This paper addresses the topic of ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’ in early Christianity. This is a complex topic that raises many questions about the nature and character of early Christianity. It is unfortunate that the answers in this regard are, for several reasons, inconclusive. While some speak of an early ‘orthodoxy,’ some see it as a product of later controversies. And while some see ‘heresy’ as a deviation from ‘orthodoxy,’ others see it as old as ‘orthodoxy.’ Such views are rather confusing than edifying. My paper will address this delicate topic. Can we speak of ‘orthodoxy’ before the fourth century? If yes, what is ‘orthodoxy’? Conversely, can we speak of ‘heresy?’ If yes, what is ‘heresy?’ Is heresy as old as ‘orthodoxy?’ How we can distinguish ‘heresy’ from ‘orthodoxy?’ These are important questions. My paper, although a perspective, tries to bring light on this delicate topic. While ‘heresy’ is as old—or almost as old— as ‘orthodoxy,” ‘orthodoxy’ can be distinguished from ‘heresy’ as early as we can speak of them. My paper will distinguish ‘orthodoxy’ from ‘heresy’ in a pertinent and helpful way, I believe. My perspective is based on some generally held assumptions, although I contend that in some regards faith and flexibility are more pertinent and helpful that inflexibility and rigid theologies. I hope that my paper offers a solid and coherent perspective on a very delicate and disputed topic.