Baptismal Regeneration Was Not Taught By All Christians Before 1500

 Many people assert that Ulrich Zwingli (1484 –  1531) was the first person to deny baptismal regeneration in history. This article is a revision of my earlier article "The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration".

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp, the Didache nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that the followers of John the Baptist (thus also believers in Christ) denied that baptism is a means of grace.

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish followers of Jesus in the 1st century did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation. This is the earliest text which explicitly rejects baptismal regeneration

5: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

Barnabas is often cited as the earliest example of someone who believed in baptismal regeneration, however this is a bad misunderstanding of his work. We must remember that Barnabas was a writer in the Alexandrian (allegoric) school of thought, and it appears that when Barnabas said "This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.", he was speaking allegorically. Now, this is not a mere trying to "explain away" data, but the immediate context shows it, as it reads:

“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land. Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.” (Epistle of Barnabas, 11)”

Barnabas is clearly equating believing in Christ and "going down into the water", which seems to imply that he was speaking of baptism symbolically to refer to faith. This is consistent considering his background in the Alexandrian school of thought, and consistent allegorical exegesis all over the letter. Notice how it says "placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water", which seems to imply that these two events happen simultaniously.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians.

6: Others

Jovinian (400ad) is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

Jovinian had many disciples, who likely would have followed his opinion.

I will briefly mention the fact that according to Augustine, some of the Pelagians denied baptismal regeneration. Now, this fact is not meant to be a major thing, as Pelagianism was declared a heresy. However, it does seem that Pelagius' views were strawmanned, as scholars analysing his commentary on Romans did find him affirming the necessity of grace (which Augustine claimed he denied). Yet, despite this, Pelagianism still is a major error. This is a brief reference and not a major point I am making, however Augustine said this:

" But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament." (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians (Book II))

7: Medieval

There were also medieval Christians who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. One example is the Hussite theologian Petr Chelčický, who lived between 1390 and 1460, "Baptism, he said, could not save in and of itself" (The Theology of the Czech Brethren from Hus to Comenius By Craig D. Atwood). The Waldensians (12th century) also believed that the "ablution which is given to infants profits nothing" (from the writings of Renerius Saccho).

Dispensational vs Non-Dispensational Free Grace Theology

 I am a Dispensationalist, however this post is not an attempt to talk on the issues between non-Dispensationalists and Dispensationalists, but a mere overview.

Dispensational

The fact of the matter is that Free Grace history is strongly linked to Dispensational history. Free Grace theology has been taught by many among the world's most influental dispensationalists: Ryrie, Scofield, Chafer and such. Even today, all Free Grace seminaries are dispensational in their leanings. Dispensational Free Grace theologians include:

R.B Thieme, Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Shawn Lazar, Stegall, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Cyrus Scofield, Watchman Nee, John Walvoord, Erich Sauer, Hixon, Robert Govett, Mackintosh, G.H Pember, G.H Lang, Ken Wilson, Shawn Lazar, Jody Dillow, David Anderson, Kenneth Yates, Shawn Lazar, Ralph Yankee Arnold, Chares Bing, Dwight Pentecost, Andy Woods, D.M Panton among many others

Dispensationalism has emphasized the distinction between the Mosaic law and the New Testament, this naturally leads into a separation of law and grace. And the strong premillennialism has allowed a central role for eternal rewards in Dispensational theology. Additionally, the unconditionality of Israel's promise, despite disobedience, has been used by Dispensationalists to support Free Grace theology.

Non-Dispensational

Although a minority, non-Dispensational individuals who profess Free Grace soteriology have grown in the recent era. This view can be traced back to Sandemanism and Robert Sandeman, which held very similar views to Free Grace theology, although it is today an extict view. Other old movements which hold similar views to Free Grace theology without being dispensational include the "Antinomians" (Antinomian controversy), Marrow Brethren and the anti-Majorists (Lutheranism).

According to Shawn Lazar, examples of theologians who are not dispensational but hold Free Grace friendly/Free Grace-like views include: Michael Eaton, Paul Zahl, David Zahl, R. T. Kendall, Rod Rosenbladt, Tullian Tchividjian, Robert Farrar Capon, Andrew Farley, Joseph Prince and Paul Ellis. There are also some teachers popular online like Norm Diamante and Afshin Yaghtin who teach Free Grace theology, without being dispensational. Additionally, the Primitive Baptists hold very similar views to Free Grace theology, although their strong views of predestination are distinct from Free Grace theology. Additionally, Dr. Michael Eaton is one more notable example of a non-dispensationalist who has had an impact on Free Grace theologians. Eaton published a book "No Condemnation: A New Theology of Assurance.", which has been read by many Free Grace believers, and he has even spoken as a guest at the Free Grace Alliance. Eaton is Reformed, Amillennial and Charismatic.

It is a minority position, but some non-dispensationalists have taken on Free grace theology.

Early Christians Did Not All Believe In Transubstantiation

 It is often argued that all early Christians held to Transubstantiation, however this is plainly false. This post provides a short list of quotations which show this claim to be false.

Tertullian (2nd century)
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. (Against Marcion, book 4)

Clement of Alexandria (2nd century)

The Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, (Instructor)

Eusebius (4th century)
 ‘His eyes are cheerful from wine,’ seems to me to shew the gladness of the mystic wine which He gave to His disciples, when He said, ‘Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.’ And, ‘His teeth are white as milk,’ shew the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body (Demonstratio Evangelica)

Theodoret (5th century)

For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. (Dialogues)

The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration

 Many assert that the earliest Christians universally taught baptismal regeneration, however this claim is something I wish to demonstrate false. Although the opinions of the early church fathers should not be our basis of doctrine, there are many people today who are disturbed by the claim that the early Christians all taught baptismal regeneration.

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that Jewish Christians rejected baptismal regeneration, as he writes:

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish Christians in the 1st century, did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation.

5: Jovinian (400ad)

Jovinian is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

6: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians. Now, some such as Cyril, though they might not have taught baptismal regeneration. if the arguments of Gavin are valid, they did still teach baptismal sanctification, where the act of baptism is where God gives you more grace to be able to live more holy lives. While this view is not that problematic, I do still deny that baptism is a means of grace, it is neither an instrument that gives us grace to live more holy, nor the means of salvation.

Now, it is clear that theologians such as Augustine or Tertullian, did not use these words figuratively at all, but it is very plausible that many theologians still did not believe that water baptism itself saves, but that water baptism is the symbol of salvation.

.

What Did The Waldensians Believe In?

Peter Waldo

 The Waldensians were a 12th century Christian sect, although some have argued that Peter Waldo did not start the sect, but just organize it. 

Despite that, there exists a lot of confusion on the beliefs of the Waldensians today, almost every Protestant groups sees the Waldensians as their spiritual ancestors, but what did they really believe in?
This post will do something that most haven't taken the time do, which is go to the actual sources themselves.

Firstly, we have a book written by early Waldensians called the "noble lesson", although it is not full of theology, some things are implicit. 

Firstly, it seems that baptism is implicitly affirmed to be for believers only, as it reads: "They preached to Jews and Greeks, working many Miracles; And baptized those who believed in the Name of Jesus Christ."

The Waldensians apparently separated the Mosaic law and the law of Christ as substantially distinct laws, as the book reads:

The second Law which God gave to Moses, Teacheth us to fear God, and to serve him with all our strength; For he condemneth and punisheth every one that offends.  But the third Law which is at this present time, Teacheth us to love God, and serve him purely: For he waiteth for the Sinner, and giveth him time, That he may repent in this present life. 

Although not exclusively dispensational, the view that the law of Christ is a substantially distinct law from the Mosaic, is clearly against the principles of covenant theology.

However, the Cathar convert to Catholicism, who lived close to the time of Peter Waldo, "Renerius Saccho" also wrote in detail on Waldensian beliefs. Saccho when listing Waldensian beliefs mentioned these (word by word quotations):

• That the Pope is the head of all errors
• they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church... also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing
• also, they say that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statures of the church - that the tradition of the church is the tradition of the Pharisees

This shows that the Waldensians objected to infant baptism, believed that scripture alone is infallible and they denied the papacy. However, they were not a Gnostic sect, as they clearly affirmed the trinity, the incarnation and such basic doctrines. The Waldensian book "noble lesson" even directly mentions the word trinity, as it says "These three (the holy Trinity) as being but one God, ought to be called upon,".

Thus, the Waldensians held to similar theology as such as Baptists, Anabaptists and many other Evangelicals, though not being exactly identical in every respect.

Is Calvinism Borrowed From Manichaean Gnosticism?

Mani was a 3rd century self proclaimed prophet
and the founder of the Gnostic religion "Manichaeanism".

 According to the well respected scholar, Ken Wilson, the doctrine of unconditional election along with other points of Calvinism are borrowed from Manichaeanism. But how can this be? What links does Calvinism have with Manichaeanism? Well there are more than one would expect. Calvinism is mostly taken from the doctrines of the early church father Augustine of Hippo, who was a convert out of Manichaeanism to Christianity. Augustine himself testified to his conversion in his book "Confessions".

But did the Manichaeans teach that God unconditionally elects some to salvation and some to damnation? - Yes

Although we do not have many early Manichaean writings, I was able to found late neo-Manichaean writings which distinctly argue against free will, as we can see from these quotes:

"Hence, by this reasoning, vain will be the belief of those who declared that those persons who are to be saved as well as those who never are to be saved have a potency for salvation and can be saved, as was said above."

"And so, we serve God when we fulfill His will with His help, not that we are able through free will to do anything good of which He himself is not the cause and principle. Thus, the Blessed James says in his Epistle, "Every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights." " And in the Gospel of John, Christ says, "No man can come to me except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him."  And of himself, He said: "I cannot of myself do anything. As I hear, so I judge";  and again, "But the Father, who abideth in me, he doth the works."  And the Apostle says to the Ephesians: "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory." " And the same Apostle says to the Romans, "So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy."

"From this one may know that those angels did not have from God a free will by which they could entirely avoid covetousness, and especially not from a God who knows directly all the future, in whom it is impossible that that which is future, with all the causes which determine it, can fail to be in the future. "

These text look like they could have come from any Calvinistic writing! However, the surprise is that these are taken from the Neo-Manichaean book "The Book of the Two Principles". The Neo-Manichaeans used every Calvinistic prooftext, such as John 6, Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 9 to support their theology. However, we are not limited to later neo-Manichaean references, we actually have church fathers also attack the Gnostics for their doctrine of unconditional election. For example, John Chrysostom protests against Manichaeans using John 6 for their doctrine of predestination, as we read in his commentary:

Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him." The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling [1287] comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,

This thus shows that Augustine's theology is clearly borrowed from Manichaeanism, it is not a coincidence that the first person to introduce this kind of theology, was himself a convert from Manichaeanism. Later, Calvin inherited this Manichaean influence from the doctrines of Augustine.

Free Grace Theology in the Plymouth Brethren

A Plymouth Brethren church

 The Plymouth Brethren are a group of Christians that derive from the teachings of John Nelson Darby, thus they have 19th century origins. However, among the Brethren, Free Grace theology was apparently common.

For example, the "change of mind" view of repentance was very common in this group, as we see in the bible translation of John Bowers  (a 19th century Plymouth Brethren):

"And saying, Change your mind, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 3:2)

"From that time Jesus began to proclaim, and say, Change your minds, for the reign of the heavens has drawn nigh." (Matthew 4:17)

"And that a change of mind and remission of sins should be proclaimed in his name among all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24:47)

"And Peter said to them, Change your minds, and be each of you immersed, upon the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," (Acts 2:38)

"Change your mind therefore, and turn, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord." (Acts 3:19)

"That therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, he now commands all men everywhere to change their minds:" (Acts 17:30)

"But to those in Damascus first, and Jerusalem, and in all the country of Judea, and to the nations, I declared that they should change their minds and turn to God, and perform works worthy of their change of mind." (Acts 26:20)

Bowes was so strong in this view that repentance is a change of mind, that he directly translated "metanoia" as a change of mind, instead of using the word "repentance". We find the same view in Alexander Marshall (1846 – 1928), who could also be seen as a Plymouth Free Grace theologian, he wrote: 

“But does it not say, unless we repent we shall perish?” Yes ; but what do you think is the Scriptural signification of “repentance?” If you say “sorrow for sin,” you are wrong. It does not mean sorrow for sin ; it means a change of mind see Matt. xxi.29" (God's way of salvation)

In the same writing, Marshall also makes comments such as the quality of faith not being the issue in salvation:

 "If you are not already saved, you don’t believe in Jesus in any way. Scripture does not recognize two ways of believing— a “ right ” and a“ wrong ” one. Men may speak about a “ living faith ” and a “ dead faith,” a “saving faith ” and an “intellectual faith,” but Scripture speaks of believing what God says. Faith in man and faith in God are the same exercises of mind ; the difference is not in the faith, but in the person on whom the faith terminates. Those who are lost perish through believing the devil’s lie, and those who are saved are delivered through believing God’s truth. “"

Thus for Marshall, simple trust in Christ is enough. 

Free Grace views were also held by G.H. Lang (1874 – 1958) and G. H Pember (1837–1910), for example Lang argued that the "call to discipleship" is not of salvation:

 Obviously this [Luke 17:33] agrees exactly with the warnings already considered that believers may be cut short by premature death and thus lose their life. It will therefore harmonize with the Lord’s words should our passage [Heb 10:39] be rendered, “we are of them who have faith unto the keeping safe of life.” (The Epistle to the Hebrews)

We also see many Free Grace views from H.A. Ironside (1876-1951) and Charles Henry Mackintosh (1820 - 1896). Although H.A Ironside was involved with the Plymouth Brethren only for a part of his life. 

We see a strong doctrine of assurance in Mackintosh, as he wrote:

They deem it presumptuous to believe that their sins are forgiven until their evil nature is completely sanctified; and, seeing that this end is not reached, they have no settled assurance of pardon, and are therefore miserable. In a word, they are seeking for a “foundation” totally different from that which Jehovah says He has laid, and, therefore, they have no certainty whatever. (Sanctification: What Is It?) 

Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748) and Dispensationalism

 Isaac Watts was mentioned by Charles Ryrie as one who foreshadowed the dispensationalism of Scofield and Darby. Isaac Watts write a book called "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them", where he taught many dispensational concepts.
However, he did not develop his every idea to their logical conclusions, as living in a Reformed environment, he had covenantal influences. This may put Isaac Watts somewhat closer to progressive dispensationalism, however considering the environment around Isaac Watts, the influences are understandable.

First thing to note is that Watts noticed a substantial difference between the Mosaic covenant and the New Covenant. Watts seems to have taught that the commands which are not re-established in the New Testament writings, are not binding.

“Watts furthermore changed the psalms in order to harmonize them with prevailing economic attitudes of the eighteenth century. Where the psalmist had scored usury, Watts thought it necessary also to leave out the mention of usury, which though politically forbidden by the ,Jews among themselves was never unlawful to the Gentles, nor to any Christians since the ,Jewish polity (Mosaic law) expired." 

(R. M. Stevenson, Patterns of Protestant Church Music)

This quote is not saying that Isaac tried to change the bible, but that when he borrowed from the Psalms, writing his own hymns (he was a famous hymn writer), he did not borrow from the psalms word for word, instead "omitting" mentions of Mosaic commandments which no longer apply. 

Watts is also seen as teaching the doctrine that the dispensation of the church age started in Acts 2, as he says in the book "The Harmony of All the Religions Which God Ever Prescribed to Men and All His Dispensations Towards Them":

"the christian dispensation was not properly set up in all its forms, doctrines and duties, till the following day of Pentecost, and the pouring down of the Spirit upon the Apostles" 

Chales Ryrie thus describes Isaac Watt's dispensational scheme (Dispensationalism, page 53):

I. The Dispensation of Innocency, or the Religion of Adam at first

 II. The Adamical Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, or the Religion of Adam after his Fall

 III. The Noahical Dispensation, or the Religion of Noah 

 IV The Abrahamical Dispensation, or the Religion of Abraham

 V The Mosaical Dispensation, or the Jewish Religion 

VI. The Christian Dispensation Except for the exclusion of the Millennium (he did not consider it a dispensation), this outline is exactly like that in the Scofield Reference Bible, and it is Watts's outline, not Darby's! Thus, throughout this period there was significant thinking and considerable literature on the subject of God's dealings with mankind throughout the ages. This was a period of developing dispensationalism

Now, despite Isaac not considering the millennium a dispensation, he was clearly still premillennial and believed in a future kingdom. Isaac's song "Jesus Shall Reign" has been generally seen as proof of his premillennial theology, which reads thus:

1 Jesus shall reign where'er the sun does its successive journeys run, his kingdom stretch from shore to shore, till moons shall wax and wane no more. 2 To him shall endless prayer be made, and praises throng to crown his head. His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice.3 People and realms of every tongue dwell on his love with sweetest song, and infant voices shall proclaim their early blessings on his name. 4 Blessings abound where'er he reigns: the prisoners leap to lose their chains, the weary find eternal rest, and all who suffer want are blest. 5 Let every creature rise and bring the highest honors to our King, angels descend with songs again, and earth repeat the loud amen.

This hymn is borrowed mainly from Psalm 72, now although he does not directly say that this will be fulfilled in the future, we see indications that he did. For example the words "His name like sweet perfume shall rise with every morning sacrifice" are not in the original Psalm, and the inclusion implies this being an additive interpretation of Isaac Watts. This indicates that he believed that a sacrificial system will exist when this Psalm is fulfilled, which would place it in the millennium (Ezekiel's temple), as no such thing exists today. 

He additionally in a hymn about Isaiah 9:6 (Watts, Psalms and Hymns p. 300) attributed the millennial reign to "ages yet unknown". Watts also believed in a future conversion of Israel, as in his comments on Psalm 106 and Psalm 105 he says:

"Though the Jews now seem to be case off, yet the Apostle Paul assures us, that “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2). Their unbelief and absence from God is but for a season; for they shall be recalled again, verses 25, 26"

"Then let the world forbear its rage, Nor put the land in fear; Israel must live through every age, And be the’ Almighty’s care."

Now, believing in premillennialism does not make one a dispensationalist alone, but his belief in the divine preservation of the Jewish people and apparent belief in a future temple in Jerusalem seem to connect him closer to dispensationalism, as historic premillennialists take the temple allegorically and applying to the church.

Now, it does have to be noted that Isaac was not a classical dispensationalist. His dispensational theology is still underdeveloped and he was influenced by the mainstream writers of his day. This led Isaac to apply many promises given for Israel to the church "spiritually". It seems that Isaac's theology mirrors progressive dispensationalism, which applies these prophecies "spiritually" to the church and "literally" to Israel at the same time. Although I am not a progressive dispensationalists, Isaac should be given some grace on the matter, as he lived before Darby and during a time where the role of Israel was not majorly discussed, thus his information was more limited, perhaps, if Isaac knew of Darby, he would have taught classical dispensationalism instead. However, Isaac's theology does show that many dispensational beliefs were taught prior to Darby, as Isaac was born over 100 years before him. Despite Isaac's dispensationalism being underdeveloped, we thus see that Darby was not the inventor of this theology, but merely a systematizer of it.

Although this article is not to be meant to be about progressive dispensationalism, I believe it has some problems. I suggest reading from Andy Woods on the issue of progressive dispensationalism, as he makes a detailed biblical examination of the doctrine.

You can find "The Coming Kingdom by Andy Woods" here.

 

 

 

 

 

Why Revelation 3:9 Does not teach "Christian" antisemitism

This text is sometimes used to defend "Christian" antisemitism, however those who aim to do such, are clearly misguided:

i. In this, Jesus did not speak against all Jewish people. It would be entirely wrong to speak of the Jewish people as a whole as the synagogue of Satan or those who say they are Jews and are not. Jesus spoke of this specific group of Jewish people in Philadelphia who persecuted the Christians during that period.

David Guzik's commentary on Revelation

Martin Ralph DeHaan (1891 – 1965) and Free Grace theology

 M. R. DeHaan was a dispensational theologian from the 20th century, and as is common to dispensationalism, Free Grace theology was evident in DeHaan's theology.

DeHaan taught one of the central doctrines of Free Grace theology, that being the view that salvation and discipleship are distinct, and thus discipleship is not a condition of entrance into the kingdom. These statements come from his book "Simon Peter: Sinner and Saint":

One cannot read the Bible very far before coming face to face with the teaching of these two distinct possibilities of the Christian life. All through the Bible we find these two kinds of Christians. Jesus said in John 10:10,

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

     There is a world of difference between having "life" and having life "more abundant." You can have life, eternal life, by simply coming to Jesus Christ, and trusting Him for salvation, but you will never know the "life abundant" until you have learned to come after Him in full surrender and followed Him as a disciple. To be saved, you receive God's free gift of grace; to be a disciple you have to return to Him that which you are. Jesus said:

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matthew 11:28).

     That is the "rest" of salvation. It is the gift of God. It is free. You can do nothing to earn it or obtain it, for it is given by grace. But Jesus did not stop with this verse, but added verse 29.

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matthew 11:29).

     It is quite another experience, even though the verses occur together. First we are invited to come, to come, to come, and I will give you rest. This is salvation—the rest of salvation, for which nothing can be paid. It is received as a free gift. 

 

DeHaan was evidently uncomfortable with arguing that Hebrews 10 deals with loss of salvation, as we see in his commentary on Hebrews 10. According to DeHaan, Hebrews is warning of the loss of reward in the judgement seat of Christ. Although there are many other interpretations today of the passage, for example, Andy Woods has argued that it refers to judgement in 70ad and Zane Hodges that it refers to divine disciple. Whatever view is correct, DeHaan evidently held to Free Grace theology from what he wrote in his "Studies in Hebrews":

Again the all-important question is, Who are these mentioned as treading underfoot the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and having done despite to the Spirit of grace? It is an important question, for either they were unsaved or saved. It must be one or the other. They are said to be "sanctified with the blood of Christ." Can it be said by any stretch of the imagination that an unconverted sinner has been sanctified by the blood of Christ? But there is more, for verse thirty continues: 

For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:30, 31). 

There is no escaping the words, "The Lord shall judge his people." This is a judgment for willful, deliberate, continued disobedience until God must step in, according to His word and purpose that He will judge His people. 

But the final argument is in the closing verse of this chapter. Notice carefully the descriptive words. In warning the believer against this danger of becoming a castaway, the writer gives this wise counsel: 

But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions; Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used (Heb. 10:32, 33). 

Here we have the evidence of a true work of grace, the fruits of a real salvation. They had been illuminated; they suffered for their testimony, and even became a gazingstock by reproaches. But there is much more. 

For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance (Heb. 10:34). 

Is this a description of an unconverted person? Think of it. These folks were not only saved, but were laden with fruit, as the evidence of it. They had compassion on the writer in his bonds, took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and to crown it all, they had the assurance of salvation, for of them it is said: 

Knowing…that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance. 

But let us go on, and see the evidence mounting. Listen to this admonition: 

Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward (Heb. 10:35). 

Two words are of tremendous importance. They are confidence and reward. It does not read, "cast not away therefore your salvation." It is not a matter of losing salvation, but losing the assurance. And the danger is losing the reward. But the evidence mounts still more: 

For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise [reward] (Heb. 10:36). 

The reward will be given at the judgment Seat of Christ, when Jesus comes. There the work of God's children will be judged. There faithfulness will be rewarded. The unrepentant disobedient will be dealt with and the castaways shall be saved so as by fire. One passage alone will determine this. Consider again the words of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15: 

Now if any man build upon this foundation [that determines salvation] gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. 

It is in view of this Judgment Seat of Christ that the admonition in Hebrews ten is given. It is a reminder that a reckoning is coming. 

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry (Heb. 10:37). 

Did The Early Christians Teach Roman Catholicism?

 This post is going to be composed of multiple quotations from early Christians which shows their disagreement with modern Roman Catholicism.

Eusebius

Infant Baptism

Eusebius - 260/265 – 30 May 339

When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some ), and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, 'This one I commit to you in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.' And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus. 8. But the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord he had given him a perfect protection.

Church History, Book III 

Didache 1st century

But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. 

Tertullian 2nd century

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary 8730 —that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” 8731 Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; 8732 let them become Christians 8733 when they have become able to know Christ. 

On Baptism (Tertullian)

Baptismal Regeneration

And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:44-48 Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

A Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 255) unknown author

The author said that those who believe before baptism, baptism merely "receives the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", which is a term to mean public identification with.

Priesthood of the believer

Odes of Solomon 70-140ad 

I am a priest of the Lord, and Him I serve as a priest;

And to Him I offer the offering of His thought.

For His thought is not like the world, nor like the flesh, nor like them who worship according to the flesh.

The offering of the Lord is righteousness, and purity of heart and lips.

Ode 20

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

For all the righteous possess the sacerdotal rank. And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.

Against Heresies

Sola Scriptura

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”(1) And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent,(2) who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

CHAPTER 2 Against Heresies

Augustine of Hippo 13 November 354 – 28 August 430

But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christian charity? (On Baptism 2.3.4)

 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. (Reply to Faustus 11.5)

have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. . . . As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. (Letter to Jerome [no. 82])

Praying to saints

Origen 185–254

We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” (Against Celsus, Book V, Chap. XI) 

Saint Irenæus (120-202)

5. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error. If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 32)

Novatian c. 200–258

If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon; when it is not the nature of man, but of God, that it can be present in every place? If Christ is only man, why is a man invoked in prayers as a Mediator, when the invocation of a man to afford salvation is condemned as ineffectual?

On the Trinity

Apocrypha

Melito of Sardis (180 AD) 

"Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Such are the words of Melito."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Book IV, Chapter 26)

Jerome 342 – c. 347 – 30 September 420

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees I have found to be Hebrew, the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. Seeing that all this is so, I beseech you, my reader, not to think that my labours are in any sense intended to disparage the old translators. 

Preface to The Books of Samuel and Kings

Epiphanus (4th century)

6:2 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kingdoms. 15. The Second Book of Kingdoms. 16. The Third Book of Kingdoms. 17. The Fourth Book of Kingdoms. 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther.

6:3 These are the 27 books given the Jews by God. They are counted as 22, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books are doubled and reckoned as five. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere.

6:4 And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha.

Epiphanus, Panarion

Perpetual Virginity

Hegesippus 110 – c.180 AD

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.

("according to the flesh" is a term used to mean genetic relationship, however he also distinguishes the Greek words "anopsis" (cousin, kindred) and "adelfos" (brother))

Apollinarius died 382

The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Books II and III. p. 616. As though they had a grudge against the Virgin and desired to cheapen her reputation, certain Antidicomarians, inspired by some envy or error and intending to sully men’s minds, have dared to say that St. Mary had relations with a man after Christ’s birth, I mean with Joseph himself. And as I have already mentioned, it is said that the claim has been made by the venerable Apollinarius himself

Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD)

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son.

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian denied "virginitas in partu" (That Mary kept her virginity during childbirth and Jesus did not have a human birth, this is taught by Catholicism)

Sinlessness of Mary

Origen  185–254

What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had experienced scandal during the Lord’s Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but are justified by his grace and redeemed,” then Mary too was scandalized by this moment. This is what Simeon is prophesying about…. Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt” (Homilies on Luke, 17.6-7).

On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD

did not Christ, while preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently, and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one's parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. 

Hilary of Poitiers (; c. 310 – c. 367)

if this virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will encounter the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape?” (Tractatus in Ps. 118).

 John Chrysostom 347 – 14 September 407

And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she has no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him; whence also her unseasonable approach” (Homilies in Matthew, Homily 44.3).

Basil of Caesarea 330 – January 1 or 2, 379

Simeon therefore prophesies about Mary herself, that when standing by the cross, and beholding what is being done, and hearing the voices, after the witness of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after the great exhibition of miracles, she shall feel about her soul a mighty tempest. The Lord was bound to taste of death for every man—to become a propitiation for the world and to justify all men by His own blood. Even you yourself, who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword. “That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” He indicates that after the offense at the Cross of Christ a certain swift healing shall come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their heart in faith in Him. In the same way we saw Peter, after he had been offended, holding more firmly to his faith in Christ” (Basil, Letter 

Eternal Security In Early Anabaptism

 

Although modern Anabaptist theology generally teaches the possibility of losing one's salvation, there are references which show that early Anabaptism had a portion of believers who believed in eternal security. Now, Anabaptism was just an umbrella term which means "re-bapizer", thus the Anabaptists were known for refusing to baptize infants. There is some controversy on if Anabaptism started as one movement "monogenesis" or if Anabaptism started from multiple movements which came to be independently "polygenesis". Despite this, they were all unified on the view that infant baptism and real presence in the Supper are not biblical.

Now, Anabaptism has never been totally unified doctrinally. Today most Anabaptists are Mennonites, which teach a kind of Arminian theology. However, we first find a reference to Anabaptists teaching eternal security in the Augsburg confession, which states in Article XII:

 "They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such perfection in this life that they cannot sin."

The Lutheran churches thus condemned a portion of the Anabaptists for teaching that one cannot lose the Holy Ghost, which means that they were aware of the doctrine of eternal security being taught in these circles. It is apparent from these comments that some of the early Anabaptists held that you cannot lose your salvation. Although, despite this fact it is also true that we know that there were other Anabaptists very hostile to the idea, as we see in the writings of Leupold Scharnschlager:

Even today some understand Christ and Paul as ascribing righteousness and life to faith alone, as if a faith without deeds and fruit is enough for salvation. For how can it be a barren, that is, a dead faith, when life—and much more—comes forth from it?

However, despite these words of Leupold showing that he himself disagreed with the idea, he directly mentioned the doctrine being in existence by saying "even today some understand". Thus, we see the fact that Free Grace theology existed during the early 16th century from the writings of Leupold.

Establishing The Canon Using The Scriptures Themselves

 Many Catholics and Orthodox assert that unless we accept the Orthodox/Catholic traditions, we cannot know the canon. However, we see the Bible itself give us major evidences for the canon. Although we can trust that the canon would be preserved (John 16:13), there are additional evidences which confirm the canon being true.

1: Jude quotes 2 Peter as authoritative

Jude 1:17-18:  But you, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ: how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts.

Now, Jude is quoting the oral words of the apostles (plural), however he appears to take the wording from 2 Peter 3:3 which states:

Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.

Thus it appears that Jude is making chiefly reference to 2 Peter, yet also secondarily references what the other apostles said orally.

2: 2 Peter quotes Paul as authoritative

2 Peter 3:16, KJV: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is thus clear that Paul's writings were seen as canonical early on, and having inspiration from God.

Peter

3: Paul claims to be inspired 

In addition to the claims of Peter, we can know that Paul himself claimed inspiration.

2 Thessalonians 3:14, KJV: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

4: Paul's miraculous conversion proves his testimony 

Paul went from a persecutor of the church to an apostle suddenly. This is mentioned both in the book of Acts but also by Paul himself in Galatians - a letter which even atheist scholars claim is Paul's:
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Why would Paul die as a martyr if he was lying?

5: Paul claims that Luke is inspired

Paul the apostle quoted the gospel of Luke as being equal to scripture:

1 Timothy 5:18

18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

Luke 10:7

7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Comparing the Greek:

1 Timothy 5:18: Λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, Βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις· καί, Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Luke 10:7: Ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν· ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐστίν. Μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν.

The only difference is the word "gar", which translates to the English term "for".  It is evident that Paul had in possession the book of Luke, and quoted it as equal to scripture. This is noteworthy, because Paul would later say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV): "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,  so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.". This shows that Paul was aware of the new books being written, thus also the Catholic objection that this is only referencing the Old Testament is weak.

6: Mark and Matthew.

Since we now know that Luke is inspired from the testimony of Paul the apostle, the usage of Mark and Matthew are also something to consider, the Spirit certainly saw the two as trustworthy if Luke used them. Additionally, there exists internal and external evidence that Mark and Matthew were the authors, which together makes for a case that they too are inspired.

For example, Matthew contains a special reference to Matthew in verses 9:9-13

9 As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

10 And as Jesus[a] reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew was also a tax collector, which is evident in the fact that the gospel of Matthew contains the most references to money out of every gospel.  It is also clear that Matthew was able to speak Hebrew, as he quoted the Hebrew text in Matthew 2:17-18 (NIV). Matthew's quote reads:

Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Greek of Matthew: Φωνὴ ἐν Ῥαμὰ ἠκούσθη, κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὀδυρμὸς πολύς· Ῥαχὴλ κλαίουσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτῆς, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελεν παρακληθῆναι ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν.

Greek of the Septuagint: οὕτως εἶπεν κύριος φωνὴ ἐν Ραμα ἠκούσθη θρήνου καὶ κλαυθμοῦ καὶ ὀδυρμοῦ Ραχηλ ἀποκλαιομένη οὐκ ἤθελεν παύσασθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς αὐτῆς ὅτι οὐκ εἰσίν

Even if one does not speak Greek, it is clear that there are differences, it appears likely that Matthew was making his own translation of the Hebrew text.

7: Jesus claims the Old Testament to be inspired

Jesus claims that the Old Testament is inspired in the book of Luke in multiple places, quoting it with full authority. Jesus confirms that the Rabbinic canon of the Old Testament was correct: Luke 24:44, KJV: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Here, Jesus affirms the threefold canon of the Jews, who divided the Old Testament into three categories, the law, the prophets and the writings. Now, Jesus used the word "psalms" for the entirety of the writings due to being the most significant book in the category. 

8: Paul claimed the Jewish canon of the Old Testament to be inspired

Romans 3:2, KJV: Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Paul states that the "oracles of God" were given to the Jews, which necessitates an affirmation of the books affirmed by the Jews. Now, it is true that the Sadducees and the Pharisees differed in their canon, as the Sadducees only accepted the Mosaic, however it is clear that Paul (from a Pharisaic background) would refer to the Pharisaic canon. Additional evidence is that Paul always quotes books from the Jewish Pharisaic canon, not the Sadduceeic canon.

9: The book of Revelation contains prophecies, which shows its inspiration.

Revelation 2:8-11 prophesied the persecution that came to Smyrna around 140ad, when Polycarp was also killed.

Revelation 13:17 prophesied digital currency.

Revelation 22:18-19 implies foreknowledge on the book of Revelation being the book with the most variants. We know from history that the book of Revelation was carelessly copied, and yet the same book with the most variants, has the harshest warning on editing the book. This is a prophecy by implication, that the book would be carelessly copied.

Revelation 9:17 maybe prophesied modern warfare, as it talks about "fire and smoke" being used as weapons, this likely refers to modern weaponry, such as guns.

Revelation 7:9 describes the spread of Christianity to the entire world and to every nation, which is today already fulfilled.

9: The epistle of John speaks authoritatively

1 John 2:22

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:18

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Now anyone can make such claim, yet if an apostle makes the claim, we can have much confidence that he is speaking the truth, otherwise why would God have chosen him for the duty of spreading the gospel?

10: if Revelation is inspired, there is reason to think that the rest of the Johannine writings are

Now there is some debate on the authorship of Revelation, Eusebius argued that the book was written by a close companion of John the apostle, called John the elder, he argued that Papias (60 – 130) made the same distinction. Now, there is no objection to such an authorship, as Luke was inspired despite not being an apostle, though he was a close companion of Paul. Yet others, such as Justin Martyr (100 – 165) attributed Revelation to the apostle himself, and this has been the majority opinion of Christians in history. Nevertheless, in both cases, the authority of the Johannine corpus is established. 

If Revelation is inspired and written by John the apostle, why would not other of his writings that were preserved to this day too? If it was written by a close disciple of John, why wouldn't the preserved writings of his master be inspired too, especially if they speak authoritatively?

11: What about James, Jude and perhaps Hebrews?

Now if Hebrews was written by Paul, that goes simultaneously. However others believe that the author was Barnabas (this was the opinion of Tertullian), in these three cases, we have less direct evidences, yet their agreement with other scriptures, their content and apostolic authorship along with being preserved to our day, together make a case for their inclusion in the canon.

12: The Old Testament prophesied the future

We also can know the validity of the Old Testament due to the many prophesies in contains (such as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Ezekiel 26 etc.).