While exposing developments about things the Bible had forewarned, and proposing that “the church organization” is the product of men who “drew away disciples after them,” it is not the purpose of this writing to stereotype everyone led away by that apostasy as having evil motives. Further, no one should question the sincerity of men from the Reformation period who spent hours and hours in study and prayer to seek God’s will. Not all people living after the destruction of Jerusalem proved to be dishonest. Imagine the discrepancies of teaching or claims and the fear of the faith being threatened. The very fact that these early leaders painstakingly formed the criteria for accepting the books to be a part of the Cannon proves their desire to establish order and discriminate the inspired from the uninspired writings. This process was taken very seriously. While we can be grateful for their contribution, collecting them into one book was still the work of men, the same leading men who formed councils and synods to decide on the doctrine of the church institution (orthodoxy). Again, we must reiterate that the strength of any view must be based on the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, not the practices of men called “church fathers, regardless of their sincerity.
Apostolic Succession
Rather than being content with quoting the authority of the Scriptures, the basis for establishing truth for many early traditions lay in apostolic succession. This did not take place overnight, but the seeds of digression may easily occur when men appeal to their position as successors rather than to the Scriptures as the final authority. The history of this period presents their plan to preserve the “visible church” as an earthly power of Christ’s kingdom among men. It is more often told as a success story. After all, it has survived. It is assumed that what has survived had its origin with the apostles, rather than among those claiming succession.
Yet, among those claiming this “continuity,” it is awkward that they must debate about the most basic of New Testament teachings. For example, several councils met to decide what official position would be taken about the nature of Jesus Christ. First, if these men continued the work of the apostles, why would they need to meet for years to decide what to believe about such fundamental teaching as the person of Christ? Second, from where did the concept of deciding what is to be “officially” believed arise? Third, who is going to police what is practiced? The formation of a religious establishment, now called the church, was established to decide for all others the official doctrine and practice for all to follow. Any violation is a defiance of their authority and they are subject to becoming a “heretic”. Not only do these leaders represent the recognized position of the church institution, but they also have the right answers since they are thought to be given the right of apostolic succession. The people can rest under the delusion of inspired guidance. Even among those who could read a copy of the text, no real need existed as long as they can place their faith in what his bishop says.
The persuasion in this direction was led by the church fathers, educated men living in a community that accepted their knowledge and claims of succession. They trusted their teaching as coming from God. This condition is ripe for the fulfillment of Paul’s prediction to the Ephesian shepherds that men will arise to draw away disciples after them. This universal endorsement still in existence today not only validates their teaching and policymaking as coming from God, but it gives them the needed authority to put down disagreements and divisions that threatens the church organization. Throughout their history, they sought the upper hand and positioned themselves over the people. Even years after Constantine, a common method of control was to absorb the popular practices of the day by modifying it as a church practice and spiritualizing it to justify its use. In this way, the balance of power and influence can shift from the pagan world to the church organization. For example, by maintaining the elements that attract people and adding the religious elements that can be identified as being “Christian,” the church organization could seize the pagan practice of Easter, a pagan ritual, and give the world their own version.
It is presumed that since the “fathers” contributed to the canon of scripture and were in close proximity to the apostles, their work is a continuation of the apostles’ tradition, which includes not just the written tradition contained in Scripture but the oral tradition, also. However, the very nature of their rule that we have already addressed contradicts the written teaching. We should expect to find remarkable consistency between the tradition recorded in Scripture and the tradition practiced by the church institution. The establishment of the church as if it were some hierarchical organization of divine guidance is never supported in the written tradition. Worse than this is the audacious claim that “we” (the Catholic Church) produced the Scripture. That’s like a book publisher claiming to have produced for the world of readers the collection of short stories, when all they did was to compile them into one collection. Even so, many “fathers” accepted books that others rejected as “inspired.” There was no neat consistency among them as it is sometimes implied. To make such a statement implies too much for truth to allow.
Today, the “church fathers” are raised to positions of honor among heirs of “Christianity” believing that they continued the tradition of the apostles. We propose the following description of them: (1) Their work is not the work of inspired men. (2) They were responsible for establishing an organization that Jesus and His apostles did not author. (3) They met in councils, synods, and conventions to decide the course of action for the “church institution.” This was a practice that not even the apostles and elders of Jerusalem did (Acts 15:22).
Regarding the third point, it is claimed that the Jerusalem conference was the first church council that gives precedent to future councils of the bishops. We must distinguish the Apostles of our Lord and the elders with the whole church at the conference in Acts 15 from the Bishops and conventions held in the fourth century. The revelation of God was made known through the Apostles (1 Cor. 2:6-13) and as Ambassadors, they were not allowed to speak from their own authority. More importantly, they did not want anyone to report that they taught the necessity of circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses (15:1, 5) when it was not a part of that revelation. Certain brethren from the sect of the Pharisees were demanding what God never authorized. They were demanding that salvation depended on keeping the law and being circumcised. The Jerusalem conference was not for the purpose of establishing “church decree” or “orthodoxy.” It was already established by God, having been revealed by the Spirit to the apostles. Nothing new was reported by any of the speakers in that conference. The purpose was not only to confirm the truth, but, more importantly, that the source of this Jewish teaching was not from God. During the period of divine revelation (giving of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, Eph. 4), it was imperative and necessary not to confuse the teaching of the apostles by claiming the continuity of Jewish practices as a part of that revelation. The greatest problem during this early period was the transition from the law of Moses to a recognition of its fulfillment in Christ. An explanation in the letter that was sent out explained, “For as much as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment (Acts 15:24). That no such commandment was given was confirmed by Paul, Peter, and James. There were no debates or opposing discussions about the official doctrine of the church. They had no multiple conventions to discuss such matters of “church doctrine.” In fact, there was no “church doctrine.” These men spoke only what the Holy Spirit revealed to them. The work of Paul and Peter, in addition to the teaching of the old law was in perfect agreement. No revelation required the keeping of the law or the observance of circumcision. Last, this was not a closed door session among those in power to decide church policy. Instead, there was consensus among the “whole church” (Acts 15:22). The text concludes that it seemed good “to all” to send letters out to brethren in order that such burdens not be placed on the Gentile Christians.
By contrast, the “church fathers” had neither the authority to claim inspiration, nor the right to decide what people should believe. Seeing that every individual must give an account of himself to God (Rom. 14:12), he or she has no lords over their faith. Since the revelation has already been fixed (Jude 3), nothing needs to be added to it or taken away from it and a strong condemnation is attached to those who do. Each is responsible to teach what God has revealed and apply it to his/her own life. The bishops described in the Scriptures were neither expected to enforce their teaching on the consciences of others, nor punish those who rejected their teaching.
In contrast, these dictating bishops advocated absolute control of all religious doctrine and practice. They did this by producing an organization run by the bishops that enforce men to conform to “church decree” and “church order.” Simple things were made very complex as is seen in the hierarchical structure of bishops. Those who would receive the kind of attention that would be remembered in history changed God’s simple plan into an organizational society of spiritual fathers and decision-makers. We are seeing evidence of this influence when presented with the question, “What does your church teach?” This has its roots in Catholicism and “church orthodoxy.” The correct question to ask is, “What does the Bible teach?” But, if you are a proponent of apostolic succession, it matters little what the Bible teaches when compared to the church tradition which is claimed as having divine guidance.
While Ignatius was the most notable “church father” for promoting the power of the office of the bishop, Irenaeus gave them even more power. According to him, nothing could be done without them. It appears likely that appealing to apostolic succession would work in his favor to defend orthodoxy from the Gnostic influence who proposed secret revelation and other unorthodox views.[1] Between 200 and 330, five chief bishops or “patriarchs” had established authority in the cities of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem – governing most of the local congregations in the area.
This shift toward a hierarchical system in the writings of the Church Fathers can be illustrated by the early writings of Clement of Rome. This early writing made no distinction between a “bishop” and an “elder” just as the Scriptures make no distinction. But, by the time of Iraneaus, Peter is presented as the first bishop of Rome with elders under him.1 The simple plan in the New Testament, where both bishop and presbyter are the same person is now separated into two distinct roles. During the time of Ignatius of Antioch, the two are clearly defined and distinct offices of this institutional organization are fixed. Speaking of the Letter to Corinth, Schaeff writes: “Authority indeed is claimed for the utterance of the letter in no faltering tone, but it is the authority of the brotherhood declaring the mind of Christ by the Spirit, not the authority of one man, whether bishop or pope.”[2] In fact, it is interesting that the letter from Clement is written from the third person, “we” so that the brethren in Rome, not Clement, may have sent the letter to the brethren in Corinth.[3] Rather than Clement trying to stand in place of an apostle as successor, the letter may be presented as coming from brethren in one place to brethren in another place. We would expect this after the apostles were no longer alive. Instead of some elite group, who stand in their place as revealer of the truth, God’s people appeal to the work of the Apostles and prophets as the standard of authority (cf. Ephesians 3:3-5). Rather that the authority residing in any man or group of men, it is inherent in the inspired Word of God.
[1] Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, p. 76.
[2] Church Fathers, 352
[3] ibid, p.69.