Cyprian’s views contrasted with the Apostle John – Schism, Heresy

Those of you who know me well are probably aware that I enjoy history and especially Church history. Much of my spare time is spent in studying Church History and the writings and biographies of various churchmen. A few weeks ago I was reminded of Cyprian’s famous doctrine that outside of the Church there is no salvation. Cyprian applied this not only to heresy but also to schism and later Augustine in his writings against the Donatist schism would quote 1 Corinthians 13 and say that since the Donatists were not in fellowship with the Catholic church they lacked love and thus whatever their good works they did not profit. Of course this is a very superficial definition of love, and two of Augustine’s contemporaries Jerome and Rufinus who were both in fellowship with the Church as they blasted each other publicly hardly bring to mind the words of Paul, “love is patient, love is kind.” Still these doctrines and attitudes would not be a cause for concern if they had not outlived their authors, and even in Protestant circles still exist but not so flagrantly. There are many attributes to Cyprian’s doctrine, but rather than dealing with apostolic succession and several of the minor points, I would just like to deal with the main point. There are 4 tenets that he held, some of which are fairly shaky in themselves, but even if they held true the premise can be shown to be false as I will show. His 4 main tenets could be summed up as: 1. Receiving the Apostles is to receive Christ 2. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles 3. To Receive the Bishop is to receive Christ 4. No one can be separated from the Bishop and be joined to Christ Point number one is clearly Scriptural (Matt. 10:4), point number two is far less provable and point number three is dependent upon two, but even allowing all of these for the time, point four is untenable. The book of Third John throws light on this whole subject. It is addressed to Gaius who had apparently received some of John’s fellow-workers with hospitality(v.1-6). John goes on to complain of Diotrophes who had in effect introduced a schism into the church by not receiving John or his messengers and by putting out those in the church who did (v.9-10). It is interesting that John while speaking of Diotrophes personal evil-doing never mentions a danger incurred by those who stayed in the church with him. He merely exhorts Gaius to imitate good and not evil (v.11), which strongly implies that John was not concerned for the salvation of those in Diotrophes church provided they did not personally partake of his evil ways. Cyprian cannot be contrasted more unfavorably than this since he refused to even acknowledge the baptism practiced by the Novatians, which was schism and not a doctrinal breach, and believed all who broke fellowship with himself were damned. Clearly the true Apostle was far more forbearing than his supposed successor. John’s attitude, however, was very different towards heresy – specifically heresies which deny Christ’s incarnation and His messiahship (1 John 2:18-23, 2 John 1:7). He refers to these heretics as antichrists and says they were never part of us – that is of the Church, even though they went out of us. We thus see a marked difference here, when John’s own authority is disregarded and he is slighted, he will take steps to reprove the offender but still calls the assembly a church, but when the doctrine is a direct denial of Christ and His work, then whatever these assemblies and teachers are is of no consequence, because they are not of us. This is the true attitude we should have towards those in schism with us and those in heresy. Schism we blame on the leaders of it and hope that their flocks do not pick up the contagion, heresy we abhor and deny to bear the name of Christianity in any real sense. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible. Amen.