New SBJT encourages study of the early church

Towers Online: The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary ^ | August 19, 2008 | Jeff Robinson

[Alex Murphy]

Should historical amnesia be an option for the average Christian?

Knowing church history, particularly as it relates to the early years of Christianity and the theological issues which faced leaders in that age is important for all believers, essayists in the summer edition of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology argue. The latest SBJT examines the early church and encourages Christians to learn from important church fathers such as Athanasius, Augustine and Irenaeus.

Essayists include Southern Seminary professor Michael A.G. Haykin, author and pastor John Piper, Westminster Theological Seminary professor Carl Trueman, Western Seminary professor Todd L. Miles, and Scottish Baptist pastor Nick Needham.

Journal editor Stephen J. Wellum opens with a plea for Christians to take a closer look at their earliest leaders. He admonishes readers to consider the importance of the first centuries of the church and the leaders who worked to establish biblical orthodoxy.

“Today, one of our problems in the evangelical church, which no doubt reflects our larger culture, is that we do not know history, let alone church history and historical theology well,” Wellum writes.

“This is especially the case in regard to the era that we have now dubbed ‘the Patristic era.’ It is safe to say that for most evangelicals, including Baptists, we are more familiar with key people and theological ideas from the Reformation and post-Reformation era than we are of the people and ideas from the earliest years of the church.”

Wellum sets forth two reasons why a study of the church fathers is crucial for modern-day Christians: it helps to remind believers of the rampant pluralism that leaders of the early church faced, and it serves to remind believers that it was the church fathers who hammered out the orthodox expressions of the faith in crucial areas such as Christology and the Trinity.

Many of the ancient heresies which leaders of the nascent church contended with remain alive and well, Wellum points out, and are seen in sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

“Knowing this era of church history will not only enable us to be alert to trends in our own day that basically re-invent ideas from the past, but it will also help us better to live and proclaim the gospel faithfully today, for God’s glory and our good.”

Haykin, who serves as professor of church history at Southern Seminary, reviews emerging church leader Brian McLaren’s new book “ Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices,” a work that seeks to recommend spiritual disciplines as practiced in the early church to modern believers. One major problem with the book, Haykin argues, is that it articulates a spirituality that lacks any meaningful connection to the work of Christ.

“In the whole of the book,” Haykin writes, “there appears to be only one explicit reference to the cross. This occurs in the context of the trendy declaration that ‘Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion,’ for he ‘wouldn’t have been killed simply for starting a new religion,’ since the Roman Imperium was religiously tolerant. Yet, throughout its history, healthy Christian piety has directed people desirous of knowing how to draw near to God to the cross.”

In the end, Haykin concludes that McClaren’s book falls prey to the very thing is seeks to remedy and fails in its overall mission.

“McLaren keeps referring to ‘the ancient practices’ in his book, but, at the end of it, I was no wiser as to what exact period he is thinking of. I suspect that he would like the reader to think of the ancient church, which is usually dated from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D…But the truth of the matter is that much of what he said regarding these ancient practices is no older than the late Middle Ages.

“McLaren emphasizes that he wished to provide his readers with something more than a ‘mushy, amorphous spirituality,’ but that, in the opinion of this reader, is exactly what he has served up for his readers.”

Piper examines the life and theology of Athanasius, Needham provides an overview of the life and thought of St. Augustine of Hippo, Miles analyzes the thought of Irenaeus of Lyons, and Trueman traces the connections between Patristic beliefs and the theology of the Reformation.

The Journal also includes numerous book reviews and a panel discussion of the significance of the early church. Panelists include Southern Seminary professors Chad O. Brand and Gregg Allison, along with noted theological historian Stephen Nichols and Criswell College professor Everett Berry.

[DonaldC]

This is indeed needed. Some baptist circles believe Jesus was baptist because he was baptized by John the baptist. And I am not kidding!

[Augustinian monk]

“Some baptist circles believe Jesus was baptist because he was baptized by John the baptist. And I am not kidding!”

Oh yeah. Most if not all Roman catholics beleive Peter was the first pope. Not kidding! : )

[vladimir998]

“Today, one of our problems in the evangelical church, which no doubt reflects our larger culture, is that we do not know history, let alone church history and historical theology well,” Wellum writes.

It’s so good to see a Protestant admit this.

[vladimir998]

Some Baptists think they are named after John the Baptist and that he was the first Baptist (as in confessional Baptist). Bizarre.

[american colleen]

"Wellum sets forth two reasons why a study of the church fathers is crucial for modern-day Christians: it helps to remind believers of the rampant pluralism that leaders of the early church faced, and it serves to remind believers that it was the church fathers who hammered out the orthodox expressions of the faith in crucial areas such as Christology and the Trinity."

Wouldn't most Baptists have a problem with that statement because it sort of refutes 'the Bible only' belief?

This was a pretty interesting article, btw, thanks for posting it.

[guitarplayer1953]

With Him (Wellum) trowing in the person of Augustine I have questions if he is protestant. Augustine was a believer in Mithra.

[ladyL]

I hope they study the Nicene Council in 325 AD and see how the Hebrew faith that was left to the Believers was remixed with paganism to satisfy Constantine and his countrymen. That is how we have all been worshiping Mithra, with all of his accutrements, for the past 2000 yrs.
,

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“With Him (Wellum) trowing in the person of Augustine I have questions if he is protestant. Augustine was a believer in Mithra.”

Uh, no he wasn’t. He was a Christian. Late in his 20s he abandoned paganism (Manicheanism) and came to believe in Christ. He was baptized. He was never a believe in Mithradaism which was mostly a religion for soldiers.

As someone noted and documented:

Saint Augustine Tractatus in Joh. Evang. VII, 6. (Pileatus = a god wearing a phrygian cap; either Attis or Mithras).

Some counterfeit therefore the spirit which I speak has set up, as though he would fain redeem by blood his own image, since he knew that by precious blood the human race was redeemed. For evil spirits invent for themselves certain counterfeit representations of high degree, that by this means they may deceive the followers of Christ. To such an extent, my brethren, that these very foes of ours, who delude by their posturing and incantations and devices, mingle with their incantations the name of Christ. And because with poison alone they are unable to lead the Christians astray, they add a little honey, to conceal the bitter taste by the sweet, that the fatal draught may be taken; to such an extent that as I understand at one time the priest of that mitred god [Mithras] was accustomed to say, “the mitred god himself also was a Christian.” (DyingGod website)

And this is a great thing to see in the whole world, the lion vanquished by the blood of the Lamb: members of Christ delivered from the teeth of the lions, and joined to the body of Christ. Therefore some spirit or other contrived the counterfeit that His image should be bought for blood, because he knew that the human race was at some time to be redeemed by the precious blood. For evil spirits counterfeit certain shadows of honor to themselves, that they may deceive those who follow Christ. So much so, my brethren, that those who seduce by means of amulets, by incantations, by the devices of the enemy, mingle the name of Christ with their incantations: because they are not now able to seduce Christians, so as to give them poison they add some honey, that by means of the sweet the bitter may be concealed, and be drunk to ruin. So much so, that I know that the priest of that Pilleatus was sometimes in the habit of saying, Pilleatus himself also is a Christian. Why so, brethren, unless that they were not able otherwise to seduce Christians? (ANF)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.toc.html

St. Augustine was not only NOT a Mithra worshipper, but he warned Christians against Mithradaism.

Not ironically, the person who has helped fool so many poorly educated fundamentalists, anti-Catholics, conspiracy theorists and so on into believing Augustine may have been linked to Mithradaism is a feminist who looks at all of Christianity as largely a pagan thing: http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/christ.htm

[vladimir998]

Pagan beliefs were NOT mixed in any way with Christianity at the Council of Nicaea or any other council. That idea is a modernist, anti-Catholic idea invented to excuse the complete lack of historical or biblical origins for Protestantism.

[NYer]

“Knowing this era of church history will not only enable us to be alert to trends in our own day that basically re-invent ideas from the past, but it will also help us better to live and proclaim the gospel faithfully today, for God’s glory and our good.”

You will definitely enjoy this book! I could not put it down.

Available through Amazon.com

What was the early Church like? Contrary to popular belief, Rod Bennett shows there is a reliable way to know. Four ancient Christian writers—four witnesses to early Christianity —left us an extensive body of documentation on this vital subject, and this book brings their fascinating testimony to life for modern believers. With all the power and drama of a gripping novel, this book is a journey of discovery of ancient and beautiful truths through the lives of four great saints of the early Church—Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons.

Good to see you in the forum, Colleen! Hope and pray all is well with you.

[guitarplayer1953]

Augustine did more to corrupt true Christianity than any other person.Pro-Catholics have been spoon feed to many traditions and dink to much koolaid. You place Augustine on way to high a pedestal.

[ladyL]

Oh my, where ever your head is, I think I’d better leave it alone cause you are seriously misinformed. Peace Bro.

[PAR35]

It’s so good to see a Protestant admit this.

A benefit of the growing Calvinistic influence in the SBC. You are going to end up on the same side as the Calvinists on this thread.

[PAR35]

Ping.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Augustine did more to corrupt true Christianity than any other person.”

No, St. Augustine did more to teach more people true Christianity than any person of his age and perhaps more than any person after him.

“Pro-Catholics have been spoon feed to many traditions and dink to much koolaid.”

No, Catholics simply know the truth.

“You place Augustine on way to high a pedestal.”

Nope. God put him where he is.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Oh my, where ever your head is, I think I’d better leave it alone cause you are seriously misinformed. Peace Bro.”

No, I’m actually extremely well informed. But you might as well go since you have no evidence from a reputable source for what you say.

[Truth Defender]

Augustine did more to corrupt true Christianity than any other person.Pro-Catholics have been spoon feed to many traditions and dink to much koolaid. You place Augustine on way to high a pedestal.

AMEN!

[guitarplayer1953]

Lets see here He changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which God never did. He brought in more pagan practices of that time time period if it was worshiped and practiced he just stamped Christ on it and said we do that too. God does not place anyone on a pedestal it was and is forbidden because all have sinned and that includes Mary too and need salvation.

[Diego1618]

Pagan beliefs were NOT mixed in any way with Christianity at the Council of Nicaea or any other council.

If that's the case.....why does your Church not celebrate Passover and the other Biblically instituted Feast Days that were observed by Our Lord and all the Apostles? Were they too Jewish?

You can search the New Testament and will not find one solitary commandment to do away with The Lord's Festivals. This was done entirely on the authority of the Early Church with no scriptural commands whatsoever. Those who continued to observe these Holy Days were persecuted and threatened with death if they continued. Many early congregations still celebrated Passover well into the third, fourth and fifth centuries but your Councils and Synods called these folks heretics and supplanted these observances with pagan customs and observances instead.

That idea is a modernist, anti-Catholic idea invented to excuse the complete lack of historical or biblical origins for Protestantism.

No.....it's a Biblical position not supported by your Church! As far as I know....very few Protestants observe Passover......or the other festivals.