Orthodoxy is Heresy

Through studies of historical records Bauer concluded that what came to be known as orthodoxy was just one of numerous forms of Christianity in the early centuries. It was the eventual form of Christianity practiced in the 4th century that influenced the development of orthodoxy and acquired the majority of converts over time. This was largely due to the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine 1 and consequently the greater resources available to the Christians in the eastern Roman empire capital he established (Constantinople). Practitioners of what became orthodoxy then rewrote the history of the conflict making it appear that this view had always been the majority one. Writings in support of other views were systematically destroyed.[1]

 

Bauer’s conclusions have been challenged by scholars holding to the traditional stance of mainstream Churches. Opposition to Bauer’s writing has been presented by a number of authors, as in the book The Heresy of Orthodoxy.

The authors of this book do more than expose the faults of this doctrine; they point the way to a better foundation for early Christian studies, focusing on the cornerstone issues of the canon and the text of the New Testament.[2]

One of the criticisms put forward is that Bauer used second century information. Bauer can’t be entirely wrong since evidence from the second century predates the orthodoxy of the fourth. From what has been written concerning Bauer’s postulation it is evident that those holding to “orthodoxy” are more than a little perturbed. With all the resulting study we have as one might expect a wide divergence of opinion.

Probably most scholars today think that Bauer underestimated the extent of proto-orthodoxy throughout the empire and overestimated the influence of the Roman church on the course of the conflicts. Even so, subsequent scholarship has tended to show even more problems with the Eusebian understanding of heresy and orthodoxy and has confirmed that, in their essentials, Bauer's intuitions were right. If anything, "early Christianity was even less tidy and more diversified than he realized."

As a result of this ongoing scholarship, it is widely thought today that protoorthodoxy was simply one of many competing interpretations of Christianity in the early church. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view. The apostles, for example, did not teach the Nicene Creed or anything like it. Indeed, as far back as we can trace it, Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions.[3]

 

As some scholars have shown, accounts in the New Testament indicate differences and heresies. Paul warned the elders of Ephesus;

I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.[4]

Paul battled Judaizing teachers who enforce Jewish rites on Gentile Christians. Paul struggled with issues among the believers in Corinth. James spoke openly about the need to demonstrate faith by actions. Peter called for people to live holy lives. Much of what was written by authors of the New Testament was to either to combat division, or encourage people to live in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. Some of those who oppose Bauer speak of the “gospel” as though it were a compilation of regulations or doctrines. When Paul spoke of the gospel, or Peter referred to the gospel, neither spoke of a developed creed, but of the good news of salvation and the kingdom.

 

I don’t know that I agree with, or even understand all of Bauer’s proposal, but I believe that his presentation is more correct, than anything his opponents use against him. I have long believed that Constantine’s intrusion into Christianity was one of its darkest days. Constantine’s authority and money empowered heresy to become “orthodoxy”. That “orthodoxy” stifled truth, decimated opposition, and murdered believers. The Roman Church’s long corrupt and violent history bears more resemblance to the Roman Empire that anything to do with the kingdom of God. The near panic to discredit Bauer’s thesis is not unlike the “orthodox” persecution of Anabaptists and other Christian groups throughout history. The Roman Church depends on “orthodoxy” being in place with the apostles; without the existence of an authoritative regime popes are no more than imaginative figureheads. All modern Churches have succumbed to the lies of “history” as adjusted by the powerful organization brought into being by Constantine. The doctrine that “the Church” is founded on scripture is a foundational necessity of the Catholic Church. Following its cue all Churches accept that tradition of the Roman Church as being accurate with their modification.

 

Jesus did not establish an orthodox organization, he dealt with people. Jesus did not provide an orthodox creed, he taught people about God, salvation, and life in the kingdom. Jesus did not authorize a hierarchy of clergy superior to believers. That, he said was what pagans did. Jesus didn’t anoint Peter as his vicar on earth. That concept flies in the face of all Jesus taught.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.[5]

 

The main point I take from Bauer and other scholars who suggest similar ideas is that, the organization of the Jesus movement was adjusted to suit the needs of the Roman Church, which vigorously and violently protected its structure and authority (politically assigned).

If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.[6]

The notion that there was a New Testament Church is a fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church, yet gullibly, every Church since Constantine’s organization, has followed the same delusion. And, like all before them, modern Churches flock to the pages of scripture to secure “proof” of their particular version of the Catholic position. The Church is a New Testament invention, it cannot exist if the ancient scriptures are considered. The Greek Septuagint uses the same word translated Church in the New Testament, but never is it translated Church, it just wouldn’t fit! To the Catholic Church this is not a problem since with its usurped authority it decides what scripture says. Modern Churches not having that luxury must manipulate scripture to find support.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bauer

[2] The Heresy of Orthodoxy, ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER AND MICHAEL J. KRUGER, acknowledgements

[3] Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 176

[4] Act 20:29, 30 

[5] Eph 2:19-22

[6] The Crown of a Life, by Isa Blagden p.155