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