book review bercot

7/25/2019 Book Review Bercot

1/231

Will The Real Heretics PleaseStand Up

AUTHOR: David W. Bercot

PUBLISHER: Scroll P!lishin" #o.$ T%ler$ Te&as

A POLE'I#: B%Rev. Earl #ripe

1


2/231

PRE(A#E

In 1965 I was ordained to the Christian Ministry by the Elders of the TableMountain Chapel. In that year I began a television series on Channel 19 inModesto, California, titled God's Point of View. The purpose of that title wasnot to all attention to !yself or to be irreverent, but rather to all !en ba"to the #ible, fro! whih they were rapidly departing in the e$istential,situation%ethis religion of &eo%Evangelialis!, Evangelis! E$plosion,'ositive Thin"ing and Charis!ati (u!anis!, all of whih are e$periential in

nature. In the last )fty years, we have seen the end result of Enlighten!entTheology. Men of the !odern Churh, even that whih is called fundamental,are deter!ining dotrine and pratial e$pression by situations and trendsof the ti!es instead of the inerrant *ord of +od, whih is unhanging andunhangeable. It was !y purpose as well as the purpose of the Elders whoguided !e- to do !y part to bring !en ba" to the #ible as the o!!ondeno!inator in the Christian Churh.

lso in 1965 I began a radio !inistry alled the Table Mountain ChapelHour. #oth of these endeavors are e$pository teahing series where thewhole #ible, in se/uene, is taught by way of the publi !edia. In 190 Idropped the television sessions, but I have ontinued with the radio wor" in

both of these foru!s. In addition to that, I have been invited on a do2enoasions to be a guest spea"er on the well "nown radio progra!Conference Echoes whih reahes into virtually every ountry in the world.#oth of !y own radio series have been broadast inter!ittently at ti!es- infria, the #ritish Isles, the Islands of the 'ai) and on oasions inustralia, &ew 3ealand and Central and &orthern Europe.

These things not only /ualify !e, but onstrain !e to o4er insights intonew, ontroversial or troubling dotrines that surfae fro! ti!e to ti!e,partiularly if their )rst appearane is good and attrats !any faithfulpeople to the!. That alone is not to say that they are bad. #ut the prophetsof the Churh are to try the dotrines to see if they are of +od.

I had originally thought to do a rather si!ple boo" review on #erot, but itsoon beo!e evident that suh an abbreviated opinion was not advisable perhaps not even possible in this instane. #erot, while not writing in depthor with the involved insights of a sholar, has nonetheless raised !ost of theissues onfronting orthodo$ Christianity. To give an ade/uate response


3/231

re/uires an ade/uate disussion of those issues. This, of ourse, need not bee$haustive, but it does need to be thorough.

I have had in/uiries onerning the boo" in /uestion and the dotrine ofits author. I have been spei)ally as"ed or enouraged to !a"e a boo"review for several parties who are onfused andor onerned about the

boo" or interested in what I thin". This is not new to !e. In the past I have!ade boo" reviews on so!e of the dog!ati wor"s of 7arl #arth, Life in theSonby 8han", Law and Gospel, Contrast or Continuumby uller, the laterboo"s of ranis 8hae4er, and T.:. series The Power of Mth by ;osephCa!pbell as forwarded and endorsed by #ill Moyers whih is not o!pleteas yet-. I have reently o!pleted a boo"%length paper on the *estott and(ort +ree" Te$t, in spei), and lower ritiis!, in general. I a! in theproess of doing reviews on !irthri"htby &eedha! and Classic Christianitby +eorge. In so!e of these ases, as with #arth, #er"eour, 8hae4er and it isa ritial response to an idea or a syste! of ideas that is ontrary to those ofthe one o4ering the pole!i. It is designed to defend one syste! of beliefsby !eans of disrediting a person or a theology whih has those beliefsunder atta". I do not personally "now ?avid #erot. There is no personality

onsideration here. My e4orts relate solely to his boo" and the things thathe has alleged in it.

If #erot=s e4orts are out of an honest heart, he will not ob@et to thisenthusiasti and penetrating ritiis! of his views whih really a!ount to apole!i of his own against histori Christian Arthodo$y whih #erot lai!sto be a part of but is not-. *hat is fair for hi!, is fair for others. If he ob@ets,he is harateri2ing hi!self. Ane of the things that all of those who pratie!aledient have in o!!on is the readiness to raise a bitter o!plaintwhen elders and Churh leaders are ritial of their views. This is supposedto be unloving, unharitable, fatious, divisive and self%righteous. #ut this isonly a ploy to try to insulate the!selves fro! e$posure and to pre@udie the

!inds of readers against those e$posures. Every one of the! is hi!selfengaged fully in onde!ning and ritii2ing those who do not agree withhi!. or the !ost part they ta"e on the legendary leaders of the Churhbeause these are invariably the ones who are standing in the way of thosewho spread false dotrines. #ut the #ible is as lear on this sub@et as on any

B


4/231

other. The leaders of the Churh !ust try the spirits and the dotrines to seeif they are of +od and to stop the !ouths of those who go fro! house tohouse subverting the !inds of the si!ple, the unlearned, the uns"illful, thedefenseless and the unsuspeting. *e are to !ar" those who ausedivisions and o4enses ontrary to the dotrine and avoid the!. *e are to

rebu"e, sharply, those who are not sound in dotrine. Christ, who is the headof the Churh, gave so!e to be apostles, prophets, preahers, teahers,evangelists, and so on, so that we !ight grow up in the faith, sound indotrine, not tossed and driven by every theologial whi! and not givingheed to seduing spirits that would drag !en away fro! the path of truthand light. There are ertain !en who have rept into the Churh, unawares,ordained of old to the very onde!nation of disrediting the grae of +od,bringing ba" the iru!ision the law ovenant ondition of salvation bythe dead wor"s of fallen !an rather than by the )nished wor" of Christ-, andwho would trouble the brotherhood. These are those who would deeive, if itwere possible, the very elet. They have transfor!ed the!selves into angels

of light and, li"e 8atan, their !aster, they /uote the *ord of +od. #ut it is anedited version that is rearranged to suit the!selves and their falseteahings. or this ause, the o" of +od is o!!anded to listen to theirleaders, who have the rule over the!, who have their good at heart, andwho !ust give an aount to +od. These !en have that gift of the (oly+host whih is the disern!ent of false spirits or the good spirits, as thease !ay be- and who an e$pose the laws and the fangs. If the Elders ofthe Churh underta"e suh an evaluation, there is always a danger of beingwrong, and that is a serious thing. #ut not to do so is to guarantee oneselfthat he will be wrong, and that is worse.

d!ittedly I have no role of leadership a!ong the Dnabaptist people.

#eause of this, one !ight /uestion why I have an interest in their well%being. It is a fair /uestion and I will try to e$plain that.

Eight generations ago, ;aob +reib !y ever%so%great grandfather on !ydad=s side, a!e over fro! !!onberg, +er!any, in the 1Fth entury. It iso!!only believed that he was a preaher in the #rethren !ove!ent,though the details are a bit vague. (is son, ;ohn +ripe, his na!e washanged fro! +reib to +ripe by the #ritish and was still later hanged toCripe- was a +er!an #aptist !inister of two hurhes in 'ennsylvania. (isson, ;ohn Edward, was a deaon, but ;oseph Cripe, his grandson, 1F1%1F9- was an ative preaher and evangelist in Indiana and Illinois and is

still listed in histories as one of several prinipal founders of the Churh inthe region. (e was a iruit%riding preaher, who pastored two hurhes. Anewas in Indiana and the other was in Aeola, Missouri. (is son, ?aniel, wasalso a preaher%on%horseba" who served two hurhes. (is son, ;osephCripe, evangeli2ed the whole state of Indiana, !uh of it Indian territory. (ewor"ed a!ong Indians, settlers and traders. They were so far out in the

G


5/231

frontier that when his wife died after his own death-, she was not given aChristian burial for two years beause it was that long before anotherChristian !inister o!e to the area. ;oseph=s daughter, Eli2abeth Cripe!arried ;aob Cripe. Their son, ;ohn Edward Cripe, !arried CharlotteH!baugh, whose father, E!annuel H!baugh, was a +er!an #aptist

preaher. My step%grandfather, Awen C. Cripe, was a preaher and an elderin both the +er!an #aptist and the Ald #rethren hurhes. or !any yearshe edited an inner%hurh publiation alled The Testimon of Truth, whih Ia! sure !any of you re!e!ber.

My !other=s side of the fa!ily desended fro! the Moravian #rethrenand the (utterites. My anestor of si$ generations ago, 'eter #rillhardt, wasa preaher with the #rethren. My grandfather=s great grandfather, 'eter*olf, was a #rethren preaher, as was his grandson, ;ohn *olf. My !other=sgrandfather on her !other=s side, ;ohn it2 of :irginia, was a +er!an #aptist!inister. My grandfather, ;ohn . *olf, was an elder and a preaher in boththe +er!an #aptist and the Ald #rethren hurhes. I a! not i!plying that

!y heritage is as notable in that regard as so!e of the great fa!ily na!esli"e the Millers, u!bles, Josts, +ishes, loras, +arbors,


6/231

the faith and pratie of the Churh. The pratie of the Eastern !ystis andthe o!an Catholi Churh to plae traditional pratie, Churh teahingand the teahings of non%biblial writings in the !i$ as to the ChurhKsbeliefs and praties is a long a"nowledged, well de)ned and whollyonde!ned heresy by Arthodo$ Christianity. An this point there an be

absolutely no /uestion, doubt or ao!!odation. More about this later.-The burden of proof and of truth always rests, in the )nal analysis, with theindividual. The !ind that is losed to suh a debate, when it has o!e intoyour ote, is in !uh !ore danger of being !isled than the one that is opento it with aution but resolve.

I do not !ean by this that Christians should be open to every idea thato!es along. This is ertainly not the ase. #ut within the fra!ewor" ofthose things whih propose to identify orthodo$ and histori dotrines of theChurh to !a"e /uotations fro! the anients, and partiularly in asituation where those /uotations and onlusions di4er widely as to whatthey say and !ean and what the foundations of our faith really are there

is not only a per!ission but a !andate to loo" arefully, with as fewpreoneptions as possible, at both sides of the dialogue for the purpose of!a"ing an aurate and infor!ed deision.

If this review is of help to you, I a! glad. If not, you will at least havegotten a point of view to onsider. This "ind of divergene is bibliallya"nowledged. Dor there !ust be also heresies a!ong you, said 8t. 'aul tothe philosopher%plagued Christians in the +ree" Churh of Corinth, Dthatthey whih are approved !ay be !ade !anifest a!ong you I Cor. 11L19-.

6


7/231

WILL THE REAL HERETI#S PLEASE STA)D UP

#hapter One

A Revie*

This title was apparently ta"en fro! the punh line of a television /ui2progra! fro! the N5Os alled To Tell The Truth#The !oderator or whateverhis proper title- was #ud Collier. It has been long ago and I do not re!e!berthe na!es of the panelists. Eah wee" there were three !ystery guests who

would all pretend to be a ertain person, engaged in a ertain voationabout whih he or she was /uestioned by the panel, but only one of the!was genuine. The other two were pretenders. t the onlusion of the/uestioning, eah of the panelists would guess whih of the three personswas the real one that they were eah lai!ing to be. fter the guesses were!ade, the !oderator would say, D*ill the real ;ohn ?oe- please stand up,and he would rise to his feet. s I read this boo", I thought that this was!aybe a strange soure fro! whih to draw a title for a boo" that proposesto e$a!ine the sinerity and genuineness of the anient Churh, in ontrastto the theatrial hurh of today. #ut on the other hand it is about on a parwith the "inds of athy, trendy, borrowed%fro!%the%world tatis of the

!odern religious sene. This ould be a petty and insigni)ant thing, or itould set the intelletual, !oral and spiritual tone for this boo" as you, thepanelist, tries to deide who the real ulprit is in this prodution.

I "now very little about ?avid #erot other than that he is a title attorneyand professes to have been raised as a ;ehovah=s *itness. t so!e point he

0


8/231

left that group, he says, and by his own delaration, @oined fores with afunda!ental, evangelial organi2ation. It is disappointing to !e that he doesnot identify that deno!ination, town, hurh or pastor. I have heard storiesof those who went to Tyler, Te$as, in the hope of !eeting Mr. #erot, and hisongregation where he fellowships and getting !ore a/uainted with his

pastor and his dotrine. The people involved felt that they were treated veryoldly> they never got to !eet #erot and they left having found outnothing. If true, this is obviously a onern we !ust allow that it !ay not betrue, though the report that I had see!ed genuine enough-.

fter having read his boo" rather arefully for the fourth ti!e, I would li"eaording to the sriptures, I believe- to tal" to that pastor about this !anand his past assoiation with evangelialis!. This is not beause of apersonal interest in #erot, but beause of the things that he says. (e tellsof having studied evangelial dotrines and having beo!e involved inteahing the! to others. In spite of a desription that appears to identify arather ative spiritual involve!ent, he says that he was waiting for

so!ething to happen in his life that never happened. (e says that he tal"edto others and they were waiting for so!ething to happen that neverhappened either. ighteousness in their lives was supposed to o!e to the!auto!atially, !agially and with no e4ort on their own part. 8till he tal"s ofagoni2ing and earnest prayer. It is unfortunate in !y view that #erotonsiders studying the #ible, witnessing, teahing, agoni2ing, earnest prayerand being genuinely onerned about the lives and spiritual well%being ofothers to be absolutel nothin". It would see! that this was not thepersuasion of the postles when they told the people to hoose out deaonsto ad!inister to the needs of the widows and the other needy. It was not agood thing that they should ta"e the ti!e to wait on tables, but they should

rather spend their ti!e in prayer and the study of the *ord of +od. They didnot onsider prayer, study of the *ord of +od, and e$horting ando!!uning a!ong the!selves to be a situation where Dnothing washappening in ter!s of the wor"s of righteousness. Everyone has his ownview of what Dgood wor"s are, I guess, but is he per!itted to denoune asnothing that whih the #ible holds to be of the highest virtue and ut!ostvalue prayer and the study of the *ord of +odP Maybe #erot was on theright tra" and he didn=t "now it. Maybe so!eone who did not have his well%being at heart got his ear and onvined hi! otherwise. *ell, we do not"now the e$at situation so we annot be !ore de)nitive. #ut what we do"now is that there is no way in whih we an understand why 2eal, @oy,

enthusias!, prayer, study of the *ord of +od and witnessing to others anbe loo"ed at as Dnothing happening. Maybe a !ore pertinent /uestion is,D*hat was #erot e$peting to happenP Ar perhaps an even !orepenetrating /uestion is, D?id this whole situation ever ta"e plae, or is#erot onstruting the )rst of an ar!y of straw !enP

F


9/231

part fro! that issue, there is so!ething that troubles !e about #erot=slai!ed e$periene with !ainline, funda!ental evangelialis!. I was raised,until I was twenty%eight years old, in the #rethren Churh and dotrine. HntilI was thirteen, it was the dotrine of the Ald #rethren at 8alida, California,where both !y !other=s father, ;ohn *olf, and !y father=s step%father, A. C.

Cripe, were preahers. ro! fourteen until twenty%eight, I was brought up inthe +rae #rethren environ!ent. This group divided fro! the shland#rethren, whih in turn had divided fro! the Churh of the #rethren. The+rae #rethren are 8e!i%Calvinisti #rethren. They believe in salvation bygrae, in eletion, in sovereignty, in predestination and in seurity, but theyalso believe in the free will of !an Dwhosoever will !ay o!e-, that Christdied for everyone, true repentane !ust be followed by at least so!e at ofobediene and that baptis! is the )rst at of obediene. They areevangelial, oriented toward !issions and dispensational. 8ine that ti!e Ihave pastored in a o!!unity #ible Churh> I have been a guest spea"erand leturer in nu!erous hurhes, onferenes and foru!s> have been in

Christian Churhes of all "inds> and have sat and tal"ed by the hours witheveryone fro! o!an, +ree", Eastern and ussian Catholis,


10/231

+od as a gift of graeP #ut they never /uestioned the i!perative of goodwor"s or !an=s partiipation in the! in ter!s of deision and ation.Certainly 8t. ugustine believed in the free will and the need for good wor"s.Contrary to the uninfor!ed beliefs of !any, 8t. ugustine believed that youould loose your salvation if you did not do good wor"s. In this I do not

agree with 8t. ugustine, but I ite it to show that even the !an who wasaused of leading the !ove!ent that good wor"s had no plae in thedotrine of salvation-, did not in fact believe that. This we shall show inanother hapter fro! ugustine=s own words, boo"s and teahings.- E$enthe %ntinomians, who believed that every referene to law ando!!and!ents was a onta!inant to grae these were onsidered to behereti by 8t. 'aul, 8t. ugustine and the Arthodo$ Churh- believed that+od=s hildren had the responsibility to do good wor"s and to initiate the!through hu!an responsibility. (ow these good wor"s were de)ned,identi)ed and arried out, was where they went wrong, but they belie$ed inthe need for them@ust the sa!e.

It is entirely possible for so!eone to piee!eal the teahings and writingsof any !an to !a"e the! say @ust about anything. This is done all the ti!e.8atan !isrepresented the words of +od (i!self to !a"e it appear that +odwanted (is 8on to throw (i!self o4 the te!ple. #ut this treahery,!otivated by a hidden agenda, was not true. &either +od nor the 8riptureshad said what 8atan D/uoted the! as having said. I have never heard thethings alleged or taught that #erot auses evangelials of in his boo". I donot believe that any evangelial group does believe or teah li"e that. I defyany !an to bring !e any teahing or writing of any Christian leader notso!eone un"nown who lai!s to be a Christian, but so!eone whoseposition in the Churh an be dou!ented- who has legiti!ately and in

onte$t saidL D+od does not e$pet his hildren to do anything in theirChristian lives in ter!s of !a"ing an e4ort. ll (e wants the! to do is @ustsit and pray and hope and wait e$petantly. +od will !iraulously establishobediene in their lives through viarious obediene. Even


11/231

times in !y life, though I have not "ept ount. I have heard Mor!ons,;ehovah=s *itnesses and !e!bers of other non%Christian religious groupstellin" me that evangelial Christianity does not believe in free will or hu!anresponsibility or doing the wor"s of +od. Af ourse that is not true. *hat istrue is that we Christians do not at all agree on what the will of +od is, or

how it is done. There is an interesting thing in that regard that ours in tal"ing to;ehovah=s *itnesses, in partiular, and religious hu!anists, in general. Theylai! to believe in ;esus Christ and salvation by grae and faith. #ut in theirdisussions of their dotrines and in their writings while they will throw in/uotations fro! others and asual referenes now and then to give a falsei!pression to "eep your ear they ne$ermention Christ the incarnate God,the new birth, the indwellin" Hol Ghost or the new creation of the Second%dam. This is beause they do not believe that in%dam all die and in Christall are made ali$e I Cor. 15L1,-. They do not believe that all sinned inda!, and so death passed upon all !en beause all have sinned the

aeorist tenseL Dall did sin, at so!e ti!e in the past in da! o!. 5L1%1G-. They do not believe that there is D. . .none that doeth good, no notone. . . o!. BL1O%1-. They do not believe that D. . . by the deeds of thelaw shall not esh be @usti)ed. . . o!. BLO-. They do not believe that D. .. to hi! that wor"eth, the reward is not re"oned of grae but of debt, but tohi! that wor"eth not but believeth on hi! that @usti)eth the ungodly, hisfaith is ounted to hi! for righteousness o!. GLG,5-. They do not believethat D. . . (e saved us and alled us with an holy alling, not aording to ourwor"s, but aording to his own purpose and grae whih was given in Christ;esus before the world began II Ti!. 1L9,1O-. They do not believe that ;esusChrist, D. . .by (i!self, purged our sins. . . (eb. 1LB- They do not believe

the ather when (e said to the 8on, Dthou art the +od Ho Theos-, thythrone is forever (eb. 1LF-. They do not believe in the (oly Trinity, theather, 8on and (oly +host, and that eah of these is fully +od and fullye/ual to the other. 8o!eti!es when they spea" of doing the will of +od,they spea" of grae and of faith, but the do not mean what ou and meanby that. They have an Ald Testa!ent, religiously hu!anisti dotrine ofsalvation by the good wor"s of basially good !an with enough help thrownin by +od to push us over the hill. They o!it the Cross e$ept as ane$a!ple of su4ering for the will of +od-, the person and the wor" of Christand the (oly +host fro! their e$planations. +o ba" and read arefully theboo" or listen arefully to the tape, and see if you an reogni2e this very

thing.(ow does this relate to #erot and his boo", or does itP That is what weare going to atte!pt to disover.

11


12/231

ChapterTwo WHAT BER#OT BELIE+ES

;esus was one tal"ing to a noble, honorable, !oral, devotedly religiousleader in ;erusale!. The !an wanted to engage ;esus in a religiousdisussion. In fat, he was very avid and forward about it. #ut ;esus stoppedhi! at the end of his opening state!ent. (e told hi! that there was nopoint in suh a disussion between the!. *hile ;esus would be tal"ing aboutthe wor"s of faith, grae and the 7ingdo! of +od, this religious !an wouldthin" that ;esus was verifying his own errant and !isguided notions that hehad it within hi!self to obey +od and do (is will by !erit of his own !oraland religious harater. ;esus told &iode!us that until he was born again,

by the (oly +host, into that new real! and with a new nature, he ould notgrasp anything about the 7ingdo! of +od. There an be no !eaningfuldisussion about good wor"s unless you are tal"ing to a !an who hasrepented and been born again.

1


13/231

In disussing #erot=s boo", the sa!e prinipal applies. #erot has raised!any /uestions about righteous living and the o!!and!ents of +od.There are legiti!ate disussions that ould ta"e plae between Christianpeople about these issues, but they are not the issue here. Hntil wedeter!ine where we are with respet to truth, salvation, rede!ption, the

new nature, the (oly +host, the #ible and the legiti!ate dotrines of theorthodo$ Churh, there is no !ore point in disussing these issues with#erot than there was with ;esus disussing the! with &iode!us. nd so inthe review of this boo", I will fous on several things whih to !e are theonly real issues raised here. #erot=s onept of what early Christianity wasand who its leaders were> his dotrine of salvation> his understanding ofgood wor"s> his understanding of tri%partite !an #ody, 8oul and 8pirit- andthe threefold salvation that Christ has provided ;usti)ation, 8anti)ationand +lori)ation-> his dotrine onerning the #ible> his view of what theearly Churh taught> his dotrine of the oral traditions of the early Churhand their plae of i!portane in orthodo$ dotrine verses the written

instrutions of the #ible> #erot=s appeal to the witness of the le$andriantheologians> his defense of the dotrines of 'elagius> his onde!nation ofthe dotrines of ugustine and the onsisteny of #erot=s views both withrespet to his theology and his willingness andor ability to ta"e his ownounsel. In these last two, #erot hi!self has said that if a !an tal"s a lotbut does not do aording to his lai!s, he does not deserve to be ta"enseriously. *e shall onsider that riterion in !a"ing our evaluation andarriving at a onlusion.

*hile we will feel the need and the liberty of !a"ing o!!entary re!ar"sfro! ti!e to ti!e, the purpose of this hapter shall be to identify the viewsof #erot. In the ne$t hapter, we will evaluate and o4er a pole!i, at least

in part.

Who Were The Earl% #hristians,#erot starts out at least by stating that the DEarly Christians are those

D. . .Christians who lived between 9O and 199 .?. This is a bit onfusing, forhe i!!ediately proeeds to list !en, inluded a!ong who! are D. . .Irenaeus who lived past OO .?..., Cle!ent of le$andria who lived toabout O .?., Arigen who lived to 5G .?., Tertullian who lived to GO.?. by !ost aounts so!e say O .?.-, Cyprian who live until 5F .?.and


14/231

#y the ter! Dearly Christianity, I a! referring to beliefs and pratiesof the world%wide o!!unity of early Christians who !aintainedbonds of fellowship and o!!union with eah other. I=! not referringto the beliefs or praties of anyone labeled as a hereti by thathurh. 8o I=! not desribing the entire )eld of wheat and weeds

!i$ed together, but only the wheat. Matt. 1BLG%BO- lthough thisboo" pri!arily fouses on the Christians who lived between 9O and199, the o!!on beliefs and praties of these early Christians weregenerally !aintained by Christians living in the ne$t entury. Most ofthe !a@or hanges in Christian beliefs did not our until after B1B,when Constantine legali2ed Christianity. or that reason, thedisussion that follows will also inlude /uotations fro! writers wholived between OO and B1B, as long as their teahings agree withthose who lived in the period i!!ediately after the apostles.1

Were These The #hrch (athers,#erot denies passionately that these were the early fathers, postoli

athers, nte%&iene athers, or fathers in any sense.

*hen I start tal"ing about the early Christian writers, people usuallyrespond by saying, DAh, you !ean the early hurh fathers. #ut thesemen were not church fathers( Most of the! were fairly ordinary, hard%wor"ing Christian elders with above%average eduation. They wouldhave been highly indignant at being alled Dhurh fathers. The onlyDhurh fathers they reogni2ed were the apostles. tually, the veryfat that these writers were not hurh fathers is what !a"es theirwritings so valuable.

Their Wor-s Were 'ore +ala!le Becase The% Were Not(athers.n essential part of #erot=s argu!ent hangs on the validity of his

state!ent that these were not fathers. If they were fathers, then hisargu!ent is fallaious, their writings are not as valuable as he had thoughtand the bases for his re!ar"s are !isguided.

tually, the very fat that these writers were not hurh fathers iswhat !a"es their writings so valuable.B

The Leaders o the Earl% #hrch Were )ot Theolo"ians.G

1

1 ?avid C. #ereot, )ill The *eal Heretics Please Stand +p, Tyler, Te$as,

8roll 'ublishing Co.,19F9- p. 1B bid#B bid#,p. 1G.G bid#

1G


15/231

It is /uite i!portant to #erot that he onvine his readers thatthe earlyChristians were not theologians. 'art of his strategy is to !ar" the plain,infor!ally eduated wor"er%preahers in ontrast to intelletuals and highlytrained hurh!en.

Apolo"etics$ Deenses A"ainst Heres% and Letters o Instrctions to#hrches Are )ot Theolo"ical Writin"s.5#erotsees that there are !any s"illed writings by !any !en on !any

issues that were faed, were debated and even so!eti!es solved by theearly Churh. #erot, in opposition to the tradition of sholarship, hooses tostate atly that these are not theologial writings.

The Earl% #hristian Leaders Were (airl% Ordinar%$ Hard Wor-in"Elders With A!ove Avera"e Edcation.6

#erot established his position )r!ly that !en li"e ;ustin, Irenaeus,Cle!ent of le$andria, Arigen and Ignatius were ordinary in their eduation

and intellet and that they were hard%wor"ing. #ased on his positiononerning eduation and theology we ta"e it that Dhard%wor"ing !eansthat they were far!er%preahers who did not hang around se!inaries andathedrals all day long, as opposed to hard%wor"ing in the sense of study,oratory and writing.

The Earl% #hristians All Believed And Ta"ht The Sa/e Thin".0To #erot, there si!ply wasn=t any variations in the beliefs and the

teahings of the Dearly Christians as to basi !atters. They all had onevoie on issues of faith and pratie.

)o 'en #ited Who Were #onsidered Heretics B% The Earl% #hrch.F

#erot is /uite ertain that the !en whose views he has used wereonsidered to be sound in dotrine by the early Churh. There were a fewheretis around, he says, but he has avoided using any of their views in hisassess!ent of early Churh history.

Ei"ht #hristian Writers.9#erot has eight !en on who! he says he reliesL 'olyarp, ;ustin,

Irenaeus, Cle!ent of le$andria, Arigen, Tertullian, Cyprian and


16/231

perhaps the best of the le$andrians in the nte%&iene era, but does a bitlater. It is also strange that he would use


17/231

Are (aith and Wor-s 'tall% E&clsive,1B(ere #erot argues that salvation is a !atter of faith and wor"s, uniting to

ao!plish !an=s salvation. gain this is not the orthodo$ argu!ent or theplae of wor"s in the salvation that Christ has provided. #erot never!entions the salvation that Christ has provided. In fat, #erot does not

believe that Christ provided !an with salvation. (e is the savior only in thesense of his e$a!ple. #erot is tal"ing about a situation where !an !usthave on)dene in +od in order to !a"e it along the road to wor"ing out hisown salvation.

3es$ Bt The Bi!le Sa%s. . .1G(ere #erot wishes to say that the early Christian Aral Tradition is how the

real words and !eanings of the #ible was preserved. If Arigen said a ertainthing, or if Cle!ent of le$andria said a ertain thing, then that is what the#ible says, and not what ;ero!e, thanasius and ugustine put together inthe anon. In other words, #erot will not allow the #ible to onde!n what

he says the early Christians believed. The point of this hiding title isL don=ttell !e what the #ible says, listen to what I a! telling you that the earlyChristians said. They "now, better than the 7ing ;a!es, what the #ible reallysaid.

#an A Person Be Saved And Lost,15#erot believes that a person an be saved and lost. This is al!ost a

superuous point sine no one, in #erot=s for!ula, is saved until the end ofti!e. gain this is not the argu!ent of r!inius who believed that one youwere born again and +od had given you salvation, it was probationary and!ust be !aintained by good wor"s. #erot is tal"ing about getting

sidetra"ed and never really getting here. #ut where we are going and howwe are getting there is aesopian language with #erot, as we shall see.

0rops That Preached Salvation B% 0race Alone.16#erot lai!s not to believe that it was Christians at all who a!e up with

the dotrine of salvation by grae alone. It was, in fat, the +nostis whoinvented this dotrine. I say Dlai!s to believe, beause it is hard to aeptthat anyone ould seriously believe that, or that #erot is onsistent oronvining in his argu!ent.

Predestination.10

1Bbid#,p. 6F.1Gbid#,p. 69.15bid#,p. 0.16bid#,p. 0B.10bid#,p. 05.

10


18/231

#erot believes that +od predestines no one, that neither the #ible, thepostles nor the early Churh believed it and that it was a dotrine that,while ugustine toyed with it in the Gth entury, really a!e fro!


19/231

doing good see" glory and i!!ortality, he will give eternal life. #ut forthose who are ontentious and who re@et the truth and follow evil,there will be anger, wrath and tribulation.= Qo!. LG%FR. #ut ertainstate!ents in the Ald and &ew Testa!ents !ight lead to the oppositeonlusionL That it does not depend on us to "eep the o!!and!ents

and be saved. Ar to transgress the! and to be lost. 8o let=s e$a!inethe! one by one. The state!ents onerning 'haraoh have troubled!any. +od delared several ti!es, =I will harden 'haraoh=s heart.=QE$od. GL1R Af ourse, if 'haraoh was hardened by +od and sinned asa result of being hardened, he was not the ause of his own sin. 8o hedid not possess free will. long with this passage, let=s also loo" at thepassage in 'aulL =#ut who are you, A !an, to tal" ba" to +odP 8hallthe thing for!ed say to (i! who for!ed it, =*hy have you !ade !eli"e thisP= ?oes the potter not have power over the layfro! thesa!e lu!p to !a"e one vessel unto honor, and another untodishonorP= Qo!. 9LO,1R

8ine we onsider +od to be both good and @ust, let=s see how thegood and @ust +od ould harden the heart of 'haraoh. 'erhaps by anillustration used by the apostle in the Epistle to the (ebrews, we anshow that, by the sa!e operation, +od an show !ery to one !anwhile he hardens another, although not intending to harden. =Theground,= he says, =drin"s in the rain that falls upon it and produesrops for the far!er, being blessed by +od. #ut the ground thatprodues thorns and briers is worthless, and is in danger of beingursed. Its end is to be burned.= Q(eb. 6L0,FR

It !ay see! strange for (i! who produes rain to say, =I produedboth the fruit and the thorns fro! the earth.= Jet, although strange, it

is true. If the rain had not fallen, there would have been neither fruitnor thorns. The blessing of the rain, therefore, fell even on theunprodutive land. #ut sine it was negleted and unultivated, itprodued thorns and thistles. In the sa!e way, the wonderful ats of+od are li"e the rain. The di4ering results are li"e the ultivated andthe negleted land. The ats of +od are also li"e the sun, whih ouldsoften wa$ and harden lay at the sa!e ti!e.19

*hile we will loo" at this !atter arefully in the ne$t hapter, at whihti!e we will ertainly not defend, @ustify or e$onerate Arigen, I want you toread this /uotation over again arefully and ta"e note that Arigen never

!entions the word, Dpredestination. Thus #erot hangs his argu!ent of thebeliefs of the early Christians onerning predestination on a /uotation towhih he gives his spin at the end, but whih nevertheless studiously avoidsthe word and only peripherally engages the sub@et. It appears that Arigen

19bid#,pp. FO%.

19


20/231

was onerned with the @udg!ent, !an=s sense of duty and hisa"nowledg!ent of +od=s goodness. Every sinere Christian who has everbelieved and taught predestination, at least the ones that we have heard orread after, has always been onerned with the sa!e issues.

#an 0od (oresee The (tre,O

#erot=s o!plaint is not with +od=s fore"nowledge. It is withpredestination and eletion. Jet in his e4ort not to o4end ;ehovah or toappear to be ritii2ing (i!, #erot inadvertently robs (i! of (issovereignty also.

lthough not believing in predestination, the early Christiansstrongly believed in +od=s sovereignty and (is ability to foresee thefuture. or e$a!ple, they understood +od=s propheies about ;aoband Esau to be a result of (is foreseeing the future, not a result of (isarbitrarily predestining those !en to a partiular fate. #ut they saw a

signi)ant distintion between foreseein" so!ething and causin" it.1

It thus appears that #erot=s +od is a helpless observer, "nowing what!an is going to do but having no power or authority to inuene it or bringit to pass. *hat "ind of sovereignty would that be, we wonderP

Baptis/.#erot believes that sins are atually washed away by the water of

baptis!. It is not an outward e$pression of an inner truth. It is the at itselfwhih regenerates and results in Dthe &ew #irth.

Re/ission o sins.They believed that water baptis! aneled allpast sins. or e$a!ple, ;ustin Martyr wrote, -There is no otherQway toobtain +od=s pro!isesR than thisto beo!e a/uainted with Christ,to be washed in the fountain spo"en of by Isaiah for the re!ission ofsins, and for the re!ainder, to li$e sinless li$es. They based theirviews on baptis! and re!ission of sin on the following #ible passages,a!ong othersL nd now what are you waiting forP +et%up, be bapti2ed and washyour sins away, alling on his na!e.ts L16-B. . .

&evertheless, not all of the nabaptist dotrines were idential tothe early Christian beliefs. or e$a!ple, their understanding of

baptis! di.ered somewhat. I thin" this was one again an e$a!ple of

Obid#,p. F.1bid#,pp. F%B.bid#,p. F5.Bbid#,p. F6.

O


21/231

&ewton=s irst


22/231

way of salvation than to undergo that washing. #ut #erot gives a di4erentde)nition of salvation, than the one whih we are used to.

The )e* Birth.(ere #erot seemsto state a reasonably orthodo$ belief in the &ew #irth.

#ased on ;esus= words to &iode!us, the early Christians alsobelieved water baptis! was the hannel through whih a person wasborn again. Irenaeus !entioned this in a disussion about baptis!, Dswe are lepers in sin, we are !ade lean fro! our old transgressions by!eans of the sared water and the invoation of the


23/231

#erot believes that !any evangelial Churhes use altar alls as an easyalternative to baptis!. (e does not say why he thin"s they do that. Thei!pliation is that it is easier, not as hu!iliating, and !atters little sinethey believe that the person involved has already been eleted to salvationby free grae without wor"s and nothing is re/uired of hi! in any ase.

gain we s"ip over sub@etive disussions of partiular !atters suh aswar, divore, et. If we an agree with #erot on essential dotrine we andisuss these !atters with hi!, and it wouldn=t be !uh of a disussion,sine !ost of the things he says need not be ontested. #ut )rst we want tobe sure that we are tal"ing about the wor"s of the 8pirit in the &ew Man inChrist and not the deadness of the letter in the old !an in da!. There isone issue that we will dwell on, however, not beause of the issue butbeause of a !isstate!ent that he !a"es, and, at least in our view, itbeo!es i!portant in the end analysis of this boo" and its !ission.

#apital Pnish/ent.#erot states that the early Christians did not believe in apitalpunish!ent. Af ourse, the Churh has never believed in putting ri!inals todeath as an at of the Churh=s responsibility, but the early Churh hadnothing to do with or to say about what the state did. To refuse to defendoneself is not the sa!e as ta"ing an ative stand against apitalpunish!ent. #ut that is a bit beside the point. #erot then states that this isthe position ta"en by the nabaptistsL


24/231

ather than preahing a gospel of health and wealth, they stressedsi!pliity of living. In fat, beause of perseution, !ost of the! livedin dire poverty.9

;ust as in the above /uotation, the tendeny of #erot and others is to

onfuse the issue of non%resistane with that of apital punish!ent. The#rethren have always understood that +od put the sword in soiety for thegood of the rae. The Churh is a peuliar people. They are pilgri!s andstrangers in the earth. They are not alled upon to bear the te!poral swordand to diret the a4airs of the land as were the Israelites under the olddispensation. #ut unli"e the ua"ers and other !ore politially involvedgroups, the #rethren have never felt it their duty, their right or their desireto try to interfere with the use of the te!poral sword in soiety. Capitalpunish!ent in our seular soiety is a wholly di4erent issue than non%resistane in the Christian o!!unity. o!an 1B !a"es it very lear thatthe sword is put there by +od and that anyone who resists it is resisting +od

and (is ordinane and !essengers. It is not, and never will be the wor" ofthe Churh, but it is the wor" of +od in (is role as 7ing over all the earth.*hile there have always been di4erenes of opinion ertainly in the early#aptist !ove!ent- and always will be, this has been the general position ofthe #rethren fro! the start.

Who Better Understands The Apostles.BO#erot believes that the early Christians understood the postles better

than we do.

The Advanta"e o Ti/e.B1

*e both read the sa!e #ible> but the fat that they were loser to thepostles than we are gives the! the edge.

The #/lative E4ect o S/all #han"es.B


25/231

#erot believes that "nowing the +ree" language and the ulture in whihthe postles lived gave the early Christians a better understanding than wean ever have of what the postles believed. Therefore we !ust get ourpure beliefs fro! the!, not fro! the *ord of +od.

Have %o ever tal-ed to an Apostle,BG

#erot believes that those who tal"ed to the postles fae to fae have tohave a better understanding of their beliefs and of the truth of +od than wedo. #erot does not tell us, though we "now it, that a!ong the !en that#erot ites, only Cle!ent of o!e, 'olyarp and #arnabas tal"ed to thepostles. It should be noted that he ites those three very little, yet ;ustin,Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cle!ent of le$andria and Arigen never tal"ed to the!.

Oral Tradition.#erot believes that the oral tradition, arrying the teahings of the

postles by word of !outh, is !ore reliable than the #ible in assuring the

original beliefs. Therefore we should trust his version of the beliefs of theearly Christians !ore than the #ible itself when it o!es to the originaltruth.

The Primar Teachin" 0f The %postles )as 0ralll of ;esus= teahing was oral. (e didn=t leave even a single word of

written instrution for the hurh. *hen the hurh was founded onthe day of 'enteost, the only Christian teahing it had was oral. Infat, our &ew Testa!ent wasn=t o!pleted until nearly the end of the)rst entury. 8o the )rst entury hurh relied largely on the teahingsof the apostles beause the apostles pri!arily taught orally. fter all,

do you really thin" that 'aul, the tireless evangelist and teaher, hadnothing !ore to share with the early hurh than the 1B or 1G briefletters in our &ew Testa!entP Af ourse notU 'aul e$horted theThessalonians, D8o then, brothers, stand )r! and hold to theteahings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or byletter. Thess. L15- 'aul wanted the Thessalonians to adhere to hisoral teahings @ust as !uh as to his written teahings. *hat aboutthe other apostlesP ?o you thin" that the su! total of 'eter=s teahingwas !erely seven pages of writingP ?o you really thin" that theapostles ndrew, ;a!es, 'hilip, #artholo!ew, Tho!as, ;a!es son oflphaeus-, 8i!on the 3ealot, and ;udas son of ;a!es- had nothing

whatsoever to share with the hurhP 'reposterousU These were hand%pi"ed !en who had spent three years of personal training in the loseo!pany of ;esus hi!self. The testi!ony of the early hurh is that allof the apostles were atively preahing and teahing the gospel. 'aul

BGbid#,p. 11.

5


26/231

told the Corinthians D&ow, I praise you beause you re!e!ber !e ineverything, and hold )r!ly to the traditions,@ust as I delivered the!to you. 1 Cor. 11L &8- 'aul goes on, however, to rebu"e so!e ofthe Corinthian wo!en who were not wearing head overings. Jet,there had been no prior written o!!and fro! the apostles for a

Christian wo!an to over her head while praying or prophesying. #utthere was de)nitely an apostoli usto! or tradition, as 'aul testi)esLDIf anyone wants to be ontentious about this, we have no otherpratie nor do the hurhes of +od. 1 Cor. 11L16- #ut please don=t@u!p ahead of !e. I=! not saying that there were any additionaldotrines, !oral o!!and!ents, or revelations that were handeddown orally to the early Christians. In fat, the writings of the earlyChristians are the strongest evidene we have that there were none.Aur &ew Testa!ent ontains all of the dotrines and !oralo!!and!ents that are essential for Christians. Instead, apostolitradition the oral teahing of the apostles-, onsisted pri!arily of two

things. The )rst was the establish!ent or approval of pratiesinvolving worship and fellowship. In fat, !ost of the praties of the)rst entury hurh in these areas were !atters of apostoli traditionor usto!not written diretion. or e$a!ple, nowhere in the &ewTesta!ent are Christians told when they should !eet together or howoften they should observe the


27/231

*e shall pass over for the ti!e being the al!ost sandalous suggestionsthat the +ospels are not the written words of ;esus (i!self but nothing !orethan oral tradition> that all of the *ord of +od is not ontained in the #ible>that non%biblial writers were given the sa!e authoritative redene in the

early Churh as the ones who wrote the #ible> that trying to interpret the#ible without so!eone who was there and heard the postles teah is anintelletual and spiritual vauu! fro! whih nothing an be learned> andthat the early Churh had an Denor!ous advantage over us in interpretingthe #ible. *e will ta"e up later the fat that #erot does not believe that the#ible is the only guide to the faith and pratie of the Churh, that hepro!otes the o!an Catholi and Eastern Mysti dotrine that traditionsand Churh dog!as ta"e preedene over the *ord of +od whih #erotdoes not onsider to be awless, infallible and inerrant, though he see!s tosay that he does-. &or will we dwell for the !o!ent on why #erot hasesoteri "nowledge when you and I an=t possibly have it and why we are

li!ited to aepting what he assures us that the early hurh believed. ll ofthese things we will loo" into a bit later.#ut what does stri"e !e now is the abrupt and lean way in whih the oral

tradition turned fro! the pure *ord of +od to the orrupt esspool oftraditional heresy al!ost overnight with the o!ing of ugustine and theCounil of &iaea. *hy would these !en of the highest integrity and thewillingness to su4er death for the ause allow this to happen before theirvery eyes and do nothing about itP An the fae of it, it see!s aninongruous fantasy that is born !ore of desire and i!agination than fat.

Were the Teachin"s o the Apostles Deli!eratel% Altered,B6

#erot believes that we should ta"e the oral traditions of the early Churhas being superior to the written word on the assu!ptions that he !a"es.They would not have added to the truth beause they believed that the

revelation was o!plete. Thus we should ta"e their word for it that they didnot add to it. This is in spite of the fat that all of the postles warned offalse apostles and we have notable e$a!ples in the #ible. In IIThessalonians 1, so!eone had even been writing false teahings andsigning the apostles na!es to the!. 8till #erot believes that these good!en would not have done suh a thing.

These !en an be trusted as to their integrity in bringing forth a pure andinerrant *ord of +od in oral tradition beause they were willing to be

!artyred. To #erot, if anyone is willing to die for his beliefs, his beliefs !ustbe infallible truth. If this is to hold up, do you reali2e how !uh divine truthhas been lost, never to be reovered on the battle)elds of this world, wheredeent young !en gave their lives in the belief that they were doing

B6bid#,p. 110.

0


28/231

so!ething for +od and ountryP Jou !ay say that they died for a falseause, but you annot say that, if #erot is right. The fat that they werewilling to die proves that they were right, aording to #erot.

The Earl% #hristians Were Ultraconservative.B0

#y this revelation, #erot advanes the belief that these !en ould nothave hanged the words of truth through their oral tradition beause, beingonservative, they were not in favor of hange. It does not see! li"e !uhof a ase, I will grant you, but that is what #erot believes, or at least, saysthat he does.

Most of the early Christians never tal"ed to the postles, but theyonsulted with the disiples of the apostles, therefore their oral tradition wasbetter than the as%yet%unanoni2ed 8riptures.

The% All Ta"ht the Sa/e Thin".BFThe volu!inous writings of highly regarded historians to the ontrary

notwithstanding, #erot lai!s to believe that the early Christians or at leastthe ones that he is willing to allow as testi!onies, all taught the sa!e thingand believed the sa!e thing.

The% Wal-ed in the (ootsteps o 5ess.B9#erot believes that we an trust their inerrany beause they were all

faithful !en who traed ;esusK steps.s a lawyer, #erot !ust feel that he is loosing his ase, for he is resorting

to the "inds of argu!ents that wea"en, rather than strengthen a ase. (euses an e!otionally rather than a fatually based argu!ent to prove thatthe early religious !en did not add to or ta"e fro! the anon of truth.

What did 5ess Sa% A!ot Their Doctrine,GO#erot believes that the things written to the Churhes in the #oo" of

evelation by 8t. ;ohn earlier he said that ;esus never left a word of writtentesti!ony> now apparently he has hanged his !ind- before the end of the1st entury in whih ;esus had !ostly ritiis! to !a"e of those who weredrifting fro! the faith and allowing false teahers to o!e in, and at the endof whih (e eternally denied anyone the right to use anything other thanThe #oo" for the faith and pratie of the Churh @ustify the oral traditionof the nd and Brd entury Churh.

B0bid#,p. 1B.BFbid#,p. 15.B9bid#, p. 16.GObid#,p. 10.

F


29/231

#onstantine.G1#erot believes that the deline of the Churh an be bla!ed on

Constantine.

The #oncil o )icaea.G

#erot believes that so!e dar", dreadful evil too" plae at &iaea thatda!ned the fortunes of the Churh to the present age.This had to do with the onde!ning of rius as a hereti and the

establishing of the (oly Trinity as dog!a. There were so!e other things thatwent on at &iaea but this was the !ain agenda. great deal an belearned about #erot=s dotrine by pondering why this is so upsetting tohi!. rius was a non%Christian hereti, who developed his dotrine fro! theteahings of Arigen that Christ was a phanto!, a reated being and inferiorto +od, and that there is no (oly +host. The thing that &iaea was aboutwas the onit between rius and thanasius, #ishop of le$andria and oneof the few good ones that Eastern philosophial, shool of !ysti%

Christianity ever had. Muh an be !ade of peripheral issues if one wants toavoid the enter, but the rian issue was what it was about.

#reeds.GB#erot believes that reeds, whih "ept out suh heresies as rianis! and

'elagianis!, were a great evil that seriously hurt the Churh.

St. A"stine.GG#erot believes that 8t. ugustine was at one the !ost inuential and

the !ost disastrous theologian to o!e along in the long history of theChurh. (e bla!es 8t. ugustine for the efor!ation and the views of


30/231

that they did, in the last paragraph on page 15, though there ould bea!biguity in his state!ent. It would not be a serious error in any ase,either in its own !erit or in light of !ore glaring historial errors engaged inby #erot in his assassination of Churh history. There was one ti!e when'elagius a!e to (ippo to see ugustine, after a one%sided ounil in

;erusale! in whih ;ohn of the Cross, an avowed ene!y of ugustine and#ishop of ;erusale!, reeived all of 'elagius= ausations against ugustinewithout even notifying ugustine of the 'alestine onferene or giving hi!the opportunity or ourtesy of a reply. ording to history, 'elagius went tosee ugustine to apologi2e and to !a"e peae, but he never told ugustinehe was o!ing. *hen he got there, ugustine was away on visitations forso!e !onths. 'elagius left, never getting to see hi!.

'elagius was noti)ed of the frian synods, where 'elagianis! wasdenouned as heresy, and invited to attend and spea" in his own behalf, but'elagius never a!e, although he sent representatives.

Ana!aptists.G6

#erot believes that the only hope for Dearly Christianity and the lastoutpost of orthodo$y, is the nabaptists. This boo", as well as the one tofollow Common Sense1 has evidently been written for the e$press purposeof gaining an entrane by attery and deeit and onfusing and !isleadingby way of what #erot !ista"enly believes to be their ignorane of Arthodo$Christian dotrines and Churh history.

G6bid#,pp. 159%65.

BO


31/231

ChapterThree

n Evaluation nd 'ole!i

Who Were The Earl% #hristians,

#erot starts out at least by stating that the DEarly Christians are thoseD. . .Christians who lived between 9O and 199 .?. This is a bit onfusingfor he i!!ediately proeeds to list !en, inluded a!ong who! are D. . .Irenaeus who lived past OO .?..., Cle!ent of le$andria who lived to aboutO .?., Arigen who lived to 5G .?., Tertullian who lived to GO .?. by!ost aounts so!e say O .?.-, Cyprian who live until 5F .?. and


32/231

bonds of fellowship and o!!union with eah other. I=! not referringto the beliefs or praties of anyone labeled as a hereti by thathurh. 8o I=! not desribing the entire )eld of wheat and weeds!i$ed together, but only the wheat. Matt. 1BLG%BO- lthough thisboo" pri!arily fouses on the Christians who lived between 9O and

199, the o!!on beliefs and praties of these early Christians weregenerally !aintained by Christians living in the ne$t entury. Most ofthe !a@or hanges in Christian beliefs did not our until after B1B,when Constantine legali2ed Christianity. or that reason, thedisussion that follows will also inlude /uotations fro! writers wholived between OO and B1B, as long as their teahings agree withthose who lived in the period i!!ediately after the apostles.1

Were These The #hrch (athers,#erot denies passionately that these were the early fathers, postoli

athers, nte%&iene athers, or fathers in any sense.

*hen I start tal"ing about the early Christian writers, people usuallyrespond by saying, DAh, you !ean the early hurh fathers. #ut thesemen were not church fathers( Most of the! were fairly ordinary, hard%wor"ing Christian elders with above%average eduation. They wouldhave been highly indignant at being alled Dhurh fathers. The onlyDhurh fathers they reogni2ed were the apostles. tually, the veryfat that these writers were not hurh fathers is what !a"es theirwritings so valuable.

(ere #erot o4ers not the tiniest shred of evidene for his lai!. (e doesnot tell us who infor!ed hi! of this. (e does not ite his referenes. (e doesnot say how he "nows that they would have been Dhighly indignant. (esi!ply says, with italis for e!phasis, that Dthese were not church fathers#2

This notion is out of har!ony with established Churh history. 'hilip8ha4, often regarded as the best of the historians of the Churh as to hisfats if not his o!!entary, gives the aepted view, in :olu!e II of his!onu!ental eight%volu!e wor".

The Ante6)icene athers /a% !e divided into 7ve or si&classes:1.- The apostoli fathers, or personal disiples of the apostles. Afthese, 'olyarp, Cle!ent of o!e, and Ignatius are the !ost e!inent..- The apologists for Christianity against ;udais! and heathenis!L;ustin Martyr and his suessors to the end of the seond entury.

1

1#erot, )ill The *eal Heritics, Please Stand +p, pp. 1B%%G.

bid#,p. 1G.

B


33/231

B.- The ontroversialists against heresies within the hurhL Irenaeus,and (ippolytus, at the lose of the seond entury and beginning ofthe third.G.- The le$andrian shool of philosophial theologyL Cle!ent andArigen, in the )rst half of the third entury.

5.- The onte!porary but !ore pratial &orth frian shool ofTertullian and Cyprian.6.- Then there were also the ger!s of the ntiohian shool, andso!e less pro!inent writers, who an be assigned to no partiularlass.B

*hile this outline an be and no doubt has been disputed, there an be noargu!ent against the role of 1, and 5 as Dathers of the Churh.

(ere #erot establishes the )rst of his neessary argu!ents. (e !ustseparate what he is going to say fro! aepted Churh history. (e !ust alsoargue that the truth an have no fellowship with the for!al, organi2ed,

aepted views. The Dathers were for!al, oSial theologians and dotorsof the Churh and (er theology. The early Christians on who! #erot wishesto rely Dwere not fathers even though Churh history shows plainly thatthey were and have been so "nown by orthodo$y for enturies.

Two things !ay be noted hereL 1- *arning is served that #erot is goingto be arbitrary and apriious in his onstrution and analysis of Churhhistory. - #erot=s )rst building blo" of his ano!alous dotrines is disputedby the fats.

Their Wor-s Were 'ore +ala!le Becase The% Were Not(athers.n essential part of #erot=s argu!ent hangs on the validity of his

state!ent that these were not fathers. If they were fathers, then hisargu!ent is fallaious, their writings are not as valuable as he had thoughtand the bases for his re!ar"s are !isguided.

tually, the very fat that these writers were not hurh fathers iswhat !a"es their writings so valuable.G

gain #erot resorts to arbitrariness and gives us no insight into hiswisdo! and authority. *hy would their writings not have been valuable ifthey had been DfatherP *hy should we believe this arbitrary state!entP*hat written witness is there to bear this outP

The Leaders o the Earl% #hrch Were )ot Theolo"ians.

B 'hillip Scha., Histor of the Christian Church +rand apids, Mihigan, *M. #. Eerd!ans 'ublishingCo!pany, 191O, rptd 19F9-, vol II, pp. 19%BO.G #erot, p. 1G.

BB


34/231

?avid #erot, ;ehovah=s *itness, or E$%;ehovah=s *itness, eduated in noshool of theology, young and ad!ittedly in doubt onerning his own depthand !aturity of understanding, assures us that the early fathers who werenot fathers- were not theologians. (e gives us no dou!entation for thisview. (e si!ply lays this startling infor!ation on us and as"s us to believe it

for no other reason, now or at any ti!e in the boo", than that he assures usthat it is true. #ut #erot is not ontent> he goes even further. There was nosyste!ati theology in the pre%Constantine ChurhL

If these !en had been great founders of theology, their writingswould be of li!ited value to us. They would si!ply tell us whatdotrines these partiular Dfounding theologians had developed. #utthese !en did not write theologial treatises. In fat, no one in theseond entury hurh an even be alled a theologian in the !odernsense. nd there is no real syste!ati theology in the entire pre%Constantine hurh.5

&ote two things in passingL 1- *e have now left the 9O%199 .?. periodand gone into the seond entury and down to B19 .?., and the ti!e ofConstantine. Jet #erot has said 9O to 199 .?. There is !ethod to this, aswe shall see. - #erot has used the a!biguous ter! Dthe !odern sense.*hat is this supposed to !eanP It is a ath%all ter! that leaves an esaperoute if he is ornered on this. *hen the theology of Cle!ent of le$andriaand Arigen are shown to be heretial or non%supportive of his views, he ango ba" to 9O%199 .?.

In the !odern sense and in every other legiti!ate sense these !en wereindeed theologians and they did indeed write theologial treatises and

establish so!e for! of syste!ati theology. #erot an argue that this is notso Din the !odern sense and no one an prove hi! wrong beause no onean say for sure what he !eans by the D!odern sense. #ut this will onlyserve to onfuse the already onfused and fool the unenlightened anddefenseless. *e shall have to again ta"e a loo" at legiti!ate history on this!atter. The fathers were indeed theologians.

The !ost e!inent a!ong the +ree" pologists of the seondentury is (LA+IUS 5USTI)IUSsurna!ed D'hilosopher and Martyr.==(e is the typial apologist, who devoted his whole life to the defenseof Christianity at a ti!e when it was !ost assailed, and he sealed his

testi!ony with his blood. (e is also the )rst Christian philosopher orthe 3rst philosophic theolo"ian.6 ;ustin is the )rst a!ong the fatherswho !ay be alled a learned theologianand Christian thin"er. (e

5 bid#6 8ah4, II, p. 01.

BG


35/231

had a/uired onsiderable lassial and philosophial ulture beforehis onversion, and then !ade it subservient to the defense of faith. 0

IRE)AEUS:l!ost si!ultaneously with the apology against falsereligions without, arose the pole!i literature against the heresies, orvarious for!s of pseudo%Christianity, espeially the +nosti> and upon

this was for!ed the do"matic theolo" of the hurh.F

HIPPOL3TUS: This fa!ous person. . . was undoubtedly one of themost learned and eminent scholars and theolo"ians of his ti!e. . .9

#LE'E)T O( ALE8A)DRIA: Cle!ent was the father of the%le&andrian Christian philosoph# (e united thorough biblial and(elleni learning with genius and speculati$e thou"ht# (e rose, in!any points, far above the pre@udies of his age, to !ore free andspiritual views. (is theolo", however, is not a unit, but a onfusedeleti !i$ture of true Christian ele!ents with !any 8toi, 'latoni,and 'hiloni ingredients.1O

ORI0E): (I8 T(EA


36/231

did not involve theologyP *e had thought that the very essene of thedefense of Christianity in the early enturies was theolo"ical treatiseU

An a serious note, theology is a word that o!es fro! Theos+od- andolo"whih is the ter!ination for nouns having to do with studies of varioussorts. It !eans, /uite si!ply, the study of +od, (is *ord and things

pertaining to +od. Everyone who sits down in the !orning or the evening orthe afternoon-, reads his #ible and ponders on the things of +od, is atheologian. Abviously there are !ore de)nitive theologians, suh as thosewho go deeper into the things of +od, or who !a"e a voation of studyingthe things of +od. #ut there is nothing esoteri, popish or sholastially eliteabout the word theolo". If anyone wishes to believe that the biblial boo"sof o!ans, +alatians, Ephesians, (ebrews or the sub@et of pologetis arenot theology, I suppose that there is little we an do to stop hi!. #ut to giveany redene whatsoever to suh a lai! as #erot has !ade is below the!ini!u! re/uire!ent for o!!on sense. This is neologis! in its !ostvisible for!. #ut in order for #erot to get over with his ideas put forth in

this boo", he has to separate the reader fro! legiti!ate theology. (e will dothis by lai!ing that we#erot, the early Christians and you the reader- arenot in the slightest way interested in theology. In this way he an !a"e anyapriious lai! that he wants to and Arthodo$ Christian theology annote$pose or ensure hi!.

The Earl% #hristian Leaders Were 1(airl% Ordinar%$ Hard Wor-in"Elders With A!ove Avera"e Edcation.

#erot deals in generalities. (e does not e$plain what he !eans by Dfairlyordinary, Dhard wor"ing, or Dabove average in eduation. ?oes this !ean

that they were far!ers who did not spend all of their ti!e and !a"e theirliving fro! their religious involve!entsP ?oes it !ean that they did notteah in theologial shools whih would have been hard to do if there wereno theology in those days-P ?oes it !ean that they had little !ore than ahigh shool eduationP Could they read Classial +ree"P Could they read(ebrewP Ar perhaps #erot does not intend for us to "now what he !eans.Maybe he is busy giving general i!pressions that will reate a historial andtheologial piture in our !inds without ever !a"ing )r! and si!plestate!ents to whih he an be held to aounts by those who wish to ta"eissue with his interpretation of hurh history and dotrine. In any ase weshall loo" again at legiti!ate Churh (istory.

#LE'E)T O( RO'E, the na!e of a great elebrity in anti/uity, wasa disiple of 'aul and 'eter, to who! he refers as the hief e$a!plesfor i!itation. (e !ay have been the sa!e person who is !entionedby 'aul as one of his faithful fellow%wor"ers in 'hililppi 'hil. GL B-> orprobably a o!an who was in so!e way onneted with the

B6


37/231

distinguished lavian fa!ily, and through it with the i!perialhousehold, where Christianity found an early lodg!ent. (is Epistlebetrays a !an of classical culture, e&ecuti$e wisdom,and a thoroughfa!iliarity with the 8eptuagint #ible. The last see!s to indiate thathe was of ;ewish parentage. . . .


38/231

ORI0E): surna!ed Dda!antius on aount of his industry andpurity of harater, is one of the !ost remarable men in histor for"enius and learnin", for the inuene he e$erted on his age, and forthe ontroversies and disussions to whih his opinions gave rise. (ewas born of Christian parents at le$andria, in the year 1F5, and

probably bapti2ed in hildhood, aording to Egyptian usto! whihhe traed to apostoli origin. Hnder the diretion of his father,


39/231

hard wor"ing Elders with above average eduations )ts this group of !en.Most of the! were elite !en fro! aristorati or privileged fa!ilies and theyproudly !aintained their distane fro! the ordinary !an, both in the Churchand in soiety this !ay not have been true of Cle!ent of o!e and'olyarp-. gain #erot is aught with his unning left hand in the literary

and historial oo"ie @ar.

The Earl% #hristians All Believed and Ta"ht the Sa/e Thin"#erot lai!s that the early Christians, at least the ones that he uses for

testi!onials to his version of the early dotrine, all believed and taught thee$at sa!e thing.

Ane of the notieable features of early Christianity is therelative la" of rigid theologial dog!a. In fat, the furtherone goes ba" in Christian history, the less theology he)nds. (owever, even though early Christianity was !ar"ed

by a divergene of beliefs in !any areas, there were still!any o!!on the!es and beliefs that run throughout allof the early Christian writings. This boo" will fous onthese o!!on or universally%held beliefs and praties.5

#erot has told us that he has used only early Christians who all agree. (ehas given no insight into why he has hosen not to ite the views of thosewho do not agree. fter all a Dsholarly wor" would do e$atly that. ndthat is what #erot lai!s to have given usL

*ill the eal (eretis 'lease 8tand Hp o!bines sound

scholarshipwith a free%owing, readable style designed foronte!porary evangelial laypersons.6

#ut our onern is not with adventuris! or ats of self%ongratulation. &oris it with the fat that there are !any !en not ited who did disagree on!any points. It is with the validity or the la" thereof- of the lai! thatthese all agreed on the basi dotrines, when in reality there was a wildasting about and an unbridgeable gap of dotrinal ontraditions.

fter telling us that all of the !en who! he has ited agree on all points,he now tells us that they do not all agree. In fat they disagree on !anythings. This is a ontraditing of hi!self. It is hard to understand.

pparently #erot is hopelessly bogged down in his progra! and is si!plytrying to onfuse the issue. (e appears to be saying that they all agree sohe an use their testi!ony to drive ho!e his point, but that they do not all

5#erot, p. 15.6bid#,ba" Cover.

B9


40/231

agree in order to hedge against inevitable ritiis!. #erot is not going totell us what those things are over whih they disagree. &or is he going to tellus who those writers are, who disagree with what he onsiders the basis.&or are we given their views on these sub@ets. (e has si!ply hosen todisard the! as dissenters to his views, whih are the right ones, and

therefore they are Dheretis.8o in other words, #erot has found !en )ve, he see!s sure would besuSient- who agree or at least he says they agree on ertain sub@ets.(e annot and does not assure us that there is basi agree!ent a!ongthe! on a broad range of foundational issues. (e tells us only that theyagree, or at least for the !ost part, on the few dotrines whih #erotwishes to pro!ote in this boo". In fat, though he !entions !ore, there areonly three basi things for whih he is searhing to )nd agree!ent, and weshall disuss the! in due ourse.

#erot is fran" to ad!it his editing of bits and piees of the dotrine.

To that end, I have not represented any beliefs orpraties as being those of the early hurh in generalunless the met the followin" criteria5

1. ll early Christian writers who !entioned the sub@ete$press the same $iew4and. t least )ve early Christian writers, separated by ti!eand geographial distane, disussed the sub@et. tually!ost of the !atters disussed in this boo" are supportedby testi!ony fro! !ore than )ve writers.0

Thus it appears that #erot has li!ited his authority to those few

instanes when those who! he ites agree with hi! on a li!ited few issues,no !atter what else they !ight believe. Even so, #erot has !isstated thefats. Cle!ent of o!e and 'olyarp were not separated by ti!e anddistane, Cle!ent of le$andria, Arigen and Irenaeus were not separated byti!e and distane and Tertullian and (ippolytus were not separated by ti!e.&ot all of the early Christian writers agree with what he says on any of thesub@ets that he raises, and #erot has to "now it. Ane who has read enoughto put together even the !eager and ino!plete thoughts that #erot has,annot be ignorant of the views of the !ost i!portant of the postoliathers even though #erot refuses to all the! that- suh as Cle!ent ofo!e and 'olyarp on the vital sub@et of ;usti)ation by faith, to say

nothing of the other funda!ental issues that he raises, diretly or indiretly,as we shall see. *hat does real Churh (istory reveal about unani!ity onbasi dotrines, suh as salvationP

0bid#,p. 15.

GO


41/231

The ter! Dhurh%father originated in the pri!itive usto! oftransferring the idea of father to spiritual relationships, espeially tothose of teaher, priest, and bishop. In the ase before us the ideaneessarily inludes that of anti/uity, involving a ertain degree ofgeneral authority for all subse/uent periods and single branhes of

the hurh. (ene this title of honor is @ustly li!ited to the !oredistinguished teahers of the )rst )ve or si$ enturies, e$epting, ofourse, the apostles, who stand far above the! all as the inspiredorgans of Christ. It applies, therefore, to the period of the eu!enialfor!ation of dotrines, before the separation of Eastern and *esternChristendo!. The line of the


42/231

pole!i, and aseti treatises of the +ree" and


43/231

attributes to the! in the hope of !a"ing his ase. #ut his tas" is si!plyi!possible. Even a lawyer an only streth the truth so far without tearing ito!pletely in two.

Bercot Has Onl% #ited 'en Who Were )ot #onsidered Heretics B%

Their PeersI=! not referring to the beliefs or praties of anyone labeled as ahereti by that hurh.B

#erot has relied on the ignorane and the la2iness of those who read thisboo". It is an easy thing to disover that Cle!ent of le$andria, Arigen,Eusebius were all denouned by their hurh groups to one degree oranother, for heretial views. Arigen=s ase was the !ost graphi, where hewas re!oved for! the shool at le$andria by ?e!etrius= harge againsthi! the !an responsible for getting hi! the position- and the ations of hisown bishop in Constantinople. The following /uote is brief in an e4ort to not

wear you out with repetition. *e will ta"e up the heresies of these !en later.

In fat the o!an hurh e$ludes a Tertullian for hisMontanis!, an Arigen for his 'latoni and idealisti views,an Eusebius for his se!i%rianis!, also Cle!ent ofle$andria. . . BB

*hile it is true that this partiular /uote li!its their ensorship to theo!an Churh and so!e of the! were +ree", we will see the whole of the!atter shortly.

Ei"ht Earl% #hristian Writers.

#erot now introdues us to his hand pi"ed group of eight writers, whihare 'olyarp, Irenaeus, ;ustin Martyr, Cle!ent of le$andria, Arigen,Tertullian, Cyprian and


44/231

POL3#ARP: relatively si!ple and deent !an, a personal friend ofapostles and a leader in the early Churh, about whih not a great deal is"nown. 'hilip 8ha4 says of hi!L

Dn eho of 'aul=s teahing is found in 'olyarp, %d Phil# c# 9,

where he refers to Nthe )r! root of their faith, preahed to the! fro!olden ti!es, whih re!ains to this day, and bears fruit in our


45/231

sense, a Christian Platonist. (e was also inuened by Stoicism. (ethought that the philosophers of +reee had borrowed their light fro!Moses and the prophets. #ut his relation to 'lato after all is !erelye$ternal, and based upon fanied rese!blanes. (e illu!inated andtransfor!ed his 'latoni re!inisenes by the propheti 8riptures,

and espeially by the ;ohannean dotrine of the


46/231

of reading, his largeness of sy!pathy, his lofty aspirations, his nobleoneption of the oSe and apaities of the aith.

The three leading wor"s whih he o!posed during his residene asteaher in le$andria, between the years 19O and 195, represent thethree stages in the disipline of the hu!an rae by the divine he was not e$en ashamed to stud under theheathen %mmonius Saccas, the elebrated founder of 7eo6Platonism.

B6bid#,pp. 0F%FG.

G6


47/231

(e learned also the (ebrew language, and !ade @ourneys to o!e11-, rabia, 'alestine 15-, and +reee. In o!e he bea!e slightlya/uainted with (ippolytus, the author of the Philosophumena, whowas ne$t to hi!self the !ost learned !an of his age. ?ollinger thin"sit all but ertain that he sided with (ippolytus in his ontroversy with

3ephyrinus and Callistus, for he shared at least in his earlier period-his rigoristi priniples of disipline, had a disli"e for the proud andoverbearing bishops in large ities, and held a subordination $iew ofthe Trinity, but he was far superior to his older onte!porary ingenius, depth, and penetrating insight. . . .Arigen was the greatestsholar of his age, and the !ost gifted, !ost industrious, and !ostultivated of all the nte%&iene fathers. Even heathens and heretisad!ired or feared his brilliant talent and vast learning. (is "nowledgee!braed all depart!ents of the philology, philosophy, and theologyof his day. *ith this he united profound and fertile thought, "eenpenetration, and glowing i!agination. s a true divine, he onserated

all his studies by prayer, and turned the!, aording to his bestonvitions, to the servie of truth and piety. (e !ay be alled in!any respets the 8hleier!aher of the +ree" hurh. (e was aguide fro! the heathen philosophy and the heretial +nosis to theChristian faith. (e e$erted an i!!easurable inuene in sti!ulatingthe develop!ent of the atholi theology and for!ing the great&iene fathers, thanasius, #asil, the two +regories, (ilary, and!brose, who onse/uently, in spite of all his de$iations, set greatvalue on his servie. #ut his best disciplesproved unfaithful to !anyof his most peculiar $iews,and adhered far !ore to the rei"nin" faithof the church. orand in this too he is li"e 8hleier!aherhe an

b no means be alled orthodo&, either in the Catholic or in theProtestant sense. (is leaning to idealism, his predilection for Plato,and his noble e4ort to reconcile Christianit with reason, and too!!end it even to educated heathens and Gnostics, led hi! intoman "rand and fascinatin" errors#!ong these are his e$tre!elyaseti and al!ost doetisti oneption of orporeity, his denial of amaterial resurrection, his dotrine of the pree&istence and the pre6temporal fall of soulsinluding the pre%e$istene of the human soulof Christ- of eternal creation, of the e$tension of the wor" ofrede!ption to the inhabitants of the stars and to all rationalcreatures, and of the 3nal restoration of all men and fallen an"els.

lso in regard to the dog!a of the divinity of Christ, though hepowerfully supported it, and was the )rst to teah e$pressly theeternal generation of the 8on, yet he !ay be al!ost as


48/231

These and si!ilar views provo"ed !ore or less contradiction durin"his lifetime, and were afterwards, at a loal ounil in Constantinoplein 5GB, even sole!nly onde!ned as heretial. #ut suh a !an !ightin suh an age hold erroneous opinion without being a hereti. orArigen propounded his views always with !odesty and fro! sincere

con$iction of their a"reement with Scripture , and that in a ti!e whenthe hurh dotrine was as yet very inde)nite in !any points. or thisreason even learned o!an divines, suh as Tille!ont and Mohler,have shown Arigen the greatest respet and lenieny> a fat the !oreto be o!!ended, sine the o!an hurh has refused hi!, as well asCle!ent of le$andria and Tertullian, a plae a!ong the saints and thefathers in the striter sense. Arigen=s greatest servie was in e$egesis.(e is father of the critical in$esti"ation of Scripture, and hiso!!entaries are still useful to shools for their su""esti$eness.+regory Thau!aturgus says, he had Dreeived fro! +od the greatestgift, to be an interpreter of the word of +od to !en. or that age this

@udg!ent is perfetly @ust. Arigen re!ained the e$egetial orale untilChrysosto! far surpassed him, not indeed in ori"inalit and $i"or of!ind and e$tent of learning, but in sound, sober tact, in simple,natural analsis, and in practical application of the te&t# (is greatdefet is the ne"lect of the "rammatical and historical sense and hisonstant desire to )nd a hidden mstic meanin"#(e e$en "oes furtherin this direction than the Gnostics, who e$erwhere sawtranscendental, unfathomable msteries#(is her!eneutial prinipleassu!es a threefold senseso!ati, psyhi and pneu!ati> orliteral, !oral and spiritual. (is allegorial interpretation is ingenious,but often runs far awa from the te&t and de"enerates into the

merest caprice> while at ti!es it gives way to the opposite e&treme ofa carnal literalism, by whih he @usti)es his aseti e$travagane.Arigen is one of the !ost i!portant witnesses of the nte%&iene te$tof the +ree" Testa!ent, whih is older than the reeived te$t. (eo!pared di4erent M88. and noted te$tual variations, but did notatte!pt a reension or lay down any priniples of te$tual ritiis!. Thevalue of his testi!ony is due to his rare opportunities and life%longstudy of the #ible before the ti!e when the traditional 8yrian and#y2antine te$t was for!ed.B0 Qn internal note before !oving on.8ine 8ha4=s day, (ort=s le$andrian and &eutral Te$ts have beene$posed as frauds by te$tual sholars and the 8yrian and the

#y2antine are the sa!eL the Traditionalte$t.R

#3PRIA): s Arigen was the ablest sholar, and Tertullian thestrongest writer, so Cyprian was the greatest bishop, of the third

B0bid#,pp. 09O%9.

GF


49/231

entury. (e was born to be a prine in the hurh. In e$eutive talent,he even surpassed all the o!an bishops of his ti!e> and he borehi!self towards the!, also, as Dfrater and Dcolle"a, in the spirit offull e/uality. ugustin alls hi! by eminence,Dthe atholi bishop andatholi !artyr> and :inentius of


50/231

opponent of the Montanists. Af this !an Tertullian therefore says, inhis sarasti wayL (e has e$euted in o!e two wor"s of the devil> hasdriven out prophey the Montanisti- and brought in heresy the'atripassian-> has turned o4 the (oly +host and rui)ed the ather.Tertullian now fought the atholis, or the psyhials, he fre/uently

alls the!, with the sa!e ine$orable sternness with whih he hado!bated the heretis. The departures of the Montanists, however,related !ore to points of !orality and disipline than of dotrine> andwith all his hostility to o!e, Tertullian re!ained a 2ealous advoate ofthe atholi faith, and wrote even fro! his shis!ati position, severalof his !ost e4etive wor"s against the heretis, espeially the+nostis. Indeed, as a divine, he stood far above this fanatial set,and gave it by his writings an i!portane and an inuene in thehurh itself whih it ertainly would never otherwise have attained.(e labored in Carthage as a Montanist presbyter and an author, anddied, as ;ero!e says, in derepit old age, aording to so!e about the

year O, aording to others not till GO> for the e$at ti!e, as well asthe !anner of his death, are un"nown. (is followers in friapropagated the!selves, under the na!e of Tertullianists, down tothe ti!e of ugustin in the )fth entury, and too" perhaps a !iddleplae between the proper Montanists and the atholi hurh. That heever returned into the boso! of Catholiis! is an entirely groundlessopinion. 8trange that this !ost powerful defender of old atholiorthodo$y and the teaher of the high%hurhly Cyprian, should havebeen shis!ati and an antagonist of o!e. #ut he had in hisonstitution the tropial fervor and aerbity of the 'uni harater,and that bold spirit of independene in whih his native ity of

Carthage one resisted, through !ore than a hundred years war, therising power of the seven%hilled ity on the Tiber. (e truly representsthe frian hurh, in whih a singular antagonis! ontinued to revealitself, not only a!ong the ?onatists, but even a!ong the leadingadvoates of Catholiis!. . . Tertullian was a rare "enius, perfetlyoriginal and fresh, but an"ular, boisterous and eccentric> full ofglowing fantasy, pointed wit, een discernment, polemic de&terit,and !oral earnestness, but wanting in learness, !oderation andsy!!etrial develop!ent. (e rese!bled a foa!ing !ountain torrentrather than a al!, transparent river in the valley. (is $ehementtemper was ne$er full subdued, although he struggled sinerely

against it. (e was a !an of strong onvitions, and never hesitated toe$press the! without fear or favor.


51/231

o!prehensive Arigen. (e adopts the stritest supernatural priniples>and yet he is a !ost deided realist, and attributes body, that is, as itwere, a orporeal, tangible substantiality, even to +od and to the soul>while the idealisti le$andrian annot spea" spiritually enough of+od, and an oneive the hu!an soul without and before the

e$istene of the body. Tertullian=s theology revolves about the great'auline antithesis of sin and grae, and brea"s the road to the


52/231


53/231

hurh!an of the 'ost%postoli era, and (ippolytus, whose publi life and!inistry fell between .?. 19F and .?. B6, yet he fails to inlude the!,along with any s"eth of their views and harater. *hy is that, do yousupposeP There is no way of "nowing for sure, but ertain fators do see!to bear on this boo".

Even a ursory e$a!ination of the Epistle of Cle!ent and what otherwritings e$ists, will soon show that Cle!ent was indeed a supporter ofsalvation by faith and grae, and that alone. #erot an ta"e a s!all itationfro! hi! that was intended to fous on 8anti)ation and holy living, and!a"e it appear to be in support of #erot=s dotrine, but he does not want todiret your attention to the !an or his dotrine, neither an #erot possibly!a"e any s"eth that will ignore that fat without resorting to things forwhih he would al!ost surely be aught. dditionally, a study of Cle!ent ofo!e will put the lie to the lai! that all of the early Christians said e$atlythe sa!e thing about salvation and were in perfet agree!ent on allfunda!ental dotrines. nd then too, it is an easy thing for the uninitiated in

Churh history to beo!e onfused between Cle!ent of o!e and Cle!entof le$andria, if the two are not put in @u$taposition.n e/ually brief study of (ippolytus will show several things to be so

whih #erot has denied. 1- The early !en of the nd and Brd entury werenot plaid !en who agreed and disagreed a!iably with no harsh words anddog!ati positions. - The very "inds of heresies and departures fro!orthodo$y e$isted in both le$andria ando!e at the turn of the nd entury whih #erot says did not o!e alonguntil Constantine and ugustine. B- There was at least one outspo"enhurh!an who was very angry about the Ebionis!, 'latonis!, &eo%'latonis!, 'hilonis!, 8toiis! and +nostiis! of ;ustin, Cle!ent of

le$andria and Arigen, and who was ta"ing the! on very tenaiously,branding their +ree" 'hilosophy as opening the door to all of the heresies ofthe Churh. 'hilip 8ha4 orretly observes that these were really only twoheresiesL Ebionis!, whih inluded all ;ewish heresies inluding Chilias! or3ionis!, and +nostiis! whih o!prehended all of the other philosophial,religious, pseudo%Christian heresies. #erot will /uote seletively fro! hi!,but he will not enourage you to study hi! in a o!prehensive way.

&ow you have #erot=s opinion of these !en, as ontrasted to the opinionof legiti!ate Churh history. This will for! the basis for you to !a"e anob@etive deision about where they stood and what they believed. It will note/uip you to "now those answers in depth, but it will !a"e it possible to see

if #erot has used or !isused their testi!onies.

S!9ect 'atters Which We Will )ot #over8ine I do not, as I stated at the outset, plan a word by word o!!entary

on #erot, I will s"ip over the sub@etsL DCiti2ens of nother 7ingdo!, 'eople &ot Af This *orld,


54/231

Is ight nd *rong 8i!ply Matter of CultureP, ?ivore o!an 'lague,bortion&ot Oth Century 'heno!enon, (igh ashion and


55/231

over &I: #ible under his ar!. Is he e$pressing truth with whih we anagreeP If you an agree with !e, an=t you agree with hi!P If you agreewith !e, do you have any right not to agree with hi!P #ut the fat is, as welater disover, this !an is a &ew ge religionist who does not believe inChrist, an inerrant or inspired #ible, a literal reation, the resurretion or

eternity. (e is sent out on a !issionary endeavor to try to i!ply o!!onground, generate so!e interest in his arefully worded views and see if hean drag so!e people away fro! your group. &ow an you agree with hi!on the sub@et of love and turning the other hee"P ?on=t his words thenta"e on an entirely di4erent !eaning with whih we annot and do not wantto identifyP Is there atually any disussion we an have with hi! on theseissuesP Isn=t our only legiti!ate disussion with hi!, as it applies to spiritual!atters, about repentane and onversionP or it ould be the !ost ruial in asertaining the distintly unorthodo$theology of hu!anis!. (ere #erot !a"es a nu!ber of signi)antad!issions and a few very signi)ant omissions.

Ad/issions With Which We #an All A"ree:#erot !a"es so!e points that, as stated at least, are not [email protected]. The !odern Christian does not have enough willingness to su4er. (e is

too soft. (e has grown too austo!ed to the easy life.

. ny one who does not ta"e up the ross of Christ is not worthy of (i!.B. *hosoever see"s to save his life will loose it, but he that is willing toloose his life for Christ=s sa"e will )nd it.

Bercots Interpretations O What This 'eans:#ut what are the theologial and dotrinal ontents of thes

book review bercot

Documents