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.
You wrote: "Did Y'shua celebrate Easter ?"
Yes, He did. Jesus most certainly celebrated His resurrection. Easter is not a pagan holiday for Christians anymore than pants are a pagan thing because no self-respecting Jew ever wore them in the ancient world and only pagans did. Even the PROTESTANT translators of the KJV knew this and used the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
"Of cause not. It is a Pagan feast.
Did Y'shua celebrate Passover ?
of cause He did ; He commanded it.( Leviticus 23:5)"
But we are Christians and no Christ denying Jew would celebrate the resurrection of Christ. We celebrate Christ's resurrection. In English and German speaking countries that day is called Easter. It is a happenstance of language. If we lived in France or Poland or Russia and called it the Pacha you would have no argument at all. You are dependent upon the long forgotten import of a word that no one uses in the way you assume. You argument is laughable.
"Was it not to celebrate one of His commanded Feasts i.e. Passover?"
No. The Eucharist is not part of Passover. Don't believe me? Ask a Jew: "Do you pass out bread and wine and call it Christ's body and blood?"
"Or have you superseded the Holy Word of G-d with a Tradition of man?"
No. I just am not a foolish Judaizer who has forgotten that you were defeated by Christ's Church in the time of the Apostles. I am an orthodox Christian. You're just a wannabe.
Call me what you want I guess, but I'm not a member of any protestant organization and I don't invest enough authority in the Catholic church to even think that a reformation of it is or was the answer to religious woes.
I also wouldn't say that I'm sola scriptura. I definitely recognize that Christ taught that teachers were needed:
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But I also recognize that there are false teachers:
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
The proper response to false teachers is an appeal to the authority of scripture:
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
So call it what you will, I guess.
v998>Yes, He did. Jesus most certainly celebrated His resurrection
It occurs on the day following the Shabbat following Passover. Someone could confuse it with Sunday. It is when the best of the harvest is offered to the L-rd. It is the day Y'shua rose to be the First-fruits offering to His Father for the rest of mankind. It also begins a period of the counting of the Omer. The feast is Shavuot: the day the Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Shavuot is a mandatory Feast for all Torah believing Jews to be in Jerusalem. Y'shua's disciples were gathered as commanded when the Ru'ach HaKodesh descended on them. How do you read the description of the feast of First-fruits in Leviticus 23: 15-16 ?
b'shem Y'shua
This will end after seven weeks and a day or fifty days ( Pentecost in the LXX ).
You wrote: "Call me what you want I guess, but I'm not a member of any protestant organization and I don't invest enough authority in the Catholic church to even think that a reformation of it is or was the answer to religious woes."
I'll call you what you are: Protestant. Words and their meanings matter.
"I also wouldn't say that I'm sola scriptura. I definitely recognize that Christ taught that teachers were needed:...But I also recognize that there are false teachers:"
But you're one of them. If you don't stand with orthodoxy then you aren't orthodox.
"The proper response to false teachers is an appeal to the authority of scripture:"
The proper response to all error in all things is truth. The Church is called the pillar and bulwark of the truth by St. Paul. The Church is the proper guardian and interpreter of the scripture -- not you.
"So call it what you will, I guess."
You guess. Gee, you have to guess when you have the Bible?
You wrote: "How do you read the description of the feast of First-fruits in Leviticus 23: 15-16 ?"
It doesn't matter how I read it. I am not a Jew, and Jewish feasts are no longer operative since the old Mosaic law has no hold on Christians. Ever hear of the New Testament?
"It occurs on the day following the Shabbat following Passover."
Not at issue here.
"Someone could confuse it with Sunday."
You're the only one confusing things here. Not me.
"It is when the best of the harvest is offered to the L-rd."
Duh!
"It is the day Y'shua rose to be the First-fruits offering to His Father for the rest of mankind.It also begins a period of the counting of the Omer.
This will end after seven weeks and a day or fifty days ( Pentecost in the LXX ). The feast is Shavuot: the day the Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Shavuot is a mandatory Feast for all Torah believing Jews to be in Jerusalem.Y'shua's disciples were gathered as commanded when the Ru'ach HaKodesh descended on them."
Great. All irrelevant to what we're discussing here, but great. I asked you for evidence that pagan teachings were incorporated into Church teachings. Do you have that evidence with supporting documentation yet? I think you don't. Am I right?
Okay, whatever.
But you're one of them. If you don't stand with orthodoxy then you aren't orthodox.
Okay, whatever. I guess.
The proper response to all error in all things is truth. The Church is called the pillar and bulwark of the truth by St. Paul.
Says you:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
I believe God is the pillar and ground of truth and I believe that's exactly what Paul was saying.
The Church is the proper guardian and interpreter of the scripture -- not you
I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth.
You guess. Gee, you have to guess when you have the Bible?
lol. Good one.
Abba
Father,
King of the universe
I pray, send your Ruach HaKodesh
to breath on the soul of vladimir998
and remove the scales from his eyes that prevent him from seeing all
the Holy Word of G-d.
Breathe on vladimir998 and draw him nearer to you.
I pray that if it be your will have him come to know your Son
I ask these things in the
Holy Name of Your Son
The Word of G-d:
B’Shem Y’shua haMashiach
Amain and amain
You wrote: "I believe God is the pillar and ground of truth and I believe that's exactly what Paul was saying."
But that wasn't what he was saying. Read the passage YOU posted again:
1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
The CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD is the pillar and ground of the truth. The Church. That's what St. Paul says.
"I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth."
And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to get it right. Trust Christ then.
Xenia,
God did breathe on me. That's why I can actually write GOD. G-O-D. God. I know God well enough that I can actually spell out God.
I pray that one day you will come to know God well enough that you won't be afraid to write out God.
Although I personally believe him to be speaking of God, there is a variety of opinion on the subject. I don't have a problem at all with the the church of the living God being the pillar and ground of the truth. What I don't believe is that the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is the church of the living God being spoken of.
"I never claimed to be. Fortunately I put my faith in Jesus Christ and his spirit to lead me to truth." And He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to get it right. Trust Christ then.
By definition, that's true. Anyone who has God's spirit is a member of his church and is led into the truth.
You wrote: "Although I personally believe him to be speaking of God, there is a variety of opinion on the subject."
Oh, please. Post the variety of opinion (from reputable scholars and commentators please).
"I don't have a problem at all with the the church of the living God being the pillar and ground of the truth."
Wow, you actually have no problem agreeing with the inspired word of God?
"What I don't believe is that the organization known as the Roman Catholic church is the church of the living God being spoken of."
Okay, that's a completely ahistorical view, but we'll put it aside for the moment. The point here is that St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth and you can barely bring yourself to believe it is true. That's a problem for anyone who claims to be a Christian.
"By definition, that's true. Anyone who has God's spirit is a member of his church and is led into the truth."
Your understanding of such things is incomplete to say the least. Protestants disagree on basic doctrines. ALL Protestants. Doesn't that imply that no Protestant, or at leats few Protestants, by your definition, could be a member of the Church or have God's spirit in them or have been led to the truth?
Notwithstanding your rather sarcastic objections, there is surely a diversity of opinion among scholars as to the meaning of the phrase.
From Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible:
The pillar and ground of the truth - Never was there a greater variety of opinions on any portion of the sacred Scripture than has been on this and the following verse. Commentators and critics have given senses and meanings till there is no meaning to be seen. It would be almost impossible, after reading all that has been said on this passage, for any man to make up his own mind. To what, or to whom, does the pillar and ground of the truth refer?
1. Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, etc., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Gal_2:9.
2. Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of God; and that ï̔ò åóôé, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to Èåïò, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, Who Is (ï̔ò åóôé) the pillar and ground of the truth. How God may be fitly termed the pillar and ground of truth, requires no explanation.
3. Others think that the words should be understood of the Church of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative ç̔ôéò åóôé, which is, must be repeated immediately after åêêëçóéá, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; Which (Church) Is the pillar and ground of the truth. That is: The full revelation of GodÂ’s truth is in the Christian Church. The great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure. Formerly the truth was but partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and comparatively dark prophecies; but now all is plain, and the full revelation given; and the foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the incarnation, miracles, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit.
4. Lastly, others refer the whole to ôï ôçò åõóåâåéáò ìõóôçñéïÃ, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favored by the arrangement of the words in the original.
From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
The pillar and ground of the truth - There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that “the church” is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh. Bloomfield remarks on this: “It is surprising that any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the latter method.” The more natural interpretation certainly is, to refer it to the former; and this is supported by the consideration that it would then fall in with the object of the apostle. His design here seems to be, to impress Timothy with a deep sense of the importance of correct conduct in relation to the church; of the responsibility of those who presided over it; and of the necessity of care and caution in the selection of proper officers.
From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:
the pillar and ground of the truth--evidently predicated of the Church, not of "the mystery of godliness" (an interpretation not started till the sixteenth century; so BENGEL); for after two weighty predicates, "pillar and ground," and these substantives, the third, a much weaker one, and that an adjective, "confessedly," or "without controversy great," would not come. "Pillar" is so used metaphorically of the three apostles on whom principally the Jewish Christian Church depended (Gal_2:9; compare Rev_3:12). The Church is "the pillar of the truth," as the continued existence (historically) of the truth rests on it; for it supports and preserves the word of truth. He who is of the truth belongs by the very fact to the Church. Christ is the alone ground of the truth in the highest sense (1Co_3:11). The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Eph_2:20; Rev_21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. But the truth as it is in itself is to be distinguished from the truth as it is acknowledged in the world. In the former sense it needs no pillar, but supports itself; in the latter sense, it needs the Church as its pillar, that is, its supporter and preserver [BAUMGARTEN]. The importance of Timothy's commission is set forth by reminding him of the excellence of "the house" in which he serves; and this in opposition to the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1Ti_4:1). The Church is to be the stay of the truth and its conserver for the world, and God's instrument for securing its continuance on earth, in opposition to those heresies (Mat_16:18; Mat_28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part. Rome falsely claims the promise for herself. But it is not historical descent that constitutes a Church, but this only, to those heresies (Mat_16:18; Mat_28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the intermediate; the "ground," or "basement" (similar to "foundation," 2Ti_2:19), the final support of the building [ALFORD]. It is no objection that, having called the Church before "the house of God," he now calls it the "pillar"; for the literal word "Church" immediately precedes the new metaphors: so the Church, or congregation of believers, which before was regarded as the habitation of God, is now, from a different point of view, regarded as the pillar upholding the truth.
Not really. It matters very little as to whether or not God is the pillar or bulwark, or his church is. It's practically the same thing to those believe that God's church isn't an organization, like the Roman Catholic church, but instead is a called out body of believers whose members transcend manmade institutions.
Your understanding of such things is incomplete to say the least. Protestants disagree on basic doctrines. ALL Protestants. Doesn't that imply that no Protestant, or at leats few Protestants, by your definition, could be a member of the Church or have God's spirit in them or have been led to the truth?
I've told you, despite your attempt to label me as such, I'm not a protestant. I agree that protestanism in general is in confusion. but it's my belief that a great number of people will eventually be led to the truth. Most of this will occur during the great tribulation:
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
and later at the great white throne judgement:
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
You're merely proving my point. I am sure Protestants disagree to the tenth degree on what the plain words of scripture mean. Duh!
The TEXT OF SCRIPTURE says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth so, of course, Protestants have dozens of different opinions many of which deny the obvious. It is in the best (earthly) interests of Protestants to deny any and all scripture which ever give any authority to the church except in the most general and least enforcible ways.
Look at the sources you quoted, for instance. The usual cut and paste CD commentaries. Wow, thanks for stretching yourself by looking at an ancient source! LOL! Did you even try?
You wrote: "Not really. It matters very little as to whether or not God is the pillar or bulwark, or his church is."
What? Only someone who ignores reality could say something like that. If THE Church happens to differ from your sect then it matters a great deal if we're talking about the Church or God here. That point should be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone.
"It's practically the same thing to those believe that God's church isn't an organization, like the Roman Catholic church, but instead is a called out body of believers whose members transcend manmade institutions."
Your paragraph is built upon a whole series of assumptions:
Assumption 1: God's church wouldn't be an organization. Really? It was in the NT so why wouldn't it be now?
Assumption 2: The Catholic Church (and please note the correct name) is like any other religious organization. Really? How many nearly 2,000 year old Christian "organizations do you know?
Assumption 3: The Catholic Church is manmade. Really? In reality here's no logical reason to think it is manmade. Manmade institutions rarely if ever last 2,000 years.
Assumption 4: The Catholic Church as an organization with human members cannot transcend "manmade institutions" or time and space. Really? That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly the Church transcends all manmade institutions already. Nothing compares to it whatsoever. Also, you tacitly assume that an organization with human members cannot transcend time and space. It can when it is founded by God.
“I've told you, despite your attempt to label me as such, I'm not a protestant.”
I have made no effort whatsoever to label you. YOU ARE A PROTESTANT. To acknowledge the truth of that requires no effort on my part whatsoever.
“I agree that protestanism in general is in confusion. but it's my belief that a great number of people will eventually be led to the truth. Most of this will occur during the great tribulation…and later at the great white throne judgement”
I think many people are continuously being led to the truth. The truth, however, is only part shown and known in Protestantism.
Oh boy. You asked for commentaries that showed that there were disputes about the verse because you didn't believe that there was. I posted, not one, but three sources from reputable biblical commentaries (and there are many more)and then your response is to belittle me and my sources.
I'm done with you so feel free to get in the last word.
“Oh boy. You asked for commentaries that showed that there were disputes about the verse because you didn't believe that there was.”
No. This is exactly what I asked for: “Post the variety of opinion (from reputable scholars and commentators please).”
You didn’t post anything from reputable sources. Adam Clarke? Robert Jamieson? Albert Barnes? Notice, all of these are Protestant sources from more than a century ago. All three go out of there way to avoid anything even remotely Catholic sounding in their interpretations. How reputable could that be? The fact that these men are so commonly used among Protestants does not make them reputable. How about the Early Church Fathers?
“I posted, not one, but three sources from reputable biblical commentaries (and there are many more)and then your response is to belittle me and my sources.”
Because your sources are not that reputable. They are merely sectarian.
“I'm done with you so feel free to get in the last word.”
Yeah, you’re done alright.
Do you have evidence from BEFORE the Protestant Revolution of the sixteenth century that the Church was NOT commonly viewed as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
If you're under the impression that what he posted is anything other than aberrance and heresy when one is talking about the Christian faith, you would be doing yourself a major favor by getting up to "discernment" speed HERE.
5,250 words that I agree with completely. Great post, Douglas. You may find it interesting that I came to many of these same conclusions through independent study.
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.