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
Question 2
Bercot challenges the common evangelical storyline (early church taught “faith alone,” Constantine corrupted things, works crept in later) by quoting Francis Schaeffer—what assumptions about church history and doctrinal “decline” are being confronted here, and what would have to change in our thinking if Bercot’s historical claim is accurate?
Another way to ask: Bercot questions the common story that the early church taught “faith alone” until Constantine messed things up. If Bercot is right about history, what big assumptions about “decline” in doctrine would we need to rethink?

Direct Answer He confronts the assumption that “faith alone” was the universal early-Christian view and that “works-salvation” arrived only after Constantine. If his claim is accurate, evangelicals must rethink the idea that their salvation framework is simply the original apostolic consensus preserved until later corruption.

Support from Transcript:

  • He says we expect to find faith alone because it is “the cornerstone doctrine of the Reformation,” and some say those who deny it “aren’t really Christians.”
  • He summarizes the usual narrative: early Christians taught faith alone, then “after Constantine corrupted the church… works play a role.”
  • He quotes Schaeffer: “pristine Christianity… gradually became distorted… emphasis on salvation as resting on man’s meriting.”
  • Then he directly contradicts that storyline: “But that’s not really the case.”
  • He asserts universality long before Constantine: “The early Christians universally believed that works or obedience play an essential role in our salvation.”
  • He says he quotes writers “from the time of the apostle John to the inauguration of Constantine” to remove doubt.
Discussion Follow-ups If the pre-Constantine church broadly held these views, how should we weigh “Reformation distinctives” against earlier Christian consensus—without assuming either one is automatically right?