Joshua Duffy Professor Peter Koritansky Religious Studies 376 December 2011

Thomas Aquinas & Heresy

a discussion regarding his Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 11

An acquaintance of mine has done missionary work in Pakistan. I met him in Toronto while visiting a good friend. Having done foreign missions work in various countries and cultures around the world myself, I was interested to hear his view on a couple of questions I had been contemplating. I had seen interesting things in my times in Mozambique, Russia, and Cambodia; similar trends which I wondered held true in Pakistan as well. Pakistan is overwhelmingly Muslim with reports showing that ninety-five percent of the population adhere to that religion.1 The areas I had previously ministered in were mainly tribal, Islamic, Orthodox, or Buddhist. I asked him, With Pakistan being overwhelmingly Muslim, how many, in your opinion, would you actually say are dedicated, practicing Muslims? His answer was interesting. He said, based on his experiences, that probably about five percent were actually dedicated and devoted their life to daily living out their beliefs. Most were content to profess one thing but practice another.
1

Pakistan. Central Intelligence Agency: The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/geos/pk.html. (Accessed December 8, 2011).

I could relate. Wherever I travel in the world I see the same thing, which is, people living for themselves no matter which religion they profess, whether it is Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism. It has become my opinion that the great domineering religion prevalent in all cultures and countries across the world today is personal humanism. Profession aside, faith seems rather insignificant to the great majority in times of important decision making or personal crisis. In such a world as this, there is no heresy, because much of that world believes heresy is a product of institutional Christianity, intended to keep the ignorant layman in submission and complacent. A society wherein heresy is viewed as a capital offence is one that holds ultimate (and eternal) power over its subjects. To reject the orthodox position is to attack not only the church but the state as well. Capital punishment becomes the consequence for capital offence. Times certainly have changed. Christendom has been replaced with humanism. With the rise of Evangelicalism, orthodoxy has become subjective and heresy, normative. The church has realized that burning witches and torturing those who disagree with us may not be the most faithful way of testifying to the love of God... shed abroad in our hearts.2 The concept of truth is hotly contested in our age. It is seen as relative and anything but absolute. Truth and faith are viewed as oxymorons. How can Christians credibly claim to have the truth about such an abstract idea as God amidst the overwhelming tide of popular opinion? When asked what their thoughts are regarding Christians and the church, many respond, Hypocrites. Its hard to argue with their observations. A great deal of the good Christianity has done throughout the ages is undermined by centuries of abuse and persecution, and by greedy televangelists on cable television lining their pockets with the cash of their followers. Is humility still possible when absolute truth is proclaimed? How can you believe that you philosophically have the truth and also be tolerant of others? In fidelity to that truth, will you not seek to impose
2

King James Version. Romans 5:5. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:5&version=KJV

it on everyone that you meet?3 The formation of effective answers to these questions is ongoing as the church has not answered them well in the past, or the present for that matter. In the meantime society has seemed to give up on religion as a way of finding God. Many consider themselves spiritual, not religious. Like Pelagius they think that they can atone for the impurities of the world by their good deeds; that they can find salvation apart from the cross of Christ. Their true religion is practical in nature and not theological, one is free to philosophize about Gods nature4 apart from the historical revelation of Jesus as revealed by the apostolic witness in the New Testament. Heresy is condemned as irrelevant, concerning only those who hold similar beliefs; really, there is no real heresy (or orthodoxy), only heresy within or heresy for... particular groups within a religious tradition.5 It may be noted that in agnosticism too, there is an orthodoxy.6 But would the agnostics brand a Christian as a heretic? For those outside the Christian faith can heresy be appropriated? It seems to make as much sense as calling you are a heretic because you do not hold to the same opinion I do about my beloved Philadelphia Flyers.7 While I may discuss with sceptics why I think the Flyers are

Knasas, John, F.X. Aquinas on Heretics and Jews. Soter: Religijos Mokslo Zurnalas (Journal of Religious Science) 14, no. 42 (2004): 165. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa0001:J.04~2004~ISSN_1392-7450.N_14_42.PG_165-174/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC
4

Strawser, Micheal. A Panegyric on Spinoza and Derrida: Saintly Jewish Heretics Striving Towards a Pure Religion. Florida Philosophical Review: The Journal of the Florida Philosophical Association 8, no. 1 (2008): 110. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/fpr/files/FPR-8_1.pdf.
5

Mosteller, Tim. On the Epistemic Possibility of Blasphemy, Heresy, and Freedom of Speech. Florida Philosophical Review: The Journal of the Florida Philosophical Association 8, no. 1 (2008): 24. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/fpr/files/FPR-8_1.pdf.
6 7

Mosteller 27 Olen, Peter. Now, is that really Blasphemy? Heretical Meaning and Belief. Florida Philosophical Review: The Journal of the Florida Philosophical Association 8, no. 1 (2008): 36. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://philosophy.cah.ucf.edu/fpr/files/FPR-8_1.pdf.

the team to cheer for, I doubt I would go so far as to label one heretical or unorthodox for not holding to my beliefs in this area. For everyone is orthodox to himself.8 All what has been said so far begs the questions: Is the concept of heresy still valid in our ever-increasing secular culture? Is there even such a thing as heresy today? Is it all a bunch of religious nonsense? In this essay we will contend with the aforementioned notions, seeking answers as those who think those answers could be relevant and meaningful to society, individually and as a whole. As with just about any ecclesiological inquiry, neglecting the work of Thomas Aquinas would render the conclusion incomplete. Although he wrote nearly eight hundred years ago, his influence is still widespread within the Christian faith whether we recognize it or not. It is a great testament to this man that his writings are still so esteemed, and his benefit to the faith can not be overstated. In this essay on heresy I will limit myself to Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 11, articles 1 - 4. It is within this framework that we will examine four main questions pertaining to heresy.

1. Whether heresy is a species of unbelief? 2. Whether heresy is properly about matters of faith? 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated? 4. Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?9

Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. McMaster University. 3. http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf

9

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second Part of the Second Part. Question 11. Articles 1-4 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm

We will look at the doctrine Aquinas himself teaches on these questions, responses from critics and supporters, and finally, I myself, as an Evangelical (or post-Evangelical, as some might say), will subject my opinion into the discussion as well. I will undoubtedly try to appropriate this doctrine into the culture of today, as I am far more capable to judge our current society, based on my own experiences and opinions, rather than the one Aquinas existed in. Although his teaching may be somewhat outdated given the fact we live eight hundred years in the future, it is still no doubt influential and worthy to be engaged.

Article 1. Whether heresy is a species of unbelief?10 To begin, it is objected that heresy would be a species of unbelief. Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others. Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief. To argue theologically that heresy does not stem from pride would be a tough position to defend. The original sin usually attributed to Eve and Adam in the Garden of Eden11 is generally thought of to have taken place millions, perhaps billions, of years before the Biblical account of human creation.12 Lucifer is attributed with bringing sin into existence; an unfortunate consequence of the endowment of free-choice. Although it is debated, the main Scriptural references believed to describe this act are in Isaiah 14:12-21 and Ezekiel 28:11-19. They paint an ugly picture of what happens when one thinks too highly of themselves and too lowly of God. The story revolves around the notion that Lucifer wanted more authority than God gave him, and
10

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second Part of the Second Part. Question 11. Article 1. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article1. All subsequent references to Article 1 in this section will use this reference. 11 Genesis 3:1-6
12

Genesis 1:26-27

in turn he rebelled. Before we put all the blame on Lucifer, we should realize that even though the totality of his act affects each and every human, we are responsible to resist sin13 in all its forms. Aquinas then says that heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief. The reason heresy is a form of pride is that it suggests that it knows better than what I term the orthodox consensus, or the majority opinion. Influential emergent pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Rob Bell, issued a book this past March entitled Love Wins14 in which he suggested that in the end Gods love will indeed, win. As long as it may take, he proposed, even in the furthest depths of hell, Gods love will be available to melt the sinners heart and an opportunity for reconciliation presented. One of the reasons he expresses this universalistic view of salvation is that he claims throughout church history there have been influential Christians who have held this view. What he neglects to mention is this doctrine has always been held as unorthodox and not held be the majority. It has been a minority position never accepted by the whole of the church. His book has largely been condemned as heretical by evangelical Christianity (especially by the Reformed movement) but within the splintered sect of Protestantism that branding seems to mean little or nothing. Bell calls into question our whole understanding of the Gospel and Gods unconditional love. As article 1 here suggests, Bell is opposing the truth on which faith is founded, which is thereby unbelief in what has been established by the orthodox consensus. What are the reasons for doing such a thing?

13

James 4:7 Bell, Rob. Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. New York: HarperCollins, 2011.
14

Aquinas says that there are two ways people may oppose the teachings of Christ. Firstly, Jews, pagans, and other unbelievers have an evil will, unwilling to assent to Christ. Secondly, one may intend to follow Christs teachings but become convinced that their own suggestions are better than what has been handed down by the apostles through the church. Aquinas concludes that heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. Put another way, Christians who promote that which is not accepted by the majority would be classified as heretical. I used to be angry at the Bible, even after becoming a Christian. I wondered why I, a Spirit-filled believer, could not speak with the same level of authority as the writers of Scripture did. If I were a partaker of the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead15 just as much as any other sinner, why did I have so much less authority. When I started reading about the formation of the Canon and two influential figures behind the process (Marcion and Montanus) I realized that the canonized New Testament was not meant to hinder my hearing from God and speaking for Him, but was meant to enhance my discernment, thereby making me more sensitive to the Holy Spirits voice. Not that I am implying we can speak with the same level of authority as James or Paul did, but that we can hear from God about a specific situation in our own life, or someone elses, and have confirmation that it was indeed inspired. The canonized New Testament is meant to keep me from error, or heresy, as I learn to develop my sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. By usurping the authority of what was acknowledged as inspired apostolic teachings I was, in effect, saying that I knew better than those who walked with, were taught by, and travelled with Jesus and those who knew about Him from firsthand sources.

15

Romans 8:11. New International Version. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom %208:11&version=NIV

Scripture is a measuring rod, meant to keep us within a framework of orthodoxy. To Paul and the apostolic witness, heresy and paganism were not simply a matter of false beliefs but also the source of false inspirations.16 When false inspirations grow in someone who has a great gift of charisma the resulting devastation can be great. The negative aspect of the church throughout the centuries can only be reconciled when we believe that they have honestly had the eternal benefits of the world in mind, no matter how distorted the outworking of this seemed to get. When unorthodoxy is given a place of influence though, the result in this world and the next can be crippling. The reason being is that which Aquinas has just discussed; that they are following their own suggestions or illusions and transgressing the bounds of what is considered orthodoxy. Jim Jones (founder and leader of the Peoples Temple), David Koresh (selfproclaimed prophet in the Branch Davidians), and Joseph Kony (head of the Lords Resistance Army) in Uganda are three extreme examples of just that. It is one thing to believe in Santa Claus apart from the historical Nicolaus of Myra, but it is another thing entirely to believe Jesus has revealed to you secret teachings that are contradictory to what was taught to the disciples and apostles. Human beings are notoriously good at turning their attention away from truths they do not want to hear and even deceiving themselves into believing what they once knew to be false. The unfortunate by-product of freedom is a capacity for perversity.17 The original sin of pride is unfortunately still largely responsible for the deception of most of humanity. As was written almost two thousand years ago still holds true today, The god of this age has blinded the minds

16

Munson, Thomas, N. The Charismatics: A Philosophical Perspective. Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture 10 (1975): 88.
17

Kaye, Sharon. Theres no such Thing as Heresy and its a Good Thing Too: William of Ockham on Freedom of Speech. Journal of Political Philosophy 6, no. 1 (1998): 44. Accessed December 13, 2011. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.rlproxy.upei.ca/doi/10.1111/1467-9760.00045/pdf

of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.18 In closing article one, we answer the question: Is heresy a species of unbelief? Aquinas says it is, and I would agree.

Article 2. Whether heresy is properly about matters of faith?19 This is a topic that we have already touched on briefly. Is heresy exclusively Christian, or are there Muslim heretics, or Jewish heretics, or Pharisaical heretics? Aquinas suggests in Reply to Objection 1 that there are Jewish and Pharisaical heretics but does not exert any effort expounding on the specifics of such a person. This should not be surprising because heresy within the Jewish tradition is not the focus of Aquinas teaching here. The focus of the Summa Theologica is the church of Christ. There would likely be a time for discussing heresy within Judaism but here is not the place for it. Objectors to the idea that heresy is about matters proper to the Christian faith quote St. Jerome, who wrote that an exposition of the Scriptures without the aid of the Holy Spirit would be heretical, even if that person doing the expository is part of the church. This is what I see as an unfortunate problem with Biblical study done by those with a minimal amount of education. Without a dependence on the Holy Spirit (and the proper theological background, I would argue) when interpreting the Scriptures, we can too easily distort them into caricatures of what they intend, twisting them into what we think they say rather than what they actually mean. In
18

NIV. 2 Corinthians 4:4. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor%204:4&version=NIV

19

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second Part of the Second Part. Question 11. Article 2. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article2. All subsequent references to Article 2 in this section will use this reference.

ignorance, we sometimes hold onto biases rather than truth, not willing to give up our preferences in the light of accurate scholarship. Todays evangelical prosperity gospel is a perfect example of this. Adherents of this prosperity gospel teach that Gods greatest desire is that we would prosper in our finances, our relationships, and our health in this life. Quoting Scriptures such as the LORD your God will set you high above the nations of the earth... You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the country... blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out... enemies who rise up against you will be defeated... blessing on your barns and everything you put your hand to... The LORD will grant you abundant prosperity... The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of His bounty... the LORD will make you the head, not the tail;20 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich;21 I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along22 to give but a sample, and conveniently avoiding Biblical passages such as We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,23 and Jesus encounter with the rich young ruler,24 prosperity preachers present a gospel which is unbalanced and potentially harmful in a Christians life. They magnify one spectrum of Scripture at the expense of another. It is incredibly important to avoid extremes when formulating doctrine. This would be an example where one, within the faith, taught and endorsed views that were anything but commonplace in the majority of Christendom. What do we do in this day and age when those under the same banner of faith differ on doctrinal issues?

20 21

NIV. Deuteronomy 28:1-13. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deu%2028:1-13&version=NIV NIV. 2 Corinthians 8:9. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20cor%208:9&version=NIV 22 NIV. 3 John 1:2. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%201:2&version=NIV 23 NIV. Acts 14:22. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2014:22&version=NIV 24 Matthew 19:16-23

10

Early church theologians Jerome and Augustine differed on the opinion of whether legal observances should be kept or not. Would this not be an instance of heresy? The response sheds much light on clarifying the churchs position on differences of opinion versus complete heresy. In Reply to Objection 3 Aquinas lays out a succinct answer to this question. He says that if someone has a differing opinion than what the church teaches and is willing, and able, to defend it without obstinate fervor, after searching the matter out carefully, being willing to receive correction if necessary, then such a position is not in contradiction with the teachings of the church. Furthermore, certain theologians can disagree about open-handed matters, such as that between which Jerome and Augustine differed, without crossing over into the realm of error. A good example would be the Roman Catholic teaching on the assumption of Mary. A dogmatic decree teaches that Mary ascended to heavenly glory, body and soul, at the end of her life. Catholics are not advised to add to or subtract from this teaching. What is not defined is whether Mary ascended before or after her actual death; that is up for discussion. I can be fully within the bounds of orthodoxy by either believing Mary ascended before her bodily death, or after. It would be unorthodox however to suggest she did not ascend at all. By open-handed matters I refer to those teachings which are open for questioning and discussion within historic Christianity, such as speaking in tongues, the rapture, and who wrote Hebrews! Closed-handed matters would refer to non-negotiable doctrine such as God as Trinity, salvation by grace not works, and Jesus being both God and man. The prosperity gospel, as mentioned above, although far from orthodox, would hardly keep one from attaining salvation if they were orthodox in the closed-hand matters. The danger comes when we focus on the peripheral doctrine, neglecting and eventually forgetting the central teachings which are instrumental to the assurance of salvation.

11

That being said, the question still stands: Is heresy properly about matters of the Christian faith? According to John Locke, to say that the orthodox church judge what is in error or heretical is to say just nothing at all. For every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical. For whatsoever any church believes, it believes to be true and the contrary unto those things it pronounce; to be error.25 In the thirteenth century I would indeed say that heresy was a matter of the Christian faith as it was interwoven throughout all aspects of society. Times have changed drastically though and I no longer think we can make that claim. Christianity has lost its influence and society considers the church to be of unimportance on the worlds stage. People are proud to be a heretic today, suggesting that faith is subservient to reason. Society seems content to let Christians settle their own issues as long as those issues stay within the church. Therefore, to answer this question, Aquinas says it is, but leaves room to elaborate about this question elsewhere. I, though, do not believe that heresy is properly about matters of Christian faith alone, although I do see it as being limited to the sphere of the sacred, as the matter of disagreeing over the preference of ones favourite hockey team does not immediately bring the aspect of the Divine into it, no matter how many games the Leafs win this season, and heresy pertains to things sacred or Divine, be they Christian or pagan.

Article 3. Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?26 If one were so inclined to agree thus far, heresy would be labelled a product of pride, not limited to the Christian faith, but within the borders of the sacred or Divine.
25

Locke 13

26

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second Part of the Second Part. Question 11. Article 3. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3. All subsequent references to Article 3 in this section will use this reference.

12

Now, reasoning that there are indeed heretics, whether the notion of them is acknowledged by the church or not, should we tolerate them? This has been a question I have asked myself for many years. How to treat those whom I view as heretical? I have been on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding this question and I am currently on the love them side right now, as opposed to the judge them side, but lets examine what Thomas Aquinas has to say before we make up our minds too hastily. Aquinas leans toward the opinion of the apostle Pauls in his epistle to Titus, chapter 3, verses 10 and 11: Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.27 Aquinas views the heretic as one who is the corruptor of souls and thereby, worthy of death. Those who commit crimes against the flesh are bad, but those who commit crimes against the spirit are much worse. The churchs main responsibility is the welfare of the soul, not the body. By tolerating a single person who is advocating divisive doctrine in the name of love, many others could be on the damning end of their doctrine. In this case, the needs of the many are held in higher regard than the needs of the few. Aquinas quotes Jeromes exposition of Galatians 5:9, Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame. This is indeed the risk with loving the heretic to conversion. How long will it take? And how much damage will they do in the meantime? In a Scriptural objection to this view are Pauls words to Timothy; the Lords servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents
27

NIV. Titus 3:10-11. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=titus%203:10-11&version=NIV

13

must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.28 On one hand we have Paul saying that after two times a heretic should be expelled, and on the other, he says that we should be ever patient with those in error that perhaps God may open their eyes to the truth of the gospel. What are we to make of this? Could this be a case where the doctrine of Paul developed over a certain period of time, such as it did concerning marriage?29 It is doubtful because of the short span of time between these letters. Paul also had some interesting experiences in Ephesus (where Timothy was pastoring) such as immediately filling a dozen of Apollos disciples with the Spirit upon his arrival; arguing for months in the synagogue; teaching nearly everyone in Asia in the span of two years; performing unorthodox miracles, signs and wonders; making himself abundantly know to the demonic powers in the area; helping spark a huge regional revival; almost putting Artemis (or Diana) out of business; and inciting a riot!30 He later exhorted the elders of the church in Ephesus to Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!31 This was the spiritual atmosphere that Timothy was inheriting! And still Paul exhorts him to be gracious and gentle with those who persist in error. We must not get dogmatic about doctrine when two sides are presented. I think it would be well within the bounds of apostolic orthodoxy to ask Holy Spirit what we were to do in each
28 29

NIV. 2 Timothy 2:24-25. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%202:24-25&version=NIV compare 1 Corinthians 7 with Ephesians 5:21-32. Corinthians is generally believed to be about eight years before Ephesians. 30 Acts 19 31 NIV. Acts 20:28-31. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2020:28-31&version=NIV

14

and every case; otherwise we would be in danger of going against sacred Scripture one way or the other. In one instance the Spirit might advise a more tolerant approach; in another instance He might encourage a rebuke. Only the Spirit knows what the result of each confrontation will be, therefore it is exceedingly crucial to be sensitive to His leading. I personally think Paul was being led by the Spirit in each of these instances, speaking to individual cases within each individual context. Furthermore, Aquinas says that heretics should expressly be expelled from the church. He admits that there is a benefit to having heretics within the church, but that benefit should not be reason enough to maintain their membership. What is this benefit? It is twofold. First, they make us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully, as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. I, 1). Without heresy there would not be the New Testament as we have it in canonized form! As I made mention of earlier, the teachings of Marcion and Montanus were instrumental in the formation of the New Testament. Heretical teaching causes a community of believers subsequently to reject those beliefs in favor of the ones that are true.32 Secondly, they give opportunity to practice unconditional love. Heresy may be useful in causing members of a religious community to further demonstrate love towards those who really are blaspheming, especially if the cultivation of charity is central to the religion.33 Which, in Christianity it undoubtedly is. But we will touch on this further a little later in article four. Aquinas not only says heretics are deserving of excommunication, but death! If those who do not corrupt souls are worthy of death, how much more so are those who do! He follows this up though by saying that the church seeks the salvation of the soul of the wanderer, not
32 33

Mosteller 28 Mosteller 28-29

15

necessarily the body. Like the gentlemen caught in a public affair in Corinth, the heretic should be removed from the congregation with the intent that his soul be saved, if not his body.34 This where Roman Catholics and Protestants can take a sharp divide. Protestants would cry sola scriptura, where Roman Catholics would appeal to the authority of tradition. I would have to say that the teaching of Aquinas strays too far outside the apostolic authority to carry the weight it intends. There may arguably be a case for excommunication, but there does not seem to be for extermination. The most that should be done to a persistent heretic is to separate them from the flock, and warn the others about the risk of following such a one. Anything more than this becomes judicial in such a way that is unwarranted. We have a responsibility to the truth, but cannot force anyone to accept it. It is one thing to persuade, another to command; one thing to press with arguments, another with penalties.35 Not to understate the influence Christianity had upon society in Aquinas day, but it cannot be overlooked that one may employ as many exhortations and arguments as he pleases, towards the promoting of another mans salvation. But all force and compulsion are to be forborne.36 The only confession by force is a false one. This may please the authorities, but will never please God whose will is for the internal transformation of the person, not the outward profession. So, should heretics be tolerated? Aquinas says they should but only twice, after that they should be excommunicated and even terminated. I hold a somewhat looser opinion in that I think heretics should definitely be held aloof from the flock but always with the intent on the restoration of their relationship with God so far as we are able to help.

34 35

1 Corinthians 5:1-5 Locke 8 36 Locke 31

16

Article 4. Whether the Church should receive those who return from heresy?37 This is a question which has been asked throughout history, even as far back as the Roman persecutions. Aquinas writes that they should be allowed to return, unless they fall away again. Repeat offenses are evidence that the conversion is not genuine and they have ulterior motives for returning to the church. This is not to bar them from the way of salvation because, unlike God, the church has not the ability to see into mans heart and truly judge whether or not they truly are contrite. So, to safeguard the flock, repeat offenders must not be allowed the opportunity to lead others astray and should be separated from the ekklesia. According to Matthew, our Lord and God commands Peter to forgive, lots!38 St. Jerome interprets this to mean that as often as one sins, he should be forgiven. Aquinas agrees, but only in sins committed against yourself, not towards others or towards God. Once again, I see this as outside the authority of Scripture. When I think of all the times we have been unfaithful to God, whether it is in prayer, or idolatry, or Bible reading, or acts of service, and His corresponding action towards us, that He never leaves us nor forsakes us,39 how can we not respond in the same manner? Jesus loved because He was love, not because of what He wanted to see as a result. Sure, He would have liked the other nine lepers to come back and give praise to God for their healing,40 but that does not change whether He would have healed them or not. Love has the power to change the hardest heart. It is the goodness of God that leads one to repentance,41 but we often lose patience before that happens. We should always resist those who continually
37

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Second Part of the Second Part. Question 11. Article 4. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article4. All subsequent references to Article 4 in this section will use this reference. 38 Matthew 18:22 39 Hebrews 13:5 40 Luke 17:11-19 41 Romans 2:4

17

advocate heresy, but we should never forsake them, for outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.42 As John Locke has noted, these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ.43 This is a serious accusation, but one I think is warranted when looking at the church before, and then after, Constantine. Between Christ and Constantine, the distinguishing mark of the church was service. With the advent of imperial Christianity, Jesus traded the cross for the garments of the Emperor. A rush of thousands upon thousands entered the church; many for no other reason than political benefit. With the end of persecution the most extreme believers became known as the desert monks, taking the mantle from the martyrs. From that day until ours, aside from some instances of exemplary witness and extraordinary individuals, the church has been known more for ruling than serving. It would be unfair to force Thomas Aquinas into this box I have drawn, but every generation has had the same Scriptures that we have today. All generations are in need of a reformation in one way or another, and those reformers may just be labeled as heretics by the traditionalists. Should we forbid them from taking part, or should we invite them into dialogue, searching not just the Scriptures, but the meaning behind them. Reading the Bible literally is easy; it is the contextualization and practice which takes the greatest effort. When the church quotes Scripture but fails to put it into practice it becomes irrelevant in the greater part of society. We, in turn, become the real heretics. Should the Church receive those who return from heresy? Aquinas says no, in the physical sense, but yes in the Spiritual sense. Penance is always available to the wanderer, but
42

Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 25.2 http://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_25 43 Locke 3

18

that does not mean they should be within the fellowship of the congregation. I would say the church should indeed receive those who return from heresy, even unto the number of times we ourselves have been unfaithful to God, which, if we are honest, are innumerable. Conclusion Heresy does not seem to carry the same weight with our generation as it did with Thomas Aquinas. Is that a good thing? Ultimately I think it is. We should always be concerned with those who pervert the nature of Christianity, but the Bible is a story about Gods loving pursuit towards imperfect humans. When we try to condemn another in the name of God we neglect His most foundational character. Sure, God is holy, and He abhors sin, but what are possibly the most famous words ever recorded to letter are those by the apostle John, quoting Jesus as saying, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.44 The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment when writing to the church in Rome: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.45 For if, while we were Gods enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!46 Realizing that we were all still sinners when God chose to send Jesus to die on our behalf should provoke in us a level of humility that far exceeds how we view unbelievers, whether they be hostile or not. If we look back at Pauls words, he says that God died for His enemies! We also should at least be willing to tolerate Gods enemies if He has set that example.

44 45

NIV. John 3:16. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&version=NIV NIV. Romans 5:8. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:8&version=NIV 46 NIV. Romans 5:10. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%205:10&version=NIV

19

In his powerful Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke remarked that toleration should be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.47 While I may not go as far as he does, I do think that we should esteem toleration a bit more than Aquinas seems to. The world needs to see a church consumed with goodwill concerning those whom it is trying to reach. We should be heralds of a message which proclaims goodwill toward men!48 Not that we shun the act of correction or warning, but we make our focus the realization that God has provided a way by which to know Him. Humility is of dire importance when receiving the gospel, but it is not to be discarded afterwards; we need to remember where we have come from if we are to minister to people where they currently are. It will be very difficult to persuade men of sense that he who with dry eyes and satisfaction of mind can deliver his brother to the executioner to be burnt alive, does sincerely and heartily concern himself to save that brother from the flames of hell in the world to come.49 Not that we are in the business of literally burning people alive any more, but to the use the word hell casually implies that we have not the slightest notion of how serious it actually is. It would seem more fitting for a heavenly bound sinner to fall to his knees in prayer with tears when a heretic presents themselves, rather than pick up a stone. We could use a few more weeping prophets like Jeremiah50 than the far more popular doomsday ones. Where the church goes from here will be determined by our collective sensitivity to the Holy Spirit. I pray Gods wisdom upon us all as we engage an increasingly secularized culture

47 48

Locke 3 New King James Version. Luke 2:14. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke %202:14&version=NKJV 49 Locke 17 50 Jeremiah 9:1, 10; 13:17; 14:17

20

with the same gospel that was preached, through various forms, from the time of the Fall,51 of Abraham,52 of Moses,53 of the apostles,54 until now. We still have a gospel to steward.55 How we do that is still up for discussion. Let us enter into that discussion at least, so we may be fully prepared to correct, rebuke and encourage with great patience and careful instruction.56 There are reservations in hell that await cancellation, and vacancies in heaven waiting to be filled.

51 52

Genesis 3:15 Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18 (compare with Galatians 3:8) 53 Numbers 21:4-9 (compare with John 3:14-15) 54 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 55 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 56 NIV. 2 Timothy 4:2. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20tim%204:2&version=NIV

21