Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Jesus Christ told His apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. Most people who are familiar with the Bible realize those apostles zealously embarked on that mission. Their converts were first called Christians in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26). Since then, so many people have been born or converted into the hundreds of denominations known collectively as "Christianity" that it is one of the world's most popular and dominant religions.
People assume that all, or at least almost all, who bear the name Christian follow the beliefs, teachings and practices of Jesus Christ. But the Bible tells us that not everyone who accepts the name of Christ is really a Christian.
Jesus predicted that some would claim His name but deny Him by their actions. He said they would "call Me 'Lord, Lord,'" but "not do the things which I say" (Luke 6:46). Christ and His apostles spoke of false prophets, false apostles and false brethren. They revealed that two opposing ostensibly Christian religions would emerge. One—the Church Jesus founded—would be led by God's Spirit and remain faithful to His teachings. The other—guided and influenced by a different spirit—would accept the name of Christ but twist His teachings to create a convincing counterfeit of the true Church of God.
Both would use Christ's name and claim His authority. Both would perform works that would outwardly appear good and right. Both would claim to be following Christ's true teachings. But only one would faithfully represent its founder, Jesus Christ. The other would capture the minds and hearts of humanity by attaching the name of Christ to biblically insupportable religious customs and doctrines that Jesus and His apostles neither practiced nor approved.
The apostles repeatedly warned Jesus' followers to beware of false teachers who would introduce counterfeit-Christian beliefs. Jesus Himself warned: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).
The New Testament presents a concise historical sketch of the roots of these two religions that profess to be Christian—one real, one counterfeit. Christ's apostles described the origin of each and their fundamental characteristics.
We have already examined the apostles' description of the Church Jesus founded. Now let's look at the record they left us of another supposedly Christian religion—one that distorted and corrupted the truth and grew to become far more powerful and influential than the small Church Jesus promised would never die out.
Teaching the traditions of men
Where do most churches get their teachings and practices? Most of their members assume they come from the Bible or from Jesus Christ Himself. But do they? Jesus commanded His apostles to teach others exactly what He had taught—"teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20, NIV). He condemned the replacing of God's commandments with traditions and human reason. Speaking to the Pharisees, He said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:8-9).
Jesus taught that His Church should keep the commandments of God: "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). He warned: "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied [preached] in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:22-23). He knew that false teachers would arise who would reject the commandments of God for a distorted gospel of no law—lawlessness!
Like Jesus, the apostles consistently taught obedience to God. Peter and the other apostles risked their lives to make it clear that "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Paul expressed the same commitment he shared with the other apostles—of a life of obedience. "Through him [Christ] and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5, NIV).
Paul later cautioned members of the congregation in Colosse to hold fast to what he had taught them. "As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught . . ." (Colossians 2:6-7).
Following Christ's example, Paul warned the Colossians not to accept traditions as replacements for the commandments of God: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8; compare Mark 7:8-9, 13).
Why did Jesus Christ and the apostles sound such urgent warnings to avoid the traditions of men?
Subversion from within the Church
As the apostles strove to establish still more congregations of believers among the nations, a phenomenon arose that eventually produced an alternate and outwardly Christian religion—but one quite different from the Church Jesus and His apostles established.
New and different doctrines were subtly introduced. Some began subverting the Church by challenging and contradicting the teachings of Christ's apostles. Paul warned, "For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain" (Titus 1:10-11).
To counter this trend, Paul instructed fellow elder Titus to carefully consider the background, knowledge and character of anyone being considered for ordination: "Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless . . . He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (verses 7, 9, NIV).
Increasingly, "false apostles" began contradicting and undermining the teachings of the true apostles of Christ. Paul cautioned the church in Rome: "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise in what is good and guileless in what is evil" (Romans 16:17-19, NRSV).
Competing religious leaders, masquerading as ministers of Christ, began teaching their own false doctrines "in opposition to" Christ's apostles and other of his faithful servants. At first they came predominantly from a Jewish background. But then false teachers emerged from people of other backgrounds within the Church. The subversive doctrines that eventually grew to be the most influential were a blend of pagan and misguided Jewish philosophies synthesized with the mysticism popular at that time.
Simon the Sorcerer was one such false teacher mentioned early in the Scriptures. After his baptism by Philip, Simon attempted to buy the office of apostle from Peter, hoping to obtain the power to grant others the Holy Spirit. Motivated by his greed for power and influence, he faked conversion to appear Christian (Acts 8:9-23). Later historical sources indicate that he blended various elements of paganism and mysticism into a counterfeit-Christian philosophy.
A dangerous trend was established. Soon "false apostles," "false teachers" and "false brethren" abounded.
A counterfeit Christianity was born.
A different gospel gains ground
The impact of distorted teachings devastated the early Church. For example, Christians in the Roman province of Galatia turned en masse from the teachings of the apostle Paul and to a corrupted, cunningly devised but counterfeit gospel promoted by these false apostles.
Paul described the approach they used and the effect the false teachers had on Christians in Galatia: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-7). The brethren in that area were being swept into one of the many sects making up the emerging false Christianity. Paul had to contend with religious strife generated by Jewish and gentile elements in the Galatian congregations.
These cunning pretenders did not reject outright the gospel Paul taught. They simply perverted aspects of it. Then they seduced the Galatian Christians into accepting their gospel—a deadly mixture of truth and error. It contained enough truth to appear righteous and Christian, but it contained sufficient error to prevent any who would accept it from receiving salvation.
Notice Paul's blistering condemnation of that "different" gospel: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" (verses 8-9).
A gospel of no law
Jesus warned His apostles this would happen: "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:11-12). Jesus explained that lawlessness, the key element in the message of the false teachers, would make their ideas appealing and popular. Disregard for God's law would finally become the foundation of a popular and successful counterfeit Christianity.
The false prophets devised their message and doctrines by verbally acknowledging Jesus as "Lord" while refusing to obey Him (Luke 6:46). Jesus Himself warned of their deceitful, cunning approach: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15).
Jesus made it clear that teachers of lawlessness, who outwardly appear as innocent sheep performing devoutly religious acts, are not His apostles or servants: "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (verses 22-23).
God's law: the religious battleground
Controversy over God's law erupted within the Church as soon as the first gentiles (non-Israelites) were converted. Certain Jewish believers wanted to force circumcision and other physical requirements on the gentiles. They demanded that gentile converts be physically circumcised to receive salvation (Acts 15:1).
The apostles refused. They pointed out that even Moses had taught that the circumcision that made one acceptable to God was a matter of the heart (Deuteronomy 30:6; compare with Romans 2:29 and Colossians 2:11-12). Also, God had declared Abraham to be righteous in His sight before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). Therefore, they explained, physical circumcision should not be regarded as a requirement for the gentiles' salvation (Acts 15:2, 5-10). For further proof, Peter noted that God had recently given the Holy Spirit to several gentiles without their being circumcised, demonstrating His will in the matter (verse 8; Acts 11:1-4, 15-18).
The same Jews also demanded that gentiles observe the temple ceremonies and rituals that pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The apostles insisted that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins through the grace of God (Hebrews 7:26-27).
The temple sacrifices and rituals were only temporary institutions until the sacrifice of the real "Lamb of God" (John 1:29). The apostles taught that they were no longer required (Acts 15:11; Hebrews 9:1-15) because they were "concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10).
But the apostles never regarded God's spiritual laws, summarized by the Ten Commandments, as being in the same category with "fleshly ordinances." They always supported obedience to God's commandments. Paul made this clear: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters" (1 Corinthians 7:19). He concluded: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31).
Distorted view of God's grace
Just as Jesus had foretold, unscrupulous teachers pounced on the teachings of Paul and the other apostles and twisted their meaning (2 Peter 3:15-16). By distorting the apostles' words, first about grace and then about those "fleshly ordinances" that are no longer necessary, they discovered a way to excuse their unlawful behavior. "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness [shameful behavior] and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4).
To them, grace excused sin—the breaking of God's law—by allowing them to disregard scriptural teachings they did not like. They twisted Paul's explanation that we cannot earn salvation with our own "works" into an excuse for making no effort to obey God.
Peter pinpointed their real problem. They "despise authority": "They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries . . ." (2 Peter 2:10). A dominant characteristic of these deceivers was their eagerness to verbally attack and undermine the apostles and elders who were the true shepherds of God's flock.
As a consequence, said Peter, "they have forsaken the right way and gone astray . . ." (verse 15). "For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption . . ." (verses 18-19).
Now a problem even more sinister developed among the scattered congregations of God's people. False teachers, instead of trying to impose more law on gentiles, began exploiting God's mercy—the grace of God—to advocate the idea that Christians have been liberated from the law and no longer need to obey it. However, God says transgressing His law is sin (1 John 3:4).
These teachers misrepresented God's law as an unnecessary burden. John responded: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).
Contrary to the idea of being liberated from law, James calls God's commandments a "royal law" and the "law of liberty" (James 2:8-12). God designed His law to guarantee freedom from the consequences of such evils as adultery, murder, theft, fraud and covetousness.
It is sin, not God's law, that enslaves us (Romans 6:6). We become free from the enslavement to sin by obeying God (verse 17). Paul explains that obedience and righteousness are inseparable. "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Romans 2:13, NIV).
Satan the devil: master deceiver
Those who promoted these lawless principles were influenced by Satan. Paul said: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
Satan hates God's law. He is a master deceiver. Naturally, he will spare no effort to infiltrate the Church Christ founded.
To accomplish his purpose, Satan uses people to mislead other people. It is easy for him to influence human beings who desire to teach others when they are motivated by personal ambition. This is especially true if they lack a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Satan simply takes advantage of their desire to be spiritual teachers. He seduces susceptible individuals to pay lip service to Christ while creating their own new sets of doctrines and ignoring or disobeying portions of God's laws.
Paul told Timothy to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine" and have a "pure heart," "good conscience" and "sincere faith, . . . from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1 Timothy 1:3, 6-7). Sincere but misguided religious leaders can and do accept doctrines that permit them to break some of God's commandments. Then they persuade others to believe as they do. Sadly, through the devil's influence, they convince themselves that their misguided concepts are righteous—that God is pleased with them. They believe the false doctrines they teach. Although sincere, they are sincerely mistaken.
Paul says, "The coming of the lawless one [a future teacher who will advocate doctrines contrary to God's laws] is according to the working of Satan . . . with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11). Probably none of the misguided teachers perceives he is in reality advocating Satan's point of view.
However, by creating a counterfeit-Christian religion—one that is not entirely different from the true Church but rejects some of the essential biblical teachings that lead to eternal life—Satan is attempting to thwart God's plan for the salvation of mankind. Remember, Jesus says, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). That is exactly what the devil wants to prevent.
He promotes a lawless Christianity that teaches we can selectively obey—or even ignore—God's commandments.
Lawlessness in varying degrees is the centerpiece of Satan's counterfeit doctrines. His purpose is to convince people that they are serving Christ while cutting them off from salvation by clouding their understanding of what sin is so they will continue in sin—so they will practice at least some degree of lawlessness.
To accomplish his purpose, Satan exploits human nature. He sways people to believe his deceptions (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9). Satan retains just enough truth in his doctrines to persuade people they are following Christ. But he introduces sufficient error to prevent them from living the way that would ultimately lead to eternal life.
Why disobedience appeals to human nature
Satan is successful in deceiving humanity for good reason. The apostle Paul explains that the natural mind of man—the mind that is not guided by God's Spirit—cannot always see the purpose behind God's laws. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Most people are not overtly hostile toward many of God's laws. They usually recognize that deeds such as murder and theft are wrong. However, they are hostile—perhaps without recognizing their innate hostility—toward laws that challenge their own personal, natural way of thinking. In that sense lawlessness appeals to people. Paul explains why disobedience can appeal to our baser instincts: ". . . The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Romans 8:7). The carnal, or fleshly, mind not only lacks spiritual discernment, it resents God's authority as expressed in His laws. The New International Version translates this verse: ". . . The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."
We call this sinful tendency human nature—a combination of human weakness and acquired attitudes resulting from Satan's influence on people. Satan exploits human nature. He uses his false teachers to convince other people that they are "liberated" from the laws of God, thus excusing their tendency to be hostile toward God's laws. So, rather than abandoning a life of lawlessness, those led astray by this deception continue in sin. Thinking their disobedient actions are permissible to God, they fail to recognize, at least in some of their beliefs and behavior, the gravity of their sinful actions.
But the apostle James makes it clear that this approach and attitude to God's royal law are entirely wrong. "For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). The context shows James is speaking of the Ten Commandments (verses 8-9, 11). God's fundamental law is made up of 10 points, and He requires us to observe them all—in letter and spirit.
A falling away from truth begins
Christ praised the church in Ephesus for refusing to follow false apostles who tried to take advantage of their human nature and seduce them. "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2).
But not everyone in every congregation followed the example of the church in Ephesus. Many accepted the teachings of the false apostles and reverted to sinning. That is why Peter wrote: "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Peter 2:20-21).
People began turning away from the teachings of Christ's true apostles. They accepted the philosophies of false teachers. Peter had explicitly warned that this would occur. He said false teachers would arise "among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed" (2 Peter 2:1-2).
Peter anticipated that not just a few—but many—Christians would turn aside from the truth to follow doctrines that were more appealing to the carnal mind. Later John confirms this happened. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us" (1 John 2:19).
Barnabas and Saul (later renamed Paul) encountered a false prophet determined to turn people away from the truth. "Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus . . . But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith" (Acts 13:6-8).
On other occasions the problem lay with false brethren (Galatians 2:4). Paul referred to his trials "in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren" (2 Corinthians 11:26).
These false Christians had not become a genuine threat just to Paul's safety and effectiveness, but they had also become a significant part of the visible Christian community. Some may have finally gone out from God's special people but continued calling themselves Christian. Others became members of new and supposedly liberated sects that retained the name Christian. Still others probably remained in the fellowship of true believers and over time subverted congregations to their own heretical teachings.
A false Christianity was beginning to take a firm hold.
True Christians forced out of congregations
As the teachings of false ministers gained in popularity, their followers gradually grew to be the majority in some congregations. The apostle John records one such tragic example: "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church" (3 John 9-10).
Incredible as it sounds, those who were faithful to the teaching of the apostles were expelled from this congregation. They had become the minority. The majority had chosen to follow Diotrephes, who, in his own lust for power and influence, falsely accused the apostle John. Satan had succeeded in placing his minister over this congregation, expelling the faithful servants of Jesus Christ.
Remember, Jesus had already warned His true servants that this would happen: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:13-15).
He also said: "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:6-8, NIV). Now we can understand why Paul explained to Christians in Rome the appropriate response to those who were stirring up division within the Church. "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).
Counterfeit Christianity dominates
By the end of the third century the true servants of God had become a distinct minority among those who called themselves Christians. The counterfeit Christianity had become the majority.
False teachers had successfully gained a far larger following than the faithful ministers of God. However, history shows the counterfeit sects were not united in their beliefs. Many factions existed among them.
Nevertheless, divided and unconverted as it was, this new brand of Christianity rapidly expanded its membership and became the visible Christian church. Purporting to offer salvation, but without the necessity of real repentance, it held just enough truth to appeal to the masses.
In spite of its faults, it appeared to offer a hope unequaled by any pagan religion at that time. None of the pagan religions offered a believable way for people to receive forgiveness of sins and obtain eternal life. This new religion seemed to offer just that. Little did its followers realize that its promises, without real repentance, were made in vain.
By the end of the third century this counterfeit Christianity was a squabbling, bitterly divided religion. But at the beginning of the fourth century two things happened that abruptly altered the course of Christian history. First, the Roman emperor Diocletian intensified the policy of many previous Roman emperors of persecuting Christians and ordered that all Christian manuscripts be burned. This dramatically renewed a climate of fear throughout the Christian community.
Ten years later another emperor, Constantine, came to power. He had defeated another powerful contender for the right to replace Diocletian as emperor, but he still had many enemies, and his political position remained insecure. In all the empire, only Christians were unaligned politically. Constantine immediately saw an opportunity to use this formerly persecuted and politically alienated religious body to strengthen his hold on the empire.
First he legalized Christianity. Then, only two years later, he called all the divided professing-Christian groups together to hammer out a unified system of belief. He wanted a united religious body that was politically committed to him.
To achieve this, Constantine presided over doctrinal deliberations and dictated statements of belief whenever disagreements could not be resolved amicably. He soon successfully molded the bickering groups of counterfeit Christians who were willing to accept state control into a strong and unified vassal of the Roman Empire. Williston Walker, former professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale University, tells us that, in 323, "Constantine was at last the sole ruler of the Roman world. The church was everywhere free from persecution . . . But, in winning its freedom from its enemies, it had come largely under the control of the occupant of the Roman imperial throne. A fateful union with the state had begun" (A History of the Christian Church, 1946, p. 111).
A religion transformed through syncretism
As this new religion—now supported by the Roman emperors—grew in power and influence, it sought to become a truly universal church. In its ambition to add more members, many new converts—and many new practices—were welcomed into its fold.
Charles Guignebert, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Paris, described the process: "Now at the beginning of the fifth century, the ignorant and the semi-Christians thronged into the Church in numbers . . . They had forgotten none of their pagan customs . . . The bishops of that period had to content themselves with redressing, as best they could, and in experimental fashion, the shocking malformations of the Christian faith which they perceived around them . . .
"[Properly instructing converts] was out of the question; they had to be content with teaching them no more than the symbol of baptism and then baptizing them en masse, postponing until a later date the task of eradicating their superstitions, which they preserved intact . . . This 'later date' never arrived, and the Church adapted to herself, as well as she could, them and their customs and beliefs. On their side, they were content to dress up their paganism in a Christian cloak" (The Early History of Christianity, 1927, p. 208-210, emphasis added throughout).
What was the result? This state-dominated Christianity became a bizarre synthesis of beliefs, practices and customs from many sources.
As Guignebert explained: "It is sometimes very difficult to tell exactly from which pagan rite a particular Christian rite is derived, but it remains certain that the spirit of pagan ritualism became impressed upon Christianity, to such an extent that at last the whole of it might be found distributed through its ceremonies" (p. 121).
In those early centuries the counterfeit Christianity that the apostles of Jesus Christ had fought so hard to contain grew in size and popularity. In later centuries this religion would fragment repeatedly into competing denominations. Tragically, however, none completely returned to the original practices and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. This fact is recognized by many modern biblical scholars. (See "Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law," p. 44.)
Meanwhile, those who, through these many centuries, have faithfully continued to yield their lives to God in sincere obedience to His laws are still, comparatively speaking, only a "little flock" in a confused world.
Very true. I find it telling that so much corruption was evident even in biblical times.
How about this: The Disagreement in Asia.
Jesus kept the Passover; The Apostles kept the Passover; Paul kept the Passover; John, the last living Apostle taught his Disciples to keep the Passover(lines 2,3 and 4).
All of a sudden Rome is saying the Passover is "Kaput"! Easter is the "Real Deal"? Everyone knows where Easter came from....right down the Babylonian Boulevard.
"Everyone" knows no such thing.
As Eusebius says, the disciples of John followed the Quartodeciman observance of celebrating Easter on Passover. But they were the only ones who did so. The rest of the Roman world around 150 A.D. or so was keeping the feast of Easter on Sunday. Also, it's not like one group was keeping the Jewish feast, while the other was the Christian. They were *both* keeping the Christian feast of Easter, just on different days.
Moreover, even if you were right that the Quartodeciman observance was the original one, note very carefully that Irenaeus (whom Eusebius quotes) says that this difference was not a matter of one branch apostasizing into paganism, but of two competing traditions, over which the Churches agreed to disagree:
"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.”...If you are right that the Easter observers apostasized, then tell me, exactly why did the observers of Passover agree to stay in communion with the corrupted pagan Babylonians?16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. 17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”
1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.1687 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Here's the note for 1687:
The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.
Note that there IS such a thing as a "Christian Passover" (not a Jewish Passover), it was celebrated by the apostles John and Philip ON the day that God commanded Passover to be celebrated.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Next:
The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day. It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal. As Schaff says: “The gist of the paschal controversy was whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire festival.” The former practice emphasized Christ’s death; the latter his resurrection.
Now this last point is important. Emphasized his death:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
No doubt this ONLY occurred on Passsover, to emphasize his death.
Now it should be clear from these statements that the Roman church was practicing something CONTRARY to what God commanded and to what the original disciples practiced.
Moreover, even if you were right that the Quartodeciman observance was the original one, note very carefully that Irenaeus (whom Eusebius quotes) says that this difference was not a matter of one branch apostasizing into paganism, but of two competing traditions, over which the Churches agreed to disagree:
If you are right that the Easter observers apostasized, then tell me, exactly why did the observers of Passover agree to stay in communion with the corrupted pagan Babylonians?
103 posted on 07/11/2006 6:49:13 AM MDT by Claud
Lev 23:5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover. Lev 23:6 'Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.The Quartodeciman observance was the original one.
b'shem Y'shua
Quartodecimanism ("fourteenism", derived from Latin) refers to the practice of fixing the celebration of Passover for Christians on the fourteenth day of Nisan in the Old Testament's Hebrew Calendar (for example Lev 23:5, in Latin "quarta decima"). This was the original method of fixing the date of the Passover, which is to be a "perpetual ordinance"[1].
See the Holy Word of G-d Lev 23:4 'These are the appointed times of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them.
It is not clear at all. As Eusebius makes clear, it wasn't just the "Roman" church. Only the Johannines in Asia Minor were Quartodeciman; the whole rest of the world was on Sunday.
And my question to Diego stands, if this was such an apostate practice, why did the Johannines not *refuse* Communion with the Roman Church? If Easter Sunday is apostasy, then the disciples of John were gladly keeping company with apostates.
Do you know something they do not?
However, what we should be careful about saying is that the Roman practice was evidence of apostasy and/or defiance of the OT ordinances. As Eusebius makes explicitly clear, the people who kept the Passover date nevertheless kept communion with everyone else and did not condemn them for their beliefs. They agreed to disagree and did not consider the other side to be apostates.
One can have one's own preference, but by condemning the Sunday Easter as apostasy, one departs drastically from the actual practice of the Johannine Quartodecimans.
You know....I don't think the early Church, once it came to understand the mission, wanted to excommunicate anyone. I think that developed later as a "Scare Tactic", but not in the Churches of the East.
There is nothing Biblical....or Christian about Easter. On the other hand, Passover is Biblical....being celebrated in both Testaments.....by the people of God.
Well, excommunication actually goes back to the beginning; we see the essentials in Matthew 18:17 for example: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"
There is nothing Biblical....or Christian about Easter. On the other hand, Passover is Biblical
Hmmm... we are apparently not on the same plane in terms of what we each mean by "Easter", so let me ask you this. What is it you, specifically, find objectionable about the feast? Aside from the Sunday/Passover date that is, which we've already covered. Just what do those Christians that celebrate Easter do that is objectionable?
That's the whole point. The original church of God celebrated a Christian Passover on Nisan 14 according to God's commandment and the example of Christ. Shortly thereafter, corruption began to creep in. I don't know what form of relations took forth between the two but the issue itself caused a HUGE (or HUGH in freepspeak) controversy that it still talked about and studied to this day. Those who apostasized would have done well to heed Paul's advice:
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
They celebrate an event (with no Biblical authority) that has taken the place of a "Festival of The Lord" that He established to be celebrated forever in all our generations.
You are making an assumption for which there is scant historical evidence one way or another. How do you *know* that the "original church" universally celebrated Passover always on Nisan 14 as the Jews did. We know that in the 150s or so, John's disciples did, and we know that Romans and everybody else did not. We don't know what the situation was in Rome previous to that--the Sunday feast may well go back to Peter. There isn't evidence one way or the other.
And yes, it caused a HUGH controversy, but the Quartodecimans did *not* call the Romans apostates or corrupters of Apostolic tradition. So I'm still not clear why *we* should call them that.
There significant biblical and historical evidence that the early church kept God's feast days, including Passover.
1. The only "official" scriputures they had were the books of the old testament. These books commanded them to observe the days God created, as they had been for centuries.
2. There is no indication that the incarnate Jesus Christ ever taught that observation of God's holy days, including Passover, were not to be done. In fact, Jesus Christ himself observed the days.
3. There is no indication in the new testatment that the early church stopped observing, or understood, that these holy days were not to be observed. To the contrary, there are numerous references to God's holy days, including Passover, in the new testament.
4. There is no controversy chronicled in the new testament having to do with changing the observance of these holy days. In contrast, the decision about whether or not gentiles were to be circumcised caused a (HUGH) controversy that was recorded and required a church council to decide. No such thing was done about whether to observe the days that God created holy and told his children to observe.
Putting all these together, it's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that yes indeed, the early church did celebrate God's holy days, including Passover, and that later on this was changed.
Correct. As Jews, they would probably have celebrated the Passover on 14 Nisan. Christ never (that we know) taught otherwise. And there is no evidence that the Church caused these days not to be observed
But the Christian feast of Easter *is* Passover, only perfected and fulfilled. In Latin and Greek, the name for Easter is Pascha, from Hebrew Pesach. Despite the English derivation of the word, the feast itself was no pagan holiday; the Church (the Apostles?) simply moved the Jewish feast to a Sunday.
God established the cannon of scripture, the church, (small c) recognized it.
Just because you discover something does not mean you empowered it in anyway.
-Oh look I found a Bottle with a Geni in it. I declair it has power only because I found it.- ???
And how, pray, does the feast of Easter *not* keep that event?
Are you a Messianic Jew? I ask because it will influence how I respond to your statements.
Im sorry for you who can only be a staint by declairation of your sect.
I have been a declaired a Priest, a Prince, and an Ambasodor by God my Father, and Jesus My Brother.
Jesus made me DECLOS. Righteous, beyound my comprehension.
Jesus made me powerful in His blood with His Authority in heavenly places.
I am so glad that there are some Christians in the Catholic Church. I encourage them to step forward boldly and take spiritual authority over the evil spirits in their midst and bind them as Jesus taught.
To deal with the rest of the spirit of your post.
The RCC does not recognize the strong and powerful works of Christians that have been out side Catholosism for 2000 years.
History does not make a Christian. Jesus does.
After you have thrown the engine out of the car; who long do you praise those people that buy that car and just sit in it?
But nevertheless the Church (large "C") had to declare what was "in" and what was "out". And did so.
But the Protestants have declared that some things were "out" after the fact -- coincidentally, those books of scripture that contradict such matters as prayers for the dead, etc. Luther wanted to throw out the letter of James as well, IIRC, but decided against it.
So who correctly recognized what God established, and by what authority? If you respond that "the Holy Spirit" told MY authority that IT was right -- anybody can claim that (including those loons in the Episcopal church), and what makes one person's claim any more valid than anothers?)
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.