The Early Church Fathers

Introduction

The early church fathers were important to us for four reasons:

1) For the most part, the New Testament was written in their native language and they elaborated on the meaning of the words.

2) They were instrumental in recognizing our New Testament

3) Their theology, which is compatible with ours today, shows that the cults of today are "novel ideas" that were unheard of by the disciples of Jesus' apostles.

4) Their faith under lions and torture is an example for use today.

Their writings were not inerrant, and the mistakes of Augustine and others were amplified by the Medieval Church, but for the most part their writings are an inspiration and good instruction for us today.

Tertullian ~145-185-220/240 A.D.

Novatian ~210-280 A.D.

Ignatius ?-12/20 107 or 116 A.D.

Papias and Polycarp 65-110-155/156 A.D.

Justin Martyr ~110/114- wrote 135-165 A.D.

Irenaeus ~120-202 A.D.

Nicean Creed and Arianism May-August 325 A.D.

Athanasius ~296/298-5/2/373 A.D.

Hippolytus 170-235/236 A.D.

Ambrose of Milan 340-397 A.D.

Augustine 354-430 A.D.

Alexandria

Antioch

Cyril and Nestorius 376-451 A.D.

Hilary 315-353/354-367/368 A.D.

Chalcedon and the Monophysites 451-681 A.D.

How We Got the New Testament

Others early church Fathers' writings that are not covered or are only mentioned in passing are:

Clement of Rome -97 A.D.-

Writer of the Shepherd of Hermas

Writer of the Didache

Theophilus of Antioch 115-168/181 A.D.

Quadratus

Aristides of Athens

Athenagoras

Clement of Alexandria 153-217/220 A.D.

Origen 184/185-253/254 A.D.

Alexander of Alexandria

Eusebius of Caesarea

Methodius

Gregory of Nyssa 335-394 A.D.

Gregory of Nanzianzus 330-390 A.D.

Jerome the Translator 345-419/420 A.D.

Basil 329-378/379 A.D.

John Chrysostom 344/347-9/14/407 A.D.

Leo I of Rome

Tertullian, or Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, was the second early Church Father we know of to use the word "Trinity." Many objections to the Trinity today were answered by him 1,800 years ago.

Born ~145 A.D, Tertullian became a Christian when he was about 40 years old. He became a presbyter (elder) ~190-192 A.D. He joined the Montanist sect ~199 A.D. and died 220-240 A.D.

Tertullian was a Christian through the fourth-sixth persecutions. He became a Christian around the time Justin Martyr wrote his great apology. He was contemporary with Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons and Porphyry, a Greek enemy of Christianity. He lived a little before Novatian and Origen. There were an estimated 1.5-4 million Christians in a Roman Empire of 56-70 million.

Tertullian worked in law at Carthage and Rome before becoming a presbyter, and he had a sharp, logical mind. He also had a sharp temper. He was found of allegorical examples, yet he insisted the Bible should be taken in its plain sense. In comparing his writing to the New Testament styles, he had some of the emphases of James and the logic of Paul. If he lived on earth today, he might not be pleased with many Christians. He was against worldly amusements, immodest behavior (including unveiled women), and second marriages. Living a pure Christian life was a major theme of his teaching. Two other major themes were church sacraments and most prominently, apologetics.

Tertullian was a voluminous writer. (I guess that's what you say when someone writes more than one volume.) He wrote in Latin and his works total over 825 pages (in English). One of his cutest writings is "Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting". It starts out matter-of-factly describing cures for scorpion stings, and then goes on to talk about more serious scorpions, idolators and Gnostic cultists, who would poison our faith. He also wrote two books (ten pages) to his beloved wife.

Tertullian did the majority of his writing after he left the Church at Rome under the Bishop Victor and joined the Montanists. Victor was rather dogmatic; until the other Bishops severely rebuked him, he wanted to excommunicate all the eastern Christian churches because they celebrated The Lord's Resurrection the same day as the Jewish Passover and fasted differently. We know little about the Montanists, but Eusebius the writes briefly they were led by Montanus and two prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla, who were in a certain kind of frenzy, raving, and speaking in tongues. Victor accepted the Montanists, but later under the Monarchian influence of Praxeas apparently condemned them. This may be what caused Tertullian to respond with his 30 page work Against Praxeas, and discuss the Trinity.

The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible; however baptism in the Three is. While the verses showing both the Threeness and Oneness are in the Bible, the deep thought Christians gave to the Trinity did not come about except as a response to a trio of heresies: Ebionism, Polytheism, and Monarchianism.

Ebion is the Hebrew word for "poor." Eusebius (Chap. 27) mentions Ebionite heretics who had a "poor" or low view of Christ. They rejected the Epistles except Hebrews, and they observed the Jewish laws and rituals.

Polytheism has a rather simple premise. Since the Bible says the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is divine, therefore there are three gods for Tritheism, or else two gods for Ditheism. These are united in love, spirit, purpose, and other ways, but they are united in just a slightly closer way a human family may be united. Of course, one must pay the proper honor to each one individually. There are two versions of polytheism: the different gods have equal rank and the different gods have different rank. The Gnostic Marcion was a Ditheist.

Some verses Tertullian used to point out that polytheism was wrong were John 10:30 14:9,10, Isa 45:18, and Isa 46:6,24. As Tertullian said, it (Isa 45:5) does not say, there is one God and without Him thee is none else except my Son. There cannot be separate true Gods.

Monarchianism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in every way. The word come from Monarchy, or government of one. Today the Worldwide Church of God and United Pentecostals believe that. Monarchianism was most prominent in the West, and there were actually two types of Monarchianism. The first kind, called Patripassian Monarchianism, simply said that since they are the same in every way. "Patripassian" means it was the Father who suffered on the cross. The second variety is called Dynamic Monarchianism, which says the Father became the son who became the Spirit.

It was against Monarchianism that Tertullian and Novatian wrote when they elucidated the Trinity. It is interesting that most who deny the Trinity today confuse it with Monarchianism.

If there is no distinction in the Monarchy, then at his baptism Jesus was a great ventriloquist and magician. After all, if there was only one person, He was pretty clever to get people to believe there were really three.

Tertullian could not accept that the Father was born on earth, was tempted, and died on the cross. He could not see how the Father could sit at His own right hand (Mark 16:19 Rev 3:21). Neither can we.

Other verses Tertullian used to show distinct differences between The Father, Son, and Spirit are: Gen 3:22, Gen 1:27, Ps 45:6-7, John 1:1 (there was one with another), Ps 110:1, Gen 19:24, John 5:19,22, Eph 1:17, Matt 27:46, and Rom 8:32.

The Trinity may be thought of as the center of a triangle shown below. The three heresies are outside the triangle opposite the three points.

All Three Are God

Monar- Poly-

chians Theists

Trinity

One Three

God Persons

Ebionites

[In times of persecution] I had rather be one to be pitied than to be blushed for (IV p.122).

While Tertullian discussed some of the Trinity in Against Marcion Books I-V, most of what he wrote is in Against Praxeas. The Father, Son, and Spirit are three in one, a Trinity and Unity (II,III).

Tertullian said the three were "distinct", "not identical" but "inseparable" and "indivisible"(II)". Father and Son are "just as the root puts forth the tree and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray." One emanates from the other. Likewise the Spirit is "just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun." (Against Praxeas VIII)

Even the words "Father and Son" show their difference. A father cannot be his own son any more than a husband can be his own wife. (A.P. X,XI)

Tertullian taught equality in: name, nature or essence, substance, honor, creating, and a difference in: person, visibility, origin, role, and rank. (A.P. IV,XIV-XIX)

Some Christians, beginning with Augustine, disagreed on the differing rank. However see 1 Cor 11:3, 15:27-28, and Eph 1:17. Cultists today who try to use these to say Christ is "inferior" to the Father usually refuse to obey scripture and honor Jesus just as much as the Father (John 5:18,23 Col 2:9-10) worship Jesus like the angels (Heb 1:6). How can someone love to worship the lamb in heaven (Rev 5:12-14) when they cannot stand to worship him on earth?

God is not, if He is not one; (I p.273.)

"That Being, then, which is the great Supreme, must needs to unique by having no equal, and so not ceasing to be the great Supreme." (IV:III)

"Now since all are agreed on this point (because nobody will deny that God is in some sense the great Supreme, except the man who shall be able to pronounce the opposite opinion that God is but some inferior being, in order that he may deny God by robbing Him of an attribute of God), what must be the condition of the great Supreme Himself? Surely it must be that nothing is equal to Him, i because, if there were, He would have an equal; and if He had an equal, He would no longer be the great Supreme now that the " (I p.273).

On Ps 82:1-6: "If an identity of names affords a presumption in support of equality of condition, how often do worthless menials strut insolently in the names of kings--your Alexanders, Caesars, and Pompeys! This fact, however, does not detract from the real attributes of the royal persons. Nay more the very idols of the Gentiles are called gods. Yet not one of them is divine because he is called a god. It is not therefore, for the name of god or its sound or its written form that I am claiming the supremacy in the Creator but for the essence to which the name belongs; and when I find that essence alone is unbegotten and unmade-alone eternal, and the maker of all things-it is not to its name, but its state, not to its designation but its condition, that I ascribe and appropriate the attribute of supremacy." vol.I p.275.

Tertullian witnessed to both the Threeness and Oneness of God. Every cult that denies the Trinity denies either the Oneness, the Threeness, or refuses to call our Savior God.

Many early Christian writers wrote that "Jesus is God" and of various aspects of the Trinity, but Tertullian and Novatian were the first two to actually "put it all together" and have fairly comprehensive views. While Tertullian first discussed the distinctness and then the indivisibleness, Novatian reversed the order.

Novatian accepted Christ in mid-life when he was deathly ill. Because of his health, he was not baptized by immersion. Years later when he recovered and was examined prior to becoming a presbyter, many other presbyters objected to Novatian because he was not baptized by immersion as was apparently the standard. He was selected anyway, and served at Rome until late in his life. He was familiar with both Monarchians and Ebionites as well as the polytheism of Gnostics. He wrote against those in his works.

Novatian starts his teaching on the Trinity with the Supreme Being. While many idols and men were called gods, who is really the True God? Novatian's answer is one that every Mormon ought to read. Novatian emphasized that God is the One who is Supreme in the universe. If He is not Supreme, then He would not be God; the One who is Supreme would be. For people who worship idols, I marvel that often they admit their "favorite god" is not the highest god. If it is not the highest god, then why not worship the highest one? For Mormons, they believe their god, the god of this world, had a father and god before him. This greater god had a father and grandfather gods before him. Why don't they want to worship the highest one? I confess that I do not understand this drive in man to worship that which is lesser in place of the Supreme One. I wish some Mormon or some idolator could explain it to me some time.

In 1 John God is love and light. In the Old Testament God is fire. If you describe these things you still have not described God. If you describe these things, you still have not described the source of these things. God is the source of light, goodness, and other virtues. God is love, strength, and majesty. By saying that God is those things, you still have not completely described God. God is beyond declaration, beyond complete description, and incomparable.

Once a Mormon asked, "Do you claim to know everything there is to know about God?" I replied that I did not claim that. He then said, "Well, if you do not know what you are talking about, you should not be here (handing out tracts)." I did not say anything; I was too shocked. Apparently he was certain he could know everything about his god. (Then again, maybe he could about his god). J.B. Phillips wrote a book for people who could contain all of God's wisdom in their minds. The title is Your God is Too Small.

Novatian also wrote that God has neither passion nor members. Mormons say that the concept of the Trinity is a God without any passion (emotion) or parts (a physical body.) That is not accurate, for Novatian only meant passion as we have sexual passions; Novatian wrote of God's love. God does have a body, or image, and that image itself has a name: Jesus Christ as Colossians 1:15 says.

There was a somewhat pathetic statement given in the Jehovah's Witness magazine Watchtower 2/1/1977 p.95. It says that in Rom 10:12 the identity of "Lord" cannot be established with certainty from the context. In other words JW's cannot say who their Lord is. (See 1 Cor 12:4-6)

One view Novatian said we would not say the same way today. He said, In receiving the sanctification from the Father He (Jesus) is inferior to the Father. (p.638) This shows a difference in rank. While Novatian said this, Novatian also said that Jesus was God and there was only One God.

Novatian believed that time had a beginning and Jesus was before time began. Of course you have to have a Son or child to be a Father, and if the Father is unchanging, then He was always the Father.

God becoming a man was a wonderful happening. If you can quickly read John 1:14 and not see a deep mystery there, you are missing something. (Ch.23) Novatian uses this to show how Jesus had to be God. "How could Christ come into his own, if he was not God?" It would be God's own and not Christ's own.

Eighteen hundred years ago Novatian had some questions for those who claimed to follow Christ and denied He was God. Since no non-Trinitarian has answered these questions, it seems fair to ask these again today.

1. The Bible says there is only One God and no other. Deut 6:4 Is 43:10-12

The Bible says the Father is God.

The Bible says Jesus is God. John 1:1,18, Hosea 1:7, Is 7:14, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Heb 1:8-9

How many may you rightly call God?

2. The Bible says there is only One Lord.

The Bible says the Father is Lord.

The Bible says Jesus is Lord.

How many may you rightly call Lord?

3. The Bible says the Father the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 1 Tim 6:15

The Bible says Jesus the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev 17:14, 19:16

Who is your King and Lord?

For objections to the Trinity Novatian had some good answers in his work Treatise on the Trinity. Since the style of writing at that time was rather verbose, below are condensations. The objections are in italics.

Novatian devotes chapters 26-28 of his Treatise on the Trinity to show eighteen verses that make a distinction between Himself and God the Father.

(Ch.27) The Greek word is One (neuter), not One (masculine), so they are one is character and essence but not one in person.

1 Cor 8:4-6 does not say there are many true gods, but that there is only One rightfully called God.

(p631) If an angel can be called God in some sense, and if in Hebrews the angels are subject to Christ and worship Him, then certainly Christ is greater than any angel.

(Note: Though God appeared on earth as a man, that in no way detracted from Jesus Christ being God. Early christians generally believed that the "theophanies" or appearances of God in the Old Testament were "rehearsals" of the Christ's coming, and that the Old Testament appearances were of Christ manifested as an angel.)

If God is supremely all-powerful, who are we to say what God cannot do. Is God really all-powerful? If so, why couldn't God the Father beget God the son?

(Ch.25) Only the human flesh was slain, and even that did not stay dead for long.

Some believers were like Deborah and Daniel; great heroes of the faith who never flinched or fell away. Other people were like Athaliah and Ahab; evil enemies of God. What about men like Gideon and Samson? Those who start well do not always finish well. Novatian's life may fit in the last category. For those like Solomon who start well but end poorly, we can learn from their wisdom, but be warned by their failure.

Novatian had a high office in the Roman Church, but when Cornelius was chosen to be the next bishop instead of him, perhaps envy crept in. Some time later a group called the Catharoi separated from the church at Rome. Novatian was elected their top leader and bishops of three Italian churches supported him. What was the reason for this division?

The issue concerned lapsed Christians. What should be done with those baptized believers who under threat of death either made the sacrifice to the Emperor or else bribed the soldiers to go free? Bribing is worse than it sounds, for if someone was arrested for not sacrificing, and later was freed without any comment, it would appear they had relented and made the sacrifice. Tertullian and others warned christians that this was wrong.

After discussion, the churches decided that those people, after a suitable time of instruction and ensuring that they were sincere, would be readmitted to the church and communion. However, a small minority said that those who fell after baptism could never come back to the church. The lapsed would go to hell without any hope of salvation. The people who believed this called themselves Catharoi or pure, and Novation was a top leader.

The Catharoi died out after a few of centuries, but some might say Catharai live today. A "hyper-Arminian" would teach that while we are first saved by grace, we stay saved by works.

One bishop wrote a harsh seven page letter rebuking Novatian for his impious, heretical folly. One should note there is not a single word by this bishop or anyone else against Novatian's teaching on the Trinity.

A second important lesson we can learn from Novatian's fall is that if at one point in his life a person is following God, that is not a guarantee that he can "take it easy and relax" for all will always be well. Whether through envy, lack or charity, or whatever, a person who used to serve God faithfully can end their life out of touch with God.

"Heartiest greetings in all sincerity and in God's Word from Ignatius, the "God-inspired," to the church of God the Father and the beloved Jesus Christ, which is at Smyrna in Asia. ... I extol Jesus Christ, the God who has granted you such wisdom. For I detected that you were fitted out with an unshakable faith, being nailed, as it were, body and soul to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, and being rooted in love by the blood of Christ." (Smyrneans 1)

Such is the warmth of the greeting of Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrneans. Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch. He was a prophet as well as bishop, and was on his way to martyrdom beasts in the Colosseum under Trajan on December 20th of either 107 or 116 A.D.. Since it is close to Christmas, it seems timely to learn from this Christian from early times.

Enroute to Rome Ignatius and his guard stopped at Smyrna where the Ephesian, Magnesian, and Trallian churches sent delegates to greet him. From Smyrna he wrote his letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans. After he and his guard travelled on to Troas (Troy), he wrote letters to Philadelphia (In Asia Minor, not Pennsylvania), Smyrna, and a letter to Polycarp, his friend and bishop of Smyrna.

Polycarp collected these letters, and the Christian writers Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Origen referred to them. There are eight other shorter letters that are claimed to be by Ignatius. All today agree they are false because they there is no reference to them until the sixth century, there are no existing Greek manuscripts, and the style is very different. The spurious letters speak of the veneration of Mary.

It's not just that he had accessed many of the early manuscripts of the New Testament. It's not just that he was the second bishop of Antioch, the church where Paul and Barnabas set out, the church where believers were first called Christians. It's not just that Onesimus (probably of Philemon), then bishop of Ephesus, came to see him. It's not just that he wrote letters to three of the churches discussed in Revelation. Ignatius was a contemporary of the apostles, and a disciple of John according to the letter "Martyrdom of Ignatius." As all the churches that sent messengers to him held his teachings in high esteem, studying his letters shows what early believers accepted about the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

While only later did Theophilus and Tertullian use the word "Trinity", Ignatius talked about the Trinity long before him.

"Like stones of God's Temple ready for a building of God the Father, you are being hoisted up by Jesus Christ, as with a crane (that's the cross!), while the rope you use is the Holy Spirit. Your faith is what lifts you up while love is the way you ascend to God." (Letter to the Ephesians 9:1, parenthesis in the original English translation)

Ignatius in his Letter to Polycarp (ch.3) writes about the Lord's second coming: "Look for Him that is above the times, Him who has no times, Him who is invisible, Him who for our sakes became visible, Him who is impalpable [beyond touch], Him who is impassable [beyond passion], Him who for our sakes suffered, Him who endured everything in every form for our sakes." So Ignatius understood that God the Son was the visible, temporal appearance of the invisible, timeless God the Father. What verse does this remind you of?

In Ephesians 7 Ignatius talks of Christ as God Incarnate. What verse does that remind you of? He goes on to say that Jesus was "sprung from Mary as well as God first subject to suffering then beyond it"

In over 17 places Ignatius writes of "Christ our God". What verses does this remind you of?

While Ignatius was in Smyrna, he encountered a heresy called Docetism. The Greek word dokeo means to seem. According to traditional Greek thought, God could not become a man, show emotion, suffer, or die. Docetism accommodated Christianity to Greek thought by saying Jesus was God, but he only seemed to be a man. He only appeared to walk as a man, suffer, and die. This appearance was given by our loving God for our benefit. Docetists might call that God's way of revealing His truth to us. Christians would call that a lie.

In both versions of Smyrneans 3 Ignatius stressed that Jesus possessed flesh after his resurrection. Of course Thomas put his hands in Jesus' wounds in John 20:27.

Now, that body looked very real to Thomas. What would it mean if someone said that Jesus' only appeared to have his own physical body? Then they would think Jesus was great -- a great deceiver! Thomas' statement of faith would be based on deception.

Here is what the Jehovah's Witnesses said in 1982, "In order to convince Thomas of who He was, He used a body with wound holes." (You Can Live Forever In Paradise on Earth p.145) I am not sure which is worse, denying Jesus' bodily resurrection as Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15:1, or believing Jesus to be "a clever fellow" who was great at deceiving.

Ignatius' answer to the Docetists in Smyrna is also appropriate for Jehovah's Witnesses. "And he [Jesus] genuinely suffered, as even he genuinely raised himself. It is not as some unbelievers say that his Passion was a sham. It's they who are a sham! Yes, and their fate will fit their fancies--they will be ghosts and apparitions. For myself, I am convinced and believe that even after the resurrection he was in the flesh." (Smyrneans 2-3) For Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Christ's resurrection body was a sham for Thomas, well...

Ignatius says the same thing in Trallians 10 and then goes on to say, "Flee then these wicked offshoots which produce deadly fruit. If a man taste of it he dies outright. They are none of the Father's planting. For had they been, they would have shown themselves as branches of the cross and borne immortal fruit. It is through the cross, bu his suffering that he summons you who are his members." Do you show yourself to be a branch off of the cross?

So to summarize, ancient Docetists, like the modern Jehovah's Witnesses, believed Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead. However, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Docetists believed Jesus Christ was never really born on earth, walked on the earth or suffered and died; they taught that since God cannot do those things Christ just appeared to do those things.

Since Ignatius spoke of the meaning (though not the name) of the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, who in the early church criticized him? No Christian.

If no believer in the churches of Smyrna, Magnesia, Tralles, Ephesus, Philadelphia, Troas, or Rome criticized Ignatius or held him in any but the highest esteem, I guess we can conclude there were no Jehovah's Witnesses in those cities back in the time when John the Apostle lived. Jehovah's Witnesses are a "novel" religion.

While in Smyrna, Ignatius debated Judaizers who believed similar to the heretics Paul talked about in Galatians, except the Judaizers in Smyrna did not require circumcision. Ignatius wrote (in Magnesians 9) that they the Judaizers kept the Sabbath (Saturday) while "from ancient times" Christians observed the Lord's Day (Sunday.) In Revelation John spoke of being in the Spirit on the Lord's Day. Ignatius used "Lord's Day" here to refer to Sunday.

While observing the Jewish Sabbath instead of the Lord's Day is not of itself it not the most serious error one could commit, Ignatius shows that those who insist Christians must rest on Saturday are at variance with the early Christians.

Quite frankly, Jehovah's Witnesses would not get along well with Ignatius, for he also talked about God dwelling within us. What verses does this remind you of? A JW denied that God can dwell within us. Ignatius talked of being full of God in Magnesians 14.

Here are some gems to enjoy of Ignatius' teaching.

There are two kinds of coinage, God's and Satans. What kind of treasure are you trying to store up? (Ignatius to the Magnesians 5)

Don't call your bishop (pastor today) a bishop and then do everything in disregard to him (Ignatius to the Magnesians 4)

We are not just to be called Christians but called to be Christians (Ignatius to the Magnesians 4)

"to one Jesus Christ who came forth from One Father while still remaining one with Him and returned to him." (Ignatius to the Magnesians 7:2)

Ignatius emphasized the following to his fellow bishop and younger friend Polycarp:

Find time to pray without ceasing

Every wound is not healed with the same remedy

The times demand you as a [ship's] pilot the heavens [stars]

The crown is immortality.

Stand like a beaten anvil.

It is the part of a good athlete to be bruised and prevail.

A Christian is not his own master but waits upon God.

Ignatius was not perfect. He readily pointed out his own shortcomings of impatience and some lack of gentleness in Trallians 4:2. How ready are you to admit your shortcomings?

Richardson, C.C. (ed) Early Church Fathers MacMillian Pub. (1970)

Coxe, C.A. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series. Eerdmans 1987.

Papias was a disciple of John the Apostle, and he was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia, from ~70 A.D. to his martyrdom in 163 A.D.. Eusebius (3:39) attributes to Papias two unique teachings. Papias said the Gospel of Matthew was originally written by Matthew in Hebrew. Second, Mark was Peter's interpreter, and Mark wrote down as his Gospel what he remembered translating over and over. Since Papias and Polycarp were friends, we can assume that there were no major differences between their teachings. Unfortunately, today we do not have any of the five volumes we know Papias wrote, so let's turn our attention to Polycarp.

Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna and a friend of Papias and Ignatius, whom we read about last time. Smyrna was a large city, with a population ~200K, and frankly the letter to the Church at Smyrna in Revelation sounds almost like a personal letter to Polycarp. Polycarp was the disciple of John the Apostle and Strataeus, a disciple of Paul and the previous bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was in his forties when Ignatius was martyred. At the request of the Church at Philippi, Polycarp collected the letters of Ignatius and sent them to Philippi. Soon after Polycarp himself wrote a letter to the Philippians. Irenaeus, Polycarp's disciple, says Polycarp wrote other letters, but we only have the one to the Philippians. Later, Polycarp himself was martyred under most unusual circumstances.

Bishop Polycarp was a simple, humble man, not a great at rhetoric or an astounding intellectual thinker. Since his words are not Holy scripture, why should we care what this faithful martyr said?

It's not just that he spoke and understand the nuances of New Testament Greek just as we understand English today. Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John. He admitted he was not well versed in the Old Testament, though he knew the New Testament well. Of course He could learn of God's word differently than we do today; he could just go and ask John.

According to Polycarp (11:1-4), while he was bishop a scandal occurred. A presbyter (elder) named Valens and his wife "forgot" (as Polycarp delicately puts it) Valens was a presbyter and took some money from the church. (Back in 140 A.D. we do not have any record whether Valens was on TV or not.) There are two things to note about Polycarp's writing of the situation. He says not to consider such persons as enemies but reclaim them as suffering, straying members. Polycarp speaks freely about the matter. Though Polycarp was "exceedingly grieved" (11:1), Polycarp and the church at Smyrna had nothing to be ashamed of. Likewise, if scandal like Valens' visits a church, we too can speak freely and openly of that. It is the people who commit that scandal that have the shame, not the others in the church.

A year before Polycarp's martyrdom, he went to Rome to talk with Bishop Anicetus about a major division in the church (Eusebius 5:24). At that time the Roman Empire was gradually separating into (Greek) east and (Latin) west branches and the Christian church felt the strain also. One divisive issue was the date Christians should celebrate the Lord's death and resurrection. Western churches celebrated it like Catholic and Protestant churches do today. Eastern churches celebrated it identically with the Jewish passover. I suppose it would be hard to argue with Polycarp, if he were to say, "my discipler, JOHN THE APOSTLE, said to do it this way." The two did not agree, but they had very cordial fellowship. This is in contrast to Bishop Victor, in Tertullian's time who wanted to excommunicate all the Eastern churches over this, until many other bishops (including Irenaeus, Polycarp's disciple), severely rebuked him.

When Christians disagree on matters that seem important to you but are not necessarily primary to the Lord, how do you react? Some act like Polycarp and Anicetus, who though they could not agree, still followed Eph 4:3 to preserve the unity of the spirit. Others' first impulse is to act like Victor.

Unfortunately, in Polycarp's day like our own, there was no shortage of cults. While Polycarp was in Rome talking with Anicetus, he took to some to win some converts from the Marcionite and Valentinian Gnostic cults to Christianity. Now the Gnostics rejected most of Paul's teachings (they had to), but they accepted the gospels. I imagine it was a powerful testimony for Polycarp to say, "Now I was with John, and he said it was this way." The Gnostics believed the God of the Old Testament and New Testament were different, and there were many gods. The God of the Old Testament and the Jews was bad, and the God of the New Testament was good. Physical things did not matter, or else were evil, and the ultimate quest was for knowledge. Since physical things were not good, Jesus was like a "phantom" who did not really come in the flesh and did not physically rise from the dead.

According to Eusebius (4:14), once Polycarp encountered Marcion, and Marcion asked, "Do you know us, Polycarp?" Polycarp answered, I know you, I know the firstborn of Satan." Christians never shared communion with those who "mutilated the truth." In his ministry to cults he did not exactly beat around the bush.

Somehow it seems fitting that Polycarp won Gnostic souls to Christ. His mentor, John, wrote the book of First John against the Gnostics. Understanding John's reason for writing is the key to understanding the words in First John.

The letter "Martyrdom of Polycarp" and Eusebius (4:15) tell a most fascinating account of how he was killed for his faith. During this time (unlike later), the Romans were not too diligent about pursuing Christians; they just killed the Christians they came across or others turned in. When Polycarp was old some Jews in Smyrna turned him in and he was arrested an charges of "atheism". The Romans called everyone an atheist who would not worship their gods. During his trial the magistrate he was commanded to say "away with atheists." Since that would not deny Christ, he said it. Then he was asked to "swear by the fortune of Caesar" (9:2) and deny Christ. Polycarp replied, "Eighty and six years have I served him and he never did me wrong; and how can I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?" He would rather die than do that, so that is what the magistrate decided.

On February 23rd there was a spectacle at the local colosseum, and Polycarp was the star attraction. It was decided to burn him to death, but after he was tied to the stake and the logs were lit, an amazing thing happened. The flames went around him and over him, but they did not burn him! At first the Romans did not know what to do; then one of the soldiers was commanded to stab him, and Polycarp died. His body was then burned.

This story reminds us of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with a key difference. After Nebuchadnezzar saw the miracle, he had the fear of God to release them. Even after the Romans saw this miracle though, they still had no fear of God. There are some people who will not allow all the miracles in the world to convince them.

Polycarp talks of God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Saviour (1:0). If Jesus is God, is it fitting to talk of "God and Jesus." Apparently so, for see 1 Cor 11:3. Polycarp used the expression "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (12:2). Is the Father the "God" of Jesus? Yes, according to Heb 1:9.

How can people say Jesus is God is one breath, and in the next breath talk of Jesus and God? That paradox is the crux of the Trinity. That paradox is found in John 1:1, 1:18, and Heb 1:9,

Anti-Trinitarians may call it a contradiction if they like, but when it appears multiple times in two succeeding phrases, it is a "deliberate contradiction." If you do not accept two things in the same verse, either you deny the verse or try to understand it.

For that matter, can "the Lord" have a Lord? See Matthew 22:44 and Psalm 110:1.

Polycarp talked of persecutors as "enemies of the cross." (12:3) Is it proper to speak of "enemies of the cross?" See Philippians 3:18. It is interesting that no Mormon churches have crosses. Mormons claim that if somebody murdered a loved one with a gun, they would not hang a gun around their neck. Too bad they do not read 1 Cor 1:17-18, Gal 5:11, 6:12-14, Eph 2:16, and Philippians 3:18. Jehovah's Witnesses feel that Jesus was crucified on a stake, not a cross. Justin's personal testimony is an answer to that.

Like Paul in 1 Cor 6:9-10, Polycarp (5:3) talked that fornicators and homosexuals would not go to heaven. Also like Paul (1 Cor 6:11), Polycarp (6:1) talked of "being merciful to those who have gone astray". We should claim them for Christ and just sit in judgement.

Justin frequently walked alone to a deserted field by the sea to meditate. One day he was very surprised to see an elderly gentleman in "his" solitary place. It turned out the man was also well versed in philosophy -- and a Christian. The elderly Christian to employed what we today would call "World Views Evangelism."

According to Justin, the one thing that most influenced him to become a Christian was a passage in Plato's work Timaeus, where Plato says "that the power next to the first God was placed in the form of the letter Chi in the universe (First Apology ch.60). The Greek letter Chi looks just like our X. Justin thought about the cross and its shape. If Christ was God's Word, God's message, God's truth, then all of a sudden it all made sense.

About this time Greek philosophical writings began to appear challenging the truth of Christianity. One of their main arguments was as follows: If there is one Supreme God, then he is perfect and changeless. Since he is changeless (not subject to change), then he cannot have passions or emotions, because those change. Since the God in the Bible both "has" love, anger, etc. and "gets" angry, joyful, etc. he is not a perfect God. Furthermore, since the perfect God is beyond change and suffering, Jesus cannot be God. -- Sounds logical. What do you say to that?

Well, Christians who used to believe Greek philosophy had a lot to say. Quadratus, Aristides of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, and others wrote very lengthy tomes, usually addressed to the Emperor, showing both why that thinking was wrong and why belief in the Greco-Roman gods was impious and ridiculous. These writings are called apologies, which means a defense of their belief.

In His First Apology, Justin writes to the Emperor, "But if the soldiers enrolled by you, and who have taken the military oath prefer their allegiance to their own life, and parents and country and all kindred, though you can offer them nothing incorruptible it were verily ridiculous if we, who earnestly long for incorruption, should not endure all things in order to obtain what we desired from Him who is able to grant it." (Ch.39) Justin was later beheaded for his faith.

Justin had some very good arguments against the polytheism of his day. According to Greek/Roman mythology, Zeus/Jupiter committed numerous acts or adultery, rape, and savage acts of anger. Zeus/Jupiter was the kind of being people, especially young women should run from. What a god to look up to! Other gods and heroes committed incest and served a cannibalistic feast. And the incredible thing was, the Greeks and Romans worshipped these gods!

Even more incredible, the Romans accused Christians of immorality and cannibalism. Church services were clandestine to avoid persecution. Some Romans assumed bad things must be going on there. Since Christians always talked about love, Romans were sure what that meant. Since Christians partook of the "body and blood", the Romans thought they could figure that too. Justin defended against this by saying that, 1) all who does these things should rightfully be punished, 2) Christians never do these evil things, and 3) Romans should stop worshipping their gods, who they teach do these very things.

Many of the arguments Justin and others had eighteen hundred years ago are equally valid today with polytheistic religions. For example, a god with a wide following in Hinduism is Krishna. All Hindus believe in him, though The Hare Krishna sect is the one that especially follows him. Krishna would do things like steal women's clothes when they bathe in the river so that they have to beg him to get their clothes back, and played his flute to draw men's wives to love him. Imagine a young Hindu boy telling his parents, "I am very devoted to Hinduism, and when I grow up I want to be just like Krishna." Would they be proud Hindu parents of not? Imagine a young Hindu girl telling her parents, "When I get older I want to meet Krishna." Would her parents hope her wish was granted, or would they look upon Krishna as some kind of devilish monster?

In the Mahabharata Krishna counsels Arjuna that it is morally right and even his salvation to fight his relatives. By killing his cousins, he will free their souls to the next life. I guess it's bad to kill cows, but it is ok to kill people.

Sometimes people who claim to be "beyond good and evil" are beneath good, just like the legends of Krishna. In general, Polytheists tend towards behaving like their idols, and everyone tends to behave like whatever it is they worship.

In his two apologies Justin talks of Jesus as God’s Son; he does not mention that Jesus is God. Probably because of this, JW's point to him as an early church father who did not believe Jesus was God.

However, Justin wrote a long work called Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. To Trypho, who denied Jesus' divinity, Justin devoted a total of thirteen chapters (55-56,59,61-64,66,74-78) to prove that Jesus is God. Like most early church fathers, Justin taught that the appearances of God in the Old Testament were appearances of Jesus in the form of an angel.

"The Word of Wisdom who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word and Wisdom and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter ..." (Ch.61)

"Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ." (Ch.63)

"Here Trypho [the Jew] said, ‘Let Him be recognized as Lord and Christ and God as the Scriptures declare by you of the Gentiles, who have from His name been all called Christians; but we who are servants of God that made this same [Christ] do not require to confess or worship Him.’" (Ch.64)

Justin's work on the resurrection (of believers) in Chapter 9 uses as an argument that "Why did He (Jesus) rise in the flesh in which He suffered unless to show the resurrection of the flesh?" Like the other church fathers, Justin too taught the physical resurrection of Jesus in contradistinction to the Gnostics, and Docetists.

Justin was a good believer, but he was incorrect on some things. We would disagree with the high regard he held for the Greek philosophers. He said they spoke truth given the light they had, though they also contradicted themselves and did not have the wisdom from heaven. We would see more negative things in Greek philosophy than Justin did.

A second mistake of Justin is that he had a disciple, named Tatian, who after Justin's beheading fell under Gnostic influence and became a heretic. Tatian founded the cult of the Encratites, meaning Masters of Themselves. They denied that Jesus ever had a physical body and were ascetics (living a life of hardship.) Teachers should guard their disciples against cults.

While Justin's writings predate the use of the word Trinity, he too recognized the divinity of Christ. He said Jesus is "deserving to be worshipped as God and as Christ" and there is not much room for ambiguity here. However some of the speculations he had about the Logos we would not agree with today. We would still find his basic view Trinitarian because he recognized both sides of the paradox that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct yet one inseparable God.

One point to learn is that everyone does not have to have to agree on every speculation to be a true Christian. Justin had the primary doctrines right, and we should accept those who have the primary things correct, even if they and we disagree on secondary matters.

Jehovah's Witnesses try to say Justin would be against the Trinity because of his belief that there was a time before the Son existed. Because he did indeed teach this difference from ours, JW's want you to believe he did not believe the essentials of the Trinity of God. Furthermore, they want you to get the impression that this man who was converted by the symbol of the cross, and who said "Jesus is God" would be an ancient Jehovah's Witness. --impossible.

This JW teaching is deception. You will search in vain for any Jehovah's Witness or similarity thereof prior to the nineteenth century.

There is a lesson for us Christians to learn here. In our ministry, there may be times when we feel we could be more effective witnesses and persuaders if we just bent the truth a little bit. If we distorted a few facts we could make a much stronger case.

This idea is sin. 2 Cor 4:2 says to renounce secret and shameful ways and not to use deception or distortion. Though cults may use deception, we should never do so to talk about the God of truth.

First Apology Ch.67 worship on Sunday

Irenaeus was the most influential Christian writer between Paul and Augustine. He was a disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John (3:4). Irenaeus in turn, discipled Hippolytus. Irenaeus succeeded Pothinus, another disciple of Polycarp's, as bishop of Lyons, France. In 177 A.D., Marcus Aurelius persecuted the church. This is ironic, for Aurelius, the "philosopher Emperor", once wrote that he learned from his mother tolerance of religion. During this persecution Irenaeus visited Rome and was shocked to see so many Gnostic heresies. Even a fellow pupil of his under Polycarp, Frobinius, joined Gnosticism. Irenaeus wrote a Against Heresies (5 volumes), to refute 19 heresies point-by-point.

Lest there be any doubt on Irenaeus' view of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, here is what he said in Against Heresies 5:7:1. "In the same manner, therefore, as Christ did rise in the substance of flesh and pointed out to His disciples the mark of the nails and the opening in His side (now these are the tokens of that flesh which rose from the dead) so "shall He also," it is said, "raise us up by His own power." Is there much ambiguity here?

"But that He (Jesus) is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have obtained to even a small portion of the truth." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:19:2)

Jehovah's Witnesses, ignoring this clear statement of Irenaeus', try to believe he did not believe in the divinity of Christ. They probably see this from in his argument, Irenaeus first tells of the multitude of Gnostic aeons, then contrasts them with the One True God, who is the Father. Then he introduces Christ as God with us, and with quotes like the One above says that Jesus is God in His own right. Finally he says that while Paul mentions many gods in 1 Cor 8:5-6, Irenaeus says these gods of the heathen are the idols of demons. Thus from Irenaeus we learn there are three definitions of "god" in the Bible, and we can show this by three circles.

Word always with the Father 4:20:3 p.488.

Heb 1:9 etc.

1 Cor 8:5-6

The outermost circle are "so-called gods", gods in manner of address and mention. They include the True god, Jupiter, Apollo, Baal, etc. The middle circle is what we Christians may call God. Of course this includes God the Father. Thomas, the author of Hebrews, John, and the early Christians also rightly call Jesus God. The innermost circle is the one whom Jesus called God while on earth, the Father, the one the Bible means when it says "God and Jesus". The key difference between the JW's teaching and Biblical teaching is this: JW's teach two different gods, a True God (Jehovah), and a smaller (but not false) god Jesus, while the Bible proclaims the Father and Jesus are the same God.

The Gnostics were a collection of cults united in believing the Old Testament was from an evil god, and the gospels and a few of Paul's writings were from a good God. Gnosis means knowledge and Gnostics believed secret knowledge was the key to salvation. The book of First John seems to be written entirely to guard against Gnosticism.

Irenaeus does not mince words about heretics. "Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says ‘minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in the faith,’ and by means of the craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained my dear friend to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation." They also overthrow the faith of many,... (Against Heresies 1:1:1)

Gnosticism was an incongruous amalgam of Greek speculation, anti-Jewishness, and gospel teaching. How could Gnosticism have true teaching? It had to. If it had 0% biblical teaching it would not have been so effective at deceiving those in the church. Irenaeus remarks:

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself." (Against Her. 1:1:2)

Gnostics differed among themselves, but they all shared these teachings. The Supreme God of the universe did not make this world; instead a lesser, evil god, named the Demiurge, did. Thus all physical things are intrinsically evil. The Demiurge is the god of the Old Testament and the Jews follow this evil god. The highest God sent Jesus to appear and bring salvation. Since Jesus was perfect, he was not really physical. He only appeared to be, and he only appeared to physically rise from the dead.

Gnostics generally believed in thirty aeons or gods; a group of 8, a group of 12, and a group of 10. All Gnostics were either libertine or ascetic. Libertine Gnostics believed that drunkenness, fornication, and an immoral life were either irrelevant to spirituality, or else enhanced it by the person experiencing all things. Ascetic Gnostics believed that spiritual people should abstain from physical things in this world. All abstained from marriage and many abstained from animal meat.

Ascetic Gnostics Libertine Gnostics

Cerdo Simon Magus (in Acts 8:9-11)

Marcion of Pontus Menander Nicolaitans

Saturninus Valentinus Colorbasus

Encratites (Tatian) Ptolemaeus Marcus

Secundus Cainites

Ptolemy Marcellina?

Carpocrates Basilides

Sethians Ophites

Marcion: Ascetic, pacifist, forbade marriage

In 1:8:1 Irenaeus gives a striking analogy of cult teaching. Suppose a skillful artist constructs a beautiful image of a king out of precious jewels. Now suppose somebody else takes this all apart and then rearranges the gems to make a crude picture of a dog or a fox. Could he say this was the beautiful image the craftsman constructed of the king? That is what cults do to the Bible.

Gnostic "proof" of the 8+10+12=30 aeons is the following; Jesus had twelve disciples, and later there were twelve apostles. Jesus went to the Temple when He was twelve. The twelfth disciple (Judas) fell, so the twelfth aeon fell. Jesus was baptized when he was about 30. The woman with the issue of blood was a type of the suffering aeon. Since Jesus was before all ages, and in Greek the work age is aeon, Jesus was before the aeons. By adding up the numbers in various names in the Bible, one gets combinations of 8, 10, 12, and 30.

Looking beyond the absurdity of these proofs, there is a psychological phenomena with Gnostics that is common to many cults. The Gnostics had this insatiable desire to teach knowledge; and what they did not know, their conscience did not stop them from making up. The truth had to be complicated, and only elite intellectuals, knowledgeable with their secret, could know it.

The Gnostics were very clever; they must have been to make up such wild fantasies. How intelligent people could accept wild things so uncritically is a mystery of man's sinful nature. It is as if thinking people choose to "turn off" their thinking in particular areas. This strange phenomena is appears in many cults today too.

Some Mormons, in their search for Mormons in the early church, point to the Gnostics. There are similarities in that Gnostics believed they had secret, hidden knowledge, they were polytheists. However, all Gnostics rejected the God of the Old Testament and believed that Jesus never had a physical body.

Mormon teachings of abstaining from alcohol, and doing good works to go to heaven, were totally incompatible with libertine Gnosticism. While no alcohol was compatible with ascetic Gnosticism, ascetic Gnostics believed all marriage was wrong.

Irenaeus' views of the shortcomings of the Roman Church showed he believed it anything but infallible. His view of the Lord's supper however, was similar to the transubstantiation or consubstantiation of the Catholic and Lutheran churches. Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus was rather Arminian in his outlook from 3:37:2 and 4:40-41.

Irenaeus gave an interesting account of John the Apostle in 3:3. One day John was in the public baths when he heard that the heretic Cerinthus was in. John immediately rushed out telling everyone else to run out before the building collapsed on Cerinthus. John was strongly against cults too.

Irenaeus emphasized in Against Her. 3:2-3, that there were no hidden mysteries that the apostles imparted to some and hid from others.

Other non-Gnostic groups Irenaeus wrote against were the Ebionites and the Nicolaitans mentioned in Rev 2:6. Irenaeus says that they were started by Nicholas mentioned in Acts 6:5.

Here is Irenaeus' insight on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. "Know thou that every man is either empty or full. For if he has not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the Creator; he has not received Jesus Christ the life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven;..." (16)

Did all the churches believe what Irenaeus believed? Here is what Irenaeus said in 1:10:2 "She (the church) also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul.... For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different nor do those in Spain nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East nor those in Egypt nor those in Libya, nor ..."

The world population was 297 ± 30% million, while the Roman Empire was 45-60 million. Of these, there were 10-15 million Christians. Athanasius' and Arius' country of Egypt had 5 ± 20% million people, of which very roughly 1/2 were Christians, at least in name.

Many bishops and the Emperor Constantine saw that the issue of Arianism had to be resolved for the unity of the church and the greater harmony of the Empire. At the urging of the Bishop Hosius, Constantine called for the first Ecumenical (world-wide) council of bishops at Nicea in the summer of 325 A.D.. Over 300 bishops, plus many presbyters and deacons, were present.

At the beginning there were three distinct groups. The Arians had fourteen or so bishops, the opposing group (let's call them Niceans) had at least 20, and the rest came to hear and decide. The leaders of the Arians were Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia; Athanasius was the leader of the Niceans; he was only 27 at the time.

The Nicean party brought forth verses and statements to try to prove Arianism wrong. The Arians kept whispering among themselves and then agreeing with the verses and statements. For example, Niceans would state, "Christ is like to the Father in all things." The Arians would agree; after all, man is the image and glory of God. The Niceans said, Christ is the power of God; Arians responded that even the locusts are called the power of God. The Niceans said, "the Son is eternal"; the Arians agreed because Christians too have eternal life.

Thus at first the Niceans were thwarted in their attempts to find statements the Arians disagreed with. Then, the Arian leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia, decided to boldly read a statement defining their belief. That was their undoing. As he was reading, the council was shocked at what they heard. The bishops then drew up a statement, which is the original Nicean Creed, to condemn Arianism. It is interesting that every bishop signed it, even all the Arians, except for three people. Eusebius of Nicomedia even backed down and signed it, though it was against his own document. Arius, Secundus, and Theonas were exiled.

What were these doctrines of Arianism that were so hard to pin Arians down on, until the whole was heard? Arianism is actually inconsistent; it starts with the Sonship of Christ, and ends by denying His Sonship.

Since the Son came from the Father, there was a time when the Son was not. Before the Son, the Father, of course was not the Father. The Father is so removed from the world, that he could not create it Himself, He needed an instrument (the Son) to create it. The Son was advanced to be the son by adoption, not by nature. He is not the word of God, but a word of God, and God has spoken many words. Jesus was in the flesh, but He did not have the full nature of humanity. The Son was not "Very God", but He was God to us, and was still to be worshipped.

A key argument Athanasius apparently used was that many pagans accepted that there were lesser and greater gods, as well as one supreme god (Zeus). Calling the Father and Jesus greater and lesser gods would make Christianity easier for pagans to convert; the problem is, it would no longer be Christianity. Those who believe we are to praise or make sacrifices to more than One god today are polytheists too.

The Nicene Creed recited in churches around the world today is actually only two-thirds of the original. Here is the original.

There was one criticism of the creed that sounded reasonable to a lot of non-Arians. After all, if we are guided only by scripture, and scripture is sufficient, and the Nicean Creed is not scripture, then why have it?

Athanasius wrote a 23 page answer to that objection and to define the Creed's language. Athanasius pointed out that the Arians had all kinds of objections, but when questioned about their belief, they change like chameleons. He pointed out the errors of their belief.

In Chapter 5 though, there is a hint of an answer to a broader question. Many Christians in Bible Societies believe that all you have to do is publish the Bible. We do not need to defend the faith beyond that or show that any other belief is in error. This approach is all right for unbelievers that are not rooted to any false teaching. However, it does nothing for those who change the definitions of the words in the Bible in an inconsistent way. Thus the Nicene Creed may not have been essential before the Arians, but because of the Arians' twisting of scripture, the Nicean Creed became necessary. Likewise today, when people twist scripture, the meaning of scripture must be defended by correcting their errors.

A very sad case study is in the Pacific Islands. Around the late nineteenth century missionaries Christianized most of the Islands. Later Mormons, who claim to be Christians came, and these undefended natives all became and are predominantly Mormons today.

After the exile of Arius and the two others, the Arians worked hard to make a comeback. They had two very influential converts. On his deathbed, the Emperor Constantine was baptized by an Arian Bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia xli. His son and the next sole Emperor, Constantius, was an ardent Arian who exiled many Nicean bishops, including Athanasius (357 A.D.). As these were exiled, ~80 Arians became bishops, mostly in Asia Minor and Syria.

There were three kinds of Arians actually; doctrinal Arians, political Arians, and confused Arians. After the Arians assumed power in many churches, they sort of disintegrated. While they were united against the Nicean Creed, they did not have a consistent belief of their own. The "ultra-Arians" wanted to say that the Father and Jesus were of different substances, the semi-Arians believed them to be of "like-substances", and the political Arians did not care. After Constantius died, the Nicean Christians were recalled from exile and by popular assent led the churches again. By 400 A.D. Arianism was dead in the civilized Roman world.

However, the Arians had an influential missionary (part Goth), named Ufilas, who converted the warlike Goths. In time many Vandals, Burgundians, Herulians, and other Germanic people became Arians too. These barbarian Arians were around until Visigoths converted from Arianism in 587 A.D.

After this, there was only one other person known to have "great sympathy" for Arianism. It was Isaac Newton, (of all people.) He actually wrote more on religion than he did on science!

If you serve Christ, you will never be accused of doing evil, right? -- not in Athanasius case. He was exiled five times due to false charges. The Arians tried every trick to bring down his integrity. An Arian named Arsenius went into hiding and the Arians reported that Athanasius murdered him, cut off his hand, and used his hand for magical purposes. Constantine summoned Athanasius to a trial. Fortunately, some Orthodox Christians searched and finally found Arsenius. They seized him, and unknown to the Arians, had him brought to the trial. When the Arians made their charge, Athanasius asked if they knew Arsenius personally and they said they did. Athanasius then had Arsenius produced; he showed them both of Arsenius' hands and asked from where was the third hand cut off! That was the end of that charge.

Constantine eventually banished Athanasius because of the trumped-up charge that he somehow had the power to stop grain ships from coming to Constantinople. Some think Constantine did that just to bring peace with the Arians. However, Constantine was baptized by an Arian.

At Arius' request the Emperor finally ordered that Alexander, the Nicean bishop of Alexandria should receive him into communion. Alexander prayed to God that either he would die or Arius would die rather than him be forced to accept a heretic. One day before Arius was to be received, Arius died.

The Arians, in stressing Jesus' Sonship, ended up denying the Son as the Son, because a son is of the same essence as his father. Arians worshipped Jesus, yet they said he was God only as an honorary title, and not in his intrinsic being. While there are no Arians today, many cults still try to lower Jesus.

"For even a blind man if he see not the sun yet if he but take hold of the warmth the sun gives out knows that there is a sun above the earth. Thus let our opponents also, even if they believe not as yet being still blind to the truth yet at least knowing His power by others who believe not deny the Godhead of Christ and the Resurrection accomplished by Him." Incarnation of the Word 32:3. Athanasius' was a hero of the faith who risked his life to stand against heresy, and he was indeed a channel of God's warmth to those who were blind. We learned some of his life from the issue on Nicea. Now let's see what this man of God had to say.

Athanasius was well-versed in Greek philosophy and literature. He was educated at the church in Alexandria, where he later became bishop some time after the Council at Nicea. Some criticized his becoming a bishop at such a young, tender age (under forty). Like most from this church, he valued ascetism and a monastic life. He also esteemed Origin, a church Father with some very speculative and strange theology.

Athanasius' writings are characterized by simplicity, knowledge, and vigor. He was a preacher, not a rhetoritician. He wrote over 500 pages (in English) during his long service to the Lord. Just a few of the themes of his writing are the Cross of Christ, Against paganism, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, a work on the Incarnation of the word, and of course, against Arianism. Two early works that were apparently written before the Arian controversy are Against the Heathen and The Incarnation of the Word (abbreviated Incarnation).

Was the cross shaped like a "cross", or was it shaped like a stake as Jehovah's Witnesses claim? Earlier we read what Justin Martyr said. Here is what Athanasius said the Incarnation 25:3, "For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out His hands that with the one He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles and unite both in Himself." Now since both Justin and Athanasius lived in Roman times, they would certainly know more about the shape of the cross than the Middle Age writers the Jehovah's Witnesses quote.

When people refuse to accept Christianity, one tactic is to explore the inconsistencies of their belief. Athanasius in Against the Heathen sarcastically said we can really learn a lot from the Greek gods.

While it might have been possible, in his original state, for man's soul to find God, in our current state is it impossible. God had to come to us. Our use of reason is fallen too. Not necessarily is our potential faculty to reason flawed, but our integrity of reason.

In Against the Heathen 22:3 Athanasius has a cute quip: "[pagans] are not ashamed to call lords of heaven and all the earth creatures whom they shut up in small chambers." Have you ever tried to shut up God in a small chamber?

Athanasius reiterated what others said, but he also had some original analogies. What does it mean to be indivisible? Athanasius gives many analogies. A light is indivisible from its brightness. One may say, "I see by the sun." Would you think him mad because he did not say, "I see by the light of the sun?" A stream is indivisible from the well from which it sprang. A branch is indivisible from the root that bear it. (Incarnation 3, others)

In his Sermon on Luke 10:22 (Matt 11:27), Athanasius says about the unity versus distinctness of the three, "United without confusion, distinguished without separation. Indivisible and without degrees." To borrow a modern illustration, just like light can paradoxically be a series of distinct particles or quanta, and still be a wave, the three can be distinct yet inseparable.

Athanasius points out that in Rev 4:8 it says "...Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord Almighty..." Why three times, and not two or four, if there is no Trinity?

A shortcoming of Athanasius' writing on the Trinity he that he did not expound much on the Holy Spirit. Neither did the Arians for that matter. Since he spent much of his life refuting Arians or running from Arians, that is understandable.

Athanasius mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ in Incarnation 16:4, 33:1, 50:5, and other places. He only mentions it clearly but only briefly, because Arians did not deny Jesus' bodily resurrection. This is one of many reasons it is not accurate equate Jehovah's Witnesses with Arians. (JW's do not claim any relationship with the warlike, scheming Arians either.)

Did Jesus have everything we have (except sin), or did he just resemble man? Athanasius in Against the Arians 2:14:8-9 points out that Heb 2:17 says Jesus was made like his brothers in every way. This is important, for Jesus had to be truly human to be our sacrifice and mediator.

Was Jesus the True God, or was he just another god? Athanasius tells us what 1 John 5:20 says about Jesus Christ, "... He is the true God and eternal life."

In Incarnation 18:7 he says that the sun is not defiled by sunlight touching things of the earth. It is always not put out by the darkness. Likewise, the Word of God was not less because he took on a physical body.

For as the sunrise drives away the dark and brings the day, the cross brought our victory over death. (Incarnation 29:3)

Whether man was inclined to worship nature man, demons, or the dead, Jesus showed Himself Lord of all these. (Incarnation 15:3-7)

In Incarnation 37:5 Athanasius mentions that men of Persia worshipped Jesus. So it must be all right to worship Jesus.

We were made in God's image, but we were being effaced, somewhat like an image on wood with stains on it. Christ, the image of God, came to make us afresh in God's image. (Incarnation 13)

Athanasius defended his positions with scripture; however he had two uses for church tradition. The first, mentioned in Circular Letter 1, is that the ordinances and interpretations were handed down from the apostles. The second is the flip-side of that, to show the novelty of heresy. We should use the writings of the Early Church Fathers the same way, not as a substitute for scripture or infallible, but to give light on how the Lord's disciples and their disciples interpreted scripture and to show that cults today are new religions unknown in previous times.

Exactly how is Jesus the Son of God? According to Athanasius, Jesus is in two senses: essential (from all eternity), and adoptive (from his birth a la Psalm 2.) Athanasius accused the Arians of trying to have a third meaning, of honor or "acquiring" Godhood. Have you ever thought just how powerful it is that Jesus is of the same "stuff" as the Father?

Sometimes people in cults disagree with what we say, but other times they do not even understand the terms in the Bible. An important distinction Athanasius points out in On the Opinion of Dionysius 20-21 is between begotten and made. Parents beget children but make things. The Father beget Jesus, but made creation.

What about Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called "... the firstborn over all creation...?" Jesus of course was first born, of course, as the only begotten Son of God. He is first-born in precedence and position as we too are sons of God in a lesser sense. While Jesus was not created any more than I created my children, of course his physical body was a creation of God.

Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the Day of the Lord's resurrection but they do not celebrate "Easter", as they believe that a pagan word. Athanasius mentions the Holy period of Lent and Easter in his Circular Letter 4, and in his over forty-five Easter Letters.

Athanasius had a combination of scriptural knowledge, wisdom, and discernment of truth and error. God used him mightily at a critical time in church history. Hebrews 5:14 says believers should "by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil." Would that we all follow this verse like Athanasius did.

Hippolytus was the disciple of Irenaeus at Lyons, who was about fifty years older than him. As you may recall, Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the Apostle. Hippolytus later became a bishop of Portus, a suburb of Rome. Hippolytus' writing in Greek is very similar to Irenaeus'. Also like Irenaeus, we went to Rome to rebuke bishops there. Also like Irenaeus, Hippolytus too was martyred.

Like his mentor Irenaeus, Hippolytus also wrote extensively against heresies, --139 pages. He even knew of the Brahmins of India, which he called "Brachmans". He also discusses thirty-one Gnostic cults, astrology and the Chaldeans, the Jews, Ebionites, magicians, Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24), the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6), and Greek philosophy.

(p.74) Some of the heretics were rather clever. In 6:3 a man named Apsethus tried to get the Libyans to worship him as a god (similar to Simon Magus.) When he at first failed, he collected a large number of talking parrots, which he taught to say "Apsethus is a god." Later he released them in the wild. People were astonished to hear these wild birds all telling them that Apsethus was a god. We can chuckle at people who try to learn truth from birds, but people today are the same way. If we hear messages repeated enough on TV and elsewhere, will we tend to believe it, regardless of whether it is really true?

In the astrology at that time, people born under some of the signs should have reddish hair. Hippolytus tongue-in-cheek points out that no darker-skinned people must be born in those months.

A key note on The Refutation of All Heresies is what is not there. In The writings of Hippolytus, Irenaeus, and every single church writer, there is no reference to any group that was like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, or cults today. Since these writers did not these things, and all heretics never taught these things, then these are modern errors unheard of by the disciples of the apostles.

Hippolytus in a fragment said a profound thing about cults' views of Jesus in both his day and ours. "Now a person might say that these men [cultists], and those who hold a different opinion are yet near neighbors, being involved in like error. For those men indeed either profess that Christ came into our life a mere man and deny the talent [attribute] of His divinity, or else acknowledging Him to be God they deny on the other hand, His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation."

In his discussion of Aristotle, he has a brief discussion of how Aristotle defined "substances". When Christians say the three are the same "substance", exactly what is substance? Perhaps we can get a hint from what Hippolytus says about Aristotle's teachings on nature and logic. According to Aristotle, there are three senses of the word substance: genus, species, and individual. Of course, two things of the same substance may still have differing qualities. Hippolytus gives the example of animals, men, and a person. All animals, be they pigs, cows, man, etc. have the same substance "animal." Animal here is defined as being "animated" (alive) and having sensation. People have a substance, "human", which other animals do not have. Finally a person is of one substance because his body is indivisible. If you change the names, the meaning here is similar to the modern object-oriented programming paradigm, in which everything in the universe can be grouped into superclasses, subclasses, and instances of objects. In general, substances have the same originating principle, matter, form and privation.

When we say the Father, Son, and Spirit have the same substance, we mean they are all God, they all existed eternally past before time began, and they will all exist eternally in the future. People are of the same substance, people (in contrast to bugs), and the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit are the same substance (God).

****** Jesus was fully God (Col 1:***), but Jesus was also fully the substance of man. Here is what Hippolytus said. (p.152) "The Man we know to have been made out of the compound of humanity. For if

In Against the Heresy of One Noetus, Hippolytus discusses the Trinity. In Chapter 8 he says, "A man, ... is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God who, being God became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these therefore, are three."

In chapter 12 he says, "We accordingly see the Word incarnate and we know the Father by Him and we believe in the Son (and) we worship the Holy Spirit."

In chapter 14 he discusses John 1:1 in the way Christians understand it, not using "Jehovah's Witness Greek." He quotes part of John 1:1 and then says, "If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One but there are two Persons because there is also the Son; and then there is the third the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of the harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands and the Son who obeys and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding; the Father is above all, and the Son who is through all and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit."

In introducing the One, True God to the Greek Gnostics, Hippolytus says in The Refutation of All Heresies 10:28, "The first and only (one God) both Creator and Lord or all, had nothing coeval with Himself, not infinite chaos, nor measureless water nor solid earth, .... But He was One alone in Himself." Jehovah's Witness use this to claim Hippolytus did not teach about the Trinity.

However, the next chapter goes on, "Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; ... The Logos was in the Father Himself bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father." The JW's forgot to read the chapters before and after.

In Discourse on the Holy Theophany, chapter 10, Hippolytus discusses who can become a true Christian. "For he who comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage and puts on the adoption, --he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun,..."

Hippolytus writes, "He calls Him, then, ‘the first-fruits of them that sleep,’ as the ‘first-begotten of the dead.’ For He, having risen, and being desirous to show that that same (body) had been raised which had also died when His disciples were in doubt, called Thomas to Him, and said ‘Reach hither; handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not bone and flesh, as ye see me have.’" (Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, in a Letter to a Certain Queen (or Princess)

The passage he refers to, John 20:24-25, is one Jehovah's Witnesses want to avoid, but you should bring up. Either Jesus really had his own physical body, or else he deliberately fooled Thomas to believe He had his own physical body, when He really did not.

Hippolytus had some beautiful illustrations. Here are one: "For as the serpent cannot make its mark upon a rock, so the devil could not find sin in the body of Christ."

So-called Christian theologians from the Tübingen school used to say that the Bible, including John's Gospel, was written down much later than the time of the apostles. We now have a fragment of John, dated ~130 A.D., and scriptures dated 150 A.D. and 200 A.D. to refute that. Even before we had these manuscripts though, Hippolytus' own work (The Refutation of All Heresies 7:10) refutes that. As Coxe points out, Hippolytus tells that the heretic Basilides quotes from John 1:9. Now Basilides lived at the time of the apostles, because he claims he received secret teaching from Matthias, the one elected apostle in Acts 1:23-26. (7:8)

According Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Hippolytus quotes from the New Testament 1,378 times. Hippolytus also thought the Apocrypha was scripture. There are over 36,289 quotes from the New Testament in just seven church fathers. Even if every single copy of the New Testament were destroyed or changed, we would still know the original meaning from the quotes alone.

Did you ever wonder what happened to the Apostles after Jesus ascended to heaven. Hippolytus tell us.

"Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia and Cappadocia [all in Asia Minor], and Betania and Italy, and Asia and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.

Andrew preached to the Scythians [in Russia] and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree at Patrae, a town of Achaia [in Greece]; and there too he was buried.

John, again in Asia was banished by Domitian the King to the isle of Patmos in which he also wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.

James his brother when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. Eusebius 2:9 says beheaded.

Philip preached in Phrygia [in Asia Minor] and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.

Bartholomew again preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward and was buried in Albanum, a town of Great Armenia.

And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees a town of Parthia [Iran]. Papias (65-156 A.D.) also records that Matthew was written in Hebrew.

And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes Persians Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians (Magi?) [all in Iran and Afghanistan, and USSR], and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear at Calamene, the city of India and was buried there.

And James the son of Alphaeus when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews and was buried there beside the temple. Josh McDowell says crucified.

Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there. Josh McDowell says killed by arrows.

Simon the Zealot, the son of Cleopas, who is also called Jude, became the bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just (Lord's brother), and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years. Josh McDowell says crucified.

And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven apostles, and preached in Jerusalem, and fell asleep and was buried there.

And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ; and beginning at Jerusalem, he advanced as far as Illyricum, and Italy, and Spain, preaching the Gospel for thirty-five years. And in the time of Nero he was beheaded at Rome and was buried there." p.255

He also says that Mark, Luke, Demas, Stephen, and James the Lord's brother, were among the seventy disciples of Jesus. (Hippolytus is probably wrong about James though.)

Hippolytus in his Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ (59) has a beautiful illustration of the church. "But we who hope for the Son of God are persecuted and trodden down by those unbelievers. For the wings of the vessels are the churches; and the sea is the world, in which the Church is set, like a ship tossed in the deep but not destroyed; for she has with her the skilled Pilot, Christ. And she bears in her midst also the trophy (which is erected) over death; for she carries with her the cross of the Lord [like a mast (Wordsworth)]. For her prow is the east, and her stern is the west and her hold is the south, and her tillers are the two Testaments; and the ropes that stretch around her are the love of Christ, which binds the Church; and the net which she bears with her is the laver of the regeneration which renews the believing, whence too are these glories. As the wind the Spirit from heaven is present by whom those who believe are sealed: she has also ancho