Module review

Christians worshipped Jesus as God long before Constantine: around 110 Ignatius called him 'our God' (To the Ephesians 18), and around 112 the Roman governor Pliny reported Christians singing 'a hymn to Christ as to a god' (Letters 10.96). The question at Nicaea in 325 was not whether Jesus was divine but whether Arius was right that the Son was the first and greatest creature; the council confessed the Son homoousios, of one substance with the Father, because Arians could agree to every biblical phrase while emptying it of meaning. Constantine called and paid for the council but did not vote, since he was not a bishop, and he later favoured Arius's supporters; Athanasius was exiled five times, so the Nicene faith survived in spite of emperors. There is no record that Nicaea discussed the canon at all; the altar story comes from a ninth-century Byzantine text. The canon was recognised over time: Paul's letters are already Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16, Irenaeus around 180 treats the four Gospels as fixed, and Athanasius first lists exactly our 27 books in 367. Constantine did grant religious freedom (313), fund churches and order copies of the Scriptures, but Christianity became the state religion only under Theodosius in 380.

• pre-Nicene worship of Jesus with dated sources (Ignatius c. 110, Pliny c. 112)
• Nicaea's real question (Arius, homoousios) and Constantine had no vote
• emperors later backed Arians; Athanasius's exiles
• canon not discussed at Nicaea; recognised over time (2 Pet 3:16, Irenaeus c. 180, Athanasius 367)
• accurate account of what Constantine did (313, basilicas, Bible copies) and did not do (state religion 380)

I would first admit what is true: Rome was an honoured church from the start, Ignatius insists on bishops, Augustine once said the church's authority moved him to believe the gospel, and Protestants should not pretend the fathers were Protestants. But the earliest sources use 'bishop' and 'elder' for one office (1 Clement; Titus 1:5-7), and nothing in them shows a bishop of Rome ruling the whole church. Gregory the Great even called anyone who claimed the title 'universal priest' a precursor of Antichrist, and the Eastern churches never accepted universal papal jurisdiction (1054). Key Catholic doctrines were defined late: transubstantiation in 1215, purgatory in 1274, and Unam Sanctam's claim in 1302 that subjection to the pope is necessary for salvation; the Great Schism (1378-1417) left even devout Catholics unsure who the pope was. Meanwhile the Reformers confessed the Nicene and Chalcedonian faith, took their doctrine of grace from Augustine (defended at Carthage 418 and Orange 529) and their Old Testament canon from Jerome. They did not claim to start a new church but to call the existing church back to the apostolic word, as Josiah did (2 Kgs 22-23; Acts 17:11). So my church before 1517 was wherever people held the apostles' gospel, including the Waldensians, Wycliffe and Hus. I would end by naming the real issue warmly: whether we are accepted for Christ's righteousness counted to us (Rom 4:5; Phil 3:9) or a righteousness worked in us.

• charitably admits what is true (Rome honoured, bishops in Ignatius, Augustine's remark)
• evidence from the early church (1 Clement, Gregory the Great, the East)
• medieval developments with dates (1215, 1274, 1302, Great Schism)
• Reformers' continuity with creeds, Augustine and Jerome; reformation as return (Josiah, Acts 17:11)
• warm tone and gospel focus (justification)

Pelagius taught that Adam's sin harmed only Adam, that we can keep God's law, and that grace is mainly law, example and forgiveness; Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431) condemned this. Semi-Pelagianism, a much later label, said the sinner makes the first move and grace then helps; Orange (529) answered that even the beginning of faith is God's gift. Evangelical Arminians are neither: the Remonstrants (1610) said fallen people need grace to believe but that grace can be resisted, with election based on foreseen faith and an atonement for all; Wesley taught prevenient grace given to all, restoring the ability to respond. The Reformed view, from Augustine through the Canons of Dort (1618-19), holds that God's grace is effectual: it makes the unwilling willing, flows from unconditional election and secures those for whom Christ died. The course holds this conviction because Scripture describes sinners as dead until made alive (Eph 2:1-5), says no one can come unless the Father draws him and all whom he gives will come (John 6:37, 44), and calls faith itself a gift (Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29). Yet Arminius ascribed the beginning of all good to grace, Wesley preached salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and Wesley and Whitefield were reconciled, with Wesley urging Christians to 'think and let think' on less essential points. So the debate is about how grace works, not whether we need it; it is a real and important disagreement within the household of faith, to be argued firmly and without caricature.

• accurate definitions of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism with councils (418, 431, 529)
• fair statement of the Remonstrance and Wesley's prevenient grace
• the Reformed view (Augustine, Dort) defended from Scripture (Eph 2; John 6)
• Arminians affirm the need for grace and the gospel; not semi-Pelagian
• brotherly tone (Wesley and Whitefield)

Jesus promised, 'I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it' (Matt 16:18), so a total apostasy would mean his promise failed. The history shows the opposite: within a generation of the apostles, Ignatius called Jesus 'our God' and Polycarp died rather than deny his King; the Didache baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The church survived three centuries of persecution without political power, and the councils from Nicaea to Chalcedon defined, from Scripture, what Christians already believed about the Trinity and Christ. Even in the darkest medieval centuries there were faithful witnesses, and the Waldensians, Wycliffe and Hus appealed to Scripture before Luther. Reformation, unlike restoration, did not claim new revelation; it tested the church by the apostolic word (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8-9). By contrast, the restoration movements arose at datable points in nineteenth-century America: Joseph Smith in 1830 and Russell's Watch Tower in 1879, after the Adventist disappointment of 1844. I would gently ask why we should believe God let his church vanish for 1,700 years, and then point them to the Christ of the creeds, fully God and fully man, who saves sinners by grace through faith, not by our efforts (Eph 2:8-9).

• Christ's promise (Matt 16:18) contradicts total apostasy
• continuity of core faith from apostolic fathers through the councils
• faithful witnesses in every age, including medieval forerunners
• nineteenth-century origins of LDS and Watch Tower with dates
• gracious ending that presents Christ and the gospel

Begin by agreeing with the facts: crusaders massacred Rhineland Jews in 1096 and sacked Christian Constantinople in 1204; Calvin was the main instigator of Servetus's prosecution in 1553; Zurich drowned Felix Manz in 1527; Luther wrote vile things against the Jews; and some missionaries were entangled with colonial power. Admitting this honestly honours God and wins more trust than excuses. But notice that the standard by which we condemn these acts comes from Christ himself: his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), we are to love our enemies (Matt 5:44), and the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh (2 Cor 10:4). The worst atrocities betrayed his teaching rather than expressing it. The same history also shows Christians nursing the sick in plague, Carey translating Scripture and fighting widow-burning, and the church growing fastest where it had no power at all, under Rome before 313 and in the Global South today. Finally, Christians never asked anyone to trust the institution; the Reformers pointed to Scripture as judge of every teacher, including themselves. The church's sins show that we needed the grace we preach, and the gospel is good news precisely for sinners like us.

• honest, specific admission of real sins with dates
• the standard of judgement comes from Christ (John 18:36; Matt 5:44)
• balancing evidence (care for the sick, Carey, growth without power)
• trust rests on Christ and Scripture, not the institution
• gospel for sinners; gentle and respectful tone

No: the history itself helps us tell the difference. Machen argued in Christianity and Liberalism (1923) that liberalism was a different religion because, rooted in naturalism, it differed on God, the Bible, Christ, salvation and the church; Spurgeon's Downgrade Controversy (1887) likewise warned against leaders who kept the old words while denying Scripture's infallibility and substitutionary atonement. That is a departure from the gospel (Gal 1:6-9). By contrast, Wesley and Whitefield disagreed sharply about predestination yet both preached the new birth and salvation by grace through faith in Christ, and they were reconciled, Wesley urging Christians to 'think and let think' on less essential points. Most Pentecostals confess the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture and salvation by grace through faith, so they are brothers and sisters; Reformed concerns about a second blessing evidenced by tongues or prophecy treated as authoritative alongside Scripture are real but in-house. Whether the gifts continue is debated among Reformed believers themselves, with cessationists like MacArthur and continuationists like Piper and Grudem, and both reject the prosperity gospel. The test, then, is not whether someone shares every Reformed conviction but whether they hold the gospel and the authority of Scripture confessed in the creeds. Oneness Pentecostalism, which denies the Trinity, falls on the other side of that line. So I can argue for the doctrines of grace and for my view of the gifts firmly, while gladly calling my friend a brother in Christ.

• Machen and/or Spurgeon: different gospel, old words with new meanings
• Wesley and Whitefield as model of an in-house debate
• fair account of Pentecostal beliefs and Reformed concerns
• cessationist/continuationist debate as in-house (MacArthur; Piper, Grudem)
• clear test: the gospel and Scripture's authority; Oneness as a real departure