Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 1
The chapter claims the early church believed “there was no special doctrinal revelation beyond the apostles”; how does that assumption shape what the church would count as “faithfulness” to God, and how does it challenge modern openness to “new words,” “fresh revelation,” or trendy doctrinal shifts?
Another way to ask: If the early church believed God gave no new teaching after the apostles, how would that shape what they call being “faithful” to God? How does that push back on today’s interest in “new words,” “fresh revelation,” or new trendy teachings?

Direct Answer Based on David Bercot’s teaching, if the apostles were the final channel of special doctrinal revelation, then “faithfulness” meant holding tightly to what the apostles already delivered, not adding upgrades or revisions. That directly challenges modern habits of celebrating “fresh revelation” or doctrinal novelty as spiritual progress.

Support from Transcript:

  • “The early Church specifically taught that there was no special doctrinal revelation beyond the apostles.”
  • They believed “everything we need to know about God had been revealed to the apostles” and that apostolic teachings “applied to Christians in all ages.”
  • Tertullian: “In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority… they did not… introduce anything new.”
  • The church “summarily rejected any teaching or doctrine that hadn’t been heard from the lips of the apostles.”
  • Bercot says early Christians were “ultra-conservative, equating change with error,” and that when change is treated as error “things do not change very quickly.”
Discussion Follow-ups If a church assumes no new doctrinal revelation, how should it evaluate modern claims of new prophetic insight or innovative doctrines? Where is the line between applying apostolic teaching and adding to it?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next