Customer Reviews

Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is the second printing of this particular title. It was originally published in 1984 under the title Heresies : The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present. There was a very good review by Joseph Sobran in the October 5, 1984 issue of "National Review" which led me to purchase the original book. Please see my specific remarks for the edition under that title.

Dr. Brown is currently with the Reformed Theological Seminary Resident Faculty, in Charlotte NC. Heresies is a comprehensive history book as well as a copious treatise of various heresies since the first century A.D. This would explain its renaming for the current editions.

"Heresies" are defined by Dr. Brown as those beliefs that are so at odds with orthodox Christian theology that they are a direct threat to the basic beliefs necessary for adequately understanding God's plan for personal salvation. They are more than differences of opinion, and the heretic must have some claim on calling himself Christian, some real original relationship to orthodoxy or the "FAITH ONCE REVEALED". A non-believer cannot be a heretic. He can only be a non-believer. In this sense some "heresies" are not truly heretical but another religion.

Dr. Brown explains that all theological concepts subject to heretical interpretation are found in the Bible. These are primarily those on the Trinity and those on the nature of Jesus, as well as other subjects that became the basis for some heresies. The earliest Christians generally understood these concepts. However, until heretical beliefs started materializing and needed formal refuting these truths were not systematized and comprehensively presented in an understandable way. Yet these early orthodox beliefs are available to us through the analysis of the writings of the heretics themselves. (Hence the "...Mirror of Heresy..." in the original title of this work.)

It took several centuries for the early theologians to develop the ideas and vocabulary needed to present orthodox beliefs on the Trinity and on the nature of Jesus. When this was done the results were the various major creeds (Apostles, Nicene(AD325/381), Athanasian, Chalcedonian(AD451)) created for popular use. But even this is not enough. For though some will generally agree with the particular postulations, the intellectual need to further explain these basics in the extreme leads to heretical thought. And this leads to the subsequent (to AD451) one thousand five hundred fifty years of repeating heresies. For most, if not all, modern heresies are revivals of or share assumptions with heresies of the first four and one half centuries of Christianity.

Dr. Brown brings this to us in a logical, well written, chronological narrative. It is easy reading, chockfull of interesting details and bibliography/footnoting par excellence. He discusses the early persecutions and shows that even some heretics were genuine martyrs. Most importantly to the layman, he explains clearly the ramifications of any particular heresy. He does not stop with an explanation of why it is wrong, but discusses thoroughly the logical implications, conclusions, even actions to which this variant belief brings the heretic.

The story progresses to the political successes of the church when it achieves official state recognition and eventually becomes an official state religion. He recounts with sadness the change of the church of the martyred saints into a government organization persecuting, or when not yet official having the government persecute, its "enemies."

These enemies were not always heretics, but often political rivals with minor differences of theological opinion. Even some of this difference of opinion was really the result of linguistic misinterpretation (willful or incidental depending on the goals of the personages) between Latin and Greek speakers. When the opponents actually were heretical there were instances when the persecutions strengthened opposition to orthodoxy much in the same way early persecutions strengthened the church. It was some of this attitude and prejudice that left varieties of North African and Middle Eastern Christians vulnerable to the wholesale conversions to Islam in the 7th and 8th Centuries. The author also shows a point in time when it is the state that is interested in Christian orthodoxy and unity, and the official Church is more interested in making war.

This newer publication was improved immensely with the addition of a more comprehensive index. One can now find and relocate entries dealing with the myriad of types of heresies and historical topics discussed. A glossary would improve reviewing the meanings of the sundry heresies and sub-heresies but might make the book, already at 512 pages, too unwieldy. Looking them up in the index is the next best. I would like to see a companion book of terms with page references. Even to find what the creeds say it is necessary to look them up from other sources. It is too bad some of the more explanatory footnotes cannot be parenthetically added to the text for this also would make a large book even bigger. The reader needs to get used to flipping back to the footnotes from the beginning or he will miss a lot of information.

The book was not updated in any form since its original publication in 1984. Is there no new information or heresy revival in this period? How about a few paragraphs on the place of the Charismatic Renewal of the 60's and 70's, which was already waning when the author started his writing? Though cults are only touched on (& then only in historical perspective) notorious examples might be used to illustrate current heresy revivals. Just a thought...

I recommend this book to most varieties of conservative Christians, which is no surprise. Next are "moderate" Christian Protestants and Roman Catholics who are comfortable with their Salvation in Jesus. Roman Catholics who are wedded to the Church hierarchy and tradition add-ons will find parts of the work difficult to accept. Those who will be least pleased, other than honest by gosh heretics, are liberal and universalist Christians whose doctrines and beliefs themselves border on heresy.

I also highly recommend it to non-believers who have any interest in church history, or are interested in Christian beliefs and controversies. They will find this a terrific source of well documented information.

(Dr. Brown died of cancer on July 8, 2007.)

_Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church_ by Harold O. J. Brown is an extensive overview of the numerous doctrinal disputes within Christendom from the early Church to the present. Brown writes from the perspective of a conservative Lutheran, which determines the somewhat narrow point of view in some parts of this study. However, the good in this book far outweighs its negativity. Part of the problem when writing about heresy and heresies is the difficulty when defining exactly who the "heretics" are, what doctrines and dogmas are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable and to be categorized as "heretical." Many ultramontane Catholics will consider the entire Protestant Reformation heretical, while conservative, and fundamentalist/evangelical Protestants of various denominations view the central tenants of Catholicism (Mariology, Papal infallibility, literal transubstantiation of the Eucharist, etc). Also, where does Eastern Orthodox Christendom fit in?

The key difference between the ancient heretics and theological liberals of today, notes Brown, is the ancients sincerely believed what they espoused as Christian truth while today's skeptics are wishy-washy nay-sayers. Brown begins by noting the Greek/Hellenistic and Roman/Latin influence in the theological teachings of early Christianity. Many disputes, the most fundamental being the nature of God, the Trinity and the Person of Christ, were outside the material covered in the canonical biblical writings. Instead, theologians used Greek philosophical concepts and complicated language to explain Christian doctrinal concepts as they developed over time. This tendency (beginning with St. Paul) has been heavily criticized by moderns, (both liberal and evangelical/fundamentalist reductionists) as taking away from the original, Semitic contents of the Bible. The first major heresies, in the second, third and fourth centuries AD were those of Gnosticism and Arianism. Gnosticism was a loose collection of different sects teaching elaborate, dualistic cosmologies, and believing Christ was a being who illuminated mankind and brought freedom from the supposedly evil god of the Old Testament (Demiurge) creator of the material world. Gnosticism and its "knowledge (gnosis) falsely so called" was refuted by Ireneaus of Lyons, one of the first great theologians. Indeed, the process of formulating "Orthodox" Christian doctrine has been somewhat of a "dialectical process," as another reviewer notes, of an arising heresy followed by an Orthodox response and official definition. Ironically, the two other greatest defenders of Orthodox Christianity during the early Church period, Tertullian and Origen, later left the Church (Tertullian) and promoted some questionable doctrines, as Origen did when he speculated on the pre-existence of human souls. The Arians (named after Arius, a renegade priest) were a splinter group from Orthodox Christianity who believed that the Jesus Christ, the Son, was the greatest created being of God the father-not of the same nature as the Father. Constantine summoned the first Ecumenical Council to promote Christian unity at Nicea, and formally defined God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as all different persons of the same God. However, Constantine himself and a number of his successors tended to support the Arian position. Almost the sole defender of Christian Orthodoxy, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, led the battle at Nicea-Athanasius _contra mundi_, i.e., against the world.

The second phase concerned the nature of Christ and spawned the controversies of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople and the Monophysites of Alexandria. Nestorius focused on the human nature of Christ and did not want the use of "Theotokos" (strictly translated from Greek to English means "bearer of God," NOT "mother of God.") as a formal title for the Virgin Mary. The prelates of Alexandria, notably Cyril, who stressed Christ's divine nature, opposed Nestorius. A subsequent council condemned Nestorius. His followers broke off to form the "Nestorian" Church or Church of the East, which spread from Mesopotamia and Persia even as far as China by its missionaries. The next controversy arose during the fifth century and centered on around the political posturing of the Empire's four great cities: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. The primary dispute was between Antioch's theologians and Alexandria. Rome, Brown notes, at this time remained the most doctrinally Orthodox as it was removed from Christianity's center of gravity in the Greek speaking empire during this period, lacking the cosmopolitan theological innovators of the East. The outcome of this fourth council, Chalcedon, according to Brown, tended to lean back towards the "Nestorian" view of Christ with its doctrine Christ's human and divine nature. Alexandria, which triumphed during the early stages of this conflict, suffered a reversal. The Egyptian (Coptic) Church broke off from the official Church of the Roman Empire and Constantinople, forming the Oriental Orthodox Church, which has its branches in Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Syria, Armenia and India. However, Nestorians and Monophysites (who maintained that Christ only had a divine nature) remain within Orthodox theology, unlike the Gnostics, Arians and the later Manicheans, Bogomils and Cathars.

During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church experienced a schism because of theological and political controversies. The Roman Papacy assumed the status of a temporal power in Italy. The worldly corruption of the Roman Church, its sale of indulgences, and it's doctrine of literal transubstantiation officially formulated during the 1200s all gave impetus for the coming Protestant Reformation of the early 1500s. But after the Reformation, who is to be considered a heretic? Brown admits that it is much easier for a Protestant polemicist to use the invective "antichrist" to describe the pope rather than "heretic." Here is where the shortfalls of a Protestant outlook come into play. It ignores the Orthodox Church, which kept the original faith "once delivered to the saints." Brown also notes the main issue with "Pietism" that arose during the 1700s in England and Germany. Pietism is doctrinally orthodox, but places its emphasis on personal conversion and personal faith experience. In the long run it looses its objectivity when it comes to actual doctrine and polemics against attacks on Christianity by today's forces of secularism and liberalism.

I felt like I walked through the valley of Christian history, and on every side of me lay dragons and lions of dissent, seeking to devour Truth and replace it with the viscera and bones of deception. Brown presents Christian history as the dialectic of orthodoxy, heresy, and the response to heresy. Without heresy, the Church would not be what we know today. For we defined ourselves by what became heretical. There would be no need to state the precise nature of the Trinity (or as precise as is possible) if there had not been those who denied it's existence. There would be no need to say that Jesus is one person, in two natures, one divine and one human, if some had not claimed that Jesus was only divine, or two persons. There would be no need to dwell on the grace of Christ's soteriology, if some had not believed that we were essentially good, and just needed to be reminded of the truth through Christ's example.

For those who would claim, as some do these days, that heresy was orthodoxy, and orthodoxy only the most powerful of the parties who wrote the histories, Brown convincingly shows how what we understand orthodoxy to be today is what has always been believed, from the earliest times, and the earliest sources. It is not however simple to uncover this truth, or simply that what we believe now must be what was first believed- this Brown also makes clear.

Perhaps one of his most interesting insights is how the Roman Church left the path it was on, in reformatting it's doctrine of transubstantiation, making it more exact than it needed to be. In so doing, they removed the personal efficaciousness of soteriology. And though the Eastern Church also believed in a literal transformation, with their less legalistic focus on mystery, they were still able to unite the average believer with her Lord. Unfortunately, this legalistic soteriology dependent on literal transformation of elements, which only priests could perform and thus be fully involved with, created a gap between God and man. This gap needed to be resolved, and lead directly to the Protestant Reformation, in Brown's opinion, as one possible solution. If only the Roman Church had been content to not innovate in doctrine, but allow for differences in understanding on the elements, the Church today might still be more united.

Brown does better on early heresies than later ones. Once he gets to the last few centuries, what he calls the End of the Age of Heresy, his writing style declines, and the story becomes much drier. Without heresy, a book on heresies is simply less interesting. And so it took me a good deal of time to wend through the end, though the first 4/5ths of the book took only a few days.

You won't have to be a history nut to understand Brown's book. This is by far the best book I have ever read on the origin of false teachings. It shouldn't be a surprise, but the many heresies come straight from the 2nd-5th centuries. In effect, there is nothing new under the sun. This is why we need to know our history, because so many people end up repeating the early errors. Brown is especially effective in his sections on the Trinity and Arianism. It is fascinating to see the details that Brown is able to report. Finally, I am sad to see that the current publisher has let Heresies go out of print so soon after its 1998 reprinting. Trust me, the book is worth having, even if you need to find it used. It is worthy having as a reference, and if you are like me, you will need a highlighter to keep you company as you read it.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).



Heresy and Orthodoxy:
Hilary of Poitier expounds St. Paul's words, "Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the written word; and the guilt is by the expositor, not of the text."
Heresies rose up in the church through the centuries and each was met with able faith defenders, like Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria, who based their defense for doctrinal truth, on biblical exegesis using philosophy for definitions. Today, the word "Heresy" connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, and old prejudice, still an emotionally loaded term that has been often misused. Yet, the subject of heresy is of vital importance to the faithful and the church, since heresy in its particular meaning is closely related to Christian doctrine.

Heresy, Schism & Apostasy:
Heresy can be committed only by a baptized Christian. It is more serious than schism, and different from apostasy, or other commitments against 'orthodoxy.' The word 'heresy' comes from hairesis, (Greek; a choice of beliefs.) The expression was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his pamphlet 'Contra Haereses,' describing and discrediting his adversaries in early Christianity. He classifies his position, which represented the early Christian Church belief, as orthodox (straight belief).

Core Orthodox Doctrine:
Central doctrines of Christianity, are those doctrines that constitute the core of Christian faith, making the Church Universal, not sectarian or denominational. Those Central doctrines include the Trinity, the deity of Christ, His bodily resurrection, and atoning work, Salvation by grace through faith. These doctrines do comprise the essence of the Christian faith that to neglect any of them is to make the belief system lacking, not whole. The Gospel teaches that the above core beliefs (Matt. 28:19; John 8:24; 1 Cor. 15; Eph. 2:8-10), are of vital importance since they define the character of Christianity.

History of Ortho/Heterodoxy:
Heresies, retold and explained by Harold Brown, is in his words, 'the story of how succeeding Christian generations, through almost twenty centuries have tried to understand, trust, and obey Jesus Christ."
While Brown followed a logical system to define, explore, and clarify a positive side of heterodoxy in helping to define a more precise Church doctrine, he was primarily concerned with the doctrines of the Trinity & Christology, exploring the major creeds of the church, to help discern orthodoxy from heresy. He asserts that heresy did not only confuse and divide the church, but has, meanwhile, helped theologians to clarify some sloppy philosophical terms, that drew the limitations for the critical domain of orthodox belief.
From a 'Common Ground' he proceeds to the Resurrection and incarnation, to expose Gnosticism and their Christology. Marcion and Montanus thoughts are compared with the Church apologists who formed early teachings, Ireneus, Tertullian, and Origen. After exploring Monarchianism, and Arianism, he discusses the main doctrines of the Trinity, and the person of Christ (Christology).
Election and Free Will were issues of conflict between the Eastern Churches and Rome. He now gives an Anglican view of the use of images, Icons in Byzantium. The Filioque and Eucharistic controversy, not be known to Western Christians, are considered 'New heresies'! Scholasticism lies at the bottom of medieval problems crystallizing in the Inquisition. The Protestant Reformation for the Roman Church a grave heresy, this he treats thoroughly all the way to the Enlightenment that fragmented theology. The theological debut of Browns book is in its last two chapters: A Revival of Orthodoxy? and It's Resurgence and Relapse. Brown gives a concise but clear evaluation of the twentieth Century of Postmodernism.

Harold O. J. Brown is professor emeritus of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. Dr. Brown earned four degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Divinity School. He taught courses in Switzerland, and now, at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.
Brown's interests include systematic theology; Bioethics, family values; and political philosophy. He has served on the editorial staff of Human Life Review and editor for Christianity Today, Chronicles, and The Religion & Society Report.
Brown's books include: Christianity and the Class Struggle, Death before Birth.

What makes this book so interesting is it's method of describing churh history by describing the hereseys the Christian faith has faced over the centuries. The focus is on theology and the development of doctrines, with political and historical events as a backdrop. This approach is refreshing especially for someone who is already familiar with the history of western civilization's events and characters.
The text is very well written and easy to follow, even for a laymen; however, theological nomenclature is a stretch for me. The author does a superb job in conveying the differences, some very slight and technical, in various theological doctrines, and shows how they exist, fade away, and sometimes reemerge under a new age moniker. It's interesting to see how modern man really isn't so modern after all.
I think the most beneficial lesson I take from this book is to understand how orthodoxy is in the original Scripture, and in the beliefs and practices of the Apostles. I am confident the early church fathers passed on the true gospel, and successive generations have defended it sufficiently to be able to discern orthodoxy from heresey. The conclusion that tradition is valid won't sit too well with those inclined toward heresy, no matter what the flavor, and resent being told that the truth is plain and commonly held, not an esoteric knowlege of an elect minority or a grand conspiracy.
An indirect benefit I gained from reading this book is some insight into why there is such distrust amoung some Christians of Alexandrian manuscripts, and Bible translations taken from them. This book shows where heresy tended to flourish in the old empire and where it was staunchly defended. It also shows the subtlety of false doctrine, in case your interested in the perspective of the invisible war.
Lastly, I'm left with the conviction that a simple person of simple faith who lives out the gospel is just as saved as a complicated theologian who spends his time contemplating the mysteries of God.

O.J. Brown does an outstanding job of giving a lucid description of the original Christological heresies which attacked the early church (and are still attacking it today). BUY this book, if you have any interest in knowing how to discern truth from error.

Heresy presupposes orthodoxy as orthodoxy was there from the beginning. Orthodox in Greek simply means "right-believing" and in ascertaining, studying and defining the breadth of heresies, one gets a better idea of what constitutes the orthodox Christian faith and orthodox doctrine. This book is a chronological church history capturing the theological debates that rocked the church through the centuries.

Brown with a trenchant pen clarifies and defines those damnable heresies that strayed from Biblical Christology from Arianism to Socinianism. Quite naturally, Brown devotes his analysis of early church heresies to various anti-Trinitarian and other damnable heresies that repudiate orthodox Christology. Arianism, Gnosticism, Modalism, Monarchism, Monophysitism, and other heresies are discussed in detail. Gnosticism had its fountainhead in Alexandria, which was awash in Manichean, Dualist, and other eastern belief systems in a psuedo-Christian clothing that denied the humanity and deity of Christ's person as well as his atoning, death, burial and resurrection. Gnostics purported that the God of the Old Testament (i.e. demiurge) to be evil. Today, gnosticism has been long obscured, but is rising in popularity coincidal with a pop culture obsession with the occult. Gnosticism is explicitly anti-Christian in that it latches onto Christian clothing while disavowing all the core tenets of the Gospel. Arianism found its wellspring in the eastern church and is concomitant to the heresy of adoptionism, which disavows the eternality of Christ, and presupposes he was adopted and infused with divinity. This belief acts to undermine his deity.

It's ironic but many modern heretical sects embrace elements of centuries-old heresies and old heresies never really died out, they just took on new names, and new expositors, and new adherents.

Brown surmises that that Reformation Protestantism "could credibly claim to have recovered vital elements of the Gospel and thus be more in accord with the New Testament than Catholicism." Though, continuity and unity of a physical, purportedly apostolic church was supposedly lost, the Gospel was no longer smothered in a sea of sacerdotal ritual and works-righteousness. Europe, however, was fragmented as the success was only partial and the Inquisition violently suppressed Reform efforts in southern Europe. The Reformation was a multi-faceted protest not only against the corruption, and sacramental and liturgical excesses of the medieval church, but it was an affirmation of justification by faith in Pauline-Augustianian mode. Martin Luther characterized "Faith alone" as "the article upon which the church rises of falls." Contrary to Catholic straw man caricatures of Justification by Faith Alone, the doctrine does not entail a faith that is naked, fruitless and devoid of good works. The fruit of saving faith is good works, but good works are not the impetus for justification of the believer, but rather the meritous work of Christ, which is imputed to the believer through faith. Faith in Christ is the instrument of justification. Reformers Luther, Calvin, Beza, Tyndale, and Wycliffe, are all discussed. The Reformation was commensurate with the accords set in Nicaea and Chalcedon. Likewise, Wesley and Arminius are discussed as well. The advent of Arminianism unleashed what I call the Protestant Deformation, because it loses sight of the orthodox Reformation principles articulated by Calvin and Luther. Arminianism is simply semi-Pelagian Romanism stripped of its sacramental and liturgical excesses: both have the same naïve belief in a salvific power to man's will. Supposedly, the natural man can delineate between right and wrong, and choose the path to salvation. Both Arminianism and Romanism give considerable exaltation and glory to man for his salvation; Calvin and Luther being expositors of sovereign unmerited grace give ALL the glory to God. Brown's analysis on Arminianism is rather succinct though he accurately connects some of the early Arminians with the anti-trinitarian Socinians.

Harold O.J. Brown writes from the perspective of a fairly conservative Lutheran. Sometimes Brown is objective in his perspective, and other times I think his assertions are somewhat fanciful or ill conceived. Brown says, "Out of Calvin's rigor and consistency somehow came antitrinitarianism..." I am hard pressed as to why this statement was even made. I do not see how Brown can purport that a Calvin-like insistence of Scriptural consistency lead to the Unitarianism or Tritheism of the various sects in Poland. This is one case of a seriously bad play on words and a false casual connection. Does Scriptural consistency lead to Unitarianism? Let Brown answer that question. All things considered, Heresies is a fairly well developed, and for the most part objective look at heresies through the ages. Objectivity should coincide for orthodoxy and ascertaining the nature of orthodoxy in all its facets has buffeted the minds of theologians for centuries. And so much of church history is simply ascertaining the line between orthodox and heretical. This book is definitely worth reading for the Christian student of theology and church history, but my de rigueur confession is I never finished it. I also recommend The Story of _Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform_ by Roger E. Olson. (I give Heresies a 3.5/5.0 rating.)

Well done! This book is an excellent summary of church history in light of heresy. Dr. Brown does an admiral job of explaining the doctrine under attack, describing the heretical viewpoint, and then telling how that particular heresy was handled by the Church.

So much of the folderol and snake oil one sees in the church today would never have appeared if today's Christians had simply learned their Church history. Brown's focus on the heterodox and heretical can give you the screaming meemies when you bring it into your ordinary contemporary Christian bookstore.