Ancient-Future Churches? Watch Out for This Ecumenical Wolf!

I have been in prayer lately concerning a ministry I have been giving to. I like helping the widows and orphans and missions so its not an easy pat answer for me. Today, I believe God answered my prayers. As I was reading this ministry’s “praise reports” I was giving thanks to our Beloved and asking Him to prosper all that they do for His Kingdom, by His power and for His glory. Then I read that they were going to raise up Ancient-Future churches. Hmmm…that sounds like they are getting into New Age “christianity.” So, I looked it up. Its tied to the Emergent Church movement.

I didn’t go too far in my research since The Berean Call had an article on it way back in 2008 and its informative. I share it with you: Ancient-Future Heresies

OK, I am sure I have heard of this but it was called, the Acts 2 church movement and we were sure if we could restore our church to the Acts 2 model we would see revival like what all the disciples experienced in the upper room, complete with the tongues of fire. Here’s a snippet from the TBC article:

Is any of this “for the good,” as Christianity Today declares?

Let’s both reason from the Scriptures, and simply be reasonable (Isaiah:1:18
). The Ancient-Future search to discover gems from “Classic Christianity” comes up short by a century — the century in which the New Testament was written. The critical difference should be obvious. The writers of the New Testament were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they penned God’s Word (2 Timothy:3:16
; 2 Peter:1:21, 22). What writings from A.D. 100 and later can claim such inspiration? None. But we’re told that some were disciples of or lived at the time of the apostles. True, but proximity to the apostles is hardly a guarantee against heresy nor does it come close to inspiration. Furthermore, much of the first-century-written New Testament reproved and corrected errors that had already entered the church!

Remember the Apostle Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders, who were certainly closer to Paul than any of the so-called Church Fathers:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts:20:28-31)


Again, why this attraction to the ancient Church Fathers? Could any of them say with Paul, “Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Philippians:4:9)? We can trust his God-breathed words completely. On the other hand, it takes very little scrutiny of men like Origen, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine, and others, to see their flaws, let alone their heresies. For example, Origen taught that God would save everyone and that Mary was a perpetual virgin; Irenaeus believed that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus when consecrated, as did John Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem; Athanasius taught salvation through baptism; Tertullian became a supporter of the Montanist heresies, and a promoter of a New Testament clergy class, as did his disciple Cyprian; Augustine was the principal architect of Catholic dogma that included his support of purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and infant baptism, mortal and venial sins, prayers to the dead, penance for sins, absolution from a priest, the sinlessness of Mary, the Apocrypha as Scripture, etc.