Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 2 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Bible and Early Church History  /  After the Apostles – A.D. 150  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 2
The lesson lists specific doctrines that allegedly can’t be found in second-century Christian writers (e.g., 144,000 in heaven, no soul, mandatory use of “Jehovah,” Saturday Sabbath, Luther’s “faith alone,” Calvin’s predestination, dispensationalism, and later Catholic Marian and purgatory teachings); which of these examples most challenges your confidence in your own tradition, and what do you think you would do if the historical evidence didn’t support a belief you’ve treated as “obviously biblical”?
Another way to ask: Which “missing in the second century” doctrine on the list most shakes your confidence in your own church tradition? If history didn’t back up a belief you thought was clearly in the Bible, what would you do?

Direct Answer The transcript can’t choose which example most challenges *your* tradition, but Bercot’s main challenge is that many believers treat their own doctrine as “obviously biblical” even when it can’t be traced to the Christians immediately after the apostles. His counsel is to respond with honesty and humility—admitting a cherished belief “could possibly be wrong” and is at least “open to question.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He repeatedly claims certain distinctives are absent from second-century writers: e.g., “only 144,000… go to heaven,” “humans have no soul,” mandatory “Jehovah,” Saturday Sabbath for Christians, Luther’s salvation doctrine, Calvin’s predestination, dispensationalism, and later Catholic Marian/purgatory teachings.
  • He says when people face that absence they often default to: “Well, the early Christians were wrong… The men who learned from the apostles… went astray immediately.”
  • He calls this posture intellectually proud: “The idea that I could be wrong… that’s absurd… It’s got to be those funny people who lived way back there.”
  • He presents the honest fork in the road: either claim total apostasy around year 100 and later restoration, “or else perhaps… acknowledge that maybe some of your cherished beliefs could possibly be wrong.”
  • He shares his own outcome: “I finally came to the conclusion… most of what I believed was wrong,” and he “challenge[s] you to make the same honest examination.”
Discussion Follow-ups What would be the first belief you would be willing to re-check using second-century sources? What would “honest examination” look like in your church without fear or defensiveness?

Jumpstarter 2 of 10
Back Questions Next