St Nicholas: He Who Punches Heretics in the Face (and Gives Gifts to Children)

source
When President Teddy Roosevelt was a college student, he taught a Sunday School class for elementary school children. During this time, Roosevelt awarded a dollar to a boy in his Sunday School class for beating the snot out of a bully who tormented little girls. "You did exactly right," said Roosevelt with pride. However, the congregation disagreed. They immediately dismissed Roosevelt for teaching the "un-Christian" principle of laying the smack down on those who have it coming to them.
Well, if tradition is true, that little boy was also richly rewarded by Jolly Old Saint Nicholas since the good Saint Nick allegedly "h-slapped" ("heretic slapped") the heresiarch Arius. You see, Arius wrongly taught that Christ was not fully divine. Rather, Arius taught that Christ had been created by God the Father.
During the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea (AD 325), Arius was called upon to defend his position on the inferiority of Christ. Saint Nicholas just couldn't listen to all of Arius' nonsense and so he stood up and laid in to Arius with his fist.
The Emperor Constantine and the bishops present at the Council were alarmed by Nicholas' act of violence against Arius. They immediately stripped Nicholas of his office as a bishop by confiscating the two items that marked out a man as a Christian bishop: Nicholas' personal copy of the Gospels and his pallium (the vestment worn by all bishops in the East).
Now if that were the end of the story, we probably wouldn't know about Saint Nicholas, and our children wouldn't be asking him for presents. However, after Nicholas was deposed, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary visited Nicholas who was being held in a prison cell for his fist-fight with the heretic.
Our Lord Jesus Christ asked Saint Nicholas, "Why are you here?" Nicholas responded, "Because I love you, my Lord and my God."

Christ then presented Nicholas with his copy of the Gospels. Next, the Blessed Virgin vested Nicholas with his episcopal pallium, thus restoring him to his rank as a bishop.

The Rapture

I listen nearly every day to a local Evangelical radio personality who discusses news, politics, science and other topics from a "Christian perspective." I disagree with him around 85% of the time, but he's entertaining so I continue to listen. On Friday he interviewed a woman who had written a novel concerning the sorts of horrors that await those who are not spirited away in the "Rapture." They spoke--as Evangelicals do--as if the "Rapture" is a dogma of the Faith and is as certain to happen as the Second Coming itself.
Folks, I have news for you: the "Rapture" is not a dogma of the Faith. It is an idea that was invented less than two hundred years ago. You will find no mention of it in the Bible or in the writings of any of the Church Fathers.

The following is courtesy of Mystagogy (emphases and links are added):

By Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris

As I was driving one day I encountered a bumper sticker admonishing me:

“WARNING! In the event of Rapture, this car will be driverless.”

The strange belief in the Rapture teaches that some day (sooner rather than later), without warning, born-again Christians will begin to float up from the freeway, abandoned vehicles careening wildly. There will be airliners in the sky suddenly with no one at the controls! Presumably, God is removing these favored ones from earth to spare them the tribulation of the Anti-Christ which the rest of us will have to endure.
Unfortunately the Rapture has been promoted widely by the Left Behind series of books that have sold over 70 million copies.

The Rapture represents a radical misinterpretation of Scripture. I remember watching “Sixty Minutes” a year ago and was appalled to hear the announcer say that “the Rapture is an unmistakenly Christian doctrine”. It is not!

It is a serious distortion of Scripture.

It is astonishing that a belief so contrary to Scripture and the tradition of the Church could be propagated by so-called “Christians”.

According to the Bible and according to the belief not only of Orthodox Christians but also of the Roman Catholic and most Protestant mainline churches, the true Rapture will not be secret; it will be the great and very visible Second Coming of Jesus at the end of the world. That is the one and only “Rapture”. It will not be a separate, secret event but one that "every eye shall see" (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

The word rapture is not found in Scripture but hearkens to 1 Thess. 4:17 where St. Paul says that when the Lord comes again “we who are alive…shall be caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.”

This “being caught up…in the clouds” — arpagisometha in Greek - is translated by some as “raptured”. The word itself is not found in Orthodox theology.

The notion of a rapture in which Christ comes unseen to take believers away secretly, and only later comes back again for everyone else publicly—this whole teaching is quite novel. It was almost unheard of until John Nelson Darby formulated it in the 1800s as part of a new approach to the Bible, sometimes called “dispensationalism”.

The purpose of the “Rapture” is to protect the elect from the tribulations of the end times. Yet Jesus said nothing about sparing anyone from tribulation. In fact, He said, “In the world you have tribulation, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.”

Nowhere did Jesus ever say that He would return secretly to rapture the elect. Rather, He promised to be with His elect in all tribulations.

“Lo, I am with you always.” “I will never leave you or forsake you.” He even had something good to say about being persecuted: “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:10).

Those who espouse the Rapture claim that Matthew 24:40-41 refers clearly to the rapture of the just, “Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

The entire passage, however, refers to Christ’s second coming where He will judge the living and the dead and separate the just from the unjust.

Darby taught as dogma that when the Scriptures reveal that the Lord will reign on earth for a thousand years (Rev. 20:4), this figure is to be taken literally, rather than as a symbol for eternity as we believe. The Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemned as heresy this teaching which is called Chialiasmos (millenianism or 1000 years).

In fact, the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 A.D.) in which the essential truths of the Christian faith were defined never mention a rapture. Yet Evangelical Christians and Pentecostals keep using obscure passages of the Book of Revelation which purport to give a detailed timetable of what will happen at the end of the world, despite the fact that Jesus Himself warned that no man knows either the day or the hour when the Son of Man shall return.

A major problem with the Rapture is that it ends up teaching not two but three comings of Jesus — first His birth in Bethlehem; second, His secret coming to snatch away (rapture) the “born-again”; and third, His coming at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead and to reign in glory. Yet only two not three comings of Christ are mentioned in the Bible. We have the clearest definition of this in the Nicene Creed when we confess that “the Lord Jesus Christ…will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom will have no end…. I expect the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the ages to come.”

There is no mention of a “Rapture”.

As already stated, most Christians, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestants do not believe in the Rapture. In fact, one Protestant pastor, John L. Gray, summarized magnificently what we Orthodox and most other Christians believe about the Rapture when he wrote these remarkable words:

"Though many believe and teach this 'Pre-Tribulation Rapture' theory, they erroneously do so, because neither Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, nor any of the other writers of the Bible taught this. Nor did the early Church Fathers, nor any others for many hundreds of years…. Did you know that NONE of this was ever taught prior to 1812, and that all forms of Pre-Tribulation Rapture teaching were developed since that date? …. If I were to preach something, or believe something, supposedly from the Bible, but cannot find that ANYONE ELSE before 1812 ever believed it or taught it, I would seriously question that it is based on the Bible."

Thus the Rapture is foreign to the Bible and to the living tradition of the Church. It is what we call a heresy, a false teaching. False teachings, such as this, happen when people — like John Darby — believe that they have the right to interpret the Scriptures individually apart from the Living Body of Christ — the Church — where the Spirit of Truth abides and leads us to all truth.

I can think of no better words to conclude than those of Jesus when He speaks of the one and only “Rapture”, the Second Coming:

“Be on guard. Be alert! You do not know when that time will come…keep watch…if He comes suddenly, do not let Him find you sleeping. What I say to you, I say to everyone: Watch!” (Mark 13:32-37).

Triumph of Orthodoxy

In modern American culture, an "iconoclast" is someone who is celebrated as a "creative visionary," an innovator, a hero, a trailblazer; someone whose boldness and foresight we are to admire and emulate.

But, in Christianity an iconoclast is a heretic.

A controversy arose in the eighth century regarding the question of whether or not imagery was appropriate in Christian worship. Those who opposed the use of religious images were known as iconoclasts, which means "image smashers." This controvery stirred up so much trouble that the Church convened a council of bishops to settle the matter. They determined that the use of images is not only acceptable but necessary because, for one thing, it affirms the Incarnation.* They also anathematized those who reject the use of religious imagery. That is, they condemned their teaching as heresy.**

(Like other major heresies of the early Church, iconoclasm once again reared its head during the Protestant Reformation.)

The Church celebrates and reaffirms its use of holy images on the first Sunday of Lent (tomorrow), which is known as the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

The following video, which I boosted from the Pious Fabrications blog, provides a brief examination of holy icons and their use within the Orthodox devotional life.



For further reading:
Sunday of Orthodoxy (OrthodoxWiki)
Sunday of Orthodoxy (Antiochian Archdiocese)
The Sunday of Orthodoxy and the Current State of Affairs
Sunday of Orthodoxy (Glory to God for All Things blog)
Sermon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (Abp Averky)
Sermon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (Schmemann)
What is Orthodoxy? (orrologian blog)

* "...we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.

"We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence (ἀσπασμὸν καὶ τιμητικὴν προσκύνησιν), not indeed that true worship of faith (λατρείαν) which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented."

** "Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.

"This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith which hath made firm the whole world. Believing in one God, to be celebrated in Trinity, we salute the honourable images! Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who do not thus think, let them be driven far away from the Church. For we follow the most ancient legislation of the Catholic Church. We keep the laws of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or take anything away from the Catholic Church. We anathematize the introduced novelty of the revilers of Christians. We salute the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about idols. Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Catholic Church received idols." (The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nicaea)

First Ecumenical Council

On the seventh Sunday of Pascha, we commemorate the holy God-bearing Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council.

The Commemoration of the First Ecumenical Council has been celebrated by the Church of Christ from ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left the Church a great promise, "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18). Although the Church of Christ on earth will pass through difficult struggles with the Enemy of salvation, it will emerge victorious. The holy martyrs bore witness to the truth of the Savior's words, enduring suffering and death for confessing Christ, but the persecutor's sword is shattered by the Cross of Christ.

Persecution of Christians ceased during the fourth century, but heresies arose within the Church itself. One of the most pernicious of these heresies was Arianism. Arius, a priest of Alexandria, was a man of immense pride and ambition. In denying the divine nature of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, Arius falsely taught that the Savior is not consubstantial with the Father, but is only a created being.

A local Council, convened with Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria presiding, condemned the false teachings of Arius. However, Arius would not submit to the authority of the Church. He wrote to many bishops, denouncing the decrees of the local Council. He spread his false teaching throughout the East, receiving support from certain Eastern bishops.

Investigating these dissentions, the holy emperor Constantine (May 21) consulted Bishop Hosius of Cordova (Aug. 27), who assured him that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most fundamental dogma of Christ's Church, and so he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. In 325, 318 bishops representing Christian Churches from various lands gathered together at Nicea.

Among the assembled bishops were many confessors who had suffered during the persecutions, and who bore the marks of torture upon their bodies. Also participating in the Council were several great luminaries of the Church: St Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra in Lycia (December 6 and May 9), St Spyridon, Bishop of Tremithos (December 12), and others venerated by the Church as holy Fathers.

With Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria came his deacon, Athanasius (who later became Patriarch of Alexandria (May 2 and January 18). He is called "the Great," for he was a zealous champion for the purity of Orthodoxy. In the Sixth Ode of the Canon for today's Feast, he is referred to as "the thirteenth Apostle."

The emperor Constantine presided over the sessions of the Council. In his speech, responding to the welcome by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said, "God has helped me cast down the impious might of the persecutors, but more distressful for me than any blood spilled in battle is for a soldier, is the internal strife in the Church of God, for it is more ruinous."

Arius, with seventeen bishops among his supporters, remained arrogant, but his teaching was repudiated and he was excommunicated from the Church. In his speech, the holy deacon Athanasius conclusively refuted the blasphemous opinions of Arius. The heresiarch Arius is depicted in iconography sitting on Satan's knees, or in the mouth of the Beast of the Deep (Rev. 13).

The Fathers of the Council declined to accept a Symbol of Faith (Creed) proposed by the Arians. Instead, they affirmed the Orthodox Symbol of Faith. St Constantine asked the Council to insert into the text of the Symbol of Faith the word "consubstantial," which he had heard in the speeches of the bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this suggestion.

In the Nicean Creed, the holy Fathers set forth and confirmed the Apostolic teachings about Christ's divine nature. The heresy of Arius was exposed and repudiated as an error of haughty reason. After resolving this chief dogmatic question, the Council also issued Twelve Canons on questions of churchly administration and discipline. Also decided was the date for the celebration of Holy Pascha. By decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should not be celebrated by Christians on the same day with the Jewish Passover, but on the first Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox (which occured on March 22 in 325).

(from oca.org)

Mary, Part 3 - Theotokos

In April 428, a man named Nestorius became Archbishop of Constantinople, a position which was, and is, one of great honor and influence within the Church. During his tenure, he took issue with, and began to preach against, use of the title Theotokos (Θεοτόκος: "God bearer") for Mary, claiming that the divine and human natures of Christ were separate, and so Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος: "Christ bearer") was a more appropriate term.

Other Church leaders, including Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, rejected the teaching that Christ's natures were separate, and convened a Church council in Ephesus in 431 to define, once and for all, the proper understanding of this vital aspect of the Incarnation. They determined that while Christ did, in fact, have two natures, they existed together in hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις). Therefore, they reasoned, while Mary was certainly the mother of Christ, to call her simply Christotokos leaves too much room for error with regard to our understanding of Christ's Incarnation. Ultimately, the Church condemned Nestorius as a heretic and declared that Mary is, and shall be, properly referred to as Theotokos.

So, why didn't the Church just define Mary as Mήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Mother of God)? Because one can mother a child without necessarily bearing him. "Theotokos" actually refers to physical childbirth, while "Mother of God" implies nurturing and rearing. Mary certainly did raise and nurture Christ, but one can to that to an adopted child as well. To say Mary bore Christ leaves no room for doubt that Mary, a virgin, did in fact give birth to a child as prophesied, and that that child was, in fact, God.

Theotokos is a title that the Church has used for more than 1500 years, and that is, in fact, entirely consistent with Scripture (see Lk 1.43), and yet I never once heard it while I was a Protestant. Is there something objectionable about this title? The Church is very clear that it is not intended to imply that Mary is greater than, or equal to, God, or that she is the mother of the Christ's deity or of the Holy Trinity. The title Theotokos is not meant to elevate Mary, but to safeguard a proper understanding of the Incarnation. As Matthew Gallatin writes, "when you face the fact that Mary is Jesus' mother, you realize that what you call her must be entirely consistent with who you believe Jesus to be" (Thirsting for God, p.160).

If the Church felt, and has taught for more than fifteen centuries, that calling Mary Theotokos was necessary in order to affirm the doctrine of the Incarnation, what reason could I have to ignore or reject it? And could I do so and truly hope to affirm the Incarnation myself?

The Mother of God

Article from OrthodoxWiki

The Theotokos

The Councils

For as long as I can remember, I have believed that the Trinity is three distinct persons in one divine essence, rather than three gods or three personalities or functions of God.
But if anyone had asked me to point to the Bible verse or verses that spell out this precise understanding of God, I would have been at a loss. In fact, there is no place in the Bible that actually does specifically define the Trinity in this way. Nor for that matter is there to my knowledge anywhere in the Bible that explicitly lays out the belief that Christ is fully human and fully divine.
Rather these doctrines, and many others, were defined by the Church through a series of seven churchwide, or “ecumenical,” (from οἰκουμένη, meaning "the inhabited world") councils during the first eight centuries. The purpose of the councils was to condemn heresy, not to provide an exhaustive explanation of Christian Doctrine. As Clark Carlson writes in his book The Truth,

All early conciliar definitions of dogma were the response to specific heresies. The Church defined the doctrine of the Trinity in response to Arianism and Eunomianism, and even then the Church never pretended to define the "whole truth" about the mystery of the Trinity. Similarly, the Christological definitions of the later councils were occasioned by the heresies of Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and Iconoclasm. Nowhere did the Fathers of these councils claim to have exhausted the "whole truth" about the mystery of the Incarnation. These definitions never ever presumed to explain these mysteries, but to exclude false opinions. They were not so much positive statements as negative ones (p.163)

1. First Council of Nicaea:
Held in A.D. 325 in Nicaea, Asia Minor; Convened by the Emperor Constantine the Great; Attended by 318 bishops.

Condemned Arianism and attempted to standardize Easter.

Adopted the original Nicene Creed, devising the term homoousios (from the Greek όμού meaning “same” and ουσία meaning “essence or being”) to describe Christ’s relationship to the Father (contrary to homoiousios: from όμοιος meaning “similar” and ουσία meaning “essence or being.”)

This and all subsequent councils are not recognized by nontrinitarian churches: Arians, Unitarians, Latter-day Saints and members of other Mormon denominations, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Key figures:
Alexander of Constantinople, bishop
Eusebius of Caesarea, historian
Athanasius of Alexandria, theologian
Arius of Alexandria, priest

2. First Council of Constantinople:
Held in A.D. 381 in Constantinople, Asia Minor; Convened by the Emperor Theodosius the Great; Attended by 150 bishops.

Condemned Macedonianism and Apollinarianism; Defined the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; decreed that there was one God in three persons.

Revised the Nicene Creed into the present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council.

Key figures:
Basil of Caesarea, bishop and theologian
Gregory of Nyssa, bishop and theologian
Gregory of Nazianzus, bishop and theologian
Macedonius I of Constantinople, bishop
Apollinaris of Laodicea, bishop

3. First Council of Ephesus:
Held in A.D. 431 in Ephesus, Asia Minor; Convened by the Emperor Theodosius II (grandson of Theodosius the Great); Attended by 200 bishops.

Condemned Nestorianism; proclaimed that Jesus was fully divine from conception, thus naming the Virgin Mary the Theotokos (Greek Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer" or more commonly "Mother of God"); Declared that Jesus Christ is one person, not two separate "people": the Man, Jesus Christ and the Son of God, complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body.

Affirmed the text of the "Creed" decreed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils to be complete and forbade any addition or deletion.

This and all following councils are not recognized by the Assyrian Church of the East.

Key figures:
Cyril of Alexandria, bishop
John Chrysostom, bishop
Nestorius of Constantinople, bishop

4. Council of Chalcedon:
Held in A.D. 451 in Chalcedon near Constantinople; Convened by the Emperor Marcian; Attended by 630 bishops.

Condemned the doctrine of monophysitism; described and delineated the "Hypostatic Union" and affirmed the two natures of Christ: human and divine.

Adopted the Chalcedonian Creed.

Recognized Constantinople as the “New Rome” and granted Jerusalem the fifth position of honor within the “Pentarchy”: 1) Rome, 2) Constantinope, 3) Alexandria, 4) Antioch, 5) Jerusalem.

This and all following councils are not recognized by the Oriental Orthodox.

Key figure:
Leo I of Rome, bishop

5. Second Council of Constantinople:
Held in A.D. 553 in Constantinople; Convened by the Emperor Justinian the Great; Attended by 165 bishops.

Reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings, decreed Theopaschite Formula (“God suffered in the flesh”).

Key figures:
Eutychius of Constantinople, bishop
Vigilius of Rome, bishop

6. Third Council of Constantinople:
Held in A.D. 680 in Constantinople; Convened by the Emperor Constantine IV; Attended by 170 bishops.

Condemned monothelitism, affirmed that Christ had both human and divine wills, that He acted as God only: that His divine will made the decisions but His human will carried them out.

Key figure:
Maximus the Confessor, theologian

7. Second Council of Nicaea:
Held in A.D. 787 in Nicaea; Convened by the Empress Irene; Attended by 367 bishops.

Condemned iconoclasm, upheld the display and veneration of icons.

Addressed the broader issues of the character of Christ's human nature, the Christian attitude toward matter, and the true meaning of Christian redemption and the salvation of the entire material universe.

Key figures:
Tarasios of Constantinople, bishop
John of Damascus, theologian and hymnographer

For a more thorough treatment of these councils, I highly recommend this excellent series of lectures.

The Heresies

The Apostle Paul warned us that the Church would be attacked by false teachings, or heresies:

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Tim 4.3-4)

Heresy (from the Greek word αιρεσις, which is a derivative of αιρεομαι, meaning "to choose") always comes from within the Church, never from without. It is not simply a difference of opinion, but is a corruption or perversion of correct (i.e. orthodox) teaching. Islam, for example, which rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, is not a heresy; it’s an entirely different religion. However, a Christian doctrine that rejects the Trinity is a heresy.

Heresy is not the same as apostasy, which is a rejection of the Christian faith entirely.

The following are a few of the major heresies that the Church has confronted over the centuries:

The Judaizers (1st Century)
Taught that one must become a Jew in order to be a Christian (Acts 15.1). The majority of the first Christians were Jews, and early Christianity itself was considered to be a part of Judaism. As Gentiles (non-Jews) sought conversion, a conflict arose concerning what was required of them in order to become Christians.
The Church declared that Gentiles may become Christians without being required to keep the Law of Moses. Paul vigorously defended this teaching in his epistles to the churches in areas where the Judaizers’ heresy had spread, such as Rome (3.27-31), Philipi (3.2-4), and Galatia (2.11-21).
Condemned by the Council of Jerusalem, A.D. 50

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
From the Greek γνώσις meaning “knowledge.” Taught that matter is evil and that salvation is achieved through a cosmic process in which one gains ever deeper spiritual insights.
Gnosticism rejected the Incarnation and contradicted the scriptural teaching that everything God created is “very good” (Gen 1.31).
They also believed in divine beings, known as “æons,” who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God, and that the lowest of these æons, the one with whom men had contact, was Jesus Christ.
Docetism, from the Greek δοκέω meaning “to seem,” was a subcategory of Gnosticism that believed Christ was a purely spiritual being and only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die.
Condemned in one form or another by every Church council

Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
Also called Modalism and Monarchianism, this heresy taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not three distinct persons, but three aspects or “modes” of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Condemned by the First Council of Constantinople, 381

Arianism (4th Century)
Arius, a priest from Alexandria, denied the divinity of Christ and taught that, if Jesus was born, then there must have been a time when He did not exist; if Jesus became divine, then there was a time when He was not divine. By citing Scripture and dressing his heresy in orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, Arius was able to muster the support of many bishops.
Condemned by the First Council of Nicaea, 325

Macedonianism (4th Century)
Named for Bishop Macedonius I of Constantinople, who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
Condemned by the First Council of Constantinople, 381

Apollinarianism (4th Century)
Also called Apollinarism. A belief taught by Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, that Jesus had a human body, but a divine soul.
Condemned by the First Council of Constantinople, 381

Donatism (4th Century)
Named for Donatus Magnus, whose followers refused to accept the sacraments and spiritual authority of the priests and bishops who had fallen away from the faith during the Roman persecution.
Condemned by the Synod of Arles, 314; and the Council of Carthage, 411

Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius, a British theologian, taught that we can become personally righteous by imitating Christ without the need of God’s grace. He believed that man is born morally neutral and can achieve salvation through his own efforts, and that the purpose of God’s grace is merely to make easier the otherwise difficult task of pursuing righteousness.
Condemned by the Council of Ephesus, 431

Nestorianism (5th Century)
Named for Archbishop Nestorius of Constantinople, who taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God. Nestorius claimed that she bore only Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the title Christotokos (Greek Χριστοτόκος "Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ"). He taught that Christ was a vessel for divinity but not Himself divine.
Condemned by the Council of Ephesus, 431

Monophysitism (5th Century)
Originating as a reaction to Nestorianism, monophysitism (from μόνος “one” and φυσις “nature”) went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature: a fusion of human and divine elements.
Condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, 451

Monothelitism (7th Century)
A misguided attempt to appease the non-Chalcedonian churches, monothelitism (from μόνoς “one” and θέληση “will”) taught that Jesus Christ had two natures but only one will.
Condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, 680

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy, driven by a misinterpretation of the Second Commandment and propogated by a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally "icon smashers"), taught that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints.
Condemned by the Second Council of Nicaea, 787