The Church Jesus Built - Introduction

"I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Jesus Christ proclaimed, almost 2,000 years ago, "I will build My church." He declared that His Church would never die out, promising that "the gates of Hades [the grave] shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).

As we will see in the pages that follow, the institution to which Jesus referred was not an earthly building or a mere physical organization. Rather, the Church was and remains the called-out assembly of Christ's spiritually transformed and faithful followers.

Jesus assured His disciples that He would guide and preserve His Church until His return, promising them, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

What happened to the Church Jesus built? An eyewitness tells us that immediately after Christ ascended into heaven following His resurrection, His apostles "went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). The Church had a powerful beginning.

Millions of people profess Christianity; they claim to be members of the Church Jesus founded. But Christianity is a divided religion, comprising hundreds of denominations and schisms. Through the centuries, most of Christianity's branches have assimilated many non biblical traditions—philosophical, cultural and religious—into their teachings and practices, spawning even more variations.

How can we account for the explosion of contradictory practices and conflicting factions in the world of Christianity? Is it possible to reconcile competing denominational groups with the standards and objectives Christ established for His Church? Can we know whether Christianity's bewildering variety of customs and teachings faithfully represents those of Jesus Christ? Remember, Jesus not only promised He would build His Church, but He assured His disciples that His Church would not perish. Is the divided Christianity we see around us that Church? Only the Holy Scriptures can provide a reliable answer to this question.

If Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail" against His Church should be considered a guarantee that those who believe on His name could never be misled or corrupted, then we would have every reason to accept the collective sum of the various divisions of Christianity as the Church Jesus built.

But He guaranteed no such thing. Instead, He warned His disciples that "false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Mark 13:22, emphasis added throughout).

Later the apostle Paul expressed his concern to Christians in his day that their minds could be "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by the preaching of "false apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:3 , 13).

Jesus spoke even more plainly, explaining that "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. You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:14-16).

In these pages we examine the fruits Jesus and His apostles said would identify His Church. We look at the contrasting fruits that identify those who are influenced by a different spirit and preach a different gospel. We will learn, not from human tradition or opinion but directly from God's Word, how we can distinguish "the church of the living God" (1 Timothy 3:15) from those who follow "false prophets" in sheep's clothing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For clarity throughout this booklet, the word Church (with a capital C ) refers to the faithful Church that Jesus Christ founded. The word church (with a small c ) refers to local groups of believers or other physical organizations. Since church is not capitalized in the Bible translations quoted, all scriptural quotations—whether referring to the Body of Christ or a local congregation—use church with a small c.

We see the Lords day worship in Acts “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread,” in the very earliest known Church writing, the Didache, in St. Justin Martyr’s 1st Apology and thereafter. There’s never a time we don’t see it.

The notion that Paul would directly contradict a teaching AND practice of Jesus Christ is not correct.

1Co 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

Now this would surely be nonsense if Paul did NOT imitate Christ in keeping the sabbath day holy AND worshipping on the very same day that his Lord and Savior worshipped on. It would make Paul either a liar or an idiot.

Paul was accused of many things by the jews, but he was never charged for having people worship on the wrong day. When falsely accused on another matter he said:

Act 24:13 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.
Act 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

Is Paul lying again? He told many people that he BELIEVED all things which were written in law and the prophets, which would include worship and rest on the sabbath.

Act 28:17 And it came to pass after three days that Paul called the leaders of the Jews together. So when they had come together, he said to them: "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans,

This time Paul goes even further. He did NOTHING against the customs, or traditions, of their fathers. So in 1st Corinthians 11 when he said to "keep the traditions as he delivered them" he was talking about sabbath rest and worship or again...he was lying to save his own skin.

So with all that it's impossible to believe that Acts 20:7 is describing Paul going against the Law and Prophets, going against tradition, going against the 4th commandment and going against his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It didn't happen.

I don’t recognize your authority in what Paul says or does that contradicts Christ’s teaching. I don’t see anything in your post other than your opinion on that Paul could not have done that which he and the Church in fact did: come together on the Lord’s Day to worship the breaking of the bread, celebrating the Holy Eucharist. As Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Now this is new to Jews. It was instituted by Christ just before His death. However, since it was not part of the Jews practice, you would deny it for Christians as well.

Paul does not.

With all due respect, that is absolutely not true. The Synod, was not a council because it was only a local council attended by about 30 bishops and not called by the Pope. Among its declarations was a "canon" or declaration that Christians were to no longer observe both the Jewish (Saturday) Sabbath and the Christian (Sunday) Sabbath.

I'm sorry if I used the wrong term. Many Catholic sources use the term "council" and not synod. But the point remains that at least as late as this there were plenty of Christians observing the sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ. Or is it your point that this synod wasn't binding on Catholicism so that it was okay to to observe the sabbath of the Lord?

Besides, canon 16 of that same synod seems to contradict your statement:

CANON XVI.

THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.

So it appears there was some sort of worship service on the Sabbath...at least scripture were being read.

Again remember this was over 300 years AFTER the death of Christ. Traditional Christianity still apparently had not fully separated themselves as of yet from the sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don’t recognize your authority in what Paul says or does that contradicts Christ’s teaching

Good because i have no authority. However, Jesus Christ, our Lord, savior and head of the church does. And he says:

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
Gen 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

And he says something here too:

Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, Exo 20:10 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.
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

And still here:

Lev 23:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: 'The feasts of the LORD, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, these are My feasts.
Lev 23:3 'Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work on it; it is the Sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Jesus Christ directly commands his followers to gather together in a religious worship AND rest on His sabbath day.

One more:

Mar 2:27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath."

Jesus Christ, the creator of His holy sabbath, says that His holy sabbath was created for the benefit of mankind and that he, the head of the Christian church, is LORD of that very same sabbath.

THIS, the authority of Jesus Christ, is what should be accepted. When his authoritative and final statement on the sabbath is made then you'll be able to see that the traditional interpretation of Acts 20:7 is blasphemous and heretical.

“Obviously such things as sabbath and biblical holy day observance didn’t cut the mustard in the Bible...”

Fixed your quote for you. For some reason it said “didn’t cut mustard with Rome and the Protestants” instead of the Bible, which is the correct wording. Your war is with the scripture, not with any particular group.

The sabbath, and religious holy days were only a shadow, an imperfect symbol of Christ who was to come. We are not bound to watching any days, nor should we be wary of being judged by the likes of strange religious groups or modern day Judaizers who judge us on the matter.

Gal 4:9-11 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? (10) Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. (11) I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

This covers all the festivals, jubilees, all of the Holy days that you claim we are supposed to be observing. It has always fascinated me how cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or other groups always put so much emphasis on these things, but yet are utterly devoid of any desire for the deeper spiritual truths that are the treasures of God.

Rom 14:1-7 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. (4) Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. (7) For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

I’ll regard not the day, and I’ll thank God for it. You go and regard it, and if you think it will save you, when you wake up in hell, you can cry out and say “But I kept the holy days!”

Must we therefore be circumcised also?

Not for salvation since the first gentiles received the holy spirit without it.

Christians are not the same as Jews. I think this is at the root of your problems with the Lord’s Day.
Sabbatarians tend to identify with what were called Judaizers. Christianity split from Judaism, and it was not a friendly parting, St. Paul was right in the middle of it.

Paul was certainly a follower of his Lord and savior Jesus Christ. The position you're espousing would mean that he was a liar when he spoke multiple times of how he followed Christ, tradition and scripture.

There was certainly a parting of traditional Christianity away from Judaism, but there was also a parting from the clear and direct teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his disciples. This parting was due to anti-Jewish sentiment in the Roman empire due to a series of Jewish revolts against Rome. These revolts and the resultant anti-semitism caused some who called themselves Christians to STOP observing biblical practices for fear of being persecuted.

Col 2:16-17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
The sabbath, and religious holy days were only a shadow, an imperfect symbol of Christ who was to come. We are not bound to watching any days, nor should we be wary of being judged by the likes of strange religious groups or modern day Judaizers who judge us on the matter.

The interpretation you're repeating is based on revisionist history of a people who had rejected scriptural precepts.

Under this interpretation it's supposed that the sabbaths and holy days of the Lord are somehow done away with because the messiah incarnated and died as a sacrifice. Nowhere is this stated in scripture. In fact, a careful reading of Colossians 2, in context, shows this to be false:

Col 2:4 Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words.

The controversy in Colossians has to do with "persuasive words" not what is written in scripture such as the Lord's sabbath and holy days.

Col 2:8 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.

The controversy has to do with "philosophy" and "empty deceit". The words of the Lord, in scripture, are neither.

The controversy has to do with "tradition of men" and "basic principles of the world". The sabbath of the Lord is NOT a tradition of men. It's a commandment to obey and observe his holy sabbath by the creator of the universe.

Col 2:18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

The controversy has to do with "false humility" and angel worship, none of which are Godly or sanctioned by God.

Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—
Col 2:21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
Col 2:22 which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

The holy days and the sabbath or the Lord ARE commandments and doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

In context the controversy here isn't whether or NOT to observe the holy days and the sabbaths, but rather to not let anyone else judge us in HOW we observe them. There were some, likely a sect of Judaism, who were trying to tell the new formerly gentile Christians HOW to observe the holy days of the Lord. They weren't doing it right according to these folks.

Actually it doesn't since the greek or hebrew word for the feast days and the sabbaths of the Lord Jesus Christ are never mentioned. When scripture refers to these days it ALWAYS uses specific words to designate them. Those words are not used here which is why translators don't use the same English words. And the holy days created by the Lord Jesus Christ are not and would not have been designated as "weak and beggarly" by anyone who knew the Lord as Paul did.

If so what an insult to our Lord and master Jesus Christ. What hubris! What arrogance to call Holy days created and ordained by our Lord as "weak and beggarly". But of course that's not what Paul is talking about which is why those words aren't used.

You've quoted enough of this chapter to see a pattern here. There's more verses...I would suggest reading all of Romans 14.

When you do you can see the emphasis isn't on holy days at all. Instead the emphasis is on eating and drinking practices. The biggest controversy on eating and drinking in Paul's time was whether or not Christians should eat otherwise clean meat that had been sacrificed to idols and then purchased in the marketplace. Some couldn't eat the meat because it violated their conscious...they would eat only vegetables. The "days" being "esteemed" (and this isn't the word for "worship" or holy day observance) were likely the days that pagans were known to sell their sacrificed meat in the market.

“Nowhere is this stated in scripture.”

It says quite clearly that they are a “shadow” of things to come, and only meet reality in Christ Himself. I’m not sure how you can call the plain wording of the scripture a ‘revision of history.’ Can you tell me at what point in history that the meaning of the words “a shadow of things to come” mean the opposite of what they do today? Maybe the “shadow” 2,000 years ago actually meant “the substance or body of a thing,” and the body, which is Christ, is the real shadow all along (or so you would have us believe).

Instead of talking so much and projecting your revisionist tendencies on others, you should read the scripture as it is plainly written.

“The controversy has to do with “tradition of men” and “basic principles of the world”. The sabbath of the Lord is NOT a tradition of men.”

You have no idea what you are talking about. Read it directly:

Paul directly identifies the sabbath and other holy days as SHADOWS of Christ who was to come. His condemnation is of traditions which cling to the holy days which, by the revelation of Jesus Christ and His fulfillment of the scriptures, have been undone by the perfect reality of Christ. Why should we follow holy days, when Paul tells us not to, because those holy days were mere prophecies and types pointing to Christ directly, which have been fulfilled? Now that Christ is here, there is no reason to go back to those things which are imperfect. Read the scripture directly, instead of making lame arguments that ignore the context and direct wording of the scripture.

“Actually it doesn’t since the greek or hebrew word for the feast days and the sabbaths of the Lord Jesus Christ are never mentioned. “

Here are the Holy days being listed as Days and Months, and not specifically:

Num 10:10 Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God.

Num 28:11 And in the beginnings of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without spot;

Thus Paul echoes the same language of the ancient scriptures, when he discusses “days, and months, and times, and years.” The times and years The “times” would refer generically to all festivals, such as the Passover, and years to the Jubilee or Sabbatical year.

Makes me wonder, though, if you are following ALL the festivals and solemn days listed in the Bible. Probably not. Whatever the case, whether you promote a few or all, they don’t have the slightest effect on your salvation.

“When you do you can see the emphasis isn’t on holy days at all. Instead the emphasis is on eating and drinking practices.”

Actually, what you see is no particular emphasis of one over the other, as both are touched on and your position utterly refuted. In fact, even if one was emphasized, the definitive statements on the matter rule your position out, even if Paul was more concerned with dietary laws, or if he was more concerned with holy days. The reality, of course, is that both are emphasized at the same time. After speaking of foods for two verses, he moves on to days for two verses, and then he repeats again on both foods and days in the same verse:

6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

All such topics, of course, are covered by the very first verse which says “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Thus, arguing over holy days or foods are all “doubtful disputations.” In fact, the conclusion is that they matter not one bit, whether you follow them or not, as the motive behind following or not following is the only thing that matters, as expressed in verse six. Mind you, those who dispute over food and holy day matters are weak in the faith, as the reality is that it has no effect on your salvation.

“The “days” being “esteemed” (and this isn’t the word for “worship” or holy day observance) were likely the days that pagans”

There is no distinction in the holy days mentioned, and, in fact, it was the Jewish converts to Christianity who most often harped against the Gentile converts for their not following the Jewish traditional laws.

Gal 2:12-16 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

All of the Apostles “lived as the gentiles do,” which directly means they did not regard the dietary laws or the holy laws, as reconfirmed in Romans 14 and all the other scriptures I have shown.

Therefore, it is illogical it would be the pagan days mentioned, since Paul elsewhere refers to “days” and then mentions the Sabbath directly, as seen in the other posts wherein I refuted your points. Most of Romans is concerned with showing both Jew and Gentile as being guilty under the law, and therefore salvation cannot be through keeping the Old Testament law (not the pagan law) but through faith alone. In fact, faith itself is the gift of God, given by the sovereign grace of God who predestinates whom He will according to His own good purpose.

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.

Introduction: The Church Jesus Built