The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Historical Gap Theory?

Is this true?

I'm working on a reply to a friend.( **edit** He has been reading, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? by David W. Bercot) This is how I see it. What say you?


Many have attempted to discredit the truth of particular doctrines as contained in Holy Scripture by pointing to a “historical gap”, such as the lack of writings by the early church fathers on the issue of eternal security. What often fails to be mentioned is that there is also little writing to be found on the Trinity during these times as well.

The early church fathers were relatively silent on the doctrine of the Trinity because they were busy defending other areas of scripture. Many doctrines are honed and clarified through persecution and needful defense. Their (the early church fathers) silence does little to discredit the doctrine of the Trinity.

Likewise, the “historical gap” theory does little to discredit what the Apostle Paul, Jesus, and God Himself teach throughout the entirety of the Bible.


Thanks in advance.

TJ,

Can you elaborate what in particular your friend is disputing? I'm not sure I follow. If he is arguing that a particular doctrine has no historical pedigree, it may be best first to show how the doctrine is scriptural, then to work on finding where it may (or may not) be elaborated by the early fathers.

I think your last statement is ultimately the answer since Scripture is the ultimate authority in all matters of faith (doctrine) and practice. And CovenantInBlood likewise confirmed this as well.

Let's not forget that the last of the Apostles, perhaps John, lived to almost 100 A.D. So, there is but a 225 period of time elapsing from then to the first Ecumenical Council held at Nicea (modern day Turkey) in 325 A.D. where the Nicean Creed was formulated. And why did this Council meet? A man named Arius attacked the universally held doctrine of the Church; the Trinity. Notice please that Arius tried to refute what was already believed. The doctrine of the Trinity was extent and believed on in the Church, therefore, before 325 A.D. which means the ECF also believed this doctrine. There was no pressing need to publish the doctrine of the Trinity as there was no real opposition to it. So, it's not as if the doctrine was unknown by the ECF.

Church history shows clearly that the overwhelming majority of the Creeds and Confessions came about AFTER someone(s) brought an opposition to what was already believed as biblical truth in the Church. These great statements of faith didn't introduce NEW doctrine but rather iterated long-held beliefs and articulated them to refute the error(s) brought against them.

In His grace,

He is specifically referring to eternal security, as he calls it. As far as scripture goes, he says he understands that many verses "look" like it is true, but that there are too many that show the other side so to speak. He recently read, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? by David W. Bercot and posted some article called A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL SECURITY BY JEFF PATON. Both, I believe, make claim that it is a new, therefore heretical, teaching because it was not taught by the early church fathers.

I am attempting to point out that lack of early church father commentation does not nullify a doctrine.

Thanks for your reply.

Thanks for your reply Pilgrim.

1. One would have to arrogate that they have read ALL writings by the ECF to make such a claim that the doctrine was never mentioned or dealt with.

2. I'm sure there are many other doctrines which this person and Paton believe are true which the ECF didn't write about either... so now what?

3. Who designated the ECF as the ultimate repository of truth? Don't these people recognize the progressive nature of the Church and its doctrine? And, the ECF were not infallible. Some of them wrote heretical things from time to time. Again, ALL that is necessary for man to know about God and how to live before Him is to be known from the inspired, infallible, inerrant written Word of God; the Bible. Further, the Church is the secondary authority and source of that truth since the Lord Christ Himself designed and commissioned it as such, cf. 1Tim 3:15. (btw, this is solidly Protestant doctrine... NOT Roman Catholic doctrine.)

4. The doctrine of the perseverance/preservation of the saints was OFFICIALLY dealt with in 1618-19 at the Synod of Dordtrect. As I mentioned before, most all doctrines of the Church were OFFICIALLY put in writing when what was already believed was attacked by either their being diminished, distorted or denied. In the situation at Dort, the followers of Arminius delivered a "Gravamen" to the Church which took issue with the doctrines of the faith as already formulated in the Belgic Confession.

5. Here are a few articles & sources which document and defend the doctrine of "The Perseverance of the Saints":
* Perseverance of the Saints, by Lorraine Boettner
* Perseverance of the Saints, by Gordon Girod
* An Antidote to Arminianism, by Christopher Ness - Chapter 4 "Of Final Perseverance"
* Of the Perseverance of the Saints, WCF - Chapter VI
* Of the Perseverance of the Saints, Fifth Head of Doctrine of The Canons of Dordt

I think some folks use anything in an attempt to defeat the doctrines of grace and ultimately deny God His utter sovereignty.

Thanks again for such a rich reply.

Well, I suppose they probably trace it back to that damnable heretic, Augustine of Hippo. Is that their game plan? If so, it's rather old hat. I'd really be curious to know what they think of fathers like Origen. I don't know that Origen held to "eternal security," but he certainly had some ideas that would make most orthodox Christians squirm (for good reason, too).