1. Studying church history helps Christians understand how God has guided the church over the centuries according to his plan of redemption. 2. It demonstrates that Christianity is grounded in real historical events and people, not just theological ideas. Knowing the history provides perspective on issues the church has faced regarding culture, doctrine, and more. 3. Church history is not infallible due to limited sources and human interpretation, but it helps Christians realize how dependent they are on those who preserved core doctrines through challenges over time.

1. COACH Institute of Intercultural Studies, Hyderabad
History of Christianity-1
Dr. Pothana

2. The History of Christianity: First Six Centuries
(From the Beginning to the Accession of Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590)
A.Warrant for the Study of Church History
1.The Bible does not teach us
everything about the outworking of
God’s plan of redemption. Although
this may sound like a controversial
thing to say in a church that believes
(rightly) in the sufficiency, infallibility,
and inerrancy of Scripture, it is because
of what Scripture teaches that I draw
this conclusion cf. Matt 28:18-20; Rev
21:1-4. We learn from church history
how God’s plan of redemption has been
worked out from the time of the end of
the first century until today. “The
events of this world’s history set the
stage upon which the drama of
redemption isenacted.”1
1 Iain D Campbell, Heroes and Heretics: Pivotal Moments in Twenty Centuries of the Church (Christian Focus, 2004), 10

3. 1.The sovereignty of God over all of history cf. Isa 46:8-11.
History is His story just as much as it is ours.
Therefore we have an opportunity through the study of
church history to see how God protected and preserved
his people to the present day so as to bring about the sure
accomplishment of his redemptive purposes in Jesus Christ.
2.The Christian faith is historical in character cf. Luke 2:1-
3. Studying church history demonstrates concretely that
the Christian faith is historical in character – it deals with
real people in real places in real time.

4. 1.In order to understand where we’re going, we
need to understand where we came from. This is
the value of history in general. Knowing your
trajectory allows you to understand yourself better,
to put your experience in the proper perspective.
2.Without it, Christian theology becomes
theoretical rather than practical. Christianity is
first and foremost the acts of God in time (and
ultimately in Christ) more than it is morality,
doctrinal formulations, or aworldview.
3.The study of church history provides
perspective on the church’s interaction with
surrounding culture. Mark Noll gives the
example of choice of church music. Almost all
the issues we face in the modern era have been
addressed at one point or another – politics, art,
music, economics, etc.
B. The Value of Church History

5. 4. It provides perspective on the study of
the Scripturescf. 2 Tim 3:14- 15.
The discipline of church history cannot by itself establish the rightness or
wrongness of what ought to be believed. On the other hand, Evangelicals
in particular, precisely because of their high view of Scripture, have often
been content to know far too little about the history of the church; and
efforts to overcome this common ignorance can only be commended.
Thoughtful Christians who sincerely seek to base their beliefs on the
Scriptures will be a little nervous if the beliefs they think are biblical
form no part of the major streams of tradition throughout the history of
the church; and, therefore, historical theology, though it cannot in itself
justify a belief system, not only sharpens the categories and informs the
debate but serves as a major checkpoint to help us prevent uncontrolled
speculation, purely private theological articulation, and overly
imaginative exegesis.

6. If a contemporary believer wants to know the will of God
as revealed in Scripture on any of these matters, or on
thousands more, it is certainly prudent to study the Bible
carefully for oneself. But it is just as prudent to look for
help, to realize that the question I am bringing to
Scripture has doubtless been asked before and will have
been addressed by others who were at least as saintly as I
am, at least as patient in pondering the written Word, and
at least as knowledgeable about the human heart.
• From our historical vantage we can see that interpretations of thepast,
even those that were thought to be very persuasive, were in fact
distortions of Scripture. This will function to make us more tentative
about our own interpretative conclusions, conclusions we are drawing
for the present time.
• It provides perspective on what is important vs. what is more or less
ancillary. What is essential and what is non-essential? We will see
threads running through the tapestry of church history that reemerge
or persist in successive eras – they are not fads, but “classics” of the
Christian faith.

7. c. It helps us to realize how dependent we are on
Christians who have gone before us for many of
the doctrines that for us are forgone conclusions
but historically had to be fought for in order to
protect the Christian faith from the onslaught of
false teaching.

8. C. Church History and the History of Dogma
1. Church history is not simply the story of
what happened to the church, who the
major players were, and when these things
happened, but precisely because it is
church history our study will necessarily
involve a study of Christian teaching
cf. 1 Tim 3:15. 2. Christian teaching is
always in some sense culturally limited and
in some sense defined – doctrines are
formulated and kinks worked out always
against the backdrop of particular places
and times by particular persons.
Sometimes people get nervous to think
about doctrinal development over time as
if it somehow threatens the stability of the
teaching of Scripture. Some think that if
doctrine has changed over time, then we
have nothing stable, no foundation on
which to build our faith. Two issues are
important to recognize here:

9. a.First, since dogma is the human formulation of
biblical doctrine, we should not expect it to be
infallible. Quite the opposite – we should expect it to
be flawed at some points. So insofar as dogma is not
infallible, we should expect some development over
time.
b.Second, to the extent that the dogmas deport with
Scripture, it is not really fair to say that such a dogma
was “discovered” or “new.” It was always there, it just
took difficulty to cause it to come to the surface.
Different issues threatening the church (especially
doctrinal) cause the church to reread Scripture – to
read it with greater care and with particular interest to the
issues at hand. Such close reading tends to yield new
results – “new” not in the sense of finding something that
was never there to begin with, but “new” in the sense of
discovering something for the first time that was always
there, but never noticed.
“Tradition is the living faith of the dead;
traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”

10. D. The Limits of Church History
1. Not infallible
a. No infallible sources
b. No infallible interpretation.
Although this is true with respect
to our interpretation of Scripture,
it is further complicated by the
fallibility of the sources we use
for our study.
2. Limited information
a. In terms of what is available to
us (the evidence that survived)
b. In terms of whose perspective
is preserved (the learned and
others in power)

11. 1. Humility: as much as anything
church history is a record of our
frailty and failures. It is not because
we are so much that the Christian
church has continued to this day, it
is because God has been patient
with us and faithful to his promises.
2. Gratitude: Because of what God
has done for us, not only will we
refuse to congratulate ourselves for
our historical accomplishments, but
we will be filled with gratitude for
God’s faithfulness to get us here.
E. Church History and the Development of Godly Character