Home » Posts tagged 'church fathers'
Tag Archives: church fathers
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Four)
If the church fathers are not the church fathers, then who are the church fathers? Can we even know? If we know, then how do we know who they are? If the church fathers are not the church fathers, how did that occur, that they became the church fathers?
Two Possible Paths or Trajectories — One True and the Other False
The history of the church takes one of two possible paths or one of two possible trajectories. One route says the true or right path is a very broad one that travels through Roman Catholicism, then Eastern Orthodoxy, after that the Protestant Reformation, and then it splinters into many different denominations and even cults. This first possible way has offered or given a state church or state churches, religious wars, allegorical interpretation, inquisitions, popes, mysticism, layers of lies, and the Dark Ages.
The other way, a very different and straight one, moves to and through the cross of Jesus Christ, yes, a trail of blood, the suffering church, a persecuted church. It travels always separate of and in contrast with a state church. It is known by different names: On April 8, 1860, C. H. Spurgeon in a sermon at the New Park Street Chapel in London said these words:
Remember your forefathers, not merely your Christian forefathers, but those who are your progenitors in the faith as Baptists. . . . Think of the snows of the Alps, and call to mind the Waldenses, and the Albigenses, your great forerunners.
He continued:
Your whole pedigree, from the beginning to the end, is stained with blood. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been made to suffer the violence of men.
Identifying the True Church and Its Fathers in History
The Suffering Church
After the completion of the New Testament, the earliest history of true churches traces to the persecution of the Roman Empire. This divided the true from the false and sped along the false, the above first and broad path. John T. Christian writes of the separating principles for a pure church in the first paragraph of the third chapter of his The History of Baptists:
Step by step some of the churches turned aside from the old paths and sought out many inventions. Discipline became lax and persons of influence were permitted to follow a course of life which would not have been tolerated under the old discipline. . . . The dogma of baptismal regeneration was early accepted by many and men sought to have their sins washed away in water rather than in the blood of Christ. Ministers became ambitious for power and trampled upon the independence of the churches. The churches conformed to the customs of the world and the pleasures of society.
Earlier in chapter one he wrote:
[I]n every age since Jesus and the apostles there have been companies of believers, churches who have substantially held to the principles of the New Testament as now proclaimed by the Baptists.
Versus Pseudo History
He explains why there is little historical evidence for this true line of churches to begin his second chapter:
The period of the ancient churches AD 100-325 is much obscured. Much of the material has been lost. Much of it that remains has been interpolated by Mediæval Popish writers and translators and all of it has been involved in much controversy. Caution must therefore be observed.
John T. Christian explains the first and false line of history. It was one perpetuated and protected by Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church made sure that it kept its own pseudo history as an authority for its own existence.
Perpetuity of True Churches
The basis of belief in the perpetuity of the true church with the true gospel are the promises of God. He would preserve His churches. God also promised to preserve His Word and His Words, which He did. And those are the basis for identifying the true church and for a true evaluation of history. Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Lord in His Word also promises that only some will depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1), not all. Not until the total apostasy prophesied by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 will true churches disappear. Based upon those presuppositions, believers look at history. In company with the promises of scripture, enough evidence exists in history of the line of those true churches.
Baptists Through History Known by Different Names
Berlin Hisel in his Baptist History Notebook writes:
Baptists have been known by many different names in the past. They have been called by the name of the place in which they lived. They have been called by the name of the powerful leader among them. In was not until the time of the Reformation that they were called “Baptists.” If time stands, we may be called by another name.
John T. Christian writes:
The first protest in the way of separation from the growing corruptions of the times was the movement of the Montanist churches. This Montanus, the leader, was a Phrygian, who arose about the year A.D. 156. The most distinguished advocate of Montanism was Tertullian who espoused and defended their views.
A good online account of the Montanists as an early sample and explanation of Baptists, even against modern enemies, is the one by Berlin Hisel.
The Church Fathers
Then the Novations, the Donatists, the Cathari, the Paulicians, the Petrobrusians, the Waldensians, the Albigenses, and the Anabaptists among others bridge the historical gaps to form the line of a true church separate from a state church. Much historical evidence exists for a true church since Christ known by different names. The line of churches led to the Baptist churches. It is the History of the Baptists. Those are the church fathers and not the others, who are very often called “the church fathers,” but are not.
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Two)
Proper Evaluation of History
God promised the preservation of scripture, but not the preservation of history. Since God promised the preservation of scripture, He insures that with a high level of divine intervention. The Bible says much about this. Since God doesn’t promise to preserve history, we must judge history in a different way. We must weigh it.
The history of the people and events of history differs in nature than the history of Christian doctrine. Believers can open the Bible, which God preserved, and compare the history of Christian doctrine with what the Bible says. Especially the doctrine found in what people call “the church fathers” diverges from biblical doctrine and practice. Biblical doctrine and practice and the church fathers have many dissimilarities.
An important part of good historical evaluation is observing historical influences on beliefs, practices, and methods. The Bible itself helps with this ability in a sufficient way. Already in the first century, external factors affected what the church believed. This is all over the New Testament. Keeping false doctrine out of the church required and requires tremendous vigilance.
The Trajectory of External Influences on the Church
New Testament Times
If one just looked at an epistle like 1 Corinthians, chapter after chapter chronicle both external and internal influences on the church at Corinth. People over emphasized the effect of baptism in chapter one. They also devalued preaching as a method for what Paul calls “signs” and “wisdom.” In chapter two, people were placing higher value on naturalism over supernaturalism. Greek philosophy that denigrated the place of the physical body led to acceptance of sexual sin in chapters five and six. The same kind of false teaching on the body led to mass denial of bodily resurrection in chapter fifteen.
One could keep moving through the entire New Testament and do something very similar to the samples of the previous paragraph. God wants us to see how false doctrine and practice enters the church and then takes hold. Revelation two and three chronicle seven churches and varied degrees of departure from the truth, even to the extent that the Laodicean church in Revelation three had already apostatized. Jesus and John tell history as a warning with the seven churches about both the internal and external attacks.
The Roman Empire and Greek Philosophy
The persecution of the Roman Empire affected churches in the first century. This parallels with anything and any place where persecution occurs. People accommodate the pressure and change from biblical belief and practice. The pressure of Sodom affected Lot and his family. The world itself corrupted Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).
Many other external factors changed and change thinking. This is why Paul warns against philosophies and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). Theologians like Origen invented their own subjective approach to interpretation of scripture. Many others accepted then Origen’s way. Some read so much Greek philosophy, available during the period of the church fathers, that they took on the thinking of the Greek philosophers. Include Augustine among those. Greek philosophy doesn’t mix with the Bible and improve it. It corrupts it.
When Paul says “wisdom” in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he, like James in James 3:15, meant human wisdom, which could be intellectualism, naturalism, rationalism, or human reasoning. The false teachers that Peter battled as seen in his second epistle judged according to their own reasoning, attempting to conform their theology to that.
Syncretism
An important term to understand is “syncretism.” Wikipedia gets it right when it says in its entry on syncretism:
Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.
People mix two different philosophies, ideas, concepts, or beliefs and out of the two becomes something brand new, a hybrid, which contrasts with the ones from which it came. The false worship of Israel arose from syncretism, mixing Israel’s divine, scriptural worship with pagan or idolatrous worship practices.
Comparison with the True Church
The church doctrine and practice of the church fathers does not look like the church in the New Testament. The church fathers represent a path that diverts from the true path of the New Testament churches. As I wrote in part one, almost entirely they read as proto-Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism came from somewhere and this is easy to see. It’s no wonder that for centuries Roman Catholicism did not want people to read the Bible on their own. When they read it, they would see the differences.
It is easy to see in history what happened when people were reading the Bible and comparing it with Roman Catholicism. People left Roman Catholicism. They knew that wasn’t the truth. Based on reading scripture, they separated from Roman Catholicism. As well, true churches never joined that path in the first place. True churches always existed and people joined with them who left Roman Catholicism based on reading or hearing scripture. They also needed courage because Roman Catholicism through the years would kill them for disagreeing.
Roman Catholicism and the Church Fathers
Roman Catholicism preserved the church fathers. They served Roman Catholic mission and goals. Roman Catholicism uses the church fathers as their evidence of a historical trail. Roman Catholic apologists point to the church fathers as evidence of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
The authority and military of the Roman Empire served Roman Catholicism. The denomination itself took on qualities of an Empire and enforced the doctrine and practice. Ultimately, it would not allow for challenge. This produced an inauthentic history of a church. It never was the church. The Roman Catholic Church always was a pseudo-church, posing as one. It keeps people fooled and strapped into false religion. The church fathers offer a major contribution to the deceit and destruction.
Today evangelicals embrace the church fathers. They point to them as a part of their own history. This supposes that God used Roman Catholicism to keep the truth. It isn’t true and it doesn’t even make sense. This doesn’t just provide a cover for the error. It sends people down the wrong path.
The Example of Baptismal Regeneration
A good example of the deceit and danger of the church fathers relates to the teaching of baptismal regeneration. The church fathers taught baptismal regeneration. The Bible doesn’t teach that. It teaches against it. Roman Catholicism among other kinds of deeds and rituals requires baptism as a condition for salvation. Protestants did not make a full turn from Roman Catholic doctrine with their acceptance of infant sprinkling. This dovetailed with the Roman Catholic view that the church was the worldwide kingdom of God on earth.
In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter that He was building His church on the gospel. His church has a true gospel. The church fathers undermined the gospel and the church that arose from that teaching was a false one. It was Roman Catholicism and its state church.
More to Come
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers
I already have several series going, which include one on the Antichrist and globalism, one on the way people contort Matthew 5:17-20 to eliminate the doctrine of preservation, another one exploring Christian nationalism, and the one below, which I would predict has two parts, but it might just end here. I wanted you to know, Lord-willing, I would return to some of these series as I see fit.
*****************************
Church Fathers
If you grew up in a Baptist church like I did, then you didn’t hear anything about “church fathers.” I never heard that language until perhaps college, and I actually don’t remember when I first heard the terminology. No one referred in any of my childhood Baptist churches to a church father. I would doubt that I even heard of church fathers in high school, even though I attended and graduated from a Christian high school.
At some point as a child, I heard about “Father Abraham.” Sometime soon after that, I learned that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel. I also found that Abraham’s son Isaac and grandson Jacob were the Patriarchs. The English word, Patriarch, comes from the Latin, pater, which means Father. If you asked me who the Patriarchs were, I would answer, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Still, I never ever heard about any church fathers. Because of Galatians 3:7, now I might add that Abraham is also my Father, since I too am a child of his by faith in Jesus Christ.
Who are the Church Fathers?
So who are the church fathers? As you read this, maybe still you’ve never heard of the church fathers. However, now when people say “church fathers,” I know of whom they speak. I took a course in grad school, called “History of Christian Doctrine,” which examined the church fathers. Part of the requirements for my grad degree was historical theology. Okay, so who are these people called “church fathers”? I didn’t give them that name.
A Roman Catholic theologian named Johannes Quasten systematized ancient Christendom with his book, Patrology, which discusses what ancient Christian writers said. Historians had designated this study as Patristics. The earliest I read this term Patristics is in the 18th century and in German. Quasten defined “Church Fathers” as those Christian writers from New Testament times until Isidore of Seville (636) in the Latin world and John of Damascus (749) in the Greek world.
A second century writer, Irenaeus, who himself people call a “church father,” wrote:
For what any person has been taught from the mouth of another, he is termed the son of him who instructs him, and the latter [is called] his father.
Clement of Alexandria, also a church father, wrote:
We call those who have instructed us, fathers.
Apparently, the basis for this designation originated from Deuteronomy 32:7:
Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Proto Roman Catholic Fathers
From my reading through the years, I see these men, called church fathers, as proto-Roman Catholics. I’m not saying they would surrender or acquiesce to the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, if they read it. However, in general Roman Catholics embraced these men, claimed them, and then designated them as their fathers. The teachings of these fathers developed into later Roman Catholic dogma. Roman Catholics use them as credence for their false doctrine.
The earlier “fathers” were not in general as filled with error as the later ones. They show the incremental departure from true New Testament doctrine and practice. Their errors provide the basis for later and more severe error. Today men justify their own false doctrines historically by referring to something in the patristic writings. They can and do say that they have historical justification from the fathers for unbiblical beliefs and practices.
Value of the Church Fathers
I’m not saying the fathers are not without merit. You can find true beliefs and accurate exegesis of scripture in their writings. In many cases, they sound like sincere, true believers. Those writings also do validate certain doctrine and practice existed at that period of time, which is important for the history of doctrine. The patristic works show that people believed these things at this time according to these writings. They also indicate a consideration of New Testament books as the Word of God and a belief in Jesus Christ. From what they wrote, we see the reality of a love for the Bible among them.
The church fathers are very old writings, some of the oldest ancient writings that we possess. They are relevant as historical matter. They authenticate the story of Christianity. We can get from them an understanding of some what happened at that time. From the mere historical standpoint, they are very valuable.
The Church Fathers Were Not the Church Fathers
With all the above said, I don’t believe the church fathers are the church fathers. They’ve been labeled “the church fathers,” but they are not the fathers of the true church. I acknowledge the notoriety of these men called “the church fathers.” They represent a particular view of history with a trajectory toward a state church.
The best and really only evidence of the true church is scripture. One should judge the veracity of a church by what the Bible says it is. The Bible says what a church is. Then when someone examines something called a church, he tests it by scripture.
I would contend that the church fathers are better the fathers of the state church, which isn’t a true church. The state church chose the writings they would preserve. Based on biblical presuppositions, I contend that other men followed more closely to scripture. Their writings did not survive, because they clashed with Roman Catholic viewpoints. Those men represent a different trajectory of history.
Evidence for Church Fathers
Scriptural Presuppositions
You’ve heard, “To the victors go the spoils.” The victors very often also write the history books. The state church dominated most of the period of history from Christ until today. Its history and advocates of its history also dominate. For centuries, the state church had no problem destroying whatever did not support the state church, including the writings of which it did not approve. This means often leaving no historical trace of the presence of its enemies.
Based first upon biblical presuppositions, I and others believe that churches always existed separate from the state church. From some historical record, we believe they were known by different names. I think enough evidence exists to identify them by some of those names (example). Rather than a state church, these were autonomous and persecuted churches operating independent of state churches.
Churches that represent the biblically acceptable viewpoint left enough historical evidence, a footprint, to acknowledge their existence. Their trajectory leaves adequate trace of their scriptural legitimacy. Someone pictured it with a rope across a river, held on each side by men. You can see where the rope goes into the river and where it comes out. You know the rope continues in between, but you can’t see it at every point. However, you know the rope is there.
Enough of a History
The New Testament tells the story of true churches, local only. Evidence shows true churches existed then after the invention of the printing press. Some proof also indicates their presence in between. I would contend that the church fathers are the apostles and first pastors in New Testament times. The historical trajectory of those fathers does not move through those called, “the church fathers.” Therefore, the church fathers are not the church fathers. I don’t accept them as mine.
The actual fathers have little mention in church history. God did not promise to preserve their history and little of their history did survive. These are primitive Baptists first called Christians in Acts 11:26. True New Testament churches, that believed and practiced the Bible, continued through history separate from the state church.
Recent Comments