"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." ―Michael Crichton
Likewise, there is no such thing as consensus truth. If it is consensus, it is not truth. If it is truth, it is not consensus. Period.
Certain Christians like to refer to "church consensus" or "Christian consensus." Which "church" are they referring to? Oriental Orthodox Catholics? Eastern Orthodox Catholics? Roman Catholics? Lutherans? "Calvinists"? Anglicans? Anabaptists? Presbyterians? Baptists? Episcopalians? Methodists? Pentecostals? Whose "consensus" are they referring to? These Christians like to gaslight those they deem as "lesser," whom they would classify as "ordinary and uneducated," because it gives them a sense of superiority. "Consensus" is their way of trying to force them into submission to their particular theological dogma because they do not want to forfeit their power and control.
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ―Galileo Galilei
Likewise, in questions of truth, the authority, or consensus, of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Period.
What is the source of authority for the believer? The "consensus" of 1000 theologians through history? Or the Scriptures, God's holy Word? Anyone who does not answer "the Bible" is standing on extremely dangerous ground. Thousands of theologians can be wrong. The "consensus" of "church" history can be wrong. If one does not think such a thing possible, then perhaps their ignorance is insurmountable because they are clearly delusional. Most today's theologians offer nothing really new; they copycat those who came before them and tend not to even question what they are told.
Even if the "consensus" is accurate, we do not base truth on consensus. We base it on the Word of the Lord alone. If one places the "consensus" above God's Word, then perhaps they should look in the mirror for the heretic.
"Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
We are to live by every word of God's Word―not by the words of "consensus." These Christians had best get their priorities straight. Are they listening to men, or to God?
Considering most Christians have not understood the New Testament for the past 1800 years, have reduced it to a bunch of random isolated verses ripped out of context to form doctrines, and express opinions about the text that completely miss the mark, the entire concept of "consensus" is ridiculous, nonsensical, and asinine.
The idea of "consensus" is rendered even more nonsensical when you examine their first thoughts on the nature of Jesus. Alexander of Alexandria began to believe in Oneness theology, and there were men who sided with him. Arius began to believe Jesus was a created being, and there were men who sided with him. Others believed other things, and men sided with them. "Consensus" is meaningless. Only what Scripture teaches matters. If Scripture does not say anything about it, then it is foolish for us to speculate and/or to debate about. Period.