Q : I know you wrote about Heretic cult / Heretical sect before, but can you explain them here?

A : A “heretic cult” or “heretical sect” typically refers to a religious group or movement that deviates from established, orthodox religious beliefs and practices. 

But, first, we need to look and clear things up!

Nestorianism

People still said Nestorianism (late 4th- early 5th centuries) is a heresy – but it called heresy because Cryril of Alexandria misunderstood what Nestorius said. Many modern scholars agree they misunderstood Nestorius, the real problem was a clash of terminology (Greek vs. Syriac). Cryril of Alexandria saw Nestorius as dividing Christ into two persons, which he called heretical (Nestorianism heresy). Nestorius said Christ has two nature in one, never dividing Christ into two (different) persons.

Cyril argued Nestorius undermined the Incarnation and the saving reality that God Himself was born, suffered, and died for humanity. But, Nestorius didn’t said that, he repeatedly said Christ has two nature in one – meaning Christ was fully Divine God and Human in one, and said He indeed born suffered and died for humanity.

Nestorius used Greek terms that caused controversy:

• He spoke of Christ having two physeis (natures).
• He described them as joined in prosopon (appearance, person, face).
• But he avoided saying there was one hypostasis (one concrete person or individual reality).

Nestorius feared that saying “God was born” or “God suffered” implied the divine nature itself could change, which he rejected as impossible. So he spoke of a conjunction (synapheia) — a perfect, moral, willing union between the Word and the man. He affirmed Jesus is fully human and fully God – and human suffered in crucifixion.

In his surviving work The Bazaar of Heracleides (written in exile), Nestorius says:

“I do not separate the natures, but I distinguish them.”
“God the Word is unchangeable and impassible, but He dwells in him who is passible.”

— Bazaar of Heracleides (fragment)

So Nestorius saw the two natures as distinct but perfectly united in function and will. He did not teach two Christs, but he did talk in a way that sounded like two subjects acting together.

In 1994, the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East signed a Common Christological Declaration, affirming that they share the same faith in Christ’s full divinity and humanity, properly united.

Pope Francis, like his recent predecessors, has supported ecumenical dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East, which historically descends from the Church that was labeled Nestorian in the 5th century.

Pope Francis has continued this dialogue to heal ancient divisions, but he has not endorsed “Nestorianism” as a heresy. Rather, he recognizes the Assyrian Church as apostolic, while upholding orthodox Christology .

What Nestorius said about Jesus was similar with what orthodox said.

• Orthodox fully upholds the orthodox Christology defined at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451): that Jesus Christ is one divine Person with two natures (fully divine, fully human), inseparably united.
• Nestorius said Christ have two nature: one divine (the Logos) and one human (the man Jesus), in One. He said “I distinguish the natures but unite the worship.”

Both are similar ; the meaning, but different in languages.

Nestorius and Church of the East used Christotokos and not Theokotos for Mary, also because they tried to rejected heretic sects that grew in their territory. Jesus was a fully Human fully Divine when He born, so Christotokos (Mary as mother of Christ) was used than Theokotos, although the meaning is similar because Jesus is both fully Human and God.

In time of rejected “Nestorianism” and “Pelaganism”, Council of Ephesus happened.

Pelagianism

Pelagianism (early 5th century) was also a misunderstanding “heresy”, like what happened with Nestorius. The different was Pelaganism had hole in their teaching; about grace and sin. And it can make misunderstanding about grace and sin in the real time.

Pelagius (~360–420 CE) was a British or Irish monk and moral teacher. He moved to Rome around 380–390 CE, then to North Africa, where he clashed famously with Augustine of Hippo.

Pelagius was deeply disturbed by Christians using “human weakness” as an excuse for sin, he wanted to stress personal responsibility and moral effort.

Pelagianism (early 5th century) said:

Affirmed humanity’s natural goodness and full moral freedom. Denied original sin’s corruption. Taught that grace is external help, not an inner healing power, rejected by the mainstream Church as undercutting the necessity of Christ’s saving grace.

Augustine saw this as totally undermining the Gospel:

• Humanity fell in Adam : original sin means our nature is wounded and cannot heal itself.
• We are enslaved by sin’s power : so we need inner, supernatural grace to be freed.
• Salvation is by God’s initiative : not by human moral striving alone.

His famous line: “Give what you command, and command what you will.”
Meaning: humans can’t obey God’s perfect law without grace empowering them.

Was Pelagianism really a misunderstanding? Historically there’s real debate about whether Pelagius himself taught exactly what later condemnations said Pelagianism taught.What Pelagius actually wrote :

• He wrote commentaries on Paul’s letters, treatises like On Nature and Defense of the Freedom of the Will.
• He did affirm:
  • Adam’s sin harmed Adam alone, it did not corrupt all of humanity’s nature.
  • Babies are born innocent, not guilty of Adam’s sin.
  • Human nature is basically good, because it is created by God.
  • Humans have full free will to choose good or evil. Since we’re born capable of good, humans can, theoretically, live sinless lives if they choose to follow Christ’s teaching fully.
  • He affirmed grace, but mostly as external help: the Law, Christ’s teaching, forgiveness, free will itself. He did not say “humans can be saved with zero help from God”, that’s an exaggeration of his actual view – it is not indispensable in the Augustinian sense.
  • Jesus is a teacher and example, he shows the perfect path to follow. He saves us by showing us the way, not by providing an inner grace that overcomes a corrupt nature.

In his own words, Pelagius repeatedly says:

“If I ought, I can.”

To him, the very fact that God commands something proves humans must have the ability to do it — otherwise God would be unjust.

What Pelagius didn’t teach :

• He never explicitly denied that grace exists, but he defined it narrowly.
• He probably did not say people can be saved without any grace, but for him, grace = external help (law, teachings of Christ, forgiveness when you fail) rather than an inner, transforming power that changes your will.
• He think Christ’s sacrifice was necessary, he saw Jesus as the teacher, model, forgiver, and judge.

So Pelagius’ personal views were more nuanced than the “pure Pelagianism” (heresy) that Augustine attacked.

How did misunderstand arise?

Historical context

• Augustine was fighting Pelagius and his followers (like Celestius).
• Some followers went further than Pelagius, some claimed humans could be sinless by pure will, without grace at all.
• Augustine responded by tightening his doctrine of original sin and grace in direct opposition.

Doctrinal politics

• Bishops in North Africa and Rome trusted Augustine more than an unknown British monk.
• Some Eastern bishops thought Pelagius was harmless, the Eastern Church was less focused on original sin than the Latin West.
• So what we call Pelagianism is really a mix of:
  • What Pelagius definitely said.
  • How his disciples pushed his ideas.
  • How Augustine and later councils defined and condemned the implications.

Most modern historians agree Pelagius wasn’t an atheist or a pure “self-salvation” moralist. He was a strict moral reformer who emphasized human responsibility so strongly that he underplayed the Church’s teaching on the fallen nature of humanity.

The Council of Ephesus did not care whether he personally meant it or not, it condemned the ideas that weaken the necessity of grace.

Council of Ephesus

Council of Ephesus (431): Third ecumenical council.

• Condemned Nestorianism (Jesus must be one unified person).
• Condemned Pelagianism (human nature is fallen, grace is necessary).
• Upheld Mary as Theotokos.

Historically Pelagianism as condemned is partly a misunderstanding or at least an extreme reading of Pelagius’ real ideas. Most modern historians agree that Pelagius was not trying to rebel against the Church. He was a moral rigorist, deeply upset by Christians blaming sin on “weak human nature.” His main concern was ethical: Christians should stop making excuses for sin, live holy lives, and take responsibility.

In his surviving writings, he never outright denies grace — but he defines it narrowly (Scripture, good teaching, free will itself) rather than the deep inner transformation that Augustine emphasized.

Many modern scholars think the “Pelagian heresy” as condemned was partly a strawman:

• The ideas that humans can save themselves without any grace at all are mostly Augustine’s projection of where Pelagius’s logic must lead, rather than direct Pelagian statements.
• Pelagius himself probably would have rejected the more radical positions later labelled “Pelagianism.”

Some historians see the clash as a bigger debate about anthropology (view of human nature):

• Is the human will basically sound but needs help? (Pelagius)
• Or radically damaged, needing a divine rescue? (Augustine)

Pelagius lived at a time when Christianity had just become legal and mainstream.

• Many Christians were living comfortably, not as martyrs anymore.
• Moral standards were slipping — so Pelagius called people back to strict moral discipline.

His opponents, especially Augustine, were fighting multiple heresies at once: Donatists, Manichaeans, so they sharpened doctrine dramatically.

Historically, it’s reasonable to say Pelagius did not intentionally ‘create’ Pelagianism – describes a rigid, extreme position that goes beyond what Pelagius himself clearly wrote – as later defined, the heresy label describes how his ideas were interpreted, extended, and condemned by his opponents, especially Augustine.

What Pelagianism (as a heresy) in the ears of Augustine and the modern Church (and was not what Pelagius meant) – Pelagianism is used as a label to describe ideas or attitudes that echo the heresy:

• Trusting in human effort alone for salvation.
• Acting as if grace is not absolutely necessary.
• Believing humans are basically good enough to “earn heaven” by moral willpower.

So, Pelagianism now is shorthand for radical self-sufficiency in spiritual life. As its written, Pelagius was never said and teach that in explanation for Grace and sin.

Most major churches today reject Pelagianism, they uphold the need for grace.

But many Protestants and Catholics recognize that Pelagius’s emphasis on human effort does describe a real tendency in religious life: people can act as if they “earn” God’s love by effort.

For modern theologians, Pelagius is a caution: Christianity must balance human moral responsibility and radical dependence on grace.

By modern historical view:

Pelagius was not a radical heretic in the sense his enemies claimed, but a strict moral teacher whose real flaw was minimizing how deeply sin wounds human freedom. The “Pelagian heresy” as condemned was partly a fair warning and partly an Augustinian construction. The debate forced the Church to clarify that grace is absolutely necessary for salvation.

In that time, Pelagius appealed to Rome to clear his name. Pope Innocent I supported Augustine’s side, formally condemning Pelagius’s teachings in 417. After Innocent’s death, Pope Zosimus initially sided with Pelagius, accepting his careful written defense. However, facing strong opposition from African bishops and the Roman Emperor Honorius, Zosimus reversed himself in 418, reaffirmed the African councils’ condemnation, and branded Pelagianism heresy. This papal decision ensured Augustine’s doctrine of original sin and the necessity of grace became foundational for Western Christianity.

Pelagian debates shaped Western Christianity more than Eastern. Some later monks softened Augustine’s view, they taught humans can begin the turn toward God but still need grace to complete it. This, too, was later condemned. Protestant Reformers (like Luther and Calvin) strongly sided with Augustine’s “total dependence on grace.”

Modern Popes do not worry about ancient Pelagians, but they see the same error reappearing, and used in today :

• They defend the same truth Augustine fought for: grace is absolutely necessary.
• The temptation to think we save ourselves through moral performance, rules, or human plans alone.

Pope Francis was very vocal about neo-Pelagianism (heresy), condemns it as rigid rule-following or self-reliant “perfectionism” that forgets the living power of grace.

Today, Nestorianism and Pelagianism are terms for heresy that represent the result Council of Ephesus [making Christ have 2 different nature and were 2 distinc beings (Nestorianism) & self-salvation can be made alone, without grace from God (Pelagianism)] ; not because of a direct misunderstanding to Nestorius and Pelagius.

---

Back to the topic, in the 1st-7th centuries, there were heresy that need to be aware of (many, but these are some of them) :

The Table

Sect	Core Belief	Period & Origin
Adoptionism	Jesus was a regular man who was “adopted” as God’s Son at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension. Denies His eternal divinity. (halestorm.substack.com, Wikipedia)	2nd–3rd centuries in Rome and Antioch; revived in 8th-century Spain (Elipandus & Felix). (newadvent.org, monergism.com)
Gnosticism	Salvation through secret knowledge (gnosis); material world is evil; Christ’s appearance is illusory. (Wikipedia, catholic.com)	1st–3rd centuries, diverse movements blending Christian, Jewish, and Platonic thought. (worldhistory.org, catholic.com)
Docetism	Christ only appeared to be human; His body, suffering, and death were illusions. (Zondervan Academic, Wikipedia)	1st–2nd centuries, often linked with Gnosticism; condemned by early church councils. (Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica)
Ebionites	Jewish Christian group: denied Christ’s divinity, upheld Jewish law, considered Him a prophet.	Emerged in 1st century; faded by 4th century. (Not yet cited)
Modalism	“Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are modes of a single divine person—not distinct persons.	3rd century; also called Sabellianism. (Not yet cited)
Marcionites	Rejected Old Testament; Christ introduced a new God of love, separate from the creator God.	Mid‑2nd century, led by Marcion of Sinope. (Not yet cited)
Montanists	Believed in new, direct prophecy; emphasized ecstatic spiritual experiences.	Late 2nd century, founded by Montanus in Phrygia. (Not yet cited)
Arianism	Jesus was a created being, not God’s eternal Son; “there was when He was not.”	Early 4th century; Arius of Alexandria; Council of Nicaea opposed this. (Not yet cited)
Apollinarianism	Jesus had a human body but a divine mind/spirit—denied His full humanity.	4th century, Apollinaris of Laodicea. (Not yet cited)
Collyridianism	Worshiped Mary as a goddess, offering bread and sacrifices to her alone.	Possibly 4th–5th century, Syria Arabia. (Not yet cited)
Monophysites	Believed Christ had only one, divine nature—His humanity was absorbed.	From the 5th century Chalcedonian controversy; various Oriental Orthodox churches rejected Chalcedon. (Not yet cited)
Manichaeans	Syncretic dualism: cosmic battle between light/good and dark/evil; incorporated Christian elements. (Wikipedia)	Founded and happened since 3rd century, by Mani in Persia; banned by Christian and Muslim empires. (Wikipedia)
Paulicians	Nontrinitarian, dualist; may have viewed Christ’s humanity as illusory (docetic); linked to earlier Adoptionist/Gnostic ideas. (Wikipedia)	7th–9th century Armenia and Byzantine regions. (Wikipedia)

---

Adoptionism (1st century)

Adoptionism is a Christological belief that says:
Jesus was born as a mere man and was “adopted” by God as His Son, usually at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension.

So, in Adoptionism:

• Jesus starts fully human, not divine by nature.
• He becomes the Son of God by grace or divine election.
• The title “Son of God” is an honor or legal status, not an eternal reality.

Adoptionism pops up in a few forms:

1. Early Ebionites (1st–2nd century)

• Some Jewish-Christian groups (Ebionites) saw Jesus as a righteous man whom God chose at baptism.
• They rejected the idea that Jesus was divine from eternity.

2. Theodotus of Byzantium (late 2nd century, Rome)

• Theodotus taught that Jesus was a virtuous man “adopted” at baptism when the Spirit descended on Him.
• He was excommunicated by Pope Victor I (c. 190 CE).

3. Spanish Adoptionism (8th–9th century)

• In Spain, Bishop Elipandus of Toledo taught a version of Adoptionism:
  • As God, Christ is eternal Son;
  • But as man, He was adopted Son because His human nature wasn’t divine by itself.
• Condemned by the Council of Frankfurt (794 CE) and other local councils.

Ebonite’s and Adoptionists believed that Christ was not born the Son of God but instead ‘adopted’ by him at his baptism in the River Jordan, because God judged him the most righteous man on earth and thus fit to be his son. The basis for this belief lay in the Gospel of Mark, the first of the Gospels to be written down and the earliest versions of the Gospel of Luke.

Adoptionism was rejected because it denied the full eternal divinity of Christ.
The orthodox view is:

• Jesus is the eternal Son of God — begotten, not made.
• His divine Sonship is not something that happened to Him; it is who He is by nature.
• The Incarnation means the eternal Son took on real humanity — He did not become God later.

So, for the Church, Adoptionism:

• Undermined the Trinity: if the Son is not eternal, the Trinity collapses.
• Undermined salvation: only God can save; if Jesus was only a man “honored” as Son, then He is not the Word made flesh.

The Church Fathers rejected Adoptionism wherever it appeared:

• In early Jewish-Christian forms (Ebionites).
• Among Roman dynamic Monarchians (Theodotus).
• And later Spanish versions (Elipandus).

They did this to protect two truths:

Christ is fully human, truly born, suffered, and died.
Christ is fully divine, eternally the Son by nature, not by adoption.

1st Council of Nicaea (325) indirectly closed the door on Adoptionism by affirming that the Son is begotten of the Father before all ages — true God from true God.

The Council of Frankfurt (794) condemned Spanish Adoptionism as heretical.

Orthodox theology since then has held that Adoptionism contradicts the Nicene Creed.

Today, no major church teaches Adoptionism openly. But:

• Some liberal theologians have toyed with “low” Christologies that see Jesus as a specially inspired man, critics sometimes call this neo-Adoptionism.
• Islam’s view of Jesus, a pure prophet, not God’s Son, is not technically Adoptionist but does share the idea that Jesus is a holy man raised up by God, not God by nature.

Adoptionism was never a big organized movement like Arianism, but elements of it did pop up early, especially among certain Jewish-Christian groups (like some Ebionites) and Theodotus of Byzantium.

Gnosticism (1st-4th centuries)

Claimed secret knowledge (gnosis); denied physical resurrection; reinterpreted the creation story.

In Gnosticism, “secret knowledge” (Greek: gnosis) is the core idea that salvation or liberation comes not through faith alone or good deeds, but through hidden, mystical knowledge of divine truths about oneself, the cosmos, and the true nature of God.

The examples of gnostic “secret” are,

• Gospel of Thomas : sayings of Jesus hinting at hidden wisdom: “Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death.”
• Gospel of Judas : presents Judas as the only apostle with true insight.
• Apocryphon of John  : reveals the cosmic drama of how the true God’s realm is separate from the flawed physical world.

The early Christian church — especially bishops like Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century), condemned these texts as false teachings. For example, Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies (~180 CE), attacking Gnostic writings as distortions of what Jesus really taught. The mainstream church claimed that Jesus didn’t teach secret doctrines meant only for a spiritual elite, but instead brought salvation openly for everyone. Church councils in the following centuries defined which books were canonical (the New Testament) and which were apocryphal or heretical (Gnostic gospels).

The text were historically there and real but, there’s no credible evidence that the named apostles or Jesus actually wrote them. The names (like Thomas, Judas, Philip) were usually added to give authority. Most surviving Gnostic writings were composed in the 2nd century CE, decades or more than a century after the historical apostles lived (1st century CE). For example:

• Gospel of Thomas: mid-2nd century.
• Gospel of Judas: mid-to-late 2nd century.
• Gospel of Mary: 2nd century.
  So the real historical Thomas, Judas Iscariot, or Mary Magdalene couldn’t have written them directly.

There are no references to these Gospels during the lifetimes of the apostles. The style, ideas, and language are different from 1st-century Jewish contexts. Gnostic texts show heavy influence from Platonic philosophy, which became more dominant later.
Example: the Gospel of Judas speaks in mythic, philosophical language foreign to early Jewish-Christian circles. They’re authentic 2nd–4th century writings from real sects, Sethians, Valentinians, Basilideans, etc. They show how diverse early Christianity was. They do not directly come from the historical apostles, but they reflect how later groups reimagined Jesus and his circle.

Syria (especially 1st–3rd centuries) was a significant center for Docetic ideas. Ignatius of Antioch specifically fought Docetic tendencies in Syrian Christian communities. That was the reason Nestorius tried to explain (about Jesus and Mary as Christotokos), because there were Doeticism that said Jesus wasn’t fully human and Jesus wasn’t even there in crucifixion ; it’s all illusion.

Docetism (1st-4th centuries)

“Docetism” comes from the Greek dokein (δοκεῖν) — meaning “to seem” or “to appear.” Docetists were early Christians who believed that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body, but did not actually have a fully real human, material body.

Docetism wasn’t a single organized sect, it’s more a tendency or feature in various early Christian groups, especially among Gnostics. Many Gnostic schools held Docetic views because they believed the true divine realm was purely spiritual and the material world was a prison made by a flawed creator (the Demiurge).

Docetists believed matter (physical flesh) was corrupt, imperfect, or evil. So, they argued that a truly divine being, Christ, could not have suffered, bled, or died in reality. Instead, Jesus’ physical presence was an illusion or a temporary appearance.

His suffering and death were illusions.

Some texts say the “real” Christ left Jesus’ body before the crucifixion (like in some Gnostic accounts : Gospel of Philip an Acts of John).

Ebionites (1st-4th centuries)

The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian movement active from the late 1st century into at least the 4th century.

Their name comes from the Hebrew ’ebyonim (אביונים), meaning “the poor” or “the poor ones.”

They saw themselves as the faithful remnant of Jewish followers of Jesus who kept the Law of Moses and accepted Jesus as the Messiah. They believed Jesus was fully human, not divine by nature. He was the Messiah but not God incarnate.

No surviving Ebionite texts, but we know them through the writings of their opponents:

• Church Fathers: Irenaeus (Against Heresies), Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius (Panarion).
• They are likely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews or Gospel of the Ebionites, now lost, but quoted in fragments.

Some modern scholars think parts of the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions reflect Ebionite-type ideas: anti-Paul, pro-Law.

The Ebionites regarded Paul of Tarsus as a false apostle.

• They saw him as an apostate from the Torah.
• They accused him of corrupting Jesus’s message, changing it from a Jewish reform movement into a Gentile religion free from Mosaic Law.
• According to the Church Fathers, the Ebionites believed Paul was actually a Greek who converted to Judaism, failed to be fully accepted, and turned against the Law out of bitterness.

They were fully anti-Paul, pro-Torah, and said Jesus as fully human.

Orthodox Christianity declared them heretical because they denied Christ’s divinity and the virgin birth. Docetists and Gnostics were the opposite extreme: they denied Christ’s humanity, Ebionites denied his divinity.

For Christianity, both views were wrong: Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

The Orthodox takeaway about Ebionites in summary,

• The Law was fulfilled in Christ and is not binding in the old form for Gentile Christians (Acts 15, Paul’s letters, Gospel teachings).
• Paul was a true apostle, commissioned by Christ Himself (Acts 9) and affirmed by the other apostles (Acts 15, Galatians 2).
• Denying Paul meaning denying the universality of the Gospel.
• Denying Christ’s divinity and the virgin birth is the core Christological heresies.

So for the mainstream Church, the Ebionites were lumped in with other heretical groups, they are some of the earliest examples of what the Fathers called Judaizing heresies.

They grew mainly in Palestine/Judea, the heartland of Jewish Christianity. Also reported in Syria, Transjordan, possibly parts of Arabia. After the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70 CE) and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 CE), they faded or merged into other Jewish-Christian groups.

Modalism (2nd–3rd centuries)

Modalism arose in the 2nd–3rd centuries, especially among Christians who were defending strict monotheism against pagan polytheists and Gnostics.

It’s associated with Sabellius (early 3rd century), a Roman presbyter who developed this idea most systematically — so it’s also called Sabellianism.

Some earlier modalists were Praxeas and Noetus — Tertullian famously attacked Praxeas: “Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil: he drove out the Paraclete and crucified the Father.”

In Modalism:

• God is not three distinct, co-existing Persons.
• The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just different forms, roles, or modes that the one God uses at different times.

This means:

• When Jesus prayed to the Father, it was really just one mode speaking to another — no true “Father–Son” relationship within the being of God.
• When the Son dies on the Cross, the Father suffers too (Patripassianism = “the Father suffers”) — because they’re the same.

The early Church rejected Modalism because it:

• Denied the real, eternal distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• Undermined the true incarnation: If the Father became the Son, then the Father suffered and died — which they saw as theologically impossible.
• Did not fit the Biblical witness: In the Gospels, the Son prays to the Father, the Spirit descends on the Son — they interact as distinct Persons, not just masks.

Tertullian (early 3rd century) wrote Against Praxeas, coining the Latin Trinitas — to defend “One Substance, Three Persons” (una substantia, tres personae).

Origen and later the Nicene Fathers also refuted Modalist ideas.

The Nicene Creed (325) and later councils made it clear:

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, but all three are co-equal, co-eternal, and share the same divine essence.

Some modern Christians accidentally drift into Modalist language, e.g., saying “God is one Person who acts in three ways” instead of three Persons sharing one essence.

Some Oneness Pentecostals today hold a consciously Modalist view, denying the traditional Trinity and teaching “Jesus only.”

The orthodox doctrine (Nicene, Athanasian Creed) firmly says: One God in three co-equal, co-eternal Persons.

Marcionites (2nd–5th century)

The Marcionites were followers of Marcion of Sinope (c. 85–160 CE), a wealthy shipowner from Pontus (modern Turkey). Around 140 CE, Marcion arrived in Rome and started teaching a radical reinterpretation of Christianity. He was excommunicated in 144 CE, but his ideas spread widely and formed one of the first organized “heretical” Christian churches. He rejected the Old Testament entirely.

He accepted only an edited version of Luke’s Gospel (Evangelion) and ten letters of Paul (Apostolikon), also edited to remove what he saw as “Jewish” distortions.

Marcion said Christian changed new testament, but he didn’t think his version was changed — he believed that the “true gospel” and Paul’s message had been corrupted by “Judaizers.”

So, in his view:

• The original teachings of Jesus and Paul proclaimed a pure, radical gospel of love and freedom from the Jewish Law.
• The other apostles, especially Peter, James, and the Jerusalem church, misunderstood Jesus or deliberately mixed his message with Jewish Law.
• Later Christians edited the gospel texts to fit this “Jewish” version.

Historically, almost all modern scholars agree that Marcion did shorten the texts.

• For example, he removed birth stories (like Luke 1–2) because they clashed with his Docetic view that Jesus wasn’t really born.

He probably used a version of Luke that was very similar to ours, so his version is the edited one. But the fact that he made his own canon forced the mainstream church to define which books and versions were authentic.

Marcion didn’t just say “the NT is fake”, he said parts were added to promote Jewish Law.
The mainstream Church said: No, you’re the forger.

This forced the proto-orthodox church to respond by clarifying which books did belong in the New Testament.

Marcionite churches spread rapidly — especially in Asia Minor, Syria, and parts of the Roman Empire. They survived for centuries, some scholars say until the 5th or even 6th century in remote regions. Some think Marcionism influenced later dualistic sects like the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars.

Montanists (2nd–3rd centuries)

The Montanists were a Christian prophetic movement that arose in Phrygia (Asia Minor, modern Turkey) in the late 2nd century, around 156–172 CE. Named after Montanus, a self-proclaimed prophet. Also known as the New Prophecy (Nova Prophetia).

The Montanists were not heretical because of rejecting the Trinity or denying Christ’s divinity — they were radical because of their claim to ongoing, direct prophetic revelation after the apostles.

Core beliefs:
1. Montanus and two prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, claimed the Holy Spirit spoke directly through them — giving new revelations.
2. They declared this was the age of the Paraclete (the promised Holy Spirit) foretold by Jesus in John’s Gospel.
3. Their prophecies were often apocalyptic — proclaiming the imminent return of Christ and urging strict moral rigor.
4. They called Christians to radical asceticism: no second marriages, extreme fasting, and readiness for martyrdom.

The early Church condemned Montanism not for doctrinal heresy like Arianism or Gnosticism, but for undermining Church authority:

• They claimed their new revelations could supplement or even surpass apostolic teaching.
• Their prophets did not submit to local bishops — they claimed direct authority from the Spirit.
• Mainstream bishops feared chaos: if anyone could claim new revelation, it threatened the settled canon and apostolic tradition.

Church Fathers like Tertullian joined the Montanists later in his life because he admired their moral strictness, so not all saw them as totally wrong. Bishops in Asia Minor and Rome generally rejected Montanist prophets. Around 230–250 CE, Montanism was formally denounced in local councils. Montanist communities lingered in Asia Minor into the 5th–6th centuries. Some Byzantine sources mention small Montanist groups lasting as late as the 8th–9th centuries. They never became a large rival church but remained a fringe movement.

Montanism was a rigorist, prophetic renewal movement that was rejected not for false Christology but for claiming new revelation that bypassed bishops and threatened unity.

Fun fact : Some modern Pentecostal scholars see distant parallels (not the same, but interesting) , the idea that the Holy Spirit still speaks directly, but modern charismatics do not claim new public revelation that adds to the Gospel. That’s the crucial difference.

Arianism (4th-7th centuries)

Arianism was a major Christian theological movement of the 4th century.

• It’s named after Arius (c. 256–336 CE), a Christian presbyter (priest) from Alexandria, Egypt.
• Arius argued that Jesus Christ (the Son) was not eternal, not equal to the Father, and not fully divine in the same sense as God the Father.

Arius’s core idea:

“There was a time when the Son was not.”

So:

• The Son (Logos, Christ) was the first and greatest creation of God.
• The Son is divine in a sense but not equal or co-eternal with the Father.
• Christ is above all creation, but still created, so the Father alone is the one true, unbegotten God.

Arius and his supporters were trying to safeguard monotheism:

• They thought the idea that the Son is co-equal with the Father threatened belief in one God.
• If the Son is truly begotten of the Father, they reasoned, he must have had a beginning.

Arius’ bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, and especially Athanasius, his young deacon (and later bishop), fiercely opposed him:

• They argued that if Christ were not fully divine and eternal, he couldn’t truly save humanity.
• Only God can save, so Christ must be fully God, of the same divine essence (homoousios) as the Father.

Arianism was the heretic sect that made Council of Nicaea happened – to confirm what has existed since the beginning,

Council of Nicaea

• The first great ecumenical council, called by Emperor Constantine.
• The Nicene Creed was drafted to settle this dispute.
• It declared the Son is “Begotten, not made, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.”
• This means the Son is of the same essence as the Father, eternal, uncreated, truly God.

This directly refuted Arius’ claim that the Son was created or subordinate.

Arianism didn’t just vanish, it became a huge political struggle. Many Eastern bishops and emperors favored Arian or semi-Arian views for decades.

The controversy split churches, emperors, and whole regions, leading to decades of councils and counter-councils. Arian Christianity survived for centuries among the Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Lombards) who were converted by Arian missionaries.

Arianism taught that the Son was the first and greatest creation of God, not co-equal or co-eternal. The Council of Nicaea rejected this, defining orthodox belief that the Father and the Son are of the same divine essence.

Apollinarians (4th centuries)

the Apollinarians are another early Christological group worth clarifying, because they show how debates about how Jesus is both divine and human pushed the early Church to be precise.

Named after Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 310–390 CE). Apollinaris was a respected bishop and theologian, at first, he was an orthodox defender against Arianism. But in trying to defend Christ’s full divinity, he introduced a view that the Church later condemned. He said Jesus did not have a full, complete human nature, instead, his divine Logos replaced part of it.

It was almost similar with Doeticism, but different in language,

• Docetism: Denied that Jesus had any real physical body, he only seemed (dokein) human. His body, suffering, and death were illusions.
• Apollinarianism: Admitted Jesus had a real physical body and real life force (soul), but denied he had a full human mind. Instead, the divine Logos replaced it.

So Apollinarianism is not full Docetism, it’s a partial denial of Jesus’ humanity, focused specifically on the rational mind.

They wanted to protect Jesus’ divinity, they feared that if he was too human, he might be sinful, changeable, or limited.

Both violate the same core orthodox principle: Jesus must be fully God and fully human, nothing less.

It condemned with Council of Constantinople ; The Council of Constantinople (381) reinforced and clarified the Nicene faith, condemned Apollinarianism, defended the full Trinity, and helped finalize the core statement of orthodox Christian belief.

The First Council of Constantinople

First Council of Constantinople, (381), the second ecumenical council of the Christian church, summoned by the emperor Theodosius I and meeting in Constantinople. 

The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and his followers (can. 4).

Canon 1, “The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.”

Canon 2 , “The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.”

Canon 3, “The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.”

Canon 4, “Concerning Maximus the Cynic and the disorder which has happened in Constantinople on his account, it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop; that those who have been ordained by him are in no order whatever of the clergy; since all which has been done concerning him or by him, is declared to be invalid.”

Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria.

Canon 5, “In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Canon 6, “Forasmuch as many wishing to confuse and overturn ecclesiastical order, do contentiously and slanderously fabricate charges against the orthodox bishops who have the administration of the Churches, intending nothing else than to stain the reputation of the priests and raise up disturbances amongst the peaceful laity; therefore it seemed right to the Holy Synod of Bishops assembled together in Constantinople, not to admit accusers without examination; and neither to allow all persons whatsoever to bring accusations against the rulers of the Church, nor, on the other hand, to exclude all. If then, any one shall bring a private complaint against the Bishop, that is, one relating to his own affairs, as, for example, that he has been defrauded, or otherwise unjustly treated by him, in such accusations no examination shall be made, either of the person or of the religion of the accuser; for it is by all means necessary that the conscience of the Bishop should be free, and that he who says he has been wronged should meet with righteous judgment, of whatever religion he may be. But if the charge alleged against the Bishop be that of some ecclesiastical offence, then it is necessary to examine carefully the persons of the accusers, so that, in the first place, heretics may not be suffered to bring accusations touching ecclesiastical matters against orthodox bishops. And by heretics we mean both those who were aforetime cast out and those whom we ourselves have since anathematized, and also those professing to hold the true faith who have separated from our canonical bishops, and set up conventicles in opposition [to them]. Moreover, if there be any who have been condemned for faults and cast out of the Church, or excommunicated, whether of the clergy or the laity, neither shall it be lawful for these to bring an accusation against the bishop, until they have cleared away the charge against themselves. In like manner, persons who are under previous accusations are not to be permitted to bring charges against a bishop or any other clergyman, until they shall have proved their own innocence of the accusation brought against them. But if any, being neither heretics, nor excommunicate, nor condemned, nor under previous accusation for alleged faults, should declare that they have any ecclesiastical charge against the bishop, the Holy Synod bids them first lay their charges before all the Bishops of the Province, and before them prove the accusations, whatsoever they may be, which they have brought against the bishop. And if the comprovincials should be unable rightly to settle the charges brought against the bishop, then the parties must betake themselves to a greater synod of the bishops of that diocese called together for this purpose; and they shall not produce their allegations before they have promised in writing to undergo an equal penalty to be exacted from themselves, if, in the course of the examination, they shall be proved to have slandered the accused bishop. And if anyone, despising what has been decreed concerning these things, shall presume to annoy the ears of the Emperor, or the courts of temporal judges, or, to the dishonour of all the Bishops of his Province, shall trouble an Ecumenical Synod, such an one shall by no means be admitted as an accuser; forasmuch as he has cast contempt upon the Canons, and brought reproach upon the order of the Church.”

The two following canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in 382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch.

Canon 7, “Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, “The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” But Eunomians, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and [the partisans of] all other heresies—for there are many such here, particularly among those who come from the country of the Galatians:—all these, when they desire to turn to orthodoxy, we receive as heathen. On the first day we make them Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend some time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.”

(read : here, here, here)

The council ended on 9 July 381, and on 30 July of the same year, at the request of the council fathers, the emperor Theodosius ratified its decrees by edict.

Collyridianism (late 4th century)

A term used by some early Christian writers, notably Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310-403 AD), to describe a supposed heretic sect that allegedly worshipped the Virgin Mary as a goddess by offering her cakes (the word collyris means “little cake” in Greek).

The only real source for Collyridianism is Epiphanius’ Panarion (c. 374–377 AD), a large heresiological work cataloguing 80 heresies.

Epiphanius condemns this as a dangerous heresy. He never says this was Christian orthodoxy.

Epiphanius locates the group in Arabia, likely meaning the Roman province of Arabia Petraea, not the Arabian Peninsula (i.e., not Mecca or Medina). This could include areas like : Southern Syria, Transjordan, Northern Arabia (Nabatea).

These were frontier regions with many forms of Christianity (some unorthodox), pagan survivals, and Jewish influence — a religiously diverse mix. There’s no surviving documentation, liturgy, or archaeology confirming the existence of this group apart from Epiphanius.

Many historians suspect Collyridianism may have been:

• A localized folk practice that Epiphanius labeled a “sect.”
• Or an exaggeration, part of his polemic against excessive Marian devotion.

In Epiphanius’ stance, he respected Mary greatly but said: “Let Mary be honored, but let the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit be worshipped.”

Today, The Collyridians are often cited in modern debates about Catholic and Orthodox Marian devotion.

• Protestants sometimes argue that Marian devotion risks repeating Collyridianism.
• Catholic/Orthodox theologians reply that the Church explicitly distinguishes veneration (hyperdulia) from worship (latria).

Some believe it was the first gossip of “Mary is one of the Trinity“. Early opponents of Christianity sometimes misunderstood Marian devotion, outsiders heard Christians calling her “Mother of God” (Theotokos) and saw candles, feasts, prayers, and assumed some Christians must treat her like a goddess.

Some non-Christians claimed Christians worshipped four gods, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Mary.

Monophysites (5th century onward)

It’s another major Christological position that forced the Church to clarify how Jesus is both God and man.

Rejected Chalcedonian definition (451). Became the dominant Christian groups in pre-Islamic Egypt and Syria. They said Christ’s humanity and divinity are fused into a single nature, the human is absorbed by the divine, or mixed into a new composite nature.

• It was a reaction against Nestorianism, which overly separated Christ’s two natures.
• Monophysites wanted to emphasize the unity of Christ, one Lord, one nature after the Incarnation.

The main theologian here was Eutyches (c. 380–456), an archimandrite in Constantinople:

• He taught that Christ’s humanity was “swallowed up” like a drop of honey in the ocean of his divinity.
• This became known as Eutychianism, a specific radical form of Monophysitism.

Church made another council, Council of Chalcedon. The Council declared:

Christ is one person in two natures, without confusion, change, division, or separation.

This is called the Chalcedonian Definition.

The Monophysites grew in Egypt (Copts), Syria (Jacobites), and Armenia.

Manichaeans (3rd–7th century)

The Manichaeans are essential if you want to understand how radical dualism moved from ancient Gnosticism into later medieval heresies like the Paulicians, Bogomils, and Cathars. They were a major global religion for centuries, but many people today only hear their name as a synonym for “extreme dualism.” 

The Manichaeans were followers of Mani (216–276 CE), a Persian prophet who founded one of the largest and most organized Gnostic-style dualistic religions in late antiquity.

Mani presented his faith as the final, universal religion — a grand synthesis of:

• Christianity (he saw himself as the Paraclete — the final promised prophet).
• Zoroastrianism (Persia’s ancient dualist religion — light vs. dark).
• Buddhism (Manichaeism spread eastward into Central Asia and China, absorbing Buddhist ideas).

At its peak, Manichaeism spread from the Roman Empire all the way to China.

They had radical dualism:

• The world is a cosmic battle between two eternal, uncreated principles:
  • Light/Spirit/Good — pure, divine realm.
  • Darkness/Matter/Evil — corrupt, ignorant, material realm.
• The material world is a prison for divine light particles trapped in matter.

They said Jesus is one of Mani’s prophets — a “Light Messenger” who came to teach people about the cosmic battle. Manichaean “Christ” was purely spiritual — Docetic: he only appeared human. Mani saw himself as the final prophet completing what Jesus and others began.

The goal is to free the light trapped in matter through ascetic practices and true knowledge.

• The Elect (spiritual elite) lived celibately, fasted strictly, renounced possessions — their lives helped free trapped light.
• The Hearers (ordinary believers) supported the Elect but lived more normal lives.

Mani wrote his own scriptures in Syriac, Middle Persian, and other languages. His teachings were systematic, unlike older Gnostics, Mani organized his community with bishops, missionaries, and clear doctrine.

Christians saw it as heresy because it denied the goodness of creation:

• Genesis says God made the world and called it good.
• Manichaeans said matter is evil and created by a dark power.

They taught an extreme Docetism: Christ did not really suffer physically.

Augustine of Hippo was famously a Manichaean Hearer for nine years before converting to orthodox Christianity — he later became its fiercest critic.

They spread in :

• West: Roman Empire, persecuted by Roman emperors and later the Church.
• East: Iran (Sassanian Empire), Central Asia, Silk Road cities.
• Far East: Manichaean communities survived in China until the 14th century.

At various times, it was the biggest organized rival to Christianity in the Roman Empire and Zoroastrianism in Persia.

Manichaeism as an organized religion eventually faded under persecution by Christians, Muslims, and Zoroastrians.

But its radical dualism strongly influenced later medieval heresies:

• Paulicians
• Bogomils
• Cathars (Albigensians)

All were accused (and to some extent did) inherit a similar “two kingdoms” worldview: pure spirit vs. corrupt matter.

Paulicians (7th century)

They’re one of the most fascinating medieval Christian sects, especially for how they link early Christian heresies to later dualistic movements like the Bogomils and Cathars.

The Paulicians emerged around the 7th century CE, mainly in Armenia and eastern Anatolia (modern eastern Turkey).

They took their name from Paul the Apostle, claiming to follow his “pure gospel”, they saw themselves as restoring the original Christianity of Paul and rejecting later “corruptions.”

Their founder was usually said to be Constantine of Mananalis, who took the name Silvanus (after Paul’s companion).

Many Paulicians believed in a radical distinction between the good spiritual world and the evil material world, an echo of earlier Gnostic and Marcionite ideas. They taught that the material world was created by an inferior or evil power (sometimes connected to Satan).

They revered only parts of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and Paul’s letters. They rejected the Old Testament entirely, following the Marcionite idea that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Jesus Christ.

They held Docetic-like ideas: Jesus only appeared to be human, or at least, his flesh was not truly like normal corrupt human flesh. Some sources claim they denied the true Incarnation and physical crucifixion.

The Byzantines branded them dangerous heretics and traitors. Emperors tried to suppress them repeatedly, especially after they helped Muslim Arabs attack Byzantine Christianity (or called Eastern Orthodox Christianity territory). The Byzantine Christianity territory now is called Israel.

Many Paulicians fled east or west when persecuted. The Paulicians didn’t disappear when crushed:

• They inspired or connected with later dualistic movements:
  • Bogomils (10th–15th centuries, Balkans), radical dualists who also rejected Orthodox ritual and hierarchy.
  • Cathars/Albigensians (12th–13th centuries, Western Europe), famous for extreme dualism and anti-clericalism, often traced back (in part) to Paulician and Bogomil roots.
• So, the Paulicians are often seen as a bridge between ancient dualistic Christianity (like Marcionism) and medieval heretical movements.

They are the radical Bible-focused Christians with dualistic, anti-material, anti-clerical beliefs. They rejected the Old Testament and Orthodox Church structures, seen as spiritual heirs of Marcionites and early Docetists. Their ideas helped spark later heresies in Europe.

---

John 14:6-7

⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Mark 4:10–12; Matthew 13:10–17; Luke 8:9–10

Mark 4:11–12

The Purpose of the Parables

¹⁰ When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. ¹¹ And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables, ¹² in order that

‘they may indeed look but not perceive,
    and may indeed hear but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ ”

Matthew 13:10–17

The Purpose of the Parables

¹⁰ Then the disciples came and asked him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” ¹¹ He answered, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. ¹² For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance, but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. ¹³ The reason I speak to them in parables is that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.’ ¹⁴ With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says:

‘You will indeed listen but never understand,
    and you will indeed look but never perceive.
¹⁵ For this people’s heart has grown dull,
    and their ears are hard of hearing,
        and they have shut their eyes,
        so that they might not look with their eyes,
    and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart and turn—
    and I would heal them.’

¹⁶ “But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.¹⁷ Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Luke 8:9–10

The Purpose of the Parables

⁹ Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. ¹⁰ He said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but to others I speak in parables, so that

‘looking they may not perceive
    and hearing they may not understand.’

---

1 John 2:18-27

Warning against Antichrists

¹⁸ Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. ¹⁹ They went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. ²⁰ But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge. ²¹ I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. ²² Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. ²³ No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also. ²⁴ Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. ²⁵ And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

²⁶ I write these things to you concerning those who would deceive you. ²⁷ As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him.

---

Those 1st-7th centuries heretic sects made christianity and church need to protect the real doctrine with council, BUT there were still lots of people slander christianity for it. They gaslighted what they did to Christianity.

They contradicted key parts of the Christian teaching on who Christ is – who God is, what Trinity is, who are The Apostles (expecially Paul), The Bible, The Crucifixion, and The Ressurection.

Councils used these clashes to clarify orthodoxy: the Trinity, the Incarnation, original sin, grace.

Most “heresies” were not simple conspiracies, they were complex theological positions that pushed one idea too far.

Most non-Christians today often confuse Christian theology with the theology of these heretical sects (e.g., Mary is one of the Trinity, ), even though Christianity strongly rejects these sects.

They also continue to blame Christianity for creating “councils” ; doctrination, yet they accept some of heretical sects [e.g., Christ wasn’t Son of God – only human not divine, no crucifixion and ressurection, God changed Jesus or Jesus wasn’t really died – it was other human being, Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one) or Jesus as Son of God only annotate after the Christian council, Bible created at council, Bible changed by people, etc] to oppose Christianity.

More

From 1st century – 21st century

Century	Heresy / Sect	Core Deviation from Orthodoxy
1st	Judaizers	Required Gentiles to follow Jewish Law, especially circumcision
	Adoptionism	Jesus was a regular man who was “adopted” as God’s Son at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension. Denies His eternal divinity.
	Ebionites	Jewish Christian group: denied Christ’s divinity, upheld Jewish law, considered Him a prophet.
2nd	Gnosticism	Dualism: spiritual good, material evil; denied Christ’s true humanity
	Docetism	Christ only appeared to be human; His body, suffering, and death were illusions; linked with gnosticism
	Marcionism	Rejected OT God; denied Christ’s full humanity and Jewish roots
	Montanism	Claimed ongoing revelation, rejected Church authority
3rd	Sabellianism (Modalism)	Denied Trinity: God is one person in 3 modes
	Novatianism	Refused readmission of lapsed Christians post-persecution
	Manichaeans	Syncretic dualism: cosmic battle between light/good and dark/evil; incorporated Christian elements.
4th	Arianism	Denied divinity of Christ; Jesus was created
	Donatism	Claimed sacraments invalid if administered by sinful clergy
	Apollinarianism	Denied Christ had a human mind
	Collyridianism	Worshiped Mary as a goddess, offering bread and sacrifices to her alone
5th	Nestorianism (heresy; not Assyrian Church or Nestorius)	Separated Christ’s divine and human natures; rejected “Mother of God”
	Pelagianism (Later Neo-Pelaganism) (heresy; not about misunderstood Pelagius but about the wrong understanding to sin & grace)	Self-salvation; humans can save themselves without any grace at all
	Monophysitism	Claimed Christ had only one nature (divine)
6th–7th	Monothelitism	Claimed Christ had only one will (divine)
	Paulicians	Nontrinitarian, dualist; may have viewed Christ’s humanity as illusory (docetic); earlier Adoptionist/ Gnostic ideas.
8th	Iconoclasm	Rejected veneration of icons
11th	Bogomilism	Dualism; rejected sacraments and Church hierarchy
12th–13th	Cathars / Albigensians	Dualism: material world evil; rejected sacraments, marriage, Incarnation
	Waldensians (initially)	Preached without authority; rejected Church hierarchy
14th	Lollards (Wycliffe)	Rejected papal authority, transubstantiationand clerical hierarchy
15th	Hussites	Denied papal authority; questioned Church hierarchy
16th	Anabaptists (radical)	Rejected infant baptism; often apocalyptic or communalist
	Socinianism	Denied Trinity, divinity of Christ, original sin
18th	Deism	Denied revelation and miracles; God as impersonal creator
	Swedenborgianism	Claimed direct revelation; denied Trinity
19th	Mormonism (LDS)	Polytheism; extra-biblical scripture; Jesus = spirit-child of Elohim
	Jehovah’s Witnesses	Denied Trinity, hell, immortality of soul; Jesus = Michael the Archangel
	Christian Science	Denied reality of matter, sin, death; pantheistic tendencies
20th	Oneness Pentecostalism	Modalism: denied personal Trinity
	Theosophy	Syncretic: Hinduism + Christianity; reincarnation; cosmic Christ
	New Age Christianity	Pantheism; denies sin, absolute truth, and unique divinity of Christ
	Liberation Theology (extreme)	Marxist reinterpretation of Gospel
21st	Prosperity Gospel	Material blessing = sign of faith; distorts salvation into wealth
	Universalism (modern)	Everyone saved, no matter what
	Progressive Christianity	Often denies biblical authority, exclusivity of Christ, sin
	AI/Techno Faiths	Worship of AI or tech as divine; post-Christian or synthetic spirituality

---

cover image : The Burning of a Heretic by Sassetta