Chapter 15, the real issue. The issue is not the early Christian writings versus Scripture. Remember, the only reason we are looking at the early Christian works in the first place is to help us correctly understand Scripture. There is no competition here between them and Scripture. The real issue is their understanding of Scripture versus our understanding of Scripture. Let's go back to my illustration of the chair manufacturing contract. Are we going to try to guess what the contract means?
Are we going to look at the course of performance of Ezra Mast and James Butler, the original parties to the contract? The early Christians were students of the Scriptures. In fact, it has been said that if all copies of the New Testament had been destroyed, it could essentially be restored merely from the quotations of the early Christian writers. Their teachings are strongly supported by Scripture. After all, they, too, believed in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.
In fact, virtually everything they taught can still be found today scattered among the various groups of conservative, Bible-believing Christians. Yet no single group by itself holds to all of their teachings. There is basically no early Christian belief that some Protestant group hasn't taught simply on the basis of Scripture alone. For example, the Anabaptists held to most of the beliefs and practices of the early Christians.
The Anabaptists grew out of the Reformation in the 16th century in Switzerland, and they emphasized living by the Sermon on the Mount. Because of their uncompromising walk with the Lord and their belief in separation of church and state, they were cruelly persecuted by the Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed churches. Their descendants are still here today in the Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites.
Another biblically minded group whose teachings and practices are very similar to those of the early church are the German Baptist Brethren. They began in the early 1700s out of a small fellowship of Christians in Germany who were committed to returning to primitive Christianity. They ended up moving to America to escape persecution from the Lutheran and the Reformed state churches. So perhaps I shouldn't say that you are going to find the early Christian beliefs and practices to be radically different from yours.
I don't even know what your beliefs are. All I know is that only about half of my beliefs match those of the early church. A few people will find that the early Christian beliefs are almost identical with their own. For example, I spent a Saturday afternoon with a man who was a real student of Scripture. He had never read the early Christian writings and really had little interest in them. Yet through our discussion, I found that he held to nearly all of the same doctrines as did the early church.
First subheading: the big double standard. Modern cults, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, generally teach that the church became apostate almost immediately after the apostles died. Therefore, they argue, the historical record is of no value. Instead, we must interpret the Scriptures for ourselves without reference to what anyone believed in the past. In contrast, Orthodox Christians maintain that we cannot separate ourselves from historic Christianity.
In our books against cults, we invariably boast that we are defending historic Christianity. For example, in his book So What's the Difference, Fritz Ridenour writes, the difference, as far as this book is concerned, is between the historic Christian faith and some of the major religions and cults of the world.
In the book Handbook of Today's Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart give this definition of a cult: "A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity, and/or rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church." Yet, despite what we publicly say, many of our doctrines and practices don't match up with the historic teachings of the church. And what is our response when that is brought to our attention? Do we then humbly change our beliefs to conform to those of the historic record?
No, I'm afraid we don't. Instead, we suddenly change our tune and say that the early Christians were wrong. So after making much ado about the importance of historic Christianity, we respond no differently than the cults when we come face to face with a real McCoy. Isn't that being a bit hypocritical? In the end, the only boast that we can make is that our beliefs go back further than do those of the cults. But if our beliefs can't be traced all the way back to the beginning, of what value is that?
On the other hand, if by historic Christianity we mean the doctrines that the church developed over the centuries, then we should all be Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. Practically all Christians recognize the weight and value of early Christian writings. For we instinctively quote from them when they agree with us. We offer their testimony as virtually incontrovertible evidence that the church originally understood a particular doctrine the same way.
Yet when those writings don't agree with our positions, we immediately dismiss what they had to say as being of no value. What a double standard. And God hates a double standard. "You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. You shall have a full and just weight. You shall have a full and just measure, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
For everyone who does these things, everyone who acts unjustly, is an abomination to the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 25:13-16. That passage is discussing double standards of weight and measure as to physical things. But is that principle any different as to spiritual things? If material dishonesty is wrong, is spiritual dishonesty any different? One of the principal criticisms I have received over the past several years is that I take the early Christian writings too seriously.
Yet I am only endeavoring to be spiritually honest. I strongly believe that none of us should use a double standard. We should either honestly accept the historical evidence of the early Christian writings, or we should quit quoting from them altogether. Either these people were Orthodox Christians, or they were heretics. To quote them when they support our denomination's beliefs, and then call them heretics when they don't, is hypocritical. "Fine, I'll do without them," you may be thinking.
"All I need is my Bible." But you are already relying on the early Christians, probably without knowing it.