The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostolic Fathers Compared with the Apostolic Doctrine of the Atonement

By Malcolm Webber

Introduction

In this book I will compare certain aspects of the doctrine of the Atonement according to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers with the teachings of the New Testament apostles. First I will set forth in summary fashion what I believe to be the central and essential points of the New Testament doctrine. Then I will systematically examine each of the significant statements regarding the Atonement that are made in the literature of the Apostolic Fathers, and compare them to the Apostolic doctrine, restricting my comments to the central points that I will define.

My purpose will be to determine whether or not there was a consistency in teaching between the apostles and the Apostolic Fathers on these major points.

1

The New Testament Doctrine of the Atonement

The New Testament teaches that Jesus died for our sins (Matt. 20:28). Because of our sins we were all abiding under the righteous condemnation of God (Rom. 3:23). All men are sinners by nature as well as by choice. Because God is holy He must punish sin with the punishment it deserves (Matt. 16:27). The punishment for sin is “death” (Rom. 6:23). This includes spiritual death, physical death, suffering in hades after physical death and, finally, eternal death.

Spiritual death involves alienation from God and from all that the life and nature of God producesCholiness, righteousness, peace, life, joy and blessing (Eph. 2:1-3). Physical death involves the separation of spirit and body and the dissolution of the body into the earth (1 Cor. 15:22). After death, suffering in Hades is not the final destiny of the lost. It is a temporary place of suffering, where the lost await their resurrection and final judgment by God. It is, nevertheless, a place of extreme suffering and torment (Luke 16:19-31). Finally, eternal death, or the “second death,” is the final and ultimate punishment of sin, and consists in the everlasting conscious punishment of the lost (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:11-15).

All men have sinned, so all men deserve to be punished by God eternally (Luke 3:17). God is perfect in holiness and justice, and He will not tolerate sin which is a violation of His own nature. God’s holy law was broken by Adam, and by all men; and justice demands punishment. We had to die.

But because of His great love for us, Jesus came to die for us on the cross (Matt. 20:28). He died in our place (2 Cor. 5:14). His death was “vicarious.” For divine justice to be satisfied God demanded a death (Heb. 9:22). Our sins had to be punished before we could be accepted by God and restored to fellowship with Him. Jesus bore the punishment of our sins, in our place, and thereby set us free from that punishment (John 11:50; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 3:18). In the words of the great theologian, Augustus Strong (1979), “the atonement is...a satisfaction of the ethical demand of the divine nature, by the substitution of Christ’s penal sufferings for the punishment of the guilty” (p. 752).

Because He bore the punishment of our sins in our place, it has been an occasional thought through history that Jesus must have borne our spiritual and eternal deaths as well as our physical death in order to redeem us from them. Some have proposed the idea that a mere physical death on Jesus’ part would not have been sufficient to pay the full penalty for our sins. Nevertheless, the clear teaching of the New Testament is that Jesus’ physical death did, in fact, redeem us (Webber, 1992, p. 70). The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus died spiritually, or eternally, to redeem us. On the contrary, the Bible everywhere teaches that Jesus died physically and that His physical death redeemed us. Over 60 times in the New Testament it is stated that Jesus died physically and that His physical death on the cross redeemed us. Those New Testament Scriptures plus numerous passages in the Old Testament, including the entire Levitical system of sacrifice, as well as millions upon millions of “acted out” types of Jesus’ death in Israel’s history, all teach just one thingCthe life of the flesh is in the blood, and it is the blood that makes an atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11).

This raises the question of how it was that Jesus’ physical death paid the full penalty for our sins which included spiritual as well as eternal death. The answer to that question is found in the Person of the Lord Jesus. Jesus was fully man and fully God. He was the God-man. Thus His physical death possessed infinite value (Acts 20:28; Heb. 9:13-15). “In Jesus Christ, deity and humanity were eternally united in a single personality. There was such a perfect union of the two natures in one Person that whatever could be said of either nature, could properly be said of the Person. Consequently Jesus’ physical death possessed infinite merit.” (Webber, 1992, p. 74)

Jesus did not die a spiritual death. He only died physically, but His deity conferred infinite value to that physical death. Because He was man, Jesus could die; because He was God, His physical death had infinite worth. Jesus’ physical death was given as a sufficient sacrifice to God in the place of the eternal sufferings of the sinner.

Thus the central and essential elements of the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement are:

1. Jesus’ death was a sacrifice to God to pay the penalty for man’s sins.

2. Jesus only died physically. He did not die spiritually. His physical death was sufficient to pay the full penalty for our sins.

3. The efficacy of Jesus’ physical death lay in the fact of His deity.

We will now turn our attention to the Apostolic Fathers to see if these points are confirmed or contradicted by their writings.

2

The Apostolic Fathers

The earliest extant Christian writings after those which form the New Testament canon are those of the Apostolic Fathers. As Justo González (1970) wrote, “they have been given this title because at the time it was thought that they had known the apostles” (p. 60). There are eight Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle to Diognetus (González, 1970, p. 60).

In this book we will examine the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Barnabas as well as the Epistle to Diognetus. We will not examine the so-called Second Letter of Clement to the Corinthians which is not considered written by Clement of Rome. We will make no reference to the extant writings of Papias nor to the Didache, since there is little in those works that directly relates to our subject. There is also little of significance to our discussion in the Shepherd which, in the words of Gerard Ettlinger, “spends more time rejecting (the Old Testament’s) inability to give salvation than in explaining the work of Christ.” (Halton, 1987, p. 25)

When quoting the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, unless otherwise noted, we shall use the following work as our source: Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers to A.D. 325 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885), vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenæus. Only the text reference will be cited at the point of the quotation.

3

Some General Observations Regarding the Apostolic Fathers’ References to the Atonement

One striking similarity with the New Testament writings, is that the extant works of the Apostolic Fathers do not address the doctrine of the Atonement in direct systematic fashion, but they make indirect reference to it in the course of dealing with other matters that are usually practical in nature. As Ettlinger has written, “the earliest post-scriptural Christian writers were not concerned with philosophical discussions about the personal nature and activity of the Christ. They were, for the most part, leaders and teachers in local churches, trying to explain to recently converted believers the way in which their faith was to be lived.” (Halton, 1987, p. 23)

In his excellent book, “Early Christian Doctrines,” John Kelly (1978) has rightly observed that “the development of the Church’s ideas about the saving effects of the incarnation was a slow, long drawn-out process,” and his conclusion is that “it is useless to look for any systematic treatment of the doctrine in the popular Christianity of the second century.” (p. 163) So the benefit to us of the frequent references made to Jesus’ work on the cross in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, is not that they make definitive, systematic, theological definitions, but their importance is that they reveal “bits and pieces” of what the Apostolic Fathers understood about Jesus’ death, which, when put together, do confirm our present understanding of the New Testament doctrine.

As well as being seen as sacrificial in nature, Christ’s sufferings and death are also set forth by the Apostolic Fathers as “models of obedience and self-effacing love” (Kelly, 1978, p. 163). For example, in chapter 16 of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he quotes the most important passage on the cross in the entire BibleCthat is Isaiah 53Cas well as other Old Testament prophecies about Jesus’ death, and refers to them in the context of Christ being an example of humility. Clement’s summary statement in this chapter is:

Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace? (16:20)

This, however, should not be taken as a denial, or even a weakening, of the propitiatory nature of Christ’s death since the New Testament writers also referred to Jesus’ death in this manner (e.g., Matt. 20:26-28; Phil. 2:5-8; 1 Pet. 2:18-24; 1 John 3:16; 4:10-11). The New Testament doctrine is that while Jesus’ submission to His sufferings and death certainly was intended by God to be an example to us, the primary purpose of His death was to bear the punishment of our sins, and even those New Testament passages which teach the exemplary nature of His death set forth the main purpose of His death as being to voluntarily suffer the punishment of our sins to free us from that punishment (cf. Matt. 20:27-28; 1 Pet. 2:21-24; 1 John 4:10-11).

Certainly this is the case in the Apostolic Fathers as well. As we shall see, there are many passages that set forth the vicarious nature of Jesus’ sufferings and death: that He died in our place. There are references to our cleansing from sin through Jesus’ death, and to our redemption through His blood.

Kelly (1978) wrote, “as compared with the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers as a whole are not greatly pre-occupied with sin,...their writings exhibit a marked weakening of the atonement idea. Although satisfied that Christ died for us...they assign a relatively minor place to the atoning value of His death.” (p. 165) While there is some truth to this statement, nevertheless it must be recognized that the Apostolic Fathers wrote in the context of an already well-established Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement. Just as the New Testament writers assumed and presupposed the Old Testament doctrine of sacrifice without going back and explaining it in great detail, so the Apostolic Fathers wrote in the context of the existing doctrine of the Apostles. Then they addressed what they considered needed to be addressed in the people to whom they wrote. They were not writing comprehensive, systematic theologies. So, if the Apostolic Fathers seemed “weak” in the Atonement it was only because they considered it an already “strong” issue relative to the issues they deemed pertinent to their day. Furthermore, the numerous references to the Atonement, most of which are phrased in strictly New Testament terms, lend support to my view that the Apostolic Fathers affirmed the Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement.

We will now deal systematically with the writings of Apostolic Fathers that make significant reference to the Atonement.

4

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians

Clement was probably a Roman who knew the Apostle Paul, and his letter to the Corinthians (circa A.D. 97) contains some clear statements regarding the Atonement, which we shall examine in order.

Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. (7:5)

In this statement we find all three of our central points. Jesus’ blood is said to have “been shed for our salvation.” The use of the term “blood” indicates sacrifice, as it does in the New Testament. This blood is for God, since He considers it precious. The connection of Jesus’ death with the “grace of repentance” indicates that it was because of sin that He died. There is no mention of anything more than Jesus’ physical death here, which is said to be “precious” in God’s sight and obviously sufficient for the provision of the grace of repentance. So clearly Clement believed and taught that Jesus’ death was a sacrifice to God to pay the penalty for man’s sins, that Jesus’ physical death was sufficient to pay the full penalty for our sins, and that His blood was “precious” in value in God’s sight (cf. 1 Pet. 1:18-19).

In chapter 12, Clement refers to the Old Testament account of Rahab’s scarlet thread at Jericho, and he says:

And thus they made it manifest that redemption should flow through the blood of the Lord to all them that believe and hope in God. (12:10)

Again, our redemption is clearly stated to be through Jesus’ blood and not by some other means. It is also the blood of “the Lord” that saves, and not just the blood of a man. Furthermore, this salvation is received by faith, indicating man’s inability to help himself out of his eternally hopeless situation.

In chapter 21, Clement makes a clear reference to Jesus’ physical death being sufficient for our sins.

Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us;... (21:7)

There is no hint here that Jesus needed to die spiritually to pay the full penalty for our sins. His “blood” was sufficient.

The final statement in Clement we shall look at is found in chapter 49:

On account of the Love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls. (49:12)

The reference to Jesus giving His “soul” could be taken by some to mean something other than a physical death. However Clement’s usage of the term is clearly consistent with the New Testament usage, and by “soul” he means physical life: Jesus gave His “life for our lives.” So again, Clement clearly taught that Jesus died physically and His physical death redeemed us.

Concerning this last passage in Clement, James Donaldson (1864) wrote, “The very way in which Clemens mentions the death of Christ shows that he attached a mysterious efficacy to it; but it seems to me that he does not attempt to explain the mystery. He simply says that the effect of Christ’s death was to benefit our flesh and our souls:...it is a statement of facts, not of explanations.” (p. 128) But I believe this is a clear affirmation of the fact that Jesus died in our place, and its style clearly echoes the New Testament in which the statement of the fact of Jesus’ vicarious sufferings frequently becomes its own explanation (e.g., Matt. 20:28; John 10:15-18; 11:50; Rom. 5:6-10; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:5-6).

5

The Epistle to Diognetus

This epistle was written around A.D. 130, and its author was possibly an associate of Paul. The first reference to the Atonement we shall look at is from chapter 6:

As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him,... (7:6)

This is a valuable statement, affirming that Jesus was sent “as God” to save us. In the same sentence Jesus is described as “a king,” “God” and “a Saviour.” An explicit theological connection between Jesus’ divinity and the efficacy of His death is not made here. Nevertheless, the connection is implied here in the same way that it is implied in several New Testament passages (for example, Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 2:8).

The connection is made more clearly in another passage from Diognetus:

...He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! (9:3-8)

It could hardly be made clearer than this! The writer of Diognetus, in this passage, plainly states that Jesus died for our sins, and that the efficacy of His death lay in the fact of His deity. This is a very significant statement from one who described himself as “a disciple of the Apostles” (11:1). It is no wonder that Louis Berkhof (1975) describes this statement as “the most significant” (p. 165) concerning the Atonement in all the Apostolic Fathers.

6

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

Polycarp was a disciple of John, and his letter to the Philippians was written around A.D. 135. His first reference to Jesus’ death occurs early in the epistle:

...our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death,... (1:1)

There is no clarification as to the nature of Jesus’ death, but it was said to be “for our sins.” In the very next chapter, however, there is a reference made to Jesus’ physical death:

His blood will God require of those who do not believe in Him. But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also,... (2:5-6)

“His blood” refers to Jesus’ physical death. Furthermore, our future physical resurrection is spoken of in parallel with Jesus’ resurrection, giving further credibility to Polycarp’s belief that Jesus died and was raised from the dead physically and not spiritually.

In chapter 8 of the letter, Polycarp quotes, and thereby affirms, Peter’s teaching from 1 Peter 2:22-24:

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, “who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. (8:1)

7

The Martyrdom of Polycarp

In the account of his martyrdom, Polycarp is quoted as praying to God before he died at the stake:

...I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ,... (14:2)

In comparing his death with the death of Jesus, Polycarp indirectly implies that Jesus’ death was like his coming death: a physical one. Later in this epistle it is said of Christ that He

...suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless One for sinners),... (17:3)

This statement is reminiscent of 1 Pet. 3:18 and affirms that the purpose of Jesus’ death was to save us from our sins.

8

The Epistles of Ignatius

Tradition holds that Ignatius was a fellow-disciple with Polycarp of John the apostle. Ignatius wrote a number of letters to churches, and these letters contain some clear affirmations of the Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement.

One very significant passage is found in the first chapter of his letter to the Ephesians:

...being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, (1:2.) (This quotation is from p. 63 of Lightfoot’s translation: Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. London: MacMillan and Company, 1891; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.)

This uses the language of Paul in Acts 20:28 and is, likewise, an indirect statement of the connection of the deity of Christ with the efficacy of His death. In the same chapter, Ignatius writes:

...Him “who gave Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God,”... (1:3)

This is a direct reference to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 5:2), and affirms the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death on our behalf. Jesus gave Himself as a sacrificial offering to God to pay the penalty for our sins. Furthermore Ignatius describes Jesus as being our “Physician,” the One who cures the sickness of our sinful souls:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord. (7:3)

In Ignatius’ letter to the Magnesians, there are several references to Christ’s atoning death. The most significant of these is:

...Jesus Christ, “who is the Saviour of all men, but specially of them that believe;” by whose blood ye were redeemed;... (1:2)

This is a clear affirmation of the Apostolic doctrine that Jesus died to “redeem” us, or to set us free from the penalty of sin, and it was through the shedding of His blood, or the giving of His physical life in death, that He did so.

To the Trallians, Ignatius wrote concerning the false teachers:

For if they had been branches of the Father, they would not have been “enemies of the cross of Christ,” but rather of those who “killed the Lord of glory.” But now, by denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the Lord;... (11:6-7)

Once more Ignatius uses the language of the New Testament in describing the crucified One as the “Lord of glory” (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8), and the murdered One as “the Lord,” making another indirect allusion to the relationship between Jesus’ deity and the power of His death.

In his letter to the Romans, Ignatius speaks of Jesus’ “precious sufferings” (2:9). At first glance this may appear to give affirmation to our doctrine of the infinite value of Jesus’ Atonement. However, the original text could be literally translated as “beautiful sufferings,” so it is more appropriate to understand Ignatius’ reference as applying to the wonder and glory of Jesus’ death, rather than as a technical theological statement.

In this same epistle, Ignatius eloquently speaks of his desire for a greater spiritual union and fellowship with Christ:

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. (7:7-8)

This is a very beautiful passage relating to our surrender to God and our pursuit of His love and life. However there is also a great theological significance in it too since Ignatius speaks only of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, thus limiting His death, by which means we are restored to life and to union and fellowship with God, to a physical one.

Furthermore, there are other references to the shed “blood” of Christ scattered throughout Ignatius’ epistles. The only death that Ignatius acknowledged was the physical death of Christ. There is no reference whatsoever to any spiritual death in any of his epistles.

In the Epistle to the Smyrnæans, Ignatius writes:

For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit,... (1:2)

Superficially this statement may appear to lend credence to the error that Jesus died spiritually since it speaks of our union with Christ “both in the flesh and in the spirit.” However, the rest of this sentence makes the meaning clear:

For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. (1:2)

Obviously Ignatius is not making a theological statement concerning some spiritual death of Jesus’, but he is commending the Smyrnæans for their constancy of spirit and resoluteness of faith in the truth regarding the life and death of the Lord Jesus. What Ignatius believed about the nature of Jesus’ death is clear from the last phrase in which he asserts that Jesus was “nailed to the cross for us in His flesh.” Later in this epistle, Ignatius speaks of “the blood which He (Jesus) shed for the salvation of the world” (6:2), again affirming both that Jesus died physically and that His physical death was for the purpose of saving the world from their sin.

In the last part of his letter to the Smyrnæans, Ignatius greets them,

...in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you. (12:4)

This statement would appear to speak of Jesus’ death and resurrection as being both physical and spiritual. However let us remember that when Jesus was resurrected He was not resurrected with a physical body but with a spiritual body. So this statement does not refer to some resurrection of Jesus’ spirit, in the sense that He died spiritually on the cross and needed to be born again, but it refers to the spiritual resurrection of His body.

9

The Epistle of Barnabas

The writer of this epistle was not the apostle from the Book of Acts, but was probably an Alexandrian Jew around the time of A.D. 100. There are many direct references to the Atonement in this writing. Chapter 5 contains several pertinent statements:

For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling. (5:1)

...if the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of all the world,... (5:7)

For God saith, “The stroke of his flesh is from them;” and “when I shall smite the Shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be scattered.” He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree. (5:15-16)

These three statements contain affirmations of all the essential elements of the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement. Jesus’ death is said to be for the remission of our sins. It was His physical death that paid this penalty. Furthermore His deity is connected to statements regarding His sufferings and death, in the same way that it is in the New Testament.

The remainder of the epistle is replete with relevant statements. Jesus’ sufferings are clearly said to be limited to physical sufferings “in the flesh”:

Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. (6:16)

...to me, who am to offer my flesh for the sins of my new people, ye are to give gall with vinegar to drink:... (7:10)

...He points to the cross of Christ in another prophet, who saith, “And when shall these things be accomplished? And the Lord saith, When a tree shall be bent down, and again arise, and when blood shall flow out of wood.” [This reference is apparently to some unknown Apocryphal book] Here again you have an intimation concerning the cross, and Him who should be crucified. (12:1-3)

Moreover, the purpose of His death was to pay the penalty for our sins:

...the Son of God could not have suffered except for our sakes. (7:2)

...He also Himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit,... (7:5)

to me, who am to offer my flesh for the sins of my new people, ye are to give gall with vinegar to drink: (7:10)

So the Epistle of Barnabas does affirm all the essential points of the Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement.

10

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that the consistent doctrine of the Apostolic Fathers was very much in accord with the Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement. In the words of William Shedd, the nature of Christ’s sufferings were, by the Apostolic Fathers, “uniformly and distinctly affirmed to be the sufferings and death of a theanthropic Person,Ci.e., a being in whom Deity and humanity were mysteriously blended in the unity of a single personality. With respect to their purpose,...(the Apostolic Fathers gave) an unequivocal statement that the purpose of Christ’s death is judicial, and expiatory of human guilt” (Shedd, 1889/1978, p. 207). Furthermore, we have found that Christ’s death on the cross is constantly affirmed to have been a physical death and not a spiritual one.

Thus the central and essential elements of the New Testament doctrine of the Atonement are, indeed, consistently affirmed in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

References

Bettenson, Henry, trans. and ed. The Early Christian Fathers. London: Oxford University Press, 1956.

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.

Donaldson, James. A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers. London: MacMillan and Co., 1864.

González, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

Halton, Thomas, ed. Message of the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 2, Jesus, Christ and Savior, by Gerard H. Ettlinger. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. London: MacMillan and Company, 1891; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers to A.D. 325. Vol. 1, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenæus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885.

Shedd, William G. T. A History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. 2. London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.

Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1979.

Webber, Malcolm. The Blood of God. Kimmell, Indiana: Pioneer Books, 1992.

Willis, John R. A History of Christian Thought. Hicksville, New York: Exposition Press, 1976.

Willis, John R., ed. The Teachings of the Church Fathers. Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1966.