Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I’m currently reading A Treatise Against The Heretic Novatian, written by an anonymous bishop.
So, what was the beef the anonymous bishop had with Novatian?
Novatian took a hard line attitude toward apostates who abandoned the faith in times of Roman persecution and then later repented. Novatian caused a schism by denying those who repented a return to the Church. The bishop made a powerful argument, imo, against Novatian in regard to this matter.
Staying in the 3rd century, I’m currently reading A Treatise On Re-Baptism. The author is unknown. (He is writing in opposition to Cyprian, who was in favor of rebaptizing repentant heretics.) My religious heritage has roots in the Anabaptist tradition. Hence my interest in this particular writing, which was previously unknown by me.
I can't help but draw a comparison.
The powerful church of Rome was essentially governmental-- law of the land in these periods, certainly authoritarian concerning all things "Christian." How easy it was for them to label anything they didn't like or agree with as "heresy" and any person a heretic in order to silence them and kill the conversation.
An anonymous complaint? The Church had it's own deep state, and leakers and unnamed sources always at the ready to do their bidding. Novatian was essentially arguing against the once saved, always saved doctrine on one hand, taking it to an extreme polarity where he believed that once abandoned, there is no return for a person who leaves the faith. While I don't agree with this position, his point was simply that if you let these flip-floppers back into the congregation, you end up with a congregation of flip-floppers. It's a fairly accurate understanding. But, isn't that what churches are? Groups of varying degrees of sinners. Novatian contended that this shouldn't be so.
Was he wrong?
I understand Novatian’s concern, and the sentiment that accompanies “we remained faithful and suffered while the heat was one; you sold out to save your skin. Now that the persecution has stopped, you want to come back. Stay where you are, you traitors!”
However, the “traitors” had acknowledged their sin, repented, served a probationary period (for lack of a better term) and gone on to prove their repentance was genuine by persevering when times of persecution returned.
Folding under pressure isn’t the unpardonable sin. Repentance should always be encouraged when people go astray, the wayward recovered, and brought back with rejoicing into the fold.
In my opinion, Novatian (a presbyter in Rome) was on the wrong side of the issue.