Orthodoxy and Heresy

Strong's Dictionary Definition of Heresy and Heretic

G139 αἵρεσις haíresis hah'-ee-res-is (9)
from G138; properly, a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion:—heresy (which is the Greek word itself), sect. feminine noun
Translated as (in the KJV):

  • heresies (3) 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2Pe 2:1
  • sect (2) Act 26:5; 28:22
  • the sect (2) Act 5:17; 15:5
  • heresy (1) Act 24:14
  • of the sect (1) Act 24:5

G141 αἱρετικός hairetikós hahee-ret-ee-kos' (1)
from the same as G140; a schismatic:—heretic (the Greek word itself). adjective
Translated as (in the KJV):

  • that is an heretic (1) Tit 3:10

The Orthodox View

We return to our basic epistemological question: What must be in order for what is to be what it is? If there is such a thing as the "orthodoxy of Scripture," then what kind of things would we expect to find in the New Testament?

  1. We would expect to find references in the New Testament to an already established body of doctrines which constituted "the faith" of Christians.
  2. We would expect to find this "faith" expressed in creedal and hymnal form as well as in didactic form.
  3. There would be only "one faith" as opposed to multiple faiths.
  4. We would expect to find that the New Testament itself was written in the context of this "one faith" and is thus not its creator. This has great implications for Werde's idea that Paul created Christianity. If "the faith" was already established before the Pauline epistles were written, how and in what way could Paul be its creator?
  5. We would also expect to find that when someone taught a doctrine which contradicted "the faith," he and his doctrine would be rejected as spurious, false, and heretical.
  6. We would expect to find that there was only one understanding or interpretation of the person and work of Jesus Christ allowed. Thus only "one Jesus," "one Lord" and only "one gospel" would be viewed as the "True" doctrine and any "other Jesus, Lord or gospel would be condemned.

The Modern Liberal View

On the other hand, if the modern liberal view is a faithful description of the early Church, what would we expect to find? As Harold Brown pointed out in his book Heresies:

If we postulate that the New Testament is relatively late in origin and in general use among Christians, and even that it sometimes contradicts itself, then we will not expect to find in it the "faith once delivered."—Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) p. 73.

  1. We would, therefore, expect to find no references in the New Testament to an already established body of doctrines which constituted "the faith." After all, if no "one true faith" existed at that time, then there could be no references made to it.
  2. We would expect to find a toleration for many different Jesuses, Lords, and gospels.
  3. Since there was no "orthodox" view, there could not be any heresies.
  4. We would expect to find no distinctions made between what is acceptable or unacceptable doctrine. The early Christians would be "open" to new views.
  5. We would expect to find that no one was ever condemned on the basis of teaching false doctrine.

What the Evidence Reveals

When we turn to the New Testament, what do we find? Do we find what we would expect to find, if the traditional view of orthodoxy is true? As a matter of fact, we do! We find that "orthodoxy" and"heresy" were already operating as categories of thought in the apostolic Christian long before the New Testament itself was written. The exegetical and historical evidence is all solidly against the liberal view.

The New Testament is quite clear that there was a clearly defined body of doctrines which constituted "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). By a "common confession" (1Ti 3:16) all Christians worshipped "one Lord," shared "one faith" and participated in "one baptism" (Eph 4:5).

The NT uses language that describes a defined body of beliefs which constituted “the Christian faith.” The following texts demonstrate this clearly: Acts 6:7; 13:8; 14:22; 16:5; 1Co 16:13; 2Co 13:54; Gal 1:23; 6:10; Eph 4:5,13; Php 1:25,27; Col 1:23; 1Ti 1:2; 3:9; 4:1; 5:8; 6:10,21; 2Ti 3:8; 4:7; Tit 1:13; Jude 1:3; Rev 2:13.

Was religious pluralism tolerated in the new Church? No. The NT uses the following language to describe those who diverged from the teachings of the one true faith (Tit 1:9):

The false doctrines were described as:

Whose a priori assumptions are right? A survey of the New Testament reveals that the early Christians had already worked out very detailed Christology before the New Testament was written. That is why we find the authors of the New Testament quoting previously existing Christological hymns and creads (i.e. Php 2:5-11; 1Ti 3:16).

Since much of this Christology was already worked out to a great degree before the New Testament was written, this is why the authors could state that there was only one true doctrine of Christ (2Jn 1:9) and Christians must reject any "another Jesus" or "different gospel (2Co 11:4). The orthodox doctrine of Christ included the following:

  1. the pre-existence of Christ (John 1:1,2; 1 John 4:1-2)
  2. the deity of Christ (John 1:1,18; 20:28)
  3. the incarnation of Christ (1 John 4:2)
  4. the humanity of Christ (Acts 2:22)
  5. the vicarious atonement (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
  6. the bodily resurrection of Christ (Romans 10:9)
  7. the Lordship of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:3)
  8. Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22)

If someone showed up at a house church holding to some other doctrine, he was denied entrance to the meeting (2 John 1:9-10). The early Christians were, thus, "closed" to any other interpretation of the person and work of Christ than that which came from the words of Jesus Himself (1 Tim. 6:3-5) or from the Apostles (Acts 2:42). They condemned outright any view of Jesus which either fell short of or was in contradiction of "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3).

The emphasis in the New Testament is that the Church's understanding of the person and work of Christ came from first hand eyewitnesses who actually saw and heard Jesus Christ (Matt. 13:16; Luke 1:2; John 19:35; 21:24; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1-2). They know who Jesus was and what He did on the cross from the Apostles who had lived with Jesus.

It is assumed by cultists and liberals alike that while the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly a part of the orthodoxy of the Christian community, it is not a part of the orthodoxy of Scripture. They claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was "invented" by the early Church. These early Christians derived this doctrine from Greek philosophy and not from the Scriptures. Thus we can safely jettison it as unnecessary baggage.

Evangelical theologians assume the exact opposite. Because the doctrine of the Trinity is a part of the orthodoxy of Scripture, it became a part of the orthodoxy of the Christian community. The doctrine of the Trinity was derived from Scripture and is an essential truth. The only way to discover who is right is to examine the Bible to see which position is borne out by the evidence.