Home » Posts tagged 'Clement of Alexandria'
Tag Archives: Clement of Alexandria
The Historical Story of External Factors Perverting the Meaning of Church (part three)
Evidence in the New Testament
As you read through the New Testament, you see early attacks inside and outside of the church that correspond to what happened at that juncture of history in the world. Revelation 2 and 3 provide a good example of how churches in the first century degrade through changes in doctrine and practice in areas appropriate to the occurrences of the time, diverting from Jesus Christ and His commands. The Lord Jesus Christ gave many various means to keep His churches: faithful pastors edifying, preaching, admonishing, warning, and protecting, church discipline, the Lord’s Table, and personal and ecclesiastical separation.
All of the tools for preserving churches intact revolve around the sufficient, canonical words of scripture. The Word of God is like a purifying fire, like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces, and like water that washes away filth. The fire burns away dross, the hammer shapes something ugly into the beautiful, and the water cleanses away sin and false doctrine. All of this keeps a church or churches on track to extend to another generation.
False Tradition and Human Philosophy
Scripture itself never loses its power, but it becomes something different when someone mixes it with false traditions and human philosophy. In the Old Testament, pagan religion from surrounding foreign nations perverted Israel’s doctrine, practice, and worship. In the New Testament, Gnosticism, a collection of religious ideas and systems that emerged in the late first century AD, had a significant impact on the church by infiltrating it.
One can see in the New Testament reactions to proto-Gnostic false teaching that arose during the history of the first century. It reshaped doctrine, especially regarding the nature of God, creation, and salvation. Gnostic beliefs posited a dualistic worldview where a supreme, hidden God existed apart from a malevolent creator deity (the Demiurge), which some Gnostics identified with the God of the Hebrew Bible. They believed that material existence was flawed or evil, leading them to focus on personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) as the path to salvation rather than faith in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection.
First century Gnosticism emerged from various sources, such as Jewish mysticism and Hellenistic philosophy. Scripture teaches its own sufficiency in part to combat adding and taking away from its teaching. The additions and subtractions emerge from the woof and the warp of that historical period.
Platonism
Debates over doctrine early in church history hinged on philosophical issues. These debates did not and would not occur from solely influences of scripture. Teachers familiar with the dialogues of Plato relied on the writings of the Greek philosopher in their interpretations of the biblical text. To recognize how they arrived at their teachings, one must understand how neo-Platonic Greek philosophy mixed into their doctrinal views. Plato represented a distinct view of the world seen in the type of teaching espoused by those hearkening to his ideas.
Church leaders believed Christians could appropriate the world’s philosophy and culture, where this seemed right to them. Augustine of Hippo provides an example, when he writes:
If those who are called philosophers, particularly the Platonists, have said anything which is true and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use.
Plato’s writing contributed to the shaping of early doctrine of professing Christianity, including in systems of interpretation of scripture. The Alexandrian Jewish scholar Philo was a key figure in developing allegorical interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, aiming to reconcile biblical texts with Platonic philosophy.
Schools of Theology
Schools of theology arose, many times organizations separate from church authority. Origen was a student at the catechetical school in Alexandria, which had a strong tradition of allegorical interpretation, and likely studied under Clement of Alexandria who was known for relating Christian teachings to Greek philosophy. Origen didn’t invent allegory but he significantly advanced and popularized it, drawing on the influence of Greek philosophy. He often distinguished between a literal and a spiritual or allegorical meaning of scripture.
Doctrines did begin to change and false ones spread to various churches even in the first century, as seen what occurred in the seven churches of Asia (Rev 2 & 3). John expresses concerns over the doctrine of Christ that reflect the introduction of proto-Gnostic heresies (1 & 2 John). The Apostle Paul confronts Greek philosophy in 1 Corinthians 6, that presented a lax view of sexual immorality. In 1 Corinthians 15 he addresses something undoing the doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Roman Empire
Most professing Christians and churches could not resist the power of the Roman Empire’s embrace of Christian religion and modification to the religious power of the state. The emperor Constantine possessed his own experience of Christianity and then used his position to affect faith and practice. He promoted his imagination of Christianity with construction of cathedrals, Bible translation, and the calling of official councils for discussion of theological issues.
Like a Rome emperor wanted unity in his empire for its resultant strength, Constantine and then others after him pushed for cohesive doctrine and practice across the empire. He organized and structured Christianity around his own aspirations for Christianity. This conformed Christianity beyond the New Testament to a state religion. Doctrine and practice became malleable to the state. The emperor and the state hierarchy used its authority to use its power to mold Christianity according to the same means by which it ordered the political and secular.
Influence of the State
State endorsement brought safety and great influence. It was difficult for small churches to resist the current of state power, getting swept into the flow of its governance and acceptance. Churches could sell their freedom and autonomy for security and prominence. Anyone could conceive of the opportunities that could come with the immensity of the state and the size of its resources.
The state would endorse those with its position and finally punish those resisting it. It published and propagated what it approved. At many different points it would destroy anything in opposition. What remained available was what the state affirmed. During many various periods, the state kept what it ratified and eliminated what it didn’t. This was a means to maintain cohesion.
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