James Orr made an observation over a century ago that remains remarkably relevant today. He argued that while doctrine develops throughout church history, the ultimate criterion for determining whether that development is healthy is not tradition, antiquity, or ecclesiastical consensus—it is Scripture. Anything that cannot be found in Scripture or legitimately deduced from it (exp. The Trinity, The Hypostatic Union of Christ) cannot be binding upon the church. He writes:
“Yet in the evolution of dogma the need is imperative for some criteria by which sound and healthy developments may be discriminated from such as are the reverse. Do such criteria exist? Naturally, our minds turn here first to Scripture, which must always be the ultimate test. There is one use at least to which Scripture may always be put-negative, and yet immensely important as clearing away much that does not belong to the system of truth for which the Church is called to contend. There may be disputes about the authority of Scripture, but there ought to be no dispute about this, that whatever has no place in Scripture, or cannot be legitimately deduced from it, is no part of the truth of revelation for which the Church is set as “the ground and pillar.” This, I take it, is the distinction between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and it warrants us in rejecting straight off a vast mass of what passes as Catholic dogma, and cuts no less at the roots of many of the theories of modern Protestantism.”
━━ James Orr, The Progress of Dogma (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1901), 14-15. Bold added by me.
As evangelicals, this is precisely why we protested against Rome. The reformers rejected doctrines that had accumulated through centuries of tradition that did not comport with Scripture. Unfortunately, the reformers did not complete the reformation, nor did they reform all the necessary areas of theology. They continued to hold onto theological errors such as: baptismal regeneration, supersessionism, amillennialism, paedobaptism, Greek philosophy, etc. This is why further reformation was required. As a side note, I am still convinced that dispensational was forged from reformation and was the true outcome of reforming back to scripture, but I also contend that dispensationalism requires further refinement and further reforming.
Returning back to the Reformation, it was itself an admission that the church’s doctrinal formulations were capable of error. Yet, I find it interesting that many evangelicals today often employ the very same argument they once rejected. For instance, when discussing believer’s baptism Presbyterians frequently appeal to historical tradition. Rather than demonstrating infant baptism from Scripture, the discussion often shifts toward the testimony of the church fathers, historical continuity, or the consensus of the early church. Likewise, when debating dispensationalism, one of the first objections I usually encounter is, “It’s a new system,” as though historical age alone determines biblical legitimacy. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox make essentially the same argument against Protestantism itself: “Your theology didn’t exist until Luther.”
But the question that must be asked is when did age become the test of truth? Almost every objection I hear online begins with, “That’s a new doctrine,” rather than, “That’s an unbiblical doctrine.” Those are not the same things. A doctrine may be recently articulated, refined, or systematized while still being thoroughly biblical. Likewise, a doctrine may enjoy centuries of historical acceptance while still being mistaken. History can tell us what Christians have believed; it cannot determine what God has revealed.
Louis Berkhof recognized this reality in his History of Christian Doctrines:
“The one great presupposition of the History of Dogma would seem to be that the dogma of the Church is changeable and has, as a matter of fact, undergone many changes in the course of its historical development. That which is unchangeable is not subject to development and has no history. Protestant theology has always maintained the position that the dogma of the Church, while characterized by a high degree of stability, is yet subject to change and has in the course of history been enriched with new elements, received more careful formulation, and even undergone certain transformations. It has no difficulty, therefore, with the idea of a history of dogma. The situation is somewhat different, however, in Roman Catholic theology. Roman Catholics glory in the fact that they have an unchangeable dogma and feel far superior to the Protestant who, in the words of Cardinal Gibbons, ‘appeals to the unchanging Bible in support of his ever-changing doctrines’.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1937), 20. Bold added by me.
And here:
“A second presupposition of the History of Dogma is that the development of the dogma of the Church moved along organic lines and was therefore in the main a continuous growth, in spite of the fact that the leaders of the Church in their endeavours to apprehend the truth often wandered into blind alleys, chasing will-o’-the-wisps and toying with foreign elements; and that even the Church itself, as a whole or in part, sometimes erred in its formulation of the truth.”
━━ Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1937), 22. Bold added by me.
Protestant theology has historically acknowledged that doctrinal formulation develops over time. While divine revelation itself is complete and unchanging, the Church’s understanding, articulation, and organization should grow. We should anticipate that there are also times where the Church needs to be corrected. Development does not necessarily mean innovation.
With that said, here are some important questions I put to you to consider:
Why should the church fathers function as the standard for what the church must believe?
Why do we often assume the early church could not have erred?
Why do we speak as though the fathers were unanimous on every doctrine when they plainly were not?
Why is an appeal to historical majority often treated as if it proves biblical correctness?
If creeds and councils are not inspired, why are they sometimes treated as though they are practically infallible?
Are Christians obligated to affirm every detail of every creed and every council?
The New Testament gives us good reason to be cautious here. Interestingly, the Apostles were dealing with numerous errors that appeared even in the first century. Such errors include:
Christological Errors
Denial that Jesus is the Messiah (1 John 2:22)
Denial of Christ’s true humanity (Docetic tendencies) (1 John 4:2–3; 2 John 7)
Denial that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7)
Another Jesus—a distorted presentation of Christ (2 Cor. 11:4)
Denial of the Son resulting in denial of the Father (1 John 2:23)
Gospel Errors
Justification by works of the Law (Galatians)
Circumcision as necessary for salvation (Gal. 5:2–4; Acts 15:1)
Adding legal requirements to the gospel (Gal. 1:6–9)
Different gospel (Gal. 1:6–9)
Faith plus works as the basis of acceptance with God
Antinomianism / Moral Libertinism (Freedom)
Using grace as a license for sin (Rom. 6:1–2; Jude 4)
Sexual immorality tolerated in the church (1 Cor. 5)
Participation in pagan feasts and idolatry (1 Cor. 8–10)
Teaching that sexual immorality was permissible (Rev. 2:14, 20)
“Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8)
Legalism / Asceticism
Commanding abstinence from foods (1 Tim. 4:3)
Forbidding marriage (1 Tim. 4:3)
Ascetic regulations (“Do not handle, do not taste”) (Col. 2:20–23)
Observance of Jewish festivals, Sabbaths, and new moons as binding (Col. 2:16–17; Gal. 4:10)
Reliance on human traditions instead of Christ (Col. 2:8)
Proto-Gnosticism / Mysticism
Special “knowledge” (gnosis) exalted over apostolic truth (1 Tim. 6:20)
Worship of angels (Col. 2:18)
Mystical visions used as authority (Col. 2:18)
Denial or devaluation of the goodness of creation (implied in ascetic teaching)
Boastful speculation beyond Scripture
False Eschatology
Claiming the resurrection had already occurred (2 Tim. 2:17–18)
Teaching that the Day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:1–3)
Scoffing at Christ’s promised return (2 Pet. 3:3–4)
Jewish Errors
Genealogical speculation (1 Tim. 1:4; Titus 3:9)
Myths and Jewish fables (Titus 1:14)
Obsessing over the Mosaic Law rather than Christ (1 Tim. 1:7)
Returning to Old Covenant temple shadows after Christ’s fulfillment (Hebrews)
Gentile Errors
Becoming arrogant toward unbelieving Jews because of their unbelief (Rom. 11:17–21)
Boasting against the natural branches (Rom. 11:18)
Assuming God has permanently rejected Israel (Rom. 11:1–2)
Ignoring the future salvation and restoration of Israel (Rom. 11:25–29)
Becoming wise in one’s own estimation regarding God’s redemptive plan (Rom. 11:25)
Despising Jewish believers over matters of conscience (Rom. 14–15)
Returning to pagan idolatry and immorality (1 Cor. 8–10; 1 Thess. 1:9)
Living like the Gentiles in the futility of their minds (Eph. 4:17–24)
Being taken captive again by pagan “elemental principles of the world” (Gal. 4:8–11)
False Views of Sanctification
Perfectionism (implied by John’s insistence believers still sin; 1 John 1:8–10)
Claiming to have no sin (1 John 1:8)
Claiming never to have sinned (1 John 1:10)
Ecclesiastical Errors
Factious divisions and party spirit (1 Cor. 1–3)
Elevating human leaders above Christ (1 Cor. 3)
Authoritarian leadership (Diotrephes; 3 John 9–10)
Rejecting apostolic authority (2 Cor. 10–13)
Prosperity / Financial Abuse
Treating godliness as a means of financial gain (1 Tim. 6:5)
False teachers exploiting believers for profit (2 Pet. 2:3)
Greed disguised as ministry (Titus 1:11)
False Spirituality
Seeking signs while rejecting Christ (Matt. 12:38–39)
Boasting in spiritual gifts while lacking love (1 Cor. 13)
Disorderly and self-centered use of gifts (1 Cor. 14)
General Characteristics of False Teachers
Twisting Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16)
Teaching myths instead of truth (1 Tim. 1:4)
Empty speculation (1 Tim. 6:20)
Deceiving entire households (Titus 1:11)
Secretly introducing destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1)
Denying the Master who bought them (2 Pet. 2:1)
Following sensuality (2 Pet. 2:2)
Loving prominence (3 John 9)
Rejecting sound doctrine in favor of what people want to hear (2 Tim. 4:3–4)
Errors Addressed in Revelation
The teaching of Balaam (Rev. 2:14)
The doctrine of the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6, 15)
The teaching of Jezebel (Rev. 2:20)
Spiritual complacency and lukewarmness (Rev. 3:15–17)
The idea that the church would not continue in error, or not embrace new error is foreign to the New Testament. The Apostles anticipated deviations from the truth:
Acts 20:28-31 LSB
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be watchful, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 LSB
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of liars, who have been seared in their own conscience, 3 who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be shared in with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
2 Timothy 3:1-9 LSB
But know this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, without gentleness, without love for good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, but having denied its power. Keep away from such men as these. 6 For among them are those who enter into households and take captive weak women weighed down with sins, being led on by various desires, 7 always learning and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, disqualified in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress, for their folly will be obvious to all, just as theirs was also.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 LSB
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Hebrews 13:9 LSB
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited.
1 John 4:1 LSB
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Jude 1:4 LSB
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
We could summarize:
False teachers will arise from within the church (Acts 20:30).
Apostasy will increase in the last days (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1).
Churches will increasingly reject sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
False teachers will secretly infiltrate congregations (2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 4).
Faithful believers must contend for the apostolic faith (Jude 3), guard the standard of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13–14), and test all teaching against apostolic doctrine (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). The New Testament never encourages us to assume that proximity to the Apostles guarantees doctrinal accuracy. Instead, it repeatedly commands believers to test every teaching. This testing didn’t cease when doctrines were codified into formal creedal or confessional statements. We must all be willing to assess our own theological commitments to determine whether or not what we believe is true today.
Historical theology is valuable. The church fathers are valuable. Creeds and confessions are valuable. We should learn from them, appreciate them, and understand them. But none of them are the final court of appeal. Scripture alone occupies that position. It is supreme (prima) authority. The Bible is the only thing to be said to be infallible, inerrant, and inspired by God. The Spirit will guide men and protect truth, but there is nothing that necessitates that error cannot creep in nor that the church cannot succumb in a majority way to that error.
In conclusion, the Protestant principle has never been, “Whatever is oldest is truest.” Rather, it has always been, “Whatever God has spoken is true.” The age of a doctrine may tell us something about its historical reception, but it tells us nothing about its biblical accuracy. That is key! Every generation of Christians is obligated to examine theology in light of Scripture, and reform where Scripture demands it.
