. Jesus began to morph in people's minds from the Victorious Savior to the Eternal Victim – offered continually in the Mass.While Radbertus' view eventually became the majority view in the Latin West, it was never without those who rejected it and clung to a more Augustinian view. And of course, how to understand the Eucharist will re-emerge among the Reformers and see Round 2 in some pretty contentious disputes.But, that's the subject for a later episode.

In the last couple episodes we've set the scene for the Council of Ephesus in 431. Last time we did biographies of the two main players at the Council, Nestorius and Cyril.We ended with a brief review of their different Christologies; that is, how they viewed the dual nature of Christ as God & Man. Let's pick it up now with the events leading to the Council.While Cyril was experienced in the art of ecclesiastical politics and had the support of the, what shall we call them? Let's go with, pugilistic monks of Egypt at his back, Nestorius was more of a Donald Trump figure who eschewed politics in favor of a “My Way or the Highway attitude.  Not long after arriving at his new gig as Patriarch of the Capital church at Constantinople, Nestorius entered the fray of theological controversy by weighing in on THE discussion of the day è How to describe the dual nature of Jesus. As the de-facto standard bearer of Antiochan theology, he pointedly refuted the position of Alexandrian Christology, championed by Cyril. Alexandrians referred to Mary as Theotokos, a term which is literally translated as “Bearer of God” but which had come to mean, “Mother of God.” Nestorius' Christology aimed to keep the two natures of Christ distinct and considered this label for Mary misleading. Mary was the vessel through which the Divine Son of God, became human and the Son of Man. He preferred the title Christotokos. God is eternal, and any attempt to say God was born of Mary seemed to Nestorius to re-open a door to Arianism, since Arians had said there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. In the ensuing discussions, when the Alexandrians rejected his suggestion of Christotokos, Nestorius said  he would consent to the title Theotokos for Mary if they would add the title Anthropotokos. That way Mary would be called the “Mother of God & Man.”In 429, while sitting in his study in Alexandria, word reached Cyril of the discussions his supporters had had with Nestorius on the issue of Mary's title. When he heard the Patriarch of Constantinople had rejected the sole designation Theotokos, he was furious and sent off a heated letter calling for Nestorius to change his views. Nestorius wasn't the kind of person to kowtow to another, especially not the standard bearer of Alexandrian theology. He sent back and equally heated reply. And that elicited an angry retort from Cyril, which called out another barbed response from Nestorius. And so the missiles flew on parchment wings.Both men then appealed to Pope Celestine in Rome. His response was to assemble a hasty a synod in Rome in 430 that took next to no time deciding to support the title Theotokos for Mary, against Nestorius' position. Delighted the West had backed him, Cyril penned a long letter to Nestorius demanding he cease & desist his teaching and recant his position on the natures of Christ. This letter was more of a tome that included a dozen deliberately provocative anathemas; a formal curse by a pope or Church council, meant either to excommunicate someone or denounce a doctrine.As the Patriarch of the Church at Alexandria, that is, it's head bishop, Cyril had no authority to issue these anathemas. An anathema was an official ruling by the Church that said anyone who supported that which had been anathematized was consigned to hell. So when anathemas were issued, they were published far & wide. That's why Cyril penned them. He didn't aim to correct Nestorius. He wanted to destroy him. At least several of the 12 anathemas were gross distortions of Nestorius' position. But Cyril wasn't interested in accuracy. This was political theater. He aimed to carve away from his opponent any modicum of support. The anathemas made it look like Nestorius held t some cray-cray ideas about Jesus. And of course, Cyril didn't just send the letter to Nestorius; he posted it in his blog for all to see. When the Emperor Theodosius heard of it, he hastily called a meeting in June or 431. That became the First Council of Ephesus. It was High Noon between Nestorius and Cyril.From the outset, the entire thing was tilted in Cyril's favor. The council was originally set for Constantinople, but Theodosius' sister, Pulcheria, had it moved Ephesus.Ah, Pulcheria! There was a woman, and one more major personality thrown into the mix that was the train wreck of The Council of Ephesus.Pulcheria was the oldest surviving child of Emperor Arcadius and his wife, Empress Eudoxia. Eudoxia played a major role in the governing of the Eastern Empire alongside her husband. She cultivated her own political & religious party in the Byzantine court that had significant influence in both church and government matters. John Chrysostom and she had a long feud that saw him cast as the champion of the common people against her ostentatious displays of luxury and power. John was alternately banished and recalled during their feud.Pulcheria was every bit her mother's daughter in terms of her savvy use of position at court. When her father & mother passed, leaving her 7 yr old brother Theodosius II too young to rule, she became the de facto Empress as a placeholder till he turned 15. Even after, she continued to have a significant role in steering her brother's policies.Pulcheria eschewed her mother's luxurious fashions in favor of a more sedate wardrobe. No one doubted her devotion to the Lord either. Under her rule the Imperial palace took on the flavor of a monastery; with regular times for prayers and fasting. She resisted her brother's appointment of Nestorius as Patriarch and saw the brewing controversy with Cyril over the nature of Jesus as an opportunity to get rid of him. Being the political bumbler Nestorius was, he made matters worse by impugning the popular virgin Empress Pulcheria's reputation by accusing her of having illicit lovers, removing her image from above the altar and refusing the use of one of her robes as an altar cover.She backed Cyril, and convinced her brother to have the Council moved it to Ephesus. There was a popular shrine to Mary near the city, with many Ephesians devoted to her. Pulcheria knew Ephesus would be far more friendly to Cyril and his pals than Nestorius and his.When the council finally gathered in June of 431 in Ephesus, some 250 bishops were in attendance. The Emperor didn't attend, sending as his representatives, Candidian, head of his imperial guard. Candidian's job was to ensure order and to officially opening & closing the Council under the Emperor's authority.The bishops trickled into Ephesus over several weeks. While waiting for the rest to get there, they did what work they could in the hope of making the work of the Council when it convened more efficient. It quickly became clear the two sides were at utter odds. Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, was of course already there of course, with 52 supporting bishops. Nestorius and his 16 bishops arrived first, escorted by Candidian and his troops. This set the Ephesians on edge, as they assumed Candidian's presence was in support of Nestorius, though Theodosius had instructed him to remain strictly neutral. Knowing he had the support of the locals, Memnon sent out a covert word for people to be on their toes and that they might be needed to act as a deterrent to Candidian's force. Memnon then closed the churches of the City to Nestorius.Cyril then arrived with 50 bishops. There were no Western bishops present. The papal representatives didn't arrive till July. A Palestinian delegation of 16 bishops arrived several days after the Council was set to open.During the discussions that took place before the Council, Nestorius claimed Cyril's theology did damage to a right understanding of Jesus as God. Remember that Cyril's Christology said Jesus deity totally overwhelmed His humanity. Nestorius fired back that if Jesus' divinity effectively negated His humanity, then Cyril would have to worship a God who was only 2 or 3 months old. By this he meant if Mary was Theotokos, mother of God, then she was mother of all His fullness, which is absurd. Cyril's supporters seized on this to paint Nestorius as a heretic. They accused him of being an adoptionist, that is of saying Christ was a man God made divine. That charge resonated with many since it was from Nestorius' hometown of Antioch that Paul of Samosata originally postulated Adoptionism, a heresy which had already been banned.The Ephesians glommed onto the charge of heresy and threatened bishops friendly to Nestorius. Several abandoned him for Cyril's side. When I say these bishops were threatened, I mean with physical violence, bodily harm.When Cyril announced the council's opening, Candidian stopped him, saying the Roman and Antiochean delegations hadn't arrived. Cyril had to comply since the Council's opening couldn't happen with Candidian's authorization from the Emperor.As we've already seen, there really wasn't going to be a Roman delegation; just a handful of representatives form the Pope who were instructed by him not to participate in the discussions. Celestine had already ruled on the issue and wasn't going to have his decision debated. His reps were there just as observers who'd report back to him. The delegation from Antioch was another matter. Antioch's bishop John knew which way the political winds blew and understood that Nestorius was likely to be declared a heretic. He did not want to be part of a Council that did so. So he delayed his arrival.On June 22nd, 2 weeks after the Council was supposed to open, John and his 42 bishops still had not arrived. As president of the meeting, Cyril opened proceedings.Despite 3 summons, Nestorius refused to acknowledge Cyril's authority as president. He also protested the Council's convening without the Antiocheans.  68 other bishops protested the Council's opening & entered the church in protest. Then Candidian arrived and declared the assembly illegal. He asked Cyril to wait 4 more days for the Syrians to arrive. But, seeing that even the protesting bishops were now present, Cyril tricked Candidian into reading the Emperor's decree of convocation. Candidian just thought he was TELLING the assembly what it said, not actually convening the Council. But Cyril latched  onto the reading and made it the basis for the commencement of proceedings.John and the Syrians  bishops finally arrived 5 days later. Candidian informed them the Council had already commenced and had ratified Pope Celestine's declaration of Nestorius as a heretic. Angered at having taken such a long and difficult journey only to be ignored, the Antiocheans held their own Council with Candidian presiding. This council condemned Cyril for espousing heretical views and condemned Bishop Memnon for inciting violence. Both Cyril and Memnon. Were deposed and at first, the Emperor accepted the actions of this alternative Ephesian Council. He later reversed course and endorsed the findings of the Council led by Cyril.A couple weeks passed as the bishops who'd been in attendance at the first Council tried to decide what to do. That's when the Papal reps arrived. So on July 10th, a meeting was held in Memnon's house where the Pope's letter and condemnation of Nestorius as a heretic was re-read and re-approved.They met again the next day to compose a letter to the Emperor rehearsing what they'd done and why. It contained words from the Pope calling on him to enforce the Church's decisions.The bishops took a few days off, then met again to condemn John & the Syrians for holding their own Council.  They were summoned to appear the next day. John didn't only not appear, he put up a placard in the city announcing that Cyril and his supporters were heretics. So the bishops excommunicated John and 34 of his bishops.When the Emperor received the letter from the Council, he backed away from his earlier acceptance of The Syrians counter-council finding. Nestorius was deposed and sent into exile, where he attempted to rally support against Cyril with his own unsuccessful council. Because Nestorius did have supporters among Constantinople's nobility, Cyril was imprisoned for a spell. But he returned to his office as Patriarch of Alexandria, where for the next 2 decades his Christology dominated the theology of the Empire.Sympathizers & supporters were now declared by the canons of the Ephesian Council as heretics. They fled the Empire for the environs of Mesopotamia and Persia, where they established themselves in a burgeoning intellectual center at Nisibis. The Persian church honored Nestorius and eventually separated itself from the West when the Persian Empire clashed with the Eastern Roman Empire.Over the next few centuries, Nestorian missionaries planted churches in Iran, India, Central Asia, and all the way to the Far East of China. So, the decision at Ephesus ended up leading to the expansion of Christianity.As we said at the outset of this series on the Council of Ephesus, the political squabbling of the Church at this point is simply atrocious. When denominations differ on theological issues, they mustn't look to Ephesus as an example of how to handle them. If anything, they ought to be warned BY them.Fortunately, church leaders realized Ephesus was a bad deal and made moves a couple decades later to set things right at Chalcedon.So, was Nestorius a heretic? After all the shenanigans surrounding the Council, was that verdict the correct one?While there are aspects of later Nestorianism that are aberrant, the theology espoused by Nestorius himself was sound. He may not have stated it as well as others later did, but he in effect believed the same thing. In fact, later, from exile, when he read the formulae of other's orthodox Christology, he said that's what he'd always believed.Cyril's Christology, on the other hand ended up leading to the error of monophysitism; the belief that in the Incarnation Jesus single nature as God utterly overwhelmed His humanity, sending it into a kind of spiritual coma.

The title of this episode is “What a Mess!”As is often the case, we start by backing up & reviewing material we've already covered so we can launch into the next leg of our journey in Church History.Anglo-Saxon missionaries to Germany had received the support of Charles Martel, a founder of the Carolin­gian dynasty. Martel supported these missions because of his desire to expand his rule eastwards into Bavaria. The Pope was grateful for his sup­port, and for Charles' victory over the Muslims at the Battle of Tours. But Martel fell afoul of papal favor when he confiscated Church lands. At first, the Church consented to his seizing of property to produce income to stave off the Muslim threat. But once that threat was dealt with, he refused to return the lands. Adding insult to injury, Martel ignored the Pope's request for help against the Lombards taking control of a good chunk of Italy. Martel denied assistance because at that time the Lombards were his allies. But a new era began with the reign of Martel's heir, Pippin or as he's better known, Pepin III.Pepin was raised in the monastery of St. Denis near Paris. He & his brother were helped by the church leader Boniface to carry out a major reform of the Frank church. These reforms of the clergy and church organization brought about a renewal of religious and intellectual life and made possible the educational revival associated with the greatest of the Carolingian rulers, Charlemagne & his Renaissance.In 751, Pepin persuaded Pope Zachary to allow Boniface to anoint him, King of the Franks, supplanting the Merovingian dynasty. Then, another milestone in church-state relations passed with Pope Stephen II appealing to Pepin for aid against the Lombards. The pope placed Rome under the protection of Pepin and recognized him and his sons as “Protectors of the Romans.”As we've recently seen, all of this Church-State alliance came to a focal point with the crowning of Charlemagne as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in AD 800. For some time the Popes in Rome had been looking for a way to loosen their ties to the Eastern Empire & Constantinople. Religious developments in the East provided the Popes an opportunity to finally break free. The Iconoclastic Controversy dominating Eastern affairs gave the Popes one more thing to express their disaffection with. We'll take a closer look at the controversy later. For now, it's enough to say the Eastern Emperor Leo III banned the use of icons as images of religious devotion in AD 726. The supporters of icons ultimately prevailed but only after a century of bitter and at times violent dispute. Pope Gregory II rejected Leo's edict banning icons and flaunted his disrespect for the Emperor's authority. Gregory's pompous and scathing letter to the Emperor was long on bluff but a dramatic state­ment of his rejection of secular rulers' meddling in Church affairs. Pope Gregory wrote: “Listen! Dogmas are not the business of emperors but of pontiffs.”The reign of what was regarded by the West as a heretical dynasty in the East gave the Pope the excuse he needed to separate from the East and find a new, devoted and orthodox protector. The alliance between the papacy and the Carolingians represents the culmination of that quest, and opened a new and momentous chapter in the history of European medieval Christianity.In response to Pope Stephen's appeal for help against the Lombards, Pepin recovered the Church's territories in Italy and gave them to the pope, an action known as the 'Donation of Pepin'. This confirmed the legal status of the Papal States.At about the same time, the Pope's claim to the rule of Italy and independence from the Eastern Roman Empire was reinforced by the appearance of one of the great forgeries of the Middle Ages, the Donation of Constantine. This spurious document claimed Constantine the Great had given Rome and the western part of the Empire to the bishop of Rome when he moved the capital of the empire to the East. The Donation was not exposed as a forgery until the 15th Century.The concluding act in the popes' attempt to free themselves from Constantinople came on Christmas Day 800 when Pope Leo III revived the Empire in the West by crowning Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. It's rather humorous, as one wag put it – the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, and can scarcely be called an Empire.Charlemagne's chief scholar was the British-born Alcuin who'd been master of the cathedral school in York. He was courted by Charlemagne to make his capital at Aachen on the border between France & Germany, Europe's new center of education & scholarship. Alcuin did just that. If the school at Aachen didn't plant the seeds that would later flower in the Renaissance it certainly prepared the soil for them.Alcuin profoundly influenced the intellectual, cultural and religious direction of the Carolingian Empire, as the 300-some extant let­ters he wrote reveal. His influence is best seen in the manuscripts of the school at Tours where he later became abbot. His influence is also demonstrated in his educational writings, revision of the Biblical text, commentaries and the completion of his version of Church liturgy. He standardized spelling and writing, reformed missionary practice, and contributed to the organizing of church regulations. Alcuin was the leading theologian in the struggle against the heresy of Adoptionism. Adoptionists said Jesus was simply a human being who God adopted & MADE a Son. Alcuin was a staunch defender of Christian orthodoxy and the authority of the Church, the pre-eminence of the Roman Bishop and of Charlemagne's sacred position as Emperor. He died in 804.The time at which Alcuin lived certainly needed the reforms he brought & he was the perfect agent to bring them. From the palace school at Aachen, a generation of his students went out to head monas­tic and cathedral schools through­out the land. Even though Charlemagne's Empire barely outlived its founder, the revival of education and religion associated with he and Alcuin brightened European culture throughout the bleak and chaotic period that followed. This Carolingian Renaissance turned to classical antiquity and early Christianity for its models. The problem is, there was only one Western scholar who still knew Greek, the Irishman John Scotus Erigena. Still, the manuscripts produced during this era form the base from which modern historians gain a picture of the past. It was these classical texts, translated from Greek into Latin that fueled the later European Renaissance.The intellectual vigor stimulated by the Carolingian Renaissance and the political dynamism of the revived Empire stimulated new theologi­cal activity. There was discussion about the continuing Iconoclastic problem in the East. Political antagonism between the Eastern and the Carolingian emperors led to an attack by theologians in the West on the practices and beliefs of the Orthodox Church in the East. These controversial works on the 'Errors of the Greeks' flourished during the 9th C as a result of the Photian Schism.In 858, Byzantine Emperor Michael III deposed the Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople, replacing him with a lay scholar named Photius I, AKA Photius the Great. The now deposed Ignatius appealed to Pope Nicholas I to restore him while Photius asked the Pope to recognize his appointment. The Pope ordered the restoration of Ignatius & relations between East & West sunk further. The issue ended in 867 when Pope Nicholas died & Photius was deposed.Latin theologians also criticized the Eastern church for its different method of deciding the date of Easter, the difference in the way clergy cut their hair, and the celibacy of priests. The Eastern Church allowed priests to marry while requiring monks to be celibate, whereas the Western Church required celibacy of both.Another major doctrinal debate was the Filioque [Filly-o-quay] Controversy we briefly touched on in an earlier episode. Now, before I get a barrage of emails, there's debate among scholars over the pronunciation of Filioque. Some say “Filly-oak” others “Filly-o-quay.” Take your pick.The point is, the Controversy dealt with the wording of the Nicene Creed as related to the Holy Spirit. The original Creed said the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. A bit later, the Western Church altered the wording a bit so as to affirm the equality of the Son of God with the Father. So they said the Spirit proceeded from both Father & Son. Filioque is Latin for “and the Son” thus giving the name of the controversy. The Eastern Church saw this addition as dangerous tampering with the Creed and refused to accept it while the Filioque clause became a standard part of what was considered normative doctrine in the West.Another major discussion arose over the question of predestina­tion. A Carolingian monk named Gottschalk, who studied Augustine's theology carefully, was the first to teach 'double predestination'; the belief that some people are predestined to salvation, while others are predestined to damnation. He was tried and condemned for his views by 2 synods and finally imprisoned by the Archbishop of Rheims. Gottschalk died 20 years later, holding his views to the end.The other major theological issue of the Carolingian era concerned the Lord's Supper. The influential Abbot of Corbie wrote a treatise titled On the Body and Blood of the Lord. This was the first clear statement of a doctrine of the 'real presence' of Christ's body and blood in the Communion elements, later called the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” an issue that will become a heated point in the debate between the Roman Church & Reformers.The reforms of King Pepin and Pope Boniface focused attention on priests. It was clear to all that clergy ought to lead lives beyond reproach. That synod after synod during the 6th, 7th, & 8th Cs had to make such a major issue of this demonstrated the need for reform. Among the violations warned against were the rejection of celibacy, gluttony, drunkenness, tawdry relationships with women, hunting, carry­ing arms & frequenting taverns.Monastic developments at this time were significant. The emphasis was on standardiza­tion and centralization. Between 813 and 17 a revised Benedictine rule was adopted for the whole of the Carolingian Empire. Another Benedict, a monk from Burgundy, was respon­sible for an ultra-strict regimen. Charlemagne's successor, Louis the Pious, appointed Benedict the overseer of all monasteries in the realm, and a few years later his revised Benedictine rule was made obligatory for all monasteries. Sadly, with little long-term effect.When Louis suc­ceeded Charlemagne, the Pope was able to regain his independ­ence, following a long domination by the Emperor. The imperial theocracy of Charlemagne's reign would have yielded a 'state church' as already existed in the East. But the papacy stressed the superiority of spiritual power over the secular. This was reinforced by the forged Donation of Constantine with its emphasis on papal pre-eminence in the governing of the Empire, not just the Church.In the middle of the 9th C, priests at Rheims produced another remarkable forgery, the False Decretals. Accomplished with great inventiveness, the Decretals were designed to provide a basis in law which protected the rights of bishops. They included the bogus Donation of Constantine and became a central part of the canon of medieval law. It shored up papal claims to supremacy in church affairs over secular authority. The first Pope to make use of the False Decretals was Nicholas I. He recognized the danger of a Church dominated by civil rulers and was deter­mined to avert this by stressing that the church's govern­ment was centered on Rome, not Constantinople, and certainly not in some lesser city like Milan or Ravenna.From the late 9th until the mid-11th C, Western Christendom was beset by a host of major challenges that left the region vulnerable. The Carolingian Empire frag­mented, leaving no major military power to defend Western Europe. Con­tinued attacks by Muslims in the S, a fresh wave of attacks by the Magyars in the E, and incessant raids by the Norsemen all over the Empire, turned the shards of the empire into splinters. One contemporary lamented, “Once we had a king, now we have kinglets!” For many Western Europeans, it seemed the end of the world was at hand.The popes no longer had Carolingian rulers as protectors. So the papacy became increasingly involved in the power struggles among the nobility for the rule of Italy. Popes became partisans of one political faction or another; sometimes willingly, other times coerced. But the cumulative result was spiritual and moral decline. For instance, Pope Stephen VI took vengeance on the preceding pope by having his body disinterred and brought before a synod, where it was propped up in a chair for trial. Following conviction, the body was thrown into the Tiber River. Then, within a year Stephen himself was overthrown. He was strangled while in prison.There was a near-complete col­lapse of civil order in Europe during the 10th C. Church property was ransacked by invaders or fell into the hands of the nobility. Noble­men treated churches and monas­teries as their private property to dispose of as they wished. The clergy became indifferent to duty. Their illiteracy & immorality grew.The 10th C was a genuine dark age, at least as far as the condition of the Church was concerned. Without imperial protection, popes became helpless playthings for the nobility, who fought to gain control by appointing relatives and political favorites. A chroni­cle by the German bishop of Cremona paints a graphic picture of sexual debauchery in the Church.Though there were incompet­ent & immoral popes during this time, they continued to be respected throughout the West. Bishoprics and abbeys were founded by laymen after they obtained the appro­val of the papal court. Pilgrimages to Rome hardly slackened during this age, as Christians visited the sacred sites of the West; that is, the tombs of Peter and Paul, as well as a host of other relics venerated in there.At the lowest ebb of the 10th C, during the reign of Pope John XII, from 955-64, a major change in Italian politics affected the papacy. An independent & capable German monarchy emerged. This Saxon dynasty began with the election of Henry I and continued with his son, Otto I, AKA Otto the Great .Otto developed a close relationship with the Church in Germany. Bishops and abbots were given the rights and honor of high nobility.  The church received huge tracts of land. Thru this alliance with the Church, Otto aimed to forestall the rebellious nobles of his kingdom.But the new spiritual aristocracy created by Otto wasn't hereditary. Bishops & abbots couldn't “pass on” their privileges to their successors. Favor was granted by the King to whomever he chose. Thus, their loyalty could be counted on more readily. In fact, the German bishops contributed money and arms to help the German kings expand into Italy, what is now the regions of East Germany & Poland.Otto helped raise the papacy out of the quagmire of Italian politics. His entrance into Italian affairs was a fateful deci­sion. He marched south into Italy to marry Adelaide of Burgundy and declare him­self king of the Lombards. Ten years later, he again marched south at the invitation of Pope John XII. In February of 962, the Pope tried a renewal of the Holy Roman Empire by crowning Otto and Adelaide in St Peter's. But the price paid by the pope for Otto's support was another round of interference in Church affairs.For the next 300 years, each new German monarch followed up his election by making a march to Rome to be crowned as Emperor. But at this point, it wasn't so much Popes who made Emperors as it was Emperors who made Popes. And when a pope ran afoul of the ruler, he was conveniently labeled ‘anti-pope' & deposed, to be replaced by the next guy. It was the age of musical chairs in Rome; whoever grabs the papal chair when the music stops gets to sit. But when the Emperor instructs the band to play again, whoever's in the chair has to stand and the game starts all over again. Lest you think I'm overstating the case, in 963 Otto returned to Rome, convened a synod which found Pope John guilty of a list of sordid crimes and deposed him. In his place, they chose a layman, who received all of his ecclesiastical orders in a single day to become Pope Leo VIII. He managed to sit in the Pope's chair less than a year before the music started all over again.