False histories impugn doctrinal orthodoxy

September 22, 2008
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

Now that the brouhaha about The Da Vinci Code has died down, it is time to turn our attention to other historical myths that cast doubt upon the historical doctrinal orthodoxy of the church.

When The Da Vinci Code became a bestseller, I read a book review that enumerated the historical claims made by the book. Because I have independently read a fair amount of history during the course of my life, I knew these claims were bogus. I needed only two hours to write a brief essay in which I showed how the facts of history contradicted each of the false historical claims of The Da Vinci Code. In some cases, the historical truth was the exact opposite of the outlandish claims of The Da Vinci Code.

The lies of The Da Vinci Code were blatant, obvious, and easy to debunk. Now I am obliged to debunk a category of revisionist church histories written by professional historians. Their falsehoods are cleverly developed and require more work to expose, but they are no less damaging to the faith of Christians.

The glorious truth vs. ugly myths

Fact: The majority of Christian believers have always confessed the same fundamental truths. The continuity of doctrinal orthodoxy down through the ages is a glorious tribute to God's faithfulness. Since the early church, God has never been without an abundant testimony to His unchanging divine truth.

During the course of a millennia, new regions are evangelized while the light of truth flickers out in some places that once had vigorous churches. The continuity of truth does not imply the continuity of geography.

However, since the time when Christ gave the great commission to his apostles and ascended to heaven, there has always has been a significant doctrinally orthodox testimony on earth. The church has never lacked zealous defenders of orthodoxy and articulate opponents of heresy. This is the glorious truth of history.

Myth #1: There were long stretches of history where most of those bearing the name of Christ did not know the fundamental truths of the faith. According to some sectarian histories, the appearance of the founder of the sect brought the restoration of a long-lost orthodoxy. This is an ugly myth that casts aspersions upon God's faithfulness.

Myth #2: The generally-accepted definitions of orthodoxy have changed from time to time. This is an ugly myth perpetrated by revisionist historians that opens the door to heresy. God's truth is unchanging and eternal.

These two myths contradict verifiable historical facts. One can trace an unbroken tradition of faith for 2,000 years in which the core fundamentals of orthodoxy were publicly confessed in many places.

First, I shall refute the two myths. Then, I shall spend extra time on the doctrine of the atonement that is currently under attack by the revisionist historians.

The Apostolic Fathers

The era of the "primitive church" was also the era of the Apostolic Fathers (50–150 A.D.), who knew the Twelve Apostles personally. Their teachings and writings were essential to the survival of the church.

Prior to the availability of the New Testament, the primitive church sang hymns that were simple creedal statements set to music. An outstanding example is the quotation by the Apostle Paul of a creedal hymn in his letter to the Philippians. (See Philippians 2: 5–11.) The lyrics of this hymn are a simple summation of some key elements of orthodoxy. The hymn predates the writing of all of the books of the New Testament.

Not all historians agree that certain texts in the scripture were quotations of creedal hymns of the primitive church. In spite of the lack of decisive proof, the claim has a high level of plausibility. Many of the psalms of David were composed as songs that were set to music. Some of these songs were quoted in the New Testament epistles. It would be surprising if the spirit-filled early believers did not compose a lot of hymns. If the Apostles quoted a few of the psalms of David, it is highly likely that they also quoted some hymns composed by the Christians of their day.

The intensely creedal nature of the early church after 150 A.D. suggests that earlier creedal hymns were probably part of the panoply of the primitive church. Singing the truth naturally precedes the formal public confession of the truth. Due to the high level of probability of early creedal hymns, the burden of proof lies with those who deny the idea.

The Apostles and their disciples traveled from church to church teaching orthodox truth and rebuking heresy. Thanks to them and to the creedal hymns, the primitive church was orthodox before the New Testament Bible was available.

After the death of the Apostles, copies of individual gospels and epistles began to be shared from church to church. The teachings of the Apostolic Fathers and their disciples, reinforced by public readings of selected gospels and epistles, helped to keep the primitive church faithful to orthodox truth.

The Road to Nicea (150–325 A.D.)

After the death of the Apostolic Fathers, the church was no longer primitive. Throughout the era that stretches towards the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), the church had many resources: a) Collections of gospels and collections of epistles were freely circulating throughout the churches. b) The first version of the Apostles' Creed and proposed lists of canonical books were in widespread use for at least a century prior to Nicea. c) After the death of the Apostolic Fathers, the church still had Fathers, most of whom were classical scholars; the authority and influence of these Fathers reached throughout the Roman world. d) The churches had a standard liturgy. e) Ecclesiastical hierarchies were developed; learned bishops had great authority as teachers of the truth.

The tasks of the fathers during this era included the development of a standard liturgy and the development of an early version of the Apostles' Creed. The Nicene Creed, issued by the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), was in perfect accord with the early version of the Apostles' Creed. The first ecumenical council, held at Nicea, had supreme magisterial authority. Therefore, the Nicene Creed ratified the orthodoxy of the Apostles' Creed and the orthodoxy of the Fathers who developed it during the 150–325 A.D. era.

I like the phrase "the road to Nicea," because at Nicea the leaders of the early church passed the baton to new magisterial authorities who were recognized by the Roman Imperium — which had become the sponsor and protector of the church. After the Roman Empire became officially Christian, the church was institutionalized. Doctrinal orthodoxy was systematically propagated by the institutional church.

The Apostles' Creed

What we now call the Apostles' Creed was known to the Fathers of the Church as "The Rules of the Faith." Irenaeus published a version of the Rules of the Faith in 180 A.D. and Tertullian published a version in 200 A.D. We know that Irenaeus and Tertullian studied the works of the Apostolic Fathers (50–150 A.D.) We can reasonably assume that they were influenced by these works when they developed The Rules of Faith.

The original applications of The Rules of the Faith were: the catechism of children and new believers, a baptismal formula, and the correction of the gnostic heresy.

The Rules of the Faith were the direct predecessor to the Old Roman Creed (5th century), which in turn was the direct predecessor of the written version of the Apostles' Creed that appeared in 700 A.D. This blessed creed simply presents most of the basic elements of orthodoxy.

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he arose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the forgiveness of sins, the communion of saints, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting."

The next time you recite the Apostles' Creed in church, remember that during the period bracketed by the years 150 -325 A.D., Christians were reciting a creed that was essentially the same as the one you use. Our solidarity with the orthodox faith of the early Christians is miraculous, but is historically undeniable.

Identifying the New Testament books

During the first century, copies of individual New Testament books were often sent from church to church by couriers who traveled on the Roman roads. Starting in the early 2nd century, collections of the four gospels and collections of the Epistles were bound together and sent throughout the Christian world. They circulated widely among the churches throughout the era leading up to Nicea.

The Apostolic Fathers began circulating recommended lists of New Testament books in the second and third century. Irenaeus wrote the first list in 160 A.D.

Irenaeus wanted the canon of scripture to be closed because he suspected that Montanists, like Tertullian, were giving as much weight to contemporary prophetic utterances as they were to the writings of the Apostles.

Tertullian reminds me of the Pentecostals! Irenaeus was an early version of a conservative Bible scholar! Both men were Fathers of the Church and both confessed the orthodox creed called The Rules of the Faith. Yes, they had both kinds of Christians in 160 A.D., and we have both kinds today! The two camps did not get along any better than they do now!

This quarrel between the Montanists and the conservatives providentially speeded the process of identifying the New Testament books and closing the canon of scripture. God let them argue and used it to further his own ends.

The canon of scripture was closed near Tertullian's home in North Africa and far from Irenaeus' home in Roman Gaul. Yet it was Irenaeus who first championed the closing of the canon to put a leash on the Montanists, like Tertullian, who were running amok. The home of Montanism became the home of the final canon of scripture. What an irony! The ways of God have charm, grace, and style!

Closing the canon of scripture

The list developed by Irenaeus was called a "canon," meaning literally "a list." A "canonical book" is a book included on an official list. The lists composed by the Fathers were designed to exclude spurious books and include all the surviving books written by Apostles or written under their authority — and written through the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the canonical books have both apostolic and divine authority.

Some scholars think that in the early 200's, Origen used the 27 books that were later universally embraced as the New Testament. Therefore, two centuries before the canon was officially closed, the Fathers and perhaps the Metropolitan Bishops had collections of books that mostly correspond to our New Testament. It is likely that Irenaeus and Tertullian, who developed the Rules of the Faith, had access to all or most of the same books. We can trust that the Rules of the Faith and the Nicene Creed were carefully compared with scripture.

In 367 A.D., the Easter Letter of St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, included a list of canonical books that was soon recognized as the final list. Under the authority of St. Augustine, the Synod of Hippo (393 A.D.) and the councils of Carthage (397 & 419 A.D.) officially recognized the list of Athanasius, and closed the canon of scripture.

The Bible saved the church

It is extremely interesting to realize that Saint Augustine, the last and one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Church, oversaw the closing of the canon of scripture. The closing of the canon facilitated the publication and widespread dissemination of complete Bibles. There were no Fathers after Augustine, but there were Bibles. Can it be that when the church was equipped with Bibles, it no longer needed Fathers of the church?

Saint Augustine lay dying in 430 A.D. as the Vandals were at the gates of his city of Hippo in North Africa. He had just completed writing his immortal classic The City of God, which included a meditation on why Rome fell. I am sure that during his last days on earth, Augustine took comfort in the reflection that he closed the canon of scripture — and thereby ensured the survival of the church in the West.

Rome was sacked by the Vandals (410 A.D.), as the closing of the canon of scripture was almost complete. The fall of Rome denied the Western church of its imperial patron and protector. Maybe a church equipped with Bibles no longer needed the sponsorship of the Roman Imperium.

However, the Greek church in the East continued to enjoy the sponsorship of Christian emperors for a thousand years. Could this be why the Eastern church was never as intensely focused upon the Bible as was the Western church?

The closing of the canon was a blessing to the Eastern Church, but was a matter of life or death to the Western church. Could it be that more of the Eastern church might have survived the Muslim conquest if the Eastern Christians had been more Bible-centered?

St. Jerome's excellent Vulgate Bible was published in 405 A.D. The complete Bible in Latin was now available to the West and could be read everywhere the Latin-speaking Romans had conquered, settled, and established their language.

It is extremely interesting that Jerome's Bible was published and distributed in the nick of time before the barbarians came. Can it be that a church equipped with Bibles need not fear the barbarians? It is difficult to conceive of how the Western church could have survived during the Dark Ages without Bibles.

The great creeds

The Nicene Creed (325 A.D.), the Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.), and the Athanasian Creed (500 A.D.?) perfectly agree with the Apostles' Creed and with the New Testament. Although the later creeds are elaborate, they vindicate and explicate the simpler, earlier creeds. Believers who have studied the later creeds can recite the Apostles' Creed with greater understanding and conviction.

The great creeds were the work of "ecumenical counsels" that were attended by bishops and scholars. The councils had supreme magisterial authority. Therefore, the creeds were highly honored throughout Christendom.

The Dark Ages

During the age of heroic missionaries in Northern and Western Europe, the missionary monks devoted themselves to evangelizing the barbarians and copying the Bible.

Clerical scholars like Cassiodorus, St. Columba, the Venerable Bede, St. Boniface, Alcuin of York, and Lanfranc established the creeds in the Cathedral schools during the Dark Ages. Charlemagne required every Bishop in his empire to preside over a cathedral school. A "cathedral" was a church that had a throne (cathedra) for a bishop, and was therefore "the seat of a bishop." The bishop could issue official statements ex cathedra — that is to say, "from the throne." Every bishop became the principal educator of his diocese, and every student in his school knew the catechism and the creeds.

Charlemagne put Alcuin of York in charge of developing an educational establishment that taught the seven liberal arts, the Bible, the classics, and theology. Alcuin also had the task of standardizing the liturgy and the rules of St. Benedict. Alcuin oversaw the revision and annotation of the Vulgate Bible and the copying, illuminating, and distribution of that special Bible.

Alcuin's scholars had Greek scriptural manuscripts of the highest quality. The manuscripts were made by Constantine's copyists or the scribes at Nicea — and had somehow survived the intervening four and a half centuries. Alcuin's scribes made many quality copies of those manuscripts, a few of which survive today. As a result, the Bible survived the Dark Ages. Prior to the mid-twentieth century, most Bible translations depended heavily upon the excellent textual foundation laid by Alcuin's team in the late 8th century.

This prodigy of biblical preservation occurred in the middle of the Dark Ages. It was a miracle of God's faithfulness in preserving his truth.

The High Middle Ages

With the encouragement of St. Anselm, the scholastic educational movement he founded, and the cathedral schools, creedal catechisms were taught to a multitude of students throughout the High Middle Ages. Even in rural parishes, the children of peasants had to recite the catechisms.

The reforming popes of the 11th and 12th centuries insisted that the clergy be properly educated. As a result, every parish priest could read the Latin Bible, and many were able to teach Bible lessons in the Sunday homily.

The Reformation

Martin Luther (15th century) dissented with certain teachings that were added by the Roman church after the great day of the creeds. For example, the creeds make no mention that human works or the sacerdotal mediation of the sacraments are necessary for eternal salvation. The demand for human works is the pelagian error. The cult of priests that requires major distinctions between an elite clergy and a lowly laity is the sacerdotal error.

Both Luther and the Roman Magisterium of his day were orthodox in terms of the great creeds. In spite of the serious differences between Luther and Pope Leo X, they were probably wrong to accuse each other of being heretics.

The pelagian tendency of the Roman church never reached the point of a denial of the fall of man, original sin, or the need for Christ's atonement. Therefore, the church did not fall into heresy.

Sacerdotalism is a serious error, but it is not a heresy. After all, the church had been sacerdotal since the time of Constantine, if not before. If a Roman Catholic who lived before Vatican II could go back in time to 400 A.D. and visit a church, he would feel perfectly at home. The long centuries of sacerdotalism did not hinder the church from preserving doctrinal orthodoxy.

Lutheranism as a bulwark of orthodoxy

The Reformation produced several new confessions and catechisms. All of these were orthodox and reinforced the creeds.

Luther's offering of the open Bible to all believers was made possible by his translation of the Bible into German, the printing of cheap Bibles, and the Lutheran educational program for universal literacy. Luther's sermons, his catechism, and the Lutheran Augsburg Confession (1530) were orthodox.

Just as the Latin church was more focused on the Bible than the Greek church, Lutheran churches were more Bible-centered than the Roman Catholic churches. The Bible helped the Latin church to survive without the sponsorship of a Christian emperor. In like manner, the Bible helped the Lutherans to survive without the sponsorship of the papacy.

There is a close parallel between the Lutherans and the Presbyterians. Both had confessions, catechisms, Bible translations, and educational programs, and both survived great tribulation by clinging to the Bible.

The Lutherans in tribulation

Just as the Bible helped the Latin church survive the dark ages, the Bible helped the Lutherans survive the traumas of breaking free from the mother church, involving fierce persecution by Rome and the troubled wilderness wanderings of the early days of the schism.

The Bible helped the Lutherans to endure the horrors of the Peasant's Revolt. The Bible and Luther's sermons saw them through the tribulation of dealing with the wild and extreme religious cults that spun out of the vortex of Reformation passions. Luther called the cultists "schwarmer" (angry swarms of bees) to show his revulsion for the hysterical enthusiasm and madness of these cults.

Luther was deeply conservative and was horrified by revolutions, social upheavals, radicals, and unleashed enthusiasts. He hated these follies even more than he hated a corrupt Renaissance papacy running amok. He called his people to stand apart from all this madness and return to the Bible, to order, and to sanity.

The worst of all tribulations was the last one. The Thirty Years War (1618–1648) was the bloodiest of the European wars. Although the war was not technically a religious war, religious antagonisms raised war passions to a fever pitch. One third of the German people died, but Lutheranism survived. Personal immersion in the Bible saw the besieged Lutherans through the great ordeal.

Now let us consider the greatest threat to orthodoxy of our time.

The historians' war against the atonement

During the era of spiritual lukewarmness, seeker-sensitive megachurches and "emerging churches" are starting to go soft on the doctrine of the atonement. This slide towards apostasy is facilitated by revisionist historians.

Revisionist historians are waging war upon the atonement. They are cherry-picking the facts of history and using illogical arguments in an attempt to sell us myths that are opposite the historical realities about the doctrine of the atonement. Consider the following imaginary scenario as an analogy of the tricks that are being played by the revisionist historians.

Suppose that one Pastor Jones writes separate tracts about the six different works of the cross, to wit: (1) Jesus died for me and atoned for my sins on the cross; (2) I died with him and therefore am gradually being freed from the power of sin; (3) We can be freed from self and live unto God through the power of the cross and the resurrection; (4) The cross delivers us from the fear of death; (5) We can have victory over fiery trials through the cross; (6) We can defeat Satan through the cross.

Now, to continue our scenario, imagine that a hundred years later, a revisionist historian finds a tract Pastor Jones wrote about victory over sin through the cross. The historian leaps to the conclusion that Pastor Jones did not believe in the "justification theory" of the cross because he believed in the "sanctification theory."

This is an illogical conclusion, of course. One cannot deduce what a person does not believe by what he does believe — unless what he does believe mutually excludes something he doesn't believe. But how does the "justification theory" contradict the "sanctification theory?" It doesn't. Justification lays the foundation for sanctification.

This is the kind of cherry-picking of the facts and astonishingly poor logic that is routinely used by revisionist historians in an attempt to discredit the doctrine of the atonement. Amazingly, they seem to be getting away with it.

A stroll through illogical histories

Ignatius of Antioch (35–110 A.D.) wrote about how the cross set him free from the fear of death so that he could face martyrdom. It is quite true that a Christian can be freed of the fear of death through the power of the cross. Our illogical historians have concluded that this was Ignatius' "soteriology" — that is to say, his theory of salvation.

Nonsense. Receiving the gift of eternal life is not the same thing as being set free from fear. As I shall presently illustrate, Ignatius was devoted to Jesus as the sacrificial lamb of the atonement: "the lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." The remission of sins is essential for eternal salvation.

Clement of Alexandria (150–215 A.D.) wrote that the cross leads us to repentance. "Aha, the revisionist historian cries! Clement subscribed to the 'moral influence theory.' Therefore, he must not have believed that Christ died to atone for our sins."

Preposterous. Clement did believe that Christ died for our sins. I shall presently explain how we know this.

Yes, the cross does have moral influence, but no, Christ did not die primarily to have moral influence. Yes, the cross draws us to repentance, but the objective of our repentance is that we might receive eternal salvation and sanctification though faith and grace. An improvement in our moral behavior is the result of an inner transformation resulting from salvation and sanctification. Moral transformation does not primarily come from "moral influence."

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) (120? — 202) wrote that through the death and the resurrection of Christ, we are incorporated into his mystical body. "Aha, the revisionist historian cries, it is the 'incorporation theory.' Irenaeus did not believe in the atonement."

Poppycock. The atonement is the foundation for being incorporated into Christ's body. No atonement, no incorporation.

Origen of Alexandria (185–254) put forward the theory that the death of Jesus was a payment of ransom to Satan to set us free from Satan's power. While it is true that the power of the cross can set us free from bondage to Satan, no ransom is paid to Satan as Origen thought. Revisionist historians associate Origen with the "ransom theory" and claim that this was his soteriology.

Foolishness. Deliverance from bondage to Satan is one thing, and getting into heaven is another thing.

Saint Augustine (354–430) postulated a "mouse trap" theory. Satan is fooled by the cross and caught in a trap — like a mouse in a mousetrap. We can thereby escape Satan's clutches. The revisionists count this as Augustine's soteriology.

Outrageous. Augustine's mouse trap theory is interesting, but it is a blatant lie to count it as his soteriology. Have not our learned historians ever read The Confessions of Saint Augustine? Anyone who has could not possibly mistake the mousetrap theory for Augustine's view of eternal salvation.

Saint Anselm (1033–1109) wrote a logical explanation of the atonement. Luther adopted Anselm's concept of the atonement. Prior to Anselm and Luther, the atonement had not been understood with such crystalline clarity. Not even the revisionist historians can argue that St. Anselm and Luther did not believe in the atonement. Therefore, they argue that no one believed in the atonement prior to them.

Absurd. The atonement was central to the faith of Christians from the time of the early church and continued to be central until the time of Anselm and Luther.

The perpetual centrality of the atonement

The historical truth about the doctrine of the atonement was very nearly the opposite of what the revisionist historians are saying. Not only was the atonement of Christ known to all Christians in all the ages of the church, it was the centerpiece of the liturgy in the first century and continued to be the focus of the liturgy throughout the ages. Ah, the glory of the truth and the wretchedness of the lies of the historians!

The Jewish church in the first century emphasized in their liturgy that the death of Christ substitutes for animal sacrifices in the temple because he is the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. He has become the propitiation (or atonement) for the sins of all mankind. Thereby, the believer's sins are forgiven, and he is reconciled to God.

The word "propitiation" is revealing. The pagans appeased the angry gods through sacrifice. The slain sacrifice upon the altar was the propitiation that satisfied the gods. In like manner, our holy God was outraged by our sins, but his demand for justice and punishment was satisfied by the sacrifice of his Son who was the propitiation for our sins. Although "propitiation" and "expiation" are often used as synonyms, propitiation subtly directs our eyes to the sacrifice on the altar, and expiation subtly directs our eyes to the guilty offence that must be dealt with. Propitiation brings out the objective element of the atonement: Christ's death was a literal physical and historical death.

The use of the word propitiation by the Jewish church ensured that the slain lamb of God would be the focus of the liturgy. Therefore, the crucified Christ as the atonement for sin would be indelibly printed upon the understanding of every believer. (See Early Christian Liturgics — Worship in the Early Church, holytrinitymissions.org)

A Eucharistic community

In 67 A.D., Ignatius of Antioch referred to the church as a "Eucharistic community." By the second century, a standard Eucharistic liturgy was universally established in the churches. The Eucharist presented the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine. The lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world was the theme of the liturgy. Christ, the sacrificial lamb, was slain for us as an atonement for our sins. (Early Christian Liturgics, etc.)

The centrality of the atonement in the liturgy has continued through the ages. Never was there a time when the atonement was not central to worship and universally understood by Christians. It is no accident that one can still find roadside shrines throughout Europe consisting of a crucifix beneath a shelter.

God is faithful in spite of apostasy

How is it then that the perverse revisionist historians think that no one viewed the death of Christ as a sacrificial atonement until Anselm (11th century) and Luther (16th century)? How is it that some Christian publishers who profess doctrinal orthodoxy are taking these fraudulent histories seriously? Why do ostensibly Christian colleges require their students to read the revisionist histories? Is zeal for the truth fading away in this lukewarm and politically-correct age?

Even if an evil generation becomes indifferent to the truth and listens to liars, God remains faithful. Whatever man does, God shall continue to preserve a perpetual witness to His unchanging truth. He has faithfully and miraculously preserved the orthodox truths of Christianity since the time of the apostles and will continue to do so.

There have always been opponents of orthodoxy, but they always failed in the end. At the great councils of the church, the clever heretics were defeated every time — every single time! The revisionist historians who have used their ingenuity to undercut orthodoxy will eventually take their turn in the catalog of infamy and ignominy.

© Fred Hutchison