The Episcopian Curse
Mar 23rd, 2009 // By mike // Category: Church HistorySimon Episcopius, Subordinationism, and Modern Church Methodologies
Warning! This article has nothing to do with generational curses or any of those peculiar doctrines displayed on some Christian television networks. There is substance here…
Relatively little is known about Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), the Dutch theologian who was summoned to the Synod of Dort in 1618. Nonetheless, his contribution to theology and example in church history has had poignant parallels that are observed even to this day.
His given name was Simon Bisschop and he was a professor at the University of Leiden from 1612 – 1619. From that time until his death, demonstrating his adherence to Jacob Arminius teachings, he was one of the leaders of the Remonstrants, i.e. the Arminians. (Arminians are those individuals who deny the absolute sovereignty of God and hold to a Greek libertarian type of freedom. They are not to be confused with the ethnic group known as Armenians, of which I am one of.).
Episcopius attempted to defend libertarian free will before the Synod, but to no avail and was banished into the Spanish Netherlands (until 1626) where he would write and defend his version of Arminianism. He took what Arminius questioned to another level and what was obscure, he made definite. In doing this he quite possibly catapulted Jacob Arminius’ followers into places Arminius himself would never have dared to go.
Though Episcopius was a scholar, he shied away from “doctrine” and stressed holy living. Correct living became more important to him than correct doctrine. The Columbia Encyclopedia states, “His avowed aim was to present Christianity in a practical aspect and to liberate theology from the excessively rigid limitations of theory and ecclesiasticism.”[1]
To Episcopius, he merely sought for the peace and unity of Christians and was willing to conceal any of his views on so called ‘unimportant truths.’[2] This was his way to liberate theology. The “let us not argue but just love one another” banner he waved discloses him as the proto-theological liberal this side of the Reformation. The problem was that what Episcopius thought was ‘unimportant truths’ were foundation stones of historic biblical Christianity.
One area Episcopius compromised in was his Bibliology. He departed from the Reformers method of interpretation (Grammatical, Historical, and Christocentric) which was connected to the Antiochene Church fathers and the apostles themselves. He believed that different views about the Bible each contained a truth that was important in the interpretative process. Therefore, he reasoned that a variety of outlooks on truth were healthy to the church. This might be sufficient when speaking about how we would like the church sanctuary set up or whether contemporary or traditional praise music would be better on Sunday mornings. But to take this and apply it to non-negotiable teachings that distinguish Christianity from other religions is profane.
This approach to the Bible is completely subjective and leads to theological relativism. Moreover, it is absolutely foreign to a proper hermeneutic. When approaching the Bible one must seek to discover what the author was trying to communicate to his original readers. As with all ancient literature, this involves observing the history, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and literary units of context. We are dealing with the very word of God people. Therefore, to simply ‘allow’ for multiple meanings on a text against the dictates of the author cannot be “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).
In addition, Episcopius faltered in his Christology as well. Now there are many theologians who are sympathetic to those outside their own denominational lines when it comes to issues such as baptism or church government, but one must never budge nor compromise on a biblical Christology.
While his schoolmaster Arminius held to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, Simon Episcopius deserted this historic bedrock of Christianity. He believed Jesus was eternal God, and through the influence of his friend, the heretic Socinus, who fully rejected the deity of Christ, he was corrupted. Episcopius would sell out and take the middle ground position on Christ. He held that Jesus was fully God but is less God than the Father. This reduction of the divinity of Christ is commonly known as subordinationism. The main form of subordinationism that has taken place historically is that the Son is not equal in his being and attributes as the Father. To hold the position that any person of the Triune God is inferior to another is erroneous.
These grave errors of Episcopius would move many away from the historic teaching on Christ. In addition, they also reveal a significant connection between the history of Arminianism and theological liberalism. History bears witness that Arminianism has led to Arianism, to Socinianism, and to Unitarianism. Each of these ‘isms’ are outside of the circle of biblical Christianity.
Yes, Episcopius sought for peace and unity among Christians, which is very noble and should be commended. However, we must ask the question whether or not peace can actually exist when truth is destroyed. Can we call it peace when it makes war with the Prince of Peace? Are we not to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints?” (Jude 3) The great Puritan Thomas Watson put it down rather nicely, “We must not be so in love with the golden crown of peace, as to pluck off the jewels of truth. Rather let peace go—than truth. The martyrs would rather lose their lives—than let go the truth.”
Now… here we stand today, with ecumenists and theological liberals in front of us, and the Emergent Church Movement creeping up from behind. These groups, being descendants of Episcopius have traces of the Episcopian curse on their hands as they call out for holy living and relevancy at the expense of proper biblical teachings.
“We must ‘repaint’ the Christian faith if we are to win people to Jesus,” the Emergent Church cries out. In the post-modern paint job they give Christianity there is an avoidance of discussing hell and judgment, and an avoidance to confront sin. They reason that preaching repentance is not nice. It might hurt people’s feelings and doesn’t work in getting people to church anymore. They toss out the ancient creeds and historic teachings for pragmatism; sola Scriptura for sola pragmaticas. Thus, they undermine the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.
How many pastors in attempting to pack their churches with people and gain popularity displace historic biblical teachings that our Reformational forefathers fought so earnestly for us to know? They have watered down clear passages that speak about sin and repentance making their Bibliology barren. They have abused verses that proclaim the deity and supremacy of Christ and him crucified, crippling their Christology.
May we stand with all those who have loved biblical truth, all who have gloried in the cross of Christ, and all who have preached a gospel that does not devalue our Savior. As we have this passion for God and for applying his truth, holy living will necessarily follow.
Soli Deo Gloria
[1]“Simon Episcopius.” The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2008. Encyclopedia.com. (March 14, 2009). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Episcopi.html
[2]John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2006), 353.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Mar 23rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Excellent article Mike. I like what you said at the end: “As we have this passion for God and for applying his truth, holy living will necessarily follow.” The sad thing is that the opposite is not true. When member-seekers only promote peace and avoid the truths necessary for salvation, i.e. sin and the need for repentance before a holy God, biblical truth does not necessarily follow. And as you point out, many times lead sinners in the opposite direction. Thanks for the post.
Mar 24th, 2009 at 7:21 am
pointing out key men whose theology was error at best or heretic is good. i had not heard of Simon Episcopius. another man that was key in the current liberal and evangelical wings of the church is Charles Finney. Micheal Horton has a couple articles on his influence on the church today.
here are a couple links.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar81.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/charles_finney_vs_westminster_confession.shtml
keep up the good work,
Kenley
Mar 24th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I thought this was a very insightful, well researched, and well reasoned article that shows the amazing connection between issues we are facing in our world and even the church today and those same issues creeping up many years ago. Satan often will try the same lies over and over again. Thank you, Mike, for exposing the enemy’s deceptions and calling all of us to seek first His Kingdom and His Truth.
Mar 24th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Mike,
Great article Mike,
I love the insight you bring in regards to Episcopius and his compromise with biblical truth. How relevant to what is happening in today’s church. One of the common responses I hear when challeging church tradition is, “These topics just cause division and are unimportant, all that matters is that Jesus came to die for sinners.” While there is beauty i nthat statement there is also danger. If we are more concerned about a topical feel good Christianity, as the “emergent movement” is bringing us, then we subject ourselves to small compromises that eventually may lead us to a gospel that is in fact not the Gospel at all. Just like the toad slowly boiled in water analogy. Oh how blessed and thankful I am for the Lord’s Word and truths. I pray that I continue to be cautious
Mar 24th, 2009 at 9:14 am
sorry, accidently hit “return”,
Anyways, as I was saying. I pray that I continue to be cautious with church tradition and focused on His Word.
Sola scriptura
Mar 24th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Great article Mike.
The fallacy of being a good person or the truth of sound theology make me wonder where Simon is spending his eternity reflecting on the interface of being a good person and sound theology. Ever since the Greeks, most of the Western philosophical and psychological moral/ethical traditions have tended to focus on moral reasoning and not theological reasoning. This cognitive approach is manifested in most ethics classes. In this tradition, emphasis is placed on excellence in dissecting moral conundrums oneself and not looking to God to solve those issues. The Greeks ignored theology and focused not on theological reasoning but upon character and virtue. That is why many clinical psychologists today are mining that wisdom in their research and treatment, and thus completely excluding God. What is virtue? What does it mean to be a good person? More and more people today suggest that virtue is emotions. Then according to the Greeks and Simon’s premise, character and virtue are more important than sound theology. If you have these, you’re a good person. If you don’t have them you are evil. And I’m more inclined to say you are evil if you have them without sound theology. Do you want to be good? Tune into your sound theology and leave the emotions to the Arminians.
Your brother in HIS grip.
Mar 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Kenley,
Thanks for pointing out Finney and linking those excellent articles. Finney, most definitely, had a greater impact and was more well known than Episcopius. He was a descendant of and showed much Episcopianism (to coin that phrase) in his theology. Philip Johnson has an excellent article on Finney as well, see http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm.
Mar 24th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Jerrad, Lou, Pastor Al…
I am glad you were edified.
Mar 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Mike,
Very informative article. Thank you for your dedication in keeping your family educated with the Christian Word. As a recent Reborn Christian, I have just struck the “tip of the iceberg” in learning the Truth from the Bible. Articles and writings, such as this, greatly complement my ongoing education from the Bible and my respective Church pastors. It stimulates my thirst for continuing knowledge of the Word and growth as a Christian. I pray for your continued growth in your Christian Walk and achieving the Lord’s direction for you.
Mar 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Amen! How unfortunate, for Episcopius, not to comprehend that one cannot truely understand how to “live correctly”, unless there is a proper understanding of “doctrine”.
Mar 31st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Very well said Mike.
Your article is very informative as it exposes old heresies, which have corrupted the modern-day church. By making clear the sad truth behind the Emergent Church Movement, your article also helps to explain why there are so many false converts in such churches that shy away from a proper teaching about sin and repentance.
Mar 31st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Good stuff… Never heard of Episcopius before. Emergent Church idealogies totally sound like they would come from Arminianism…
Mar 31st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
may we all all button up our understanding of biblical Christology
Apr 2nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Man - reading this brought to mind the fact that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9) - this guy just had a more eloquent way of saying “Doctrine Divides” - well, let it divide - and we can just worry about being faithful.
-Rob
Apr 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
I really agree with what was said. I learned a lot. I want to hear truth come back to us the way it should be. Let those who hear truth be offended. (Mathew 10:34) Jesus spoke it and there is no changing it.
Apr 3rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I am glad you were edified, brethren. Bookmark stfmag.com and check out all the articles.
Apr 8th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Romans 10:17
Dear Mike,
The article, “Simon Episcopius, Subordinationism, and Modern Church Methodologies” was a excellent one! Keep up the good work. Excellent historical details! Keep up the writing! Hope to see you write for this magazine in the future. I look forward to seeing what you have to communicate in the near future. You have a gift that the church needs to hear from! God bless, Ed Enochs
Apr 11th, 2009 at 6:03 am
It amazes me to read how people think that the gospel of our Lord needs to be changed, cause its not loving enough. I guess that old serpent has been twisting the definition of love from the beginning. I am sure to him, his teaching seemed right, and sound, but this would appear to be a little leaven, in the lump
Apr 14th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Mike
Your article reminds me of something we use to do in our local classis but are no longer doing…theological deliberation. Managing polarities between right belief and right practice is the reason that Christianity is lived out in community. Great article.
Apr 19th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Mike,
Your article was very informative and insightful. It was logically constructed and easy to read. Thank you for putting together this piece. I am looking forward to more articles from you in the future. Praise God!
Apr 24th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Mike Its a blessing to know that there are some real men of GOD left in this dying world that are willing to teach the truth about GOD JESUS CHRIST & HOLY SPIRT and GODS WORD THE BIBLE and you are one of the. Thank you brother Mike . Don great article.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“Though Episcopius was a scholar, he shied away from ‘doctrine’ and stressed holy living. Correct living became more important to him than correct doctrine.” This doesn’t even make since. Where was his idea of “holy living” coming from if not from the Word of God? If we don’t understand what was said concerning holy living in the Bible, we cannot live holy lives.
May 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
This is an excellent article…not only does it provide a decent (if brief) introduction to Simon Episcopius, but it also exposes the blatant abuses of our faith due to a fallacious mindset so common in modern churches today. It’s unfortunate that so few pastors are willing to submit themselves to deeper study, particularly on the very issues from which they misguide the masses so earnestly from their pulpits.