Posted on 01/08/2008 8:47:38 AM PST by DouglasKC
The Council of Laodicea
by DouglasKC
When examining some of the doctrines that the church of God holds, we should understand how and why traditional Christianity has veered away from these doctrines which we hold to be biblical and truthful.
In most cases this departure from the truth wasn't a sudden thing. Rather, it was a slow “evolution” of religious thought caused by subtle changes in culture, society or the traditional church. Because it was such a slow process these changes can sometimes be hard to pinpoint.
But there are tools we can use to track and study these changes.
Some of the tools we can use are of course the bible and associated reference works such as concordances and dictionaries. Another tool we can use is history. Sometimes the writings of what the traditional church calls “church fathers” can give us glimpses into the state of Christianity at the time of their writing. But there are also a number of writings having to do with early church meetings, or councils. Just as our church has “councils”...or a gathering of elders to decide issues, so too did the early Roman Catholic church.
One such church meeting occurred approximately three hundred and thirty years after the death of Christ, around the year 360 AD. At that time representatives from approximately thirty churches in Asia Minor, an area where approximately modern Turkey lies today, met to decide issues important to the church. This probably included some of the churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 such as Ephesus and the Laodicean church. In fact, this meeting was held in Laodicea and so is known in history as the Council of Laodicea.
Three hundred and thirty years AFTER the death of Christ they met. Let me put three hundred and thirty years into perspective. Three hundred and thirty years ago today it was the year 1677. It was only about thirty years after the end of the protestant reformation, the great split from the Roman Catholic church from which many of the modern day Protestant churches trace their roots America as a nation would not exist for over a hundred years more. Three hundred and thirty years ago it was a VERY different world.
And three hundred and thirty years years after the death of Christ it was also a very different world. Forty years earlier Christianity had officially decided not to observe Passover. Christianity itself had only become legal in the Roman empire approximately fifty years earlier. Due to Jewish revolts against Rome and the perception that Jews had killed Christ anti-Jewish attitudes and prejudice were common.
So what is important about the council of Laodicea? It's important because this is a historical document, an historical event, that we can point to and see where the 7th day Sabbath rest was officially banned.
Because out of the council of Laodecea there came sixty resolutions, or canons, that the churches agreed to abide by.
One of these was canon number twenty-nine. It reads:
CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
I want to break this down into sections, beginning with the first section:
“CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.”
That's an amazing statement considering the following scripture:
Exd 20:8-10: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
So the consensus reached at Laodicea was in direct contradiction to the word of God, one of the ten commandments. God tells us to rest on his sabbath. Man tells us to work.
Now some may say that this is only prohibiting “resting” as Pharasitical Jews do...with all the rules and regulations of sabbath observance that were burdensome and unscriptural. But that notion is disproved by the next section:
“rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.”
Instead Christians are told that they MUST honor the Lord's day, Sunday, by resting if they can INSTEAD of resting on the sabbath. If the issue was HOW they rested, then resting as “Christians” on the sabbath should have been allowed. But it wasn't. Sunday became the “official” day of rest.
“But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Notice that if anyone DOES observe the biblical sabbath then they are classified as Judaizers and “anathema” from Christ. Just what does “anathema” mean? Here's a pretty good definition when used in a religious sense:
Anathema: (Gr.: a curse, suspension). The spiritual suspension with which the church may expel a person from her community for various reasons, especially denial of the faith or other mortal sins. The church also may proclaim an anathema against the enemies of the faith, such as heretics and traitors.
So if you wanted to observe the biblical sabbath rest, you were basically kicked out of the “church”. You were considered a heretic and a Judaizer.
There were a couple of other canons that came out of this council that are interesting in the information they convey:
Canon 16 - THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures
This is interesting because even though Christians were told to work on the sabbath, it was apparently still considered appropriate to hold some type of church service or at LEAST to read the scriptures.
Canon 49 - DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.
Again it would seem okay to include the sabbath as a religious observance. Some scholars believe this was because it was considered appropriate in the church at this time to celebrate Saturday as a “feast of creation”, a remembrance of the creation.
So what can we conclude? If we can read between the lines there's some good information that can be gleaned from these canons.
First, this proves that three hundred and thirty years, over three centuries, after the death of Christ that many Christians STILL observed the 7th day sabbath rest. If they did not, there would have been no need to make a rule prohibiting it. So it certainly wasn't normal in biblical times to observe a Sunday “rest” as some traditions would tell us.
Second, Christians who believed in observing God's sabbath rest were NOT considered “Christians” after this point of time. The Church of God begins to drop out of “official” church history. The official Christian church caused the church of God to become outlaws. Outside of the mainstream. Heretics. Not much has changed has it?
Third, the traditional church recognized THE sabbath of God as THE SABBATH. They carefully differentiated it from Sunday, the Lord's day. They didn't call Sunday “the sabbath”.
And last, it seemed that it was normal to at least perform some type of worship on the sabbath. Or at least it was normal to go to religious observances on both Sunday and the Sabbath.
I want to close with a quote from Michael Crichton in his book “Timeline”. It reads:
“If you don't know history, you don't know anything. You're like a leaf that doesn't know it's part of a tree.”
It is vitally important to have a knowledge of history. It is instrumental for deepening our faith, defending the church and for bringing others to the truth.
Here you go....
Bump for later read
Later all Roman Emperors held the title Pontifex Maximus. Emperor Constantine held the title from 306 to 337 AD Constantine convened the Nicene Council in 325 AD and issued this edict: ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER. From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325 Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day." The Roman Office of the Pontifex Maximus began in 712 BC
b'shem Yah'shua
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.) When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
In most places and languages "Easter" isn't called Easter but "Pascha," which means "Passover." Even in English-speaking countries, the candle used at Easter time isn't called an "Easter candle" but a "Paschal candle."
And as much as you like to claim it, Constantine wasn't the first pope.
You’re attempting to reason with a member of one of the offshoots of the Herbert W. Armstrong / Worldwide Church of God cult. Save your breath.
LOL! The pseudo-history of this thread is so bad that is just deserves to be laughed at.
In most places and languages "Easter" isn't called Easter but "Pascha," which means "Passover." Even in English-speaking countries, the candle used at Easter time isn't called an "Easter candle" but a "Paschal candle."
And as much as you like to claim it, Constantine wasn't the first pope. 5 posted on 01/08/2008 10:22:16 AM MST by Pyro7480
Don't be mislead; Passover has nothing to do with Pascha I never stated that Constantine was a Pope. I prayerfully recommend a remedial reading course. The History is there for all to read.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
and is not celebrated at the same time
Ah, I had forgotten that detail, which was brought up on a past thread. Thanks! The most charitable thing I can say about that system and its offshoots is that they’re... odd.
This completely false.
This is completely false.
I think Matchett-PI was referring to DouglasKC, not you Xenia.
I think you missed the point of Xeniast post. It was intended to show that traditional Christianity, because of anti-antisemitism, distanced itself from things they considered "Jewish". Instead of observing the biblically mandated Passover at the biblically mandated time the church instituted a DIFFERENT festival on a different date. Whether it's called "Easter" or "Pascha" makes little difference. The point is that it's NOT the Passover commanded by Jesus Christ in the bible:
Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Lev 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
The Lord's Passover is the 14th day of Nisan. Man's Easter is when man commands, not God.
Traditional Christianity DID stop observing the Lord's holy days, including the 7th day sabbath. The council of Nicea marks an "official departure" from observing Passover when God said to observe it. The council of Laodicea marks an "official" departure from observing the 7th day sabbath rest when God said to observe it.
Man's Easter is when man commands, not God.
Amen !
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
She (Matchett-PI) probably means that human reasoning won't make a good argument in this thread. In order to engage in a conversation on this topic you should lean heavily on scripture and history and not on human reasoning. :-)
I attend services though with United Church of God.
Here are some excerpts from A Brief History of United Church of God:
The United Church of God, today active with congregations in more than 40 countries, began as a formal assembly in 1995. Doctrinal distinctives of the Church include the observance of a seventh-day Sabbath, a modern application of the ancient Hebrew Holy Day seasons (which Jesus also kept and which the Church believes are a literal representation of God's plan for humanity) and a firm belief that Jesus Christ will return to earth to institute a benevolent, world-encircling Kingdom of God.
As authoritative historical records clearly show, a number of extra-biblical practices entered the early church within a century after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Recognizing that fact, the United Church of God strives to directly mirror the beliefs and practices of the first-century teachings of Jesus and the original apostles. This leads the Church to choose not to participate in common worship practices that were added without biblical mandate, including the observance of Christmas and Easter.
Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on its Web site: www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm.
It must be very difficult since nobody is really wanting to deal with the substance of the post.
You are correct though in that there's not to much to discuss when "orthodoxy" goes against what the bible teaches. We all have a choice whether we want to practice what the bible teaches or what tradition teaches.
“The most charitable thing I can say about that system and its offshoots is that they’re... odd.” ~ Pyro7480
“Odd”??? Wow! That IS charitable.
Here’s a post made by an ex-member of one of the H.W. Armstrong / World Wide Church of God Cult off-shoots (which can be found all over the internet), he wrote:
“I watched a documentary on A & E Sunday evening called “Mind Control”.
It was about the House of Yahweh in Texas put on by Rick Ross. Can I ever identify with it since Yisrayl Hawkins was a former member of the World Wide Church of God based in Big Sandy, Texas.
Did anyone else see it? It was terrific. It really uncovered a lot of what we discuss here about how that type of mind control works. I’m so glad and thankful for Rick to bring this out. The word is getting out how destructive this kind of church can be and the methods they use to entrap and enslave people.
The House of Yahweh &Yisrayl Hawkins,
http://www.rickross.com/groups/yahweh.html
Re: Mind Control Documentary - Rick Ross 01-02-2008, 06:56 PM
Yisrayl Hawkins’ “right hand man” Yedidiyah Hawkins, was arrested on child molestation charges, in October 2007. (against his step-daughter, whom he claims he was preparing to marry. She was 8 yrs old when this started, and she is now 14. For 6 years, he hurt this child!) He was indicted on that charge, and he was also charged with 2 counts of aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child and 1 count of organized criminal activity. His bail has been set at 1.8 MILLION dollars! The entire “leadership” of the House of Yahweh is now being investigated by the FBI (and “other” law enforcement agencies which cannot be disclosed at this time).
The locals here, are very concerned that HOY will end up like Waco, or that Yisrayl Hawkins will be another Jim Jones, as he has gotten his “faithful” to come into agreement with him that they would rather DIE than leave the HOY. He has them convinced, that if they leave, they lose their salvation.
Please pray for these people, that they will “see the light” and get out before it’s too late. Also, pray for the ones who have already left!
There are some, who want to leave, but they have no means to support themselves on the “outside”. Yisrayl Hawkins makes them give THREE Tithes. These people are forced to live in poverty! The children don’t attend school...they work in the kitchen! The women are not allowed to talk to other women, or even to go to the store alone! Their “head” (husband) must give them permission to do everything. When a man wants to marry, he HAS to PAY Yisrayl Hawkins for a wife. (Brides Price). Most of the “followers” have changed their name to Hawkins, in honor of him.
It’s hard to believe that this man has so much control over these people. I come in contact with members on a daily basis, as I work here in the community. You can tell who they are, by the way they dress, and the latex gloves on their hands. The women are very nice and polite..and “some” will speak, but not many. One lady told me that she would get into “trouble” for talking to me!! It’s such a shame to see them like that. My heart goes out to those poor women and children. The men are allowed multiple wives, because Yisrayl Hawkins has told them that a “single” woman can not enter the Kingdom!!
I ask everyone who reads this, to PRAY, PRAY, PRAY for these people. And pray for the child who was molested, and ALL of the innocent children in the HOY. Pray that justice will be served, and those EVIL ones will be punished.
Those are some of the fruits of Armstrongism. Sad, very, very sad.”
Here’s more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_sitesearch=rickross.com&safe=off&q=united+church+of+God
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
14 posted on 01/08/2008 11:04:56 AM MST by topcat54
b'SHEM Yahshua
Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and
the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter
through it.
Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life,
and there are few who find it.
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
The beliefs of United (and my belief) on the holy spirit is stated here from Fundamental Beliefs:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of God and of Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the power of God and the Spirit of life eternal (2 Timothy 1:7; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:16).
The early church certainly didn't regard the holy spirit as a separate person in the Godhead other than the God the father and Christ. In fact, this teaching didn't become part of "official" tradition of the church until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
The bible is abundantly clear that the picture of the beings in the Godhead are the father and son:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God
A picture of the Godhead. No being called "the holy spirit" is present.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
A vision from the old testament matches up with the new testament. Again no holy spirit there.
Again:
Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
The throne of God and the lamb. No throne for the holy spirit.
Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
No crown or throne for the holy spirit.
Now don't get me wrong. The holy spirit is a wonderful thing. A vital thing. It's the presence of God in our universe. It's his active working, his active presence. But it's not a mythical "3rd" person in the Godhead.
Wow...that sounds horrible.
Thanks for posting that sister.
It's certainly clear that "The House of Yahweh &Yisrayl Hawkins" were/are far from Christian.
It's a good thing to pray for them and I will pray that these poor people do leave this organization.
Councils are often called to clarify belief in response to heresy, not make belief out of the cloth. The First Council of Constatninople met in 381 AD in response to the heresy of Arianism, and that of the "Macedonian" (the group, not the ethnicity). By denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, you are, in effect, neo-Macedonian.
What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean?
Of what "Roman church" was Constantine the "first pontiff"? Keep in mind that Constantine, although a Christian sympathizer, was technically not a Christian until he was baptized on his deathbed.
Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter".
There are extant, in Greek, sixty canons of a Council of Laodicea. That this assembly was actually held, we have the testimony of Theodoret ("In Coloss.", ii, 18, P.L., LXXXII, 619). There has been much discussion as to the date: some have even thought that the council must have preceded that of Nicaea (325), or at least that of Constantinople (381) It seems safer to consider it as subsequent to the latter. The canons are, undoubtedly, only a resume of an older text, and indeed appear to be derived from two distinct collections. They are of great importance in the history of discipline and liturgy; Protestants have often, but quite without reason, invoke one of them in opposition to the veneration of angels.
They believe that they will lose their salvation if they leave.
How about you? Do you believe your church is the "one true church" and that you will lose your salvation if you leave the UCG organization (as long as they continue to embrace their current teachings)?
I'm a little confused by your wording. I'm not "denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost". I'm denying that the holy spirit is part of the Godhead in heaven. I've cited numerous scriptures (and really just scratched the surface at that) to support that position.
Whatever you call it, "clarifying belief" or whatever, but what the the council did was to formalize their beliefs and then determine that anyone outside of these beliefs was wrong. They established a belief based upon tradition and often, personal and governmental politics.
That's too bad and a symptom of a controlling church.
How about you? Do you believe your church is the "one true church" and that you will lose your salvation if you leave the UCG organization (as long as they continue to embrace their current teachings)?
United isn't the one, true church and doesn't teach that it is.
From fundamental beliefs:
Since it is the indwelling presence of God's Spirit that identifies and unifies God's people (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), the Church is a spiritual organism. Ephesians 2:19-22 describes the Church as a "holy temple." Each individual member is also a "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:19).
Jesus Christ is the living Head of the Church, which is often described as "the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:12; Colossians 1:18). The Bible refers to the entire Body of Christ or an individual congregation as "the church of God," or "churches of God" when referring to more than one congregation.
If United were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't lose my salvation. It would be impossible since my salvation doesn't depend upon an organization.
No man made, man led organization is the "true church". Not LDS, not Catholic. There are Christians, potential Christians and tares in every organization.
What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean? Of what "Roman church" was Constantine the "first pontiff"? Keep in mind that Constantine, although a Christian sympathizer, was technically not a Christian until he was baptized on his deathbed.
Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter".
23 posted on 01/08/2008 11:59:17 AM MST by Campion
He was a Pontiff Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter". He spoke something other that English. The documents state otherwise.What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean?
b'SHEM Yah'shua
Pontiff as in Pontifex maximus or the bridge builder between the human world and after world.
and he created the Roman church.
Of cause it is in English translation.
It’s interesting to me anytime the councils are studied. I often wonder, if so many Protestant scholars acknowledge not only that they existed, but also that they were Catholic councils, why is it so difficult to believe the Council that met at Jerusalem in Acts was also a Catholic council? Simply because the word “Catholic” wasn’t used specifically to describe it? To me, that sounds like the lame argument, “Since the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it can’t be true”.
The word monotheism isn’t in the Bible either, does that mean “monotheism” isn’t true?
Anyway, it’s interesting to me. A point of curiosity. I’ve never heard anyone explain where the Catholic Church came from (other than some shadowy, if not outright flimsy, connection to Constantine) if one also concedes that the councils throughout history were Catholic. Seems to me it’s not much of a stretch to believe during the time of Christian persecution via Rome, most evidence of Catholicity has been destroyed, as that was just a given fact at the time, and thus not as important to preserve as the Scriptures themselves.
I guess Constantine is as good a scapegoat as any though; even though he had little to do with Catholicism, practically speaking; I’ve never seen any evidence that shows he did at least. So we have this Catholic Church/Roman Empire conglomerate just popping out of no where in the 4th Century, even though there’s scant historical evidence for that other than, perhaps, the most ironic twist of historical fact of all time: the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. How that “proves” that the Church was started by him is beyond me though.
That’s what “Herbert “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible” Armstrong taught. LOL
Oh and as far as the “Church changing the Sabbath”, a common SDA/offshoot thereof argument, there are many ways to address such, however, the brass tacks, main point is that this shows, historically, that Christians respected both the power AND authority of the Church, not the “Bible” (sola scriptura) to determine doctrine and/or rules of Christian living.
Unless one wants to posit the existence of some “underground church”, thoroughly invisible throughout history, one must reach this conclusion: The early Christians behaved pretty much like the Catholics and Orthodox do today, they believed the Church to be the primary means by which the Holy Spirit teaches, and instructs the believer.
Too bad those early believers didn’t have Ellen G. White, et. al. to lead them to the truth; oh well, I guess they deserve to be in Hell for being born at the wrong time in history. < /sarc >
Peter has Mark write down that Yah'shua said
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! The LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;(Deut 6:4)
By the way ... I meant to mention this, too. Are you aware that your Armstrong-spin-off group (UCG) is moving back to their roots in Texas? Yes, here is the latest letter to the Elders of that dwindling membership in case you haven’t seen it yet:
January 4, 2008
Dear Fellow Elders,
I am pleased to announce that earlier today the United Church of God, an International Association became the owner of 81 acres of land located just north of Denton, Texas. This is the first step in the fulfillment of the GCE resolution passed eight months ago to relocate from Ohio to Texas.
The Council of Elders approved going ahead with the purchase in November. The location and price of the land was exceptional, and with other offers on the seller’s table it was reasonable to conclude that not only would the property probably not be available at a later date, but that the price would go up.
Here are some of the key details on this purchase:
· The property is 81.5 acres, virtually all of it suitable for potential development.
· It cost $1,599,784, or $19,610 per acre. This is even less than we expected. In the presentations made to the Council and General Conference of Elders last February and March, we noted that the average cost of properties that we looked at in our original search in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex was around $40,000 per acre.
· It is located on the south side of FM 3163 (Milam Road), just east of Milam Ridge Road, Denton, Texas, one-half mile east of Interstate 35 (visible from the freeway), approximately 3 miles north of loop 288 and 7.5 miles from downtown Denton.
· The property is outside of the Denton city limits (which simplifies the development process somewhat), with vacant land to the north, east and south, and a small subdivision adjoining to the west. The land is on a hill, with the terrain gently sloping to the south toward a creek that crosses the southern edge of the property.
Over one year has transpired since the relocation idea was originally presented to the Council, and many people have worked hard in the interim to make this possible. Much work lies ahead. Purchasing land is only the first in a long series of steps that will need to be taken before a move can actually occur. It will take several months to design the buildings, to finalize the engineering, to obtain construction approvals, to contract with a developer, etc. But now we can start moving forward to work on putting these pieces in place.
A letter will soon be sent to all members, giving more information to everyone about the relocation. Also, as I wrote to you earlier in a separate message, we will be holding regional meetings for all elders in the United States to address this and other related manpower issues. We do hope all of you will be able to attend.
I could add much to this letter but will save some things for a later time. It is appropriate to close, however, by reminding us of scriptures that were used in the original presentation almost a year ago.
Isaiah 29:14 is a dramatic declaration of God’s intent and power, which we believe will be mightily exhibited in the end times: “Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder.”
If anything has been a recent witness to God’s power to open doors, it was the media blitz over the “Christians Who Don’t Keep Christmas” article and the spin-off coverage over the last three weeks. We did nothing of our own power to plan for or generate that. It was undoubtedly worth hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars in exposurethere is no way we can calculate what it would have cost us to have bought our way into such prominent media outlets around the world! We truly have only a little strength. But this served as a witness to the world of God’s truthand a powerful witness to the Church of the authority of the One who “opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens,” to “set before you an open door” (Revelation 3:7-8)!
Is there any among us who doubts that God has more marvelous works to be done among this people at the end of the age? As great as it was, the media attention over Christmas was really just a small inkling of what could potentially thrust the gospel into the limelight. Knowing that, and expecting God to open more doors in the future, we must muster our little strength and maintain 100-percent commitment to the work He has given us to do in preaching the gospel to the world, preparing the next generation in the Church, training new men for the pastoral ministry, and every other challenge that lies before us.
As we were reminded by the theme of the last General Conference of Elders meeting, “unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1). Above all things, please join with me in diligently, fervently and humbly seeking His blessing and guidance in all things pertaining to His house, the Church of God!
Sincerely, Clyde Kilough
COMMENT (Note “Herbie” reference is to Herbert W. Armstrong):
” The whole thing sounds like a Herbie letter. Can’t wait for the plea for money. I think Kilough had to squeeze Gawd in there somewhere, and over exaggerated(or, I should say, over regurgitated). The move to Gawd’s Country is compared to Isa. 29:14. Then he says that there was a “power” that generated millions of dollars in exposure(their god of course is in the money business). Of course, let’s stay “humble” and inform the dumb sheep that “we” have a LITTLE strength, and use Herbie’s old church era doctrine that “we” are the Sillydelphians by using that old ploy of “open and shut doors”(after all, “we” have to scratch those itching ears!). I just love the next part: “Is there any among us who doubts that God has blah, blah, blah”? Does he think anyone in his cult is going to come forth and tell him that they doubt that God is in the UCG BUSINESS of forcing money out of people? This is nothing but propaganda to make the sheeple think that since the Christmas crap was just an “inkling” of what could “potentially” throw the “gospel” into the limelight, “just think what we could do if we had more money!”. He doesn’t have to say it(although he will eventually), just read between the lines, “We must muster our little strength and maintain 100-percent committment to the WORK”. How much clearer can it be than to come right out and say, “Send in those tithes and offerings, brethren.”? Now let’s close with another scripture. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it”. Did he forget about the MOTHER cult in which he was hatched, and his mentor??? The only difference from this manipulative letter and Herbie’s is that Clyde didn’t close with “In Jesus’ Name”. Hmmm. Well, at least he’s “sincere”. Gag!” ~ Steve (ex-WCG cult member)
I would venture to guess that nearly all members are aware of this...although it's not a done deal yet. United is growing and it's the opinion of some that we need to stay ahead of growth by expanding our broadcasting, publishing and training capabilities in a more centralized manner. It's the opinion of others that the current facilities are fine and we should expand there.
The issue was put up for vote last year to the general conference of elders, which includes paid and unpaid ministry. Most congregations have a local unpaid elder/minister and a paid elder/minister that may oversee 1 to 3 local congregations.
The vote passed, but it was very close. Many felt it was too close to make such a big move. It's actually going to be put back on the ballot again at this years conference on whether to relocate or not...so a move isn't a done deal yet.
As far as the "editorial" written by "Steve", it's obvious from his cynical and sarcastic tone that he had a bad experience in Worldwide Church of God. It's too bad that he's still apparently hurting so much. United is light years ahead of Worldwide as far as organization goes. United recognized that there was a problem in how Worldwide was administered and they certainly didn't attempt to duplicate that system. From "A Brief History of United":
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on its Web site: www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm.
I was never in Worldwide, but I have read many letters from those days. I would agree with Steve that the focus of many of them did seem to be pretty concerned with raising funds. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it did seem "uneven". I think that it may have even been part of the reason why God allowed the Worldwide Church of God to fail. Thankfully United doesn't seem nearly as focused on fundraising for the home office...the tithes and offerings are freewill and tithing to the local congregation is also an option.
I think if it ever did get to those same levels of urgency and coercion than I would probably start looking for a new church. But as I said, United has instituted many controls that seem to be preventing such abuses. And by the way, I would say that Armstrong wasn't responsible for most of these abuses. It seems like the lack of checks and balances in the organization sometimes allowed power hungry individuals to do what they do best.
If you need any more information about United you're welcome to go the website or even to ask me. I'm fairly well informed about what's going on in the organization and my information will probably be more accurate and up to date than "Steve's".
Better re-read that letter.
He certainly held that title, but it was as head of the (pagan) Roman state religion.
The Roman state religion became Catholic Christianity under Theodosius the Great, almost 100 years later.
That's historical fact, Chuck. I'm sorry you want to persist in believing a fairytale, but that's what it is.
and he created the Roman church.
Really? And to what church was Paul's Epistle to the Romans written? And to what church, 50 years later, was Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans written? And over what Church did Pope St. Clement rule at the end of the first century? And of what church did Irenaeus of Lyons, who died 110 years before Constantine assumed the throne, write this:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, 416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.And to the bishop church did St. Cyprian of Carthage, who died more than 50 years before Constantine assumed the throne, write this in AD 253:3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place fromthe apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles ...
Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church.
The Council of Nicaea was conducted in Greek. The original text of the decrees is in Greek. The word for the holiday whose date they were trying to fix is Pascha. That was the only word Constantine ever would have used or known for it.
Errata: “And to the bishop church” should read “And to the bishop of which church”.
I need to apologize and clarify my comment. I didn’t mean to lump orthodox yet aberrant groups like (trinitarian) messianic Jews with heretical groups like the JWs and WWCOG splinter groups like the United Church of God which deny the orthodox formulation on the Trinity. Not all restorationists are heretics. Those which accept the early church councils’ pronouncements on the nature of the Godhead are far removed from modern cults which deny the councils.
I apologize for seeming to lump them all together.
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
___________________________________________________
And thus we get mormonism.....
Well okay, so at the most it's a slightly older tradition.
If following the bible and believing what Christ believed is heretical than I'll gladly take the title. I think it's ironic that traditional Christianity has made a belief in orthodox confession a prerequisite for being a Christian.
Here is one biblical definition of a Christian, from the mouth of Jesus:
Joh 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
Thank God Christ said we can't be Christians unless we confess belief in a man made creed formalized in 381 AD. We would all be wise to not give heed to commandments of men:
Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Here is one biblical definition of a Christian, from the mouth of Jesus:
Every heretic and cult begins with the Bible. Then they proceed to either add to it or subtract from it. E.g., the definition of a Christian is not found in any one verse, or subset of verses. It is found by systematically studying and interpreting the entire Bible within a comprehensive framework.
Likewise, the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity, and the person and work of Jesus Christ were all worked out by the early church after coming together and seeking the mind of the Holy Spirit as given to the church in Holy Writ. Every sort of heresy, from various forms of Arianism to modalism to Pelagianism, denies some portion of the Bible when it is properly interpreted within the context of the rest of the Bible.
The creeds serve to state in a comprehensive way what the Bible teaches. They do not share the same authority as the Bible, but tell us plainly what is essential for one to be called a Christian.
If you do not believe in the concept of the Trinity as stated in the Bible and articulated by the early church you are not a Christian, pure and simple. You are a heretic.
Not every one. Some look purely toward the authority and teaching of men.
Then they proceed to either add to it or subtract from it. E.g., the definition of a Christian is not found in any one verse, or subset of verses. It is found by systematically studying and interpreting the entire Bible within a comprehensive framework.
You'll notice I said "Here is ONE biblical definition of a Christian.". If you want me to systematically go through scripture to support what a Christian is than I'm willing to do that. But nowhere will I find that belief in a 4th century creed is a requirement.
Likewise, the nature of the Godhead, the Trinity, and the person and work of Jesus Christ were all worked out by the early church after coming together and seeking the mind of the Holy Spirit as given to the church in Holy Writ.
I don't dispute that this was "worked out" by the traditional early church. What's in dispute is that they worked it out correctly and biblically.
Every sort of heresy, from various forms of Arianism to modalism to Pelagianism, denies some portion of the Bible when it is properly interpreted within the context of the rest of the Bible.
I've noticed that your defense or attack of the subject of this article and the side subject of the trinity involve very little substance, scriptural or otherwise. Your primary tactic seems to be to attack the messengers. You've of course acknowledged that it's difficult to debate someone who questions tradition on these matters so I can sort of understand your tactic.
The creeds serve to state in a comprehensive way what the Bible teaches. They do not share the same authority as the Bible, but tell us plainly what is essential for one to be called a Christian.
If the writings in scripture with the guidance of the holy spirit aren't enough to convict you you're a Christian, then perhaps you're better off sticking with man made creeds.
If you do not believe in the concept of the Trinity as stated in the Bible and articulated by the early church you are not a Christian, pure and simple. You are a heretic.
I'm surely not a traditional Christian. However I am Christ's and that's good enough for me and him.
August 29, 2006 by Jon Blevins.
The biggest problem with the “No creed but Christ” stance can be summed up in a simple formula. No Creeds = Yes Heresy. It’s not heretical to disdain creeds, but it does open the door to any abberant theological view that can be supported by scriptural language. There is a dangerous breadth in our willingness to accept anything that sounds biblical as long as it doesn’t tread on our pet dogmas. Creeds are essential because they expose the errors of false teachers by means of the clarification and condensation of truth. To this end, extra-biblical language is necessary and right.
False teachers are clever. They have a never-ending supply of rhetoric with which to avoid saying something that could get them in trouble while teaching principles that run wholly opposite to scripture. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. For example, a certain liberal pastor was asked point-blank “Do you believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus?” His answer? “Yes, I do.” His meaning? [Clarified in an Easter sermon later that year.] “It is not necessary for us to believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, but to understand that by Jesus’ ‘resurrection’ the New Testament affirms that Christ’s teachings will live on.” Here is the fruit of our acceptance of linguistic and doctrinal ambiguity: Marcus Borg: the “Christian” scholar who doesn’t believe the resurrection, Robert Jensen: the “Christian” who doesn’t believe in God.
The Necessity of Creeds Proven By History
The council of Nicea met to evaluate the teachings of Arius. Their response was not merely to rattle off a list of scriptures that refuted the early heretic. Rather, they drafted a statement (a creed) which included necessary extra-biblical language. They were required to clarify the biblical teaching on certain points because the heretical teachings of Arius were founded upon a turn-of-phrase.
The First Council of Nicaea in 325 debated the terms homoousios and homoiousios. The word homoousios means “same substance”, whereas the word homoiousios means “similar substance”. The council affirmed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Godhead) are of the homoousious (same substance). This is the source of the English idiom “differ not by one iota.” Note that the words homoousios and homoiousios differ only by one ‘i’ (or the Greek letter iota). (Wikipedia)Martin Luther, in his German translation of the New Testament, inserted the German word allein (”alone”) after “faith” in Romans 3:28, which reads “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Why did he do this? To clarify the apostle’s point that salvation is by faith, not by works. The Catholic church also affirms that “one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law”, but by this they mean that faith gives one the ability to do those works which are necessary to be saved. The addition of the word “alone” served as a denial of the Roman Catholic understanding of justification.
The fairly recent Evangelicals and Catholics Together document states, “We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ.” This is biblical language. The Roman Catholic does not deny the words of Ephesians 2:8-9, he merely understands them in an unscriptural way. Both evangelicals and Catholics can say “we are justified by grace through faith” and mean totally different things. The protestant means by this “By faith in Christ, I am justified by His work, not my own.” The Catholic means “By faith I am given strength to accomplish my own salvation through good works.” The difference is huge, but the words are the same. Luther therefore wanted it to be clear that salvation is by “faith alone” and not by “works produced by faith”.
The Necessity of Creeds Proven By the Inadequacy of Anti-Confessionalism
The Restoration Movement falls into the trap of doctrinal ambiguity when it becomes necessary to use extra-biblical terms such as “Trinity”. Because of our anti-creedal stance, there is no formal consensus among our fellowship regarding the fundamental doctrine of the Trinity. Alexander Campbell struggled in his writing and thinking to explain the doctrine of the Trinity in purely scriptural terminology. He failed. He worked through many different views and at the time of his death, he had arrived at a muddled variant of modalism. For many of us, it is nothing more than pride in our own intellectual abilities and over-confidence in the tradition that tells us we should have “No creed but Christ” that leads us into heresy. Why should any Christian, when confronted with the teaching of scripture, the Nicean & Athanasian creeds and the testimony of two millenia of Trinitarian orthodoxy, have to reexamine and redefine this issue? And yet we do… individually and corporately… again and again and again… rehashing and revisiting the same ancient controversies and heresies on what ought to be a foundational, unifying doctrine!
The Oneness Pentecostals have followed this same “No creed but Christ” will-o’-the-wisp down the road to full-blown heresy. They declare that “Jesus is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. It’s modalism all over again. They see speaking in tongues and declare them necessary for salvation. They see baptism and turn it into a magical formula for salvation. They declare physical healing, not love and good works, to be the fruit of faith. Some of them see snake-handling and poison-drinking in the Bible and declare these to be the signs of the true faithful. This is precisely what happens when there is no clarification of essential doctrine. When our standard for orthodoxy is whether or not a text can be spun a certain way, we have essentially abandoned the faith.
A Call to Orthodoxy
In closing, I want to share with you how one individual has summed up the Church of Christ. Here’s a man on the outside looking in. What does he see?
Classic Campbellite theology…. These folks have borrowed Pelagianism’s denial of original sin, mixed it with baptismal regeneration, anathematized everyone outside of their circle of Campbellite congregations, declared human merit necessary for salvation–and yet they claim they have no creed but Christ.He sees only the ways in which we have broken away from historical orthodoxy and rehashed long-settled controversies. To men like him, whatever good our fellowship may have is lost in the shadows of ambiguity and unorthodoxy that cover much of our doctrine. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Perhaps it’s time we start learning from Christian history instead of trying to ignore it.
This is the first time you have stepped back from your normally I pray you receive more of Yah'shua's lovingkindness toward brothers in the Christ.I for one accept your apology.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
rude, unChristian, supercilious, ranting condemning all who disagree
with your Preterit views.
Horsefeathers.
I pray you receive more of Yah'shua's lovingkindness toward brothers in the Christ.
Did you mean Jesus Ha'Mashiach or Yeshua Christ? I can never keep these all these supercilious transliterations straight.
Keep the faith.
You forget that not just Pelagianism, but also Eastern Orthodoxy, denies original sin.
I didn’t forget anything. Pelagianism had many other problems.
However, EO does not deny original sin. As I understand it, the eastern churches manly disagree with the west over the manner in which it is transmitted to Adam’s posterity. The Council of Carthage (418), which the EOs accept, affirms the concept of original sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.