What is Christianity? Do you know "the way?"

* This is a work in progress, so dates/names may need correction. Forgive my inaccuracies and I'll do likewise.

There are many "denominations" which identify with this name. Yet, what is "Christianity?"

To begin with, the followers of Jesus and His Disciples didn't teach "Christianity" -- they taught what was known as "The Way".

Aside from some problems that were quickly resolved, "The Way" was universal. Doctrine was the same from one community to the next.

The Apostles, who traveled the world, took up students and trained them in "The Way" over a period of time. As usual, they laid hands on these men as they did with Matthias, Judas' successor.

Many of what is now known as books of the New Testament had not been written. Instead, the Apostles had orally instructed the communities. The men studing under the Apostles were especially knowledgable of the teachings of the Apostles. They had to know it word for word, concept for concept, doctrine for doctrine, otherwise the Apostles could not depend on them to teach and lead in their stead.

Since the Apostles and their students taught in many lands, "The Way" was universal in doctrine and faith. The authority of the Apostles, and the authoirty of their students was known and respected. To hear the students speak on the faith was to hear the Apostles speak, which was to hear Christ speak.

This pattern continued after the death of the Apostles, with the students selecting and laying hands on new students. If problems arose in a community these leaders, students of the Apostles, resolved the issue. Nobody in a community would [openly] challenge their authority or ruling once they had spoken.

The collection of "New Testament" scripture had not been completely assembled. Not one single person had the complete collection. When the writings were available, the student's of the Apostles utilized them in their work.

As time went and the faith grew, "the way" was called "universal" and the name stuck. After all, the faith was the same all over the globe -- universal in doctrine and faith.

The "universal" faith had a good idea of what was the New Testament scripture was. The "universal" way collected many different lists of what was considered to be inspired writings, and they eventually decided on what we now recognize (for the most part) as the new testament.

What is so interesting about the "universal way" is the following beliefs: (Please reply with corrections!)

* Authority of the Apostles and their successors: There wasn't a NT bible to speak of, so one simply couldn't look up a verse to solve a problem. The Authority was in fact, the Apostles, and later, student's of the Apostles. Later, their writings (Scripture) would also prove to be authoritative.

* Universality "Catholicity": One faith, one set of doctrine, one structure, one belief, one set of Scripture. Recognized by the apostles/followers as "the way"

* Rejection of Abortion (see the Didache, a first century writing, noting the refusal of the eucharist for those who had an abortion)

* Perpetual Virginity of Mary: St. Jerome brilliantly defended this belief in the later 300's.

* Real Body and Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist: Defended by St. Ignatious of Antioch in 110ad (Bishop of the NT Church of Antioch for those who claim to have the faith of the New Testament Church!)

* Apostolic Succession: This was "the way of the way" and nobody questioned it. Only those who had hands laid on by the Apostles continued to lead the way in the absence of the Apostles.

* Hierarchy of the Church: Bishops recognized by the faithful and the successors of the Apostles

* Recognition of the Successor of Peter: (Later rejected by the "Orthodox" members of the Church.)

* Recognition of the Septuigant canon of Old and New Testament Scripture (392ad)

Eventually, the "universal" label stuck to the way, hence the name "Catholic" to describe the universal church. The term "Chrisitan" was a name given [later?] to describe those who belonged to the universal way.

For the most part, with the exception of minor scisms, the beliefs listed above remained core beliefs of "universal way" up to today.

The claim is made by many that their Church doctrine is Christian, exactly as the doctrines of the early Church.

Yet compare the doctrine of the early church (some listed above) to the doctrines of various denominations (and "nondenominations"), and one will find that they differ to varying degrees -- in many cases, drastically. Instead of holding the doctrines of "the way" they hold doctrines of "another way" or "the other way" [man's way].

The doctrines of "the way" were held constant throughout almost fifteen hundred years. (The Orthodox scism in 1054 only rejected the Papacy and some minor doctrine)The protestant reformation created scisms and doctrines of "they way" were modified or thrown out to varying degrees, yet the doctrine of the "Universal Way" has been constant for almost two thousand years.

What's interesting is that many people who claim to be of "the way" will not recognize Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses as Christians because they have changed, added, or rejected "traditional" doctrine. Yet, these same people have rejected the 2,000 year old doctrines of "the way".

If changing or rejecting doctrines of "the way" is a basis for determining that a denomination/sect isn't "Christian", then this standard has to be applied to the many denominations which claim to be "Christian" also.

To not distinguish the doctrines of "the way" only causes confusion as to what "the Way" actually was and still is. The confusion is so bad, that people think it's ok to cohabitate, have abortions, engage in homosexual "marriage", and so forth. One can always find a church which is supposedly of "the way" which will support thier activity. Yet until the faithful (of all denominations) recognize "the way" and reject "the new way", the world will not hear a clear voice proclaiming the Good News. Instead they'll hear what they want to hear..

In my opinion, it is time to make clear what exactly "the way" is by simply rejecting what isn't "the way" and doing so in a loving yet vocal manner.

When I speak with people and they tell me something which is contrary to "the way" I simply tell them that the belief they stated isn't "Christian" -- and then I explain about "the way". More often than not, their belief originates from the Protestant Reformation, Fundamentalism, "Catholic Sloth", or their own mind -- but not in "the Way"

Also, I do not doubt the hearts or love of God of the believers who believe their church is "Christian". What I doubt is the "other way" doctrine of their denomination/non-denomination. Many of them are good, honest, Christ loving people of faith who have simply been indoctrinated with protestant dogma, aka "other way" doctrine.

Finally, salvation by faith alone is not scriptural. Unless you don't consider the book of James to be scripture.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

When James says "Faith without works is dead" it doesn't mean the works save you, but they are evidence of your faith. Good works are the RESULT of faith and salvation not a pre-requisite for salvation.

That is the beginning of Christianity-- there is more -- ya have to read the rest of the NT!

Do you mean verses like these?

Matthew 23:

7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and

you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have

one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for

you have one Teacher, the Christ.[2] 11The greatest among you will be

your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever

humbles himself will be exalted.

There is no need for you to respond. The point is to get you to THINK. The Holy Bible flatly contradicts a major distinctive of the RC. Here are a few ways you might respond:

1. Attack me, personally

2. Attack that which you perceive to be my theology.

3. Set forth a jesuitical, canned "explanation" as to why the RC is right, and that there is no contradiction.

4. Actually THINK [maybe even pray] about what these verses mean, and whether they are right, or the RC is right.

You assume that he has faith. Considering his filthy works, this is hardly a given

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he does have faith, doesn' that mean that he is saved?

My disbelief of the Protestants position that faith alone is enough goes back to a Protestannt clergyman admitting that, yes, even Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus as his savior. I find that concept impossible to accept.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he does have faith, doesn' that mean that he is saved?

My point is that his claim of faith is incompatible with his obvious and profigate evil works. Faith begets good works. Without them, faith cannot be assumed to exist. This is the message of James in a nutshell.

But since you did ask: yes, if the gay bishop, or Hitler, or even Judas Iscariot-had faith, they would be justified before God. And if pigs had wings, they could fly up to the sky. But alas for pigs, they don't have wings. And there is no evidence that the bishop has wings either.

* Recognition of the Successor of Peter: (Later rejected by the "Orthodox" members of the Church.)

Actually, this isn't quite accurate as the Orthodox do recognize the Bishop of Rome as the "Successor of Peter" but they just don't recognize him as having monarchical powers over the entire church.

If Peter himself had enjoyed such power, there would have been no need for the Council at Jerusalem as described in the book of Acts. Instead, the other Apostles would have asked Peter and he would have given them their orders with no need for discussion, debate, or voting. Also, didn't Paul argue with Peter? How could that have happened if Peter's knowledge and authority were considered absolute?

Clearly, Peter didn't have such authority but he did command a level of respect from the other Apostles. As the Bible shows us in the tale concerning the sons of Zebedee, the other Apostles would not have maintained that respect had Peter ever attempted to assume that sort of authority.

>>I'm not sure where you're getting your info from
Try the Bible!

Info from many sources. As for Acts 11:26, that may in fact dash my timing of when people were called "Christian". However that is still a minor point considering the beliefs the the Christians, which I did outline, including those of the Church of Antioch (belief in the real body & blood of Jesus in the Eucharist).

Thank you for your input as it will help me to revise this essay. :-)

>>Just faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is enough.

Really? Gee, then all the other verses that Jesus spoke about eternal life are meaningless.

Faith is the *beginning* of salvation. Like the thief on the cross, his beginning of salvation was at the end of his life -- hence it was also his end. However, for you and I, we have past that beginning and much more is expected other then to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He explictly told us so in numerous scripture verses.

And, "the way" would not accept your statement -- they knew there was more to it -- like the Eucharist, which the celebrated, for example.

>>The point is to get you to THINK. The Holy Bible flatly contradicts a major distinctive of the RC. Here are a few was you might respond:

One important point in debates such as these is that one scripture verse typically isn't definitive on a issue. Rather, many verses must be introduced which complement or clarify other verses.

The Whole Gospel is a summation of the Gospel. Individual scripture verses are merely fragments of the Whole Gospel.

And the Early Christians knew the Whole Gospel, and their accounts are recorded historically and scripturally.

>> When James says "Faith without works is dead" it doesn't mean the works save you, but they are evidence of your faith. Good works are the RESULT of faith and salvation not a pre-requisite for salvation.>>

This is very close to the Catholic position! Faith and *fruitful* works flow together from grace. But the church does impart grace (or else it wouldn't be charged with its mission). One basic work is to build one's faith! True, this work is itself motivated by a modicum of faith; Works fortify faith by allowing us to experience God, which in turn bears more fruitful works.

The Orthodox do not reject the successors of the Holy Apostle Peter. Indeed we know of five at any given time, two of whom are Orthodox: The Popes of Rome (who were Orthodox until they introduced innovations in the creed and arrogated monarchical 'authority' to their office), the Orthodox Patriarchs of Antioch (where St. Peter was Bishop before he even went to Rome), the Orthodox Popes of Alexandria (where the first Bishop, St. Mark the Evangelist) was consecrated by St. Peter, the Syrian Monophysite (Jacobite) Patriarchs of Antioch, and the Monophysite (Coptic) Popes of Alexandria.

We reject the authority of those of St. Peter's successors who have embraced heresy (whether monophysitism in the case of the last two lines, monothelitism (as in the solitary case of Pope Honorius of Rome), or the filioque, Barlaamism, monarchical ecclesiology and various errors flowing from too heavy a reliance on Blessed Augustine's narrow view of sin in the case of the first.

We also reject the authority of those successors to the other Apostles who have embraced heresy (as, for instance the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, or the Nestorius, likewise a successor to St. Andrew who denied the unity of Christ's person).

Actually, the arguments I make apply to more than the "Roman" Catholic church. There are many splinter groups, some being leftover from schisms, which could claim the same argument (or most of the arguments).

"The way" existed before scripture was complete. To argue otherwise is not a reasonable position. The Church is not a consequence of Scripture -- Scripture is a consequence of the "the way" organizing the writings of the Apostles -- which is a consequence of the influence of the Holy Spirt.

But, thanks for the short reply. Really, it is appreciated.

>>The Orthodox do not reject the successors of the Holy Apostle Peter.

Yes, someone had clarified this. I meant to illustrate the Authority of the successor of Peter (IE, Pope).

>> Indeed we know of five at any given time, two of whom are Orthodox: The Popes of Rome...Jacobite... Coptic..

As I pointed out to another response, much of the case I argue can be made by other historical Churches (Coptics, Orthodox, etc).

>>who were Orthodox until they introduced innovations

Well, it would be proper to say they were Catholic but you believe the were "o"rthodox in belief till they added stuff. Remember, there was only "the way", "christians", and "Catholics" -- "Orthodox" was simply a subset of "Catholics". We were truely all in one boat for a while.

>>We reject the authority of those of St. Peter's successors who have embraced heresy

This is wide open to debate. To claim that the Orthodox Church doesn't embrace Heresy is not true. The most immediate arguement that comes to mind is the PERMISSION of the Orthodox church to DIVORCE and REMARRY multiple times. That in itself can be construed as heretical. We could go over this including the Catholic Anullment in another thread. Believe me, it's too much for this post.

Also, at one point in time the Orthodox believed in the Immaculate Conception. That seems to have theologically faded in some corners. If you talk to one person, you get the impression that the Orthodox still believe this, yet if you talk to another, it's a different story.

>>(whether monophysitism in the case of the last two ..

This requires a new thread!

My disbelief of the Protestants position that faith alone is enough goes back to a Protestannt clergyman admitting that, yes, even Hitler could go to heaven if he accepted Jesus as his savior. I find that concept impossible to accept.

It is, indeed, fortunate that salvation does not depend upon your ability (or willingness) to comprehend what God has said, ... but rather rests upon what God has said.
Matthew 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

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.