Schism and the Redeemed Zoomer (Part 6): Schism in the Early Church

by on August 26, 2026 | Comment

Church division has troubled Christians from the earliest generations of the church. The New Testament repeatedly warns against factions, quarrels, false teachers, and those who disturb the unity of Christ’s body. Those warnings did not become less urgent after the death of the apostles. As the church spread throughout the Roman world, it faced disputes over doctrine, discipline, ministerial authority, persecution, and the restoration of those who had denied the faith. The early Christian writers therefore spoke frequently—and often severely—about heresy, schism, episcopal authority, sacramental communion, and the visible unity of the church. Their writings deserve careful attention, especially in a time when divisions among Christians can be treated either too casually or too simplistically.

For some, like my online interlocutor Redeemed Zoomer (RZ), it is a black and white kind of issue: .1 I will say, at the start, that his position has forced me to dig deeper into the history of the church, which is always a good thing. I taught on the Early Church Fathers for a Sunday school series last year, so it was right up my alley.

To sum up Zoomer’s view fairly, his argument treats separation from an existing ecclesiastical body as presumptively schismatic and allows little, if any, room for separation except after wrongful excommunication (or threat of life). Heresy may be resisted, reform may be pursued, and faithful Christians may suffer within a corrupted institution, but they must not voluntarily establish a separate communion. On that account, the decisive question is often reduced to whether someone left before being formally cast out. Anything short of that, in his words, is sinful schism to the point that he declared that, due to its schism, “100% of the OPC is cursed by God.”2

The Early Church Fathers unquestionably regarded schism as a grave and often soul-destroying sin. St. Cyprian was certainly not ambiguous about the gravity of schism. Neither were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, or the other Early Fathers. They believed that the visible unity of the church mattered, that Christians owed submission to lawful ecclesiastical authority, and that forming a rival communion could endanger the soul.

The question, however, is whether their treatment was as straightforward as Zoomer claims. Did they define schism simply by the outward act of leaving an existing institution? Did they teach that formal excommunication was the only circumstance in which separation might be justified? Or did their judgments also depend upon the nature of the controversy, the faithfulness of the church’s officers, the preservation of apostolic doctrine, and the identity of the party that had first departed from the church’s truth?

Applying the fathers to modern denominational divisions requires considerable historical care. The early church did not operate within a landscape of nations, voluntary associations, legally incorporated denominations, overlapping jurisdictions, and confessional bodies divided across national boundaries. Its bishops, councils, cities, and regional churches existed within a different political and somewhat different ecclesiastical order.3 Their condemnations of schism, therefore, cannot simply be transferred, without qualification, to every modern act of denominational separation. The principles remain important, but they must be translated carefully: We must ask what counted as lawful authority, where apostolic doctrine was preserved, and how communion functioned.

This article will consider representative voices from the first three centuries of the church. We will begin with Clement of Rome near the end of the first century and Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century. We will then turn to Irenaeus in the late second century, and Cyprian of Carthage in the third. Each wrote within a different historical setting: congregational rebellion at Corinth, threats from false teachers, Gnostic challenges to apostolic Christianity, and rival bishops following persecution. After examining what these writers actually opposed—and what they believed constituted the church’s unity—we will draw together several principles by which their teaching on schism should be understood and evaluated.

What Kind of Schism Did Clement Condemn?

One of the earliest Christian treatments of schism is found in 1 Clement, written from the church sojourning at Rome to the church sojourning at Corinth near the end of the first century.4 A faction had removed certain presbyters who, according to Clement, had served “blamelessly and with honour.”5 The division had arisen through jealousy, ambition, rivalry, and resistance to lawful ministers. Clement therefore condemns the Corinthians’ conduct in the strongest terms. Their schism had subverted some, discouraged others, and brought the Christian name into disrepute. He commands those responsible for the sedition to submit to the presbyters and repent.

This establishes an important patristic principle: Christians may not overthrow faithful ministers because of personalities, private grievances, ambition, or a desire to seize influence. The Corinthian offenders do not appear to have departed and established a rival communion. Instead, a faction within the existing congregation rallied support against blameless presbyters, removed them from office, and apparently assumed control of the church. Clement nevertheless calls them the instigators of schism. Schism, therefore, was not determined simply by which party physically left the institution. Those who remained in possession of the congregation could themselves be schismatic because they had unjustly disrupted its lawful ministry and peace.

But Clement’s situation does not establish that Christians must remain indefinitely under ministers who corrupt the apostolic faith. His argument depends upon the presbyters having served faithfully. The Corinthians’ sin was not that they failed to wait for formal excommunication. It was that they rebelled against innocent and lawfully appointed men. The moral content of the dispute matters. Clement does not define the righteous party merely as the party that retains control of the existing institution.

Ignatius Joined Unity to True Doctrine

Ignatius of Antioch is frequently cited because of his strong commands to follow the bishop, remain united around one Eucharist, and avoid those who create divisions. Those commands should not be weakened. Ignatius believed that the bishop, presbytery, deacons, congregation, and Eucharist belonged together in a visible and ordered communion. He likens it all to a well-ordered orchestra and chorus of praise to God:

Hence it is fitting for you to set yourselves in harmony with the mind of the bishop, as indeed you do. For your noble presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted to the bishop, as the strings to a harp. And thus by means of your accord and harmonious love Jesus Christ is sung. Form yourselves one and all into a choir, that blending in concord, taking the key-note of God, you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, that He may hear you and recognize by means of your well-doing that you are members of His Son. Therefore it is profitable for you to live in unblameable unity, that you may be also partakers of God continually.6

Yet Ignatius did not separate institutional unity from doctrinal truth. In his Letter to the Philadelphians, he tells Christians to “flee from division and wicked doctrines.”7 These are not two unrelated warnings. The wolves threatening the church were teachers who used plausible appearances to lead Christians away from God. Ignatius then declares that anyone who follows a schismatic will not inherit the kingdom and immediately describes such a person as walking according to a strange opinion contrary to Christ’s passion.

The bishop whom Ignatius commends is not simply the man occupying the office. He praises him because he is in harmony with God’s commandments, meek in character, and faithful to Christ. Ignatius’s organizational unity is confessional unity: one church gathered around lawful officers who confess the true incarnation, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

This is even clearer in his other letters. Ignatius warns the Ephesians that anyone who “corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God” faces judgment, and he praises the church because it refused to allow false teachers to sow their doctrine among them. Ignatius therefore provides no warrant for the proposition that ecclesiastical office must be obeyed regardless of doctrine. He binds together office, sacrament, holiness, and the apostolic Christ. The unity he commands is unity in the truth, not a bare attachment to whomever controls the ecclesiastical machinery.

Irenaeus Condemned Schism for “Trifling Reasons”

Irenaeus supplies one of the strongest apparent statements against separation. In Against Heresies, he condemns those who seek their own advantage and divide Christ’s body for “trifling reasons.” He adds: “No reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.” (IV.33) That is a serious warning to would-be reformers. A person cannot justify division by announcing that his new party will be more disciplined, more vigorous, or more perfectly ordered. Reform does not excuse the destruction caused by needless separation.

The context, however, matters. Irenaeus does not say that no corruption of the faith could ever justify refusing communion. He condemns separation for “trifling reasons”—not separation under every conceivable condition. He then describes the church from which separation is forbidden. It possesses faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the doctrine of the apostles; the ancient constitution of the church; the succession of faithful bishops; Scriptures preserved without falsification; and exposition that neither adds to nor subtracts from the truth.

Irenaeus does not choose between institutional continuity and doctrinal continuity. For him, proper succession preserves apostolic doctrine. The succession of bishops matters because through it the church’s public faith has been guarded. His argument against the Gnostic teachers was precisely that their doctrines had no place in the apostolic Scriptures, the apostolic rule of faith, or the public teaching of the apostolic churches.

To quote Irenaeus against separation while omitting his definition of the church is to remove his warning from its foundation. He condemns creating a new sect beside the apostolic church. He does not require Christians to treat a body that falsifies Scripture and abandons apostolic doctrine as though nothing decisive has occurred. The most we can say is that Irenaeus gives a strong warning against those who would schism over anything that is not a foundational matter.

Cyprian Was Severe, but His Situation Was Specific

Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church contains some of the most uncompromising language in the patristic period: “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.” But in that same section, he begins, “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch.” (Treatise 1, Chapter 6) Again we see the requirement of the church to be faithful.

Cyprian goes on to compare the church to Noah’s ark and Christ’s seamless garment. One cannot rend the church and then claim to possess Christ. The episcopate is one, and each bishop holds his part of that single episcopate for the whole. But what historical division was Cyprian addressing?

The treatise was written amid the crisis produced by the Decian persecution. Many Christians had denied Christ or compromised under pressure. The church then had to decide how the lapsed might be restored. Novatian represented a rigorist party that resisted the restoration of certain serious offenders and allowed himself to be established as a rival bishop in Rome after Cornelius had already been lawfully elected. Cyprian opposed this attempt to erect a new episcopal communion beside the existing church.8

Cyprian was therefore not addressing a situation in which the church’s recognized officers had officially embraced a denial of the Trinity, the incarnation, the deity of Christ, or his atoning sacrifice. He was confronting a purity movement that established a rival bishop because the lawful church was willing to restore repentant sinners. That distinction is crucial. Cyprian’s argument refutes the idea that the presence or toleration of sinners makes the church unclean. It condemns people who divide from the church because its discipline is not severe enough. It does not establish that heretical teaching can never alter the duty of communion.

Indeed, Cyprian begins On Unity by saying that the devil “invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity.”9 Those deceived no longer  “do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ”10 This is true, he says, even though, “they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle’s word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness.”11 The remedy is to return to the source of truth, seek the Head, and keep the teaching of the heavenly Master. Cyprian’s unity is therefore not institutional continuity considered by itself. It is ecclesiastical communion under lawful bishops who remain attached to Christ, the gospel, and the truth.

Cyprian also recognized that serious differences could exist within the church without requiring separation. He recalled that some earlier bishops refused reconciliation to adulterers while others granted it. Yet the stricter bishops did not break communion with their colleagues or rend the unity of the church. Augustine later appealed directly to this Cyprianic example against the Donatists.

The Patristic Principles

The point I want to make here is that the early church’s teaching is demanding, but it cannot be reduced to institutional absolutism. This is not a denial of their words due to difference in historical moment or context, though those things do matter. The fact is that the reason they held so strongly to the visible and institutional unity was precisely because they valued the apostolic faith so much. These principles must, then, be heard in light of this reality.

First, schism is a grave sin. Christians may not divide the church over personalities, ambition, cultural preference, minor doctrine, disciplinary rigor, or the dream of constructing a purer communion. These are ruled out by the early church fathers. Second, the mere presence of sinners does not destroy the church. Clement and Cyprian reject division based on the imperfections of ministers or members.

Third, not every theological error justifies separation. The fathers tolerated substantial differences within the church and expected patience, appeal, correction, and charity. This cannot be borne out further here due to space constraints, but the regional differences in the church is an important part of its development. That is true whether we are looking at the doctrines surrounding the person Christ or the doctrines of revelation and Scripture.

Fourth, and this is the key, ecclesiastical unity is unity in apostolic truth. Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian never make institutional continuity independent of fidelity to Christ, the Scripture, and the apostolic faith. Heresy and schism are distinct but related evils. Heresy corrupts the church’s faith; schism tears its communion. One cannot cure heresy by casually destroying the church, but neither can one defend unity by requiring communion in falsehood.

The difficult question remains: Who has divided the church? Is it always the person who leaves an organization? Or can authorities themselves break the church’s unity by corrupting its faith, unlawfully displacing its ministers, or demanding communion with error? The Fathers do not permit us to answer that question merely by consulting the institutional directory. They direct us to Christ the Head, the apostolic gospel, the lawful ministry, and the communion of the church in truth and love.

Notes

  1. Redeemed Zoomer, “I don’t think people realize how seriously the Church Fathers took the sin of schism,” X, January 28, 2026.
  2. Redeemed Zoomer, “I promote the PCUSA because heresy is as bad as schism,” X, July 22, 2026.
  3. The author will not concede all that Rome wants to see in the early church’s structure with bishops since Scripture makes clear that bishops are presbyters (Titus 1; Acts 20). We do not, however, want to assume the full-blown structure of Presbyterianism with its various courts was as clearly laid out in the early centuries.
  4. The language of sojourning has always struck me, particularly for discussions and debates surrounding the notion of Christian nations. But that cannot be examined here.
  5. 1 Clement 44:5
  6. Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle to the Ephesians,” 4, in The Epistles of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, trans. J. H. Srawley, 3rd ed. (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; Macmillan, 1919), 41.
  7. Ignatius, “The Epistle to the Philippians,” 3.
  8. What began as an attempted usurpation of the local episcopacy consequently produced a rival sacramental and episcopal communion, first at Rome and eventually in other regions. Cyprian opposed both Novatian’s rival claim to the Roman episcopate and the wider schism that formed around him.
  9. Cyprian, Unity, Treatise 1, Chapter 3, (Schaff edition) 740.
  10. Cyprian, Unity, 740.
  11. Cyprian, Unity, 740.

©Everett Henes. All Rights Reserved.

You can find this whole series here. 

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Everett Henes
    Author Image

    Everett Henes (MDiv, ThM, DMin) is pastor of Hillsdale Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he has served since 2008. He is husband to Kimberly and father of five children and grandfather of five (and counting!). He teaches US History and Philosophy of History for Jackson College in Michigan. He is currently working towards a PhD in Humanities with a focus in US Religious History from Faulkner University. In his spare time, he enjoys competing in powerlifting and strongman and teaching homeschoolers Taekwondo.

    More by Everett Henes ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.