Why We Still Need to Talk About Heresy
July 13, 2010 03:43pm
One of the first issues that needs to be decided, is the criterion of
the knowledge that any dogmatics claims to be. There is a need to
discuss the legitimacy of the dogmatic claim to know the truth of
faith. That need is grounded in history. There is such a thing as a
conflict of faith with or within itself. This conflict is basically
the paradoxical fact of heresy.
Heresy as Contradiction
Although heresy is a shape of Christian faith and a possibility of interpretation that arises within the life of the Church, it is in truth to be considered a contradiction to faith. A contradiction to faith that claims to be the true faith, that tries to establish itself as the legitimate way of being Church. Heresy always starts as a contradiction to what already has been established. It is however not coming from the outside. Its motivation, its possibility is grounded in the content of faith.
It's quite common to find that an heresy emphasizes certain aspects of faith to the extent that others are lost out of sight. Yet, even if a heresy establishes itself successfully as a church or even establishes itself as the dominant and universal Church, it would still be contradiction, a deviation from the true shape of Christian faith. At least one can argue that basically this is the meaning of heresy. Any deviation of traditional faith, that is grounded upon a long Christian principle of understanding and seeks to refute and replace traditional face and ventures to base a separate church on it. That is a heresy. That implies that individual believers may be wrong or unclear about the criterion of face them deviates from the common confession or may entertain points of view that our difference, contradictory or downright hostile to the contents of the Gospel. But as long as they do not consider their points of view to be of such validity that others should follow them or if they do not try to ground a church on their opinions, they themselves would not be seen as heretics and neither would their doctrines be considered heretical.
Roman Catholicism and Modernism
Karl Barth established two points of view as basically heretical. The first one is Catholicism and the other is modernism. By discussing a twofold shape of Christian heresy, the question about the criterion of dogmatic knowledge has to be raised. In other words the questions what his revelation? And the question how do we use revelation to express the truth of faith. These questions can be on search in the context of discussion of this twofold heresy.
We have said that heresy is a contradiction to faith that claims to be the true faith. So how do these heresies themselves express the criterion of the truths of faith? By examining the way in which a heresy claims to be truthful, the status of the criterion is made clear.
Modernism
First of all we need to take a look at modernism. The Christian religion is conceived as a particular shape of a universal religion. A general understanding of human beings and their existence in the world, that is not specifically determined by the contents of Christian faith, is the starting point here. This assumption is not a philosophical understanding of the world would be logically prior to an understanding based on faith. The particularity of Christian faith will then be a secondary determination of a general possibility. All humans have some degree of religion. Religiousness is a universal trait of humanity. Christianity by default is just one way in which this universal religion becomes manifest. Christianity is just one of the ways in which human beings try to express their inner religion.
Roman Catholicism
Roman Catholicism is the second type of heresy that Karl Barth discusses. The point of origin for this heresy is not a universal outside church, but instead the particularity of the Church. Now it is argued that the meaning of the gospel can only be established and discerned from within the life of the Church. In a way revelation is now completely bound up with the institutions of the Church. As he explains: "the being of the Church, Jesus Christ, is no longer the sovereign Lord of its existence, but is totally bound up within the existence of the Church." Revelation becomes identified with the tradition of the Church.
The true criterion
In the examination of these two heresies it becomes clear what the real criterion of faith and dogmatics actually is. It is not an universal philosophy of the nature of humanity. It is not the priority of the traditions and institutions of the Church. Jesus Christ is not a symbol for a particular type of religious faith, nor is he identical to the church that he grounded. Jesus Christ is the Lord of humanity and the Lord of the Church. That means that his particularity has priority over both philosophy and the Church. He is the revelation of God. Jesus is God's self expression. Therefore he is not only the criterion of dogmatics, but also in a very full sense of the word the wisdom that supersedes philosophy and the sovereign spirit that rules the Church.
The criterion of dogmatics is the Word of God. Why is that the case? Because the being of the Church is Jesus Christ who is the Word of God. The church was called into existence by Jesus, and that existence in response to the call is only valid in as far as its reflects its origin.
That leads to a discussion of the threefold status of the Word of God. We will talk about that next time.
PODCASTS ON BARTH AND MODERNISM
Heresy as Contradiction
Although heresy is a shape of Christian faith and a possibility of interpretation that arises within the life of the Church, it is in truth to be considered a contradiction to faith. A contradiction to faith that claims to be the true faith, that tries to establish itself as the legitimate way of being Church. Heresy always starts as a contradiction to what already has been established. It is however not coming from the outside. Its motivation, its possibility is grounded in the content of faith.
It's quite common to find that an heresy emphasizes certain aspects of faith to the extent that others are lost out of sight. Yet, even if a heresy establishes itself successfully as a church or even establishes itself as the dominant and universal Church, it would still be contradiction, a deviation from the true shape of Christian faith. At least one can argue that basically this is the meaning of heresy. Any deviation of traditional faith, that is grounded upon a long Christian principle of understanding and seeks to refute and replace traditional face and ventures to base a separate church on it. That is a heresy. That implies that individual believers may be wrong or unclear about the criterion of face them deviates from the common confession or may entertain points of view that our difference, contradictory or downright hostile to the contents of the Gospel. But as long as they do not consider their points of view to be of such validity that others should follow them or if they do not try to ground a church on their opinions, they themselves would not be seen as heretics and neither would their doctrines be considered heretical.
Roman Catholicism and Modernism
Karl Barth established two points of view as basically heretical. The first one is Catholicism and the other is modernism. By discussing a twofold shape of Christian heresy, the question about the criterion of dogmatic knowledge has to be raised. In other words the questions what his revelation? And the question how do we use revelation to express the truth of faith. These questions can be on search in the context of discussion of this twofold heresy.
We have said that heresy is a contradiction to faith that claims to be the true faith. So how do these heresies themselves express the criterion of the truths of faith? By examining the way in which a heresy claims to be truthful, the status of the criterion is made clear.
Modernism
First of all we need to take a look at modernism. The Christian religion is conceived as a particular shape of a universal religion. A general understanding of human beings and their existence in the world, that is not specifically determined by the contents of Christian faith, is the starting point here. This assumption is not a philosophical understanding of the world would be logically prior to an understanding based on faith. The particularity of Christian faith will then be a secondary determination of a general possibility. All humans have some degree of religion. Religiousness is a universal trait of humanity. Christianity by default is just one way in which this universal religion becomes manifest. Christianity is just one of the ways in which human beings try to express their inner religion.
Roman Catholicism
Roman Catholicism is the second type of heresy that Karl Barth discusses. The point of origin for this heresy is not a universal outside church, but instead the particularity of the Church. Now it is argued that the meaning of the gospel can only be established and discerned from within the life of the Church. In a way revelation is now completely bound up with the institutions of the Church. As he explains: "the being of the Church, Jesus Christ, is no longer the sovereign Lord of its existence, but is totally bound up within the existence of the Church." Revelation becomes identified with the tradition of the Church.
The true criterion
In the examination of these two heresies it becomes clear what the real criterion of faith and dogmatics actually is. It is not an universal philosophy of the nature of humanity. It is not the priority of the traditions and institutions of the Church. Jesus Christ is not a symbol for a particular type of religious faith, nor is he identical to the church that he grounded. Jesus Christ is the Lord of humanity and the Lord of the Church. That means that his particularity has priority over both philosophy and the Church. He is the revelation of God. Jesus is God's self expression. Therefore he is not only the criterion of dogmatics, but also in a very full sense of the word the wisdom that supersedes philosophy and the sovereign spirit that rules the Church.
The criterion of dogmatics is the Word of God. Why is that the case? Because the being of the Church is Jesus Christ who is the Word of God. The church was called into existence by Jesus, and that existence in response to the call is only valid in as far as its reflects its origin.
That leads to a discussion of the threefold status of the Word of God. We will talk about that next time.
PODCASTS ON BARTH AND MODERNISM
Huizen, Netherlands
Formerly a Dutch Mennonite, I now am a Dutch Reformed Pastor, working in Huizen, the Netherlands. I got a doctorate in the humanities on a dissertation about Christian Ethics: The law of Christ.
I like Science Fiction series and movies very much. The latest I watched was Stargate SG1. They got it wrong, it wasn't Mot, but Mawwet who was the God of death in Kanaan.
Single
Davind, Gideon, Shoshanna
Chinese
The Pasion of the Christ
Reverend
October 29, 1956