By Joel Stevao
We live in a time fascinated by “diversity”. We want diversity in restaurants, shopping malls, and even in churches and places of worship. What people are looking for is a variety of options, and if they don’t like what they’re seeing or hearing they transfer their “business” or their “worship” elsewhere.[1]
No one can tell anyone what to do, everyone has the truth – their truth. We live in a time when people pride themselves on their independence, their rejection of authority and for embracing pluralism.
They preach: the truth is dead, long live to diversity!
The big problem is that pluralism is entering the Churches and distorting or denying what the Church had already adopted as Orthodoxy in the first century. This word in the original Greek is the junction of orthos (straight, correct) and doxa (opinion, glory) literally correct opinion or belief.
Walter Bauer, a German theologian who was born in Prussia in 1877, in his work called “Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church,” [2]states that the Church in the first century comprised a miscellany of theologies and ideas and that it was only at the Council of Nicaea that the Roman Church defined what orthodoxy would be, also establishing the books that would be included in the biblical canon.
A group of theologians responded to Bauer’s thesis by showing the historical errors he made and his erroneous conclusions, claiming that his conjectures and arguments are mostly disproportionate and entirely based on the lack of evidence, that is, on their silence. Another alleged issue is that he denied the historical evidence of the New Testament, using second-century data to describe the nature of the first century.[3]
Bauer denied there were theological patterns in the early Church, and grossly simplified the figure of the Church in the first century.[4] Bauer aimed to fight the Church, and ultimately did not present a scientific work based on data and research, but one that housed a flawed interpretive model.
Recently the skeptical theologian Bart Ehrman, a fierce opponent of Christianity and the Bible, taking advantage of the fascination with the diversity of present times, resurrected Bauer’s thesis. Bart dishonestly does not respond to criticisms made as early as the last century to Bauer, yet he takes advantage of the fascination with the diversity of our time to try to point out that the Books of the Bible that are part of the biblical canon were the result of random choices determined by the Church for its own benefit and convenience. According to these theologians, at the beginning of the Church there was theological “diversity,” that is, each had its own beliefs, coming only after “Orthodoxy.” However, nothing could be further from the truth.
Before proceeding I would like to say that the objective of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. was to establish and document officially the sacred books which the Church already believed and had been using from the beginning in her theological convictions about Jesus. And this is what happened: The Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. made official the books that form the biblical canon that we use today, but this was not organized by the Roman Church, but by Constantine I, who saw the need to make official and identify what had actually been transmitted and taught by Jesus and his disciples. There were representatives of the Church from all over the world.
And of course the Church Fathers as Irenaus (c.130–200), Tertullian (160–224), Clement of Alexandria (c.150–215), Origen (c.185–254), Hippolytus (c.170–236), Novation (c.200–258), Athanasios, (c. 296–373) had already fought countless heresies of the second century, but it took the church to come together to formalize the teachings of Jesus transmitted through the apostles and exclude what was not correct. Thus, “the Church took her first great step in defining revealed doctrine more accurately, in response to a challenge of heretical theology.”[5]
One of the central themes was to fight Arius, whose teachings stated that the Son was created by the Father’s permission and power and that he did not possess eternity or the true divinity of the Father; and the Son being god’s first creation and the most perfect of his creatures.[6]
It is important to note that this doctrine is taught by Jehovah’s Witnesses, who added the undefined article “one” in John 1:1 before the noun God, in lower case “a god”. They also added in the next verse (John 1:2), a definite article: as “the” God. The Jesus of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims is not the same as the Bible and therefore cannot save. Jesus wanted his disciples to really know who He was. (Matthew 16:16).
Athanasius bishop of North Africa fought Arius strongly by showing that scripture defined exactly the nature of Christ, reinforcing what the Church already created and preached from the beginning. Athanasius argued within scripture that the Son is in itself the nature of the Father, who is eternal. God has always been the Father, and both this and the Son have always existed together, eternally and consubstantially together with the Holy Spirit.[7] The argument against the Arians stated that the Logos (the “Verb”) was “eternally generated”, therefore without beginning. Athanasius believed that following the Arian theology destroyed the unity of divinity and made the Son unequal to the Father and insisting on such a theology transgressed the Scriptures, which state that “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The bishops of the council declared, as Athanasius did,[8] that the Son was not created, He already existed, so he had an “eternal derivation” of the Father and therefore was co-eternal with him and equal to God in all respects.[9] There was a consensus in the fathers of the Church and concern to pass on the correct teachings about the doctrine of Christ, whose main points were already common to Christians so that all would fix the essential message of the gospel in the structure of Christian belief in one God, achieving salvation in Jesus Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit.[10]
Apostolic parents believed that it was their mission to convey this unified and unifying message of theological patterns. Irenaus (Haer.3.3.3) reinforced the idea that it was their role to pass on to later generations, which they had received from the apostles. The father of the Ignacio Church (Magn, 13.1; 6.1; Phld. 6.3; c A.D. 110) encourages its readers to remain in the teachings of Christ and his apostles (c.f.Pol. Phil 6:3). Irenaus says, “Such is the teaching of truth, the prophets announced, Christ established, the apostles transmitted, and everywhere the Church presents it to her children.” (Epid. 98; cf. Haer.3.1.1; 3.3.1).[11] They had a rule of faith, not officially written, but a consensus of a common faith of the church. What happened to this article of faith after the death of the fathers of the Church? It was passed on to the third and fourth century as formulas or creeds, yet it was the heart of the message of Scripture.
The gospel message that we have today is the same as in the first century, the one the Church believed even before Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 we find the oldest creed of the Church. Paul says: “For what I first transmitted to you was that which I also received that Christ died for our sins, according to scripture, was buried and risen on the third day, according to the Scriptures.” Everyone believed that Christ had been killed and resurrected according to scripture. Remember that this creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 was only recorded by Paul approximately two decades after the resurrection, but Paul was sure it was true, for he claimed that Christ “… appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom still live, although some have already fallen asleep” I Color. 15:5-6. Scholars believe that Paul wrote this creed 20 years after Christ’s death, so Paul mentions the 500 brethren, for most still lived and could confirm such events. But Paul’s conviction came from the fact that Jesus himself appeared to him as well, so it was not only those who testified that Jesus had risen, but Paul had also seen Jesus face to face.
There were times when heretics wanted to distort the gospel message as early as the first century, as in Galatians 6:12, where there were those who believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation. Also, in Colossians came heretics who wanted to incorporate elements of Judaism, because Paul mentions circumcision, laws, Saturdays, and regulations (Col. 2-11, 13, 16, 20-11). In Colossians 2:1-3:4 Paul uses a rare vocabulary including words such as “philosophy” (philosophia Col 2:8), “fullness” (pleroma; Col. 2:9), “affirming in things he has seen” (he struck; Col: 2:18), and “knowledge” (gnosis; Col:18).[12] Perhaps these words were taken directly from the theology of heretics, but it is not known for sure.[13] False teachers also appeared in Crete (Titus 1:10), where Paul tells Titus to rebuke them harshly so that they should not detain themselves to “Jewish Myths” (Titus 1:14). Paul’s letters to Timothy contain a considerable portion of information about the heretics who distorted the gospel (1 Tim. 1:7-11; Titus 1:10-14; 3:9; Col. 2:16-17). Some heretics are also mentioned in Judas (verse 4), in 2 Peter 2:1, 13), and also false teachers are mentioned in 1 John 2:19 and finally in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are directed to a series of congregations in Asia Minor referencing many heresies.[14]
Therefore, there were heresies early in the Church, which distorted Christ’s message and the gospel revealed to the apostles, but they knew what they had received from Jesus and fought vehemently these false teachings. The writings of the New Testament reveal the presence of several opponents who have been denounced in a variety of ways, but these groups were not the majority, in fact there is no literature any of these heretical groups to truly reconstruct what they believe.
Professor Köstenberger wrote: “In the end, the only group of early Christians who possessed theological unity, about the essential and central message that dated back to Jesus and was rooted in the Old Testament was the movement represented by the writers of the New Testament.”[15] There were, however, legitimate distinctions of diversity in the way of focusing on theological emphasis and perspectives that were mutually complete, but not that they affected the Christological statements made by the Apostles and other New Testament writers.
There is legitimate diversity that does not prejudice the presence of fundamental beliefs of early Christianity; it simply testifies to the presence of different personalities and perspectives among New Testament writers (such as the Synoptic and John, Paul, Peter, and James).
Illegitimate diversity differs in Jesus’ critical central statement as crucified, buried, and risen according to scripture, and of Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and Son of God (see the teachings propagated by the opponents in Colossians, 2 Peter, Judas, and 1 John). This kind of “diversity” while claiming to be “Christian” by its adherents, is deeply denounced and renounced in the pages of the New Testament. In essence, the gospel became a way of reading and understanding the Hebrew Scriptures in light of the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah and exalted Lord.
The Old Testament message, the preaching, and messianic consciousness of Jesus, and the gospel of the apostles, including Paul, were fully related and were in close continuity with each other.[16] Another fundamental element in this discussion was the notion of apostolic authority. Paul said he had apostolic authority not only concerning the issues of local Church policies but also on matters related to doctrines. Paul had been commissioned directly by Jesus, as he also did to the other twelve apostles. Paul’s authority came not from an ecclesiastical body (as the Roman Catholic Church claims), but in the quality of the Christological confession made through divine revelation. (See Mat. 16:13-19).[17] So the theological diversity alleged by Bauer and then Bart never existed. Not only are the interpretation of the data wrong, but it also comes from a false interpretive model.[18]
The conclusion we have reached is that there will always be this attempt by those who oppose scripture to try to discredit their nature and divine inspiration as god’s direct word and try to interpret the Bible in modern human tendencies as “diversity.” The distortion of the fundamental Biblical teachings of Christianity as those cited in the text above has spread even in churches considered historical, which subtly begin to distort the truth of the Gospel by judging that diversity also applies in Biblical teachings and therefore each has its truth and way of interpreting the Bible. In favor of diversity, it can be said that the interpretation of doctrines such as “gift of tongues”, “baptism in the waters as essential for salvation” are secondary and their interpretation does not affect the central or essential message of Christianity. Essential doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, the fall and guilt of man, salvation by grace through faith in the substitutive atonement of Jesus Christ are non-negotiable, for in them the fullness of the gospel is grounded.
Soli Gloria
[1] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 15.
[2] Ibid.,24.
[4] Ibid.,33.
[5] Warren Carrol, The Building of Christendom (Front Royal: Christendom College Press, 1985), 12.
[6] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978), Chapter 9
[3] Ibid.,33.
[7] Leo Donald Davis (1983), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1983), 60.
[8] St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, chapter 2, section 9.
[9] St. Athanasius, Select Treatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, Volume 3 (Longmans: Green and CO., 1920), 51.
[10] Everest Ferguson, The Rule of Faith (Eugene: Cascade Books, 1933), 53.
[11] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 55.
[12] Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 13
[13]Morna D. Hooker, “Were There False Teachers in Colossae? In Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honor of Charles Francis Digby. E.d Barnabas Lindars and Stephen S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 315-31.
[14] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 97.
[15] Ibid., 99.
[16] Ibid.,101.
[17] Ibid.,101.
[18] Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Illinois: Crossway,2010), 101.
English 
Portuguese