The Early Church Fathers: What Mark Dever and Supporters Could Learn From Polycarp About Keeping the Union In Communion

One hundred religious persons knit into a unity by careful organization do no constitute a church any more than eleven dead men make a football team. The first requisite is life, always.
A.W. Tozer

 

 

 

 

Special thanks to  Christianity Through the Centuries by Earle Cairns. All page numbers refer to this book.

 

Rebellions, hierarchy issues, martyrdom, heresies and fights over church polity were all part of the life of the early church. We know because this because a number of the writings of the earliest church fathers have been preserved. These were not included in the canon, but, instead, are supplements that serve to give us a window into the period of time after the death of the apostles. The study of these writings, and those who wrote them is called patrology (patristics).
 

These church fathers were theologians and highly recognized bishops. Their scholarly writings set a precedent for both theology and early church functioning for several centuries. Even today, serious students of theology as well as detractors of the faith study their writings.
 

Years ago, I became interested in learning whether the church today followed the practices and teachings of the early church. I was surprised to learn of the many writings that have survived. Sorting out the sound doctrine from the heretical has been the subject of study for theologians and historians for the last two millennia.
 

Actually, conflicting documents arose just after the Resurrection of Jesus.

Luke 1:1-4 mentions this issue. Note the word “many.”

(NIV) 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

 

In spite of these voluminous writings, the New Testament canon (the books of the Bible) was essentially established by the end of the first century. We will write more on this subject in coming weeks.
 

The first group to of writers to come along was called, aptly, the apostolic fathers. Why? All of them knew the apostles and some were the disciples of the apostles and their teachings. Their goal was to teach the nascent church about the practicalities of the faith and to warn them of heresies.
 

Interestingly, many of them were concerned about establishing a hierarchy in church.
 

 

Clement of Rome (@30-100) wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, which is believed to be the earliest writing outside of the New Testament. It was addressed to the members of the church in Corinth who were rebelling against their elders.
 

In fact, it appears this document is the first time that the subject of apostolic succession is spelled out. He states that Christ appointed the apostles and that the apostles made sure that the office of elders and deacons were an integral part of the church.
 

He also mentions that the role of bishop is important to maintain church and advocated for a separation of clergy and laity.
 

 

Ignatius of Antioch (@50-@120) was a student of the Apostle John. He wrote a number of letters, seven of which have survived and have been authenticated. Among these were letters sent to the Romans, the Ephesians and to Bishop Polycarp.
 

He not only opposed Gnosticism but Docetism. Docetics believed that Christ was purely a spiritual being and that only a ghost of Christ suffered on the cross.
 

Like Clement, he believed that the only way to promote unity and to avoid heresy was to have the churches subjected to the bishops and the elders. The bishops were in authority over a group of churches. The presbyter or elder was the ranking authority in each church followed by the deacon.

 

Ignatius was arrested by the Roman authorities and was sentenced to die in the arena filled with lions. Although a number of his followers wanted to stop the proceedings, he was convinced that a martyr’s death was glorious. In his letter to the church in Rome, shortly before his death he said,

 
"I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ."

 

 

Polycarp of Smryna (@65-155) was reported to be a disciple of John the Baptist. His sole surviving work is his letter to the Phillippians. Much of what he wrote was quoted directly from Paul’s Epistles. He showed little interest in church polity and instead, served as an exhorter of the church, emphasizing virtuous living and steadfastness in persecution. He died a martyr’s death
 

I want to point out a quote from Wikipedia LINK which is taken from Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). "Polycarp". Encyclopædia Britannica (eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.

 

I think a few people, like Mark Dever who will not let his friend Ligon Duncan take communion in his church because Duncan believes in pedobaptism, could learn a lesson from this beloved Bishop who sought to keep the church unified in spite of great disagreements.
 

“According to Irenaeus, during the time his fellow Syrian, Anicetus, was Bishop of Rome, in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals. Irenaeus said that on certain things the two bishops speedily came to an understanding, while as to the time of Easter, each adhered to his own custom, without breaking off communion with the other. Anicetus— the Roman sources offering it as a mark of special honor— allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his own church."
 

I think this is important to consider. Although they had their own churches and decided to observe Easter on different dates, they still celebrated communion TOGETHER in each others’ churches! May Mark Dever and others like him take a hint. By the way it was this split that caused my father, Russian Orthodox to celebrate a different Easter than myself, a Protestant. 

 

The Epistle of Barnabas is also known as Pseudo-Barnabas because the Barnabas noted in the New Testament did not write it. This epistle was meant to dissuade the converts from Judaism from continuing to observe the Mosaic law. The writer expounds on the full sufficiency of the sacrificial of Christ.

 

The following quote is found in Wikipedia LINK which is taken from Bart D.Ehrman (2005). Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew. Oxford University Press. p. 146. (yes, yes, I know but it is a good quote)


“The Epistle reinterprets many of the laws of the Torah. For example, the prohibition on eating pork is not to be taken literally, but rather forbids the people to live like swine, who supposedly grunt when hungry but are silent when full: likewise, the people are not to pray to God when they are in need but ignore him when they are satisfied. Similarly, the prohibition on eating rabbit means that the people are not to behave in a promiscuous manner”

 

There were other important writings:

  • The Epistle of Diognetus (written to the tutor of Marcus Aurelius as an apologetic defense of the faith) (p.77)
  • The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (Based on a sermon), The Interpretations of the Sayings of our Lord written by Pappias which claims that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and that Matthew wrote his work in Hebrew (p. 78)
  • The Sheherd of Hermas (written about a revelation received through visions by Hermas, the brother of Pius, the bishop of Rome.

 

In the end, it is important for Christians to realize that many writings from that period of time survive and we know a great deal about the successes, the struggles and the martyrdom of those whose courage combined with the strength of the Holy Spirit established the foundation of a faith that changed a world.

 

Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 2:12-3:39 John 13:1-30 Psalm 119:1-16 Proverbs 15:29-30

 



 

 

Comments

The Early Church Fathers: What Mark Dever and Supporters Could Learn From Polycarp About Keeping the Union In Communion — 9 Comments


  1. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    You make some good points here. Keep researching, you may find more truth. Just to note, the reason the Orthodox celebration of Easter (Pascha as in the Greek scriptures) is not a result of any difference on the issue between Irenaeus and Polycarp. A common date for celebrating Pascha was set at the First Council of Nicea in 325. It was not until after the Schism of the Latin Church (Rome) from the rest of the Church (in the east) when Pope Gregory the Great created a new calendar and with it a new basis for calculating the date for Pascha/Easter. For some reason, since the “Reformation”, Protestants have continued to follow the Latin tradition in this area. Somehwhat ironic, no?


  2. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    Sbdcn
    Thank you for the correction on the history. Polycarp was arguing over the date of celebration and there was a split in the celebration date at that time. So, was the Council date a way to stop that particular disagreement?


  3. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    You are incorrect about Mark Dever’s view on the Lord’s Supper. There is no prohibition from pedobaptists taking communion at Mark Dever’s church, of which I am a member. The only fencing of the table is that one be a “baptized member in good standing of an evangelical church where you hear the same Gospel proclaimed that you heard here today. If so, we welcome you to partake with us today.” There is no mention of the mode of baptism or at this time. This has been the practice for at least the last eight years that we have been familiar with the church.

    Now, to be a member of the church, that would be another matter entirely, as so it should be. But for simply joining in the Lord’s supper, all believers are welcomed.


  4. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    anon,

    Let’s be clear for those reading here. Your church is Southern Baptist, hence immersion is one of the two ordinances observed and the one that is required in order to join the congregation. If Mark Dever’s buddy Ligon Duncan (PCA) attends a church service at Capitol Hill Baptist, he would not be allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper, even though he is a brother in Christ. Is that correct?


  5. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    He would be invited to partake. I know that PCA people do attend and to partake with full approval. Membership in Capitol Hill Baptist is not a requirement to partake in the Lord’s supper. Membership in “any evangelical church where you hear the same gospel proclaimed there that you heard here today” is stated by whoever is administerng. So since Lig is a memberof good standing in a PCA church, he would full under that category.

    Now, if Lig wanted to join as a member of CHBC, he would need to affirm belief in immersion as the proper mode of baptism. So, as far as I know, he would be ineligble for membership. But he would be welcomed to attend any service and partake of communion as a visitor.


  6. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    anon,

    I would appreciate your reading this post:

    http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/enjoying-god/piper-grudem-dever-et-al-on-baptism-the-lords-table-and-church-membership-just-how-together-for-the-gospel-are-we/

    It appears Mark Dever wrote a 9 Marks post on August 16, 2007 that addressed the Lord’s Table, which is referenced in this post. Unfortunately, the link takes me to the most recent 9 Marks article, not the archived one.

    I can’t find the August 16, 2007 post mentioned by Sam Storms anywhere on the 9 Marks website. Funny think though, I was able to find the August 15, 2007 post. Here is that day’s topic as well as the link:

    Baptism, Church Membership and Congregationalism
    By Mark Dever | 8.15.2007

    http://www.9marks.org/blog/baptism-church-membership-and-congregationalism

    I would like to read Dever’s August 16, 2007 installment so I can understand what caused Storms’ to write his post.

    If Dever’s August 15, 2007 post is accessible on the 9 Marks website, the next day’s post should be available as well.

    Could you please provide the link to that August 16, 2007 post?


  7. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    I don’t see an August 16, 2007 post, either. I scrolled all the way to page 59 and see nothing for that date. Sorry, I’m just a random church member, not a link goddess. 🙂

    Thank you, Dee and Deb, for this post as well as the discussion. I am going to pay close attention to what is said at our next celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and if it is different that how I have described it here, I will inquire about it. I may inquire anyway after reading these statements.

    First, I do find the link to Dever’s Baptism article to be very convincing, when speaking of membership. His reluctance to grant membership to an unbaptized believer is consistent with PCA practice to exclude those who have not been baptized according to their understanding. So the PCA should be lumped in with Dever and the other baptists who expect the same: church membership is for those that the church understands to be baptized.

    But we’re not talking about membership here, exactly. We’re talking about denying the table to a pedobaptist visitor, such as Lig Duncan. First, there is a difference between denying the supper to one who practices or teaches pedobaptism (or anyone who is a member of a denom like PCA) vs denying anyone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith who now presently believes in pedobaptism. So, for example, imagine two PCA members, one who was baptized years ago at age 30, and his now adult son, who was baptized as an infant at the request of his father. I could understand the reasoning Dever or any other baptist allowing the father to partake, but not the son. The son was not baptized upon his profession, and according to baptist understanding, is living in sin by not obeying Jesus’ command to be baptized. However, I do not believe that it has been our practice to deny either of these theoretical people–when they are present as members in good standing of their gospel-preaching PCA churches.

    I also think there is a difference between “regular” celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a member and “occasional” celebration as a guest. In the former, one has covenanted himself under the elder’s care. They should exercise discipline of those who refuse to be properly baptized. In the latter, one is being welcomed as a brother from another congregation and not the elders’ responsibility.

    In most of the articles I’ve read on this subject in the last few hours (I’ve only stumbled across this tonight, while searching for a very different topic) both of the issues I describe above seem to be meddled with one another and then generalized with an “Oh! Dever will let Lig preach but then usher him out for the Lord’s Supper! That makes no sense!” But I can find nothing written by Dever on that particular scenario. Dever does write that he thinks Duncan is wrong, and even unintentionally sinful in his error. He also does write that he would not wish to pastor a church in which pedobaptism is practiced…but that is not the same as saying he would not allow a pedobaptist visitor to partake of the table. He never addresses visitors at all. In the article below, he does seem to touch on it, but I believe when he speaks of admitting to the Lord’s table, he is speaking in the sense of church membership. Someone who has been “admitted” by another congregation may still be welcome.

    http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID2468850,00.html

    Of course I can’t speak for Dever. I’m just guessing. But I do find it interesting that in my search for answers I find a lot about what other say that Dever believes but he hasn’t written specifically about the specific situation.


  8. Notice: Undefined variable: button in /home/guswo2wr8yyv/public_html/tww2/wp-content/plugins/quote-comments/quote-comments.php on line 127

    anon,

    Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

    It is a conundrum that others are taking issue with Mark Dever regarding his August 16, 2007 post on the 9 Marks website, but it’s NO WHERE to be found. Interesting…

    Speaking of believer’s baptism, last year Mark Dever addressed the students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in a chapel message entitled “For Children Only” (3/23/10), and he openly admitted that neither of his children (who are now grown according to his CHBC bio) have ever been baptized. He states this at the 14:39 mark at this link: http://apps.sebts.edu/multimedia/?p=766

    I am keeping Mark Dever’s children in my prayers and if they haven’t done so, I pray they will participate in this ordinance in God’s timing and join the family of faith.