Home » Posts tagged 'Irenaeus'

Tag Archives: Irenaeus

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

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.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives