Heresy

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham

What is heresy?

Message followers often quote Acts 24:14 in support of their following William Branham:

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets,

The Greek term hairesis originally denoted an action or belief selected from multiple options. In classical Greek, the word could be employed positively or negatively—initially meaning simply “choice,” then “a chosen course of procedure,” and later referring to various schools and intellectual movements, including those devoted to studying Greek literature.

As a result, modern interpretations translate hairesis as "sect":

“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers...

The Sadducees and Pharisees were designated as sects, as were early Jewish believers in Jesus known as “the sect of the Nazarenes”—neutral descriptors at that stage. However, as the church developed, the term came to identify factious groups holding opinions contrary to apostolic truth. By the time of the New Testament, hairesis denoted organized parties when divisions had crystallized into distinct factions, and in 2 Peter the concept moved toward its later ecclesiastical sense, describing those guilty of doctrinal and moral errors who separated from church fellowship.

In its original meaning, the word heresy does not infer that someone is wrong or has believed a falsehood. Rather, it simply refers to a particular truth or belief that has been extracted from its true and complete context and is subsequently treated as if it were the whole truth. This explains why every heretic in the history of the church has had a verse or two of Scripture they rigidly hold to.

Some of the sheep, and even some of the shepherds, may turn out to be wolves in disguise. And the attack will then take the form, not of direct contradiction or a clash of powers, but of distorting the truth. The greatest heresies do not come about by straightforward denial; most of the church will see that for what it is. They happen when an element which may even be important, but isn’t central, looms so large that people can’t help talking about it, fixating on it, debating different views of it as though this were the only thing that mattered.

The point is that the so-called “heretic” really has (re)discovered some truth that has been lost, ignored, or suppressed. That is something to get excited about. However, the error in the heresy is in the exaggerated enthusiasm or preoccupation that ensues. The heretic becomes increasingly obsessive and sectarian by making the newly recovered particular truth into the whole truth. Its real meaning is obscured because it is separated from the greater Truth from which it has been extracted. Truth thereby becomes fragmented.

We are so easily imprisoned by our own interpretations and so convinced of the absolute rightness of them that we close the door to engaging the ever-greater God. This was precisely the problem with Israel’s leaders in the time of Jesus. Their interpretations became the theological prisons for their own souls and minds as well as for the collective mind of Israel. In Jesus’ words, they had access to the keys to the kingdom but ignored them, and hindered others from entering the kingdom as well (Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52).

Heresy is now described as a kind of unbelief.

Major heresies in the early church

Quartodecimanism

This wasn't a true "heresy" but the amount of division that it caused in the early church was significant.

The dispute among churches relating to the fixing of the day of Easter was referred to as Quartodecimanism (Easter should be observed on the fourteenth Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week that may happen to be). This was the belief that was primarily held by eastern churches.

Anti-Quartodecimanism held that the crucifixion should be commemorated on the Friday of the week, whether or not it fell on the fourteenth, and the resurrection on the following Lord’s day. This was the view primarily held by the western church (and was officially adopted at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325)).

We have devoted a separate article to the discussion of the Controversy over the Date of Easter.

Montanism

Sometime around the year 157 A.D., in the Roman province of Asia Minor known as Phrygia, a professing Christian named Montanus began to prophesy ecstatically. Claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he was soon joined by two prophetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla (Prisca). They paid special attention to the biblical teachings about the Paraclete, and they claimed to be the last in a succession of prophets that included the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8–9). They said they were called to summon all believers to righteous preparation for the heavenly descent of the New Jerusalem.

By the 170s, this “New Prophecy” movement, as it was known, spread. The heart of Montanist activity was always in Asia Minor, although converts were eventually won in missionary outposts such as Rome, Byzantium, and Carthage. What attracted scores of early Christians to Montanism? Perhaps the answer lies in three words: authority, vitality, and discipline.

Montanist prophets claimed direct revelations from God, and their utterances (“oracles”) were treasured and preserved as authoritative teaching by the faithful. Here was fresh truth, Spirit-given, for the last days.

Not everyone was so enamored with the movement. In 192, Serapion, bishop of Antioch, declared that “the working of the lying organization called the New Prophesy is held in abomination by the whole brotherhood in the world.”

Many of the leaders of the early church objected to Montanism on five main grounds:

1. “Abnormal ecstasy.” Montanus prophesied in a frenzy, without engaging the rational mind, “contrary to the manner which belongs to the tradition and succession of the church from the beginning.”
2. No controls. When respected bishops and church leaders sought to practice discernment with Montanist prophets, the prophets refused to submit.
3. Worldliness. Some questioned the Montanist financial dealings. Others worried about their lifestyle: “Does a prophet dye his hair, paint his eyelids, love adornment, play at gaming tables and dice, lend money at interest?”
4. Extra-scriptural revelation. Many were concerned that people would hold the oracles of the New Prophecy in higher esteem than the Scriptures.
5. False prophecies. Maximilla declared that there would be wars and tumults and, after her death, no more prophets but “The End.” Yet, some thirteen years after her death, there was peace.

On the other hand, a few respected teachers, though they didn’t join the movement, refused to condemn it. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, for example, was concerned that those attacking the Montanists would drive the authentic gift of prophecy from the church. Those who did so, he wrote, “do not admit that aspect presented by John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that he would send the Paraclete, but they set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit.”

Montanism which started in the 2nd century was largely over by the 4th century.

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us