What are We Wining About?

Being raised Classical Pentecostal meant, among other things, that I was not to drink any form of alcoholic beverage ever for any reason (with the notable exception of Nyquil). It was never even considered that it might be acceptable to imbibe even “one drop or dram” of strong drink. We were taught that only sinners did such things.

When I started reading the Fathers of the Church, I was greatly surprised to see that they were not as I had imagined. They did not seem to toe the teetotaler’s line that had been drilled into my head from my earliest days in Church. Let’s examine these writings to see their true attitude.

Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus of Lyons gives us a sample of Early Church thinking on the subject in reference to Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.

That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage. For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks, and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining [at table], and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father. [ANF 1: 427; ch. XI; par. 5]

The little word “favour” in this passage tells us what wine was regarded as by the Fathers.

St. Clement of Alexandria in The Instructor speaks plainly about whether he considers wine as a sin or not.

“It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine,” [Romans 14:21] as both he [Paul] and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul. If one partakes of them, he does not sin. Only let him partake temperately, not dependent on them, nor gaping after fine fare. [ANF 2: 240; bk. II; ch. I]

Later in the same work, St. Clement has a whole chapter entitled On Drinking.

“Use a little wine,” says the apostle to Timothy, who drank water, “for thy stomach’s sake;” most properly applying its aid as a strengthening tonic suitable to a sickly body enfeebled with watery humours; and specifying “a little,” lest the remedy should, on account of its quantity, unobserved, create the necessity of other treatment….

I therefore admire those who have adopted an austere life, and who are fond of water, the medicine of temperance, and flee as far as possible from wine, shunning it as they would the danger of fire. It is proper, therefore, that boys and girls should keep as much as possible away from this medicine. For it is not right to pour into the burning season of life the hottest of all liquids—wine—adding, as it were, fire to fire. For hence wild impulses and burning lusts and fiery habits are kindled; and young men inflamed from within become prone to the indulgence of vicious propensities; so that signs of injury appear in their body, the members of lust coming to maturity sooner than they ought….

And, besides, it suits divine studies not to be heavy with wine. “For unmixed wine is far from compelling a man to be wise, much less temperate,” according to the comic poet. But towards evening, about supper-time, wine may be used, when we are no longer engaged in more serious readings. Then also the air becomes colder than it is during the day; so that the failing natural warmth requires to be nourished by the introduction of heat. But even then it must only be a little wine that is to be used; for we must not go on to intemperate potations. Those who are already advanced in life may partake more cheerfully of the draught, to warm by the harmless medicine of the vine the chill of age, which the decay of time has produced. For old men’s passions are not, for the most part, stirred to such agitation as to drive them to the shipwreck of drunkenness. For being moored by reason and time, as by anchors, they stand with greater ease the storm of passions which rushes down from intemperance. They also may be permitted to indulge in pleasantry at feasts. But to them also let the limit of their potations be the point up to which they keep their reason unwavering, their memory active, and their body unmoved and unshaken by wine. [ANF 2: 242-3; bk. II; ch. II]

Commodianus in The Instructions of Commodianus gives this pithy piece of advice.

Be sparing of abundance of wine, lest by means of it thou shouldest go wrong. [ANF 4: 215; ch. LXIII]

Had he meant to say “Don’t drink any wine,” he could have done so. Rather, he says it should be taken moderately.

The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles gives the following instruction to members of the clergy.

We say this, not they are not to drink at all, otherwise it would be to the reproach of what God has made for cheerfulness, but that they be not disordered with wine. For the Scripture does not say, Do not drink wine; but what says it? “Drink not wine to drunkenness;” and again, “Thorns spring up in the hand of the drunkard.” Nor do we say this only to those of the clergy, but also to every lay Christian, upon whom the name of our Lord Jesus Christ is called. For to them also it is said, “Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath uneasiness? who hath babbling? who hath red eyes? who hath wounds without cause? Do not these things belong to those that tarry long at the wine, and that go to seek where drinking meetings are?” [ANF 7: 498; ch. XLIV]

According to this passage, it would actually be a reproach to God to refuse to drink what He has provided for our cheerfulness. While this sentiment may not be universal, it does convey the fact that the drinking of alcoholic beverage was accepted among the Early Church Fathers.

In explicating Ephesians 5:18, St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary and Homilies on Ephesians makes the following observation.

For indeed intemperance in this renders men passionate and violent, and hot-headed, and irritable and savage. Wine has been given us for cheerfulness, not for drunkenness. Whereas now it appears to be an unmanly and contemptible thing for a man not to get drunk. And what sort of hope then is there of salvation? What? contemptible, tell me, not to get drunk, where to get drunk ought of all things in the world to be most contemptible? For it is of all things right for even a private individual to keep himself far from drunkenness…. “Wine maketh glad the heart of man”, says the Psalmist. How then does wine produce drunkenness? For it cannot be that one and the same thing should work opposite effects. Drunkenness then surely does not arise from wine, but from intemperance. Wine is bestowed upon us for no other purpose than for bodily health; but this purpose also is thwarted by immoderate use. But hear moreover what our blessed Apostle writes and says to Timothy, “Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” [ANF 1-13: 138; homily XIX]

On a final point, we need to respond to those who insist that the wine of the Bible (and one would surmise of the Early Church Fathers) is non-alcoholic grape juice. We will allow St. Cyprian to field that query as he so ably does in his epistle Cæcilius, on the Sacrament of the Cup of the Lord.

Since, then, neither the apostle himself nor an angel from heaven can preach or teach any otherwise than Christ has once taught and His apostles have announced, I wonder very much whence has originated this practice, that, contrary to evangelical and apostolical discipline, water is offered in some places in the Lord’s cup, which water by itself cannot express the blood of Christ. The Holy Spirit also is not silent in the Psalms on the sacrament of this thing, when He makes mention of the Lord’s cup, and says, “Thy inebriating cup, how excellent it is!” Now the cup which inebriates is assuredly mingled with wine, for water cannot inebriate anybody. And the cup of the Lord in such wise inebriates, as Noe also was intoxicated drinking wine, in Genesis. [ANF 5: 361; sect. 11]

Did they use real wine? Well, if not, they drank grape juice that could make you drunk—drunk just like Noah when he lay in his tent exposed.

Burned

Cremation is one of the growing preferences for bodily disposal in the United States. Part of the reason for this is financial—cremation costs considerably less than ground burial. Some deem it as “cleaner” and more ecologically sound than ground burial.

While I have never heard a sermon or Bible study on the disposal of human bodies after death, it is a subject which the Early Church Fathers had something to say. Many consider it only a matter of preference or personal choice but the Fathers seem to indicate that certain types of disposal were considered non-Christian and therefore unacceptable for Christians. Far from portraying one option as good as another, they speak definitely against cremation as the following passages will illustrate.

Tertullian in responding to the pagan’s criticism of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, gives the following in On the Resurrection of the Flesh.

The resurrection of the dead is the Christian’s trust. By it we are believers. To the belief of this (article of the faith) truth compels us—that truth which God reveals, but the crowd derides, which supposes that nothing will survive after death. And yet they do honour to their dead, and that too in the most expensive way according to their bequest, and with the daintiest banquets which the seasons can produce, on the presumption that those whom they declare to be incapable of all perception still retain an appetite. But (let the crowd deride): I on my side must deride it still more, especially when it burns up its dead with harshest inhumanity, only to pamper them immediately afterwards with gluttonous satiety, using the selfsame fires to honour them and to insult them. What piety is that which mocks its victims with cruelty? Is it sacrifice or insult (which the crowd offers), when it burns its offerings to those it has already burnt? [ANF 3: 545; treatise VI; ch. I]

St. Irenaeus tells us what the custom of the Christians was in regard to bodily disposal in this beautiful passage from the Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus:

We therefore have formed the belief that [our] bodies also do rise again. For although they go to corruption, yet they do not perish; for the earth, receiving the remains, preserves them, even like fertile seed mixed with more fertile ground. Again, as a bare grain is sown, and, germinating by the command of God its Creator, rises again, clothed upon and glorious, but not before it has died and suffered decomposition, and become mingled with the earth; so [it is seen from this, that] we have not entertained a vain belief in the resurrection of the body. But although it is dissolved at the appointed time, because of the primeval disobedience, it is placed, as it were, in the crucible of the earth, to be recast again; not then as this corruptible [body], but pure, and no longer subject to decay…. [ANF 1: 570; fragment XII]

In case anyone would accuse the Christians of avoiding cremation because of a fear of some loss, Minucius Felix dispels that notion in The Octavius.

Every body, whether it is dried up into dust, or is dissolved into moisture, or is compressed into ashes, or is attenuated into smoke, is withdrawn from us, but it is reserved for God in the custody of the elements. Nor, as you believe, do we fear any loss from sepulture [note says “by burning”], but we adopt the ancient and better custom of burying in the earth. [ANF 4: 194; ch. XXXIV]

Much like the ancient Jews, the Early Christians believed it was the duty of the believers to see to the proper burials of believers who could not afford it. In fact, according to the Letter of the From the Roman Clergy to the Carthaginian Clergy, About the Retirement of the Blessed Cyprian, this was considered a “duty” which could involve “considerable risk” if neglected.

And, as matter of the greatest importance, if the bodies of the martyrs and others be not buried, a considerable risk is incurred by those whose duty it is to do this office. [ANF 5: 181; epistle II; par. 3]

Lactantius speaks of the same duty in The Divine Institutes.

The last and greatest office of piety is the burying of strangers and the poor; which subject those teachers of virtue and justice have not touched upon at all. For they were unable to see this, who measured all their duties by utility. For in the other things which have been mentioned above, although they did not keep the true path, yet, since they discovered some advantage in these things, retained as it were by a kind of inkling of the truth, they wandered to a less distance; but they abandoned this because they were unable to see any advantage in it.

Moreover, there have not been wanting those who esteemed burial as superfluous, and said that it was no evil to lie unburied and neglected; but their impious wisdom is rejected alike by the whole human race, and by the divine expressions which command the performance of the rite. But they do not venture to say that it ought not to be done, but that, if it happens to be omitted, no inconvenience is the result. Therefore in that matter they discharge the office, not so much of those who give precepts, as of those who suggest consolation, that if this shall by chance have occurred to a wise man, he should not deem himself wretched on this account. But we do not speak of that which ought to be endured by a wise man, but of that which he himself ought to do. Therefore we do not now inquire whether the whole system of burial is serviceable or not; but this, even though it be useless, as they imagine, must nevertheless be practised, even on this account only, that it appears among men to be done rightly and kindly. For it is the feeling which is inquired into, and it is the purpose which is weighed. Therefore we will not suffer the image and workmanship of God to lie exposed as a prey to beasts and birds, but we will restore it to the earth, from which it had its origin; and although it be in the case of an unknown man, we will fulfil the office of relatives, into whose place, since they are wanting, let kindness succeed; and wherever there shall be need of man, there we will think that our duty is required. But in what does the nature of justice more consist than in our affording to strangers through kindness, that which we render to our own relatives through affection? [ANF 7: 177; bk. VI; ch. XII]

While there is no direct quotation saying, “Thou shalt not burn thy dead,” it is clear from the writings and history of the Early Christians that they did not cremate their dead and that they considered it a heathen practice. As one person said it, “If burial was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.” Homespun as that is, I cannot help but feel much the same way. And this is especially so since His followers who had the apostolic tradition passed to them felt the same way.

The Woman's Place

Another subject of great debate in the Church world today is the idea of women in ministry. Churches and denominations have been ripped about by this contentious issue. In the Pentecostal tradition, the debate has been much less vociferous because from the very start of the movement, women have been allowed to minister. Some very famous Pente preachers, in fact, were female. For instance, some of the more notable would be Maria Woodworth-Etter, Aimee Semple McPherson, and Kathryn Kuhlman. McPherson established a Pentecostal denomination namely, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Many Pente denominations allow women to be ordained and to pastor churches.

As always, however, our question is not what the practice the modern Pentecostals is, but what is the practice of the Early Church is. Can we determine this from their writings?

In St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Philadelphians, he makes the following statement:

Since, according to your prayers, and the compassion which ye feel in Christ Jesus, it is reported to me that the Church which is at Antioch in Syria possesses peace, it will become you, as a Church of God, to elect a bishop to act as the ambassador of God [for you] to [the brethren] there, that it may be granted them to meet together, and to glorify the name of God. Blessed is he in Christ Jesus, who shall be deemed worthy of such a ministry; and if ye be zealous [in this matter], ye shall receive glory in Christ. [ANF 1: 85; ch. X]

The implication here is that the person elected bishop was going to be a man because “blessed is he” not “blessed is she” or “blessed is that person.” While this may not seem very weighty to some, it is worth noting that there are no examples of women bishops (or priests or deacons) in the whole period of the Early Church except in heretical sects.

Tertullian broaches this subject in his treatise On Baptism.

But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,” he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.” [ANF 3: 677; ch. XVII]

There can be no doubt about Tertullian’s sentiments on the subject. What makes this even more relevant is the fact that later in his life Tertullian joined a heretical group that had two women prophets in its leadership. Tertullian explicates his position in On the Veiling of Virgins.

It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church; but neither (is it permitted her) to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, nor to claim to herself a lot in any manly function, not to say (in any) sacerdotal office. [ANF 4: 33; ch. IX]

The pseudononymous work known as The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles gives us a very clear statement of the practice of the Early Church.

We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such. For there were with us the mother of our Lord and His sisters; also Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Martha and Mary the sisters of Lazarus; Salome, and certain others. For, had it been necessary for women to teach, He Himself had first commanded these also to instruct the people with us. For “if the head of the wife be the man,” it is not reasonable that the rest of the body should govern the head. [ANF 7: 427-8; bk. III; sect. I; par. VI]

Far from denigrating women, these writings attempt to give them their proper place as assigned by the head of the Church Himself. One of the most honored persons in the early Church was a woman---Mary the Mother of God.

The words of St. John Chrysostom in Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood present an unequivocal statement on church leadership.

For those things which I have already mentioned might easily be performed by many even of those who are under authority, women as well as men; but when one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also… [ANF 1-09: 40; bk. II; sect. 2]

Canon XI of the Council of Laodicea (held in 364) states the position of the Church clearly.

PRESBYTIDES, as they are called, or female presidents, are not to be appointed in the Church. [from http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm]

St. Ephiphanius of Salamis writes very powerfully on this subject in Against Heresies.

"Certain women there in Arabia [the Collyridians] have introduced this absurd teaching from Thracia: how they offer up a sacrifice of bread rolls in the name of the Ever Virginal [Mary] and hold their meetings in that very name and how they undertake something that far exceeds proper measure in the name of the Holy Virgin. In an unlawful and blasphemous ceremony they ordain women, through whom they offer up the sacrifice in the name of Mary. This means that the entire proceeding is godless and sacrilegious, a perversion of the message of the Holy Spirit; in fact, the whole thing is diabolical and a teaching of the impure spirit" [78:13 from http://web.archive.org/web/20060619122055/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/25.htm).

Also,

"If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good" (79:3 from http://web.archive.org/web/20060619122055/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/25.htm).

It is clear from the writings of the Early Church that the concept of women priests was accepted and applauded among the heathen. Priestesses were quite common. This was not the case among the Christians. As I stated earlier, only among the heretical sects (Montanist for instance) do we find any indication of women in priestly roles. While the concepts behind the women in ministry groups may be commendable, we are forced to ask why they are willing to go against the tradition of the Church in order to satisfy the desires of our modern church?

The Fathers and the Prosperity Gospel

One of the maladies that has afflicted the Pentecostal world for a number of years now goes by several names. It is called “the health-and-wealth gospel,” “prosperity gospel,” and “Word of Faith.” Whatever it is called its teachings generally promote the idea that the people of God should be healthy, wealthy and happy throughout their lives. If they are not so, it is because they either lack faith or are ignorant of the fact that they are “King’s Kids.” Many proclaim that they are King’s Kids and should live like it.

This teaching has caused a cleavage within Pente ranks—there are some who are vehemently opposed to it and others who are equally fervent in their support of it. We will look at what the Early Church Fathers had to say about it. It may come as a surprise to some that they did indeed give us many passages that deal with the subject (although the actual doctrine itself did not exist in its present form—at least not within the Church).

What would the Fathers have to say to preachers who have homes costing millions of dollars and all the finery of the world? Let St. Clement of Alexandria speak first to that.

The elaborate vanity, too, of vessels in glass chased, more apt to break on account of the art, teaching us to fear while we drink, is to be banished from our well-ordered constitution. And silver couches, and pans and vinegar-saucers, and trenchers and bowls; and besides these, vessels of silver and gold, some for serving food, and others for other uses which I am ashamed to name, of easily cleft cedar and thyine wood, and ebony, and tripods fashioned of ivory, and couches with silver feet and inlaid with ivory, and folding-doors of beds studded with gold and variegated with tortoise-shell, and bed-clothes of purple and other colours difficult to produce, proofs of tasteless luxury, cunning devices of envy and effeminacy,—are all to be relinquished, as having nothing whatever worth our pains. “For the time is short,” as says the apostle. [ANF 2: 247; The Instructor; bk. II; ch. III]

While the particular luxuries have changed over the years, the principle has not. What about the high life that many Christians so desire? Again St. Clement has an answer.

It is sin, for example, to live luxuriously and licentiously… [ANF 2: 361; The Stromata; bk. II; ch. XV]

The Shepherd of Hermas gives us this telling passage.

“Foremost of all is the desire after another’s wife or husband, and after extravagance, and many useless dainties and drinks, and many other foolish luxuries; for all luxury is foolish and empty in the servants of God. These, then, are the evil desires which slay the servants of God. For this evil desire is the daughter of the devil. You must refrain from evil desires, that by refraining ye may live to God. But as many as are mastered by them, and do not resist them, will perish at last, for these desires are fatal.” [ANF 2: 28; Book Second; Command Twelfth]

Minucius Felix writes the following of the Christians in The Octavius.

Thus it is, that rich men, attached to their means, have been accustomed to gaze more upon their gold than upon heaven, while our sort of people, though poor, have both discovered wisdom, and have delivered their teaching to others; whence it appears that intelligence is not given to wealth, nor is gotten by study, but is begotten with the very formation of the mind. [ANF 4: 181; ch. XVI]

Notice how he speaks of “our sort of people,” in other words Christians, as being poor. Why didn’t he rebuke them and tell them to have more faith and learn their prosperity verses? But surely he understands how much good can be done by wealthy Christians. Let’s see.

Are you rich? But fortune is ill trusted; and with a large travelling equipage [baggage] the brief journey of life is not furnished, but burdened. [ANF 4: 196; The Octavius; ch. XXXVII]

Similarly Commodianus tells us in The Instructions

Thou rejectest, unhappy one, the advantage of heavenly discipline, and rushest into death while wishing to stray without a bridle. Luxury and the shortlived joys of the world are ruining thee, whence thou shalt be tormented in hell for all time. They are vain joys with which thou art foolishly delighted. Do not these make thee to be a man dead? [ANF 4: 207; ch. XXVI]

In The Divine Institutes Lactantius tells us about the dangers of wealth also.

For whoever has extended his hope beyond the present, and chosen better things, will be without these earthly goods, that, being lightly equipped and without impediment, he may overcome the difficulty of the way. For it is impossible for him who has surrounded himself with royal pomp, or loaded himself with riches, either to enter upon or to persevere in these difficulties. And from this it is understood that it is easier for the wicked and the unrighteous to succeed in their desires, because their road is downward and on the decline; but that it is difficult for the good to attain to their wishes, because they walk along a difficult and steep path. Therefore the righteous man, since he has entered upon a hard and rugged way, must be an object of contempt, derision, and hatred. [ANF 7: 165; bk. VI; ch. IV]

St. Cyprian gives us the following very explicit passage on wealth in his treatise On the Dress of Virgins.

You say that you are wealthy and rich, and you think that you should use those things which God has willed you to possess. Use them, certainly, but for the things of salvation; use them, but for good purposes; use them, but for those things which God has commanded, and which the Lord has set forth. Let the poor feel that you are wealthy; let the needy feel that you are rich. Lend your estate to God; give food to Christ. Move Him by the prayers of many to grant you to carry out the glory of virginity, and to succeed in coming to the Lord’s rewards. There entrust your treasures, where no thief digs through, where no insidious plunderer breaks in. Prepare for yourself possessions; but let them rather be heavenly ones, where neither rust wears out, nor hail bruises, nor sun burns, nor rain spoils your fruits constant and perennial, and free from all contact of worldly injury. For in this very matter you are sinning against God, if you think that riches were given you by Him for this purpose, to enjoy them thoroughly, without a view to salvation. [ANF 5: 433; treatise II; par. 11]

The following lengthy passage from St. Cyprian’s treatise On the Lapsed is a good summation of patristic thought on the subject of wealth.

The truth, brethren, must not be disguised; nor must the matter and cause of our wound be concealed. A blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for, or at ease in, departing when their wealth fettered them like a chain. Those were the chains to them that remained—those were the bonds by which both virtue was retarded, and faith burdened, and the spirit bound, and the soul hindered; so that they who were involved in earthly things might become a booty and food for the serpent, which, according to God’s sentence, feeds upon earth. And therefore the Lord the teacher of good things, forewarning for the future time, says, “If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches; if they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and assailant. Heart and mind and feeling would be in heaven, if the treasure were in heaven; nor could he be overcome by the world who had nothing in the world whereby he could be overcome. He would follow the Lord loosed and free, as did the apostles, and many in the times of the apostles, and many who forsook both their means and their relatives, and clave to Christ with undivided ties.

But how can they follow Christ, who are held back by the chain of their wealth? Or how can they seek heaven, and climb to sublime and lofty heights, who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess, when they are rather possessed; as slaves of their profit, and not lords with respect to their own money, but rather the bond-slaves of their money. These times and these men are indicated by the apostle, when he says, “But they that will be rich, fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and in perdition. For the root of all evil is the love of money, which, while some have coveted, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” [ANF 5: 440; treatise III; pars. 11-12]

It certainly does not sound like these writers were Word of Faith prosperity preachers. In fact, they seem to indicate that the things which the “King’s Kids” so proudly proclaim and seek after may indeed be grave dangers to their souls.

Can We Lose It?

There has been a great deal of disagreement among Christians about the subject of eternal security. The more appropriate title would be unconditional eternal security of the believer. On one side, the Reformed and the Baptist believe that once a person believes Christ for salvation, he/she is secure forever thereafter and cannot, regardless of sin, fall from grace and lose his/her salvation. The Arminian believers (Methodist, Holiness and Pentecostals for the most part) believe that a person can lose his/her salvation by sinning after salvation.

The vitriol on both sides of this argument has been extreme at times. Both sides have accused the other of being unfaithful to the gospel and thus, to the Apostolic bequest to the Church. Who is right? Can one lose his/her salvation by sinning? Or is a Christian eternally secure regardless of consequent actions? What does the Early Church teach us about this important subject?

St. Clement of Rome, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, tells us how one can escape the judgment of God.

Since then all things are seen and heard [by God], let us fear Him, and forsake those wicked works which proceed from evil desires; so that, through His mercy, we may be protected from the judgments to come. For whither can any of us flee from His mighty hand? [ANF 1: 12; ch. XXVIII]

How can we enjoy eternal life, then, St. Clement?

Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them. [ANF 1: 14; ch XXXV]

Bishop Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom, writes in his Epistle to the Philippians:

If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, “we shall also reign together with Him,” provided only we believe. [ANF 1: 34; ch. V]

In the Epistle of Barnabas, the writer makes it very clear that he believes it is possible to lose one’s salvation by indulging in sin.

We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation, lest the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, should hurl us forth from our [true] life. [ANF 1: 138; ch. 2]

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho makes it very clear that the possibility of losing salvation is real.

And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved. [ANF 1: 218; ch. XLVII]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons makes a similar point in Against Heresies:

We ought not, therefore, as that presbyter remarks, to be puffed up, nor be severe upon those of old time, but ought ourselves to fear, lest perchance, after [we have come to] the knowledge of Christ, if we do things displeasing to God, we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but be shut out from His kingdom. And therefore it was that Paul said, “For if [God] spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest He also spare not thee, who, when thou wert a wild olive tree, wert grafted into the fatness of the olive tree, and wert made a partaker of its fatness.” [ANF 1: 499; ch. XXVII; sect. 2]

And later in the same chapter he says the following in reference to I Corinthians 6: 9-10:

And as it was not to those who are without that he said these things, but to us, lest we should be cast forth from the kingdom of God, by doing any such thing, he proceeds to say, “And such indeed were ye; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God.” And just as then, those who led vicious lives, and put other people astray, were condemned and cast out, so also even now the offending eye is plucked out, and the foot and the hand, lest the rest of the body perish in like manner. [ANF 1: 500, ch. XXVII, sect. 4]

One would be hard pressed to read any sort of eternal security into the foregoing passages. In fact, the only way to do so would be to twist the passage beyond recognition.

The Didache also shows us the early belief of the Church was decidedly against eternal security.

But often shall ye come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time. [ANF 7: 382; ch. XVI; sect. 2]

Clement of Alexandria in Who is the Rich Man that shall be saved? speaks to the same subject.

Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father, who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. “For by the state in which I find you will I judge,” also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the catastrophe of the drama he has given up his part; while it is possible for the man who formerly led a bad and dissolute life, on afterwards repenting, to overcome in the time after repentance the evil conduct of a long time. [ANF 2: 602, ch. XL]

In the Anonymous Treatise on Re-Baptism, we find the following unambiguous denial of eternal security.

As this word “whosoever,” also in the sentence of confession, most fully shows us that no condition of the confessor himself can stand in the way, although he may have been before a denier, or a heretic, or a hearer, or one who is beginning to hear, who has not yet been baptized or converted from heresy to the truth of the faith, or one who has departed from the Church and has afterwards returned, and then when he returned, before the bishop’s hands could be laid upon him, being apprehended, should be compelled to confess Christ before men; even as to one who again denies Christ, no special ancient dignity can be effectual to him for salvation. For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged, all those things which he has previously done being wiped away and obliterated. [ANF 5: 674; chs. 12-13]

Tertullian can certainly not be classed in the Reformed camp as the following will show.

God had foreseen also other weaknesses incident to the condition of man,—the stratagems of the enemy, the deceptive aspects of the creatures, the snares of the world; that faith, even after baptism, would be endangered; that the most, after attaining unto salvation, would be lost again, through soiling the wedding-dress, through failing to provide oil for their torchlets—would be such as would have to be sought for over mountains and woodlands, and carried back upon the shoulders. [ANF 3: 639; Scorpiace; ch. VI]

We will close with a lengthy quote from St. Cyprian’s epistle To Rogatianus the Presbyter, and the Other Confessors. A.D. 250. Again, he leaves us with no doubt as the his position on the security of salvation.

Yet I exhort you by our common faith, by the true and simple love of my heart towards you, that, having overcome the adversary in this first encounter, you should hold fast your glory with a brave and persevering virtue. We are still in the world; we are still placed in the battle-field; we fight daily for our lives. Care must be taken, that after such beginnings as these there should also come an increase, and that what you have begun to be with such a blessed commencement should be consummated in you. It is a slight thing to have been able to attain anything; it is more to be able to keep what you have attained; even as faith itself and saving birth makes alive, not by being received, but by being preserved. Nor is it actually the attainment, but the perfecting, that keeps a man for God. The Lord taught this in His instruction when He said, “Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” Conceive of Him as saying this also to His confessor, “Lo thou art made a confessor; sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” Solomon also, and Saul, and many others, so long as they walked in the Lord’s ways, were able to keep the grace given to them. When the discipline of the Lord was forsaken by them, grace also forsook them.

To espouse the doctrine of unconditional eternal security, one has to discount or ignore the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. In fact, there are many more passages and many more writers that could be quoted to prove beyond a doubt that this doctrine was not taught by the Early Church. To deny this, one has to be incredibly ignorant or impossibly arrogant.