A History of Christian Doctrine

AHISTORYChristian Doctrine

T h e P o s t A p o s t o l i c A g et o t h e M i d d l e A g e sA . D . 1 0 0 1 5 0 0

Volume 1

of

David K. Bernard

AHISTORYChristian Doctrine

T h e P o s t A p o s t o l i c A g et o t h e M i d d l e A g e sA . D . 1 0 0 1 5 0 0

Volume 1

of

A History of Christian Doctrine,Volume OneThe Post-Apostolic Age to the Middle Ages,A.D. 100-1500

by David K. Bernard

ISBN 1-56722-036-3

Cover Design by Paul Povolni

1995 David K. BernardHazelwood, MO 63042-2299

All Scripture quotations in this book are from the King James Version of theBible unless otherwise identified.

All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, stored inan electronic system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permissionof David K. Bernard. Brief quotations may be used in literary reviews.

Printed in United States of America

Printed by

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bernard, David K., 1956A history of Christian doctrine / by David K. Bernard.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.Contents: v. 1. The Post-Apsotolic Age to the Middle Ages,

A.D. 100-1500.ISBN 1-56722-036-3 (pbk.)1. Theology, DoctrinalHistory. 2. Church history. 3. Oneness

doctrine (Pentecostalism)History. I. Title.BT 21.2.B425 1995230'.09dc20 95-35396

CIP

ContentsPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. The Study of Doctrine in Church History . . . . . . 92. Early Post-Apostolic Writers, A.D. 90-140 . . . . . . 213. Early Heresies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314. The Greek Apologists, A.D. 130-180 . . . . . . . . . . 435. The Old Catholic Age, A.D. 170-325 . . . . . . . . . . 616. The Ecumenical Catholic Age, A.D. 325-787 . . . . 877. The Canon of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1018. The Doctrine of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1139. The Doctrine of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

10. The Doctrines of Humanity and Salvation . . . . . .15911. The Doctrine and Structure of the Church . . . . .18312. The Early Sacraments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19913. Pagan Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21514. The Early Middle Ages, A.D. 600-1100 . . . . . . . .22315. The Later Middle Ages, A.D. 1100-1500 . . . . . . .25116. The Medieval Doctrinal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27317. The Road to the Reformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .293Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .307

A. Dates in the History of Christianity . . . . . . . .307B. Oneness Believers in History . . . . . . . . . . . . .313C. Ancient Creeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .315D. Baptism in Jesus Name in History . . . . . . . . .321E. Speaking in Tongues in History . . . . . . . . . . .323F. Holiness Teaching in History . . . . . . . . . . . . .325G. Development of Roman Catholicism . . . . . . . .329

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .344

Preface

This book surveys the history of Christian doctrinefrom approximately A.D. 100 to 1500. It generally followschronological order and identifies the most significantevents in church history, but the emphasis is on tracingdoctrinal developments. To further this purpose, it dis-cusses some events thematically rather than in strictchronological sequence.

We will use the words church and Christian in themost general sense, recognizing that the visible churchstructure is not necessarily the New Testament church asdefined by message and experience. We will discuss themajor groups of people who have identified themselves asChristian.

Occasionally material in this book may seem complexand foreign, but some treatment of details is necessary toprovide background and to impart a feel for significantissues and problems. The main objective is to introducethe leading historical figures and movements in Christen-dom and to convey a basic understanding of their doc-trines.

This information will provide various perspectives onbiblical issues and will aid in dialogue with people of dif-ferent backgrounds. The reader will see when, how, andwhy certain biblical doctrines were abandoned and cer-tain unbiblical doctrines embraced, and will see how Godhas worked to restore and revive fundamental truths thatwere largely forgotten.

7

This book arose out of teaching two semesters ofchurch history for five years at Jackson College of Min-istries in Jackson, Mississippi. The rough draft was tran-scribed from lectures taped for the extension program ofKent Christian College in Dover, Delaware. Special thanksgoes to Karla Christian, Vita Sharpe, Ruth Patrick, ConnieBernard, and especially Claire Tinney for transcribingthis material. It was an immense project! After consider-able additions, deletions, and revisions, this book is theresult.

It is important to remember that only the Bible is ourauthority for doctrine. History cannot alter or replacebiblical truth. Nor can history prove the validity of doc-trine, but it can provide insight into how key doctrineswere handled over the centuries. It can help to dispel themyth that our fundamental doctrines are of recent origin.The clear teaching of Scripture is enough to tear away theshrouds of nonbiblical tradition, but a historical surveycan aid in the process.

8

A History of Christian Doctrine

Why is it important to study the history of doctrinein Christianity? We can identify several reasons. First, astudy of this nature can help to confirm the apostolic doc-trine as revealed in Scripture and to analyze the teachingsof Gods Word in light of discussions in church history.

A second purpose is to trace the development of falsedoctrines. If we conclude that some doctrines taught inChristendom today are erroneous, the question arises,Where did these false doctrines begin? Church historycan help show us which doctrines were original, whichwere not, how false doctrines entered Christendom, andhow they became, in some cases, part of the mainstreamof historic Christendom.

A third benefit of this study is learning about the

1The Study of Doctrine

in Church History

9

1The Study of Doctrine

in Church History

major denominations and movements, thereby providinga context for dialogue today. The goal is to identify eachmajor category of Christendom and learn where it began,why it began, and what its distinctive, characteristic doc-trines are.

Scope of StudyAt the outset, let us define the boundaries of our

study. We will start with the death of the apostles, or theend of the apostolic era; therefore, we will begin with thesecond century A.D. By using the words church andChristianity, we will not make a value judgment as to theaccuracy of the doctrines of various groups. Rather, wewill use the words church, Christian, and Christendomin the most general sense, speaking of the visible struc-tures known collectively as Christianity. When we speakof Christian doctrines we do not mean that a particularbelief is correct or has been officially endorsed, only thatsome people within Christendom have believed andtaught it.

We would expect to find true apostolic believers with-in the visible, historical church, or at least associated insome way with it at various times, but the visible churchis not always identical to the invisible church, the truechurch, the church of God. We will focus on all those whohave historically gone by the label of Christian, whetheror not their experience and doctrine seem identical tothat of the apostles in the first century.

Our study will be an overview, not an exhaustiveinvestigation. We will not describe in great detail all themovements, personalities, and events in church history,but we will seek to give at least a survey of church histo-

10


ry, particularly focusing on doctrinal history. We will notplace heavy emphasis on names, places, and dates, butwe will look primarily at the origins of various doctrinesand movements throughout the history of Christianity.*

Major Themes1. A great falling away. It is evident when we study

early church history that there was a great falling away, agreat infusion of false doctrine. Indeed we find warningsand indications of this falling away in the New Testamentitself. It contains admonitions to the early church not toembrace false doctrine as well as warnings concerningfalse prophets, false teachers, and false doctrines thatwere already creeping in among the churches. (SeeMatthew 7:15; Romans 16:17-18; I Corinthians 11:19;Ephesians 4:14; II Timothy 4:3; Hebrews 13:9; II Peter2:1; I John 4:1; II John 10; Revelation 2:14, 15, 24.) Italso predicts that in the latter days would come a greatfalling away, seducing spirits, and doctrines of demons.(See Matthew 24:11-12, 24; II Thessalonians 2:3; I Timo-thy 4:1.)

Even in the first-century church, then, problems hadalready begun to develop. In Revelation 2 and 3, letters toseven churches in Asia Minor reveal serious errors of doc-trine and practice in various local assemblies in the firstcentury. In the second century, this process of doctrinalcorruption accelerated. In short, we find a great influx offalse doctrines over the centuries. That is not to say thesedoctrines polluted everyone, but widespread heresies and

11

The Study of Doctrine in Church History

*For a chronological list of important people, events, anddates in Christianity, along with important secular dates, seeAppendix A.

doctrinal difficulties certainly existed in the first few cen-turies.

2. A faithful remnant. At least a few people inchurch history continued to hold onto the apostolic doc-trine and the apostolic experience. In Matthew 16:18,Jesus said, On this rock I will build my church, speakingof the rock of the revelation of who He was, Jesus Christ,the Messiah, the Son of the living God. He said the gatesof hell will not prevail against the church, so as a matterof faith we can affirm that God has always had a peoplethroughout history. (See Romans 11:2-5.) He has alwayshad a church. The apostolic church as defined by theexperience and message of the Scriptures has neverentirely faded away.

This belief does not mean that as a matter of historywe can necessarily identify a fully apostolic group knownby a particular name at every decade throughout the hun-dreds of years of church history. It does not mean we cantrace an unbroken historical succession of an organiza-tion or series of organizations. It does not mean that atevery point in time a group of people taught every doc-trine we believe to be biblical. We can find in various cen-turies, however, people who baptized in Jesus name, peo-ple who received the Holy Spirit with the sign of tongues,and people who enunciated various doctrines that wethink are important to being truly apostolic.

At some times, great numbers of people adhered tothe apostolic faith; at other times, perhaps just a handfuldid so. For certain decades we may not have a historicalrecord of anybody who was identical to the apostles inexperience and teaching. But as a matter of faith, evenwhen there may be historical gaps, we can affirm that

12


God had a people born of water and the Spirit, believerswho experienced biblical salvation.

3. A circular pattern. We can discern a trend ofevents in church history, and we can represent it by a cir-cle. The church began with great evangelistic growth,with a great burst of power and fervor as recorded in theBook of Acts. Then came a gradual falling away into falsedoctrine, and as this falling away intensified, for the mostpart the visible church fell into apostasy, having little orno real experience with God.

This apostasy was not permanent, at least not in a his-torical sense. Over the centuries, particularly after themedieval period, we find a step-by-step restoration of var-ious doctrines, beliefs, and experiences, returning closerto the original apostolic pattern.

It is not entirely accurate to say the church wasrestored, because the true church as defined by apostolicexperience is what it is. The apostolic message has alwaysbeen the same; the true church of God has always beendefined in the same way. In that sense the church neverneeds to be restored. If there were people in a certaincentury who were filled with the Spirit, then they did notneed restoration to that experience. When we speakabout restoration, we mean a renewed understanding ofcertain doctrines and a widespread acceptance of certainworks of God. Perhaps we can say the church has beenrenewed or revived (restored to health and vigor).

The church has always existed since the Day of Pente-cost, but the visible or professing church has not alwayskept the teachings of Gods Word. In some cases, the pro-fessing church structure, the majority, the mainstream,has gone into error, heresy, or perhaps even apostasy.

13


The process of doctrinal decline and restoration is thecircular pattern we can discern. We can identify variousdoctrines that have followed such a trend: the apostolicchurch taught them with fervor; they fell into disfavor,were ignored, or were contradicted over the centuries;and then gradually more people returned to those doc-trines.

To generalize, historically speaking in Christendomwe find a great falling away, an entering into apostasy, andthen, at least among some professing Christians, a grad-ual restoration to more biblical doctrines. In the twentiethcentury there came a great revival of apostolic doctrineand experience, with multitudes accepting the full gospelmessage of baptism in Jesus name and the baptism of theHoly Spirit.

There are possible scriptural indications of this cyclicpattern, this falling away and gradual restoration. Isaiah28:10-12 speaks of truth being built line upon line, pre-cept upon precept. Joel 2:23-28 depicts various pestsdestroying the people and work of God but promises thatgradually God will restore everything these pests haveeaten.

Revelation 2 and 3 may provide a similar indication. Itis important to recognize that this passage speaks ofseven literal churches in the first century who had theproblems described. But it seems clear that God inspiredthese letters for inclusion in the text of Scripture becausethese churches represent typical problems that can occurthroughout church history. We can receive instructiontoday from the examples, problems, and recommenda-tions for each of the seven churches.

Some commentators view these seven churches as

14


indicative in some way of the overall trend in church his-tory. They note a burst of fervor initially (Ephesus andSmyrna), some falling away and compromise (Ephesusand Pergamos), a greater encroachment of false doctrine(Thyatira), widespread apostasy (Sardis), and then agreat restoration along with continued apostasy beforethe coming of the Lord (Philadelphia and Laodicea).

When we integrate the three major themes that wehave discussed, we conclude that the New Testamentexperience of salvation has always existed somewhereupon the earth. We cannot find a strict apostolic succes-sion in the sense of historical figures or a continuousstream of pastors and leaders, so we cannot say that aparticular organization is identical to the New Testamentchurch as a matter of historical linkage. But we can makea partial argument for doctrinal succession.

That is, we can find various groups in church historywho received the basic New Testament experience of sal-vation as described in the Book of Acts. When a group hadessentially the same fundamental doctrine as found in theNew Testament, we can consider it an apostolic church, ora New Testament church. In that sense, we can makesomewhat of an argument of doctrinal successionthroughout history. We cannot fill every gap, but we canfind enough groups at different places and times scatteredthroughout history to give us confidence that God hasalways had a people since the founding of the New Testa-ment church. In this sense, the church is continuous.

Difficulties in Reconstructing Church HistoryThere are several difficulties in trying to reconstruct

church history. We cannot always know with absolute

15


certainty what ancient people believed about every pointin question. Here are some reasons why.

1. Bias can affect writers and historians. Everydoctrinal writer and church historian has his own presup-positions, which can affect his objectivity. Early writerswere no exception. It was only natural for them to tend toslant things in their favor, sometimes deliberately andsometimes unconsciously. When they described the doc-trine of someone they disagreed with, they often made itlook foolish or illogical, because to them it was. Some-times they simply did not understand a point their oppo-nents made.

History is written by the victors. Whenever there wereclashes in history, the people who won usually were theones who left the record of what happened. Often theviews of a minority are preserved only in the writings oftheir opponents. To see the difficulty here, we can imag-ine trying to understand and assess the Pentecostal move-ment solely by reading the documents of critics and skep-tics. How accurately could some define the doctrine ofOneness, or explain the experience of the Holy Spirit bap-tism, if all he had were records of opponents who casti-gated, smeared, and misrepresented these teachings,whether intentionally or not?

We should also note that there is doctrinal bias amongchurch historians today. We cannot evaluate church histo-ry simply by reading church historians. We must go backto the primary sources themselves and look at them fromour perspective. Of course, another historian would saywe have a bias, but at least we try to establish the biasof our doctrinal position from the Bible. We cannotdepend totally on writings from church historians who

16


come with a different doctrinal perspective. Instead, wemust read the original historical sources as much as pos-sible to see what the writers said for themselves. Byexamining these writings from our point of view, we mayuncover information, evidence, or possibilities that otherchurch historians have missed.

2. Writers of a certain age do not always repre-sent the views of the majority of believers at that time.The writings that survive from a particular era may nothave been written by the most influential leaders orteachers of the time. Before the invention of printing inthe West in the 1400s, all documents had to be copied byhand. If later scribes deemed a manuscript to be unim-portant or heretical, they had little desire to copy itrepeatedly. Censors often destroyed writings later judgedto be heretical. Generally, what has been preserved fromearly times are documents that fit the beliefs of the peo-ple who had the opportunity to preserve or discard them.

Only a fraction of the writings from early times stillexist, and it is difficult to say how representative the rem-nant is. If a writer was a known bishop, pastor, or otherchurch leader, we have some reason to believe he repre-sented a significant view in the church. If a writer isunknown or had no significant position in the church, it isquite possible that he was not truly representative of thechurch of his time. Perhaps he gained greater favor withlater generations, who preserved his work, than heenjoyed in his own lifetime.

We should also consider that people who tend to writedo not always reflect the piety and views of the averageperson. Particularly in ancient times, those who had theleisure and education to write scholarly treatises may

17


have had a different perspective from the average believ-er. Even in our own day, the works of major theologiansare often much more liberal than the views of most laymembers in their own denominations.

3. There is always the strong possibility of interpo-lations (insertions) in ancient manuscripts. Thescribes who copied manuscripts by hand often changedstatements, whether by mistake, misunderstanding, ordeliberate alteration. They often felt free to add clarifica-tions, corrections, or simply their own views. Compar-isons of different manuscripts of the same works revealthat interpolations were quite common.

Sometimes a scribe involved in a theological contro-versy would insert a few lines supportive of his own posi-tion into a book by an ancient, widely respected leader.The temptation was great to use such an authoritative fig-ure to help resolve a dispute. On the other hand, if ascribe found a questionable phrase in the work of such anauthor, he might feel it important to edit the work andstrike the offending or potentially dangerous words. As aresult, we are not always sure that we actually have theoriginal words or views of a certain author. Sometimes wecan only guess or suppose.

4. As already noted, false doctrines existed in theearliest times. Even if we were to find a nonbiblical docu-ment from the first century, its antiquity does not guaran-tee that it is truly apostolic or teaches the correct doctrine,for the New Testament reveals there were false teacherseven in the first century. Moreover, documents from thesecond century were written approximately a centuryafter the founding of the New Testament church, and onehundred years is a long time in doctrinal history. For

18


example, vast doctrinal changes, innovations, and move-ments have developed in the twentieth century: the entiremodern Pentecostal movement arose in this century.

People from all theological perspectives disagree withthe earliest postbiblical writings on some points. Forinstance, evangelical Protestant scholars typically con-clude that the earliest postbiblical writers did not clearlyproclaim the doctrine of justification by faith but fell intolegalism.

5. Early terms were often imprecise, especially inlight of later controversies. For example, in the MiddleAges and during the Reformation great controversiesarose over the Lords Supper. The issue was whether thebread and the fruit of the vine were symbolic, or whetherChrists blood and body were physically present. Bothsides in these debates appealed to writers from the firstfew centuries. For instance, a proponent of the doctrineof the real presence would find a writer who described theLords Supper as a partaking of Christs body. But did thewriter mean this statement to be figurative or literal? It isdifficult to know for certain, since he wrote before thecontroversy existed.

Early writers did not anticipate later disputes andtherefore did not guard against certain misinterpreta-tions. We cannot demand of them a precision of terminol-ogy that was foreign to their time, nor can we make themspeak of doctrinal issues that arose after their time. Insome cases there is enough evidence to predict what posi-tion they would have taken had they lived during a certaincontroversy. In many cases, however, they did not use cer-tain definitive terms, or at least not with the connotationor precision of later times.

19


It can be anachronistic to cite certain writers in sup-port of a particular doctrine, even though they may haveused words that later acquired a certain theological sig-nificance. When we study ancient authors, we must deter-mine what their words meant in the context of their writ-ings and their times.

6. Sources for church history are neither authori-tative nor infallible. Only Scripture can claim those dis-tinctives. It is from Scripture alone that we must deriveinstruction for salvation, Christian living, and Christianbelief.

Our sole authority is the Bible, the Word of God. Godhas inspired and preserved it for doctrine, reproof, cor-rection, and instruction in righteousness (II Timothy3:16). If an ancient, well-respected source seems to teacha doctrine that is contrary to Scripture, we must choosethe message of Scripture.

20


We begin our study at the end of the first centuryA.D. and the beginning of the second. Most of the apostlesdied long before the end of first century. John was the lastone to die, in the late 90s. The first writers we will dis-cuss, then, are postbiblical and post-apostolic.

They were not the second generation of leaders afterthe apostles, however, for we find those men in the NewTestament as younger associates and co-workers of theapostles. The latter probably assumed prominence andleadership in the A.D. 60s through 80s. For instance, theapostle Paul was martyred in the 60s, and his successorswere such people as Timothy and Titus. These men didnot leave any written record, except what is incorporatedin the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Mark andpossibly the Epistle to the Hebrews.

21

2Early Post-Apostolic

WritersA.D. 90-140

When we pick up after the New Testament, after thedays of the apostles, then, we are actually dealing with thethird generation or later of pastors and church leaders.We are already removed at least one generation from theapostles.

Of course, the times overlap. Some of the people we willdiscuss knew the apostles or heard them preach. But withthe possible exception of the successors of John, these writ-ers were not the direct successors of the various apostles.

The men we are speaking about, the generation ofleaders and writers after the completion of the New Testa-ment and the death of the last apostle, are often called theApostolic Fathers. This term is not accurate, however.Apostolic signifies that they were followers of the apos-tles, and fathers signifies that they were founding lead-ers. Actually, in most cases they were not directly associ-ated with the apostles. Moreover, we should considerJesus Christ and the New Testament apostles andprophets to be the foundation of the church, not thesemen (Ephesians 2:20). It is more appropriate to call themPost-Apostolic writers or Post-Apostolic leaders.

We will call the age in which these men wrote thePost-Apostolic Age. It spans the time from approximatelyA.D. 90 to 140, with some of the writings perhaps being aslate as 150.

Writings of the AgeWe only have limited information from this time. Writ-

ings survive from five authors whom we can identify, butonly the first four are significant:

1. Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome in the 90s. Hewrote a letter to the church at Corinth.

22


2. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. We have a brief letterhe wrote to the Philippians about 100. He was burned atthe stake at age 86. The Martyrdom of Polycarp waswritten in a later age, about 155, and in its present formcontains both fanciful details and doctrinal errors.

3. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, whose writings datefrom about 110. We have seven genuine letters from him.He was martyred by being thrown to the lions.

4. Hermas, who wrote The Shepherd, c. 140-45, aquite popular book in its day. He is otherwise unknown tous, but tradition says he was from Rome. Apparently Her-mas did not hold any office in the church.

5. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis about 125. We onlyhave fragments preserved in the writings of later authors.

Aside from these identifiable writers, we have severalworks whose authors are anonymous or who wrote undera pseudonym.

1. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100-20).Historians agree that the author was not Pauls compan-ion, but someone who lived much later than his time, so itis often more accurately called the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas.

2. An anonymous book called the Preaching of Peter(c. 110-30). Historians concur that it was not written byPeter, but it is a story about him told as if by him. It is nei-ther authentic nor accurate.

3. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or Didache(did -ah-kee) in Greek, of which only one copy, dated1056, survives. Scholars agree that it was certainly notwritten by the twelve apostles, but it claims to reflecttheir teaching. It is not a first-century document, as oftensupposed. Internal and external evidence reveal that it is

23

Early Post-Apostolic Writers

no earlier than 120 and perhaps considerably later. It con-tains doctrinal errors that do not reflect the originalteachings of the church.1

4. The so-called Second Epistle of Clement, a ser-mon by an unknown author. It was traditionally ascribedto Clement of Rome, but modern scholars concur that hedid not write it. Various historians date it from 100 to150.

Teachings of the AgeThese writings are our sources for what Christians

believed and taught in the age following the apostolic era.While they are not always consistent with each other, wecan make some general observations and identify somecommon themes, particularly in the writings of theauthors who were known church leaders.

For the most part, the writings are not speculative orphilosophical, but they adhere closely to the language ofScripture. We do not find treatises on systematic theolo-gy, in which an author discusses a certain doctrine indetail and seeks to draw logical conclusions from variouspassages of Scripture related to the chosen subject.Instead, most of these documents are simply letters. Theywere not intended as theological dissertations.

From the modern Apostolic Pentecostal viewpoint,there is little objectionable or even questionable in theseletters. Most of the statements that Apostolics wouldquestion or contradict appear in the anonymous or pseu-donymous writings.

Let us look briefly at what these authors had to say onimportant doctrinal subjects.

1. Monotheism. These writings emphasize the doc-

24


trine of one God, just as the Old Testament proclaims andthe New Testament echoes. There is no mention of trini-ty or three persons, nor do any other distinctively trini-tarian terms or concepts appear. Instead, there is simplythe teaching of one God and Lord of all.2

Pseudo-Barnabas and Hermas made a few statementsthat could refer to a preexistent Son, but they can also beinterpreted in a manner consistent with Oneness. If theyintended to make a personal distinction, their view wouldnot be trinitarian, but binitarian (two persons) and subor-dinating the second person to the first.3

2. Deity of Jesus Christ. These writings stronglyemphasize Christs true deity, calling Him the Scepter ofthe majesty of God, the Lord our God, our God, JesusChrist, the inseparable Spirit, God, even Jesus Christ,Christ our God, our Lord and God, Father, and theSon of God.4 Ignatius was particularly fond of callingJesus Christ our God, and Polycarp heartily endorsedthe epistles of Ignatius. In Epistle to Polycarp 3, Ignatiussaid, Look for Him who is above all time, eternal andinvisible, yet who became visible for our sakes, impalpa-ble and impassible, yet who became passible [capable ofsuffering] on our account; and who in every kind of waysuffered for our sakes.

These writings make a scriptural distinction betweenthe Father and the Son, relating the Son to the Incarna-tion, the manifestation of God in flesh. They do not makea personal distinction with regard to the Holy Spirit.There are a few references to God acting as the Father, inthe Lord Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit, similar towhat we find in the New Testament itself. (See II Corinthi-ans 13:14; Ephesians 4:4-6; I Peter 1:2.) The Oneness

25


understanding and interpretation of these New Testamentpassages corresponds very well to similar statements inthe Post-Apostolic Age.

We cannot say that these men were explicitly antitrini-tarian, because as we will see, the doctrine of the trinityhad not yet developed. Nevertheless, their terminologyand thoughts correspond closely to modern Oneness.Their emphasis on the oneness of God, the true deity ofJesus Christ, and the true humanity of Jesus Christ is theessentially the same as we find in the Oneness movementtoday and stands in sharp contrast to later trinitarianthought and expression.

3. The humanity of Christ and His saving work.These early writers unquestionably regarded Jesus as areal man who died for our sins and rose again. At thesame time, they recognized that the Spirit of God dwellsfully in Him by identity, so that He is our Lord, our God,and our Savior.

4. Faith, repentance, and water baptism. Theystressed faith and repentance (the need to turn from theold life of sin), and they presented water baptism as theessential complement to repentance. They regarded it asnecessary for the washing away of sins. Hermas wrote,We descended into the water and received remission ofour former sins, and Pseudo-Barnabas spoke of thatbaptism which leads to the remission of sins.5

Moreover, just as in the Book of Acts, they baptized inthe name of Jesus Christ.6 For instance, Hermas spoke ofbeing baptized in the name of the Lord and in the nameof the Son of God. He stated that no one shall enter intothe kingdom of God unless he receive His holy name andthat we receive the name of the Lord at water baptism.

26


Clement, Ignatius, and Hermas all strongly emphasizedthe importance, sacredness, and power of the name ofGod, which they identified as Jesus.7

The Didache refers both to baptism in the name ofthe Lord and to baptism in the name of the Father, Son,and Holy Ghost. It appears, however, that the latter refer-ence is an interpolation or alteration from later times.8

Significantly, in the same manuscript of 1056 that pre-serves the Didache we find another trinitarian correc-tion, namely an alteration of a statement in II Clementthat identifies Christ as the Spirit.9

These writings do not clearly express the doctrine ofjustification by faith, however. Clement taught that we aresaved by the blood of Jesus and our faith in Him, not ourworks, but the Didache, Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas,Shepherd of Hermas, and II Clement indicate that Chris-tians can earn forgiveness or other merits by good workssuch as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and strict morality. Sig-nificantly, these works are by unknown authors, and thefirst three express questionable ideas in other areas as well.

5. The manifestation of the Holy Spirit. These writ-ings mention the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit andmiraculous gifts of the Spirit; the Didache describesprophets in the church of that day who spoke in the Spir-it.10 It is evident that, just as in the Book of Acts, peoplewere receiving the Holy Spirit and exercising various spir-itual gifts.

6. Holiness of life. We find an emphasis on goodworks, living a holy life, and being separated from evilpractices of the world.11 Hermas proclaimed that if aChristian commits a major sin, he must seek a secondexperience of repentance in order to be saved.

27


7. Church government and fellowship. It appearsthat all the believers in a city were considered part of onechurch, that each church was responsible for its owninternal affairs, and that each church had several minis-ters but one senior pastor to lead it. Ignatius emphasizedthat every church had a supreme pastor, or bishop, andthat all believers in the city needed to submit to his lead-ership. These writings also reveal that there was close fel-lowship and coordination among the churches and thatthe bishops communicated with, admonished, andadvised one another.

8. The Scriptures. The Post-Apostolic writers accept-ed both testaments as the inspired Word of God. Theyquoted from twenty-three New Testament booksallexcept Philemon, II and III John, and Judeand there arepossible references to Philemon, II John, and Jude.12 Theydid not have occasion to mention a few of the smallerbooks of the New Testament, but it is clear that these menwere well acquainted with the books of our Bible andregarded them as Scripture.

9. The Lords Supper. They celebrated the LordsSupper. They did not speak of it as a sacrifice for sin, butas the Eucharist, or thanksgiving offering. They alsoexpressed that partaking of the Lords Supper pointedtoward the second coming of Jesus Christ.

10. The last things. We do not find any detailedprophetic schemes in these simple writings, but there isstrong emphasis on the second coming of Jesus Christ. Thewriters of the Post-Apostolic Age looked for His soon return.

ConclusionsThe writers of the Post-Apostolic Age were mostly bib-

28


lical and apostolic in their approach. Oneness Pente-costals will find some phrases in these writings that theydo not agree with, particularly in the writings of Hermasand in the pseudonymous writings. Protestants in generaland Evangelicals likewise find some points of disagree-ment with the Post-Apostolic writers. For instance, theyoften say that their emphasis on water baptism and worksof holiness is legalistic and undermines justification byfaith.

For the most part, however, these writings display thedoctrine of the apostles, the doctrine of the New Testa-ment. This is especially true in the writings of the threeimportant writers who were bishops in the church at thistimeClement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

In the immediate Post-Apostolic Age, A.D. 90 to 140,we find adherence to the doctrines of the New Testa-mentemphasis on one God, Jesus as the true God andtrue man, repentance, water baptism in the name of JesusChrist as part of the salvation experience, the baptism ofthe Holy Ghost, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, andholiness of life. In short, we find a vibrant apostolicchurch.

The writings are not of the quality of the New Testa-ment. We would not expect them to be, because they arenot inspired as the New Testament is. They are simple andtheir total doctrinal content is comparatively scanty. Asfar as we can tell, however, in the immediate Post-Apos-tolic Age, believers as a whole still embraced the messageand experience of the apostles.

29


In the Post-Apostolic Age (c. 90-140) and the Age ofthe Greek Apologists (c. 130-80), a number of groupsarose that separated from the mainstream church. Thesegroups and their distinctive doctrines are typically calledheresies, from the Greek word hairesis, meaning choiceand, by extension, party, sect, schismatic group.

We will use the word heresy in this sense, recognizingthat some such sects in history grossly deviated from theWord of God while others may actually have been closerto the original teachings than the institutional church oftheir day. In some cases, what historians have calledheresy may have been a reaction to unbiblical teachingsand conditions and not really a heresy in the biblicalsense of the word. (See Acts 24:14.)

31

3Early Heresies

In this chapter we will discuss four early groups thatarose in opposition to the mainstream church. They hadtheir roots in the Post-Apostolic Age or before, they devel-oped their distinctive identities around this time, theybroke away from the institutional church in the secondcentury A.D., and leading Christian writers of the secondand third centuries condemned them as heretics.

The EbionitesThe first group we will discuss is the Ebionites. They

were Jewish Christians who continued to hold to theirJewish culture and identity so much that it affected theirunderstanding of the gospel. It appears that their namecame from a Hebrew word meaning poor and wasapplied to them because many of the early Jewish Chris-tians were poor. (See Romans 15:26.)

Of course, Christianity began among the Jews; all theapostles were Jewish. While they continued to live asJews, they came to realize that Christ was the fulfillmentof the law, that they were justified by faith and not by thelaw, and that there was no need to teach Gentile Chris-tians to keep the law of Moses. (See Acts 15; Galatians 3.)

Even in New Testament times, however, some JewishChristians insisted that keeping the law of Moses was nec-essary to salvation and tried to force Gentile Christians tobe circumcised (Acts 15:1, 5). These Judaizers, as theyare known, rejected the ministry of Paul, and he sharplyrebuked their doctrine (Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1; 4:10-11, 17;5:1-12; Philippians 3:2-3). He wrote the Epistle to theGalatians particularly to oppose this false teaching.

Not surprisingly, the Judaizers refused to acceptPauls letters as inspired of God. At first they were a fac-

32


tion within the church, but gradually they were forced outof the church.

The most extreme of them said that Jesus was notGod manifested in the flesh but merely a man upon whomthe Spirit descended at His baptism. They consideredHim to be anointed by the Spirit and a great prophet inthe tradition of the Old Testament, but not truly God.They believed His mission was to bring a revival of repen-tance, a restoration of Old Testament worship, and arenewed emphasis on the law of Moses. By these viewsthey denied the fundamental doctrine of Jesus Christ andthe New Testament message of salvation.

Some writers have applied the label of Ebionite to allJewish Christians who continued to keep the law ofMoses. Such people were not necessarily heretical, butthe adjective heretical properly applies to all who madethe keeping of the law necessary for salvation and espe-cially to all who denied the deity and atoning sacrifice ofJesus Christ.

GnosticismThe Gnostics were powerful opponents of Christianity

in the second century. Gnosticism originated in paganismas a combination of Oriental religion and Greek philoso-phy. The result was a form of mystical philosophy thatwas supposed to bring salvation.

As the Gnostics encountered various religions, theytried to absorb them by taking elements from them andmascarading as proponents of those religions. They tookthis approach to Judaism and also to Christianity withsome degree of success during this time. In short, Gnosti-cism was eclectic, meaning that it selected ideas from

33

Early Heresies

various philosophies and religions, and syncretistic,meaning that it blended these ideas together to form newdoctrines.

The most prominent Gnostic leaders were Saturninus,Basilides, and Valentinus. Second-century writers statedthat Simon Magus, the Samaritan magician in Acts 8, wasan early proponent of Gnostic ideas.

The Gnostics received their name from the Greekword gnosis, which means knowledge. The essence ofGnosticism was the teaching of salvation by higherknowledge. The Gnostics held that, while a person couldexperience salvation by faith, the true way of salvationwas by supernatural knowledge. This saving knowledgedid not come through study of the Scriptures but throughdivine, mystical revelation, an idea similar to the conceptof enlightenment as taught by some Eastern religions,including Hinduism and Buddhism.

The Gnostics based their doctrinal system on a strongdualism adapted from Greek philosophy. They believedthat the world is composed of two distinct entities, spiritand matter. Spirit is good, pure, and holy, while matter isevil. Originally we were pure spirit beings, but in a greatconflict between spirit and matter we became entrappedin matter. In other words, we are good, holy, preexistentspiritual entities who somehow became entangled in evilmatter and who need to be liberated from the world ofmatter.

This dualism greatly affected the Gnostics doctrine ofGod. They said that the God who created this world ofmatter was actually inferior and antagonistic to us. Hewas not the supreme God, or else He would not have cre-ated such an evil thing as this world. The supreme God is

34


pure spirit, and out of Him came various emanations, aprogression of lesser and lesser divine beings calledaeons. The most inferior of these is Jehovah, also calledthe Demiurge. He is the Creator and in essence responsi-ble for our current predicament because he created theworld of matter in which we have become imprisoned.

According to the Gnostics, the Redeemer, whom theyidentified with Christ, is the highest aeon or emanationfrom God. He came down to earth to redeem or emanci-pate us from the world of matter. He is not actually GodHimself, because the supreme Deity is so pure that Hecould never have direct contact with this sinful world.

This view posed a problem for the Gnostics, however,for the Bible proclaims that Christ came in the flesh. Ifflesh is evil, how could this good emanation of God comein such an evil way?

The Gnostics tried to resolve this dilemma by the doc-trine of docetism, which says that Christ was a spiritbeing only. He appeared to have flesh, but really He didnot; He was purely spirit.

Some Gnostics further taught the doctrine ofCerinthianism, named for Cerinthus, an early propo-nent. This belief separates Jesus and Christ into twobeings: Jesus, a normal man who was born, and Christ, apure spirit. Christ came upon Jesus at His baptism andremained with Him until just before His death. Since thispure spirit could not participate in death, Christ left Jesuson the cross. This view resembles the doctrine of theextreme Ebionites.

The Gnostics classified people in three categoriesbased on spirit, soul, and body. First, there are spiritualpeople, the spiritual elite, who are predestined to salvation.

35

Early Heresies

These are the ones who have gnosis, or spiritual knowl-edge. They are saved or liberated from the evil world ofmatter by their higher revelation. Then there is a secondclass of people called the psychical, or soulish, peo-ple. (The Greek word psyche means soul.) These arethe people who have faith, and if they continue to believe,there will be a way of salvation for them too. Finally, thereis a third group of people, the carnal. They simply live inthis fleshly, evil world and do not seek or receive deliver-ance. They are predestined to damnation.

This trichotomy, or threefold classification, does notemphasize ethics or morality. It provides no motivationfor a person to try to become holy in his earthly life, forthe flesh is unalterably evil. There is no incentive to prac-tice ethics and morality, because the flesh will do whatev-er it is going to do. It is useless to worry about the flesh;rather, a person should just focus upon the spirit.

Some Gnostics became ascetics, denying and disci-plining the flesh with fasting and severe punishments onthe ground that the flesh is bad and needs punishment.Other took the very carnal route of libertinism, saying itdoes not matter what the flesh does. According to them,one should let it indulge in whatever it wants, for it is onlythe spirit that counts.

In this doctrinal system there was no true resurrec-tion, for eternal life was only spiritual. In fact, there real-ly was no doctrine of personal immortality. Somehow thespirits of the saved would be liberated to rejoin the uni-versal spirit and become absorbed in it, a concept foundin some Eastern religions such as Hinduism. The wickedwould be annihilated, or wiped out of existence.

The Gnostics rejected the literal interpretation of the

36


Old Testament but interpreted it allegorically to fit theirown doctrines. They also had a number of apocryphalbooks, books written to promote their doctrine that theyclaimed were part of the New Testament but that thechurch as a whole rejected.

While Gnosticism as an organized system developedafter New Testament times, many of its ideas were alreadyprevalent in that day. The writings of John and Paul refutemany of these doctrines. John 1:1-14 and I John 4:2-3;5:20 proclaim that Jesus Christ is the true God come inthe flesh and that this fact is a cardinal doctrine of thechurch. Colossians teaches that in Jesus Christ all believ-ers (not merely an elite) can have full spiritual knowl-edge, that Jesus Christ is the fullness of God incarnateand not merely an emanation, that salvation is by faith inHim, and that we are to avoid both ascetism and libertin-ism. (See Colossians 1:9-10; 2:9-12, 20-23; 3:5-10.)

In sum, Gnosticism denied many essential doctrinesof Christianity, including the oneness of God, the Incarna-tion, the Atonement, salvation by faith, and the new birth.Today it may seem very foreign to us, and we may be sur-prised to think that it could have ever been a powerfulrival to biblical Christianity, yet it was very appealing inits day. Its mysticism gave it a strong affinity with Orientalreligions, and its advocacy of salvation by higher knowl-edge aligned it with the philosophical approach of thetime.

As we will see in later chapters, many Christians wereaffected by Gnosticism. Their thinking was influenced notonly by the Greek philosophy of the day but also by Gnos-ticism and its emphasis on salvation by knowledge. Someprominent teachers such as Origen borrowed many ideas

37

Early Heresies

from Gnostic teachings. Nevertheless, major Christianwriters of the second and third centuries, particularly Ire-naeus, strongly opposed Gnosticism.

MarcionThe third major heretical group began with a man

named Marcion. Many Christian writers of his day classi-fied him as a Gnostic, but his system was significantly dif-ferent. His theology did contain a number of Gnostic ele-ments, and like Gnosticism it incorporated both paganand Christian features. Nevertheless, he developed a doc-trine and a movement of his own.

The basis of Marcions theology was a belief in twodeitiesthe Creator, or Demiurge, and the Redeemer. TheCreator is evil and the one who inspired the Old Testa-ment, which Marcion rejected. The Redeemer is good andthe only God Christians should worship. He came to thisworld as Jesus Christ. He did not truly come in the flesh,however, for Christ was a spirit being only. Here we seeGnostic dualism and docetism mixed with biblical con-cepts about the oneness of God and the full deity of Christ.

Marcion accepted as Scripture only ten of the PaulineEpistles and a mutilated version of the Gospel of Luke. Herejected the rest of the New Testament because of quota-tions from the Old Testament and contradictions to hisdoctrine.

Marcion taught that salvation is by faith in JesusChrist, and his followers practiced water baptism in thename of Jesus Christ.1 Here too we see echoes of biblicalteaching. On the whole, though, Marcions doctrine wasnot scriptural but heretical.

The Marcionites broke away from the mainstream

38


church around 144. Their emphasis on the supreme deityof Christ and their baptismal formula were not points ofcontention, however. Evidently, at this date the church asa whole still taught that Jesus was fully God (rather than asecond person) and practiced Jesus Name baptism as inthe Book of Acts and in the first century. When the Mar-cionites left the church, they continued to use the stan-dard baptismal formula, even though it was later alteredin the institutional church.

Another thing to note about the Marcionites is thatthey tended to asceticism. They taught strict discipline andeven punishment of the body, and they rejected marriage.

MontanismA presbyter named Montanus, from the region of

Phrygia in Asia Minor, founded the fourth group we willdiscuss. Although considered heretical by leading writersof the second and third centuries, in some ways the Mon-tanists were perhaps more biblical than some of theiropponents. Unlike the other groups we have discussed,their overall theology was in harmony with Scripture.They were expelled from the institutional church around177.

The Montanists placed great importance on personalholiness of life. They objected to the mainstream churchbecause it seemed to be departing from the more strict,separated lifestyle of holiness and embracing more andmore worldliness.

Another major emphasis of the Montanists, probablytheir most distinctive tenet, was the work of the HolySpirit and the gifts of the Spirit. Again, they accused themainstream church of gradually minimizing and losing

39

Early Heresies

the miraculous gifts, such as prophecy and speaking intongues. Tertullian, a leading writer in the early third cen-tury who ultimately became a Montanist, proclaimed thatspeaking in tongues was an important mark of a validchurch.

In turn, their opponents alleged that Montanusclaimed to fulfill Christs promise of the coming of theComforter (Paraclete) in John 14. Of course, Jesus actu-ally spoke of the Holy Spirit in that passage. It is not clearthat Montanus actually claimed to be the Holy Spiritincarnate, however, for it seems that his critics made thischarge because he gave prophecies in the first person.But this practice does not necessarily mean that heclaimed to be the manifestation or incarnation of the HolySpirit. Even today, when people give interpretations orprophecies they often speak from Gods point of view,using the pronoun I in reference to Him. It is possible,then, that the opponents of Montanus took his statementsout of context and so distorted their meaning.

It does seem that the Montanists went to excess insome areas, tending toward legalism and asceticism. Ofcourse, self-denial is a scriptural concept (Mark 8:34-37).But when people begin to punish the body, to imposesevere, nonbiblical restrictions of their own making, or toseek salvation by meritorious works, then they go beyondthe bounds of Scripture.

At least some of the Montanists became extremists inthis area. For example, they taught that a Christian shouldnot remarry after his or her spouse died. The movementultimately rejected marriage completely, saying that itwas a concession to human sinfulness and that truly holypeople would abstain from marriage and remain celibate.

40


Of course, both teachings deviated from the New Testa-ment (I Corinthians 7:39; Hebrews 13:4).

Montanus stressed the priesthood of all believers. Hetried to reform the ecclesiastical structure as the churchseemed to become more and more hierarchical and toplace more and more power in the hands of clergy as dis-tinct from laity. The bishops, who originally were simplypastors of cities, were gradually extending their powerover other churches in their areas. Montanus tried to callthe church back to a more simple structure in whicheveryone was recognized as having a ministry in thechurch and could exercise spiritual gifts.

This groups major emphasesthe work of the HolySpirit, holiness, and the priesthood of all believerswereapparently biblical and a corrective to emerging problems,but it seems that they went too far in stressing these aspects.Their problem was not doctrine as much as practice.

The Montanists placed strong emphasis on the doc-trine of the last things. They considered Montanus to bethe last great prophet before the end of the world, andthey looked for the soon coming of Jesus Christ and theconsummation of the age.

There is evidence that the Montanists were originallymodalists, meaning they held that God is absolutely one,that Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, andthat God is not a trinity of persons.2 Moreover, they didnot baptize in trinitarian titles,3 so they must haveadhered to the original Jesus Name formula. This is notsurprising, for the doctrine of the trinity did not developuntil the third century.

Some third-century writers said that one faction of theMontanists was modalist,4 so evidently others of them

41

Early Heresies

eventually embraced trinitarianism. In fact, as we shallsee, a famous third-century convert to Montanism namedTertullian was quite instrumental in developing the doc-trine of the trinity.

ConclusionOf the four major schismatic groups that challenged

the established church in the second century, the firstthreethe Ebionites, the Gnostics, and the Marcioniteswere definitely heretical in their doctrine. The fourthgroup, the Montanists, was possibly more orthodox thanthe emerging leadership of the visible church in this time,but they too went to extremes and were ultimately excom-municated from the organized structure.

It is interesting to contrast the predominant formativeinfluences of these groups. The Ebionites were a heresybased in Judaism, the Gnostics were rooted in paganism,the Marcionites mixed paganism and Christianity, and theMontanists drew their ideas from within Christianity.

Each group is an instructive example of how doc-trines can develop and emphases can change. The NewTestament itself shows how some of the fundamentalideas of Ebionitism and Gnosticism emerged and begandeceiving believers. The doctrines of Marcion and Mon-tanism, while deviating to a greater or lesser extent fromthe New Testament, still bear indirect witness to the orig-inal apostolic teaching. That is, in tracing how they devel-oped we can see where they started from; we find influ-ences of the biblical doctrines of the oneness of God, thedeity of Jesus Christ, water baptism in the name of JesusChrist, the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues, thegifts of the Spirit, and holiness of life.

42


The next generation of writers after the Post-Apos-tolic Age were the Greek Apologists. They are so calledbecause they wrote apologies, or defenses of the faith, inthe Greek language. They used Greek because it was theinternational language of commerce and culture in theeastern Roman Empire, where Christianity began andwhere it had the greatest strength in this age. The GreekApologists were active from about 130 to 180; their old-est existing writings date from about 150.

Persecution of ChristianityTo understand what motivated the Apologists to write,

we first need to understand the opposition that Christiansfaced. Originally, Christians were persecuted by the Jews,

43

4The Greek Apologists

A.D. 130-180

as we find in the New Testament (Acts 5:17-18; 7:57-59;8:1-3; 9:1-2).

Next they were persecuted by the pagans, with thefirst severe Roman persecution occurring under EmperorNero in the A.D. 60s. Tradition says both Peter and Paulwere martyred during the Neronic persecution.

From the time of Nero until the last great persecution,under the reign of Emperor Diocletian, there were tenmajor persecutions in all. Persecution finally ended in313, when the Roman co-emperors Constantine andLicinius promulgated the Edict of Milan, which wasactually a concordat between them. It legalized Christian-ity and instituted an official policy of toleration.

From Nero until about A.D. 250, most of the persecu-tions were local or did not occur throughout the empiresimultaneously. In certain localities and times, persecutionwere severe and some people were martyred, but therewas not a concerted official effort across the empire.

From 250 to 313, however, as paganism declined andChristianity expanded, there were empire-wide attemptsto stamp out Christianity. Some of the persecutions dur-ing this time became very brutal indeed. The harshestpersecutions were under the emperors Decius, Valerian,and Diocletian.

In many cases, pagan opposition to Christianity wasbased on misunderstandings and false, scurrilous rumors.Since Christians often met in secret to avoid persecution,it was easy for their opponents to spread malicious gossipabout what they did when they gathered together. It wascommonly reported that Christians murdered people, sac-rificed babies, ate human flesh, drank human blood, con-ducted orgies, and so on.

44


In addition, pagan writers attacked Christianity on theground that it undermined the state and the fiber of soci-ety. They advanced numerous intellectual objectionsbased on the prevailing philosophies of the day, whichwere principally Greek in origin.

The Response of the ApologistsThroughout the second and third centuries, then,

Christians felt the need to defend themselvesnot physi-cally but intellectually. They did not take up arms, for thatwas against their principles, and in any case, they had nomeans of doing so. But they did defend themselves inwriting against pagan accusations and objections.

There was a need to respond publicly to correct thescandalous rumors. More substantially, there was a needto explain the doctrines of Christianity in order to defendit against pagan philosophical attacks.

The Greek Apologists sought to do just that. Theywrote to dispel false accusations, to show that Christiani-ty promoted a superior morality, and to demonstrate intel-lectually that it was the truth.

In trying to present Christianity to pagans, the Apolo-gists drew extensively from Greek philosophy, which wasthe common intellectual ground upon which practicallyeveryone in their society could meet. They did not appealprimarily to Scripture, because their adversaries did notaccept Scripture.

The basic approach of the Apologists was to demon-strate that Christianity is a good philosophyin fact, thebest philosophy, the truest philosophy. Whenever possi-ble, they employed and endorsed Greek philosophicalterms and concepts in order to make Christianity seem

45

The Greek Apologists

reasonable, attractive, and fitting to the pagans in the cul-ture of the day.

Major WritersThe major writers whose works survive from the Age

of the Greek Apologists are as follows:1. Marcianus Aristides, a philosopher in Athens who

became a Christian. His Apology, addressed to EmperorAntoninus Pius, is probably the oldest surviving work inthis category, dating to 150 and perhaps as early as 125or 130.

2. The anonymous author of the Epistle to Diogne-tus, which is generally dated about 150 although it maybe as early as 130. While not an apologetic writing, it wasonce attributed to Justin, and it expresses some thoughtscharacteristic of this time.

3. Flavius Justinus, or Justin, by far the most influen-tial and prolific Greek Apologist. Justin was born in aRoman colony in Samaria and became a Greek philoso-pher. After his conversion to Christianity he traveled as alay preacher, but he was never ordained as a minister. Hecontinued to call himself a philosopher and to wear thephilosophers cloak. He resided in Rome on two differentoccasions and was ultimately beheaded there for his faith.Later writers often surnamed him Philosopher and Mar-tyr. Important works of Justin include his First Apology(c. 150), Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho theJew, and On the Resurrection.

4. Tatian of Syria, a disciple of Justin who eventuallybecame a Gnostic and founded an ascetic sect known asthe Encratites (abstainers). He wrote Address to theGreeks (c. 150), and he compiled the Diatessaron, the

46


earliest harmony of the Gospels, of which only fragmentsremain.

5. Melito, bishop of Sardis, of whose writings onlyfragments remain. He authored Apology, or To MarcusAurelius (c. 170), On God Incarnate, The Key, Dis-course on the Cross, On the Nature of Christ, Dis-course on Soul and Body, and On Faith.

6. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 168 to 181and author of To Autolycus, a pagan friend.

7. Athenagoras, a philosopher reportedly of Athens.He addressed his Plea for the Christians (c. 177) to theRoman emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, andalso wrote a treatise, On the Resurrection.

In addition, we have a few insignificant fragmentsfrom and references to other authors, including Quadra-tus, Claudius Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Miltiades, andAriston of Pella. Many works mentioned as being fromthis time are lost.

It is significant that most of the writings that remainare apologies addressed to pagans. We have only a fewdoctrinal treatises and no sermons or letters to churchessuch as have survived from the Post-Apostolic Age.

Moreover, with few exceptions, we do not have writ-ings from the leaders of the church in this age, againquite unlike what has come to us from the Post-ApostolicAge. The most important existing works do not comefrom bishops, pastors, or other recognized leaders, butfrom converted philosophers who held no offices in thechurch. Their philosophical approach was probably verydifferent from what the average Christian heard in thepreaching and teaching of his local church. It is unlikelythat the writings we have are representative of church

47


leaders, pastors, or average believers, especially near thebeginning of the age.

As a result, it is difficult to characterize this era. Thebest we can do is to study the Greek Apologists, eventhough it seems clear that they represented only a narrowsegment of the church: an intellectual elite who were notchurch leaders and whose main concern was to makeChristianity seem acceptable in light of pagan thought. Infact, most of our information comes from one manJustineither directly from his writings or indirectlyfrom the people he influenced.

Let us examine what the Apologists taught. We willlook primarily at the writings of Justin but will note whereother writers differed from him.

God and the LogosIn the Age of the Greek Apologists, we find a progres-

sive shift away from the biblical doctrine of Oneness andthe substantially identical views of the Post-ApostolicAge. The vague possible indications of a preexistent Sonby Pseudo-Barnabas and Hermas become explicit in thisage.

Near the beginning of the age stood Aristides, whosedoctrine of God was for the most part biblical Oneness,and the Epistle to Diognetus, which still retained a pre-dominantly biblical view but began to separate God andthe Word. At the apex of the age, Justin and his discipleTatian clearly differentiated the Father and the Word astwo distinct beings. By the end of the era, Theophilus andAthenagoras had begun to express a vague, undefinedform of triadism (threefold nature of God), although theformer still used some Oneness expressions. Melito still

48


maintained a predominantly Oneness view of God, buteven some of his terms had become distorted, at least asthey have come down to us.1

Gods oneness. Like the writers of the Post-ApostolicAge, the Greek Apologists proclaimed that there is oneGod, not the many gods of the pagans. In contrast toGreek and Roman polytheism, they affirmed monotheism.

The doctrine of the Logos. Nevertheless, in this agewe find a compromise of the pure monotheism of theBible, particularly with the Apologists doctrine of theLogos. Logos is a Greek term translated as Word, and itrepresented a very popular Greek philosophical conceptduring this time. To the Greeks, the Logos was the reasonof God or the reason by which the universe was sustained.It was not a god in a personal sense; rather it referred tothe principles by which the universe operated.

Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostleJohn used this term in his Gospel: In the beginning wasthe Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod. . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongus (John 1:1, 14). As a monotheistic Jew, he used it insharp contrast to prevailing pagan philosophies, drawinginstead upon the Old Testament background of GodsWord as God Himself in action and in self-revelation. (SeePsalm 107:20; Isaiah 55:11.) There was no thought thatthe Word was a second person. (See Isaiah 44:24; 45:5-6;46:5, 9.) While John surely knew how his pagan contem-poraries used the term, under divine inspiration he used itin a unique way to point both Jews and Gentiles to JesusChrist as the one true God manifested in the flesh.

To summarize the doctrine of the Logos in John 1, inthe beginning God existed alone. At the same time, His

49


plan, His thought, His mind, His reason, His expressionwas with Him and was Him from eternity past. In the full-ness of time God manifested himself in flesh. His plan,reason, and thought was expressed or uttered. Godrevealed Himself. John thereby identified Jesus as the onetrue God of eternity past. He was not an afterthought, butthe eternally foreordained revelation of God Himself.

As an analogy, before someone can speak a word or amessage, the mind must first think it. First it is an unex-pressed word; then, at the right time, it is uttered orexpressed. Similarly Gods mind, reason, plan, or Wordwas unexpressed in times past. The Incarnation wasGods plan from the beginning, but it did not actually takeplace until the fullness of time.

The Greek Apologists, particularly Justin, Tatian,Theophilus, and Athenagoras, seized upon the Logos as ameans of making Christianity palatable to the pagans oftheir day. They said, in effect, The Logos you have beenspeculating about for hundreds of years is the basis of ourfaith. The Logos that controls the universe is actuallyJesus Christ. But to do that, instead of using the contextof the Old Testament and the Gospel of John, the Apolo-gists went to Greek philosophy to develop, define, andexplain their doctrine of the Logos.

To a great extent, the philosophy of the time wasbased upon the ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato.Plato taught that there are two worlds: the good, realworld of ideas or forms and the imperfect, physical worldof phenomena that reflects the world of ideas. The sum-mit of the world of ideas is the one supreme, perfect God,who is uninvolved with the evil world of matter and who isimpassibleincapable of emotional feeling and suffering.

50


The world of ideas serves as an intermediary betweenGod and the physical world.

For people who were educated with these ideas, it wasdifficult to believe the biblical teaching that Jesus Christis the supreme God Himself who came in flesh to sufferand die for the redemption of fallen humanity. The Gnos-tics dealt with the conflict between Greek philosophy andChristianity on this point by essentially following the for-mer. To them God remained impassible but related to theworld through a series of aeons, of which the Creator wasone and the Redeemer was another.

Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philospherwho lived around the time of Christ, likewise struggled toreconcile Greek philosophy and Judaism. He had amotive similar to that of the Apologists: he sought tomake Judaism seem reasonable and acceptable to pagans.His solution was to proclaim that God is one but also tospeak of the Logos as Gods intermediary in creating theworld.

His concepts were not always clear and were perhapseven contradictory in places. He referred to the Logos asthe son of God, first-begotten of God, and even a secondgod, but he seemed to use these phrases metaphorically,for he did not describe the Logos as having personalitydistinct from God. In essence, he tried to fuse Greek andJewish thought by employing the popular Greek conceptof the Logos, identifying it with Gods Word and wisdomas described in the Old Testament, and using this idea toexplain how the one true God of the Bible could relate tothe world without Greek concepts being violated.

Thus he said God created the world by His Logos,God speaks to the world by His Logos, and God interacts

51


with people by His Logos. He even found a way to includethe revered Greek philosophers in the picture, statingthat the one true God of the Bible who communicatedwith Moses also communicated with Socrates, Plato, andAristotle by the Logos. He always stopped short of mak-ing the Logos a second person, however.

The leading Apologists adopted Philos approach intheir own attempt to reconcile Greek thought with Chris-tianity, with a significant new development: they clearlydid make the Logos a second person. Such a notion wasabhorrent to the Jewish mind, steeped in the absolute,uncompromising monotheism of the Old Testament(Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:21-22). However,it seemed plausible to Gentiles of the day, including theApologists, whose background was polytheism (I Cor-inthians 8:5).

The Apologists explained that Jesus Christ is not thesupreme God, not the Father, but a second person, theLogos, who is the same as the Logos of Greek philosophy.In this way they sought to convince pagans that Christian-ity was legitimate as a philosophy and ultimately to showthem that it was actually the best and truest philosophy.

The Apologists doctrine of the Logos was a departurefrom the strict monotheism of the Bible and of the earlierPost-Apostolic Age. It marks the beginning of a personaldifferentiation in the Godhead among Christian writers.We find no hint of this Logos doctrine in the earlier writ-ings of the Post-Apostolic writers, although it bears someresemblance to the ideas of the Gnostics.

The Apologists equated the Logos with the Son. Inother words, the Son is a second person in the Godhead,although they preferred to use the term Logos. Here we

52


find for the first time the doctrine of the preexistent Sonexpressed clearly and definitely.

In the New Testament, however, Son refers to theIncarnation. Jesus Christ is the eternal God, and His Spir-it is the Spirit of God from eternity past, but Jesus wasnot the Son until He came in flesh in the Incarnation. (SeeLuke 1:35; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) God wasrevealed in the Son; God came in flesh as the Son (II Cor-inthians 5:19; I Timothy 3:16).

To put it another way, the Word of God, or the Logos,was revealed in the Son. Although Jesus is both Logosand Son, in scriptural terminology there is not an exactequation of the terms. The Logos is the eternal God Him-self, the eternal Spirit, the eternal divine mind (John 1:1),but the Son is specifically God coming in the flesh. TheSon of God is the authentic human being who was born ofthe virgin Mary, lived, died for our sins, and rose again.

The Apologists belief in two persons is not the sameas the modern doctrine of the trinity. In modern trinitari-anism, the divine persons are coequal, but the Apologiststaught that the second person is subordinate to the firstperson (subordinationism).

For example, Justin said the Logos is another Godand Lord subject to the maker of all things. . . . He . . . isdistinct from Him who made all thingsnumerically, Imean. Following the Greek concept of God, Justin toldTrypho, a Jew, that it was not the Father but the Logoswho spoke and appeared to people in the Old Testament:You must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himselfcame down or went up from any place. For the ineffableFather and Lord of all . . . remains in His own place,wherever that is.2

53


In the beginning, said the Apologists, God existedalone, but in order to create the world He first caused HisWord to come out of Him. Originally, His Word was inher-ent in Him in an impersonal form, but He brought forthHis Word as a second person. This event they identifiedas the begetting of the Logos or Son.

Once again the Apologists deviated from the scriptur-al use of terminology. In the New Testament the termbegotten Son refers to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,and Hebrews 1:5-6 specifically relates this concept to theIncarnation. According to Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke1:35, Jesus was not conceived by an earthly father, butthe Spirit of God moved upon the womb of the virginMary. Therefore Jesus was literally begotten as a baby atthat time and so was called the Son of God. The begettingrefers to the Incarnation, not the eternal nature of JesusChrist. The Apologists changed that understanding, how-ever, by placing the begetting at a point in time before thecreation of the world.

In sum, the Apologists interpreted John 1:1 much asOneness Pentecostals do today. In the beginning the Wordwas God Himself, Gods mind, Gods reason inherentwithin Him. They deviated from Scripture by saying thatbefore creation the Word came out of God as a secondperson begotten by God.

This belief contains another contrast to modern trini-tarianism, which teaches that the divine persons arecoeternal and that the term begotten refers to an eter-nal, ongoing process and relationship between the Fatherand the Son. Obviously, the Apologists did not think theirsecond person was coeternal with the Father. The Wordwas created or begotten by the Father at a point in time,

54


and He retains an inferiority or subordination in rank.The Holy Spirit. The Apologists did not explicitly dis-

tinguish a third person. They mentioned the Holy Spirit,but it is not clear how they viewed the Spirit. At timesthey seemed to identify the Spirit as simply the Spirit ofthe Fatherthe Father in emanation, not another person.At other times they seemed to identify the Spirit as theLogos, the second person. For instance, Justin said theLogos inspired the prophets of the Old Testament but alsosaid the Spirit inspired the prophets.3

A few passages seem to identify the Spirit as a thirdperson, some sort of created being inferior to the othertwo. In one passage Justin identified the prophetic Spir-it as a third being to worship, after God and the Son ofthe true God, while in another place he said that he wor-shiped God, the Son, the other good angels, and theprophetic Spirit.4 Athenagoras spoke freely of the Father,Son, and Spirit.

Threefold references. Theophilus was the firstknown writer to use the Greek word triados in relation toGod. It is the genitive form of trias, which means triadand was later used to describe the trinity. He simply men-tioned it in passing without trying to teach a doctrine:The three days [of creation] which were before the lumi-naries, are types of the Triados, of God, and His Word,and His wisdom.5 Elsewhere he identified Gods wisdomwith His Word and His Spirit.6 By contrast, trinitarians ofthe third and fourth centuries identified wisdom as thesecond person.

It is not clear whether Theophilus referred to threepersons, but it does not seem likely in context. He did notuse the term persons (plural) but used person (singular)

55


in a manner incompatible with later trinitarianism, sayingthat the Word, which is Gods power and wisdom,assumed the person of the Father, the person of God.7

Some people say this was the first Christian use of theword trinity (about 180), but most historians reserve thatdubious distinction for Tertullian in the early third century,because he clearly did intend three distinct persons.

In this connection, Melito, bishop of Sardis, is quiteintriguing. His writings do not display the same kind ofphilosophical thinking as the other Apologists. In fact, hemade strong statements about the oneness of God and thedeity of Jesus Christ. In two surviving fragments hedescribed Jesus as God put to death. Although twostatements of his seem to indicate a preexistent Son, itdoes not appear that Melito followed the concepts of theother Apologists but was much closer in thought to thePost-Apostolic writers. Unfortunately, we do not haveenough of his writings to make a definitive judgment.

Summary. In summary, the leading Greek Apologistsmade a personal distinction between the Father and theSon, or Logos. They taught a form of binitarianism (twopersons in the Godhead), the second person being subor-dinate to the first. There is some indication of a threefoldnature in God, or a third person, especially among twolater Apologists, but they did not develop this idea to thepoint that historians consider it to be trinitarianism as weknow it today.

SalvationThe saving work of Christ. Like the Post-Apostolic

writers, the Apologists taught that salvation comesthrough the blood Jesus shed for our sins. They stressed

56


our responsibility and freedom of will to respond to Godsoffer of salvation. There is no hint of the later doctrine ofpredestination.

Faith, repentance, and water baptism. They taughtthe importance of faith, repentance, and water baptism,proclaiming them to be necessary to salvation. For exam-ple, Justin wrote, Baptism . . . is alone able to purifythose who have repented, and this is the water of life.8

The baptismal formula. We find a shift in the bap-tismal formula corresponding to the shift in the doctrineof God. At the beginning of this age, the church still bap-tized in the name of Jesus Christ. For example, The Actsof Paul and Thecla, a second-century work probablywritten by an unknown Asiatic presbyter, recounts a bap-tism using the words in the name of Jesus Christ, appar-ently echoing contemporary practice. The Shepherd ofHermas was quite popular during this time, with somepeople even treating it as Scripture, and as we havealready seen, it advocates baptism in the name of theLord.

Around 150, however, Justin recited a threefold bap-tismal formula: in the name of God, the Father and Lordof the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and ofthe Holy Spirit.9 Significantly, it was not the later trinitar-ian formulain the name of the Father, and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghostbut it specifically included thename of Jesus. By contrast, at the Eucharist, he said thepresiding minister gave praise and glory to the Father ofthe universe, through the name of the Son and of the HolyGhost.10 Apparently, Justin retained the actual name ofJesus in baptism out of deference to the older formulaand also because he believed strongly in the power of the

57


name of Jesus.11

It seems that he wanted to get away from the exclu-sive emphasis on Jesus because, as we have seen, he didnot believe Jesus Christ is the supreme God. Since heviewed the Father alone as the supreme God, no doubt hethought it most important to invoke the Father. He proba-bly included the Holy Spirit also because the only verse ofScripture that could possibly support the invocation ofthe Father is Matthew 28:19, and it also refers to the Spir-it. He did not replace the name of Jesus with the title ofSon, however, perhaps so that his innovation would notbe too controversial.

Historians usually cite Justin as the first person tomention a trinitarian formula. As chapter 2 notes, the solecopy of the Didache that we have, dated 1056, mentionsboth the trinitarian formula and the Jesus Name formula,but the former is probably not original, and historians gen-erally consider Justin to be the oldest reference instead.12

Justins formula does not offer much support to mod-ern trinitarians, however. Not only is his formula differentfrom theirs, still retaining the older invocation of thename of Jesus, but it was motivated by what trinitariansview as a heretical doctrine of God: subordination of thesecond person to the first.

The manifestation of the Holy Spirit. In every age,Christians have acknowledged the work of the Holy Spiritas part of salvation, but the controversial question iswhether they should expect miraculous signs and mani-festations of the Spirit. In this age, believers still expectedthe miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit andacknowledged the spiritual gifts.

Justin wrote, For the prophetical gifts remain with

58


us, even to the present time. . . . Now it is possible to seeamongst us men and women who possess the gifts of theSpirit of God.13 Celsus, a Greek philosopher of this erawho wrote against Christianity, observed that Christiansgave prophecies and spoke in tongues, and Origen, athird-century writer who preserved his comment, madeno attempt to contradict this observation but acceptedthe gifts for his day.14

Other TeachingsThe Lords Supper. The Apologists emphasized

Christs presence in the Lords Supper. A few statementssound as if they could be advancing the later RomanCatholic doctrine that Christs historical blood and bodyare physically present in the Eucharist. Since there wasno clear definition, discussion, or controversy on thispoint, however, we cannot be certain.

The last things. These writings continue the earlierteaching of the second coming of Christ. We also find inthem the first discussion of the Millennium, outside theBook of Revelation itself. The Apologists apparentlybelieved in a literal thousand-year reign of Christ uponearth after His return (premillennialism).

Holiness of life. Since most of these writings did notaddress Christians, they did not have much to say abouthow Christians should live. Nevertheless, the authorsembraced and defended a holy lifestyle. They said Chris-tians should avoid worldly pleasures and practice godlinessin daily life. For instance, Tatian and Theophilus warnedagainst attending dramas because of their lewd content, andTatian objected to the wearing of ornaments. Athenagoraswrote against abortion and remarriage after divorce.

59


ConclusionThe most important point about the Apologists is that

they presented Christianity as a philosophy. Thisapproach proved to be dangerous because it introducedpagan terms and ways of thought to the discussion ofChristian doctrine, leading people to formulate and evalu-ate theology more by rationalism and Greek philosophythan by Scripture itself. Moreover, this approach tendedto reduce Christianity to a moralism rather than a revela-tion from God and a relationship with Him.

Instead of presenting Christianity as the revealedWord and will of God, the Apologists tried to show that itwas a good philosophy and a good moral way of lifeinfact, the best way. Even though this appeal was true as faras it went, and perhaps was helpful in gaining a hearingfrom some pagans, it fell short of presenting the essenceof Christianity, and it sowed troublesome seeds for thefuture.

Pagans who were intellectually persuaded by thisargument did not receive an adequate experience andunderstanding of Christian realities, and Christians whoadopted this way of thought limited their own experienceand understanding. By accommodating to the languageand thought of their opponents, the Greek Apologistsactually began to inject pagan concepts into the discus-sion of Christianity. This method was dangerous, and aswe shall see, it had disastrous consequences for Christiandoctrine.

60


The next period of time that we will discuss coversseveral generations, from approximately A.D. 170 to 325.We use 325 as the end date because it is the date of theCouncil of Nicea.

This council marked a significant change in manyways. It was the first ecumenical council in postbiblicaltimes, meaning that delegates came from all across Chris-tendom. (See chapter 8.) The Nicene Council helpedbring about a fusion between church and state, and forseveral centuries afterward major doctrinal decisionswere worked out in various councils.

We will call the period from 170 to 325 the OldCatholic Age. It is old in distinction to the EcumenicalCatholic Age, which began with the Council of Nicea and

61

5The Old Catholic Age

A.D. 170-325

continued with subsequent councils. It is catholic, notnecessarily in reference to the Roman Catholic Church oftoday, but in the original sense of being universal,because at this time there were no major divisions inChristendom. Various groups classified as heretical hadsplit off from the church, but the mainstream body wasnot formally divided into different denominations orbranches. All th

Documents

A History of Christian Doctrine