What Did the Early Christians Teach Lesson 6

Why Place any Significance on the Early Fathers?

Because all of the Present Day Fallacy originated in 4^th Century Rome Under Augustine! He brought in:

1)       The Fallacy of Original Sin

2)       The Fallacy the Free Will Perished with Adam

3)       The Fallacy that Sin remains inbred into our flesh even after conversion

4)       The Fallacy of  Concupiscence as sin

5)       The Fallacies of Election and Predestination

As a Result anyone who Now Embraces Reformed Theology MUST find support for these in the Bible!

1)       If man is Born a Sinner, the Bible has to Support it

2)       If Free Will Perished in Adam Scripture Must Prove it

3)       If Sin Remains in the Regenerated, then the Apostles Must have taught it

4)       If only the Elect will be Saved then Jesus Must have said it!

Thus they have Biblical Support for the following:  (taught everywhere today)

1)       Rom 7 teaches the necessity of sin in believers

2)       Rom 5 teaches all have Sinned in Adam & inherit his Guilt

3)       Rom 9 Teaches absolute individual election & reprobation

4)       Paul referred to himself as a Present Tense Chief of Sinners! (1Tim1:12-17)

5)       Christ became Sin, Suffered God’s Wrath, went to hell  (2Cor5:21)

6)       God Transfers His Virtue & Obed to the believer by faith

7)       Justification can never be withdrawn, (eternal security!)

Premise: IF the Bible Teaches & Supports Reformed Doctrine,WHY did the Early Saints reject these things

• They denied the Concept of Original Sin
• They insisted on Free Will with Ability
• They Taught Ransom Never Substitution or a Representation theory
•  They understood Rom7 as a person trying to be Justified under the law
• They understood Rom 5 as man inherited Physical Death as result of Adam’s sin
• They taught that you had to Endure to the end to be Saved

Anonymous third-century documents

Using the Roman 7 Teaching as an Example. Before Augustine it’s Impossible to find ANYONE who understood it as a ‘Christian’ struggling with a carnal or sinful inbred Nature. Now everyone holds the opposite view! Yet the Saints who immediately followed the Apostles said the following:

”Paul was referring in Romans 7 to his pre-Christian days as an unbelieving Jew stating that even if he has affirmed that good dwelleth not in his flesh, yet he means according to the law of the letter, in which he was; but according to the law of the Spirit, to which he annexes us, he frees us from the infirmity of the flesh.”

Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202) In Against Heresies connected Paul’s statement “that there dwells in my flesh no good thing” as typical of human infirmity which Jesus came to deliver men from.”

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.220), a North African Christian teacher, in Stromata, a refutation of Gnosticism, indicated his belief that when Paul emphasized the war between the law of God and the law of his mind (Rom7:22-23) it was only to show that Jesus rescues men from this through salvation [3:76-78].

 

Tertullian (c.150-240), another North African Christian leader, indicated that the Holy Spirit makes men free from the law of sin and death in our members (Rom 7:23). After this experience of being set free, "Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free" [On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, Ch. 46]. Elsewhere he noted his understanding that Paul was referring in Romans 7 to his pre-Christian days as an unbelieving Jew stating that "even if he has affirmed that 'good dwelleth not in his flesh,' yet he means according to 'the law of the letter,' in which he 'was'; but according to 'the law of the Spirit,' to which he annexes us, he frees us from the 'infirmity of the flesh'"[On Modesty, Ch.17].

In his commentary on Romans, Origen (185-c.254) stated, "Yet when he says, But I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin,' as if a teacher of the Church, he has now taken upon himself the persona of the weak . . . Paul becomes fleshly and sold into slavery under sin and he says the same things that are customary for them to say under the pretense of an excuse or accusation. He is therefore talking about himself as if speaking under the persona of these others . . . it seems to me that whoever assumes that these
things have been spoken under the persona of the Apostle smites every soul with hopelessness. For  there would then be absolutely no one who does not sin in the flesh. For that is what it means to serve the law of sin in the flesh.

Methodius (d.311) wrote that "the expressions: 'That which I do, I allow not,' and 'what I hate, that do I,' are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think
of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them. Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, 'The good that I would, I
do not'" [The Discourse On The Resurrection: A Synopsis Of Some Apostolic Words On The Same Discourse, Part 1].

Cyril of Jerusalem (c.315-c.386) in commenting upon this passage noted for his students to "learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will. Listen not, I pray thee, to anyone perversely interpreting the words, But if I do that which I would not" [Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4:19]. He then went on to quote Isaiah 1:19-20, Romans 1:19, 1:28, 6:19, Matthew 13:15, and Jeremiah 2:21. In another place Cyril commented upon how Paul used the phrase "But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity" to describe how the Devil had used the flesh against mankind since the time of Adam but that
Jesus in taking upon himself human flesh had saved man's nature [Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 12:15].

Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395?) quoted Paul's words in Romans 7:14 to describe all mankind as being "sold under sin" and then in asking what was the "method of release from this" directed his readers to the new birth [On Virginity, Ch. 13].

John Chrysostom (347-407) in commenting upon this passage indicated his belief that it was a man who was living under the Law of Moses noting that, "Wherefore he went on to say, 'but I am carnal;' giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law" [Homilies On The Epistle To The Romans, Homily 13, Commentary of Romans 7:14].

When Pelagius was refuting Augustine around 415AD on this Subject, he challenged the great Bishop to produce ONE Saint who agreed with his understanding of Rom7,  that Paul was describing himself as a Christian. But he was unable to do so. The Prevailing interpretation of Rom7 among the early Saints was a person struggling under the law. NOT someone battling inbred sin. (which did not exist!)

Again ,we ask WHO are the Real Heretics?

All the Concepts of Reformed Theology, handed down to the Present Day Church from the Reformation, came out of 4^th Century Rome, when the Fallacy of Original Sin was Introduced. The following Concepts can be traced without failure to Pagan Philosophy:

Predestination = Stoicism
Total Depravity = Tatian/ Gnosticism
Secret Election = Gnosticism
The Corruption of Nature = Gnosticism
Sex in Marriage is Lust = Gnosticism
The Loss of Freewill = Gnosticism

Thus Scripture has to be Understood in-line with these Fallacies and anything that deviates from their teaching is by necessity Heresy. Consequently the Early Saints were the worst of heretics! Because they refuted all these things. They DID NOT see Christians as Wretched Sinners, in bondage to their inbred Natures. Nor did they see individuals bond by Fate and their election Pre-Determined by God. It was the collective understanding among the early Saints that Man was created by God with Free Will and the Ability to Obey His Commands. He Did Not need to be coerced in order to Believe.

What makes this Doctrinal mess so difficult to unravel is its complexity spanning over many centuries. And that the entire System has descended on our present Generation in a confusing muddle of opinions. However we have the privilege of looking back and finding the origin of these teachings. With that as our advantage we can more readily discover who is in line with Apostolic teaching and who isn’t . But this requires diligence and an unbiased point of view on our part. If we approach this insisting on a Doctrinal slant it shifts the entire perspective to defending the Doctrines of men instead of the Teaching of Christ.