Foundations
for Christianity:
202
Foundations of Our Theology
and Hermeneutics
Early
Church Confirmation Rubric
The subject
of this article is why and how the "Early Church Fathers"
(we prefer "early Church writers") are used on this website
and in our analysis of doctrine. The use of the Early Church
Fathers (or ECF's) has been a point of criticism. Our goal
through writing this segment is to respond to the common criticisms
and to clarify exactly what role the ECF's have, as well as
what role they do NOT have, in our theology.
There are two reasons behind our use of the ECF's.
1. Double checking your work.
Whether you are a layperson or a theologian, once you conclude
your examination of scripture on a particular topic, it is
always a good idea to compare your own analysis and conclusions
with the analysis and conclusions of someone else perhaps
including friends, family, pastors, theologians, or fellow
bible study or church members. It is always possible that
you missed something or made some slight wrong turn along
the way. In this way, comparing your findings to those of
another theologian acts as the one of the only available means
to double check your own work. Such comparison and double-checking
is very common among Christian theologians. The only difference
between other modern theologians and the writers of this website
in this respect is who we double-check against.
In the nearly 20 centuries since the days of Christ Jesus
and his apostles, there is no shortage of theologians and
Bible commentators that could be selected with which to double
check one's own studies. However, among all these theologians
and scholars, the early church writers stand head and shoulders
above all the rest for a few obvious and simple reasons.
First, the early Church writers not only have the closest
proximity to Jesus and the apostles in comparison to any other
theologian, but in quite a few cases their lives or their
writing actually overlap with those of the apostles. This
means that the beliefs of some of the early church writers
were in part developed under the supervision of the apostles
themselves.
Second, as we will see, all of the early Church writers that
we are primarily concerned with have some direct link to the
apostles. Some worked with the apostles. Some were taught
by the apostles directly. Others have the apostles as their
"grandfathers" in the faith and were taught by those who were
the apostles' direct students. In short, the early church
fathers are head and shoulders above all other theologians
because they had different teachers. They had the apostles
as teachers with little or no intervening persons. While this
does not guarantee that they themselves or the single teacher
between them and the apostles did not alter the doctrine,
to whatever extent such alterations are possible, they become
only more possible and more probable with later theologians,
given that there are even more intervening teachers.
Third, the early Church writers have few, if any, but in either
case much, much less intervening historical and cultural baggage
to cloud their interpretation of the scripture than we ourselves
or any other Christian scholar of any other era. This is important
because one of the main challenges that modern Christians
have today when applying the grammatical-historical method
as we are studying the Bible is to avoid infusing our own
20th century western views into the scripture.
By contrast, if we compare our study results with those of
other moderners we may still have trouble overcoming this
difficulty since our double-checkers share the same or a similar
handicap as we do. If we compare our study results with Christian
theologians or scholars of intervening centuries we may avoid
reading our modern views into the scripture only to then force
a 4th, 16th, or 18th century perspective onto the text instead.
Fourth the early Church writers employ the grammatical-historical
method, which we are using and so we should arrive at the
same results. Many scholars from intervening (and even modern)
periods don't subscribe to the grammatical-historical method
of Biblical interpretation.
Fifth, the early Church writers have doctrinal consensus.
The specific group of early Church writers that we quote from
will be defined momentarily. But, it is important to note
that this group of writers present among themselves in their
writings a consensus and harmony of beliefs. In other words,
their doctrinal understanding does not contradict or clash
with one another. Instead, the Christianity of their time
is a single, cohesive, unified, system of theology.
The reason that this is significant is because it is yet another
area, which distinguishes this set of Christian writers as
far superior from any other that we might employ to double-check
our own scriptural study. All successive periods of Christian
history contain internal doctrinal contradiction. The result
is that the 150-year period of time covered by the earliest
post-canonical Christian writers contains an exceedingly greater
amount of agreement and unity than any other group of Christian
writers in any other 150-year period since then, than the
entire 1800 years since then, and certainly more than we have
in the Church today.
For these five reasons, when we double-check our work we chose
to recheck our studies against the writings of the earliest
post-canonical Church authors.
2. Determining the ancientness of your doctrine.
Double checking our analysis and conclusions against the early
church writers allows us to identify whether or not our views
are the most ancient in the Christian sphere. And this is
important because the chief goal of any Christian and of any
individual Bible study is to discover and embrace the original
doctrine taught by Jesus and his apostles rather than an invention
of men that has arisen in the nearly 20 centuries since their
day as a byproduct of a wide variety of influences and/or
syncretistic blending with either pagan or secular cultures.
Since the early church writers represent the period overlapping
and immediately following the time of Jesus and his apostles,
if our conclusions are shown to be the understanding of the
early church writers as well, we are only one step away from
showing that our beliefs are the original beliefs of the New
Testament church as taught by Jesus and his apostles.
The first step of course is whether or not our analysis of
scripture itself is sound. But if it is and the early church
writers also hold the same conclusions, then we have both
the most ancient record (scripture itself) and the second
most ancient record (the early church writers) testifying
that our conclusions are the original teachings of Jesus and
his apostles. Because all other theologians are so much farther
removed from the New Testament church, sometimes even by centuries
or more than a millennium, no other theologian in Christian
history after the early church writers can so efficiently
help to demonstrate that our doctrines actually originate
with the teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles.
It is for these two reasons and in these two ways that we
use the early church writers in our analysis of doctrine on
this website. Now we arrive at some points of criticism against
our use of the early church writers.
Criticism Number 1 - The Early Church Writers Have a Diversity
of Views
Who do we quote from?
On this website, after a thorough exegetical examination of
scripture is concluded, we will also provide a comparison
to the comments of the early Church writers on that subject.
Concerning this facet of our studies, the objection has arisen
that the group often generally referred to as the "Early Church
Fathers" includes a variety of writers with divergent views
spanning a significant amount of time from the second to the
fourth century AD. The core of this objection is that we simply
handpick early church fathers that agree with us and then
conveniently ignore or discard the rest. Here we arrive at
the next important point of clarity.
For the comparison purposes described in the rubric below,
it must be clearly stated that the authors of this website
are PRIMARILY concerned with a very specific group of early
Church writers.
Early Christian authors writing before the Council of Nicaea
in 325 A.D. are known collectively as the "Ante-Nicene Writers."
Obviously a three hundred year period of time covers a relatively
large number of authors. However, within this larger category
of early writers, there are various sub-groupings of authors.
One particular sub-grouping, in fact, the first sub-grouping
of Ante-Nicene Writers, is known commonly as the "Apostolic
Fathers." (We prefer to call them the "Apostolic Writers.")
And this is the group of writers with which we are chiefly
concerned and quote from as we double-check our own work.
This group is not arbitrarily selected by us as some might
suggest. Rather, this sub-grouping is an existing category
already identified by scholars and we simply borrow that already
existing understanding.
Specifically, the group of writers known as the "Apostolic
Fathers" includes 8 authors. These 8 authors are:
1. Barnabas
2. Clement
3. Ignatius
4. Ireneaus
5. Justin Martyr
6. Mathetes
7. Papias
8. Polycarp
The sub-grouping of these particular 8 authors, known as the
"Apostolic Fathers," can be seen independently CCEL.org (Christian
Classics Ethereal Library) at the following URL:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
CCEL.org is operated by the Development Office of Calvin College,
Grand Rapids, MI. CCEL.org also provides introductory comments
for the Ante-Nicene Fathers from A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D. written
in December of 1884 and including the following summary description
of the sub-grouping known as the "Apostolic Fathers." The
date of 1884 further demonstrates that the distinction of
these 8 men from the rest of the Ante-Nicene authors is not
a distinction of our own invention or convenience.
"Introductory Notice - [a.d. 100-200.] The Apostolic
Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century
of our era. Irenaeus, it is true, is rather of the sub-apostolic
period; but, as the disciple of Polycarp, he ought not to
be dissociated from that Father's company." - A. C. C. December,
1884
We should take note from the paragraph above that the "Apostolic
Fathers" are distinguished from the rest of the Ante-Nicene
authors, which can be generally termed "sub-apostolic." On
CCEL.org, the categorization of the Ante-Nicene authors that
includes this 8 member group is listed as follows:
"Volume I. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and
Irenaeus Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius,
Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus." - Christian Classics
Ethereal Library, CCEL.org
It is important to note that CCEL.org begins its next set
of Ante-Nicene writers, the "Fathers of the Second Century,"
and continues to group Ante-Nicene writers largely according
to the period in which they wrote.
"Volume II. Fathers of the Second Century
Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria
Volume III. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian
Three Parts: I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical
Volume IV. The Fathers of the Third Century
Tertullian Part IV; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen
Volume V. The Fathers of the Third Century
Hippolytus; Cyprian; Caius; Novatian; Appendix
Volume VI. The Fathers of the Third Century
Gregory Thaumaturgus; Dinysius the Great; Julius Africanus;
Anatolius and Minor Writers; Methodius; Arnobius
Volume VII. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic
Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, Liturgies
Volume VIII. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries
The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia,
Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents,
Remains of the First Ages" - Christian Classics Ethereal Library,
CCEL.org
This is where we draw our line of demarcation also, distinguishing
these first 8 Christian writers from the rest of the early
writers after them.
At this point, it must be stated clearly and emphatically
that when we speak of consensus in the post-New Testament
early Church's doctrine, we are specifically referring to
these 8 men and NOT to the views espoused by other Ante-Nicene
writers after them. Because of their proximity and the fact
that they have consensus (no disagreement between themselves)
concerning doctrine, these 8 writers make up what we consider
the PRIMARY LEVEL of Ante-Nicene writers. All other Ante-Nicene
writers are on the SECONDARY LEVEL.
When discussing these 8 writers of the PRIMARY LEVEL (the
"Apostolic Fathers") we should note, as mentioned earlier,
their overlap and connection to the Apostles themselves. We
do this to point out one of the main characteristics that
distinguishes this group of men from any other post-canonical
author or any other era of history.
Of these 8 men, one is potentially the apostle Barnabas. And
at least three were themselves discipled directly by apostles.
These three men are:
1. Clement (of Rome), disciple of Paul (and perhaps
Peter as well).
2. Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle.
3. Ignatius, a disciple of John the apostle.
Of the remaining four men, two were discipled by two of John's
disciples. Irenaeus was discipled by Polycarp. And Papias
was an associate of Polycarp.
In addition, as we stated above, these men lived in close
proximity in time to the apostles. Some of them even lived
for several decades before the deaths of the apostles. (Keep
in mind that Peter and Paul died in the mid-60's A.D. and
John lived until around the year 100 A.D.)
1. Clement lived between 30-100 A.D.
2. Ignatius lived between 30-107 A.D.
3. Polycarp lived between 70-156 A.D.
Here are the dates for the rest:
4. Justin Martyr lived between 110-165 A.D.
5. Irenaeus lived between 120-202 A.D.
6. The other three men (Barnabas, Mathetes, and Papias)
all lived and wrote before 130 A.D.
We might also mention that five of these men were bishops
over the early Church, appointed to guard Christian teaching:
1. Clement was bishop of Rome.
2. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna.
3. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch.
4. Papias was bishop of Hieropolis.
5. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons.
(NOTE: In the cases of Ignatius and Polycarp this appointment
may have been made directly by the Apostle John.)
It is for all of these reasons that these 8 men are distinguished
from other early Church writers (and from Christian theologians
of later periods). Their superiority to later Christian writers
is established by these characteristics, which we have discussed
above and summarize here now:
1. Proximity in time - at least 3, but probably 6,
of these 8 men lived for decades before the deaths of the
apostles. The remaining few lived in the decades immediately
following. Thus, not only was the theology of several of these
men subject to direct apostolic oversight, but even the others
did not have anywhere near as much time as we or other later
scholars have had to bring outside influences to their theology.
2. Direct discipleship - 1 may have been an apostle
himself, at least 3 of these men were directly taught by apostles,
and another 2 were taught by 2 of these men. This again means
that they are much, much less likely to have cultural or historical
baggage to cloud their scriptural study as we and other scholars
of later centuries have had.
3. Concensus - these men have doctrinal unity and consensus.
Such consensus is unparalleled by any group of Christian writers
or theologians in any era since.
For comparison, the earliest Christian theologian to influence
modern Christian thinking is Augustine. Augustine wrote between
354-430 A.D. This is over 250 years after the death of the
last apostle (John). Augustine is acknowledged to have significant
influence over modern Christianity though his doctrines are
equally acknowledged to have fused Christian teaching with
Platonism, a mystical pagan worldview, which heavily influenced
Augustine's own understanding of Christianity. It is Augustine
who bears much influence on significant Reformation and modern
theologians alike, beginning with Martin Luther and John Calvin.
Yet neither Augustine nor any of these men were instructed
by apostles, nor appointed by apostles, nor were overseen
by apostles in their theological development, nor were those
who taught them.
Can the writing of 8 men be enough to establish the views
of their era?
Some may ask, even if the 8 writers who make up the "Apostolic
Fathers" have consensus among themselves, are 8 men a sufficient
amount to establish concretely what the views of the Church
were as a whole during the period in which they lived and
wrote?
The answer to this question must be yes. The reason that it
must be yes comes by comparing the "Apostolic Fathers" to
the New Testament authors in three areas: 1) the number of
contributors, 2) the amount of material, and 3) the individual
contributions of the writers.
When we perform such a comparison, we find that the two groups
are nearly the same or exactly the same on all 3 criteria.
The following chart shows the large similarity between these
two groups in each of the 3 areas under discussion.
Quantity of Information and Contribution Comparison Chart
New Testament
1. Jude
2. James
3. Peter
4. Mark
5. Matthew
6. John
7. Luke
8. Paul
Total:
|
0.75 pages
2.25 pages
4 pages
14 pages
22.25 pages
31.5 pages
46.75 pages
49.75 pages
171.25 page
|
Timeframe Covered:
First Century Christianity.
Apostles live until the year 100 AD.
Number of Writers: 8
Number of Pages: 171.25
Average Page Contribution
of the Lowest 3 Contributors:
2.33 pages
Average Page Contribution
of the Middle 3 Contributors:
22.5 pages
Average Page Contribution
of the Highest 2 Contributors:
48.25 pages
|
Apostolic Fathers
1. Papias
2. Mathetes
3. Barnabas
4. Clement
5. Polycarp
6. Ignatius
7. Justin Martyr
8. Irenaeus
Total:
|
1.5 pages
3.5 pages
7.75 pages
11 pages
13 pages
35 pages
100 pages
180.75 pages
352.5 page
|
Timeframe Covered:
Second Century Christianity.
The last apostolic father dies in 202 AD.
Number of Writers: 8
Number of Pages: 352.5
Average Page Contribution
of the Lowest 3 Contributors:
4.25 pages
Average Page Contribution
of the Middle 3 Contributors:
19.5 pages
Average Page Contribution
of the Highest 2 Contributors:
140.5 pages
|
What the
above chart shows is that:
1.) Both the New Testament and the "Apostolic Fathers"
have a total of 8 writers.
2.) In terms of shear volume, the "Apostolic Fathers"
wrote more than 2 times as much information than the New Testament
itself contains.
3.) Both the New Testament and the "Apostolic Fathers"
have roughly the same stratification of contributions. That
is, in both groups, some writers contribute more, while others
contribute a lot less in comparison. When we compare, head-to-head,
the lowest, middle, and highest contributors to each group,
we find that the "Apostolic Fathers" do not come up short
in any area. On average, the lowest 3 contributing "Apostolic
Fathers" wrote than 2 pages more than the lowest 3 contributing
New Testament authors. Likewise, concerning the "Apostolic
Fathers" and the New Testament authors who contributed a middle
amount, the average contribution in both groups was right
around 20 pages. And concerning the highest 2 contributors
to either group, the "Apostolic Fathers" wrote an average
of 100 pages more than Paul or Luke, the highest 2 contributing
New Testament authors.
In summary, since collective writings of the "Apostolic Fathers"
contain nearly twice as much information by the same number
of authors making roughly the same relative contributions
as the New Testament authors do, the "Apostolic Fathers" cannot
be said to be too few in number or too little in information
to accurately define the doctrines held by the post-apostolic
Church of their day. If 8 authors writing anywhere from 1
page to 50 pages provide enough information content to record
and define the beliefs of the New Testament Church, then 8
authors writing anywhere from 1 to 180 pages and twice as
much total material as the New Testament certainly provide
enough information content to record and define the beliefs
of their generation.
Conclusion Regarding Criticism Number 1 - The Early Church
Writers Have a Diversity of Views
This first criticism that is offered regarding our usage of
the early Church writers is false. The specific group of writers
that we are concerned with is neither arbitrarily chosen by
us because they align with our views, nor do they have a diversity
of opinion among themselves. Instead, the writers we refer
to (known as the "Apostolic Fathers") are grouped together
not by us, but by other academics and theologians based upon
the specific scholarly criteria listed above. Likewise, a
study of these men's writings reveals a unified, consistent,
and cohesive system of Christian theology during the earliest
post-New Testament period of Christianity. If someone wishes
to deny that the Apostolic Fathers had consensus then they
must demonstrate disagreement in this group rather than simply
making a sweeping assertion.
Why do we quote from authors in the Secondary Level of
early Christian writers at all?
As we will see below, the New Testament itself both predicts
that deviations in doctrine will inevitably arise in the Church
as well as instructs the early Church to preserve the doctrine
that they received from the apostles without corrupting it
in any way. In accordance with this Biblically predicted deviation,
Christian writers of the "sub-apostolic" period (and of later
centuries as well) begin to express some divergence of opinion
on Christian thinking.
We do quote from the Secondary Level of ECF's. However, we
quote from men of later groups only WHEN a particular belief
that they hold also has representation in the "Apostolic Fathers"
and ultimately in the scriptures. In this way, although they
may not hold consensus with the 8 "Apostolic Fathers" on all
points, authors on the Secondary Level can help to trace the
origin of doctrines by further establishing a particular thread
of doctrine that continued to be held uncorrupted from the
New Testament times. This is the only potential usage
that we assign to the Secondary Level of Ante-Nicene writers.
Criticism Number 2 - Deviation from Jesus' teaching occurred
in the Early Church.
Does the fact that deviation does occur within the larger
category of the Ante-Nicene writers demonstrate that even
the early sub-group of the "Apostolic Fathers" should not
be used for double-checking doctrine?
There are several things to address in response to this criticism.
The first is that we do recognize ourselves and acknowledge
that deviation from Jesus' teaching was Biblically predicted
and did occur as a matter of historical fact.
On the topic of preserving sound doctrine, the New Testament
tells us in no uncertain terms that:
1. The doctrine of Jesus' Christ was complete, understood,
and passed on by the apostles from the beginning of Christianity.
2. Jesus' teaching (as taught by the apostles to the
Church) was commanded to be preserved without alteration and
passed on to successive generations.
3. In spite of 1 and 2, people would abandon and deviate
from Jesus' teaching as taught by the apostles to the Church
and listen to teachers who taught their own doctrine and what
the people wanted to hear.
There are many, many verses, in the New Testament, which attest
to these 3 facts. John 14:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Timothy
4:16, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:9, Titus 2:7,
1 John 2:24, Jude 1:3 are just a few of such passages.
As time continues after the "Apostolic Fathers" there is a
trend away from Apostolic teaching and toward deviation through
syncretistic blending with either pagan or secular cultures.
This trend comes to a notable head in the 4th century A.D.
with the events surrounding the Romanization of the Church
under figures like Constantine, Eusebius of Ceasarea, and
Augustine. For more information on these important events
please see our articles entitled "Roman Catholicism."
The following two charts illustrate the Biblical models for
both preservation of sound doctrine and prediction that deviation
would occur.
CHART NOTES: This model (which is actually asserted
in the New Testament) predicts the infusion of false doctrine
into the church over time, particularly starting after the
deaths of the apostles. Therefore, while the underlying historic/philosophical
model employed by this website DOES predict the overall consensus
among the earliest non-canonical writers, this model ALSO
predicts the presence of deviant doctrine among successive
generations of non-canonical writers even in the early centuries.
Thus, the loss of consensus and the corresponding presence
of deviant doctrine as time moves on after the earliest non-canonical
writers does not contradict the underlying historic/philosophical
model employed by this website.
CHART NOTES: Although this model was enjoined upon
the church in the hopes of preventing the predicted deviation
as much as possible and for as long as possible, it was understood
that this prescription to preserve the original doctrine would
NOT eventually prevent the widespread deviation/corruption
of doctrine that was to come. However, the eventual emergence
of deviant doctrine within the church did not mean that in
time original Christian doctrine would be lost altogether
because the original doctrine had been preserved in the scriptures.
What these scriptural statements and charts tell us is that
deviation from sound doctrine was to be avoided, but was expected
to eventually occur. Our use of the "Apostolic Fathers" recognizes
this trend toward deviation, takes it into account, and offers
a means to avoid our own participation in it as we study the
Word of God 20 centuries later.
The question, then that separates us from our critics is not
whether doctrinal deviation has occurred, but when it occurred.
On this point our opponents might criticize us by asserting
their assumption that even the earliest post-canonical Church
writers (which we employ as a means to check our own study)
seriously deviated from Jesus' teaching. Therefore, they might
say, that it is faulty for us to employ such men's writings
to check our own Biblical studies since such writings contain
serious and numerous doctrinal deviations from Jesus' teaching.
However, this is not a fair criticism.
First, the simple fact that deviation does occur at some point
in the nearly three hundred years covered by the larger category
known as the "Ante-Nicene" era, does not in any way demand
or prove that such deviation was already present within the
first 100-150 years known as the time period of the 8 "Apostolic
Fathers."
Second, any claim that the "Apostolic Fathers" were in error,
disagreed with one another, or deviated from Jesus' teaching
must be demonstrated. It cannot simply be assumed to be true
without evidence. Nor does evidence of error occurring in
a later period of the Ante-Nicene writers AFTER the "Apostolic
Fathers" demonstrate error among the "Apostolic Fathers" themselves.
And, a reading of the "Apostolic Fathers" yields no substantive
evidence of error or disagreement among them specifically.
Third, some critics may employ the circular reasoning that
the "Apostolic Fathers" are in error simply because they disagree
with the modern theology of the critics themselves. Thus,
they attempt to prove the "Apostolic Fathers" deviate from
Jesus' teaching simply by showing that the "Apostolic Fathers"
disagree with their own teaching.
Conclusion Regarding Criticism Number 2 - Deviation from
Jesus' teaching occurred in the Early Church.
Of course, the need for modern theologians to assert error
in the "Apostolic Fathers" is apparent. In order to justify
their own deviations from the earliest post-canonical Christian
understanding of Jesus' teachings by men who were taught by
the apostles themselves, it is first necessary to allege uncertainty
and confusion in the "Apostolic Fathers." In other words,
the insertion of uncertainty is the necessary vehicle for
introducing greater latitude of action and belief.
Or, in simpler terms, modern theology is quite different from
that espoused by the "Apostolic Fathers." In order to justify
their own deviation from the understanding of Jesus' teachings
held by the earliest Church and their theological disagreement
with men of such extraordinarily close proximity to the apostles,
modern scholars must necessarily discredit the understanding
of the "Apostolic Fathers." Or to put it even more simply,
they cannot trace their views back to the earliest times of
Christianity, so they seek to make these times irrelevant
by saying that they were filled with much doctrinal error
and deviation. Of course this is mere circular reasoning and
a completely biased and baseless assumption.
Furthermore, When It Comes To Deviation…
As we discuss deviation from Jesus' teachings an important
distinction must be made. It is one thing to suggest that
the positions articulated by the early church writers on a
particular topic were not authoritative and were only one
of a variety of possible acceptable positions on that topic.
It is another thing to suggest that the positions articulated
in the New Testament itself were not authoritative and were
only one of a variety of possible acceptable positions on
a given topic.
Very often, in order to disagree with the conclusions asserted
on this website, at some point critics have to assert at least
one or more of the following 5 positions concerning, not the
views of the early Church writers, but regarding the New Testament
itself:
1. The New Testament authors themselves didn't completely
understand Jesus' teaching.
2. The New Testament authors weren't clear or can't
be understood.
3. The New Testament writing wasn't authoritative then
and could be deviated from.
4. The New Testament writing isn't authoritative now
and can be deviated from.
5. A New Testament author's meaning is not the true
or ultimate meaning.*
Of course, for obvious reasons, our opponents will never openly
acknowledge these views as the basis of their disagreement.
Nor, would they be so forthcoming as to inform their audiences
or congregations that they hold to such notions.
By contrast to our opponents, we wish to affirm the following
view of the New Testament:
1. The New Testament authors themselves did completely
understand Jesus' teaching.
2. The New Testament authors were clear and can be
understood.
3. The New Testament writing was authoritative then
and cannot be deviated from.
4. The New Testament writing is authoritative now and
cannot be deviated from.
5. New Testament author's meaning is the true and ultimate
meaning.*
*NOTE: The idea expressed in No. 5 (above) is that
while the author might have had one idea in mind, the Holy
Spirit used his words as a shell to convey an alternate idea,
distinct from what the author had in mind. Thus, as is stated,
the author's meaning is not the true or ultimate meaning.
Really, this is just a restatement of Nos. 3 and 4, because
it's another way of asserting that the grammatical, contextual,
and historical meaning of a text as intended by the author
is not authoritative. And while it might be conceivable to
think of certain Old Testament passages as having more than
one meaning, such as Paul's recounting of the Exodus in 1
Corinthians 10 illustrates, to do the same thing with plain,
instructional New Testament texts is a completely different
story. It's one thing to say that the Israelites passing through
the Red Sea is both historic fact and a symbolic foreshadowing
of baptism. It is quite another to suggest that instructions
from a New Testament author like Paul are really only authoritative
on some symbolic or abstract level. Understanding the extent
to which the Old Testament prefigures the work of Christ's
first advent does not give us license to turn the passages
of the New Testament itself into a symbolic prefiguring of
our own imagination. Furthermore, in passages like 1 Corinthians
10, Paul certainly considered both the literal and the symbolic
meanings to be true and authoritative.
Criticism Number 3 - The use of the "Apostolic Fathers"
by this website is equivalent to making the "Apostolic Fathers"
infallible.
The suggestion that we treat the "Apostolic Fathers" as authoritative
and infallible is patently false. First of all, if quoting
from other Christian writers or using them to check your study
conclusions is tantamount to making them equal to scripture,
then that means that any Christian scholar who has ever quoted
any other text besides the Bible or any other author besides
the Biblical authors must have considered them to be equivalent
to scripture in authority and infallibility.
Of course, this is not the case. Many modern scholars quote
from other modern scholars, Reformation scholars, and other
Christian theologians from other ages, but this does not mean
that they hold such scholars to be divinely authoritative
or infallible. Does citing Martin Luther mean you think Luther
was an infallible authority on Jesus' teaching? Or does quoting
John Calvin mean that you think Calvin never erred in any
respect in his theology or that you cannot disagree with Calvin
on any point? Because you study Augustine does that mean that
he has replaced the Bible as the source of your theology.
Perhaps this is the case with others, but the "Apostolic Fathers"
are not employed by us in such ways.
Rather, as we have stated above we simply employ these 8 men
in the same manner as other theologians often quote other
Christian scholars. We reference them only after, and not
before, we perform our own thorough scriptural analysis. We
quote them to check our own conclusions. We use them to show
that other honorable Christian men also held our views. And
we use them to show that our views were present in early Church
history and by those who were personally taught by the apostles.
We do not hold the "Apostolic Fathers" to be inerrant, but
instead hold that they are completely open to error just as
any of us are and just as any Christian would say of any theologian
that they are fond of quoting. Likewise, we do not hold them
to be divinely inspired authorities on Jesus' teaching. And
lastly, we do not use them as the source of our theological
understanding, but only refer to them AFTER we have thoroughly
studied the Word of God itself.
Also, we must recognize that this type of criticism is a catch-22.
We are "darned if we do and darned if we don't." If we agree
with the "Apostolic Fathers" on all points, then we are accused
of making them infallible. On the other hand, if we disagree
with the "Apostolic Fathers" in so much as one detail we are
accused of violating our own rules. Therefore, it is wrong
to use them if they are considered infallible and wrong to
use them if they are considered fallible. Of course, those
who might suggest such criticisms do not equally apply either
of these two criticisms to the quotation of Christian theologians
from other eras by modern scholars.
The following charts help depict the way in which critics
often falsely caricature our use of the "Apostolic Fathers."
The views stamped "WRONG" (Figures A-C) represent false
understandings of our use of "Apostolic Fathers." Beside these
we have presented (Figure D) an accurate depiction
of our use of the "Apostolic Fathers" (stamped "Correct")
and in contrast (Figure E) a depiction of the approach
by which modern theology often arrives at its understanding
of Jesus' teachings.
Figure
A: As discussed in our articles on the doctrines of the
Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the RCC holds that the Bible
AND sacred tradition (= the writings of RCC church leaders
since the Bible's completion) are both equally authoritative
in the formation of doctrine. This RCC position undermines
the principle of sola scriptura (scripture alone) so that
the writing of men outside of the Bible becomes just as valid
as the Bible, even when it disagrees with the Bible.
This portrayal of our views is wrong for several reasons.
First, we do not consider the ECF's infallible or inspired
or of equal weight with the Bible. Second, we do not determine
doctrine by using the ECF's as a standard. Third, we do not
value ECF's "sight unseen" or "on their own merit." Instead,
we give value to a particular set of ECF's (the "Apostolic
Fathers") BECAUSE they line up with a grammatical-historical
interpretation of scripture. Thus, the critical analysis of
the text of scripture comes FIRST and the ECF's are judged
and valued according to it, rather than being equal to it.
Fourth, as can be readily seen by the studies on this website,
the examination of doctrine is spent overwhelming in the scriptures
with the ECF's usually tacked on at the end as an addendum
rather than as part of the analytical process upon which doctrines
are formed.
By falsely depicting our approach in this way, critics hope
to equate us with the RCC in order to incite a pre-emptive
prejudice against our views and approach among Protestant
audiences, rather than dealing with the facts and addressing
our views and approach as they truly are. (It should be noted
that a select few doctrinal topic areas - namely the studies
on Preterism, Roman Catholicism, and the Charismatic gifts
- do create a peculiar relevance for the historic record itself.
In these cases, a wide variety of early writers are more relevant
than in the majority of purely doctrinal studies on this website,
i.e studies where the historic record is not particularly
relevant. However, in these few studies, historic writers
are used for their witness to history and are still not used
as the authority driving the examination of the doctrine.)
Figure
B: In what is perhaps the cheapest shot at our theological
system and approach, some critics suggest that this website
uses the ECF's as the primary determining factor for doctrine,
even elevating them over scripture itself. The idea presented
in this false portrayal is that we start with the views of
the ECF's on all topic areas and then we work backwards to
reconstruct scripture to line up with the views of the ECF's.
This criticism
is most obviously false. First, our familiarity with the Bible
preceded familiarity with ECF writing by years and years.
So, doctrine was being formulated on the basis of scripture
while our experience and familiarity with ECF writing was
just developing. Thus, our familiarity with ECF writing was
not sufficient to base any doctrine on. Second, and more importantly,
even the casual reader of this website will quickly notice
that the overwhelming bulk of each and every doctrinal investigation
is spent analyzing scripture, not the ECF's. ECF writings
are only tacked on in the addendum. This means that our reasons
for adopting certain doctrinal conclusions is driven by an
analysis of scriptural texts, to the tune of what equates
to more than 2000 printed pages. In contrast, there is relatively
little or no analysis of the ECF writings.
Critics who
falsely portray our approach in this manner defy the obvious
and are attempting to dismiss our views without having to
analyze or refute the hundreds and hundreds of pages of scriptural
analysis on this website.
Figure
C: We do not employ the ECF's as the interpreters of scripture
for us. For all of the 2000 plus pages in which we analyze
and formulate interpretations of Biblical passages one by
one, to build doctrinal conclusions, there are less than a
dozen instances where we even mention or cite an ECF's interpretation
of a text or passage. And even in those very few and scattered
instances the quotation of an ECF interpreting a passage,
the purpose of including such a quote is not to appeal to
it as the authoritative interpretation of the passage in question,
but instead, such quotes only occur AFTER an analysis of the
passage using the GH method has been performed and articulated.
And more
to the point, the reason for those quotes is for comparison's
sake, to demonstrate to the audience that other significant
Christian writers share the interpretation that we have derived
from a passage. In this regard it is no different than when
scholars cite Reformers or other Post-Reformation theologians
to show widespread support for their interpretations of passages.
Why should the few quotations of ECF interpretations of passages
be treated or portrayed any differently that when modern scholars
quote how Reformation or Post-Reformation theologians interpreted
a passage? When modern authors quote the interpretations of
passages articulated by other well-known theologians, their
quotation is not taken to imply that they view the Reformation
or Post-Reformation writers, which they quote, in the role
of interpreter or that these modern writers derive their doctrine
merely by adopting the interpretations of the theologians
that they quote. Likewise, neither does our scarce inclusion
of such ECF quotes equate to such an elevated regard for the
ECF's. Nor should it be portrayed this way simply on the basis
of these quotes, particularly in light of the infrequency
of their occurrence.
With virtually
no quotations of ECF's interpreting scripture passages in
the analysis that builds our doctrine, it is not possible
to suggest that the analytical process, which leads to our
doctrine, is primarily or even partially the adopting or borrowing
of ECF interpretations of scripture.
Figure
D: Because the ECF's views were developed using a grammatical-historical
(GH) approach to scripture, the doctrine we derive using the
GH method and the ECF views line up, without coaxing. Essentially,
both parties are applying the same method (the grammatical-historical
method) to the same source (the Bible) and getting the same
resulting doctrine. Both rely on the Bible as the determining
authority for doctrine and both hold that doctrine must be
preserved as it was originally rather than modified or revised.
In this way, they affirm each other as well as affirming the
grammatical-historical method, particularly in terms of its
consistency and the singularity of doctrinal views it produces
in each topic area. This
gives comfort and confidence to the student of doctrine in
the knowledge that his interpretive method and his understanding
of the Gospel were shared by the earliest Christians and students
of the apostles, and therefore are not merely a more modern
contrivance of men. This confidence level is described in
the "Early Church Confirmation Rubric" (see BELOW.)
Because an
analysis of the text of scripture according to the grammatical-historical
method remains the overwhelming composition of our doctrinal
studies, while the ECF's are relegated to a mere referencial
addendum, we cannot be branded with the criticism that we
elevate the ECF's to equality with or superiority above the
scriptures or to a position of infallible interpreters as
some critics suggest.
Figure
E: For all the erroneous criticisms concerning the use
of the ECF's on this website, a consideration of both the
common criticisms described in this essay and the common arguments
used to defend and assert many modern doctrinal positions
yields the filtration process by which a great deal of the
contemporary theological landscape is formed. The "filters"
or "factors" prominently featured in this process include
the historical adoption of pagan or Gnostic philosophical
influences, the notion that doctrine evolves over time through
the ongoing views and interpretations put forward by theologians
over the nearly 20 centuries since the apostles, and last
but not least an accommodation for what people in general
will find "practical" or "do-able."
Criticism Number 4 - The "Apostolic Fathers" are legalistic.
The criticism that the "Apostolic Fathers" are not a good
group to check our views against because they were legalistic
is another very bad and circular argument. There are several
reasons for this.
First, when we in the modern Church identify something as
"legalistic" we must define what we mean by that term. In
a New Testament sense the type of "legalism" that was spoken
against and rebuked by the apostles was Judaic legalism. That
is, the New Testament authors and the apostles rejected the
idea that Christians must comply with the whole of the Law
of Moses in order to be saved in Jesus Christ.
By contrast, the "Apostolic Fathers" cannot be said to exhibit
this type of Judaic legalism. In fact, two of the chief concerns
of the "Apostolic Fathers" were to prevent Gnostic thinking
and Judaic legalism from infiltrating the Church and corrupting
sound doctrine. The "Apostolic Fathers" wrote against both
of these corrupting forces and any "legalism" that they profess
is only what the New Testament itself demands concerning obedience
to the Law of Christ.
The "Apostolic Fathers" do exhibit a definitive emphasis on
obeying the laws and teachings of Jesus Christ in regard to
both doctrine and lifestyle or behavioral issues. This may
seem "legalistic" to many modern Christians, but it is a completely
different type of legalism than that which is condemned in
the New Testament itself. And anyone who seeks to reject or
malign the "Apostolic Fathers" for any supposed "legalism"
of this type should not rely upon such equivocation.
Second, just because the "Apostolic Fathers" expressed a need
for strict or "legalistic" adherence to the teaching of
Jesus Christ, does not mean that "legalism" of this
kind is an error. Just because the modern Church might
consider a requirement for strict obedience to the commands
of Christ to be a form of "legalism" similar to the Judaic
legalism to the Law of Moses, it doesn't follow therefore,
that the modern Church is correct in its condemnation of this
new definition of legalism.
To suggest that the "Apostolic Fathers" were in error simply
because the modern Church does NOT demand strict adherence
to the teaching of Jesus Christ is circular reasoning.
The inherent presumption being that the modern Church cannot
be wrong in rejecting a strict adherence to the teaching
of Jesus Christ.
But it would be a very dangerous assumption. How would we
know if the modern Church was correct in rejecting such a
strict adherence to the teaching of Jesus Christ. Instead,
the presence of uniform "legalism" of this kind so immediately
in early Church history would beg the question as to whether
or not Jesus' teaching required such "legalism" at all. It
would beg the question as to whether the modern Church's rejection
of such "legalism" is, in fact, itself a deviation from Jesus'
teachings. By contrast, we in the modern Church might be considered
lawless (or antinomian) in a New Testament sense.
For these reasons the idea that the "Apostolic Fathers" were
"legalistic" in some sense can in no way justify rejecting
their value as a means to double-check our own Bible studies.
Instead it is only an exercise in name-calling, circular reasoning,
question begging, and equivocation.
Early Church Confirmation Rubric
In conclusion, here is our Early Church Confirmation rubric,
which describes how we use the "Apostolic Fathers" as a means
of double-checking our own thorough, grammatical-historical
study of the Bible.
1.) Upon completing a thorough analytical Bible study,
we arrive at a doctrinal view.
Survey of Early Writers: Upon review of the "Apostolic
Fathers" we find that all the comments regarding this particular
doctrinal view are refuted by the "Apostolic Fathers" and/or
that the only persons holding this particular doctrinal view
were the heretics.
Status and Recommendations: We should recheck our analysis,
our hermeneutic, and our application of that hermeneutic.
This may indicate that there is an error in our hermeneutic
system itself, and not just in our application of it.
2.) Upon completing a thorough analytical Bible study,
we arrive at a doctrinal view.
Survey of Early Writers: Upon review of the "Apostolic
Fathers" we find that there are no comments by the "Apostolic
Fathers" regarding this particular doctrinal view.
Status and Recommendations: Our doctrinal accuracy
simply rests on the strength of our analysis, our hermeneutic,
and our application of that hermeneutic. This scenario trumps
scenario No. 1 above.
3.) Upon completing a thorough analytical Bible study,
we arrive at a doctrinal view.
Survey of Early Writers: Upon review of the "Apostolic
Fathers" we find that there are only a few comments on this
subject but that all of those comments agree with our findings
or that there are perhaps a variety of comments and views
on this subject but our findings are represented by at least
a few of the orthodox writers.
Status and Recommendations: Our doctrinal analysis
is shown to be an ancient and orthodox Christian view. This
scenario trumps scenarios Nos. 1 and 2 above.
4.) Upon completing a thorough analytical Bible study,
we arrive at a doctrinal view.
Survey of Early Writers: Upon review of the "Apostolic
Fathers" we find that there are more than a few comments on
this subject and that all of those comments agree with our
finding.
Status and Recommendations: Our doctrinal analysis
is shown not only to be an ancient and orthodox Christian
view. The accuracy of our analysis and hermeneutic are confirmed
in the strongest terms. This scenario trumps scenarios Nos.
1, 2, and 3 above.
Conclusion:
This is how the comparison to the "Apostolic Fathers" operates
on this website. In this way we do not make the early Church
writers into infallible interpreters of God's Word or into
the Word of God itself. We do not simply adopt whatever doctrinal
positions they express or even specific interpretations of
individual passages, but instead a sound hermeneutic applied
to the Word of God remains the sole, driving engine of our
doctrine. Operating in this way, the early Church writers
simply provide for us a confirmation rubric against which
we can "check" or "double-check" our findings.