Biblical Authority vs. Institutional Authority
The true guardians of orthodoxy are those who remain faithful to Messiah as the fulfillment of Israel’s promises. That includes those who preserve the biblical faith rather than those who construct dogmatic barriers based on philosophical and imperial entanglements.
Should an Excommunicated Person Be Heard?
Excommunication is biblical (Matthew 18:15–17; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5), but it presumes:
Many figures deemed heretical by institutional churches were later vindicated—or at least their positions were seen as more complex than initially judged.
The Ecclesiological Dilemma
If a person is excommunicated by a true, biblically faithful church, that carries weight. But if they are condemned by churches that have already deviated from the apostolic faith, their “due process” means little. The question becomes: who is judging, and by what standard?
Hearing a Condemned Person on Faith and Practice
Theme Illustration: The Exile of the Faithful Remnant
Imagine a group of Israelites in the time of Jeremiah. The religious leaders in Jerusalem, aligned with corrupt power, declare Jeremiah and his followers as rebels and excommunicate them from the Temple. Yet, it is Jeremiah who carries the true word of the Lord, while the self-proclaimed guardians of orthodoxy are the ones leading Israel to destruction.
Now fast forward—those who remain faithful to the apostolic faith, even when condemned by institutionalized Christendom, stand in the same prophetic tradition. Just as the remnant in exile preserved God’s truth when the Temple elite had lost it, so too do those who uphold Messiah’s fulfillment of Israel’s promises, even when excommunicated by later councils and clerical authorities.
Moral of the story: The ones cast out are often the ones God preserves. The question is not who holds power, but who holds the truth. This I believe is illustrated by The Trail of Blood.
If Jesus and His apostles were excommunicated by the religious authorities of their day, should we be surprised when those who hold to the biblical faith are condemned by institutions that have long since veered from it? If the goal is to Bring Back the King, then faithfulness to Him—not institutional approval—is the true standard of orthodoxy.
The Western Church—whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or even Eastern Orthodox in its polemical use of the term—often claims to be the guardian of orthodoxy. However, this presumes that orthodoxy is defined by later councils and theological formulations rather than by the apostolic message itself. If orthodoxy is what was revealed to Israel and upheld by Messiah’s disciples, then much of what is called “orthodoxy” today may be a deviation.
If one follows a trajectory that aligns with the Judaism-Christian continuity—what some might term Messianic Hebrews or Noahides—where Jesus fulfills and expands Israel rather than replacing it, this naturally places one in tension with both Western Christendom, which has historically distanced itself from Judaism, and classical conciliar Christology, which often abstracts Christ from Israel’s covenantal reality. If Miaphysitism (or even certain expressions of Monophysitism) and preterist eschatology more closely reflect apostolic teaching, then those who reject them in favor of later theological developments cannot rightly claim to be the true guardians of orthodoxy—regardless of their institutional authority.
The true guardians of orthodoxy are those who remain faithful to Messiah as the fulfillment of Israel’s promises. That includes those who preserve the biblical faith rather than those who construct dogmatic barriers based on philosophical and imperial entanglements.
Should an Excommunicated Person Be Heard?
Excommunication is biblical (Matthew 18:15–17; 1 Corinthians 5:1–5), but it presumes:
- The community itself is aligned with the apostolic faith.
- The grounds for excommunication are genuinely biblical, not just theological gatekeeping.
- The excommunicated person is guilty of unrepentant sin or heresy as defined by Scripture, not by later doctrinal developments.
Many figures deemed heretical by institutional churches were later vindicated—or at least their positions were seen as more complex than initially judged.
- Origen was condemned centuries after his death but shaped much of Christian thought.
- Cyril of Alexandria weaponized orthodoxy against Nestorius, but the political nature of that controversy is now widely recognized.
- The Miaphysite tradition was excommunicated yet remained faithful to its Christology, which arguably aligns more with Jewish categories than Chalcedon, and this is the modern ana-baptist position as formulated by Heavenly Flesh.
If a person is excommunicated by a true, biblically faithful church, that carries weight. But if they are condemned by churches that have already deviated from the apostolic faith, their “due process” means little. The question becomes: who is judging, and by what standard?
Hearing a Condemned Person on Faith and Practice
- If they uphold Messiah, Torah, and the true gospel, their excommunication may say more about the church that rejected them than about their own standing.
- If their teachings align with Scripture and the testimony of Jesus, they should be heard, regardless of ecclesiastical condemnation.
Theme Illustration: The Exile of the Faithful Remnant
Imagine a group of Israelites in the time of Jeremiah. The religious leaders in Jerusalem, aligned with corrupt power, declare Jeremiah and his followers as rebels and excommunicate them from the Temple. Yet, it is Jeremiah who carries the true word of the Lord, while the self-proclaimed guardians of orthodoxy are the ones leading Israel to destruction.
Now fast forward—those who remain faithful to the apostolic faith, even when condemned by institutionalized Christendom, stand in the same prophetic tradition. Just as the remnant in exile preserved God’s truth when the Temple elite had lost it, so too do those who uphold Messiah’s fulfillment of Israel’s promises, even when excommunicated by later councils and clerical authorities.
Moral of the story: The ones cast out are often the ones God preserves. The question is not who holds power, but who holds the truth. This I believe is illustrated by The Trail of Blood.
I’ve seen these kinds of dynamics play out firsthand—not just in churches, but also in seminaries. One example that stands out is Dr. Bruce Waltke, one of the finest Old Testament professors I ever had. His deep reverence for Scripture and willingness to read the text through a more Jewish lens stirred some discomfort within his own Reformed tradition. It wasn’t that he denied core doctrines; rather, he returned to the Hebrew Scriptures with fresh eyes and an openness to their original context. Yet even that kind of faithfulness to the text can provoke resistance in institutional settings, especially when traditions have ossified into defensive postures.
Certainly, seminaries have a responsibility to train pastors faithfully, but there’s often a tension between safeguarding orthodoxy and remaining open to the Spirit’s ongoing illumination. Today, we need to embrace critical scholarship with humility, discerning carefully but also recognizing that the truth may come from voices that challenge inherited assumptions.
Conclusion
The real issue is whether the so-called guardians of orthodoxy have actually preserved the apostolic faith or whether they have become gatekeepers of their own traditions. If their judgments are rooted in imperial or philosophical distortions rather than in Scripture, then their excommunications and doctrinal condemnations should be evaluated with extreme caution.
The real issue is whether the so-called guardians of orthodoxy have actually preserved the apostolic faith or whether they have become gatekeepers of their own traditions. If their judgments are rooted in imperial or philosophical distortions rather than in Scripture, then their excommunications and doctrinal condemnations should be evaluated with extreme caution.
If Jesus and His apostles were excommunicated by the religious authorities of their day, should we be surprised when those who hold to the biblical faith are condemned by institutions that have long since veered from it? If the goal is to Bring Back the King, then faithfulness to Him—not institutional approval—is the true standard of orthodoxy.
