Posted on 01/08/2008 8:47:38 AM PST by DouglasKC
The Council of Laodicea
by DouglasKC
When examining some of the doctrines that the church of God holds, we should understand how and why traditional Christianity has veered away from these doctrines which we hold to be biblical and truthful.
In most cases this departure from the truth wasn't a sudden thing. Rather, it was a slow “evolution” of religious thought caused by subtle changes in culture, society or the traditional church. Because it was such a slow process these changes can sometimes be hard to pinpoint.
But there are tools we can use to track and study these changes.
Some of the tools we can use are of course the bible and associated reference works such as concordances and dictionaries. Another tool we can use is history. Sometimes the writings of what the traditional church calls “church fathers” can give us glimpses into the state of Christianity at the time of their writing. But there are also a number of writings having to do with early church meetings, or councils. Just as our church has “councils”...or a gathering of elders to decide issues, so too did the early Roman Catholic church.
One such church meeting occurred approximately three hundred and thirty years after the death of Christ, around the year 360 AD. At that time representatives from approximately thirty churches in Asia Minor, an area where approximately modern Turkey lies today, met to decide issues important to the church. This probably included some of the churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 such as Ephesus and the Laodicean church. In fact, this meeting was held in Laodicea and so is known in history as the Council of Laodicea.
Three hundred and thirty years AFTER the death of Christ they met. Let me put three hundred and thirty years into perspective. Three hundred and thirty years ago today it was the year 1677. It was only about thirty years after the end of the protestant reformation, the great split from the Roman Catholic church from which many of the modern day Protestant churches trace their roots America as a nation would not exist for over a hundred years more. Three hundred and thirty years ago it was a VERY different world.
And three hundred and thirty years years after the death of Christ it was also a very different world. Forty years earlier Christianity had officially decided not to observe Passover. Christianity itself had only become legal in the Roman empire approximately fifty years earlier. Due to Jewish revolts against Rome and the perception that Jews had killed Christ anti-Jewish attitudes and prejudice were common.
So what is important about the council of Laodicea? It's important because this is a historical document, an historical event, that we can point to and see where the 7th day Sabbath rest was officially banned.
Because out of the council of Laodecea there came sixty resolutions, or canons, that the churches agreed to abide by.
One of these was canon number twenty-nine. It reads:
CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
I want to break this down into sections, beginning with the first section:
“CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.”
That's an amazing statement considering the following scripture:
Exd 20:8-10: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
So the consensus reached at Laodicea was in direct contradiction to the word of God, one of the ten commandments. God tells us to rest on his sabbath. Man tells us to work.
Now some may say that this is only prohibiting “resting” as Pharasitical Jews do...with all the rules and regulations of sabbath observance that were burdensome and unscriptural. But that notion is disproved by the next section:
“rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.”
Instead Christians are told that they MUST honor the Lord's day, Sunday, by resting if they can INSTEAD of resting on the sabbath. If the issue was HOW they rested, then resting as “Christians” on the sabbath should have been allowed. But it wasn't. Sunday became the “official” day of rest.
“But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Notice that if anyone DOES observe the biblical sabbath then they are classified as Judaizers and “anathema” from Christ. Just what does “anathema” mean? Here's a pretty good definition when used in a religious sense:
Anathema: (Gr.: a curse, suspension). The spiritual suspension with which the church may expel a person from her community for various reasons, especially denial of the faith or other mortal sins. The church also may proclaim an anathema against the enemies of the faith, such as heretics and traitors.
So if you wanted to observe the biblical sabbath rest, you were basically kicked out of the “church”. You were considered a heretic and a Judaizer.
There were a couple of other canons that came out of this council that are interesting in the information they convey:
Canon 16 - THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures
This is interesting because even though Christians were told to work on the sabbath, it was apparently still considered appropriate to hold some type of church service or at LEAST to read the scriptures.
Canon 49 - DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.
Again it would seem okay to include the sabbath as a religious observance. Some scholars believe this was because it was considered appropriate in the church at this time to celebrate Saturday as a “feast of creation”, a remembrance of the creation.
So what can we conclude? If we can read between the lines there's some good information that can be gleaned from these canons.
First, this proves that three hundred and thirty years, over three centuries, after the death of Christ that many Christians STILL observed the 7th day sabbath rest. If they did not, there would have been no need to make a rule prohibiting it. So it certainly wasn't normal in biblical times to observe a Sunday “rest” as some traditions would tell us.
Second, Christians who believed in observing God's sabbath rest were NOT considered “Christians” after this point of time. The Church of God begins to drop out of “official” church history. The official Christian church caused the church of God to become outlaws. Outside of the mainstream. Heretics. Not much has changed has it?
Third, the traditional church recognized THE sabbath of God as THE SABBATH. They carefully differentiated it from Sunday, the Lord's day. They didn't call Sunday “the sabbath”.
And last, it seemed that it was normal to at least perform some type of worship on the sabbath. Or at least it was normal to go to religious observances on both Sunday and the Sabbath.
I want to close with a quote from Michael Crichton in his book “Timeline”. It reads:
“If you don't know history, you don't know anything. You're like a leaf that doesn't know it's part of a tree.”
It is vitally important to have a knowledge of history. It is instrumental for deepening our faith, defending the church and for bringing others to the truth.
Wow...that sounds horrible.
Thanks for posting that sister.
It's certainly clear that "The House of Yahweh &Yisrayl Hawkins" were/are far from Christian.
It's a good thing to pray for them and I will pray that these poor people do leave this organization.
Councils are often called to clarify belief in response to heresy, not make belief out of the cloth. The First Council of Constatninople met in 381 AD in response to the heresy of Arianism, and that of the "Macedonian" (the group, not the ethnicity). By denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, you are, in effect, neo-Macedonian.
What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean?
Of what "Roman church" was Constantine the "first pontiff"? Keep in mind that Constantine, although a Christian sympathizer, was technically not a Christian until he was baptized on his deathbed.
Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter".
There are extant, in Greek, sixty canons of a Council of Laodicea. That this assembly was actually held, we have the testimony of Theodoret ("In Coloss.", ii, 18, P.L., LXXXII, 619). There has been much discussion as to the date: some have even thought that the council must have preceded that of Nicaea (325), or at least that of Constantinople (381) It seems safer to consider it as subsequent to the latter. The canons are, undoubtedly, only a resume of an older text, and indeed appear to be derived from two distinct collections. They are of great importance in the history of discipline and liturgy; Protestants have often, but quite without reason, invoke one of them in opposition to the veneration of angels.
They believe that they will lose their salvation if they leave.
How about you? Do you believe your church is the "one true church" and that you will lose your salvation if you leave the UCG organization (as long as they continue to embrace their current teachings)?
I'm a little confused by your wording. I'm not "denying the Godhead of the Holy Ghost". I'm denying that the holy spirit is part of the Godhead in heaven. I've cited numerous scriptures (and really just scratched the surface at that) to support that position.
Whatever you call it, "clarifying belief" or whatever, but what the the council did was to formalize their beliefs and then determine that anyone outside of these beliefs was wrong. They established a belief based upon tradition and often, personal and governmental politics.
That's too bad and a symptom of a controlling church.
How about you? Do you believe your church is the "one true church" and that you will lose your salvation if you leave the UCG organization (as long as they continue to embrace their current teachings)?
United isn't the one, true church and doesn't teach that it is.
From fundamental beliefs:
Since it is the indwelling presence of God's Spirit that identifies and unifies God's people (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), the Church is a spiritual organism. Ephesians 2:19-22 describes the Church as a "holy temple." Each individual member is also a "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:19).
Jesus Christ is the living Head of the Church, which is often described as "the body of Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:12; Colossians 1:18). The Bible refers to the entire Body of Christ or an individual congregation as "the church of God," or "churches of God" when referring to more than one congregation.
If United were to disappear tomorrow I wouldn't lose my salvation. It would be impossible since my salvation doesn't depend upon an organization.
No man made, man led organization is the "true church". Not LDS, not Catholic. There are Christians, potential Christians and tares in every organization.
What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean? Of what "Roman church" was Constantine the "first pontiff"? Keep in mind that Constantine, although a Christian sympathizer, was technically not a Christian until he was baptized on his deathbed.
Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter".
23 posted on 01/08/2008 11:59:17 AM MST by Campion
He was a Pontiff Oh, and Constantine never used the word "Easter". He spoke something other that English. The documents state otherwise.What does "first pontiff of the Roman church" mean?
b'SHEM Yah'shua
Pontiff as in Pontifex maximus or the bridge builder between the human world and after world.
and he created the Roman church.
Of cause it is in English translation.
It’s interesting to me anytime the councils are studied. I often wonder, if so many Protestant scholars acknowledge not only that they existed, but also that they were Catholic councils, why is it so difficult to believe the Council that met at Jerusalem in Acts was also a Catholic council? Simply because the word “Catholic” wasn’t used specifically to describe it? To me, that sounds like the lame argument, “Since the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible, it can’t be true”.
The word monotheism isn’t in the Bible either, does that mean “monotheism” isn’t true?
Anyway, it’s interesting to me. A point of curiosity. I’ve never heard anyone explain where the Catholic Church came from (other than some shadowy, if not outright flimsy, connection to Constantine) if one also concedes that the councils throughout history were Catholic. Seems to me it’s not much of a stretch to believe during the time of Christian persecution via Rome, most evidence of Catholicity has been destroyed, as that was just a given fact at the time, and thus not as important to preserve as the Scriptures themselves.
I guess Constantine is as good a scapegoat as any though; even though he had little to do with Catholicism, practically speaking; I’ve never seen any evidence that shows he did at least. So we have this Catholic Church/Roman Empire conglomerate just popping out of no where in the 4th Century, even though there’s scant historical evidence for that other than, perhaps, the most ironic twist of historical fact of all time: the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. How that “proves” that the Church was started by him is beyond me though.
That’s what “Herbert “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible” Armstrong taught. LOL
Oh and as far as the “Church changing the Sabbath”, a common SDA/offshoot thereof argument, there are many ways to address such, however, the brass tacks, main point is that this shows, historically, that Christians respected both the power AND authority of the Church, not the “Bible” (sola scriptura) to determine doctrine and/or rules of Christian living.
Unless one wants to posit the existence of some “underground church”, thoroughly invisible throughout history, one must reach this conclusion: The early Christians behaved pretty much like the Catholics and Orthodox do today, they believed the Church to be the primary means by which the Holy Spirit teaches, and instructs the believer.
Too bad those early believers didn’t have Ellen G. White, et. al. to lead them to the truth; oh well, I guess they deserve to be in Hell for being born at the wrong time in history. < /sarc >
Peter has Mark write down that Yah'shua said
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! The LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD;(Deut 6:4)
By the way ... I meant to mention this, too. Are you aware that your Armstrong-spin-off group (UCG) is moving back to their roots in Texas? Yes, here is the latest letter to the Elders of that dwindling membership in case you haven’t seen it yet:
January 4, 2008
Dear Fellow Elders,
I am pleased to announce that earlier today the United Church of God, an International Association became the owner of 81 acres of land located just north of Denton, Texas. This is the first step in the fulfillment of the GCE resolution passed eight months ago to relocate from Ohio to Texas.
The Council of Elders approved going ahead with the purchase in November. The location and price of the land was exceptional, and with other offers on the seller’s table it was reasonable to conclude that not only would the property probably not be available at a later date, but that the price would go up.
Here are some of the key details on this purchase:
· The property is 81.5 acres, virtually all of it suitable for potential development.
· It cost $1,599,784, or $19,610 per acre. This is even less than we expected. In the presentations made to the Council and General Conference of Elders last February and March, we noted that the average cost of properties that we looked at in our original search in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex was around $40,000 per acre.
· It is located on the south side of FM 3163 (Milam Road), just east of Milam Ridge Road, Denton, Texas, one-half mile east of Interstate 35 (visible from the freeway), approximately 3 miles north of loop 288 and 7.5 miles from downtown Denton.
· The property is outside of the Denton city limits (which simplifies the development process somewhat), with vacant land to the north, east and south, and a small subdivision adjoining to the west. The land is on a hill, with the terrain gently sloping to the south toward a creek that crosses the southern edge of the property.
Over one year has transpired since the relocation idea was originally presented to the Council, and many people have worked hard in the interim to make this possible. Much work lies ahead. Purchasing land is only the first in a long series of steps that will need to be taken before a move can actually occur. It will take several months to design the buildings, to finalize the engineering, to obtain construction approvals, to contract with a developer, etc. But now we can start moving forward to work on putting these pieces in place.
A letter will soon be sent to all members, giving more information to everyone about the relocation. Also, as I wrote to you earlier in a separate message, we will be holding regional meetings for all elders in the United States to address this and other related manpower issues. We do hope all of you will be able to attend.
I could add much to this letter but will save some things for a later time. It is appropriate to close, however, by reminding us of scriptures that were used in the original presentation almost a year ago.
Isaiah 29:14 is a dramatic declaration of God’s intent and power, which we believe will be mightily exhibited in the end times: “Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder.”
If anything has been a recent witness to God’s power to open doors, it was the media blitz over the “Christians Who Don’t Keep Christmas” article and the spin-off coverage over the last three weeks. We did nothing of our own power to plan for or generate that. It was undoubtedly worth hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars in exposurethere is no way we can calculate what it would have cost us to have bought our way into such prominent media outlets around the world! We truly have only a little strength. But this served as a witness to the world of God’s truthand a powerful witness to the Church of the authority of the One who “opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens,” to “set before you an open door” (Revelation 3:7-8)!
Is there any among us who doubts that God has more marvelous works to be done among this people at the end of the age? As great as it was, the media attention over Christmas was really just a small inkling of what could potentially thrust the gospel into the limelight. Knowing that, and expecting God to open more doors in the future, we must muster our little strength and maintain 100-percent commitment to the work He has given us to do in preaching the gospel to the world, preparing the next generation in the Church, training new men for the pastoral ministry, and every other challenge that lies before us.
As we were reminded by the theme of the last General Conference of Elders meeting, “unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it” (Psalm 127:1). Above all things, please join with me in diligently, fervently and humbly seeking His blessing and guidance in all things pertaining to His house, the Church of God!
Sincerely, Clyde Kilough
COMMENT (Note “Herbie” reference is to Herbert W. Armstrong):
” The whole thing sounds like a Herbie letter. Can’t wait for the plea for money. I think Kilough had to squeeze Gawd in there somewhere, and over exaggerated(or, I should say, over regurgitated). The move to Gawd’s Country is compared to Isa. 29:14. Then he says that there was a “power” that generated millions of dollars in exposure(their god of course is in the money business). Of course, let’s stay “humble” and inform the dumb sheep that “we” have a LITTLE strength, and use Herbie’s old church era doctrine that “we” are the Sillydelphians by using that old ploy of “open and shut doors”(after all, “we” have to scratch those itching ears!). I just love the next part: “Is there any among us who doubts that God has blah, blah, blah”? Does he think anyone in his cult is going to come forth and tell him that they doubt that God is in the UCG BUSINESS of forcing money out of people? This is nothing but propaganda to make the sheeple think that since the Christmas crap was just an “inkling” of what could “potentially” throw the “gospel” into the limelight, “just think what we could do if we had more money!”. He doesn’t have to say it(although he will eventually), just read between the lines, “We must muster our little strength and maintain 100-percent committment to the WORK”. How much clearer can it be than to come right out and say, “Send in those tithes and offerings, brethren.”? Now let’s close with another scripture. “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it”. Did he forget about the MOTHER cult in which he was hatched, and his mentor??? The only difference from this manipulative letter and Herbie’s is that Clyde didn’t close with “In Jesus’ Name”. Hmmm. Well, at least he’s “sincere”. Gag!” ~ Steve (ex-WCG cult member)
I would venture to guess that nearly all members are aware of this...although it's not a done deal yet. United is growing and it's the opinion of some that we need to stay ahead of growth by expanding our broadcasting, publishing and training capabilities in a more centralized manner. It's the opinion of others that the current facilities are fine and we should expand there.
The issue was put up for vote last year to the general conference of elders, which includes paid and unpaid ministry. Most congregations have a local unpaid elder/minister and a paid elder/minister that may oversee 1 to 3 local congregations.
The vote passed, but it was very close. Many felt it was too close to make such a big move. It's actually going to be put back on the ballot again at this years conference on whether to relocate or not...so a move isn't a done deal yet.
As far as the "editorial" written by "Steve", it's obvious from his cynical and sarcastic tone that he had a bad experience in Worldwide Church of God. It's too bad that he's still apparently hurting so much. United is light years ahead of Worldwide as far as organization goes. United recognized that there was a problem in how Worldwide was administered and they certainly didn't attempt to duplicate that system. From "A Brief History of United":
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on its Web site: www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm.
I was never in Worldwide, but I have read many letters from those days. I would agree with Steve that the focus of many of them did seem to be pretty concerned with raising funds. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but it did seem "uneven". I think that it may have even been part of the reason why God allowed the Worldwide Church of God to fail. Thankfully United doesn't seem nearly as focused on fundraising for the home office...the tithes and offerings are freewill and tithing to the local congregation is also an option.
I think if it ever did get to those same levels of urgency and coercion than I would probably start looking for a new church. But as I said, United has instituted many controls that seem to be preventing such abuses. And by the way, I would say that Armstrong wasn't responsible for most of these abuses. It seems like the lack of checks and balances in the organization sometimes allowed power hungry individuals to do what they do best.
If you need any more information about United you're welcome to go the website or even to ask me. I'm fairly well informed about what's going on in the organization and my information will probably be more accurate and up to date than "Steve's".
Better re-read that letter.
He certainly held that title, but it was as head of the (pagan) Roman state religion.
The Roman state religion became Catholic Christianity under Theodosius the Great, almost 100 years later.
That's historical fact, Chuck. I'm sorry you want to persist in believing a fairytale, but that's what it is.
and he created the Roman church.
Really? And to what church was Paul's Epistle to the Romans written? And to what church, 50 years later, was Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Romans written? And over what Church did Pope St. Clement rule at the end of the first century? And of what church did Irenaeus of Lyons, who died 110 years before Constantine assumed the throne, write this:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, 416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.And to the bishop church did St. Cyprian of Carthage, who died more than 50 years before Constantine assumed the throne, write this in AD 253:3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place fromthe apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles ...
Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church.
The Council of Nicaea was conducted in Greek. The original text of the decrees is in Greek. The word for the holiday whose date they were trying to fix is Pascha. That was the only word Constantine ever would have used or known for it.
Errata: “And to the bishop church” should read “And to the bishop of which church”.
I need to apologize and clarify my comment. I didn’t mean to lump orthodox yet aberrant groups like (trinitarian) messianic Jews with heretical groups like the JWs and WWCOG splinter groups like the United Church of God which deny the orthodox formulation on the Trinity. Not all restorationists are heretics. Those which accept the early church councils’ pronouncements on the nature of the Godhead are far removed from modern cults which deny the councils.
I apologize for seeming to lump them all together.
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
___________________________________________________
And thus we get mormonism.....
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.