Introduction

In my first and second posts in this review, I reviewed the slides from a historical-theological presentation that Bob Freund did entitled “Doctrines of the Remnant” at the Kitchener Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean).

Interestingly enough, the Kitchener congregation is the church where I spent the earliest years of my life. I was not at this presentation, although I have been to one or two similar ones by Bob Freund in the past. In my previous posts as well as this one, I want to make it clear that even though parts of my review are undoubtedly critical, I do not want people to interpret this as a person slight about brother Bob. I’m merely critiquing the content of these slides, which I believe to some degree are errant, lacking and misleading.

Sources: Selective and Errant

At slide 34, Bob begins a review of church history from the fourth century until the Reformation. Any suspicion that that we might get a fair treatment of the history of the Protestant Reformation is immediately dismissed when, in outlining the extent of his coverage refers to it as the “So-Called Reformation”. Bob first looks at the dates AD 303, AD 313, and AD 325.

Now, I am no advocate of infant baptism (being a Baptist), but Bob appears to make a historical error in claiming that infant baptism didn’t begin until AD 303.  Immediately, we will see the nature of Bob’s usage of Early Church sources.  Inconsistent and very selective. The very Hippolytus (whose side Bob implicitly took in the controversy over reinstatement against Callistus) in AD 215 said “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them”.

And then there is Origen, who Bob also quotes as a source elsewhere, who said in AD 248: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.” and “In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants.”. Not only did Origen advocate infant baptism, but he also traced it back to the apostles.

Now, lest anyone misunderstand, I will repeat, I am a Baptist and do not agree with infant baptism, but I’m focusing on this to show the nature of the usage of the early church sources in this presentation.

Of Waldo, Augustine, the Reformation, and the Anabaptists

Moving along, Bob reviews dates such as AD 354, 414, 606, 1155, and 1440. He cites Augustine as a strong influence on the Protestant Reformation and Peter Waldo, who is said to reveal the first evidences of the Anabaptist faith.

He then discusses the Anabaptists, moving to give information about the Schleitheim Confession, comparing it to the ACCN statement of faith with the purpose of showing the similarity. Then he very briefly reviews some history regarding Menno Simmons, the Quakers, and then proceeds into a discussion of Samuel Froehlich.

I think to some degree, given the nature of his talk, Bob’s discussion of both the Protestant Reformation and the Anabaptist movement is rather simplistic and brief. We are left knowing really nothing about names like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Menno Simmons, Conrad Grebel, etc. (other than their names)

Froehlich

The massacre of Protestants is mentioned to setup the history of Samuel Froehlich, the man whose missionary endeavors is the source of the Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean) denomination and it briefly lays out how this new Froehlichian faith spread to Eastern Europe and North America.

The last two slides then wrap up with a quote from a quote from an anonymous Christian from 130 AD  and an exhortation prompted by a quote from a figure in ACCN history, Henry Michel, saying “Not boasting, but we have the best thing in the world. The more welook at it, the more we have to marvel how much light was given toour brothers, and how much light is given to us in our time.”

Concluding Thoughts

Now that I’ve reviewed the entirety of this presentation, I would like to list some ways these slides are unhelpful in understanding Christian history.

1. They present a degree of uniformity among the first few centuries of Christianity that never existed.
2. Through selective and problematic usage of early church sources, it loses credibility and disrespects the original sources.
3. The way the early church is presented as a reliable guide could actually mislead some people into delving into unrelated errors based on superficial readings of the church fathers. Rather than presenting the early church consensus as a complicated matter that needs to be studied carefully, Bob dangerously presents it as if it is easy to determine.
4. The early church consensus on some matters (which didn’t even exist) is presented as support for going against the clear teaching of the scriptures.
5. History is flattened in an unhelpful and hurtful way (even though Bob certainly wouldn’t say that, the basic thought presented is: Protestants are bad, Anabaptists are good, Early Church Fathers are good  and they support the Anabaptist positions). This presentation, while good intentioned, flattens history to the point of, at times, distortion.
6. This presentation leaves a dangerous pattern of selective quotes and also at times, inaccurate quotes.
7. This presentation propagates the errant assumption that the earliest sources are always the best and most reliable and that proximity always means accuracy.
8. This presentation seems geared to induce a sort of smug superiority and exclusivity (ie. “we have the best thing in the world… as if other believers who have a genuine Gospel can’t have it too).

Now, let’s not pretend that some of these issues are not things we can all fall into. I myself struggle with the whole idea of the usage of sources, it’s very hard to be careful and accurate in the way one uses sources. So then, this critique of Bob’s presentation, not only should challenge Bob and his presentation, but also me, and whoever is reading this. How am I using sources in the material I put out there?  It’s a good thing to remember. We will never be perfect writers or researchers, but we can improve!

Introduction

In my last post in this review,  I reviewed the slides from a historical-theological presentation that Bob Freund did entitled “Doctrines of the Remnant” at the Kitchener Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean).

Interestingly enough, the Kitchener congregation is the church where I spent the earliest years of my life. I was not at this presentation, although I have been to one or two similar ones by Bob Freund in the past. In my previous post as well as this one, I want to make it clear that even though parts of my review are undoubtedly critical, I do not want people to interpret this as a person slight about brother Bob. I’m merely critiquing the content of these slides, which I believe to some degree are errant, lacking and misleading.

Of Eternal Security

On slide 28, Bob tackles the topic of “Eternal Security”,  stating that “The early church universally believed that works and obedience play an essential role in our salvation.”  Bob provides a quote by Clement of Rome: “Let us strive to be found in the number that wait for Him, in order that we may share in his promised reward. But how, beloved ones, shall we do this? By earnestly seeking the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him. By doing those things that are in  harmony with his blameless will. And by following the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and Sin.”

Of Misleading, Selective Quoting Of Early Church Fathers

Now, it is very apparent that this quote from Clement neither proves Bob’s position (that a true believer can lose his salvation) nor contradicts the Reformed doctrine of perseverance of the saints. Interestingly enough, brother Bob neglected to mention another quote from Clement where Clement specifically repudiates what Bob is trying to say Clement believes. Clement of Rome says:

• “…And 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.”

But Bob’s selective quoting of Clement of Rome is further demonstrated by another quote, where Clement lays out the approximate opposite of Bob’s position on Eternal Security:

• “It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent.  He has established it by His almighty will.  But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will?  And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”

But the evidence of Bob’s problematic reading of Clement of Rome is further demonstrated by yet another quote:

• “”Such a soul [of a Christian] shall never at any time be separated from God…Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear.”".

In slides 28, 29, 30, Bob also quotes Polycarp, Cyprian, Lactantius, and Tertullian.  Bob’s quote of Polycarp & Cyprian  seem to be best understood in the context of Philippians 2:12 – “Therefore, my beloved, fas you have always gobeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for hit is God who works in you, both to will and to work for ihis good pleasure.”  Good works are expected, but they are worked out in the believers by God and it doesn’t mean there is a causal relationship there (the works proceed from faith and regeneration).

In addition, Bob provided one quote from Tertullian, but failed to provide another one which would have been far less supportive of his point:

• “God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…For what is of God is never extinguished.”

A Brief Response

In response to Bob’s selective quotes of early church fathers, and in addition to the quotes from Clement of Rome and Tertullian which contradict Bob’s assertions, let’s look at an alternate perspective on eternal security and works from early church sources (which totally contradicts Bob Freund’s position on eternal security and works):

• Jesus: “ But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” (John 10:26-30)
• Jesus: ““No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.” (John 6:44-45)
• Apostle Peter: ““Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy he gave us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, that is, into an inheritance imperishable, undefiled, and unfading. It is reserved in heaven for you, who by God’s power are protected through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (I Peter 4:5)
• Apostle Paul:”Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.“ (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)
• Apostle John: “For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—sour faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (I John 5:4-5)
• Irenaeus (A.D. 198): “God hath completed the number which He before determined with Himself, all those who are written, or ordained unto eternal life…Being predestined indeed according to the love of the Father that we would belong to Him forever.”
• Pacian (A.D. 380): “Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price.”
• Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “Not of ourselves, but of God, is the blessing of our salvation…Man, who was before led captive, is taken out of the power of the possessor, according to the mercy of God the Father, and restoring it, gives salvation to it by the Word; that is, by Christ; that many may experimentally learn that not of himself, but by the gift of God, he receives immortality.”
• Cyprian (A.D. 250): “Whatsoever is grateful is to be ascribed not to man’s power, but to God’s gift.  It is God’s, I say, all is God’s that we can do.  Yea, that in nothing must we glory, since nothing is ours.”

My point here, though, is not to line up my Early Church Father quotes verses Bob’s. You can selectively make them say nearly whatever you want them to say. And that, to some extent, is what David Bercot and Bob Freund seem to be doing. But my ultimate point in this section is encapsulated in the following point:

1. Clear revelation of scripture refutes Bob’s position on “eternal security”.

2. The quotes Bob provides from the church fathers), as a general rule, either (a) do not prove what he is trying to say by their literal reading or (b) are contradicted by other clear quotations from the same source (showing that either Bob’s interpretation of the other text is wrong or the source doesn’t clearly communicate that at all times).

3. Even if an Early Church Father could be found who clear holds to Bob’s position, the scriptural revelation is so clear on this matter that we ought to reject it. The New Testament is the ULTIMATE early church source.

And with one consistent voice the scriptures affirm and reaffirm that all who are given by God the Father to Christ the Son and experience true salvation will never be lost (they can not be lost because they are kept by the power of God) and will persevere in their faith.

Of Baptismal Regeneration 

On slide 31, Bob asserts that the Early Church universally tied John’s being “born of water” with baptism He then states they believed that baptism cancels all past sins (he quotes Justin Martyr), causes the new birth (he Irenaeus), and causes spiritual illumination (he quotes Clement):

In order to prevent this review from becoming to long and drawn out, I will not review of Bob’s handling of the early church fathers on Baptism and a refutation of baptismal regeneration.  I do encourage anyone else who wishes to, to pick up the slack and review that in detail! So, here we stop at slide 33.

..To be continued..

Introduction

An Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean) church in Ontario, Canada–the Kitchener congregation–had Elder Bob Freund give a series of presentations on church history.  While I did not attend this particular talk, I have attended one or two similar ones by brother Bob in the past. Since the mp3′s and PDF slide notes were posted on a public church web site for all to see and hear, I’m assuming it isn’t out of line to make some comments on it. I am no longer a member of the Apostolic Christian Church (Nazarean), but I believe this presentation says things that have broader implications which extend beyond the concerns of that denomination, and therefore I find it worthwhile to review it. Being one who enjoys church history, I find it interesting to see what people say about church history and why.

In writing some fairly crtiical comments on the overhead  notes from these talks, I do not want people to interpret this as a personal slight against this brother. He loves his Lord, is smart, zealous, and has the best of intentions. He obviously takes the truth very seriously. He’s always been kind to me and very helpful once in the past when I desired some information and he mailed it out to me!

The first talk was Introduction to Christian History: Doctrines of the Remnant and the second was God’s Remnant In History. In this post I will review slides 1-27 of the former.

The Quest for the Historic Faith

The first slide opens with a quote by David Bercot suggesting that a faith can’t historic if it can’t be traced back to the first century. An editorial comment then suggests that we must return to the first documented writings of the Apostolic Fathers to be able to discern the faith delivered to the saints. The presentation then moves on to some very basic information about the Septuagint and the New Testament authors. I’m pleased to see that the Septuagint affirmed as being quoted in the Bible.

With rapid speed, though, the slides move from Biblical revelation to talk about the early church fathers. Slide 3 says “Their understanding is critical evidence for examining our doctrine today. Comparisons must be made with teachers closest to Christ and the Apostles.” It also states that historians (they are unnamed) state that until the 4th century teachers and writers spoke and wrote “as though the church had one heart and voice”.

Questionable Source: David Bercot

Slide 4 says that David Bercot is “perhaps the most honest and objective historian of our time”.  To me, this is a questionable statement. I have major reservations about David Bercot.

1. Having read Bercot’s Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up? and The Kingdom that Turned The World Upside Down it seems clear to me  that Bercot is not very objective.

2. Looking at his historical work, I tend to agree with J.P. Holding’s assessment of Bercot: “well-intentioned, but error-prone”.

3. There is a basic problem with Bercot’s fundamental operating  principle throughout his works.  He says of the early church fathers: “These men were closer in time to the apostles, and closer in language, and closer in culture. Therefore their understanding of the Scriptures is more likely to be correct…the second century Christians were basically only one generation away from the apostles. We’re nineteen generations away! How reasonable is it for us to argue that, after nineteen hundred years, evangelical Christianity is basically unchanged from that of the apostles?”.   The question is far more complex than Bercot makes it out to be.

While the early church had some advantages in being closer in years to the apostles, they also had some handicaps. They didn’t have the wealth of original texts that have been discovered since their era. Some didn’t have all of  the scriptures. Some were caught up in post-apostolic error. The also didn’t have the foresight of having seen history transpire.  That is not to say we are superior Christians or should be smug, it’s just saying that Bercot is oversimplifying things and simply in error when he claims that earlier always means more reliable. A quick and easy example is Irenaeus. He lived in the 2nd century and by tradition was only two degrees of separation from the Apostle John, and yet he strongly claimed that Jesus lived to 50 before he died. We know that to be flat out wrong.

4. David Bercot has a non-biblical view of both imputed righteousness and faith & works. Given his treatment of the Biblical texts I’m not very confident in his treatment of early church texts.

5. Rather than being the careful thinker that Bob makes him out to be, Bercot is actually quite sloppy. He reasons in circles (ie. claims no kingdom movement has come out of Reformation theology when he has defined a kingdom movement as essentially one that doesn’t subscribe to Reformation theology–and yet he considers Quakers as “kingdom Christians”).

6. He’s been saying some very outlandish and absurd things (for instance: he attacks the hymn writer who wrote “My Hope Is Built”. He accuses the author of “Easy Believerism” and takes specific offence to “I rest on His unchanging grace” and “in His righteousness alone”. Bercot actually goes so far that he says that singing this song is throwing “Jesus’ words right back in His face and taunt[ing] Him”)

A Generally Helpful Test of Doctrine

Moving along, in slide 5, Bob has what I would say is a helpful test for doctrine via these questions:

1. “Does this doctrine flow from the Bible naturally? Is it in complete harmony with the teaching of the entire Bible?”

2. “Does the support of this doctrine require a strained and awkward interpretations of the scriptures?”

3. “Is this doctrine in complete harmony with God’s evaluation and abhorrence of sin and his plan of redemption?”

4. “Does this doctrine encourage a closer walk with God rather than to encourage yielding to temptation and a life of sin?”

I would generally accept this criteria as helpful, except with the qualification that in regard to #4 sometimes doctrines that are false appear to encourage a closer walk with God but really don’t (ie. legalism) and sometimes doctrines that appear to encourage sinning but really don’t (ie. notice how Paul anticipates questions such as “Shall we sin that grace may abound?” when he expounds the message of free grace).

Biographical Sketches

Bob goes on to present biographical sketches on a number of post-apostolic church leaders (Polycarp, Irenaeus,Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius). I’d say that they are fairly uncontroversial and standard. And I am by no means an expert on patristics. However, I do have a few thoughts:

1. Here he mentions that Irenaeus was a critical link to the Apostles (remember, for context though, that this critical link, thought Jesus lived to 50).

2. He mentions that Origen was one of the most respected teachers of his time, but doesn’t make any mention of  other details which would be helpful (for instance, that his  orthodoxy was questioned by the 4th century, etc.)

Doctrinal Points

Slide 17 then explains that a transition is made to reviewing doctrines critical to the “faith once delivered to the saints”. Here David Bercot’s criteria is restated (1-All early Christian writers who wrote on the subject expressed the same view, 2-Five early Christians discussed the subjected, separated by time and space).

1. Swearing an Oath. Clement, Tertullian, and Origen (who refers to the position of Cyprian and Eusebius) are quoted.

2. On War. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Cyprian, Origen are quoted.

3. Christian Responsibility to his country. Cyprian is quoted.

4. On Divorce. Hermas,  is quoted.

5. On Abortion. Felix, and Tertullian are quoted.

6. On The Theatre. Tertullian is quoted.

7. On Church Shepherds and Teachers. Lactantius is quoted.

8. On Capital Punishment. Lactantius is quoted.

9. On Church Discipline. No attribution is given and there is a historical anecdote is shared about the church allegedly not being able to forgive three particular types of sins (sexual immorality, murder, and denial of faith). This position will be henceforth in this post referred to as the “no-reinstatement”  position (because basically what Bob is saying is that there shouldn’t be reinstatement into membership for people who have committed those sins and then repent).

Reinstatement

Slide 27, everything from “During the first two centuries…” to “…from apostolic doctrines soon followed” (which is basically the whole slide) is an imprecise quote (with unmarked omissions and unindicated changes of words) from Christianity by Roland H. Bainton.

It explains that Callistus was the first to practice reinstatement, which Tertullian opposed, and yet Callistus won the day.  At this point I must interject and wonder:  wait…. didn’t slide 3 say that historians declared that until the fourth centuries, teachers and writers spoke and wrote as “though the church had one heart and one voice”? Given the evidence, the quote from slide #3 seems like either an exaggeration or an attempt to put diversity among the fathers under the rug.

But furthermore, there are a lot of historical complexities to Callistus than Bob is allowing by presenting such a limited snippet. First of all, the only information we have about Callistus is from his enemy–Hippolytus (and rival in a dispute over an election). Second, there’s a lot more going on in that Hippolytus is actually making other accusations against Callistus. I am certainly not an expert on this history, but from what I can tell it was actually not Callistus who did the reinstatement but rather he was an influence on Zephyrinus, who did the first reinstatement.

Quite frankly, Bob is dealing very quickly and loosely with large swaths of complicated church history and there are many pitfalls for those who try to appeal to the Church Fathers and it can be a very dangerous venture in terms of committing historical fallacies (often either in terms of projecting our circumstances on our understanding of their situation or projecting their circumstances on our situation). Rather, I believe, we should look to the Word of God first and foremost as our final standard since it is the earliest and most reliable source and unquestionably relevant to our situation.

And one wonders, could it be, that rather than Zephyrinus or Callistus, the first  to “reinstate” a person who committed one of those “3 sins” might have been the leadership of the Corinthian church by Apostle Paul’s instruction?  (compare 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Cor 2:4-8 for that possibility). If this is true, then Bob’s appeals to the “early church fathers” are moot. But even if the punished person of I Cor 5 is not the same person restored in  II Cor 2:4-8, at the bare minimum, in II Cor 2:4-8 you have a person who is put under serious church discipline being reinstated.

I would suggest that it is possible that reinstatement, rather than being a departure from the Biblical example set forth by the apostles, was actually a return to the Biblical norms.   And that Tertullian and others were actually influenced by wrong-headed ideologies such as Monatism and asceticism. And it appears to me, at least to this observer, that Bob is more concerned about justifying his policies on not reinstating people who have committed certain sins as opposed to being a careful historical interpreter.

To be continued..