Heresy of Heresies, All is Heresy!

Using Church Consensus to Determine Orthodoxy from Heresy

In conjunction with the recently released first episode of my podcast, On the Necessity of the Creed, this article further explores the need for Church consensus as an interpretive boundary and distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy.

The word “heresy” has become overly polemical, full of emotion and misunderstanding. Often, it is carelessly tossed like a grenade into an opposing crowd without any thought for how “heresy” is precisely defined. Those who wield it sloppily often mistake primary issues for secondary issues and so risk slandering real brothers or sisters.

Not only does this break fellowship within the Body of Christ, but it also confuses real heresy with pseudo-heresy. The hazard of actual heresy becomes much diluted by such error. Orthodoxy itself is at risk if basic theological terms cannot be defined and distinguished.

In this article, I hope to give some basic guidelines for distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy.

Heresy, Heresy, Heresy!

Today, the accusation of “heretic” is frequently and brashly exploited by ministry leaders and their laity about almost every doctrine, often on all sides of the theological spectrum. Modern translations of the Bible are heretical. Infant baptism is heretical. Credobaptism is heretical. Calvinism is heretical. Arminianism is heretical. Catholicism is heretical. Protestantism is heretical. Evangelicalism is heretical.

Individual words have specific definitions. To define a word based on one’s wavering feelings is to empty that word of meaning. To empty the meaning of a word, such as “heresy,” transforms it into meaning nothing at all. As C. S. Lewis writes, “When a word ceases to be a term of description…it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object.”¹ Unfortunately, “heresy,” a critically important theological term, has come to mean nothing more than an indicator of an accuser’s distaste for their opponent’s doctrinal positions.

---

Origen would subscribe (maybe?)…

Ancient Christian answers for our culture’s most profound questions. Subscribe for a new article in your inbox every Monday.

---

When “heresy” means everything, it ultimately means nothing. Christians, who have an ancient faith based on an ancient Book revealed by an Ancient God, pluck that faith from its roots when they widen heresy’s definition. In doing so, they reflect a postmodern relativism, not the timeless religion of Christ.

It is far easier to affirm what has been taught in one’s own church or denomination over a lifetime of instruction as the only form of orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this is ultimately a broken appeal to authority that elevates the interpretation of one (often newer) tradition over others based on the influences of that one tradition’s interpretation alone rather than a thorough study of God’s Word as interpreted by the Church as a whole for millennia.

Why Is Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy So Important?

As a definition of orthodoxy, Thomas Oden, a highly respected Patristic scholar, writes, “Orthodoxy itself is nothing more or less than the ancient consensual tradition of Spirit-guided discernment of scripture.”² Simply put, orthodoxy is based on the truth found in Scripture. But just as critical, orthodoxy is recognized through the Spirit-guided interpretation of Biblical truth preserved by the Church through all ages.

A doctrine that contradicts orthodoxy is heterodox or heresy. At this point, the importance of defining these terms becomes abundantly clear; the very definition of Christianity is at stake if these words are not defined correctly. Without clear definitions of orthodoxy and heresy, Christianity can be anything anyone wants it to be, and the lack of definition in our age has led many to take advantage of this circumstance to the Church’s detriment.

Orthodoxy Is Like an umbrella

The existence of true orthodoxy unites the Church across denominations and beyond their secondary disagreements. Orthodoxy is an umbrella. As an umbrella has a handle that must be grasped, there are core tenets every orthodox Christian must grasp to be an orthodox Christian. Also, under the protection of the umbrella, there are many positions in which one may stand without becoming drenched by the rains of heresy. While orthodoxy unites the Church among various traditions, there are various views on different doctrines across the Body of Christ within orthodoxy.

This analogy raises the following questions: Why are there so many differences among Christians under the umbrella of orthodoxy? Does not all truth matter? What are the core truths of orthodoxy? Indeed, how to define orthodoxy and heresy has far-reaching consequences in the areas of separation, unity, theology, and more.

More Important Truths?

All truth matters. But not all truth is equally as pertinent to the definition of orthodoxy. Whether they want to admit it or not, most Christians inherently know this fact to be true. For example, one parishioner may disagree with another over the identity of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 and still share communion. One of the parishioners may be right, and at least one is wrong. Regardless, these brothers should uphold unity despite the logical necessity of error.

But unity is shattered when an ideology threatens certain truths, such as the humanity or deity of Christ. This exemplifies the priority of certain truths over others. John Calvin makes this point when he writes,

For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith…

The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all, or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant…³

So then, it is necessary to distinguish error from heresy. One can be in error and still fall under the umbrella of orthodoxy. On the other hand, no one can remain both within heresy and under the umbrella of orthodoxy. That is not to say that secondary issues are unimportant, but that disagreements on secondary issues do not classify as heresy. This fact allows for variance among the different Christian traditions while uniting them under the heading of the Church.

Church Consensus as the Interpretive Boundary

The Scriptures are the fountainhead of unquestionable particular truth. These truths are unquestionable because, while different Christians debate about receiving new individual revelation, Christians only accept the Scriptures unquestionably as reliable revelation for all Christians. The Scriptures are particular truth because only the Scriptures provide God's thorough instruction for man to know Him intimately.

But there are many truths found within the pages of the Bible. And for every truth in the Bible, there are many interpretations. This interpretive variety can be devastating for those ungrounded in historical interpretation when core tenets of orthodoxy are questioned based on the diversity of interpretations. Intellectual anxiety is often inevitable, even for the experienced scholar. Church consensus becomes essential to weed out false subjective interpretations and provide boundaries for the theological scene. As Sandlin explains:

What about the Bible? Is it not ultimately authoritative in determining heresy? Indeed, it is,…but we should recall that quoting the Bible will not by itself solve the issue of heresy: the Arians (like today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses) were fond of quoting many Bible verses to prove their view that Jesus is not equal to God. Orthodoxy is necessary precisely because heretics appeal to the Bible, not because they do not appeal to it. The Bible (not the Church) is the source of its own interpretation, but that interpretation must be visibly and publicly recognized in ecclesiastical consensus—or else one man’s orthodoxy is another’s heresy….This is not to say that one should not appeal to the Bible in proving charges of heresy, only that such appeal is not sufficient if it does not account for how the vast majority of Christians historically have interpreted it.⁴

A Biblical Argument for Church Consensus

In the first three chapters of Revelation, Jesus warns some of the seven churches that He would remove their candlestick based on specific negative attributes. For some of these churches, these attributes include heresy. Some of them include apathy. Regardless, Christ expected a level of purity among the Church, or He would remove the impure churches from His Body, whether the impurity is against orthodoxy (right doctrine) or orthopraxy (right practice). That does not mean those bodies would cease to exist physically, but they would cease to be candlesticks or a spiritual part of the universal Church.

An important question is whether God ever allows every candle to go out simultaneously. Has there ever been a period when every candlestick has drifted from the essence of Christianity, either in doctrine or in practice? Or does God continually preserve the Body of Christ so that there is a consistent line of the Church that is correct in doctrine and practice in at least the core tenets of orthodoxy, even if they historically disagree with other Christians in other ages on secondary issues? In answer to these questions, there is indeed a Scriptural basis for God’s preservation of the Church.

What Scriptural basis is there to say that God will continually preserve the Church?

• Matthew 16:17-19 teaches that the Church will prevail over death. The position of the Church is not one of weakness and deterioration but one of strength and perseverance.

• Throughout the NT (1 Cor 12:12-30; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24; etc.), the writers name the Church as Christ’s Body. While this is metaphorical, the NT heavily emphasizes this fact. It would counter the picture of the Gospel for Christ to let His Body die again, even if the Church is His metaphorical Body (Heb. 6:6).

• In Ephesians 2:19-20 and 1 Peter 1:4-6, Paul and Peter write that the Church built on the foundation of Christ. Since this is true, unless Christ is destroyed, the Church shall stand for eternity.

• The Church is the mystery of the new covenant in Ephesians 3. Letting the Church die out would not make sense (v10-13). In verse 21, Paul also calls the Church to glorify Christ in all generations forever and ever. How can the Church fulfill this command if they will not exist for eternity, at least from the time of Paul’s epistle?

• Christ is Husband to the Church in Ephesians 5:23-32. Would Christ let his wife die, the wife who he originally died Himself to save? Does not death bring an end to marriage?

• And in Galatians 1:13, persecution is not able to destroy the Church.

As so eloquently voiced by Beza, who stood before King Henry of Navarre, “Sire, it belongs to the Church of God, in the Name of Whom I speak, to receive blows, and not to give them, but it will please your Majesty to remember that the Church is an anvil which has worn out many a hammer.”⁵

Since God has continuously preserved the Church, there must be a composite set of beliefs that the Church has upheld from its founding until now. These would be the core tenets of orthodoxy. Any doctrine that rejects any portion of this composite of essentials, no matter how miniscule the deviation, is heresy.

Without this essence of Christianity, the Church would not be the Church. By comparing the consensus of the Church throughout its history, an interpretive boundary may be established that separates heresy from orthodoxy.

That God will preserve orthodoxy through the Church can be represented in syllogistic form:

• Premise 1: God will preserve His Church from its inception throughout history.

• Premise 2: Orthodoxy within the Church is a prerequisite for the Church’s existence.

• Conclusion: God will preserve Orthodoxy within the Church from its inception throughout history. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:15, “…the Church of the living God [is] a pillar and buttress of the truth.”

The Vincentian Rule in the Early Church

In his The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian, only 200 years removed from the events of the cross, wrote about the struggles the early Church faced against those heretics who used the Scriptures to defend their heresy,

Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.⁶

Tertullian would eventually conclude that the correct interpretation of what would come to be called orthodoxy is preserved in the apostolic tradition. Continued transmission of this doctrine through the Church is proven by the unity of the Church in the most central of doctrines,

When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?⁷

Tertullian did not have much Church history before him on which to refer. Only two to three generations removed from the ministry of the Apostle John, many churches that the apostles founded remained in operation and were relatively unchanged in doctrine and practice. For him, the solution was much more straightforward than for theologians today: simply follow those churches who followed the apostolic doctrine as certified by those who knew the apostles. That Church consensus at large agreed on the core tenets of apostolic tradition only served to prove to Tertullian the correct interpretation of Biblical doctrine and how to identify heresy.

Around two hundred years after Tertullian, the Church had significantly developed its doctrine and had resisted considerably more heresies. By the time Vincent of Lérins passed away, three of the seven ecumenical councils had already occurred. It is Vincent of Lérins who formulates perhaps the most precise definition of orthodoxy ever,

Here, perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer,] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted differently by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men.

Novatianus, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillianus; in another way, Jovinianus, Pelagius, and Celestius; finally, in still another, Nestorius.

Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. In the Catholic Church itself, every care should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. [emphasis mine]⁸

Thomas Oden finds that the Vincentian rule contains three criteria: universality, apostolic antiquity, and conciliar consent.⁹ Universality (everywhere) implies that every core tenet of orthodoxy must be recognizable across the Church in all geographical locales. Apostolic antiquity (always) implies that every core tenet of orthodoxy is grounded in the apostolic tradition and is present from the early Church until current times. And conciliar consent (by all) requires that every core tenet of orthodoxy be accepted by lay consensus through specific methods of conciliar agreement (such as ecumenical councils, documented widespread tradition, and consensus between accepted creeds, confessions, and liturgies, etc.).

Explaining whether consensus requires absolute or perfect agreement, Oden continues,

Does the consent needed at the three [criteria]…require absolute unanimity? No. The respondents to Vincent’s inquiry did not absurdly insist that all consent must be plenary or perfect; they did agree, however, that it must be reasonably firm…. Vincent is looking practically for the center of an orthodox method of reflection, especially in the case of issues whose veracity has been decisively debated. He seeks not an absolute or unanimous perfectionism, then, but a reliable reverberation of the symphony of faith.¹⁰

It becomes essential to state that the Vincentian rule provides a guideline for separating orthodoxy from heresy. It does not offer an approach to separating all errors from truth. Many, perhaps all, orthodox Christians have conceded some secondary error in parts of their theology. Church consensus provides a boundary for keeping interpretations within orthodoxy, but it cannot always decisively judge what is or is not an error within the limits of orthodoxy.

Important Considerations on Church Consensus

There are a few essential considerations to remember as one seeks to implement these guidelines. These considerations flow necessarily from the Vincentian rule. These considerations are not exhaustive but provide a good starting place for those wishing to delve deeper into distinguishing orthodoxy and heresy.

Novel interpretations

What are novel interpretations, and why are they important? A novel interpretation is an interpretation that cannot be found in history (especially patristic history) before the time the interpretation was considered. A novel interpretation or doctrine cannot be a core tenet of orthodoxy, for if it was and yet has never been considered before, then the Church has been unorthodox until the advent of the novel interpretation.

If a novel doctrine is at odds with any core tenet, it is heresy. However, while novel interpretations should immediately be suspect, their novelty does not immediately make them heresy or even incorrect. But a new doctrine, never before believed by the Church at large, cannot be a core tenet of orthodoxy, and disagreeing with a novel interpretation does not make one a heretic.

The Importance of the Early Church

If the Vincentian rule is of any merit, surveying the teachings of the early Church on the given interpretation becomes a crucial step in distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy. Why? Because any interpretation found and accepted in early Church history is not novel within broader Church tradition. This maturity supports the legitimacy of the interpretation.

That is not to say that all early interpretations are correct, only that it is harder to argue that they are novel in a historical sense. Theologians ought to take notice if there is widespread consensus among the patristic Church on an interpretation. However, just because certain orthodox believers teach a particular interpretation at any point in history does not automatically mean that interpretation is consensual, a core tenet of orthodoxy, or even true; further study is required to establish it’s pertinence.

Church Councils

There are two forms of Church councils: Ecumenical and Regional. Ecumenical councils are represented by a broad swath of Church leaders of the universal Church, enough to be representative of the entire Church during the years surrounding the council. The seven ecumenical councils give theologians great insight into the consensus of the Church during one time. When the rulings are overwhelmingly one-sided, interpretive boundaries can be quickly established.

Regional councils are represented by Church leaders in one regional area. While these can be very helpful when combined with a broader study of Church history, it must be understood that regional councils do not represent the universal Church by themselves.

Secondary doctrines

Secondary doctrines are not unimportant. Non-heretical error still matters. An error can lead to confusion on core tenets or negatively affect orthopraxy. Not every truth of Scripture is essential for orthodoxy, but every truth is essential, and every truth must be defended with passion according to its pertinence.

Conclusion

Understanding orthodoxy and heresy and applying this knowledge to individual theological issues is essential to the definition of Christianity. Without a firm method of identifying heresy, confusion will abound within Christian communities. Unfortunately, many Christians use “heresy” as a relativistic cudgel against their slightest opponents. Yet, there is a way forward: if the Church can learn to find unity on the core tenets of orthodoxy while charitably defending secondary issues, it can finally reserve the term “heresy” for the actual heretics.

"In essentials, unity—in non-essentials, liberty—in all things, charity."

1. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London, England: William Collins), 2012, 5.

2. Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 31.

3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. Mortimer J. Adler and Philip W. Goetz, trans. Henry Beveridge, Second Edition., vol. 20, Great Books of the Western World (Chicago; Auckland; Geneva; London; Madrid; Manila; Paris; Rome; Seoul; Sydney; Tokyo; Toronto: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.; Robert P. Gwinn, 1990), 332–333.

4. P. Andrew Sandlin, “Heresies Real and Imaginary,” Reformation and Revival 12, no. 1 (2003): 75.

5. Stephen Abel Laval, A Compendious History of the Reformation in France, (United Kingdom: H. Woodfall, 1738), 33

6. Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 251.

7. Tertullian, “The Prescription against Heretics,” 256.

8. Niceta of Remesiana et al., “Vincent of Lerins,” in Writings; Commonitories; Grace and Free Will, ed. Bernard M. Peebles, trans. Rudolph E. Morris, vol. 7, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949), 269–270.

9. Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, 162.

10. Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, 163.