Conversion is often spoken of as a clean break, but it rarely functions that way in practice. People do not step out of one worldview and into another without carrying interpretive instincts with them. Former beliefs may be rejected, but they often continue to function as reference points, not as truths to be embraced, but as dangers to be avoided. When that happens, theology can quietly become reactive. Scripture is still affirmed, but it is filtered through fear of returning to what was escaped.
This lesson examines that pattern through a focused comparison between Augustine of Hippo and Doreen Virtue. Both emerged from pagan or occult frameworks. Both converted sincerely to Christianity. Both then overcorrected in ways that constrained how Scripture was allowed to speak. The concern here is not their faith or their motives, but how reaction to a former life shaped their theology.
Augustine and the rejection of the Enochic worldview
Augustine of Hippo came to Christianity after years immersed in Manichaeism and philosophical paganism. His conversion required a decisive rejection of spiritual dualism, cosmic hierarchies, and speculative metaphysics. That rejection did not remain narrowly targeted. It expanded into a broader suspicion of any framework that resembled the world he had left behind.
This is most evident in Augustine’s rejection of the Enochic worldview, particularly regarding Genesis 6 and early demonology. In Second Temple Judaism and the early Church, the idea that demons were the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim was widely assumed. It appears explicitly in 1 Enoch, is reflected in Jude and 2 Peter, and was treated seriously by early Christian writers.
Augustine did not reject this framework because it lacked biblical grounding. He rejected it because it looked too much like the layered cosmologies of his former pagan commitments. The result was a reshaping of the Bible’s supernatural world. The divine council receded. Cosmic rebellion was reframed in abstract moral terms. Demons were disconnected from Genesis 6 and relocated into a safer, flatter theological category. Augustine’s intent was to guard the Church from error, but the effect was to narrow the categories Scripture itself employs. His influence ensured that much of Western theology inherited a reduced supernatural framework, not because the text demanded it, but because his past made certain categories intolerable.
Doreen Virtue and her response to Michael Heiser
Doreen Virtue followed a parallel path in a modern context. Her conversion out of New Age spirituality was abrupt, public, and uncompromising. She did not gradually disengage from her former worldview. She rejected it decisively and treated it as spiritually dangerous territory that must not be approached again.
That posture shaped how she responded to the work of Michael Heiser. His scholarship was rooted in Hebrew grammar, ancient Near Eastern context, and Second Temple literature. He explicitly rejected mysticism, channeling, and experiential spirituality. His approach was textual and historical rather than visionary. Yet Virtue consistently treated his work as suspect.
The issue was not exegetical disagreement. It was categorical resemblance. Concepts such as the divine council, delegated spiritual authority, and cosmic rebellion sounded too similar to the spiritual hierarchies she once promoted. Rather than engaging the arguments on their textual merits, she warned audiences away from the entire framework. Similarity in language was treated as evidence of danger.
What Augustine did with the Enochic tradition, Virtue did with Heiser. In both cases, resemblance to a former worldview triggered rejection, even when the ideas in question were grounded in Scripture rather than occult practice.
Reaction as a theological filter
This shared pattern exposes a broader theological danger. When past error becomes the primary reference point for discernment, theology becomes defensive rather than descriptive. The interpretive question shifts from what the biblical authors assumed to what the reader fears repeating.
When that happens, entire biblical categories are dismissed without being tested. Supernatural structures are flattened. Ancient contexts are treated as liabilities rather than tools. The stated goal is protection, but the actual effect is reduction. Scripture is not denied, but it is constrained.
Augustine’s influence contributed to the long eclipse of the Bible’s cosmic geography and divine council framework in Western theology. Virtue’s influence has encouraged many modern Christians to treat any robust supernatural theology as inherently suspect. In both cases, fear of deception produced a theology smaller than the text itself.
Conclusion
Neither Augustine nor Doreen Virtue should be dismissed as insincere or hostile to the faith. Both were converts who took holiness seriously and sought to guard the Church from error. Their mistake was not zeal, but allowing their former captivity to define the boundaries of interpretation.
Scripture does not ask to be filtered through our fears. It asks to be read on its own terms. A mature theology does not amputate biblical categories simply because they resemble something once abused. It examines them, disciplines them, and submits them to the full witness of the text.
When conversion produces overcorrection, orthodoxy contracts. The task of theology is not to build walls against our past, but to let the biblical authors speak fully, even when what they say feels uncomfortably familiar.
Discussion Questions
- How can a person’s former beliefs or experiences shape the way they read Scripture even after a sincere conversion, and what signs indicate that this influence has become a limitation rather than a safeguard?
- In Augustine’s rejection of the Enochic worldview and Doreen Virtue’s rejection of Michael Heiser’s work, where do you see the line between legitimate discernment and theological overcorrection being crossed?
- Why do ideas that resemble a former worldview often trigger stronger rejection than ideas that contradict Scripture outright, and how should Christians evaluate concepts that feel familiar but uncomfortable?
- What biblical categories or themes do you think modern Christianity tends to flatten or avoid out of fear of error, and how might recovering them change how Scripture is understood?
- How can the Church cultivate theological maturity that guards against deception without allowing fear of past mistakes to shrink the interpretive space of Scripture?
About the Author
