In Medieval times there arose various religious dissenters who were opposed to the Catholic Church, and most of them desired both “moral and religious reformation” (465). (All of the quotations are from Volume V of Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church.) The various groups that were formed generally had in common a rejection of certain Catholic doctrines, including the idea of a separate priesthood (instead of the priesthood of all believers), the doctrine of transubstantiation (the notion that the bread and the fruit of the vine turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus), the baptism of infants, and the worship of the cross and other images (as they were forms of idolatry) (465).
These groups were absolutely correct to reject these Catholic errors, but they also disagreed with plain Bible teaching. Thus they were branded as heretics which were then defined as those “who dissented from the dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church” (465). They were regarded as worse than Muslims (against whom all their Crusades were directed) and worse than persons of depraved moral character. Although today we tend to value people of good moral character—even if we do not agree on doctrine, they did not. Such was their outrage against anyone calling himself a Christian who did not conform to Catholic doctrine.
Dissent did not fare well in the 11th – 13th centuries. “Bernard Guy expressed the opinion of his age when he declared that heresy can be destroyed only when its advocates are converted or burnt” (467). In Southern France, the Cathari were “slaughtered by the thousands” (469). In fact, dissenters were put to death in various locations in Europe. This particular group is the one out of all of the dissenters we want to look at more closely. Their opposition to a corrupt priesthood is to be applauded, as is their devotion to purity of speech and of life in general. How ironic that the priesthood did not embrace holiness. Even average citizens, largely uneducated, knew more of the right way to live.
The term Cathari comes from the Greek katharos, meaning “pure” (470). For all of their good points, how-ever, they had some doctrinal problems. They held to the philosophy of Dualism—that is, that there are two Gods of equal strength and power who are always battling with each other; one of them is good, and the other is evil. It is not difficult to understand how man, on his own, apart from any Divine revelation, might have thought of this explanation, since it would fit the reality of the constant conflict of good and evil. But it does not offer any hope that anything will ever be any different. The truth is that Satan has great power, but he is not as powerful as God. He will be relegated to the lake of fire eventually, where he will not be allowed to afflict the righteous any more (Rev. 20:10).
The Manicheans had earlier held similar beliefs. Ac-cording to dualists, matter is eternal, having been created by the evil god (whereas the Bible teaches that God created the world and all that is in it). Furthermore, He pronounced it very good (Gen. 1:31).
The Cathari began to call Catholics Romanists and said there were two Churches—“One of the wicked and one of the righteous” (475) Applying Matthew 7:15, the Cathari taught the fruits of the Catholic Church proved it was not the true Church. They also said the true Church endures persecution rather than prescribing it. The true Church teaches first and then baptizes those who want to respond. The Roman Church baptizes first and then teaches. The Cathari believed that the Roman Church was the harlot described in the Book of Revelation (475).
Someone might conclude: “These folks seem pretty good. They lived pure lives and opposed many false teachings of the Catholic Church. So they were a little kooky with respect to God and Satan; should that detract too much from their salvation? Furthermore, they gave their lives for what they believed in.”
False Doctrines
Despite all of these good teachings and qualities, the Cathari had some doctrinal problems. Below are listed several false teachings to which they subscribed. Some of them are related to dualism and their view of matter; some are not. These are found on pages 475-79 of Schaff.
1. The Old Testament was the work of the devil.
2. The god of the Old Testament is an evil god.
3. Jesus was created in heaven and not born on earth. He passed through Mary as through a pipe.
4. He never ate physical food or drink.
5. John the Baptizer was one of the major demons and was condemned for asking if Jesus was the One to come or if there was another.
6. Satan had ascended to heaven, where he waited 32 years to be admitted. A porter allowed him in, and he hid himself among the angels for almost a year without God noticing him. Then he began to deceive the other angels. He praised women and the pleasures of the flesh. When they asked for more information, he brought them a sample—a woman “decked in jewels and gold and beautiful in form.” The angels became “inflamed with passion”; Satan took the woman and left heaven. The angels followed them, and they continued to leave for nine days, when God closed up the exit.
7. They replaced baptism with what they called the consolamentum. Usually this practice occurred close to death. Someone would lay hands on the person, and the gospel of John would be placed upon the head or on the breast. The candidate would confess “all his sins of thought, word, work, or vision.” He would affirm his trust in God.
8. If a member of the Cathari died before the consolamentum could take place, then he was lost, or maybe upon his death he passed into another body and returned to earth.
9. There was “no resurrection of the body.”
10. Baptism in water involved a physical element and was the work of the evil god. “John’s baptism was an invention of the devil.”
11. Since “the human body was made by the devil,” “marriage was renounced as contrary to God’s law.” The “eating of the forbidden fruit in Eden meant carnal cohabitation.”
12. All meats were forbidden, as well as eggs and cheese.
.
13. Capital punishment was rejected on the basis of Romans 12:19.
. Now why are all of these strange doctrines listed? The reason is that they are not doctrines currently held by anyone (we trust). Therefore, no one has any emotional attachment to them and will not try to defend any of them. Also, it provides a look at the kind of teachings that people disagreed upon in the past. But, having noted these two things, the third reason is to use these doctrines to try to attempt to decide what Christians would be able to fellowship and what they would not be able to endure. How many men, each of whom held one or more of the preceding doctrines, would we: a) allow to preach to brethren in our congregation? b) fellowship at a lectureship or encampment? c) teach in a Christian college or school of preaching? d) allow the director of a good work to have taught without ever repenting of them?
Anyone holding to view #1 could not preach from the Old Testament, without which the entire New Testament is undermined. All of the devotion and praise of God in the Psalms and all the wisdom in Proverbs must be pitched. The account of the Creation, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel has been eradicated, and what are we to do with Jesus and the apostles who cite these verses? One of the greatest evidences for the truth of the Bible consists of the hundreds of prophecies which Jesus fulfilled in His life, yet all of those cannot even be considered. This doctrine is dangerous and would overthrow the faith of many.
The God of the Old Testament is evil (#2). This borders on what many people still believe—that the God of the Old Testament (vengeful and full of wrath) is different from the God of the New Testament (full of grace and love). In effect, this doctrine teaches that either Satan was the author of the Old Testament or that God has changed (which is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). In either case, can we fellowship one who teaches this doctrine?
Doctrines #3 and #4 deny that Jesus is the Son of Man. It makes a liar out of Matthew and Luke, who provide the details of His physical birth. If Jesus was a heavenly Being with only the appearance of a body, then He was not made like His brethren in all things (Heb. 2:14), nor could the crucifixion have been remotely painful, which means He did not really suffer for our sins. He must have deceived people when He referred to Himself as the Son of Man; He possessed no humanity whatsoever.
Jesus said of John (#5) that no man born of women was greater than he was (Matt. 11:11). Can we fellowship someone who treated John as the Cathari did—who categorically denied what the Bible teaches concerning him? What if someone taught that doctrine nearly 20 years ago? Can we fellowship him now if he is no longer teaching the doctrine? What if his position is recorded or written? Some will hear of it and say, “Well, if he taught that and has achieved a position of prominence in the brotherhood, and brethren (by and large) fellowship him, perhaps John really was one of the major demons in the New Testament.”
Will the weird story of how Satan seduced the angels in heaven to sin (#6) harm anyone’s salvation? Is it just a bizarre but benign tale from someone’s fertile imagination? It implies that God is not omniscient. Satan sneaked into heaven without His knowledge, and even when all the angels followed Him, it took God nine days to seal up the exit, which reflects on His omnipotence as well. The fact is that ideology has consequences. Certain statements imply certain other ideas, many of which can be dangerous.
One cannot replace baptism with any substitute (#7), since it is clearly a command of God (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, et al.). Most brethren would not fellowship anyone teaching this error. But then, how are we to view those who might use materials produced by such an individual? Some, like Max Lucado, teach that one is saved before and without baptism; why do brethren use anything produced by him? Even if he does not teach that particular error in one of his books, all of them contain numerous errors.
The Bible teaches that it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment. How would brethren react today if a preacher adopted the heresy of reincarnation (#8)? Is that one of those optional matters concerning which we can all look the other way so that we can maintain unity?
To say that there is no resurrection (#9) clearly contradicts many New Testament verses, not to mention the marvelous text of 1 Corinthians 15. Surely, no one would appear on a lectureship program with such an individual, would he?
Jesus asked: “The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?” While the Scriptures answer, From God” (John 1:31), the Cathari said that it was of the devil (#10). Yet the implication of Jesus’ question was that it was from heaven, which means that the wisdom of men (as seen in the Cathari) has failed again. That water is the proper element is clear from Acts 8:35-49, Acts 10:47, and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
The human body was made by God out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). God said that His creation was good—not evil. As for marriage, the pleasures God placed within it do not defile people (Heb. 13:4); in fact, husbands and wives are charged with refraining from abstinence—except for a period of fasting (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Marital privileges had already been authorized for man in the Garden; they could not possibly have contributed to man’s sin. The forbidden fruit was on a tree and involved spiritual rather than carnal knowledge.
God authorized the eating of meats in the New Testament (see Acts 10:9-15). Men who take the position that certain foods are still forbidden (#12) are binding where God has loosed. To teach men that they cannot enjoy lawful things that pertain to the flesh is to go beyond what is written. In the case of marriage, it also would prohibit procreation, which was a direct command of God in the beginning (Gen. 1:28).
The last of this “baker’s dozen” rejects capital punishment based on Romans 12:19. All one needs to do is read a few verses further to see that the civil government has the God-given right to execute evildoers (Rom. 13:1-5). What is prohibited is personal vengeance.
Conclusions
Admittedly, some of these errors are worse than others, but they all involve a contradiction of the truth, and it is only the truth that can save (John 8:31-32). What happens if someone teaches less than 1% error? Are we not told that 99.995% of the ingredients in rat poison are good—perhaps, even nutritious? Only .005% of the concoction that is filled with the poison kills the rat.
How much truth can be compromised before someone is rightly called a false teacher? Suppose they, for whatever reason, gave up the first eleven heresies but insisted upon the last two? Meat-eaters are not going to be happy about them binding their opinions. If someone believes that position and refuses to eat those items, are they wrong? Yes. Will they be lost because of it? NO. But what happens when they begin to bind these doctrines on others? And how is the church to react if it begins to be taught by the leadership that capital punishment is wrong and that the only moral thing to do is to hold candlelight vigils whenever someone is executed?
Such personally-held beliefs would not cause one to be lost, but what about when others are taught these errors? Whatever the doctrine is, we must be concerned about the truth. Without a love of the truth, no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). What kind of attitude is it that refuses to study the matter and submit to what the Scriptures teach? Jesus prayed that His disciples be sanctified through the truth (John 17:17). Psalm 119 is a lengthy praise of the Word of God, which is truth.
God took great care to be certain that the Scriptures were inspired. The Holy Spirit brought to the minds of Jesus’ disciples all that He had taught them (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit also inspired all of the Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments (2 Tim. 3:16-17; John 16:13). Could the reason be that God wanted everyone to know the truth? But of what value is it if then, having it, we decide that it is not all that important and that we can fellowship those who teach error right along with those who teach the truth? If we possess such an attitude, do we not fall into the very theology of Ketcherside-Garrett-Shelly? The modern-day mantra is: “Doctrine doesn’t matter. Teach a little truth; mix in a little error—nobody cares any more.”
Members of the church need to return to the basics that we were once taught. One fundamental truth is that we cannot fellowship error (2 John 9-11). When we find brethren doing so, it needs to be called to their attention that they are in serious violation of the Word of God. If we respect truth, then we must abide by what the Lord and His apostles taught—even if it means being neither popular nor politically correct. Unheeded, we will become (eventually) as permeated by error as the Cathari.