“Why would twenty-first century Christians—who can read the Bible for themselves and attend Bible-believing churches—need to study Church History?”

10. Learning church history will correct our doctrinal and practical errors.

The history of the church is not only a tale of positive growth and development of doctrinal knowledge and practical wisdom. It’s also a dramatic account of the conflict between orthodoxy and heresy . . . facts and fiction . . . truth and error . . . righteousness and sin. You’ve probably heard it said, “Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it.” This is true in politics, in war, in economics, and in personal life decisions. It’s also true with regard to doctrinal and practical error.

We don’t have to read too far into church history before we realize that not everything that happened between A.D. 100 and 2000 was praiseworthy. Sadly, the earthly body of Christ has been marked with a number of permanent tattoos—shameful memorials of its not-so-pretty past, self-inflicted blemishes that remind Christians today to never do, say, or believe those stupid or shameful things again. Of course, we need eyes to see the errors of the past and ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to the church today through His chastisement of the church of previous generations. Four categories of errors can be easily identified and eventually corrected by studying church history: doctrinal errors of accretion or deletion and practical errors of omission and commission.

Errors of accretion occur when churches add their own idiosyncratic doctrines to the unchanging core of essential Christian truths as if they, too, must be believed to be saved. Today these might include a particular Protestant theological system (dispensational or covenant), a certain form of church government (episcopal, presbyterian, or congregational), a dogmatic view of the atonement (demanding that people not only believe that Christ’s death and resurrection save us, but being able to explain exactly how it saves us), or a certain hermeneutic (historical-grammatical, theological, canonical, or Christocentric). By looking back, we can be constantly reminded that the core doctrines of the faith that mark us as true Christians—things like the Trinity, the person and work of Christ, salvation by grace, the authority of Scripture—cannot be added to without obscuring the Christian faith. Distinctive doctrines can be held by different denominations within the bounds of orthodoxy, but those distinctions and different emphases should never be held up as marks of orthodoxy.

Finally, errors of deletion are the results of excising original and enduring doctrines of the Christian faith that have been core essential truths from the beginning. Some have rejected the virgin conception of Christ as an unnecessary doctrine, others have relegated the doctrine of the Trinity to an appendix, and still others have jettisoned the church’s historic high view of Scripture. By looking back, we can plainly see the sine qua non of the Christian faith—the doctrinal beliefs “without which it is not” Christian. This kind of knowledge will help us protect those things that are essential for Christian identity from those who would happily delete them from their confessions of faith.

Errors of omission include practices of the church that were both original and enduring, but had fallen out of observance through either intentional deformation (often disguised as “reformation”) or unintentional neglect. Today these might include things like the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper; the purely benevolent outreach to the poor, hungry, homeless, and oppressed; the rigorous evangelism of certain neglected people groups; the intentional discipleship of new converts toward maturity; and the practice of church discipline. By looking back, we can see what practices have been lost as sea while our sleek, modern vessel continues to cruise through unknown waters.

Errors of commission involve practices of the church that would never have been tolerated in either the original churches established by the apostles or by any of the subsequent generations. Or, when they did appear in church history, the Spirit eventually weeded them out. These might include the over-indulgence of the American church in wealth and luxury; the blind tolerance of sexual immorality disguised as “grace” and “mercy”; an unbridled nationalism that reeks of a new Constantinianism, which blurs the lines between church and state and turns the people of the Prince of Peace into veritable warmongers; or the intrusion of our entertainment-oriented and consumer-driven culture into our worship forms and ministry models. By looking back, we can see how God has dealt with these kinds of unwelcome corruptions of authentic Christian attitudes and actions.

In short, studying church history will correct our errors. History will tap us on the shoulder and pointing us away from our own narrow opinions and personal preferences. And it will equip us to focus our attention on those things that have been believed and practiced everywhere, always, and by all.

“Why would twenty-first century Christians—who can read the Bible for themselves and attend Bible-believing churches—need to study Church History?”

9. Learning church history will clarify our interpretation of Scripture.

Just get two or three believers together for a Bible study and you soon realize that not everybody interprets the Bible exactly the same way. Sometimes they come to completely opposite conclusions. Other times they emphasize certain passages or doctrines more than others. Even when we follow the same rules of methodical Bible study or the principles of exegesis, we sometimes come up with different interpretations.

By looking back over church history, we can gain a perspective that will aid (not replace!) our reading of Scripture in two ways:

First, early testimony can provide added insight into the historical and theological context within which the New Testament itself was written and read. By “early” I mean the writings of the period overlapping with and immediately following the New Testament apostles and prophets themselves, between about AD 50 and 150. Though these accounts can’t be treated as authoritative Scripture, these early authors’ interpretations, doctrines, and practices open a window into the teachings of the apostles themselves.

It’s reasonable to conclude, for example, that Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, reflects much of John’s theology and practice in his own letter to the church in Philippi, which he wrote around AD 110 . . . just a couple of decades or so after John wrote his Gospel, epistles, and Revelation. In fact, Irenaeus of Lyons, a disciple of Polycarp, wrote around AD 180: “For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary . . . to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.4.1). That is, many people were still alive throughout the second century who had the authentic words and theology of the original apostles and prophets still ringing in their ears. Although these earliest testimonies cannot be adopted uncritically, we can’t afford to completely ignore these writings as tools to help us properly interpret the apostles’ writings in their actual historical theological contexts.

Second, enduring tradition refers to those things that continue to be retained, reaffirmed, or restored in every generation of Christian history. Christ promised that he would never leave us, even to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20). He also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). We know that he is ever-present with the church by means of the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16–18). Also, through the Holy Spirit the ascended Christ has gifted the church with not only first-generation apostles and prophets, but also enduring leaders called evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11). The implication is that the truth-telling and life-giving ministry of the Holy Spirit will prevail in the church against the hellish attacks of Satan. So, if individual leaders, whole churches, or even most of the universal Christian church were to stray from the fundamental saving doctrines of the faith, the Holy Spirit would eventually shepherd the church back to a proclamation of the gospel in its purity. So, by studying church history, we are studying the “further acts of the Holy Spirit since Acts 28.”

Through church history we can discern the core doctrines the Holy Spirit continued to emphasize throughout the ages. When we become aware of these central, unifying core truths of the faith that have endured throughout history, we can be constantly reminded of the boundaries of orthodoxy—the rules within which believers have freedom to responsibly interpret Scripture, but outside of which believers must never stray. As Vincent of Lérins wrote in AD 434, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” Looking back will help safeguard evangelical interpreters of the Bible from either denying central dogmas of the Christian faith or from centralizing opinions about what the Bible says. In other words, the core teachings of the Christian faith must never change. The faith has been once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). But in order for evangelicals to know the boundaries of their biblical interpretations, they must know which biblical doctrines are central. Looking back at the history of how the Spirit corrected, disciplined, pruned, and grew the church in its doctrinal understanding will help believers clarify their interpretation of Scripture.

“Why would twenty-first century Christians—who can read the Bible for themselves and attend Bible-believing churches—need to study Church History?”

8. Learning church history will cultivate Christian growth. 

Cicero wisely said, “To remain ignorant of what has happened before you were born is to remain always a child.” Imagine if during every summer break a student forgot everything she had learned during the previous school year. After kindergarten, her mind is wiped clean. Then, after struggling through first grade and barely keeping up, the next summer vacation clears her once again, and she starts over again for second grade. What would be the result? Although she might grow physically and keep advancing in grade levels, she would never have the necessary knowledge upon which to build. She would remain forever a child, needing somebody to instruct her over and over again about basic, foundational principles.

Similarly, the whole church must continue to pass along what she has learned throughout the past two thousand years of growth and development if she is to continue to understand and behave in a mature manner today and to continue to grow in the future. It only takes one negligent generation to forget the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of the entire history of the church. To prevent this tragic amnesia, the church must continually look back at its history in order to apply its amassed knowledge to present circumstances and to pass it on to the next generation.

Besides the benefit of corporate maturity, individuals can grow in both knowledge and wisdom by reflecting on the past. That is, history provides us with bad examples to avoid as well as good models to follow. The more lessons we learn from the victories and defeats of those who have gone before us, the more mature we’ll be today. This concept of looking back to the saints of old for inspiration goes all the way back to the first century.

After Hebrews 11 reviewed the lives of the Old Testament men and women of faith, the author concluded, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (12:1). The words and works of those saints who have gone before us still surround us like a cloud, inspiring us to follow their examples and avoid their mistakes (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1, 5–6, 11).

It shouldn’t surprise us that immediately after the age of the apostles, their disciples began to look to the apostles’ lives as examples as well. We see this already by AD 95 in a letter from Clement of Rome, who could have been the same “Clement” Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Clement wrote:

But to pass from the examples of ancient times [the Old Testament], let us come to those champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us consider the noble examples that belong to our own generation. Because of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted and fought to the death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles. There was Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy endured not one or two but many trials, and thus having given his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. Because of jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize for patient endurance. After he had been seven times in chains, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, and had preached in the east and in the west, he won the genuine glory for his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world and having reached the farthest limits of the west. Finally, when he had given his testimony before the rulers, he thus departed from the world and went to the holy place, having become an outstanding example of patient endurance. (1 Clement, 5:1–7)

Throughout church history, Christians continued to remember the examples and teachings of earlier believers who had followed Christ in both life and death. At first glance these believers may seem remote, distant, and completely irrelevant in our modern Christian context. However, a closer examination will reveal that these men and women struggled with faith, hope, endurance, suffering, persecution, patience, and other matters of spiritual growth common to every generation. Like objects in a rearview mirror, the Christians of the past are spiritually “closer” than they appear. Today we can also gain wisdom and inspiration from the lives of those saints who have gone before us: church fathers, theologians, Reformers, preachers, missionaries, and martyrs.

“Why would twenty-first century Christians—who can read the Bible for themselves and attend Bible-believing churches—need to study Church History?”

7. Learning church history will complete a balanced faith.

When I was a kid, throwing together what experts described as a healthy meal was easy. We had it down to the four food groups: grains, meats, dairy, and fruits & vegetables. We knew that to have a balanced diet, we should never have too much of one group . . . or too little of another. If we turned our noses up at our turnip greens, mommy could always point at the fourth food group as a model of balance. We knew that balance was the key—a balance achieved through moderation and variety.

The same is true of the Christian faith. Believe it or not, a believer can overdose on just one aspect of an otherwise well-balanced Christianity. Too much Bible study alone can lead to an over-confidence in one’s own personal reading and a head of Bible trivia that fails to move from the head . . . to the heart . . . to the hands. Too much academic theology can produce a dogmatic know-it-all with a lot of passion but no compassion. Too much exposure to practical how-to manuals for the Christian life can create shallow pragmatists who wave to and fro with every wind of doctrine or latest idiosyncratic interpretation of Scripture. These disciplines—each one good and necessary—all need to be pursued together without embracing one and neglecting the others.

However, the three food groups described above—Scripture, theology, and practical living—aren’t enough. To keep even these things in proper balance, believers need historical perspective. Knowing the history of interpretation will help us balance our own personal reading. Grasping the history of doctrinal development, controversy, and consensus will balance our own doctrinal confession. And learning how believers of the past lived their faith in a variety of unique cultural contexts can inform us as we try to live our Christian lives in the twenty-first century.

Like a four-legged table, a complete and balanced faith must draw on biblical, theological, practical, and historical sources. These stabilizing elements of Christian knowledge and wisdom must be applied with moderation and variety—neither overindulging in one or two, nor neglecting the precious input of another. However, because evangelicals have often forsaken their history and forgotten wisdom from the past, their table has become wobbly, lopsided, and easily turned. We need to labor hard to restore the insights of history to balance the Christian faith.