Home » Posts tagged 'Against Heresies'

Tag Archives: Against Heresies

The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church (part two)

Part One

The Part Played By Religious Persecution

Under Roman auspices, Judaism persecuted the church at Jerusalem right after its beginning in the first century.  Both were Jewish, the religion of Israel and the church, and the Roman Empire didn’t distinguish between the two.  To Rome, the church was a mere sect of the Jewish religion.  With more conversion to Christ and the spread of churches across the then-known world, Rome began persecuting churches across its Empire.

Subservience to Jesus Christ threatened allegiance to Rome.  This replayed in future centuries under nations and other governments where states required devotion and sought to eliminate their competition.  The Roman Empire became steeped in polytheism, including worship of the Roman emperor.  This clashed with New Testament churches of the first century, threatening the Roman view of the world and presaging an uprising.

As Christianity began to spread, it faced increasing hostility from both local populations and the Roman state, which viewed it as a challenge to traditional religious practices and societal norms. The need for cohesion became paramount as churches sought to protect themselves from external threats.  The decentralized nature of early and biblical Christianity, characterized by local congregations each led by a single bishop, seemed inadequate to address the challenges posed by the power of the secular government.

Consolidation of Power and Pragmatism

Leaders of churches consolidated power into prominent pastors and churches, leading to a hierarchy among churches and their elders.  This resulted in the emergence of bishops who could oversee multiple congregations and coordinate responses to persecution, thereby fostering a sense of unity across different regions.  They reinvented church government by adding layers of extra scriptural authority, in part so they could disseminate information more efficiently regarding threats across regions to cope with persecution.

Newly conceived extra-scriptural and hierarchical networks organized mutual support among churches to share resources, send aid to persecuted members, or coordinate collective actions against oppressive measures imposed by local authorities of the Roman Empire.  The idea here was that New Testament government wasn’t suitable to face its opposition.  This new type of government was superior and more efficient.  Rather than biblical, it was pragmatic.  To defend this pragmatism with scripture necessitated reassigning new definitions to the already plain meaning of the text of the New Testament.

Altering Scriptural Roles

The term “bishop” (from the Greek word episkopos, meaning overseer) began to be used to describe leaders who had authority over multiple congregations.  This altered the scriptural role of the bishop over only his congregation, not other pastors and churches.  Nothing substantial in the first two centuries in historical writings advocates for something more than local leadership of pastors in separate churches.  Since Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire, the church at Rome took on prominence in this new iteration of ecclesiological organization.

Skilled and successful pastors, actual ones, shepherding their congregations according to the New Testament could become marked for higher authority in these newly devised positions.  Bigger is very often thought to be better.  Seeking for greater things meant something beyond local only, even if that’s what the Lord Jesus Christ started and the New Testament taught.  Men rationalized these new offices with a need to help the churches.  They could both complement and supplement the churches in a protective and helpful manner.  This meant though also deferring to these more powerful offices.

Human government doesn’t tend toward shrinking.  The tendency is toward something bigger and even intrusive, exerting power over people.  Many suggest that Nicolaitism represented an early form of clerical hierarchy where church leaders exercised dominion over laypeople.  Etymological analysis supports this notion.  When breaking down “Nicolaitan” into Greek components, it means “conquering” (nike) and “people” (laos), implying a conquering authority over the laity.  Revelation 2:6 and 15 chronicle the rise of Nicolaitism in the first century.

Defenses of New Positions and Perverting Doctrine

New theories emerged about the nature of the church to justify innovations in governance of churches.  All of this, men deemed, would work better, but it meant finding this in scripture too.  The Petrine theory emerged from passages in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 16:18-19, saying that Jesus referred to Peter as the rock upon which He will build His church. This presented Peter with a unique role among the apostles.

The concept of apostolic succession began to develop, suggesting that Peter, as one of Jesus’ closest disciples, passed on his authority to his successors in Rome.  Early ecclesiastical leaders such as Irenaeus and Clement of Rome acknowledged a connection between Peter and the bishopric of Rome.  They deemed regional power over churches like the apostles.  In his writings, Against the Heretics (3:3:2), Irenaeus writes:

We point out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

Irenaeus held up Polycarp as an example of apostolic succession.  By the late second century, figures like Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged the special status of the church in Rome due to its association with Peter and Paul. This recognition laid groundwork for later claims about papal authority.

More to Come

The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Three)

Part One     Part Two

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

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives