Replies

There are several difficulties in trying to reconstruct
church history. We cannot always know with absolute
certainty what ancient people believed about every point
in question. Here are some reasons why.

1. Bias can affect writers and historians. Every
doctrinal writer and church historian has his own presuppositions,
which can affect his objectivity. Early writers
were no exception. It was only natural for them to tend to
slant things in their favor, sometimes deliberately and
sometimes unconsciously. When they described the doctrine
of someone they disagreed with, they often made it
look foolish or illogical, because to them it was. Sometimes
they simply did not understand a point their opponents
made.
History is written by the victors. Whenever there were
clashes in history, the people who won usually were the
ones who left the record of what happened. Often the
views of a minority are preserved only in the writings of
their opponents. To see the difficulty here, we can imagine
trying to understand and assess the Pentecostal movement
solely by reading the documents of critics and
skeptics. How accurately could some define the doctrine
of Oneness, or explain the experience of the Holy Spirit
baptism, if all he had were records of opponents who castigated,
smeared, and misrepresented these teachings,
whether intentionally or not?
We should also note that there is doctrinal bias among
church historians today. We cannot evaluate church history
simply by reading church historians. We must go back
to the primary sources themselves and look at them from
our perspective. Of course, another historian would say
we have a bias, but at least we try to establish the “bias”
of our doctrinal position from the Bible. We cannot
depend totally on writings from church historians who
come with a different doctrinal perspective. Instead, we
must read the original historical sources as much as possible
to see what the writers said for themselves. By
examining these writings from our point of view, we may
uncover information, evidence, or possibilities that other
church historians have missed.

2. Writers of a certain age do not always represent
the views of the majority of believers at that time.
The writings that survive from a particular era may not
have been written by the most influential leaders or teachers
of the time. Before the invention of printing in the
West in the 1400s, all documents had to be copied by
hand. If later scribes deemed a manuscript to be unimportant
or heretical, they had little desire to copy it
repeatedly. Censors often destroyed writings later judged
to be heretical. Generally, what has been preserved from
early times are documents that fit the beliefs of the people
who had the opportunity to preserve or discard them.
Only a fraction of the writings from early times still
exist, and it is difficult to say how representative the remnant
is. If a writer was a known bishop, pastor, or other
church leader, we have some reason to believe he represented
a significant view in the church. If a writer is
unknown or had no significant position in the church, it is
quite possible that he was not truly representative of the
church of his time. Perhaps he gained greater favor with
later generations, who preserved his work, than he
enjoyed in his own lifetime.
We should also consider that people who tend to write
do not always reflect the piety and views of the average
person. Particularly in ancient times, those who had the
leisure and education to write scholarly treatises may
have had a different perspective from the average believer.
Even in our own day, the works of major theologians
are often much more liberal than the views of most lay
members in their own denominations.

3. There is always the strong possibility of interpolations
(insertions) in ancient manuscripts. The
scribes who copied manuscripts by hand often changed
statements, whether by mistake, misunderstanding, or
deliberate alteration. They often felt free to add clarifications,
“corrections,” or simply their own views. Comparisons
of different manuscripts of the same works reveal
that interpolations were quite common.
Sometimes a scribe involved in a theological controversy
would insert a few lines supportive of his own position
into a book by an ancient, widely respected leader.
The temptation was great to use such an authoritative figure
to help resolve a dispute. On the other hand, if a
scribe found a questionable phrase in the work of such an
author, he might feel it important to edit the work and
strike the offending or potentially dangerous words. As a
result, we are not always sure that we actually have the
original words or views of a certain author. Sometimes we
can only guess or suppose.

4. False doctrines existed in the
earliest times. Even if we were to find a nonbiblical document
from the first century, its antiquity does not guarantee
that it is truly apostolic or teaches the correct doctrine,
for the New Testament reveals there were false teachers
even in the first century. Moreover, documents from the
second century were written approximately a century
after the founding of the New Testament church, and one
hundred years is a long time in doctrinal history. For
example, vast doctrinal changes, innovations, and movements
have developed in the twentieth century: the entire
modern Pentecostal movement arose in this century.
People from all theological perspectives disagree with
the earliest postbiblical writings on some points. For
instance, evangelical Protestant scholars typically conclude
that the earliest postbiblical writers did not clearly
proclaim the doctrine of justification by faith but fell into
legalism.

5. Early terms were often imprecise, especially in
light of later controversies. For example, in the Middle
Ages and during the Reformation great controversies
arose over the Lord’s Supper. The issue was whether the
bread and the fruit of the vine were symbolic, or whether
Christ’s blood and body were physically present. Both
sides in these debates appealed to writers from the first
few centuries. For instance, a proponent of the doctrine
of the real presence would find a writer who described the
Lord’s Supper as a partaking of Christ’s body. But did the
writer mean this statement to be figurative or literal? It is
difficult to know for certain, since he wrote before the
controversy existed.
Early writers did not anticipate later disputes and
therefore did not guard against certain misinterpretations.
We cannot demand of them a precision of terminology
that was foreign to their time, nor can we make them
speak of doctrinal issues that arose after their time. In
some cases there is enough evidence to predict what position
they would have taken had they lived during a certain
controversy. In many cases, however, they did not use certain
definitive terms, or at least not with the connotation
or precision of later times.
It can be anachronistic to cite certain writers in support
of a particular doctrine, even though they may have
used words that later acquired a certain theological significance.
When we study ancient authors, we must determine
what their words meant in the context of their
writings and their times.

6. Sources for church history are neither authoritative
nor infallible. Only Scripture can claim those distinctives.
It is from Scripture alone that we must derive
instruction for salvation, Christian living, and Christian
belief.
Our sole authority is the Bible, the Word of God. God
has inspired and preserved it for doctrine, reproof, correction,
and instruction in righteousness (II Timothy
3:16). If an ancient, well-respected source seems to teach
a doctrine that is contrary to Scripture, we must choose
the message of Scripture.