Mapping Heterodoxy

A Multidimensional Analysis of Ten Early Christian Heresies

Heresies

Select multiple heresies to overlay them on the radar chart.

Compare

Axis Weighting

Composite Heterodoxy

Methodology

Each heresy is scored on six axes measuring how far it departs from the orthodox consensus defined by the early ecumenical councils, on a scale from 0 (orthodox) to 10 (anathema).

The six axes were chosen not from a systematic theology textbook but from the actual battles the early Church fought. Trinitarian Theology and Christology reflect the questions that dominated the first four ecumenical councils. Soteriology captures the grace-and-nature debates crystallized in the Pelagian controversy. Cosmology & Creation addresses the dualist challenge posed by Gnostics and Manichaeans. Ecclesiology & Sacraments reflects disputes over the Church's authority and the validity of its rites. Scriptural & Apostolic Continuity tracks whether a movement preserved, edited, or replaced the received scriptures and apostolic tradition. Other candidates—eschatology, ethics, pneumatology—were considered and set aside because they were either rarely anathematized in this period or collapse into one of the existing axes.

Scores are grounded in primary sources (conciliar documents, patristic polemics, surviving heretical texts) and cross-referenced with secondary scholarship. The key distinction between adjacent scores is one of degree and consequence: a 6 means a heresy clearly contradicts a defined teaching but preserves the surrounding framework, while an 8 means the rejection is severe enough to destabilize other doctrines. A 2 reflects terminological imprecision that the councils later clarified, while a 4 indicates a real distortion that falls short of outright contradiction. The composite score can be calculated under three weighting modes, selectable in the sidebar. Equal weights all six axes at 1×, treating every doctrinal domain as equally significant. Conciliar weights Trinitarian Theology and Christology at 2× and Soteriology at 1.5×, reflecting the priority the ecumenical councils themselves gave to these questions (the first four councils addressed Trinitarian and Christological disputes; soteriology was settled at regional councils with ecumenical authority). Custom lets the user assign their own weights from 0.5× to 3× per axis, so they can test how different assumptions about doctrinal priority reshape the overall ranking.

0Fully orthodox

2Pre-conciliar imprecision

4Materially problematic

6Contradicts defined dogma

8Fundamental rejection

10Anathema