Irenaeus on Error

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself."

-Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book I

Athanasius on Sola Scriptura

[The Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'

...But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Church Fathers on Faith

"Ver 8 - “For by grace,” saith he “have ye been saved.”
In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise thee too high, observe how he brings thee down: “by grace ye have been saved,” saith he,

“Through faith;”

Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,

“And that not of ourselves.”

Neither is faith he means, “of ourselves.” Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? for “how,” saith he, “shall they believe, unless they hear?” (Rom. x. 14.) So that the work of faith itself is not our own.

“It is the gift,” said he, “of God,” it is “not of works.”

Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, saith he, hath required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saveth, but it is because God so willeth, that faith saveth. Since, how, tell me, doth faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.That he may excite in us proper feeling

Ver 9. - touching this gift of grace. “What then?” saith a man, “Hath He Himself hindered our being justified by works?” By no means. But no one, he saith, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast."


- John Chrysostom on Eph 2:8-9

"For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6/Rom 4:3). Abraham believed God. Let us also believe, so that we who are heirs of his race may likewise be heirs of his faith."

-Ambrose of Milan

"Paul revealed that Abraham had glory before God not because he was circumcised nor because he abstained from evil, but because he believed in God. For that reason he was justified, and he would receive the reward of praise in the future."

-Ambrosiaster.

"Vain, too, are Marcion and his followers when they seek to exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that 'he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness."

-Irenaeus

Early Church and Abortion

Most have heard of Speaker Pelosi's recent theological pontifications. Pelosi declared that Augustine of Hippo wrote that a baby was not entitled to human rights until 3 months in the womb. Jay the Bennett had a couple of good posts already on it (here and here).

What I was wondering is where the heck she got that from? I cannot find any references to Augustine saying such a thing, though someone suggested that it was Thomas Aquinas and not Augustine. Having just completed a study on the Early Church and their view of Sex and Marriage, most believed that the egg was fully contained in the man's contribution to procreation, and thus even having sex during pregnancy or after menapause was prohibited. Abortion was nothing new in the Early Church, and as early as it is mentioned, it is condemned. Witness Clement of Alexandria:

"Our entire life will be spent observing the laws of nature...if we do not kill off with devious instruments the human creature that has been conceived according to divine providence. For women who, in order to conceal their incontinence, make use of death-dealing drugs that completely expel the mortal creature, abort not only the embryo, but also human kindness." -Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 96

Why reference tradition when it is so slanted against you? Why not claim new revelation like liberals have on homosexuality and women's ordination? Where was she getting this from? Has anyone run across something like what she said in your studies?

Early Church History class

Jay Bennett and I taught a mid-week class at PCPC on the history of the church in the form of questions. We now have the first four class notes online for those interested in perusing the material for their own knowledge or to help prepare to teach a similar class. The questions all address some area of theology especially prominent in church history in a roughly chronological order (here dealing with Bibliology, Trinitarianism, Christology and Soteriology)

1. How has God revealed himself? (Gnosticism, Ebionism, Marcionism, and Montanism) (Jay Bennett)

2. How can God be both one and more than one? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Modalism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism) (Jared Nelson)

3. How can divinity be united with humanity? (Docetism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism [Monophysitism], and Chalcedonian Christology) (Jay Bennett)

4. What is the moral capability of fallen humanity? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Pelagianism, Augustinianism, and Orange Semi-augustinianism) (Jared Nelson)

The History of Infant Baptism: Who started it?

When looking at the issue of infant baptism, the historicity of the practice is one of great speculation. Many Baptists historians have said the practice arose in the third century and then engulfed the church shortly thereafter. The question of when it started is an important one, for if it was not a practice of the early church and one that was invented or arose later, then it should be rejected.

The first exposure in the English Bible to the word “baptize” is in the Gospels, when we see John the Baptizer in the Jordan performing some Jewish cleansing ritual. Some might be tempted to speculate that Baptism began here. However, if one looks at the Greek Translation of the Jewish Bible (used by the apostles and the early church to read the Old Testament) the word appears there as well. Such a use can be seen in Leviticus 14:6, where the priest is given instructions to take two doves, kill one, and then dip the other dove in the blood of the first bird. Besides being a striking picture of the coming atonement in Christ, this action is called dipping or baptso (the root of baptismo - Baptism).

Later, in Jewish practice, baptism became a normal part of worship. Later, according to the Talmud, it became a ritual associated with proselyte initiation. The confessor Gentiles would be circumcised (if male) and undergo a washing ritual (the Talmud calls baptism). Why mention this in a post on the history of infant baptism? Because if the convert had any children, males over 13-years old and females over 12 would speak for themselves if they wanted to convert. If they were under that age, the father spoke for them and the males were circumcised and both the females and the males underwent baptism. Thus, the history of infant baptism starts BEFORE the New Testament. [so, when educating the Jews on baptism, they would have to be told to stop baptizing infants, not to start]

During the New Testament period, the Christians adopted baptism from Judaism. In regards to infant baptism, no statement as blatant as “and this infant so-and-so was baptized” occurs. However, many “household” baptisms occur in the book of Acts (such as Acts 16:15) and the word for household οἶκος includes any children and infants of the family (even in the same book of Acts in 7:20).

After the time of the New Testament, in the Early Church baptism always had a close identification with circumcision. (as it does in Paul in Col 2:11) The first recorded instance we have of a local synod addressing the timing of baptism is in Carthage in the early 200s. But it did not debate the efficacy of infant baptism, for that was assumed, instead the debate was over how some wanted baptism preformed even sooner. Many Christians were waiting until the 8th day, like circumcision in the OT, and the synod gave parents permission to baptize sooner if they wished. (Pelikan, Christian Tradition Vol 1. Pg 290-292)

But what is our earliest reference? Origen was baptized as an infant in 185AD. We also have liturgies detailing the practice of baptism near Rome in “On the Apostolic Tradition” that attempts to detail the practices of the church for posterity as they were practiced in the time of the apostles and the apostles’ followers. The later parts of the book have a “late date” (conservative scholars like to date things at their latest possible date) of 215, which is the part that gives instructions on prayer and the like. However, the early part of the book all scholars who have worked on the syntax and sources believe is older, perhaps conservatively the late 100s. The manual instructs the elder to ask the person seeking baptism to speak to their faith for themselves. But “you are to baptize the little ones…those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents or someone who belongs to their family should speak for them.” (Apostolic Tradition - Chapter 21)

Here are the hard questions to ask if infant baptism was not the consistent practice of the church in the first three centuries (really, the first 15 centuries, but let’s just focus on the early church first):

1. The church was not afraid to debate doctrine on everything from Christ’s person to Scripture canon. If a new practice arose that the apostles did not practice, why is there no record of any debate on the subject?

2. The practice of infant baptism was universal geographically. This would mean the practice would have a starting point and then spread quickly between the time of the apostle John’s death (90AD) to the time of Origen’s birth (185AD), being the most silent and fastest spreading heresy of any heresy faced in the early church.

3. Why did infant baptism stop (for it existed in Judaism) and then start again with no statement of either the stopping of the practice in the New Testament or the starting of it in the historical record?

Quote of Week: Our sin of theft

Basil of Caesarea was one of the three great Cappadocian fathers who helped explain the Trinity after Nicea. Basil also had a heart for the poor. Here, Basil walks straight into our living rooms and accuses us of theft:

“Is God unjust, dividing unequally the goods of our life? Why are you rich, while the other is poor? Isn't it, if not for any other reason, in order for you to gain a reward for your kindness and faithful providence, and for him to be honored with the great awards of patience? But … what was granted to you, in order for you to take care of the others, you took it and you made it your own… The bread that you possess belongs to the hungry. The clothes that you store in boxes, belong to the naked. The shoes rotting by you, belong to the bare-foot. The money that you hide belongs to anyone in need. You wrong as many people as you [are] able to help [and do not].”

Oh Lord, when will I stop talking about the poor and do something?

Hypostasis: How do we speak of the individual Persons in the Trinity?

As Westerners, we are good at talking about the unity of God. Western thinkers, however, have always had trouble speaking about the three Persons of the Trinity distinctively. In fact, we may even find Eastern ways of describing the Trinity strange and even bordering on Polytheism/Tritheism. Below is a popular depiction of the Trinity, derived from a place few modern Christians would think to look for such an image, Genesis 18:1-8.

When we see three, we become uncomfortable. To be sure, there are those who call themselves Christians who deny the three. They are Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals. Though if one does not confess the three-ness of God, the rest of the Christian traditions will warn you not only that you are out of sync with 2000 years of Christian understanding, but your very salvation may be in question as the Athanasian Creed ends with this warning:

"This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."

How do we think of these Persons individually? What is different when I think of the Father than the Son, or the Son than the Spirit, or the Spirit than the Father? To be sure, not only is this a potential problem, but one that occurs regularly in worship and the life of the Christian mind. A friend of mine told me a story before of being in a church during worship singing "You are my King." The song is explicitly about the death and resurrection of the Son. The second time through the song, the worship leader shouted out: "Now sing it to the Father!" My friend's jaw dropped and he internally screamed, "NO!" The Father did not die for our sins. The Father is not the "Sonfather" of Sabellius and Modalism. Yet, when Christians get mentally lazy they fall back into Modalism. The previous story illustrates one way in which we must distinguish the Persons of the Trinity.

THE DISTINCT ACTIONS OF THE PERSONS

As we looked at the Nicene Creed, we notice that we confess that the Father is "Maker of Heaven and Earth." The Father is identified as the Initiator of Creation (Gen 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6).

In describing the actions of the Son, we find in the creed a biblical and nearly unknown function of the Son: "by whom all things are made." We may think that the Early Church was speculating here, perhaps on some theory of the "Word" as Christ's title and God "spoke" and creation happened. But, when we look at 1 Cor 8:6, we see the same language. In fact, we see the Son's role in sustaining all creation as it is through the Son "through whom we exist." Second of the Son, we see his role in Redemption, as the one who "came down" and took our sins for us, became sin for us. This is not spoken of the Father or the Spirit, but of the Son distinctly.

The Holy Spirit we see given the credit for inpiration of the prophets in Acts 28:25. We also see the credit for conversion given to the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 2:11-14.

Yet, this is not the only means by which we can speak distinctively of the Persons of the Trinity. More important than the Persons' relation to us (though their relation to us is more interesting to self-interested humans) is Their relationship to each other.

INTRATRINITARIAN RELATIONS

Within the creed, all the Persons are defined by their relation to the Father, largely due to the fact that this is how Scripture defines Their relations. Again, our favorite, theology-packed verse, tells us that the Son is begotten of Father (John 3:16), as we have explored what that meant in the previous post. Of the Spirit, we are told the Spirit proceeds from Father (John 15:26). One may ask what the difference between begotten and proceeding are in meaning. The answer most pleasing, that I have found, is the difference between εδωκεν and εκπορευεται. In other words, we don't really know. This leaves us with the Father, of Whom we may say that he is not begotten or proceeding.

The relations between the persons are deeper and worthy of much more space than I have given them. To see how the "Father loves the Son" and what that means has filled the works of Jonathan Edwards and was of more interest to the early church than the few vaporous thoughts we allow it today.

For more on the relationships and roles, my brother has recommended Bruce Ware. I have heard Ware speak and he is insightful and at the same time easy to follow, which should encourage us to look into his book: Father Son and Holy Spirit for more on this topic.

Apostolic Father: Ignatius of Antioch

or Sanctification by the Church.

Ignatius was bishop of Antioch, another member of the generation after the apostles.
Protestants all know, one can have too high a view of the Church. But another sin Protestants forget, is having too low a view of the Church. Ignatius introduces us to a very foreign topic to Protestants: Sanctification by the Church. While we know the primary agent in sanctification is God (1 Pet 1:2, 1 Thes 5:23, 2 Thes 2:13), we may forget that sanctification is also mentioned in a group context (1 Cor 1:2).

Ignatius develops this thought further, in lines such as:

“He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, ‘God resisteth the proud.’”

“I am far inferior to you, and require to be sanctified by your Church of Ephesus.”

“being subject to the [Church leaders], ye may in all respects be sanctified.”

So Ignatius might say to the modern Christian: Just you and Jesus? A Christian without the Church? No such thing. God may alone sanctify, but he does by means of the Church and if we take Rom 6:22 seriously, sanctification must precede eternal life. And if the Church is the means, either here or in the next life, we have to learn to love the Church, and be sanctified by it.

Ignatius wrote seven letters which survive. His letter to the Ephesians is best for a one letter introduction to his thought.

Ignatius also ended his life in martyrdom, fed to the lions in Rome.

Apostolic Father: Polycarp

Polycarp, a leader or bishop in Smyrna, was a direct student of John. Some speculate that if the angels in Revelation are bishops, he is referred to in Rev 2-3. Reading his epistle, one can see the similar simplicity with John. He quotes Scripture as much as he uses his own words. He says little profound, but has a loving spirit towards the believers in Philippi. The account of his martyrdom reveals his wittier side. The Roman officer gave Polycarp an opportunity to avoid death by his association with the ‘atheist‘ Christians, telling him:

“Swear by the fortune of Caeser; repent and say, Away with the Atheists.”

"Polycarp…looked up to heaven, [and] said, 'Away with the Atheists.'" Adding later, “if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and thou shalt hear them.”

Polycarp was burned alive.

Read Polycarp's Epistle to Philippi here.

Read his Martyrdom here

And about him here.

Apostolic Father: Clement

For most evangelicals, The early church consists of the book of Acts, and it picks up in the Reformation, or with Billy Graham, or perhaps when they were born. But Paul, Peter and John had their own disciples, many who died for their faith. They are a rusty treasure of the church.

I begin with Clement. This may very well be the Clement mentioned in Php 4:3. A man who knew Paul and Peter. Clement is identified by Irenaeus as one of the Bishops of Rome. His only surviving work is his letter to the Corinthians. Though we may think the Apostolic Fathers may merely confirm our perception of Scripture, often they challenge it. For instance, see how Clement explores the tension of justification by works and by faith:

“Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord in humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words…does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteousness?…Let our praise be in God, and not ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves Let testimony to our good deeds be born by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers.”

Clement juxtaposes works and words. Clement talks about praising our own works, indicating he is talking about our faith in the presence of others. We are shown justified (in the right) before men by our works, not our words. Though modern evangelists may object, Clement tells us the gospel is confirmed as true, not by our words (logical, apologetic, rational, or whatever our approach) but, as James said, by what we do. But then if we might think our relationship with God is of works, Clement continues:

“[The Levite priests were] great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to Whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen.” (Clem XXXII)

Check out Clement for yourself.