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.