A Theology of Church History

Understanding the history of Christ's church from the Reformation perspective

Twelve Apostles, Enrico Reffo (1914)

“And whether we realise it or not, the great men of the early Church are indeed our spiritual fathers; they shaped much of the worship and theology (especially the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation) which we accept and confess today. "Early Church fathers", then, is what I call them, with a child's love and reverence for his parents in the faith. If we think we now see further than they did in some points, it is only because we are standing on their shoulders.” - Dr. Nick Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 1, pgs. 15-16

---

In both theological and apologetic discussions (especially those between the three major branches of “Christendom”) the witness of the early church, or Church history in general, always plays a prominent role. On one level, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants all alike feel as though it is a vindication, or at least further substantiation, of their beliefs to find it attested throughout the history of Christ’s church, particularly in the early years. It is with this mindset that the Roman Catholic cites Ignatius’ letter to the Smyrnaeans (out of context, I might add), or I as a Calvinist might cite the multiple references to the “elect” in 1 Clement, or perhaps that glorious passage from the epistle to Diognetus which sounds curiously like what Martin Luther would later describe as the fröhlicher Wechsel [great, or joyful exchange].¹

On another level, the reason why church history and its witness is so frequently a topic of discussion amongst these groups is that these groups have differing views concerning the nature and authority of Church History. To put it another way, these groups have different theologies of Church History. For example, there might be some question as to whether or not the phrase “Church History” should be capitalized (my writing software seems to think no).

Now we could get all Van-Tillian and talk about a philosophy of history, and that sort of thing, but we will hold that off until another period of time (read Rushdoony for now). What I really want to touch on is this fact that there are almost 2,000 years of Christians before us, but after the Bible (the significance of this will be seen in a bit), and there is a question of “what do we do about it?”

From the outset, let me say that both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches are really in a bind. They cannot engage this question on a critical level at all. This is because their theological traditions teach (while claiming infallibility, in Rome’s case) that the church (not excepting the early) has always taught what they respectively teach. This leads to some rather absurd notions, like the idea that St. Luke painted an icon for use of veneration in the church. The Roman church teaches that its conception of the Papacy has always been the practice of the Christian church, despite this being a demonstrably false claim.² Therefore, they cannot deal honestly with the facts.

Reformed Protestants, then, have quite the advantage when it comes to Church History. We can deal honestly and truthfully with the facts, whatever they are, without them undermining our theology. For example, while the early church council at Elvira (305-6) prohibiting the use of icons in the church might create problems for an Eastern Orthodox believer (not that they don’t have answers, whatever we may think of them), finding evidence of a belief in baptismal regeneration in certain periods of the early church does not undermine my theology as a Baptist, because I do not hold to the belief that everyone always thought the same way that I do. The fact of the matter is that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that I subject all things to the Scripture, even the opinions of important people, no matter how long they have been in the grave.

But then, what do we actually do with Church History?

Me and my Bible under a tree

Many Protestants, especially of a more fundamentalist mindset, essentially function in such a way as to dismiss Church History as irrelevant. After all, if I really do believe that the Bible alone is my ultimate authority, why trouble myself to take the time to learn what Irenaeus or Augustine taught when they were probably just wrong anyway?

Now I realize that this isn’t the most convincing response, but for my part I just don’t understand how you could possibly not want to know! Now I get it, we all have lives we have to live, and I don’t expect every Christian to be a nerd geeking out over the ins and outs of the Quartodeciman controversy, but aren’t you at least a little curious what early Christians were arguing about in the first few centuries? Wouldn’t it be nice to have at least some frame of reference for what was going on between the end of the book of Acts and the Reformation? Or the Reformation until our day?

On a more important, but admittedly pragmatic, level, if we as Reformed Protestants don’t at least know something about Ignatius and his epistle to the Symernaeans³, then how can we ever respond to the Roman Catholic who cites this line from chapter VII “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again”?⁴ If we don’t at least dabble into the period of the early church, then we are forced to roll over and admit defeat, that yes, the very earliest Christians believed in transubstantiation⁵, and we don’t have an explanation.

A third reason is that you have been tremendously impacted and blessed by the early church (whether you’ve read a single sentence of Tertullian or not). To begin this article, I cited a statement from the Reformed Baptist and Church Historian Dr. Nick Needham as to why he refers to the church fathers as “fathers”. His point is that these men fought battles (both physical and intellectual), the outcomes of which we take for granted. This upcoming Sunday as you go to church and sing “Holy, Holy, Holy” or some other great Trinitarian hymn, remember to thank Athanasius who stood contra mundum (against the world) to defend the glorious and foundational doctrine of the Trinity against opposition on all fronts. Now, it is not that the Trinity is true because of Athanasius, or a council in Nicaea or Constantinople. The Trinity is true because the Bible teaches it, but thank God that a man like Athanasius used the Bible to defend and support this doctrine even when that meant he stood against the Roman Empire. His efforts have blessed you and me in ways we do not fully appreciate.

The fourth reason to study Church History, and read the fathers (as well as the Bible) is to actually learn from them. Now I know that this is an astonishing statement for me to make, but it is true. You can learn things, doctrinal and practical, from these men. C.S. Lewis has a discussion somewhere about reading old books not just to “have read them”, so you can discuss with your vain friends, but reading old books with the idea that you can actually profit from their readings. I’ve never met someone who wasn’t encouraged in their faith while reading Polycarp’s bold and courageous words as he faced martyrdom.

Hopefully, you can gather from one or more of these points an encouragement to study Church History. Now let’s ask about how.

Protestant Theology of Church History

“for we have not coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever wrought…

It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours… Then, with dishonest clamour, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages.”

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Prefatory address to the King of France (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).

How do we view Church History from a Reformation perspective? What I mean by this, is that anyone who considers themselves a “Protestant” believes that the Christian church has erred, and that a Reformation was necessary. But this also contains an underlying assumption that Christ will deliver His Church from error.

The basic set of beliefs here are 1.) the fallibility of humans, even Christians 2.) Sola Scriptura 3.) the progressive growth of the Christian Church.

I will not dwell very long on point one, because I do not think that it needs much convincing. But just for the sake of having a Scriptural example, in Galatians 2:11-14 we read about the fact that the Apostle Paul had to actually confront Peter due to his errant views concerning the nature of dietary restrictions and the inclusion of Gentiles in the one covenant community. Eventually, the church gathers in Jerusalem to hammer these matters out (Acts 15), but the point I am making here is simply that we recognize it is a reality that fallible men, even important men like Peter, are going to get things wrong.

Point 2 is rather critical, and has been referenced earlier—the Reformation principle that the Holy Scriptures are the authority all human writings and traditions are subject to. 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches us that all Scripture is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos, God-breathed). What this does is place the Holy Scriptures in a position of ontological uniqueness—meaning, they are the only thing we possess that can be called θεόπνευστος, or God-breathed. They are the voice of God speaking to us, and nothing else can be called this. As precise and glorious as I find the Athanasian Creed to be, it is not θεόπνευστος. Only the Scriptures are God’s voice, and therefore the Scriptures get to (when necessary) tell any writer, preacher, father, council or creed that they are wrong. It is vitally important that this principle remains with us when we study Church History. As important as I believe this subject is, it is also possible to give it an unhealthy emphasis. We see this, for example, when men begin to speak of “the Great Tradition”⁶, or even language about the creeds and confessions being lenses through which Scripture is to be interpreted. I do not want to discredit and devalue the creeds and confessions, by any means, but to give them this a priori level of authority (where we have to see the Scriptures in their light) is not only an abandonment of Sola Scriptura (and therefore erroneous) but it will lead to problems in Biblical interpretation.

Let me use one example that I think is very important and reference frequently—the filioque. To give you the footnotes version, it is the dispute over whether or not the phrase καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ (in Latin, filioque. In English, and the Son) should be included in the Nicene Creed concerning the Spirit’s procession. The dispute is over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or the Father and the Son, with the West accepting the filioque clause, and the East rejecting it. Now, the specific theological point in dispute is over internal procession within the Godhead, but the text so often referenced in this dispute is John 15:26 which is not about this topic at all, but rather the fact of the sending of the Spirit after the ascension of Jesus Christ. In my mind, the best way to deal with this dispute over the filioque is to go back to the Bible and show that this isn’t the issue at hand, and therefore (as scandalous as this may sound) it is an unnecessary division between East and West, but if you give the Nicene Creed an a priori authority, using it as a lense to interpret John 15, you will never be able to make this argument.⁷

Now on to point 3, which the Postmillenialists are really going to like. And that is that the Bible teaches us concerning the growth and expansion of the Christian church over time. The key passage is Matthew 16:

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” - Matthew 16:13–20 (ESV)

I have addressed the Roman Catholic abuse of this passage here. For now, let us simply observe the fact that Jesus anticipates growth and success for the Church that He is going to build. The church fights the gates of hades, and so there are battles. Battles mean scars. They mean that there are times of loss, times of error. But because Jesus is the one building, we know He will win. On this level can we understand the Protestant Reformation. We do not believe that the church ever went into full apostasy or that there was ever a time when our Lord wasn’t building His church. But we do believe that there have been times of error and corruption (just like when Peter abstained from eating with the Gentiles, so many years ago) and that correction was needed.

Because that the church advances and progresses over time (in the sense of further being conformed to the Scriptures, not in the sense of advancing or progressing beyond them) we expect to find the church to have a more mature understanding of Scriptural doctrine in our time than in the early period. Now, it is easy to look at soft, squishy evangelicalism and think that this isn’t the case, but in the grand scheme of things we are really blessed. Our forefathers won battles, and we continue to benefit from their blood, sweat and tears. We have more access to resources on Biblical languages, cultural background and, yes, Church History than any generation before! Therefore, I can be prepared to assess the fact that while Calvin was much indebted to Augustine, Augustine never achieved a doctrine of justification as clear and accurate as Calvin’s. Augustine fought other battles, but because he fought them, Calvin was able to go even further in conforming his mind to the mind of God as revealed in Scripture.

And so, to put it concisely, the Reformation doctrine of Church History is simply that while the church has never been perfect, it is growing, and the Bible is always its ultimate authority. Our spiritual forefathers have much to teach us; therefore, study and learn from them, with a Bible in hand, to the glory of Jesus Christ.

1. “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”

Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 28.“

2. It is interesting that just a few days ago, Cardinal John Henry Newman was canonized by the Pope. He had opposed Vatican I (which defined Papal infallibility) because he knew that it could not be verified historically. However, when the decision was made he came up with what is now called the “development hypothesis”, which is that while the church may not have always explicitly taught certain doctrines, they were present in seed form. In reality, this is nothing more than a concession of novelty on the part of the Roman church.

3. Questions concerning the genuineness of the Ignatian corpus are far too complicated to get into now.

4. Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 89.

5. The very idea is so absurd that it is almost laughable, it is very plain that “transubstantiation” developed over time, with prominent fathers like Augustine holding to a “spiritual presence” rather than a corporeal, and the issues still being debated as late as the 9th century.

6. See Matthew Barret

7. I have described this before as “Biblicism”, but I plan on fleshing out that term later.