Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

The chapter states that second-century Christians “equated theological innovation with error” and that “the only church fathers they knew were Jesus and his apostles”; what would it look like in practice to treat innovation as a warning sign, and what kinds of teachings in your tradition might not survive that test?

Another way to ask: What would it look like to treat new teachings as a possible warning sign instead of an upgrade? What teachings in your tradition might fail that test?

Direct Answer In practice, treating innovation as a warning sign would mean demanding clear continuity with what Christians believed by the end of the first century and being suspicious of doctrines that appear late and depend on famous theologians for their authority. Teachings in any tradition that can’t be traced early—or that require “reinterpretation” of the apostles—would be the first to be questioned.

Support from Transcript:

He says second-century Christians “equated theological innovation with error.”
He says, “The only church fathers they knew were Jesus and his apostles,” meaning they did not anchor doctrine in later celebrity teachers.
He urges skepticism: “Because the faith received from the apostles was so simple, we should question any new dogmas that go beyond the simple faith.”
He gives a test: “If a continuity of belief can’t be traced back to the end of the first century, we can hardly claim that it’s the historic faith.”
He contrasts innovators and historic faith: those who hold the historic faith can cite “many faithful Christians” before “the Christian theologians ever arose.”

Discussion Follow-ups What doctrines do you accept mainly because a respected tradition or teacher says they are “biblical,” rather than because you can see early continuity?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10