In Book 7 of his History of the Church, Eusebius discusses several figures whom he regarded as heretics, among them Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and Novatian (whom he calls Novatus). Do you agree with Eusebius' evaluation of these men? Are they truly heretics? If so, is false doctrine the central problem, or does something else seem to be involved? What techniques does the church seem to be using in dealing with the divisions caused by such men? Does the "surgery" in each case seem successful or not?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Eusebius on Heretics and Heresy (Book VII)
In Book 7 of his History of the Church, Eusebius discusses several figures whom he regarded as heretics, among them Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, and Novatian (whom he calls Novatus). Do you agree with Eusebius' evaluation of these men? Are they truly heretics? If so, is false doctrine the central problem, or does something else seem to be involved? What techniques does the church seem to be using in dealing with the divisions caused by such men? Does the "surgery" in each case seem successful or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Eventually this book talks about the Revelation of John and how it was almost considered heretical. One reason for not considering it to be heretical was that it was held in such high esteem. That seems like an unfair standard. What if there were other books that were actually heretical but were kept around because people liked them? It was kept around because it was decided that it could not be understood in a literal sense. It seems to me that different works and different people were given different standards to prove their non heretical stances. I'm certain that the most important books were saved and preserved as scripture. But I cannot make a decision regarding whether or not heretics were dealt with correctly or given unfair standards to prove their non heretic status. -Zach Kuhlman
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach that it is hard to tell if someone is truly a heretic or not. Back in the time of Eusebius, there weren't many records available for use in his church history book. I feel that this applied to religious figures, including those Eusebius believed were heretics. I feel that false doctrine wasn't the central problem, I believe it was also the lack of records available to make a firm decision; because of this, Eusebius could be jumping to conclusions without having the evidence to back it up.
ReplyDelete-Melinda Quade
Heresy is a difficult thing to pin point, because it is hard to tell if a person is guilty of it or not. Only they know whether something happened or not. Jesus was called a heretic many times and He was the one who knew everything. People have their own interpretations of things and many different Christian doctrines are ambiguous; meaning they can be understood in many different ways. Heresy is difficult to understand and difficult to accuse someone of. However when it eventually becomes apparent most times it has to do with doctrinal issues. -Kelly Longden
ReplyDeleteI can agree with what the previous bloggers are saying. It can sometimes be difficult to determine what is heresy and what isn't. Certainly there are an abundant amount of denominations that have different doctrine, but in a time when the standard was still being decided, it may have been easier to determine what was heretical with fewer branches of Christian theology.
ReplyDeleteIn the time of Paul of Samosata, it was easy to tell he was going against the grain. He used bribery to maintain a following, allowed others to claim he was angelic, and amongst other corrupt things, he openly expressed his belief that Jesus was just a man.
Other heretics were noted to use profanity and blasphem while baptizing, and others still disputed the Holy Spirit.
I think that rebaptizing those led astray is a much more merciful way in dealing with heresy than purging by fire.
~Aaron Johnston
At the time Eusebius is writing about, the church was still in its beginning stages, so a lot of its rules and doctrines were still being fleshed out. that said, whether or not something was heretical is not entirely clear, it could just as well be gospel at this point. in a way, the accusers of heresy could just as easily been guilty of it themselves, depending on your perspective. some of the reasons the people with today's doctrine made it rather than others, probably had something to do with their political ties, and how powerful their friends were. -Sean M.
ReplyDeleteOverall, the accusations of those other people being called heretics are questionable. For instance, they might have had a different opinion on how they practice their faith, which would make others believe that they are heretics. But believing differently should not be a crime since they would still be believing in God. Another fact would be, where is the proof? I mean, did Eusebius actually see what these so called 'heretics' were doing or was he going off of what other people were telling him from what they saw. Book 7 here is pretty much like reading a very old gossip chapter.
ReplyDelete-Cheryl Hansen
There are a lot of interesting posts on this blog. I agree with some of the early posts about how heresy is hard to detect in the early church because they didn't have all the documents that we possess today, and that is how it took root I imagine. The people probably didn't know what to think of false prophets, but the Bible warns that there will be many before Christ returns.
ReplyDeletePaul of Samosata is also an interesting case. He made it so blatantly obvious that he was a heretic, and the church answered by excommunicating him and those who would not repent. That is a great way to cut the evil from among you. Being a part of the church was a bigger deal back then than it is now. I hope Paul got the message and turned from his ways.
Another thing I found worth noting was the argument of baptism. This is still a problem today. In fact, our Bible study has often gone back and argued all the different beliefs associated with baptism and is it okay to be baptized twice? This chapter somewhat covered that last question which was really cool.
It seams to me that it is hard to accuse someone of being a heretic. These people just looked at the faith differently than everyone wants them to and some of them like Paul of Somosata was excommunicated for his different views. In some ways it almost makes sense for the reason that these people could cause major division in the church which is never a good thing. I don't know if i agree with how it was all handled but I do agree something had to be done.
ReplyDeleteDetecting herercy would have been a difficult task in the Early Church. It would have taken someone who knew the scripture inside and out and with the texts so scarce and in an unmanageable order this would have been a difficult task. Even then it was only based on the word of that person that the account would be true, and people should not be trusted to think for others. The ex communication of Paul of Somosata may seem harsh, but considering the church was fairly new to handling these problems may have been appropriate in showing those curious in the mysteries that the church was not going to allow such things to happen. He also was not very trustworthy and any defense for Paul I feel would be from someone so convinced in his teaching. Eusebius decision may have been true, but he is only going based on what he has read and heard I feel. This second hand account we are given makes it very difficult to make a decision whether or not these people were actually guilty of being heretics and that perhaps were not treated fairly in that regard.
ReplyDelete- Zack Krage
The problem of heretics was a problem which has been around since the very beginning. Jude addressed heresy in his letter, and Revelation goes into detail about the heretical signs of the end times. In reference to what Revelation says, the people of the early church thought they were living in the end times and rightly so. The techniques they used were based on the strategies proposed by Jude. This is a problem that not only began very early in the church, but is something that threatens the church throughout all centuries and will most certainly be an issue in the future. This is exactly the reason I see a greater and greater need for the church to have good leaders, but also a congregation who is very grounded in what the Bible teaches.
ReplyDelete