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..
this is really interesting. i usually cringe when i see ac’s making attempts at using church history. they seem to love to use bercot for obvious reasons. there is always a blatant bias towards justifying anabaptist doctrine, particularly their own. and i hate the fact that they reverence such heretical sects as amish, quakers , and the like. there is a such a low emphasis on the gospel distinctives such as justification by faith alone that many pass back and forth between a true and false gospel seamlessly. in fact, in the past year i have seen 4-5 sources outright denying both justification by faith alone as well as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. it’s a sad state of affairs indeed. i look forward to your further examination.