The Disciples of the Apostles (The Patristic Period - Part 1)

The Apostolic Fathers and Multi-Generational Ministry

So this is part two in the book, the patristic period. So this will be from the second century through the fifth century. Lesson number three is titled the Disciples of the Apostles. Okay, that makes you look a second time.

Okay, wait, what's being said here? The Disciples of the Apostles, because you know that the 12 disciples of Jesus were also called apostles. So we're not talking about them, we're talking about the men who followed the apostles.

So after that generation, the apostles died, that next generation of men who followed them. The key passage is 2 Timothy 2, verse two, which says in the things, and of course this is Paul speaking to Timothy, who was a pastor.

Paul tells him, in the things that you have heard from me, among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. So number one, in the footsteps of the apostles, and I don't think this is in your book, but I'll read it.

It says, in contemporary churches, 2 Timothy 2 .2 is often viewed as a model for multi-generational ministry. That is certainly a valid way to think about that verse. But when Paul first wrote about faithful men and the others also, he undoubtedly had specific people in mind.

When we look back at church history, we discover the names of some of these faithful men. They were part of the generation of believers who came immediately after the apostles. So the apostles were in the first century, right?

We think John died somewhere around 95 to 100 AD. So now we're in the second century. So these are men who learned from the apostles. As noted in lesson number two, these men, they did not view themselves as apostles, but rather as pastors and elders who have been entrusted with the truth.

Their charge was to guard the treasure they had received and faithfully preserve it for future generations. And that's very important that they did not consider themselves apostles, because what does that tell you?

That there's no such thing as what people call apostolic succession. So that throughout all the ages, because some people believe this and teach this. The Catholic church, I think, teaches this. Some Pentecostals believe this, that throughout all the last 2000 years of church history, there's always been apostles.

And that's simply not the case. The apostles lived in the first century, and the men who learned from them, they did not consider themselves to be apostles. So there is no apostolic succession, no apostles today.

The article, not article, but the write-up continues, we refer to these early Christian leaders as the apostolic fathers. The term church fathers should be thought of in the sense of founding fathers.

And of course, we all, you know, when you hear founding fathers, you think of who? Yeah, you think of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, those men who were the early leaders who kind of built up this country.

But these men were the early leaders that helped build up the church after the apostles. They were early leaders of the church. In this case, their close connection to the apostles makes them apostolic fathers.

The apostolic fathers include the authors of a number of works that have survived to the present. In this lesson, we will consider five of these early authors. Number one, Clement of Rome. Number two, Ignatius of Antioch.

Number three, Polycarp of Smyrna. Number four, the author of the Didache. And number five, the author of the Letter to Dionysius. English translations of the writings of these early Christian leaders are freely available online, and they can be accessed with a quick web search.

Now, how many of you are familiar with the names I just mentioned? Okay, so, yeah, a small percentage of the group, less than half of the group. Clement of Rome, I think a lot of people have heard of Clement of Rome.

Polycarp is probably the most well-known. So, and then we'll look at the others. So, moving on to the next page. You do have this in your book. This is the discussion question. How many generations of Christian leadership are represented in 2 Timothy 2 .2?

Okay, so let's go back to that verse. Let's turn to 2 Timothy chapter two, if you would, if you're not there already, 2 Timothy chapter two. And that's the first question. We'll come back to it in a second.

The second question is what should that principle of multi-generational leadership look like in the church today? Okay, so this is the question posed to you. How many generations are represented in this verse?

Where Paul says, the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. So, these faithful men, in the ones they teach, represent how many generations?

Well, depending on how you understand the question, you would say, yeah, it would be two, right? The apostles and the men who learned from them. But the way I, if I understand the question correctly, I think it would represent all the generations throughout church history.

Because whoever, the next generation you're teaching, like, right, there's some men in this church that are in their 70s and 80s, and they have studied the scripture, and they're followers of Jesus Christ, and then there's other men in this church that are in their 20s.

Well, I think all are included. As long as you're being taught and you are following Christ, I think this would include all generations. So, at least that's how I understand the question. And if that's the case, what should that principle of multigenerational leadership look like in the church today?

What should that look like?

Larry.

There's a scripture passage that says, older men teach the younger men how to do whatever and be men, to be leaders. Older women teach the younger women. So, it's like mentorship or discipleship.

Yep, yep, discipleship, training one another. So, the older men and women teach the younger men and women, not only in word, but also in deed. They are to be an example to the younger people. Marcus.

That should look like Phil Grant ran you to church as a little boy.

Yeah, yeah, good.

Erin.

Once did a Bible study that said that everyone should have a Paul and a Timothy.

That's good, I like that. Everyone should have a Paul, someone they look up to, who's like a mentor to them. But also everyone should have a Timothy, someone that they're training.

And have a Barnabas as well.

And having a Barnabas to encourage you is a good idea as well. Good, these are some great answers, Marcus.

And it should look like these two guys to my left.

Yeah, yeah. So, here's the thing. A local church, here's what you often find. There are some churches that are like the rock and roll churches where everyone is in their 20s and 30s. And the older people in the church are like 48.

And those are the old folks, right? But there are some churches where everybody's young. And then there are other churches where everybody's a senior citizen. Well, if that's the dynamic, it's great to have a lot of young people and it's great to have older people who have that wisdom and experience.

But if you have one or the other, you don't really have multi-generational discipleship going on. So that's one thing I like about our church at the current moment. I mean, it might lean a little more on the older side, but we're getting a lot of younger people in.

So it's good to have a variety of some teenagers, some people in their 20s and 30s, as well as 40s and 50s. And then 70s and 80s. So having a broad variety of people is what you want.

Yeah.

I forgot to mention Elijah downstairs also.

Yeah.

Yeah, whether it's somebody being taught God's word in Sunday school and eight, nine years old or five years old or 50 years old or 85. So I think that's what he's getting at. All right. Any other comments or questions on that?

Clement of Rome and Justification by Faith

Moving along. Number two. So we looked at number one in the footsteps of the apostles kind of laid the groundwork for what we're talking about. Number two, Clement of Rome.

All right.

So this is a man that is, as far as early church fathers go, Clement of Rome is one of the more well-known, at least people have heard of him. It says that Clement of Rome died in what year? 100.

Okay.

So he doesn't even really go into the second century. He would have been alive around the time of the apostles, but he's still that next generation. So if let's say John was 90 years old, Clement would have been 50.

I don't really know how old he would have been, but he's the next generation is the point. So look at your books. It says Clement pastored the church in what city?

Rome.

From around 90 to 100 AD. To put that in perspective, he was pastoring the Roman congregation when the apostle John was exiled to the island of Patmos.

Okay.

Now, don't quote me on this. I should have double checked before I came in this morning. But you know, things come to mind. So if they come into my mind, I think it's correct. I'll share it with you. But from what I remember, the Roman Catholic Church claims that Clement was actually one of the early popes.

Of course, they say Peter was the first pope and whoever came after him. I think Clement was like, according to them, the second or third or fourth pope. Again, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure that's what they claim.

Is that the stance that this book is taking? Is that the position we would hold?

No.

Because again, none of these men claim to be apostles. So they did not have that level of authority, the same as the apostles.

Okay.

And again, this is in my book. Some have noted the possibility that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4 .3, because Paul does mention a man named Clement, is the same person. Though possible, since the epistle of the Philippians was written in the early 60s, that connection cannot be confirmed with certainty because Clement would have been a fairly common name.

So we don't really know if these are all the same people. Clement wrote one letter that has survived. It was likely written in the mid 90s, addressed to the church in, does anyone know? No, it's not Rome.

He was pastor of the church at Rome. He's writing to a different church. He's writing to the Corinthians and he's writing to the Corinthians from the church in Rome. Consequently, it is known as Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians.

Sometimes it's called First Clement. This is due to the fact that another early Christian work called Second Clement was historically associated with Clement of Rome. However, modern scholarship has shown that Clement was probably not the author of Second Clement.

Now, when you hear First and Second Clement, what do you think? I mean, it sounds like the way it's being referred to, it's as if like these are being talked about like they're books of the Bible, but they're not, right?

I think we all know that Clement never wrote one of the New Testament letters, but people have been writing letters to churches, from churches, you know, right up until the modern day. So that does not imply at all that these are somehow, should have been included in the canon of scripture.

The primary issue addressed in Clement's letter is division within the Corinthian congregation. 40 years after the Apostle Paul addressed the same issue, Clement articulates his concerns about the infighting and disunity that had once crept into the Corinthian congregation.

So what does that tell you? That Paul, he writes a letter to them, and we think Paul probably wrote four letters total, but two of them were lost to history. So Paul writes a letter that we call First Corinthians.

It's basically telling the church how you better shape up. And then he writes Second Corinthians, and it's like, okay, you have corrected a lot of things, but there's still some issues you need to fix.

Well, if those problems were resolved, what do we see? In the next generation, all the problems came back.

Marcus.

And this is one of the common teachings of the heresies in our neck of the woods, that these letters are as important as the canon itself, which of course is not the case.

Right.

Yeah, I mean, this truly was Clement having concerns, thinking he can help, and he wrote a letter to the church at Corinth. You know, I've, excuse me, I've written some, not letters, but emails, you know, to people expressing my concerns.

But just because I write a letter, it doesn't make it scripture. Because my letter only carries authority so much as I'm quoting scripture, and scripture contains the authority. But yeah, Clement was writing a letter.

It's not authoritative. He's not an apostle. This is not scripture. He was not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul, his letter to Timothy was. In one important passage, Clement explains that believers are justified by faith apart from works, just like Abraham was.

He writes this. Okay, so this is in your book. You can look at it, Clement of Rome. This is what he wrote. And so we, having been called through his will in Jesus Christ, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works that we have done in holiness of heart.

Rather, we are justified through what? Faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning to whom be the glory forever and ever, amen. Okay, so it's helpful to see that not only did Paul teach salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Romans and Galatians, the next generation was also teaching it.

So somewhere along the way, people started inserting works into the gospel. And of course, that was happening in scripture because Paul, that's partially what caused Paul to write to the churches of Galatia because they were believing in a different gospel, salvation by faith plus works.

So we see that even the early church fathers, at least Clement of Rome, he believed in salvation by faith alone as well. It says, Clement rightly understood that justification is a gift of God's grace received by faith apart from works.

Okay, so this is the discussion question. Based on the quote above that we just read from Clement, how would you describe Clement's understanding of the means of justification? It says, read Ephesians 2, four through nine.

So let's turn there. Let's turn to Ephesians chapter two. Ephesians chapter two, four through nine. So that's the question. How does the quote above, or based on the quote above, how would you describe Clement's understanding of the means of justification?

All right, Ephesians 2, four through nine. Do I have a volunteer who would like to read that? Okay, Linda.

Four through nine?

Yeah.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of his great love in which he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved, and raised up together and made us sit together in heavenly places with Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come we might show the exceeding riches of his grace and his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, but as a gift of God, not of works, lest any one should boast.

Okay, so that's one of the most clear statements you find in the New Testament. Paul says in verse five of Ephesians 2, by grace you have been saved. Okay, so that eliminates the possibility of works.

And then, just in case you didn't get it, in verses eight and nine, for by grace are you saved through faith, that not of yourselves, it is not of works. So crystal clear what they believe. So, therefore, when somebody comes and they start telling you that salvation is actually based on keeping the Sabbath and obeying the dietary laws and doing this and doing that, you know that, what, what are they doing?

They're preaching a different gospel than the apostles taught. And even a different gospel than some of the early church fathers. Okay, and we talked about this last week, things that people add to the gospel, right?

In Galatians, circumcision was added to the gospel. Paul says, let them be anathema. Since then, over the past 2 ,000 years, people have added the sacraments. So you need to have faith, but you also need to partake of the sacraments in order to be saved.

Others said, you know, you need to speak in tongues in order to be saved. Or you need to be baptized by water in order to be saved. And they just keep adding this, that, or the other. And you always have to go back to the basics that, no, it is by grace, through faith, not of works.

So it's very helpful to see that was the testimony of not only the apostles, but also of the early church fathers. Now, is there some guy who's called an early church father who wrote something that seemed to say otherwise?

Well, I wouldn't be surprised, because in any generation, there's always these Christian leaders who are saying the wrong thing. So you always test it over and against. You know this. You test whoever it is.

Clement, Pastor Mike, whoever it is, you test them against scripture. So based on that quote that we just read from Ephesians 2, how would you describe Clement's understanding of the means of justification?

How would you describe that?

What is it?

He had the same view as Paul.

Yeah, same as Paul. And that's the way it should be.

So very good.

Here's the other question. How does Clement's statement coordinate with Paul's declaration that salvation is by grace through faith apart from works? Well, it coordinates, and he's saying the same exact thing.

It totally lines up.

All right.

So any questions? Or I don't know that there really is any discussion on this. I don't think there's discussion. And I love it when it's so clear.

Okay, good.

Ignatius of Antioch, the Lord's Day, and Local Church Leadership

Okay, so we talked about Clement of Rome. Again, he died around the year 100. The next person we're looking at is who? Ignatius of Antioch. And of course, it says he died in the year 117. Says the Church of Antioch was established in the, I almost said 1940s, but just the 40s.

The Church of Antioch was established in the 40s under the pastoral leadership of who? We talked about this last week. Paul and Barnabas.

Good.

That's Acts 11. Though not mentioned in the Book of Acts, Ignatius became the pastor there sometime in the late 1st century. A 5th century tradition suggests that. Who?

Who is it?

Peter. Okay, so this is a 5th century tradition. It suggests that Peter gave instructions for Ignatius to be appointed the pastor of the Antiochian Church. Okay, so that's something that happened way later.

It's tradition.

And what do we, what do you,.

You just said, what do we do with this stuff, the tradition and what the fathers say? We test it against what?

Scripture.

Okay, we test it against scripture. Can that claim be tested over and against scripture? No, because the Bible doesn't mention it. So we sort of have to take that, whether it's, you know, with a grain of salt, if that's the right way to put it.

That may be true, it may not be true. But that's what they're saying. Does it really matter either way? What would be some of the implications? I'm not sure. But if you have any thoughts, let me know.

Tradition also indicates that Ignatius, along with Polycarp, who's mentioned next, was a disciple of the apostle John. Okay, so Ignatius and Polycarp knew John. They were taught by John. They had that connection with the apostle John.

Seven of Ignatius's letters have survived. Both a shorter and longer version of these letters exist. The shorter version is likely the original. Like Clement, Ignatius wrote these letters to the churches.

One theme highlights, or one theme highlighted, is that Christians gather for worship on what day?

What day?

Sabbath?

Sunday, so this would be the first day of the week, which is the Lord's Day. For example, in his epistle to the Magnesians, if I'm pronouncing that correctly, he writes, what, we are, is this in your book, Ignatius?

We are no longer observing the Sabbath. Are you reading this? Is that in your book? Okay, so according to Ignatius, he says, as we, the early Christians, we are no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the obedience for the observation of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up, again, by him and his death.

Okay, so according to Ignatius, Christians, even back in the earliest days were observing the Lord's Day. Now, why is that significant? Well, it shows you there's been a change. Remember, we talked about the book of Acts.

Acts is a transitional book. It's transitioning from Israel to the church, from the law of Moses, Old Covenant, to the New Covenant. Believers, under the Old Covenant, the Israelites worshiped on Saturday.

New Testament Christians worship on Sunday. So let me just read that quote again. We are no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up, again, by him and his death.

So it says the church's practice of meeting on Sunday and not Saturday was already established in the New Testament. So this is Acts 20, verse seven, 1 Corinthians 16, verse two. It talks about how the early disciples gathered on the first day of the week.

But it's interesting to see it reiterated by an early Christian leader like Ignatius. Marcus.

The last part of that sentence there, because our life has sprung up again by him and his death, or, and it mentions the Lord's day, it doesn't mention the Lord's Supper, but I thought it was because of his resurrection, not his death.

Yeah, well, it is. Yeah, we worship on Sunday because Sunday morning, it's not arbitrary. It's not like somebody just picked Sunday morning because it seemed to fit best in their schedule. Christians have been worshiping Sunday morning because that is the time, the moment that Christ rose from the dead.

I think that's what he's saying.

But do you see, do you see what I'm saying?

He's right, but he says on which also our life has sprung up again. I think that's a reference to the resurrection.

Yeah, okay, all right, all right.

So Christians worship on Sunday because that's when Christ rose from the dead. So therefore, and I told you this on Easter, I said, you know, because this may come as a shock to you, I don't really believe in Easter, as far as this one day that's high above all the rest and all Christians need to, you know, observe Easter.

I don't believe that. I believe every Sunday is Easter.

Erin.

I'm observing the Sabbath. Is that just referring to when we gather or is it also like back in 1800s and before Christians would do no work whatsoever on Sunday, much like the Jews did in the Old Testament?

Right.

And I was just curious as to what the full meaning of this, I've never heard of these people, so.

Right, yeah, when he says we're not observing the Sabbath, he isn't saying, and Christians now should work seven days a week because we no longer have a day of rest. That's not what he's saying. He's saying, instead of gathering on Sunday as the Israelites did for thousands, or excuse me, Saturday, as the Israelites did for thousands of years, now we're observing the day on Sunday.

And, you know, I've, it just so happens the sermon today is from Matthew 12 and it's when the apostles are going through the grain field and they're picking some grain on the Sabbath.

And they're eating it.

And the Pharisees accused them of breaking the Sabbath. And, you know, of course, I always make application to the Lord's day because we're not Old Testament Jews, so we're not under that Sabbath command.

But for 2000 years, and you've heard me say this before, and I repeat it on purpose so that it does stick in your mind and some of you have even shared the testimony of how this church sort of went through a time of transition.

That in the 1960s, 1970s, before that, nearly all Christians observed some sort of day of rest where on Sunday, you didn't go into work, you went to church, it was the Lord's day. So it was a day of rest and worship and you spend time with your family and it's based all around the Lord.

But in the 60s and 70s with the social revolution and a new generation of Christian leaders, because some of the rules did, admittedly, some of it did kind of get out of control where you couldn't go outside and play on Sunday, you couldn't read comic books on Sunday.

There's all these rules that kind of piled up over time. And even if they were well-meaning, people recognized that it became a little too legalistic is the term they used. But unfortunately, there was an overcorrection to where now, Sunday is just like any other day and that's certainly how it's viewed in the culture.

But yeah, the point being that Christians did observe something like the Sabbath, they just did it on Sunday rather than Saturday. So it's still my belief and conviction that a Christian shouldn't go into work on Sunday and that we gather with the church on Sunday morning.

I'm probably in the minority among pastors, but I mean, that's what's being said here. Okay, Marcus.

Probably everyone here remembers the term blue laws.

Right.

I'm wondering, and I know that there are, being in law enforcement, I know there's many laws old, old laws that are still on the books, like Moot and Lascivious Cohabitation. Those are still on the books, but they're just never enforced.

And I'm just wondering if that's the case with the so-called blue laws also, whether they're still on the books. I mean, spitting on the sidewalk is on the books. Like I say, cohabitation is on the books.

Yeah, everyone's familiar with blue laws. Massachusetts had blue laws that they were religious laws, basically, that businesses had to be closed on Sunday. And some of you who are older, you remember back in the day, that's the way it was.

People didn't even mow their lawn on Sunday. You know, that's just the way it was all over the country. And there's some documents in the file cabinet where that was the belief of this church. It was the belief of pretty much every church back then.

But somewhere people got away from that. But, of course, there were carve-outs for necessity. You know, you still needed doctors and nurses to be able to care for people on Sunday. So there were exceptions, but by and large, you know, business and commerce, you know, halted on Sunday.

So that's what Ignatius is saying, that from the very earliest days, and it's based on biblical passages, Acts 20, verse seven, 1 Corinthians 16, to the early church did observe the Lord's day. In his writings, Ignatius indicated his belief that each local congregation should have only one bishop, or today, as it's called, lead pastor or senior pastor.

You know, it's one man who is like the leader of the church, even if you have multiple elders or deacons. Ignatius seemed to stress this point out of a concern that multiple bishops could lead to potential division and disunity within the churches.

And that's true. And I can just tell you that churches who have, that are pastor-led, if the pastor makes a decision, hey, long as the congregation is more or less on board, everything's gonna go smooth.

And if he gets along with another pastor and they see things the same way, then those churches can have wonderful fellowship. But as soon as you start ordaining six different guys and they all have equal authority, guess what?

That all starts to break down. So there are some churches that are elder-led, where every elder has equal say. And, you know, that wasn't, you can have multiple elders, but there needs to be one man who makes kind of the final decision.

That's what he is saying. And I believe that's the way the early church ran. He's saying that here. And I think that's still the way a lot of churches do it. And just been my experience, churches that are run that way typically are more unified than the churches that are run by a committee.

But, you know, there's potential problems in any system, obviously. But that was his position. So he called them bishops, but either way, it's kind of one man, you know, on top of the pyramid, if you want to put it that way.

Any comments or questions? Is that a revelation to you? I mean, I think you just see that straight through the scripture. Even in the Old Testament, there's kind of always one man who stood out as the leader.

You know, whether it was Moses or Joshua when a judge would be raised up, or, you know, even Peter was sort of like among the apostles, he kind of stood out. Okay, so we're all in agreement, see? We're all in unity, wonderful.

Yeah, go ahead.

Well, I don't mean to throw anything that would lead us anywhere other than that, but on these footnotes and so forth, and nowadays also, you know, we're seeing references to the Nicene Creed, or these other creeds, or more specifically, the Westminster Catechism.

Yep.

And because sometimes in those, you can find things that you're worse than unsure of being accurate as far as going along with scripture.

Yep.

Oh, and I found, I was just memorizing the verse with Giles in the King James Version where I finally have found one. It's Romans 8, 16, translated in the King James Version as the spirit itself, bear witness with our spirit, and the spirit is not an incel, the spirit is an incel.

Okay, so you're bringing up creeds that have developed over time, that not everyone agrees with. Is there a question, or you're just bringing it up as far as, is there a question in the statement somewhere?

No, it's mostly comments, mostly comments.

Okay, so let me just say this. If a church adopts a creed, whether it's the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Westminster Confession, and I've looked at all those, and depending on how you interpret certain statements, for the most part, I think I could get behind it.

But again, you have to test it with scripture. So when it says that Jesus, the Apostles' Creed, that Jesus descended into hell, okay, no, I'm not going along with that. Did he descend to the place of the dead?

Is that what's meant? Okay, that's biblical, but he descended into hell? No, I wouldn't phrase it that way. And with the Westminster Confession, there's at least a couple points that I don't agree with.

But again, always testing it against scripture is key.

Erin.

I'm with the church.

Yep.

It's fine. But you said in the New Testament, Peter stood up, but when I read through the book of Acts, it seems like there was a council that chose, and that was just a little confusion.

Right.

Yeah, well, there was a council, which I think we talked about last week. So even when the council was held, and even with churches that have one man as the leader, he still gets council from the Board of Elders or the Board of Deacons, and it's still good to have churches communicating and kind of sorting out problems when they come up.

That's all good, and I think it's necessary. But even with the Jerusalem Council, it was to settle the issue with all the churches. So representatives of the churches would come together, but even then, James sort of emerged as the leader, the one presiding over the council.

So you really can't escape the fact that in any given situation like that, there's always one person who kind of is the spokesman, the chairman, the bishop, whatever you wanna, however you wanna put it, he emerges as the one kind of directing it.