Evangelicals and the Like Embrace the Church Fathers
Evangelicals and even fundamentalists very often associate themselves with those they call, “the church fathers.” They treat these men as their fathers. Even those today labeled, “conservative evangelicals,” affiliate themselves and their history with “the church fathers.”
Evangelical theologians, pastors, and preachers will use the church fathers as authority for the authorship of New Testament books. They quote them for instance in support of Pauline authorship of his epistles and Mark’s authorship of the second gospel. They say things like, “early church father Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he testified on Polycarp’s authority that John wrote the gospel.”
Cherry Picking Favored Quotes of the Church Fathers
The same subjects of the above paragraph also cherry pick quotes from the church fathers for the purpose of authenticating certain Christian doctrines. If someone just chooses the statements of church fathers that support the doctrines he believes, that doesn’t prove the overall beliefs of these church fathers. One could say that regarding doctrine, the church fathers “giveth and taketh away.” One does not find the belief and practice of a church father by quoting where he agrees and not quoting where he disagrees.
Church fathers might represent the Trinity in a correct way and defend the Trinity against false teachers. They also might defend something like the doctrine of original sin in a comprehensive way against those who reject original sin. It seems rather convenient to choose supportive doctrine while ignoring the antagonistic.
False Doctrines of Church Fathers Besmirching Everything
Were the church fathers the church fathers or not? I’m saying, “No,” and with a just or fair view of all the evidence.
The false doctrines of church fathers should somewhat besmirch their teaching of true doctrines. Just because they get some things right doesn’t mean overall that they’re right. All of the evidence about and from the church fathers should come into the consideration of that which these church fathers are fathers. If all the cumulative evidence indicates that they believed a different gospel, they are not the fathers of a true gospel. If someone believes a true gospel and says he believes a true gospel, he would not consider someone who declares a false gospel to be the father of his belief.
I want to especially again focus on the teaching of the church fathers on baptism. Roman Catholics today will comprehensively say that if someone goes to the church fathers, their historic writings will make him a Roman Catholic. They can give many examples of this too. Men starting as something other than Roman Catholic became Roman Catholics because they thought the church fathers represent true church history. If someone claims the church fathers as his church history, then church history is Roman Catholic.
The Church Fathers Taught Baptismal Regeneration
First Century Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration
Yet, church history is not Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is not the church and it’s history is not church history. Its fathers are also not the church fathers. Again, baptism provides a good example on this. Letter of Barnabas 7:1 (74AD) says:
But let us enquire whether the Lord took care to signify before hand concerning the water and the cross. Now concerning the water it is written in reference to Israel, how that they would not receive the baptism which bringeth remission of sins, but would build for themselves. . . .
Shepherd of Hermas 3[31]:1 says (80AD):
[T]here is no other repentance, save that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained remission of our former sins.
Second Century Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration
Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 61, says (151AD):
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. . . . they then receive the washing with water. . . . and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed.
Tehophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 16, says (181AD):
Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration.
Irenaeus and Baptismal Regeneration
Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21, says (189AD):
And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. . . . They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this [regeneration] it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.
I included the above just as a sample, but one could keep moving through history and find even more plenteous examples in the church fathers than these earlier ones. They get worse through history. The church fathers required baptism for salvation and very often through pouring or sprinkling. It’s no wonder that even the Protestant Reformers included this in their doctrine. Sure, they reformed some doctrines, but they did not eliminate baptism from their requirements in addition to faith. That means that they still fell short in returning to scripture on the doctrine of salvation.
More to Come
I am enjoying the posts on the “church fathers.” I have struggled trying to find creative ways to describe who they are without recognizing them as true church fathers. I have never lit on terminology with which I am satisfied, but I usually use “early church writers.” Of course, even that does not really fit with my definition of a church.
I think they can be used as historical evidence (and I expect you agree). Sometimes they advocate a true doctrine and sometimes a false doctrine. But if the surviving manuscripts of their writings are accurate, they do at least provide historical evidence of something somebody believed at a certain time in history. I think their references to scripture texts can be especially helpful in giving early evidence of a reading (such as Augustine’s Bible having the last 12 verses of Mark).
That said, any “church fathers” who were heretics are not fathers of the truth held by true churches.
Thanks Robert.
Hello Kent,
“That means that they still fell short in returning to scripture on the doctrine of salvation”
I agree with that for the most part, but what I also do know is that many did not have the completed text as we do. For example, take as an example, Charles Westly who did he have the Holy Bible. It would be laughable to believe he was not a bible believing Christian, even though he believed that a Christian could lose his salvation which is against the doctrinal teachings of the scriptures.
These men might have believed in the baptism of John and applied it to repentance. Is there any written testimony of what they first believed about salvation concerning the Lord Jesus Christ? Do we know that they did not practice what Phillip did with the eunuch in Acts 8 in preaching salvation in Christ and that conflating that with the baptism of John?
Did any teach baptismal regeneration applied to unregenerate children? This would be a clear indicator that they knew not the gospel of the grace of God.
Some Baptist only believe that you just call upon the name of the Lord to get saved, then sometime after that, you repent (believing repentance is a work), even getting them baptized quickly. Does that mean that because things are backwards that an individual who from the heart truly believed in Christ and then repented is not a Christian?
I am very strong on preaching repentance of sins, followed by that sinner calling upon the Lord in prayer to save them from their sins that they repented of, followed by God through Jesus Christ sealing them by the Holy Ghost and putting them in the family of God..
I will say, that the church is a mess these days. Truly, even from the beginning, the church fathers had issues. As you have written, the church has always through time messed up and taught doctrines that are not sound.
I am with my brethren, even with the church fathers (whoever they might be) through the church age and up to the rapture that have brought many to Jesus Christ. We have a linage since the time of Christ that MIGHT include some of those whom you mentioned, though the snippets you presented SEEM to indicate flawed doctrines of salvation.
Tom
Tom,
Who are your church fathers?
Kent,
I do not look back at the church fathers. You just made an argument against them, and I made a general argument that some of them could be Christians and that also we do have a lineage back to Jesus Christ, whether we know who those Christians actually are.
I am assuming you agree with that?
Tom
Okay, so maybe ask it this way, Tom. Do you believe perpetuity of the church is taught in scripture? Do you believe that line of churches travels through Roman Catholicism?
As far as I can tell most evangelicals are not uncritically embracing every little thing every church father says. That seems like a projection you IFB types demand your flock embrace every little thing you say uncritically.
Jim,
I decided to shorten this comment by just saying, there is great irony to what you are saying. Think about it.
😀
Kent,
Roman Catholicism?? You do not know me better than that! That is the whore that rides the beast. I hate it with a perfect hatred.
The church exists both as individuals within the body of Christ and actual assemblies such as Anabaptists, Donatists and others.
Tom
Tom,
If Christ promised perpetuity, which he did, then those through that line, the Roman Catholic one, do not have authority.