Church History

Worshiping with the Church Fathers seems to reflect a growing interest among Protestants—especially Evangelicals—in early Christianity. Hall is an associate editor for IVP’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, as well as the author of the series of which this book is the third installment. The other titles are Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers and Living Ethnically with the Church Fathers.

The present volume focuses on “baptism, the Eucharist, prayer and the spirituality of the desert fathers” (p. 13). Throughout the book, Hall inserts personal experiences that help keep the book from being a boring string of facts. To help prepare readers for the strangeness they will encounter, he concedes that our world is different, that we are personally resistant to many of the themes here,that we offer “aesthetic resistance,” and we listen to the fathers in a negative fashion (pp. 14-15).

By “aesthetic resistance,” Hall is referring to the fathers’ use of allegory and the dislike of many for that practice—including, he expects, some of his readers (p. 15). He does offer sound advice regarding “negative listening.” We often “ignore all that is positively said in a text and [draw] our attention to what is not said and what we think should be said” (p. 16). I decided to listen before I drew any conclusions.

Tertullian was the first Latin theologian and one of the most creative minds of the second and early third centuries. In particular, his writings contributed greatly to later articulations of the Trinity. This essay focuses on the negative, but not because I think Tertullian was worthless or because I think all good Protestants should bash the Fathers to prove their orthodoxy. On the contrary, we Protestants could probably use quite a bit more familiarity with, and appreciation for, the first five centuries of Christianity. It is precisely because of how much I enjoy Tertullian that his sub-biblical gospel stings me so sharply. I’m writing this because I think we Christians could benefit from understanding how this powerful theologian and apologist came to his misunderstanding of the gospel.

Tertullian believes that there are several unforgivable sins—“murder, idolatry, fraud, apostasy, blasphemy; (and), of course, too, adultery and fornication; and if there be any other ‘violation of the temple of God’ ” (On Modesty, 19). To Protestants, this alone appears unnecessarily harsh, but Tertullian goes farther still. It is not that the Church (or at least the New Prophets, i.e., Montanists) lacks the power to forgive these sins, in Tertullian’s view; it does have the power, but it ought not forgive such sins (On Modesty, 21). Disregarding Tertullian’s scriptural arguments, which are intriguing, his practical argument is that such leniency will simply encourage more sin in the Church, which is clearly unacceptable. There are a few hints that perhaps God in His mercy will forgive the repentant, but in any case, they cannot be returned to the fellowship of the Church.

What a twisted view of the gospel! Yet, it is more profitable to explain the context of this error than simply to decry it. We must start with Tertullian’s view of the Church. He is a perfectionist, or very nearly so. The Church is the bride of Christ, so no spot or blemish should be allowed in it. Anyone who could be condemned by the outside world on moral grounds should have already been cast out of the assembly (Apology, 44). Tertullian’s apologetic strategy both presupposes and necessitates this perfectionist tendency. Tertullian’s main argument for Christianity is the moral blamelessness of Christians. According to Tertullian, Christians simply don’t engage in bad behavior, at least nothing too bad. Although he does grant that Christians may need one (and only one) dose of post-baptismal forgiveness for some non-mortal sin (On Repentance, 7), Tertullian does not paint a picture of Christians struggling against sin, except in an unending stream of victories.

A Summary of Christian History does indeed sum up Christian history. We should not, however, be misled by the name of the book. Though it is a summary, it is not short. Historians cannot even summarize two thousand years in a few pages. Thankfully, Baker and Landers managed to fit their summary into less than five hundred pages. They also succeeded in making a highly enjoyable book.

The first centuries of Christianity with their heresies, divisions, fights, successes, and failures receive good coverage in the first six chapters. They give attention not only to the growth of the church but also to the battles that the church faced. The church experienced much persecution in those early years and also struggled for moral and doctrinal purity. The authors take pains to remind us of these things.

Later, the book turns toward the time in which Christianity began to be accepted and embraced by many. It is during this time that Constantine came to power and nominally embraced Christianity.

Constantine did not divorce himself from the religious support of the pagan devotees; he retained the title of chief priest in their system and became one of their deities after his death in 337…. Thinking that baptism washed away sins, he delayed receiving this rite until he was at the point of death. (p. 25)

While it may have appeared to have been a blessing, the authors show us that Constantine’s move actually led to many problems later. It is in this period that the foundations for Roman Catholicism were laid by church leaders with an affinity for political power and by political leaders meddling in church business. Chapter three deals with this especially as it presents the struggles for purity in the church. Here the authors show us the struggles against legalism and Gnosticism as well as the struggle to retain a pure Christology. We also read of the impact of Donatism, Novatianism, and Montanism on the church during this period. It is also during this period that the Roman bishop apparently began to bring to himself so much power.

John Monroe Parker

June 23, 1909-June 23, 2009

Editor’s Note: Today marks the one hundredth anniversary of Dr. Monroe’s birth. He went home to glory on July 17, 1994.

“There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (John 1:6). John Monroe Parker was born June 23, 1909, in Thomasville, Alabama. His parents, Jacob and Lucy Parker, named him after John Parker, a paternal uncle who was a Baptist preacher, and Monroe, a maternal uncle who died in infancy. He was always known by his middle name. Before he reached school age, Parker’s parents moved the family to Texas. When he was thirteen, his parents returned to Thomasville, Alabama, and in 1925 the family moved to Birmingham. There the robust young man, an outstanding athlete, finished high school and entered college.

Monroe’s parents were godly people, and they provided a godly atmosphere in the home. Monroe made a profession of faith at eight years of age and was baptized in Edgewood, Texas. He records that though he gave intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, “I was a sinner and I knew it.” ¹ Many of us remember Monroe Parker’s statement about his early college years as a lost church member. He used to say, “I helped make the twenties roar.” ²

^{Note: This article is reprinted from The Faith Pulpit (April 1999), a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA). It appears here with some slight editing.}

^{Read Part 1.}

What is happening today is not new, and it is not isolated to only a few rare incidents. Let us note and learn from some examples from the past.

Andover Seminary. Andover was started in 1807-1808 because a Unitarian had been appointed as professor of theology at Harvard. Every attempt was made to safeguard the new school’s orthodoxy. Yet within 75 years, the school’s faculty was promoting views way out of line with traditional orthodoxy, and during its 100th anniversary year—1908—it became identified with and moved back to the Harvard campus! (See: Ernest Gordon, The Leaven of the Sadducees, Chapter VI, “The Looting of Andover.”)

Rochester Seminary. Rochester Seminary had as its president from 1872 to 1912 (a forty year period) the well-known systematic theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong. Strong’s Systematic Theology is still required reading in many conservative colleges and seminaries today. Yet we are told, “Strong was in his own mind generally open to the consideration of new ideas, and his students were taught to think for themselves, so that, as one alumnus wryly reported, ‘in from one to ten years after graduation a goodly crop of ‘heretics’ is found on the alumni roll.’” (See: “Academic Freedom…” by LeRoy Moore, Jr., Foundations, January- March, 1967, X, #1, p. 66.) When Henry Vedder wrote his stinging attack upon the Bible and its essential teachings he dedicated that book (The Fundamentals of Christianity) “…to my teacher in theology, Augustus Hopkins Strong,” as did also Walter Rauschenbusch, the well-known prophet of the Social Gospel, in his book on A Theology for the Social Gospel where he states: “This book is inscribed with reverence and gratitude to Augustus Hopkins Strong…my teacher, colleague, friend…” Yet Dr. Strong, after touring several mission fields later in life, spoke out against liberalism. He observed:

Note: This article is reprinted from The Faith Pulpit (March 1999), a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA). It appears here with some slight editing.

^{Note: This article is reprinted from The Faith Pulpit (March 2002), a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA). It appears here verbatim.}