Bible, NT-18, Acts-2, Church History
Part 1
LESSON 18
ACTS 2
CHURCH HISTORY
PART 1
By Rev. G. E. Newmyer
INTRODUCTION TO LESSON 18
This lesson will not divulge some secret mystery, but it may show us the division between the Body and Church, or perhaps add something to our hope we may have missed. Each of us heard the calling of God’s prophetic voice, we know Jesus said Many are called, but Few are chosen, yet we are determined to be among the Chosen.
However, the Body of Christ is on this earth, within the Body we find Good fish and Bad, Wheat and Tares, a man’s enemies are of his own household. The term “Church” has become more of a metaphor, or a general term for those of the Body, thus for the sake of clarity we used Church (with a capital C) in reference to the Church which is established on the Rock, and church (with a lower case c) in reference to the Body on earth: the term Body refers to the Body on the earth. This helps keep things in order, thus when we see the terms “church of Jerusalem”, “Western church”, or the “Easter church”, or “church father” we understand they are not The Church, but elements of the Body. Therefore, history is not really a look at the Church, it’s a look at the Body, the same premise we find regarding the seven churches in the Book of Revelation. We don’t want to make the mistake of thinking the History is about the Church, when it’s about the Body (churches).
The history of the Body has some dark spots, yet God always has a people who are spiritual and faithful. It’s clear from history we have seen the wolves move into positions of leadership, in some cases it would appear as if they won a battle, but the war isn’t over until the Judgment. Simply because there appears difficult times, we can use those experiences to shore up leaks in our own foundation. Just as we can use the victories of those who stood in faith as supports for our foundation of belief.
In some cases its obvious the false leaders thought they were doing God a service, they assumed their actions were just and righteous, but history shows they were not. On the other hand the Christ like leaders were humble, faithful and honorable. From this it’s also obvious the biggest enemy of the Body is self-deception, the mother of self-deception is the self. Few have suffered the lustful desire to be the special of the special, higher than the other members of the Body, or have the special element making them think they are more holy, or more righteous than all the others of the Body. On the other hand there are those who remained humble, they heard the voice of the Lord, walked the path of righteousness, thus the Net holds those who make a difference (Jude 22-23). The history will also show us some powerful people who held the testimony of Jesus in the face of adversity. There is a Precious in the history for us, shall we begin.
LESSON 18 – HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
The history of the church is not so much the history of the Church, as it is the history of the Body of Christ relating to the churches. To define the “Church” as the entire grouping of the Rock and Church would be misleading, when Jesus wrote to the seven churches it was to the Rock. From our study in Matthew we recall how Jesus called Peter a piece of the Rock, then said Upon the Rock (massive Rock) He would build His Church (Matt 16:17-18). Jesus did not say, “upon you”, rather it was “upon this”, if Jesus was referring to Peter it would be “you”, not “this”. Paul tells us the Rock is Christ, as in the Body of Christ, or Bread. Jesus gave us the Keys, then defined their use is the power to forgive as we are forgiven (Matt 16:19, 16:24, & 18:22-35). We are Born Again to become spiritual in nature, when we forget the basic premises we tend to transfer our trust in God to people. History shows it happened, but God was not defeated, neither was the Church.
The world sees a small part of the Body, they tend to judge us all based on what they think is error; therefore to judge the Church based on an element of the Body produces confusion. Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail, then why does it appear they have? They haven’t against the Church, but anyone can read the letters to the churches in the Book of Revelation denoting an invasion has taken place (Rev 2:9, 2:13, 2:15, 2:20-23 & 3:16-17). If we understand the Wicked are within, then this is no surprise, rather we see the invasion entered the Rock, not the Church. The gates of hell are methods of division, producing strife and envy. On the same note we see many within the Body who are the Church continuing on the course set before them, there is a Precious to be found.
The history of the Body has both good and bad; unfortunately the bad fish made the headlines, while the good were noted somewhere just above the want adds. The world could care less about the Victories of the saints, they rejoice in the iniquities. History painted by the brush of man seems to ignore the spiritual, yet centers on the natural. History of the Christian written by the Christian gives us clarity to the things of the past, so we can gain from their victories, while we learn from the mistakes.
Jesus began the entire ministry by training disciples, then the disciples became leaders. He never intended for any one disciple to be the only leader, rather He made sure there were leaders (Acts 15). Even to the point of the Holy Ghost assigning people to the Offices (Acts 13:1-3), thus the Holy Ghost made sure we had Offices, not an Office. Whenever we find one leader without the checks and balances, we will also find problems ensuing, in some cases we find a Whacko. Well, what about Paul? Paul wasn’t alone in his ministry, there was Luke and others. Do you think Paul faxed information to Luke? Well, what about Stephen? Stephen was a Deacon, he was under the guidance of the Apostles. Stephen went to Synagogue, where he ended up preaching based on others disputing (Acts 6:9). What about Philip, he went to Samaria alone. He was still under the authority, thus John and Peter came to Samaria to assist him (Acts 8:14). There was one who enjoyed being the only one in an office, Jesus who appointed the twelve, gave one, Judas by name charge over the money affairs of the ministry. Judas was not a Roman, not a Pharisees, not even a member of the Jewish temple guard, he was part of the ministry of Jesus. For some reason we use the term “antichrist” to show anyone who doesn’t like Christians, but the term refers to one who has the opportunity to be Christ Like, but rejects it for the “he in the world”; therefore, we will find antichrist subjects throughout history, but we will also find many more Christ Like people as well.
There were some good men and woman of God throughout history, yet we can’t take those people and put them on some pedestal. When we elevate a figure, other than Jesus, we tend to make them an idol. Those who elevate people above measure rarely say they made an “idol” out of the person, rather they call them heroes, or favorites, or some other pet term, nonetheless if we elevate a person or thing higher than God has, we make it an idol. We can make the glory an idol, the anointing an idol, just as we can make Paul, Peter or John idols. There are some who won’t speak against their favorite anointed person, but they speak evil of others who have the anointing. Why? Their favorites have become idols, once the idol is placed in the mind, it won’t be long before the same mind forms icons.
This is not a lesson on warfare, but we will see warfare in the Body throughout history. When the Romans and Jews were wrecking havoc the Body grew in numbers; however, when the war on the outside stopped, the war within began. Warfare has three areas, 1) opposition, or coming against something; 2) attempting to take something someone else has, or 3) protecting what one has. Spiritual warfare also has three areas, fighting to become spiritual, fighting to remain spiritual, and those who fight the spiritual; for the most part our battle is to remain spiritual.
The Greek word Didache means The Teaching, in 1873 Bryennios discovered a document known as The Teaching Of The Lord To The Gentiles By The Twelve Apostles. There had been other discoveries of like documents, but none had the entire content. Within the document we find the basics of the teaching of the Apostles, showing Two Ways, one to Life, one to Death, they didn’t teach many Ways, only two, with only one of them pointing to Life. James says even the devils believe in One God, thus believing in One God isn’t enough, one must accept the Son of the One God.
Within the Didache there were tests to be applied to those who considered their self a prophet or apostle, the main test was “only if he exhibits the Lord’s Ways”, it wasn’t the Acts coming to pass, but the Ways of the person determining if they were of God. The Way of Life consisted of “Bless those who curse you, Pray for (not against) your enemies, Fast for those who persecute you, For what credit is it, if you love those who love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But you must love those who hate you”. The Way of Death consisted of A double tongue, being greedy, a hypocrite, malicious, arrogant, hating people, being angry, jealous, quarrelsome, hot-tempered, lustful, mingling with astrologers, magicians, or enchanters, giving false testimony, deceitful, persecutors of good people, unbelieving, boastful, or prideful. Then we find, “for if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can”.
History shows there seems to be certain elements appearing just before God brings reform. It seems Corruptness is a primary sign, when Israel fell into corruptness revival followed. Not the corruptness in the world, it’s expected at anytime, but the corruptness within the Net is not. It doesn’t mean we promote corruptness to bring revival, it means we prepare for revival when we see corruptness in the world taking place. Each generation will have revival in some manner, each also has the opportunity to make Godly corrections where they are needed. Revival is to Re-Live, it pertains first to the Body. Revival is exciting, but self-induced revival lasts until the parking lot, usually dying within days. The Galatians faced revival when Paul said, “my little children of whom I travail in birth again” (Gal 4:19). Until we are Revived we will not produce Revival.
Today the Clarity of God is bringing us into the Pure Light of God, we are discerning many things, some good, some bad, but at least we are discerning. After the corruptness in the Body is exposed, the laity begins to seek the Holy Ghost for restoration. When this occurs certain elements of the Mystic oppose the true Charismatic influences. History shows there were Charismatics, they were not termed as such, rather they were wrongly termed “Mystics”. A Mystic is someone who counterfeits the Spiritual, they use the elements of darkness but say they are “light”. Like “card readers”, they listen to devils tell them what people did, then they tell the person all they did, the person joins to the mystic, then the mystic begins to tell the person about “their future”. Just like the damsel who followed Paul and Silas around, there are mystics, but there are also those who hear the Holy Ghost, who follow the principles of being Spiritual. Those who are spiritual tell us what God is doing, the mystic tells us what they want us to do. Very different, indeed. Those in history were called Mystics because they had outward signs which the carnal didn’t understand. One was speaking in unknown tongues, thus the Bible tells us it’s a negative sign to the unbeliever (I Cor 14:22).
In some cases the misuse of spiritual elements caused problems, even in Paul’s day, as the letters to the Corinthians prove. However, it’s no reason to reject spiritual abilities, rather it’s more reason to enter them lawfully. Since we are human and not divine, we tend to enter Charismatic experiences with great emotionalism, with little concern for doctrine; however, most emotionalism being driven by the wild emotions, is usually short lived; whereas enthusiasm is the center of continuing Joy. It’s the out of control emotions producing harm, yet without saved emotions we can’t worship the Lord. God has emotions, if not where would the Joy of the Lord be? If not, where would the wrath of God be? However, God is not run by His emotions, nor does He allow His emotions to dictate His actions. An aspect of the Saving of the Soul is the saving of our emotions, bringing them to the point of being beneficial and useful for praise and worship, lasting well beyond the parking lot.
Jesus told the twelve, “Have I not Chosen twelve of you, and one of you is a devil”. He also told the Pharisees, they were of their father the devil, and the lusts of their father they would do. Two groupings, Judas who was termed a devil, the Pharisees who did the lusts of the devil, yet Jesus never cast the devil out of either. Why? It wasn’t devil possession, but the lusts of the devil, they followed the spirit lusting to envy (old man), they loved the things of darkness, they desired the feeling they obtained by the self-nature. These groups are around today, but knowledge has increased, we have the advantage of knowing more today, thus as the world knows more, we know more (Dan 12:4 & 12:10).
There is the Cloud of God, and the Moves of God. Along with the various moves of God we find four groups of people, these four groups can be seen in the earthly ministry of Jesus, and followed throughout history to our day. Jesus was the central figure of the earthly ministry, thus each move will have Jesus as the central figure. Jesus also had His three, or the core of the those around Him, thus the first group will be a small core of called out ones who lead in the movement. For the most part those whom God uses had no idea they would be used; Martin Luther wanted to be left alone with his new found revelation, “the just live by faith”, but God had other plans. The second group are those who hear, then join the movement, they are akin to the other disciples, excluding Judas. Then we have the third group those who hold the character of Judas, the mind of Balaam, or the Jezebel spirit; however, they are few indeed, but still about. If we continue in faith the bad fish will fall to the wayside. The third group are found in the tent of Achan, those who seek the self-benefit, yet hide it in their tent. They wear a mask of righteousness, but inside the old man still reigns. They tend to use natural reasoning to define spiritual matters, twisting the concepts into self-indulgence.
The fourth group are the carnal religious leaders on the outside of the movement, yet they are nonetheless within the Net. These are leaders, yet being carnal use natural reasoning. Usually they are those who want to see signs condoning to their theology, or thinking. They demand a sign of Christ from those in the movement, but they nonetheless stand on the shore looking at the evidence, while denying it. There will be some from this group who see, believe, and follow as did Nicodemus.
The Cloud of God has three elements, those who hear the Voice and follow, those who wonder if the movement is of God or not, and those who stand back and wonder if God is involved or not. The first group will pick up many things, some good, some not so good; the not so good are cast to the wayside. The second group sees the movement is God motivated, they run to catch up. In the process they will pick up some of the discarded concepts, attempting to make square pegs fit round holes. They will soon cast them off; within time they catch up to the first group. Since the third group never left their self-based tents, they see the cast off pieces, assuming the cast off pieces are the movement. Their envy produces strife, then confusion causing them to send darts of theological abuse after the first group. They assume they are doing God a service, they also assume they are protecting the Body. Wait, if they think they are protecting the Body, why do they attack the Body? They are so self-deceived they presume they are bringing “correction”, yet they use all sorts of deception, tricks and subtle methods. Their reasoning is, “well, I’m not to sure they are of the Body”. So what? Who are we to determine who is, or who is not of the Body? Even the vessels of dishonor are of the Body, if not how could the Body be Broken?
History has its fault seekers, as well as slander speakers who trust in their own intellect and abilities. They tend to use Scripture to interpret the Logos, rather than allow the Logos to define the Scripture. They have a knowledge of God, they have entered the Study Hall of God, but they reject their wilderness experience to know the Ways of God, ending ignorant of God’s Wisdom. The Study Hall is good, but it must be coupled with the Wilderness, or religious pride will be the result.
Around 300 BC the realm of the philosopher opened, it was Daniel who was told “shut up the words, and seal the Book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased” (Dan 12:4). The “time of the end” started with the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus, thus on Pentecost Peter said, “but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord” (Acts 2:16-17). Did Peter say, “which Joel said will soon be”? No, Peter said those days had come, but the End has two elements, the Day and Night. We are of the Day, the time of Salvation, let us rejoice and be glad in it.
The Reform movements all wanted to go back to the Power of the early church; however, our goal is not to go back to what was, but to find the Purpose God has for those who are. If God wanted us to go back, we would be doing the Law of Moses. We want to be ready for the release of whatever God has for us, rather then chase the shadow of things that were.
Eschatology was a vague concept in the early church, due largely to four factors. The last resurrection and coming of Jesus were united in one concept, the early church strongly believed Jesus would return and judge the good and evil after the prophecy “it’s appointed unto all men once to die, then comes the judgment”, at which time the Kingdom would be complete. However, they were also looking at the Book of Revelation, on the surface there were variables which simply didn’t fit with their time. The early church held Five basic tenets of Eschatology; 1) a state of revelation sealed and promised by the Resurrection of Jesus, 2) the resurrection of the body to immorality of the soul, 3) death is a punishment for sin, the first death is appointed to all, but the second death for the unjust, 4) death and immorality are a blessing to the Christian, a state of absolute misery for the unrepentant sinner, and 5) the general judgment after the resurrection, determining the fate of all men. With this the Nicene Creed stated, “He shall come again, with Glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end”, and “And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”. This latter statement opened all sorts of opinions, none of which had more than three verses to support it. Looking further back to the first generation of disciples we find James the Less said, “His second glorious and awful appearing, when He shall come with Glory to judge the quick and the dead, and render to every one according to his works”. Mark’s liturgy said, “His second terrible and dreadful coming, in which He will come to judge righteously the quick and the dead, and to render to each man according to his works”. The word Quick and the wording a Quickening Spirit are different. The word Quick means one either has Life, or is promised Life, but a Quickening Spirit is able to project Life. John pointed out the Works judged are mercy based, centered on those who didn’t take part in the First Resurrection (Rev 20:5 & 20:13).
To the early church all this seemed a mess, the disciples of John and Peter talked of the Day and Night, then the completed Kingdom. However, in those early days the Jews were killing as many Christians as the Romans. They rightly felt Jesus would return at any moment, Peter’s and John’s letters answered the questions, by saying even if the Lord tarries, it’s because He wants all to come to the saving knowledge of the Gospel. Nonetheless we find a paradox, we are to expect the Lord at any second, yet we are also told by the Lord as long as we see wars, rumors of wars, pestilence, and famine the end is not yet. What gives? The Rapture, we expect the Rapture at any second, but the end of the world is not yet, two Seasons the Day and Night.
As a general rule the Millennarians believed there was yet a Golden Age for the church, an Age just before the 1,000 years. John shows the Door to heaven opened for those who are partakers in the First Resurrection, then the 1,000 years begins. The Time of Comfort view caused the confusion, most felt God couldn’t use the Jews since they were killing Christians. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, some twenty years before John had his vision, but more important was the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome after John’s vision and death. This last quandary added to the question of the Two Resurrections noted by John. Assuming the partakers of the First Resurrection would be resurrected on the earth by Jesus, then the 1,000 years, then the second resurrection; however, the assumption was based on prophecies relating to Christ on earth before the 1,000 years, not Jesus on earth during the 1,000 years. As long as there is one Christian on this earth, then Christ is here.
Those who knew John proclaimed the Remnant were Jewish, yet were called heretics by the Judaizers. The only millennarian passage used by the Chiliasts (Jesus on earth thinkers) was Revelation 20:1-6, wherein they saw the devil bound, sealed, and shut up for the 1,000 years, then the thrones, with the Souls of them beheaded for the Witness of Jesus; with the partakers of the First Resurrection, along with the rest of the dead not being resurrected until after the 1,000 years. The error came when they saw the word Souls assuming these souls would receive resurrected bodies on earth. No where in the verse does it say these people would be on earth, placing it with Revelation 7:9 we find they are in heaven during the 1,000 years. They viewed the phrase “beheaded for Jesus” as those who were martyred, but not all Christians were beheaded, really few were, many of the martyrs were burned, some were given to the beasts, and others were crucified. The phrase “beheaded” means without their own head, thus it refers to those who have made Jesus the Head (Authority) over them by denying the self; therefore it equates to the phrase “Loved not their souls (lives) unto the death”.
The Chiliasts also failed to place Revelation 6:9-11 with the passage, where the souls under the Altar of God receive their White Robes at the opening of the fifth and sixth seals. All this must be taken into consideration to define how the events of the day promoted a desire for the return of Jesus, yet the events and times didn’t line up with the sayings of the prophets. Although John and his disciples said the Jews were the Remnant, the early church rejected it, assuming there was no way God could find 144 Jews, much less a 144,000. Also, they knew the Time of Peace and Safety was yet to come, when the persecution ended they jumped for joy assuming it was upon them, yet they remained, and Jesus didn’t come. Some wandered away, some became religious in nature, yet there were others who knew it was real, who had the Spirit, they remained faithful. However, there was also the opportunist, those who saw a chance to gain power, or exalt their selves through “religion”.
There were many prophecies regarding Christ on the earth in the very latter days of the church, thus the prophecies were correct, the interpretations, or the assumed timings were faulty. They interpreted Christ as Jesus Himself, rather than seeing the Two fold aspect of Christ, Jesus the Christ, as well as the Body of Christ. In John’s account we find he corrected the false assumption of Jesus returning before John died (21:22-24). These types of assumptions have plagued the Body for years. Some assumed the time element was based on, “To the Lord a Day is like a Thousand Years and a Thousand Years like a Day”. Some took this saying adding Paul’s expectation of the Rapture, then assumed the time would be 500 AD. Others thought Nero would be the one to come from the earth with the head wound, others took the number 666, then used the Greek letters (which also stood for Greek numbers) then fixed the number on some Emperor of Rome. Today we find some taking the number and placing on many people, but it’s the number of “a man”, not many men. Usually it they centered on a political or religious enemy, thus causing them to place the number on a person they disliked; however, the person died, then they picked another enemy.
The “head wound” became another issue, would it be by an axe? Or a sword? The Scriptures tell us God caused the “head wound” to the house of the Wicked (idol worship) (Hab 3:13), thus it refers to Authority. Peter understood the end times, noting how the church he attended was located in Babylon (I Pet 5:13, Acts 15:7 & Gal 4:25), the church wasn’t Babylon, rather it was located in a place metaphorically known as Babylon.
The concepts held by some in the early church are understandable, since the emperors of Rome seemed to be the enemy at the time. When it all changed suddenly, the concept of the Emperor being the Beast dissolved, as did many of the end time concepts. A few years ago the “rumor of the day” was Russia invading Israel, but it changed, then it was Iraq. Making the Beast our personal political enemy seems to fall flat in the process of time. The Scriptures tell us there is a division of time, we of the Day must be concerned regarding the things of the Day, yet be knowledgeable of the things of the Night. What we must not do, is mix the things of the Day into the things of the Night, or visa versa (Acts 1:6-8). The Night is approaching, but not yet.
The Fragments of Papias have been beaten half to death by natural intellectuals; Papias was a Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor who wrote a five-volume work entitled Expositions Of The Sayings Of The Lord. Irenaeus noted how Papias had knowledge of the events, but Papias himself, said he didn’t know the Apostles, nor the disciples of the Apostles. In the words of Papias we find “my interpretations”, and “as I suppose”, showing his comments were at times guesses at what he thought may have happened. These hints show he didn’t hear from the Apostles, nor did he gain his understanding from the Holy Ghost. He held some Jewish fables, one of which was exposed by Eusebius regarding the 1,000 years. Papias felt Jesus would reign on earth in a human body, but as we know Jesus gave up His human body through Death (Luke 24:39). Eusebius commented “These ideas, I suppose, he got through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not realizing the things recorded in figurative language were spoken by them mystically. For he certainly appears to be a man of very little intelligence, as one may say judging from his own words”. What men wrote about the Bible must always be judged by the Bible, when we take the words of men over the Bible, we have make man greater than the Holy Ghost.
Years passed, yet knowledge began to open, but had yet to Increase. When the time of the persecution came and went, so did much of the eschatology, until our day when the Timing is upon us. We have said all this to show God allows certain thinking to bring hope during great periods of persecution, but He also brings prophecy to correct us. There is a vast difference between praying for an Hour, and praying about the Hour; there is a vast difference between Preparing the Kingdom of God, and having the Kingdom within (Luke 17:20-22). There is a vast difference between putting verses to memory, and having the concepts deep in our heart. There is even a greater difference between the natural intelligence of man, and God’s knowledge coming by the Holy Ghost. One can quote verses while beating us half to death with them, another can know the concepts of Love, Hope and Faith as they encourage us, the latter is better.
Chiliasm became the foundation for much of the end time teachings today; however, Origen proclaimed it a Jewish Dream. Dionysius the Great (264 AD) denied the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) as written by John, even Eusebius felt the Apocalypse was out of tune considering the attitude of the Jews during their day. They taught the apocalyptic millennium would be Christ in the Catholic (Universal) church as Jesus reigning on earth for the 1,000 years. They felt the Remnant in the Book of Revelation couldn’t be the Jews, since the Jews of the day were persecuting the Christians. They saw the First Resurrection as the translation of the martyrs and saints into heaven, but failed to couple the First Resurrection with the Resurrection of Jesus. The Protestant reformers also classed Chiliasm as heresy. It seems whenever Christians fear the world, the same Chiliasm thought process surfaces.
The center of Millenarianism rejected Acts 1:7, as the Restoration of Israel. They devised notions regarding the Antichrist, but rejected the Apocalypse, since it doesn’t refer to “The Antichrist” as such. They longed for a Golden Age for the church on earth, they saw the Power and Authority of the Christian during the Persecution, but it was hardly peace, they also felt the Christian was being defeated. They failed to see how the Body had to begin in blood to end in Glory. When the Body did find “peace”, they ceased seeking the Lord, soon finding they lacked Power and Authority. This produced a longing for some to find the Power and Authority of Christ in the 1,000 years, yet we know the Day is separated from the time of Peace and Safety. Some mixed the Day into the Night, violating the basic warning in Acts 1:7, they made the error of seeking Peace in the world, thinking it would cause Peace and Safety in the Body. All this mixed the Day and Night into some twilight zone of confusion.
The prophets show the Remnant will sit on the mountains of the world, thus when they rejected Paul’s concepts of all Israel will be saved, they also rejected the concept of the time when Jerusalem will rule the world. As a result they attempted to make the Kingdom of God a physical place on the earth, rather than within the person.
Events come close to written prophecy, but without all the elements fitting we have a preview, not the actual event. The previews have been seen throughout history, some very close, some not so close, but a preview is nonetheless a preview. Today we see many things seemingly close, but to assume the Days of Noah mean man’s lust would be running wild, also places the time during the days of Paul, John and the early church as well as including most, if not all of the world’s history since the Cross. To assume wars, rumors of wars, or earthquakes would be the only signs, also assumes the time has passed, since all these have been around for years. Jesus never said the wars, rumors of wars, pestilence and famine would be the “end” of time, rather He said those would be signs of the Beginning, then added “the end is not yet” (Matt 24:6).
Were there wars prior to the Cross? Yes, were there times of famine? Yes, were there times of pestilence? Yes, but not progressive and continual. Since the Cross there has been a war, or rumor of war daily; pestilence in some part of the world daily, just as there has been famine in some part of the world continually. It’s the “signs” not a sign here or there denoting the time and timing. The Days of Noah show a time when man was not concerned about the Judgment of God, a time when man lived in peace with man, but held violence (unrighteousness) toward God. People were so convinced God would not bring punishment they were given in marriage as if there was no tomorrow. One need only read about those days to see the earth was without war, pestilence, famine, governments, and more important, there were no Christians on the earth in the days of Noah. As long as there as one person who is Born Again on this earth the Night is not upon us.
The counter balance shows the world has tribulation, but be of good cheer Jesus has overcome the world. There were the so-called prophets who would say the problems within the world were the result of God punishing the world, but God so loved the world, He gave, why then would He now Punish during the time of Grace? The world is the world, the Kingdom the Kingdom, like the Day and Night if we mix them one into the other we will frustrate ourselves; we cast the net into the world, we don’t become the world.
Unfortunately history shows us what was persecuted, became the persecutor, thus it went from preaching the Gospel in love and faith, to “believe or die”, then traditions changed to doctrine, with dogma becoming commandment. During the persecution many parents became concerned about their children, thus if the parents were killed, who would care for the children? Jesus laid hands on the children, so it was felt in order to remove the concern of the parent, yet keep the children under Godly guardianship, the parents would pick “God parents” to replace them if they were martyred. Many Gentile converts still had unsaved family, the interdiction of the God Parents assured the parents their children would remain in a Christian family setting. To ensure the Vow a token was given, since the act was introduction by mercy into another family order, they felt water would represent the Dedication and Token. Rather than the God parents giving the Token to the baby, it was a matter of the God parents being received, by covering the child with water as their token. This act soon became infant baptism a controversy erupting in the 15th Century, yet in some places it’s still erupts from time to time. Whether one agrees with infant baptism or not doesn’t matter, whether they have clear Scripture to back it up does. Since church dogma replaced the Scriptures as the authority of the Body, the debates over infant baptism raged; however, the inception was just a “good idea” to be used as a token by God parents. Jesus told us to teach, then baptize, whether it’s John’s Baptism or under the Name of Jesus there isn’t one verse showing any infant was water baptized. They had hands laid on them, but it’s a different doctrine within the Doctrine of Christ (Heb 6:1-2). Some things are “good ideas”, something we should do at the moment, but they are not Doctrine. It’s a good idea to pray with the group before we preach, but Jesus never did, and neither did Paul. They prayed before and after, but not with the group. Whenever we make a tradition a doctrine, we must take something away from the Commandment. In Matthew we are told to Teach, then baptize, thus with infant baptism we must remove the Teaching, thus removing something from the Commandment. For the candidate other than water, the only requirement for water baptism is “belief” (Acts 8:36-37 et al). Even if we fall back to John’s baptism, the person still must be able to “confess their sins” (Mark 1:5). The caution is keeping traditions as traditions, and doctrine as doctrine. Infant baptism was not for the infant’s sake, it was for the parent’s sake. Our water baptism didn’t save us, God did; our water baptism was our Token to accept the conditions of God’s Mercy as we entered the Body of Christ, when we gave our belief in the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. History will show many traditions which took on the form of doctrine, from time to time someone would challenged them by using Scripture. However, if one lives by dogma, they will kill for the dogma.
We would think it strange indeed to see someone casting a net in the corn field, yet some attempt to. There are those sent to the Sea to bring in the fish: there are those sent to the Field to point out the division and separation between the Wheat and Tares. Reform is a Field process, not a Sea endeavor. When Reform begins, God starts a separating process, the Wheat become more refined, the Tares exposed: evidenced by History.
Justin Martyr saw the second perousia of Christ as Jesus with the Clouds in heaven, surrounded by angels, but his misconception of the Restoration of Israel confused the Christian as the Remnant of Israel, or confused the House of Judah with the House of David. Yet he knew the Pious Jew would be established in the millennium, and Jerusalem will be restored, but he couldn’t see how any Jew could be Pious; nonetheless he did see the last resurrection after the millennium as the judgment, then the annihilated earth as a transformed earth with the inner parts becoming the surface. Other Greek Apologists remain silent on the subject of the end times, soon Justin followed as he considered The Faith more important than the vague issues of the Millennius.
All this only confirms the prophecy, Knowledge will increase; the Book of Revelation wasn’t written for the early church, it was written for those who shall be at the Door when the Day closes. Today we can see how the Remnant of the seed of the Woman is Jewish, we can also see Jerusalem being restored for the Jew alone, as well as other factors showing the leaves on the Fig Tree are about to spring forth. We are of the Olive Tree, not the Fig Tree, we can’t confuse one into the other.
The time for the Day to end was not yet, yet the Book of Revelation was not considered heresy, nor was it considered heresy to give ones view, or opinion of the Book of Revelation, thus the “knowledge of God” would also include a clear understanding of the Book of Revelation as it relates to the Prophets and Truths of Jesus. The time is now, yet as history shows there are those who mix the world into the Kingdom bringing views not supported by the Prophets or Scripture. Many sects, some cultist in nature, some not, started based on the Coming of Jesus at a certain appearing on earth. It also stands, the closer something becomes, the clearer it is. Today we know we’re at the door step, it’s so very close, yet not in hand.
The Judgment was known to the Jews, the chief passage in Rosh Hoshanah states, “There will be three divisions on the day of judgment, the perfectly righteous, the perfectly wicked, and the intermediate class”. John said the Sea, Death, and Hell shall gave up their (plural) dead (Rev 20:13). Rabbi Akiba (120 AD) limited the punishment of the Jew in Gehenna to twelve months, one month for each tribe; although he had nothing to support his opinion, it was nonetheless accepted by the Jew then, as well as some Jews during the earthly ministry and today. The religious leaders in the time of Jesus felt if they were wrong about Jesus, then one year is all they had to serve in hell, but if they were right about Jesus they would be honored before God. When Jesus talked about everlasting punishment, the Pharisees had a theological fit, as some do today. The Rosh Hoshanah writings also show there will be those in Gehenna who keep rising and sinking, we know this to be the resurrection of the damned, who have resurrected bodies in the lake of fire.
Some felt the term of 1,000 years is attributed to Plato who said the wicked who failed to leave the earth would be in hell for a period of only 1,000 years, but he failed to see the Wicked as the Beast of the Earth, then mixed the term with those who Sleep in Jesus, two completely different groups (I Thess 5:5-7). Justin Martyr said, “We believe all who live wickedly and do not repent, will be punished with eternal fire”, which would be after the 1,000 years, more true to the Scriptures than Plato’s thoughts on the subject.
Jesus, Paul and John said, the 1,000 years will be the Time of Comfort, although it will be Peace and Safety, it will nonetheless be the Night, a time of darkness when no man can work, thus we are of the Day, not the Night, or Darkness. Celsus stated the Christian belief was eternal life for those written in the Book of Life, but eternal punishment for those whose names are not found in the Book of Life, which is supported by Revelation 20:15. All of them agreed, it was not God doing the punishing, but sin punishing itself, as the sinner brings about their own punishment through their rejection of Life Eternal. Both salvation and hell are a matter of choice on man’s part, with the result being conducted by God. The evidence was seen at the Fall, God merely told Adam the result of the Fall.
History shows the involvement of the Holy Ghost in early church activities; today we have the assumption of the Holy Ghost slowly moving into the Charismatic movement, which was really people moving back to being Charismatic. For some reason there are some who think the Holy Ghost is now 2,000 years older and slower, but we know He ages not, it’s the desire of man’s heart determining the difference. The Holy Ghost is still bringing the Seed of God, people are still being Born Again, this is still the Day. We have said all this to show the Holy Ghost is still the teacher, but He is not obligated to teach us matters which don’t concern us. In the very early days is was the casting of the Net to build the Body so Jesus could build the Church, the End Times were not a valid point then, but we are very close to the closing of the Day, this is the Day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.
What about the whackos? Have then been around? The opening of the New Birth by the Holy Ghost granting on Pentecost, until the End shows there will be whackos (I Jn 2:18-19 & 4:1-4). There could be no “antichrist” until there was first Christ on the earth. Judas being the first antichrist, yet many have followed in his footsteps (I Jn 2:19). Although Judas was the first antichrist, Simon of Samaria was the first “whacko”. Someone who is antichrist is opposed to the Christ nature, thus they still use the spirit of the world. However, a whacko is opposed to order God has established for the Body. Jesus is the Head of the Body, a whacko thinks they are, they presume the Body is a gift for their pleasure. They are still independent, self-reliant, self-based, and manipulative in nature. Whackos are Pharisees with a gun, they all have the delusion they are greater than the sum, some of them think they are God’s great gift to humanity. Whacko, or Nutso, it’s all the same, someone who uses religion as a mask to bring about their personal desires in a violent way. Some claim “religion” is the problem, it’s not religion it’s the spirit of the world using religion in an evil violent manner.
Some of us confuse the Power of the Anointing with manipulation and control, then we toss the Baby Jesus out with the bath water. The Spirit guides, thus the Anointing will also guide, but a manipulative spirit has a hidden agenda, something not clear on the surface. Mind games also have a hidden agenda, but the hidden agenda is hidden from the one using the mind game as well. A hidden agenda is when the person wants God to please them, or serve them, to get what they want out of Godly principles, without any regard for procedure or people. The Anointing never hides the agenda, it makes it clear. What we see, is what we get, thus the Anointing brings clarity.
In respect to the Doctrine of Baptisms the early church did one type, sought the others. The concept of “Living Water” is not the same as “running water”, Jesus said Living Water was Mercy coming from the Spirit of Christ in the person (Jn 7:37-39). Running water means they preferred running water over stagnate water. The Didache says to use running water when possible, if not use standing clear water: the purpose is clear, standing dirty water not only has the potential to be polluted, but it also represents confusion and guilt. However, if we also find if neither running or clear standing water was available, it was acceptable to use water in a vessel to pour it over the head of the person.
Paul said the children in the wilderness were Baptized unto Moses (I Cor 10:2), does it mean Water baptism was conducted by Moses? Does it mean the people were immersed into Moses? Did they use sand instead of water? Hardly, the Greek verb Baptizo means To be identified with, thus the children in the wilderness were identified with Moses through the Law, we identify with Jesus through the Spirit, but we identify with the Mercy of the Father by our water baptism.
In the East the evidence regarding the Baptism rite goes back to the second and third century, It included what some term Exorcism, or as we know it, casting out devils and unclean spirits. The original term “Exorcism” or “Exorcists” referred to someone who would bind devils in a person (Acts 19:13). Water baptism was often done three times, each time pointing to a different vow or token connected to Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. First it was Mercy, forgiving as one is forgiven, next to accept the call of the Cross turning from the world and seeking the Kingdom of God. Then the third, the token to continue to believe beyond acceptance into the Body to receive the Holy Spirit. After the Tokens the candidate would then receive the abilities, the one doing the baptism would breath on the person granting them power to forgive, as well as permission to receive the Baptism with the Holy Ghost (The Ingress Airs – John 20:21-23). They would lay hands on them, presenting them to the Lord to be baptized with the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:6 et al). They would touch the ears with the exclamation “Ephphatha!” for the opening of the ears, they would then use of olive oil on their fingers making the sign of the cross (X the Greek letter used for Christ) on the forehead of the candidate.
In Africa they had the addition of giving salt, as a token regarding their continual belief. The Didache confirms how Water Baptism was done three times, In the Name of the Father (1), Son (2), and Holy Ghost (3); but done by someone who was in the Name of Jesus. Each had a meaning to the Vows or Tokens by the candidate, but this was not three separate baptisms, rather the person was dipped three times under the Authority (Name) of Jesus, since the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is one Name. In either case water baptism was conducted by someone who was in the Body, greeting someone who wanted to become a member of the Body, with the one proviso, the candidate must Believe.
Proselytes often took a new name as a sign of dying on the Cross, or leaving the old man behind. In the act of baptism the candidate would first face toward the west renouncing Satan, then facing the east they Vowed fidelity to Christ, thereby making the Vow by the physical turning from one direction to another in order to Identify with the Purpose of their repentance. They would confess their faith in the Triune God coupled with their belief in Jesus. Our definition of Repentance comes from the act of “turning around to face another direction”, but our concept of using the self to move in the direction is not the same as turning and allowing the Holy Ghost to take us in a different direction.
In the Western church the candidate would also receive a mixture of Milk and Honey; Milk for the Basics the Word, Honey for Prophecy. In 305 AD, Cyril the Bishop in Jerusalem relates how the process for baptism included Exorcism, then explained it as putting off the old garments (not becoming naked, more like Blind Bartimaeus casting off the robe of religious conceit), receiving the anointing, a short confession of faith, triple immersion, anointing with Olive oil, explaining Communion, then taking Communion. Within Cyril’s description we find the Doctrine of Baptisms, not only was Water Baptism an issue, but the Anointing of Oil with the presentation to be united in Christ by the Spirit. The process differed, but the context was the same, Water, Blood and Spirit; therefore, any rite or policy of baptism without the Baptisms lacks compliance with the Doctrine of Baptisms.
The Types and Shadows of history continue on, as the history of the Jewish people showed there were those who followed God, and those who used God; the same pattern moves through our History. There are those who desire to serve God, and those who desire for God to serve them. There are those who seek to be Christ Like, those who seek for Christ to be like them. Those who seek to be the Image of God’s Son, those who seek to be Adam like. There are those used of God, and those who used the things of God for self-glory. Our study is to separate ourselves from those who use God, becoming those used of God for His Glory.
In using certain dates we must keep in mind the calendar in our hands is not accurate in all respects. Around 550 Dionysius Exgiuus in his Cyclus Paschalis picked the year 754 A.U.C. for the founding of Rome, instead of the more accurate 749 A.U.C. From the wrong date he assumed the birth of Jesus, but he missed it by five years. Instead of 1 AD as the time for the birth of Jesus, it’s really 5 BC. It doesn’t change the birth, but we can become involved in debates over trivial matters, the fact remains Jesus was born of a virgin, the Word did become flesh (Jn 1:14 & Luke 1:27).
There have been great controversies regarding the meaning of Christ; between 325 and 451, and between 1517 and 1648 people sought to define Christ in terms of creeds or dogma. The Charismatics sought Christ by a personal experience, the intellectuals attempted to define Jesus. The Christness of the Body was often confused with Jesus the Christ, the natural intellect without the Spirit couldn’t make the separation. Others in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries spoke of Jesus as the Christ of history, promoting the false concept of “all has passed away”. Paul faced the same attitude when Hymenaeus and Philetus who were preaching the Resurrection was passed (II Tim 2:17-18). In their case they were saying there was no Rapture, the Resurrection of Jesus was complete. Paul called their concept of “The resurrection has passed” blasphemy, which is one step past heresy. Heresy often leads people in the wrong direction, usually to acts of the flesh, but blasphemy is when someone attempts to overthrow the faith of the saints.
In the process of time the Bible became known as “the only Word of God”, which seemed to replace Jesus as the Word. This allowed man to become intellectual in his studies of the Bible, presuming he had life by assuming he was “in the Word”, rather than the “Word was in him”. Those fables were condemned by Jesus when He told the Pharisees simply reading about Life, didn’t mean one had it (Jn 39-40). The Bible defines itself, it doesn’t interpret itself; however, it defines itself as the Scriptures and Jesus as the Word of God made flesh. It doesn’t take away from the Bible, rather it still points to Jesus.
The basis of being a Christian was centered around the Spirit, the purpose of the New Birth is still to bring about that Born of the Spirit is Spirit. From 30 AD to around 44 AD the church in Jerusalem held the leading position in the Christian community. The primary focus of the Body until around 62 AD was centered on bringing the Jew into the Promise. The Gentile was a second class citizen in the Kingdom according to the Jew, but according to God there is no Jew or Gentile (Jew being the first presented the Gospel), but we are all One in Christ.
It was the church in Jerusalem to settle the first controversy regarding the Jew who came out of the Law, and the Gentile who came around the Law (Acts 15:1-32). The first persecution against the Body was by the Jews when Stephen the Deacon was stoned to death (Acts 7:60-8:1). Herod the Jew who was appointed by the Romans, killed James the brother of John (Acts 12:2). When Paul was still Saul the Christian hunter he persecuted the Body (Gal 1:23). It really wasn’t until Nero wherein the Romans began a campaign against the Christians, nonetheless we find during the Persecution of the Body there was little discussion over theology, rather they received and followed the Spirit. After the Persecution came theological debates, interesting enough the Power of the Holy Ghost also started to diminish. On the other hand there were many who broke through and found the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Many maintained in the Faith, thus the conclusion must be, it didn’t pass away, rather some passed from it.
We know Stephen was the first disciple killed, history tells us Nicanor, one of the other seven suffered as a martyr during the persecution which arose from his sermon of Stephen. We also know James, the brother of John was martyred, Paul was beheaded, but what of the others? History shows Philip of Bethsaida (the apostle, not the evangelist) went to upper Asia to spread the Gospel, there he was thrown into prison and crucified around 54 AD. Matthew went to Parthia and Ethiopia, where he suffered as a martyr when he was slain with a halberd in the city of Nadabah in 60 AD. James the less, who wrote the Book of James, as well as being the pastor in the church in Jerusalem died at the age of 94 when he was beaten and stoned to death at the hands of the Jews, finally to have his brains dashed out with a fuller’s club. It is also possible, and recorded just prior to being stoned by the Jews James was taken to the top of a building where he was told to denounce Jesus. He of course did not, they tossed him off, when he hit the ground, the Jews stoned him, finally dashing his brains out. Matthias, who was elected in the first chapter of Acts was supposedly stoned to death in Jerusalem, but never produced any Apostolic signs as evidence of Jesus accepting him into the office, nor was he mentioned in the remaining Book of Acts. There is also some confusion if the Matthias who was stoned to death is the same Matthias noted in Acts 1:23. Andrew preached in many Asiatic nations, on his arrival at Edessa he was taken and crucified on a cross. This cross was shaped like an X rather than a T, the X shape became known as “Saint Andrew’s Cross”. The Greek letter X was used as a symbol for Christ, seen in the conversion of Constantine several years later.
Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria at the feast of Serapis, their idol. Jude, the writer of the letter, and a recognized prophet was crucified at Edessa in 72 AD. Bartholomew was beaten then crucified by idolaters. Thomas preached in Parthia and India where pagan priests thrust him through with a spear, then reportedly skinned him alive. Luke was hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Simon, surnamed Zelotes preached in Nauritania, Africa, and even ventured to Britain, where he was crucified in 74 AD. Barbnabas was killed around 73 AD. This leaves two more, Peter who is said to be crucified at Rome by some, and outside of Rome by others, yet all agree he demanded to be crucified upside down, declaring he was not worthy to be crucified as his Lord, recorded by the historian Jerome. Peter’s wife was also crucified, apparently it was done to force Peter to deny the Lord, but Peter did not, neither did his wife. While she was being crucified, Peter called out to her, “Remember Christ”, afterward Peter was crucified.
The other is John the beloved, whom we know was the scribe to John’s Account, John I, II, III and the Book of Revelation, he was also the founder of the churches in Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea and Thyatria, as well as an elder in the church in Ephesus. The Emperor Domitian attempted to boil John in oil, but failed, in his frustration he sent John to the Isle of Patmos. Nerva, the successor of Domitian recalled John from the isle, releasing him. John died a natural death, and was buried in Ephesus, reportedly next to the grave of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
We have said all this to show faith is not something to avoid the event, it’s the granted power of the peace of God in the event. If we think we can avoid events by our faith, we not only error, we will end using witchcraft, then calling it faith. Also the events help us to define the term Martyr, today there are religious orders who think a martyr is someone who kills many in the “name of religion”, but it’s not the historical, or Godly view of a Martyr. A True Martyr never takes life, they refuse to denounce God, when faced with death. A murderer takes lives, even if they give their own in the process. Not one Christian Martyr ever took a Roman life, or a Jew’s life, they simply refused to deny the Lord when faced with death. In many cases the false martyr has leaders who fight to save their own lives, while sending others out do die in the “name of religion”. Jesus who is our example, “made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He Humbled Himself an became Obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross” (Ph’l 2:7-8). Jesus said, “Father forgive them”, a false martyr takes pleasure in the death of others. Today there are some who twist the concept of being Martyr, if the person claims to be a Martyr, yet takes their own life, they are not a martyr, they have committed suicide based on a political issue. The basis of being a martyr is having ones life taken, not taking other lives, nor in committing suicide for a political belief. They may be a murderer, but they are not a martyr according to the historical record.
The term church fathers comes from the title given to the elders who lived between the end of the apostolic age, until the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). These men heard from those who were with the disciples; or from those who studied under the disciples of the disciples. Clement of Rome (30-100 AD) was a disciple of Paul (Ph’l 4:3) he wrote his first letter around 95 AD to stop a serious disturbance occurring in the church at Corinth. Like Paul, Clement used Scripture; he started by praising the Corinthians, while not praising them. He spoke of what should be, from the introduction of the letter it would appear Clement was looking at a Perfect Body, but further into the letter we find he was inserting his prayer of faith seeking what they should be, but in fact were not.
There were several men by the name of Gregory, there was Pope Gregory, but there was a church father named also Gregory of Nazinazus (330-389), he was known for his contributions to the theological definition of the Trinity. The concept of the Trinity was not something some heretic came up with, it was an accepted doctrine since the beginning of the Body. Gregory of Nazinazus, Basil in Pontus, as well as Gregory of Nyssa were called Cappadocian fathers, all were brought up in the Cappadocian town of Nazinzus (present day Bekar in Turkey), where Gregory’s father was bishop. Gregory as a young man was reluctant to take a position of responsibility in the local church, retiring instead to a monastic community started by Basil in Pontus. He explained his purpose in a writing entitled, Defense Of the Flight To Pontus, which became the basis for works on the priesthood by Saint John Chyrsostom and Pope Gregory I.
Gregory of Nazinazus was consecrated as a bishop in 371, but did not become actively involved in ecclesiastical affairs until he assumed leadership in 379 of the orthodox community in Constantinople. He played a major role in the Council of Constantinople (381), which continued the definition of the Christian teaching at the councils at Nicaea. However, opposition in the council to Gregory’s claim of the bishopric of Constantinople made him decide to return to Nazianzus, then in 384 he retried to monastic life. Gregory was not a writer of books, rather his writings were more orations, or letters. In the Orthodox church he became known as the “the Theologian” because of his influential sermons dealing with the Trinity and Christology.
Hermas was another church father who flourished around 140 AD, he was also a Christian writer noted for his vivid description of early Christianity. According to his own testimony, Hermas was sold into slavery as a boy, then sent to Rome. There he was purchased by a woman called Rhoda, who freed him. Hermas’ book, The Shepherd, is a series of revelations granted to him through two heavenly figures, an old woman and an angel who assumed the form of a shepherd. The work is divided into 3 sections with 5 visions on penance and doctrine, 12 precepts on morality, and 10 parables, principles of Christian living. The Shepherd was widely regarded as a canonical book of the Bible until the 4th century. One might ask why didn’t Jesus appear to him? Who knows, the figure of the “old woman” represented Jewish roots, the figure of the “angel” the Christian influence, thus the figures used represented the message, they were not there for show, or some mystic involvement. Peter had a vision, Paul had one, and John had a massive one, all pertained to the greatness of Christ, not the men.
In the very early days the term “bishop” was used for the office of the person over “helps”, as was the role of a “deacon”, both were assigned to helps. Later after Rome became the center of religion the term “bishop” took on many meanings, but even today we find “bishops” in the Catholic church tending to the needs of the Pope. Unfortunately the role has moved into the realm of “governments” in both the Catholic and Protestant circles, as has the term “Church Board”. Nonetheless God has a working Operation, when we move from the Operation we find problems (I Cor 12:28). Perhaps the root to all the problems in the History of the Body stem from failing to operate in the manner God intended.
The Office of Bishop was moved from overseeing Helps to Governments, which opened the area for man to ordain people into the offices, which in turn took the requirements for Helps, then forced them as qualifications for the offices of the Lord. All this removed the Holy Ghost from appointing the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher and Pastor, producing many self-appointed people. Leaders do appoint bishops, deacons and elders, but no where are they given authority to appoint anyone to the five-fold offices.
Clement was as surprised as anyone when he found the Corinthians in his day had not grown from the rebuked Corinthians in Paul’s day. One would think if an Apostle corrected us, we would learn and repent. Choice is choice, the same Envy Paul warned the Corinthians about, surfaced again in the same body, but with different members and leaders. Clement wrote to the new members with the anticipation of having them remove themselves from the yoke of Carnal thinking. After all, even the second generation in the Wilderness learned from the errors of the first.
Clement reminds them, “Every kind of honor and happiness was bestowed upon you”, but he also notes, “hence flowed emulation and envy, strife and sedition, persecution and disorder, war and captivity”. Clement used the historical evidence of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, then adds, “you see brethren, how envy and jealousy led to the murder of a brother”. The evidence of division, strife and envy was obvious, this was at the beginning of the Persecution. The Carnal mind produced after it’s own kind, yet Paul gave them the keys to open the spiritual, as did Clement.
Although we hear of those who were martyred, there were some who denounced Jesus. They lacked a spiritual foundation, Clement was concerned not for Christianity, but for the Corinthians, if they remained carnal, they would reject the Cross to save their own necks.
The Gift was at hand, but the Corinthians failed to put it in hand. Clement points to the ministry of the Grace of God by the Spirit as the source of Peace, then issues a call for them to enter repentance. He gave them hope by saying, “As I live, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of a sinner, but rather his repentance”. He also added, “Wash you, and become clean; put away the wickedness of your souls from before my eyes; cease from your evil ways, and learn to do well; seek out judgment, deliver the oppressed, judge the fatherless, and see justice is done to the widow; and come, let us reason together”. Was Clement telling them to become baptized in water again? No, the reference goes to the washing of the Water by the Word as they submit to be cleaned by the Spirit.
Clement continued by telling the Corinthians, “Wherefore, let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious Will; and imploring His mercy and lovingkindness, while we forsake all fruitless labors, strife and envy which leads to death”. Clement then says, “I have seen the foolish taking root”, pointing directly to the problem by saying, “You are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation. Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are true utterances of the Holy Ghost. Observe nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them. There you will not find the righteous were cast off by men who themselves were holy. The righteous were indeed persecuted, but only by the wicked”. He then promotes the goal by saying, “Why are there strifes, tumults, divisions, schisms and wars among you: Have we not one God and one Christ? Is there not One Spirit of Grace poured out to us? And have we not one calling in Christ? Why do we divide and tear to pieces the members of Christ, and raise up strife against our own Body, and have reached such a height of madness as to forget we are members one of another?”. Clement defined Grace is having the Spirit, he also quoted many verses from the Gospel, letters to the Romans, Ephesians and other Scriptures, laying the ground work for repentance. These words spoken to the carnal, thus the violations of Grace in the history of the Body can all be attributed to a failure to receive words of correction. First and Second Corinthians tell us many things to keep us humble, we can have the Spirit, but be carnal. We can speak in unknown tongues, yet use envy, division and strife. We can be in the Body of Christ, yet not be Spiritual.
Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John the Apostle, both wrote letters, both quoted John, giving validation to John’s letters. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, his praise for their efforts to remain in the Love of God was genuine. Polycarp had an eschatology in line with the Book of Revelation, he said when Jesus returns it will be to judge and finish His Kingdom in heaven, rather than set up His Kingdom on earth. Polycarp explained two loves, the inward Love of Jesus, which was coupled with a true love for Jesus bringing Righteousness, while putting us far from all sin; however, the other side of the coin was the love of money, which is the root of all evil. Polycarp summed up his thought process by saying, “only that we believe”. Polycarp was martyred as he confessed himself as a Christian by refusing to revile Christ. Polycarp displayed the true act of being a Martyr, he refused to denounce Christ when faced with death at the hands of evil persons.
The early church held the Name of Jesus was the combined Authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians (A.D. 30-107), in Chapter 2 had this say: There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For the Lord thy God, saith [the Scripture], is one Lord. And again, Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son, saith [the Scripture], who is in the bosom of the Father. And again, One Lord Jesus Christ. And in another place, What is His name, or what His Son’s name, that we may know? And there is also one Paraclete, giving validity to the First John 5:7-8.
In the early days history shows Rome honored heathen gods, they even looked at Caesar as a god, thus they considered the Christian an atheist. The only charges against any Christian, was the refusal to bow to Caesar or the gods of Rome. Even faced with death Polycarp told the Roman proconsul “since you are vainly urgent, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Caesar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrine of Christianity is, appoint me a day and you shall hear it”. Polycarp was sentenced to burn at the stake, he also prayed giving thanks unto God for all things as the flames were leaping toward him. The end of his prayer denotes the positions of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as he said, “Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with Whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages, Amen”. When the flames consumed Polycrap the witnesses reported a great miracle; instead of the man burning, the flames arched around him and instead of the smell of fire, there came the smell of frankincense. The Epistle regarding the martyrdom of Polycarp ends with, “We wish you, brethren, all happiness, while you walk according to the doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; with Whom be Glory to God, the Father and Holy Ghost, for the salvation of His holy elect, after whose example the blessed Polycarp suffered”. The concept of God being Father, Son and Holy Ghost was well known among those who studied under the disciples.
Ignatius of Antioch, was also the bishop of Antioch as one of the Apostolic fathers of the church: during the reign of Trajan the Roman emperor, Ignatius was condemned to be devoured by wild beasts. On his way from Antioch to Rome, where the execution was to take place, he wrote seven letters. Of these, five were addressed to the Christian communities of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, all cities in Asia Minor, who sent representatives to greet him as he passed through. The other letters were addressed to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna, and to the Christian community of Rome. Of late there is a controversy over how many Christians were devoured by lions in the Coliseum; however, there is no debate regarding the roads around Rome being lined with crosses by the hundreds, some say by the thousands with crucified Christians.
The letters of Ignatius are an important source of information about the beliefs and organization of the early Christian. Ignatius wrote some as warnings against heretical doctrines, thus providing his readers with detailed summaries of Christian doctrine. He also gave a vivid picture of the local church as a community. His knowledge of the term Bishop shows it was attached to the Helps ministry, he never equated it to any Office of the five fold ministry, rather he kept in the same framework as Paul. It also shows the importance of Helps, without Helps, Governments just sits around wondering what to do. Ignatius was the first Christian writer to stress the virgin birth, or to use the term catholic church as a collective term for the faithful. The word Catholic really means Universal, or something going far beyond the confines of the earth.
Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians noted how they acquired the Righteousness of Jesus according to The Faith and Love of Christ, then he notes the Love of God is found in the Blood of Jesus. Ignatius profoundly declared how the Ephesians held to the Faith by the Spirit, it was through the Spirit they joined together in concord and harmonious love in songs to Jesus. The Unity of the saints was found in the Spirit by the Unity of the Faith, not in the theology of natural man.
The word Unity appears twice in the New Testament, both times in the Book to the Ephesians (Eph 4:3 & 4:13). First it’s the Unity of the Spirit, then the Unity of the Faith, this is the only condition and position where we can find Godly Unity. Attempting to unite by theology, or by natural means, only leads to division, not unity.
Ignatius didn’t look at things as passed away, simply because John went home to be with the Lord, rather he said, “We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus Christ”. This man who studied under John the Apostle had no problem equating Jesus as “the Lord our God”. He also pointed to the Holy Ghost, saying the Holy Ghost doesn’t Speak His own things, but those of Christ, even as the Lord announced things He received from the Father. This is the same equation we find in Acts 13:1-3, when the Holy Ghost appoints to offices on behalf of Jesus.
Ignatius quoted much of John’s account: although chapter and verse were not introduced until the 1600’s he nonetheless quoted what we term John 12:32, 14:24, 16:13, 17:4-6, 16:14, and 14:6, thus giving credence to John’s account as known and believed among those who studied under him.
In reference to false teachers, Ignatius pointed out they follow the spirit of deceit, but he also placed them into a position called a “he”; thereby, equating them to the he in the world (I Jn 4:1-5). Ignatius tells us the he in the world preaches himself, speaks his own things, seeks to please himself, glorifies himself, is full of arrogance, lies, fraudulent, soothing, flattering, treacherous, rhapsodical, trifling, inharmonious, verbose, sordid and timorous. On the same note he said, “From his power Jesus Christ will deliver you, who has founded you as the Rock, as being chosen stones, well fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on High by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Spirit as a hope, and being borne of Faith, while exalted by Love from the earth to heaven, walking in company with those who are undefiled”. He then adds, “Blessed are they of you who are God-bearers, Spirit-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the Commandments of Jesus Christ, being a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people”. We see Ignatius also quoted Peter, yet he didn’t say the Rock was Peter, rather he said, Christ is the Rock, whose Cornerstone is Jesus, upon Whom Jesus established the Church.
Ignatius tells us the Kingdom of God is not in word, but by Power. Ignatius defines the Armor of God as he tells us to come together giving Thanks unto God, showing forth His Praise, by so doing the powers of Satan are destroyed, his fiery darts urging us to return, or fall back become ineffectual. Therefore showing the purpose of warfare is to continue in the saving of our souls, rather than draw back to perdition.
An example of giving God the Glory is found in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, as he said, “Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other Name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be you changed into the New, Which is Jesus Christ. Be you salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savor you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, so every tongue which Believes might be gathered together in God”.
There were two dangers facing the Body, mixing with the world is always a danger, but there were some who used the Name of Jesus, yet denied the Ways of the Lord, they were more of a danger than the world. They wanted the Power, but didn’t want to be responsible to the Authority. Fighting the darkness is one thing, finding the darkness sitting next to you on Sunday morning another. In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians he identifies the victims as the Babes in Christ; although he praises them on one hand, he rebukes them on the other. He warns them of the false who are vain talkers, deceivers, not Christian (Christ Like), but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the Name of Christ in deceit while corrupting the Word. His concept of the “Word” could not mean the Bible, since the Bible as we know it was not around, thus he defines the Word as Jesus. Like a true saint Ignatius knew reproof without Faith ends in condemnation, reproof by faith ends in edification. He tells us how the false intermix poison in their persuasive talk, they mingle aconite (wolf-bane) with sweet wine, thus he who drinks their concoction is being deceived by his taste, meeting his own death. In reference to the Spirit, the false do not display He exists in them by their nature, denying the Power of Christ, while claiming to be Christian. In his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius gives us the clue to overcoming when he says, “Be you strong, I pray, in the Power of the Holy Ghost”, and “Fare ye well in the Grace of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, being Filled with the Spirit and divine and sacred Wisdom”.
In his Second Epistle to the Ephesians Ignatius pointed out, those who are carnal are not able to do spiritual things, nor those who are spiritual carnal things: in like manner, neither can faith do those things which are foreign to faith. Ignatius pointed to the intent and motive produced by the nature; therefore, all of us make mistakes, it’s the intent and motive determining if those mistakes are sin, or not. Peter was weak, Judas was wicked, unless we make the distinction between the two we will condemn everyone who falls because of a weakness.
In Ignatius’ Epistle to the Tarsians he writes; “I have learned certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting Jesus was born only in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others say He is not the Son of the Creator, and others say He is Himself God over all. Others again, hold He is mere man, others saying we are not to rise again, so our proper course is to live and partake of a life of pleasure, for this is the chief good to beings who are in a little while to perish. A swarm of such evils has burst in upon us. But you have not given place by subjection to them, no, not for one hour. For you are the fellow citizens as well as the disciples of Paul, who fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum and bare about the marks of Christ in his flesh”. How could Jesus allow these false to enter? Didn’t He say the gates of hell shall not prevail? They won’t against the Church, but will against the Body.
Today there are some who desire to change John to read, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was a god”. Others who look only on Jesus as the only God, two extremes, both errors, yet they were seen in the early days. Ignatius quotes John, by saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. He also points out Jesus Himself is not God over all, rather the Father is God over all, the Father made the Son the God over all until the Father makes the enemies of Jesus His footstool. He supports this by showing the Son said, “I ascend unto My Father and your Father and to My God and your God”; thereby quoting more of John’s account. In answer to this, he also shows, Jesus is God the Son, by adding, “When all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall He also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, so God may be all in all”. In his Epistle to the Antiochians he makes it clearer by saying, “The Lord thy God is One Lord, thus proclaimed there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord when He said, The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord”. Then he places Isaiah into the equation showing the Father called the Son “mighty God” (Isa 9:6).
Ignatius quoted John 1:1 several times as the Word became Flesh, showing the Word was not Flesh prior. Those who claim One God, yet deny Jesus His rightful place in the equation remove Jesus from the divinity, Ignatius calls them “a devil, an enemy of all righteousness”. Anyone who rejects the Incarnation and is ashamed of the Cross, “this man is antichrist”. Ignatius didn’t say this was The Antichrist, rather he said the person was antichrist, denoting a position, then he indicates the antichrist person is one who has entered the Body, then denies the purpose of the Incarnation.
Ignatius like the other early disciples knew Jesus as the Word incarnate, as he said to the Philippians, “and how can He be but God, who raises up the dead, sends away the lame sound of limb, cleanses the lepers, restores sight to the blind, and either increases or transmutes existing substances, as the five loaves and the two fishes, and the water which became wine, and Who puts to flight a whole host by a mere word?”; he didn’t say Only God, rather Jesus as part of the Godhead. Ignatius added, “But If, He is both God and man, then why do you call it unlawful to style Him The Lord Of Glory, who is by Nature unchangeable”. This same Ignatius knew John the Apostle, we have letters from Ignatius to John showing the closeness of the two men; therefore, Ignatius didn’t voice some strange doctrine, but the same doctrine John taught him, yet he also named Jesus as the Son of man, declared the Son of God by the Resurrection.
Ignatius wrote Mary, saying, “For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting your (son) Jesus, I am astonished by such a report”. Mary wrote back and said, “The things which you have heard and learned from John concerning Jesus are true, believe them, cling to them, hold fast the profession of Christianity which you have embraced”. Then she added, “I will come in company with John to visit you, and those with you”. This gives validity to Jesus not only knowing John would be the only disciple to out live Mary, but shows Jesus did tell her, “Woman, behold your son” (Jn 19:26-27).
These types of statements are important, one cannot find a Manuscript and assume the outside additional letters and writings are unimportant. Two Manuscripts lack the last verses in Mark, but external evidence shows the verses were accepted text. The doubters and pouters look for reasons not to believe, the Believer looks for opportunity to build their belief.
The difference between one who is of Israel, and a Jew became more defined. The title Jew comes from the tribe name of Judah, it referred to one who had right to Covenant by circumcision. Accordingly Paul shows a “true Jew” is one who is circumcised of heart. Within the Body there are two classes of “Jew”, one belongs to those who submit to the circumcision of the heart, the other say they are Jews, but are not, they belong to the synagogue of Satan (Rev 3:9). Paul equated the term “true Jew” to those in the Body, the title Israel to the nation of Israel, there is no “true Israel” in the Scriptures. Therefore, Ignatius wrote, “if any one says the Lord is mere man, he is a Jew, a murderer of Christ”. Receiving Jesus as a Sacrifice is different, it was well considered, if you haven’t accepted the Sacrifice of Jesus, you caused it.
Ignatius also explained the difference between the Tabernacle, and Temple of God, as he wrote “keep yourself pure as the habitation (tabernacle) of God. You are the temple (holy of holies) of Christ. You are an instrument of the Spirit”. In order to be the Tabernacle of God, we must first become the Temple, then move to the Tabernacle as a usable Instrument of the Spirit.
Ignatius was martyred around 107 AD (or 116 depending on which calendar one uses) under the reign of Trajan, who was an emperor so filled with pride there was hardly enough room for his blood, he was known as unjust and mean. Ignatius was not slow to speak in the face of Trajan, but spoke as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. Ignatius was a peaceful man, a mild man, yet Trajan a mean man. When Ignatius faced Trajan, Trajan said unto him, “Who are you, wicked wretch, who sets yourself to transgress our commands, and persuades others to do the same”. Ignatius replied, “No one ought to call Ignatius wicked; for all evil spirits have departed from the servants of God. But if because I am an enemy to these evil spirits, you call me wicked in respect to them, I quite agree with you; for inasmuch as I have Christ the King of heaven within me, I destroy all the devices of these evil spirits”. Ignatius was devoured by the beasts at Rome, his disciples gathered up the remains and buried him at Antioch. Ignatius was not beheaded, does it mean he will not be among those “beheaded for Christ”? Hardly, he knew who the Head (authority) was, it wasn’t Ignatius, it was Jesus.
The early danger of Judaizing hung around even after Paul addressed it through his letter to the Galatians. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD, but Jerusalem itself was destroyed some thirty years later. With the destruction of Jerusalem the Judaizers came in full force in an attempt to make a second Israel. Anything given to Abraham or Moses which became included into the Law of Moses, became the Law of Moses regardless. There are many like “words” found in the Old and New, but they differ widely in concept and definition. There is a sabbath day in the Old, yet Jesus is our sabbath in the New; there is a circumcision in the Old, and one in the New, but they differ by definition.
The Judaizers couldn’t accept the Gentile coming around the Law, they fought and fought to get the Gentile to go back to the Law of Moses to begin again. The evidence as Paul said, is the Spirit, if one has the Spirit they have been accepted by Jesus. They also held certain points of the Law of Moses, proclaiming them to be attached to the New Covenant by association. Paul showed them time and again their premise was wrong, if one wanted to keep a day, or not, it was between them and the Lord; it was not to be doctrine, nor to be imposed on others.
There were the Defenders of the Faith known as Apologists, but these people didn’t apologize for the faith, rather they used Christian concepts and Scripture to stand for Faith. Some of us think an Apologist is one who goes around saying, “Oh gee, we’re sorry, oh my, excuse me, or golly we’re so sorry”. No, they defend the faith, the term means one who stands without apology: one such Apologists was Justin Martyr (110-165 AD) who was a Gentile, but born in Samaria, near Jacob’s well (of all places), the same place Jesus told the woman about the Living Water. Justin shows how the natural intellect of man will call devils (idols) gods; when they give place to idols in man’s religion, they themselves become demons; whereas, the Christian knows their God, by faith they fashion a place in their hearts for Him to dwell. Clearly they knew the Kingdom was within, they were not waiting for it, they were being perfected by it.
The Romans called the Christians atheists, Justin admits, as far as those who hold to heathen gods are concerned, truly we are atheistic; but the Prophetic Spirit of Christ has taught us in Whom we worship and adore. Justin speaks of those who will come on the last day saying, “Lord, Lord” but will be ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing, thus Justin noted there were those from within who attack the Faith, but it didn’t mean the Faith was faulty, rather there were others who proved Christ in them by their nature.
Justin pointed out how the Christian would gladly serve Rome, but not worship it, for no Christian should be caught giving worship to an earthly kingdom. Justin talks about Simon the Samaritan, but he also shows there were others who did magic, but they didn’t have the ability to forgive men’s sins, or lead men to salvation. Justin doesn’t discount signs, rather he places them in the right perspective, all signs of Believers point to Jesus.
Justin, like Peter noted there were some who could translate languages, such as Hebrew, but they didn’t understand what was written, for only the Holy Ghost can interpret the language. Again we find the difference between the Scriptures and the Word, without the Spirit in us we will use Scriptures against people, not for them. In reference to the Holy Ghost, Justin said, “for sometimes He declares things yet to come to pass, in the manner of one who foretells the future; sometimes He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ”. In reference to translation he said, “And this the Jews who possessed the books of the prophets did not understand, therefore did not recognize Christ even when He came, but even hate us who say He has come, and who prove, as was predicted, He was crucified by them”. He also tells us to discern for “when the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of things about to come to pass as if they had already taken place”. We know this as calling things which are not to us, as a Were to God, but it shows we can miss the prophecy by attempting to interpret it through natural reasoning.
Many of Justin’s writings center around defending the faith, part of the faith would be inclusive to the Doctrine of Christ. For instance he speaks of two types of baptism, one in Water, the another granting someone the Living Water within. He also explains the Sacraments to the heathen reader, showing how many prayers were given for all parties, those who accepted the call, and for those whom the Lord is calling. At the end of the prayers comes the Bread and a Cup with Wine and Water mixed. The early saints didn’t use all wine, or all grape juice, rather in accordance with both Paul and John the Water and Blood (Wine) were mixed (I Jn 5:6 & I Tim 5:23). The Communion (Eucharist) is taken by Believers, who have not only accepted the Body (Bread), but have accepted the Spirit (Church). Does it mean only those who are the exactness of Christ can partake? Not at all, it means we get our hearts right by focusing on being Christ Like by the Spirit. The unworthy state at the table is when one fails to see the importance of the Bread and Wine. Paul’s comments to the Corinthians was based on their carnal disrespect for the table, for some reason we think if we have some sin in our life we can’t partake. Not so, not so at all, it’s the perfect time to come to the table to find the place in the Bread and Blood of Christ to be set free indeed by the Spirit within.
There were other evidences regarding Christians outside of the writings of the saints, some of which came from the Romans (not the letter to the Romans, but the people known as Romans). The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate became an eye opener; Marcus was surrounded by the enemy, not just a few but nearly 900,000 of mixed multitudes coming to destroy Marcus and his troops. Marcus being a Roman immediately summoned help from his heathen Roman gods, but gained no help at all. He then summoned those called Christian among the slave armor bearers, cooks and non-combatants. Marcus was not only surrounded by the enemy, but was without water for several days, the future looked dim, death and failure were knocking on the door. Out of desperation Marcus requested for the Christians to pray to their God, and soon found they entered a battle he was not prepared for. The Christians didn’t grab swords, knifes or pickets, they cast themselves on the ground to pray, not only for Marcus, but for the whole Roman army, the same army who had been persecuting their brethren. While these Christians were praying it started to rain, not just any rain, but as Marcus wrote “water poured from heaven, upon us most refreshingly cool”. A miracle indeed, but what about the enemy? Marcus wrote “but upon the enemies of Rome a withering hail”. Marcus made a plea to Rome, Be careful how they handle these Christians, lest they pray against Rome. Marcus being admittedly ignorant of the Christian belief, didn’t understand Christians didn’t render evil for evil, rather they pray for those who persecuted them.
Were Christians conducting miracles, healings and casting out devils in Justin’s time? He reports, “for numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christians casting them out in the Name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs”. This was well after the time of the original Apostles, thus it’s the Name of Jesus, not the individual power of man; the Name has not passed away, neither has the Power of Christ.
Were these man and women of God faced with heresy? Yes, but they disproved the heresy by the Power of Christ. Irenaeus wrote against many heresies, although they go by different names, the same types are around today. Irenaeus saw the one trait of the natural minded attempting to interpret the “Word of Revelation” producing error. He also noted, “Error, indeed is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous) more true than truth itself. One far superior to me has well said, in reference to this point. A clever imitation in glass casts contempt, as it were, on the precious jewel the emerald (which is most highly esteemed by some), unless it come under the eye of one able to test and expose the counterfeit”. Among the many heresies were those started by Simon of Samaria, who was called the “father of heresies”. This same Simon was the one noted in Acts 8 who believed the signs, was baptized in water by Philip, but rebuked by the Apostles when his heart was not right. However, instead of getting right with God, Simon wandered deeper into darkness.
Simon being baptized in water did show he entered the Body, but like the bad fish, and birds, he loved darkness more than Light, ending with the very darkness he loved, but never making it to the Church. Was Simon a whacko? Yes, there were others, even those who killed others in “the Name of God”, or those who caused mass suicides with the false promise of the act being a means to reach the great by and by. The opposite only proves the real still exists, Paul said God allows the vessels of dishonor to prove there are vessels of honor (Rom 9:21-23).
History shows Simon purchased a slave woman by the name of Helena from Tyre, then declared her the first conception of his mind, the mother of all. Simon did magic, tricking many, Rome even gave him a statue. To us, this seems silly, but a Whacko seeks the lusts in others, when they find a lust, they exploit it. They attempt to find something to make them the special of the special, some outside document, something from the Law, anything to make them appear more important than the rest of the Body, thus separating themselves from the Body. Jude said they separate themselves by thinking they are more holy, more righteous and more Christian then the rest of the Body. Anyone who is Born Again has the Holiness and Righteousness of God within, there isn’t any higher holiness or righteousness than God’s.
The Ebionites (poor men) emphasized the doing of the Law of Moses, they also said Jesus was the human son of Mary and Joseph, thus inserting their efforts of self-righteousness to become sons of God. They assumed if a dog could sit, it could be a man, simply doing religious acts doesn’t change one’s character or position; they missed the premise of being Born Again. Paul said Jesus was declared the Son of God by the Spirit of Holiness based on the Resurrection (Rom 1:3-4). It doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t the Son of God prior, it means the declaration was based on the Resurrection, the same Spirit is our proof of the Resurrection of Jesus, making us sons of God.
The Elchasaites observed the Mosaic Law, but mixed it with certain elements of Christianity. They held circumcision of the flesh, the sabbath, other areas benefiting their self-righteous stand. They also drifted into Chaldean astrology and magic, assuming spiritual and magic (Mysticism) were the same, rather than seeing supernatural endeavors to please the flesh are still witchcraft. Anytime we do some deed thinking our doing caused God to love us more, or honor us more, we are mistaken, those are the roots of self-righteousness enhancing the flesh in order to steal God’s glory. If God tells us to do something, we do it, then God rewards us based on God’s love, but it doesn’t mean we impressed God, or gained more honor than anyone else who obeyed God.
The Doctrines of the Ophites and Sethians proclaimed there were three separate gods, the Father, the Son, then the Holy Ghost, they also said God was a man, had body parts, and Adam was more God, than man. They felt by their efforts they could become Adam Like, thus having a chance to defeat sin in Adam’s place, yet by so doing they also denied the call to become Christ Like. Adam fell, thus man’s self-based soul assumes he can be like Adam, yet defeat the devil on his own. The Ophites and Sethians said the Spirit was the first woman, both the father and son had intercourse with the woman, whom they called the mother of all living. This same heresy is found today in those who claim “Mother Holy Ghost”, assuming God is the husband to the Holy Ghost, when the Scriptures tell us God is not a man that He should lie.
Gnosticism was a philosophical heresy, the same type Paul addressed in his letter to the Colossians. They used human intellectualism and reasoning to discover the sense of evil and good, the approach was to save the self, not the soul. From the Gnosticism approach we might make the mistake any knowledge is heresy, not so, since there is a knowledge from God. It wasn’t knowledge causing the heresy of the Gnostics, it was their belief in natural intellectualism to save the self by the soul. A discovery in 1946 of the Nag Hammadi revealed the central thoughts of Gnosticism, allowing us to separate their thoughts from the Christian. They sought a clear separation between the material and the spiritual, without acquiring the spiritual nature through God to discern either. They assumed all material was evil, only the spirit world was good, thus God couldn’t have been the Creator of the material world. This posed a problem, if God didn’t create it, who did? They formed the Demiurge a series of emanations from the high god of Gnosticism flowing down the ladder through various gods until they reached the evil god. They associated the evil Demiurge with Jehovah of the Old Testament, Whom they disliked. They didn’t care about the salvation of the soul by the Spirit, but sought the Gnosis (knowledge) of man to accomplish the act of saving the self, which we know as the soul attempting to save itself. A man by the name of Basilides headed a school for the Gnostics, as did Saturninus, but Marcion and his followers appeared to be the most influential Gnostics. Marcion (145 AD) taught Judaism was evil in all aspects, he not only disliked Jehovah, but hated the Old Testament. John says if we hate the Testimony of the Father, we hate the Son as well. Gnosticism had separate gods, they rejected any human aspect of Jesus, including His Sacrificial death, or the Resurrection. Instead of the saving of the soul, they ended with pride and arrogance as their natural reasonings, leading to religious conceit.
The Valentinus heresy was another Gnostic heresy, they trusted in the natural intellect of man to save man. Their mixture of heathen concepts with changes in names was common, yet the imitation can’t replace the real. All these systems made promises they were unable to deliver, like the devil in the tree. They used phrases to bring God to man’s level, or to lower Christ to being a mere man, all of which gain man an equal start without the Spirit to become Christ Like. This basis is the same as “we’re all sons of God” while rejecting being Born Again. Worldly religions all center on self-righteousness, with the false concept of man being basically good in and of himself, or man can get to heaven on his own merits. This false mentality is akin to the Lucifer complex, gaining heaven on ones fleshly merits. The Valentinus heresy sprang from the heresy of Simon, just as the term Simony came from Simon. Simony became an issue as people were buying positions, paying for their indulgences, and using money as a means of power. One point Irenaeus made was how the Apostles taught the kingdom before the Cross, but under direct supervision of Jesus. That is, Jesus was present if anyone wanted to question Him regarding the disciples; however, the disciples after the Cross did not preach until they were Endowed with The Gift from the Power on High. Thereby they still had Jesus, but by the Spirit in them. The disciples preached One God; Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they gave God the glory, as they sought humbleness; whereas, the heretics seek self glory in one form or another.
Heretics either rewrite scripture, produce their own writings, or twist Scripture to fit their doctrines. They refuse to apply faith in a Godly manner, although they talk of faith, yet their concept of faith is mind power. In reference to One God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Irenaeus uses what we know as Hebrews 1:8, showing the Spirit Spoke, thus the Father witnessed the Son by calling the Son “God”. Irenaeus took a stand some today call heresy, but nonetheless, he proved it by Scripture and faith; he showed if one is Born Again Spirit filled Believer they are a son of God. They will by nature submit to the Father as Jesus submitted and became obedient, even obedient to the Cross. His concept of a son of God, shows the person is like the Son of God by the Spirit; not saying they are God. Rather they stand out as a symbol of who God is, thus he equates the concept to “if you have seen me, you have seen Jesus”. However, he also points out one must be Born Again, walk in the Spirit, as they continually believe in order to proclaim the confession.
Irenaeus used the same Scriptures as Jesus used in front of the Pharisees, along with the adoption by which we cry, Abba Father. His argument displayed how we are sons of God by the Spirit. Truly we are not God, but sons of God, if sons we are gods. There are some today who might say, “It’s what the devil promised”, which is true, but the devil couldn’t deliver the promise. Jesus not only made it possible for us to have the position, He offers it to anyone who is Born Again. Simply if we are not God, yet born of God, how can we not be gods if God is God? It’s a far cry form those who attempt to be gods by self endeavors, or the flesh, or independent “gods”, rather he placed it in the same area as Jesus making us kings and priests. We are kings, but subject to the King of kings; we are priests, but subject to our High Priest, we are sons of God, but subject to Jesus. Irenaeus separates the heathen aspect from the Godly, showing if one is not Born Again they are not a god in reference to being a representative of God, but an image of the devil, of which they call themselves gods, who are not gods. There is a vast difference between an independent god formed by one’s own self-righteousness, and being Born Again.
Manicheanism was founded by Mani (216-276 AD), who mixed some Christian concepts with Zoroastriamism, or other oriental religious ideas. They held two opposing and eternal principles as their gods, but Manicheanism gave the devil eternal wisdom and knowledge, thus they held two kings, one of light, and one of darkness. They went further and claimed them to be brothers, a heresy still seen today as some claim the devil and Jesus were brothers, with God picking the good over the evil. The Bible tells us Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father, not One of the many begotten.
These two kings, according to Manicheanism tricked primitive man into a mixture of light and darkness. This is like saying “it was those kings you gave me”. This principle started the concept of man having an old spirit which was the basis for the spiritual New Birth. This presupposes man had some active goodness from which God could build on, hereby removing the premise of all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. In his search for the truth Augustine, a church father became involved in Manicheanism, after his conversion he spent a great deal of time refuting the concept, thus when he did receive the truth it opened his eyes, allowing him to see how corrupt Manicheanism was.
Some used terms and concepts seemingly Christian, but lack the ability and Power thereof. Neoplatonism was a type of Mysticism: Mysticism is broken down into four types, epistemological approaches mysticism by logic and reason. The Roman Catholic Quietists of the seventeenth century, and the Quakers held this view. Some hold the metaphysical form of mysticism, this is explained by the word Meta, which means Between, thus this was a place Between the physical and spirit world, but it was hardly spiritual. This is known to us today as Mysticism, it is not Spiritual in any sense, it’s witchcraft, or a position of the natural attempting to be spiritual. Neoplatonism was a type of ontological of mystical philosophy, it originated in Alexandria by Ammonius Saccas (174-242). Neoplatonists assumed the Absolute Being as the transcendent source of all that is, as a result of the past overflowing. The universe was a re-absorption into the divine essence, making the universe first, the divine second. They would read John 1:1 as, in the beginning was the flesh and the flesh then became God; hardly the case. The fourth aspect which was mistakenly termed Mysticism by some in the days preceding the 18th century is the Bible concept of being spiritual by the Spirit. We call this by the term Charismatic, where one submits to the Spirit in order to be used by the Spirit to become spiritual in nature. The other types of mysticism testify of man, the Spirit testifies of Jesus. Mysticism without the Spirit is demonic, yet with the Spirit it’s charismatic (Grace Motivated).
Montanism surfaced around 155 AD, which centered on the problems of formalism in the church. In order to avoid the confines of rules and regulations they jumped to the Second Advent of Christ, they said they sought the Holy Ghost; however, their confusion produced heretical views of the Second Advent, which corrupted their endeavors to reach the Holy Ghost. Montanus was the leader of this group, he soon thought he was the Holy Spirit, claiming Jesus would set up the Kingdom in Phrygia. This is one of the first views placing the Kingdom of God on earth, or having Jesus on earth during the 1,000 years. Not only did the Council at Constantinople reject Montanism, but said they should be looked on as pagans. Montanus is a perfect example of a leader not being accountable to anyone, other than their wild mind, then allowing their natural mind to make them greater than the sum.
Monarchianism went the opposite direction, it started a form of Unitarianism by denying the deity of Christ. Their leader, Paul of Samosata was a bishop of Antioch, but he would seek the recognition of applause, or people giving him honor, soon he felt he was God. He had a female choir sing hymns praising him, not the Lord. He said Jesus was not divine but was a mere man, although a good man, thus by acts of self-righteousness Jesus was able to penetrate the divine. This same heresy is still around, thus it wasn’t the men who started these heresies, but the spirit of the world being used in a religious sense attacking the Spirit which is of God, in an attempt to keep man from the divine.
Saint Augustine, born in what is now Souk-Ahras, Algeria, in AD 354, brought a systematic method of philosophy to Christian theology. Augustine taught rhetoric in the ancient cities of Carthage, Rome and Milan before his Christian baptism in 387. His discussions of the Bible were based in the spiritual knowledge of truth pointing to the existence of God. A vigorous advocate of Roman Catholicism, Augustine developed many of his doctrines while attempting to resolve theological conflicts with Donatism and Pelagianism, two heretical movements. Augustine said it was nearly impossible to define heresy, then added, all heresy must be judged by the Spirit, not the mind of man. Augustine held the Holy Ghost was the only Teacher of the church, adding the purpose of being in the Body was to grow by the Spirit into a Christ Like nature. On error he added, the error is in the person, rather than the person being the error. The lost natural soul of man can take a Truth, twisting it into the self nature making the Truth a heresy, thus Augustine said we need the Unction, not intellect to discern the spirit of error.
Irenaeus also gives us a clue to Mark’s role in the New Testament Church; Peter could speak Roman, Hebrew and Greek, evidenced since he didn’t need anyone to interpret for him when he spoke to Cornelius, yet Irenaeus calls Mark “Peter’s Interpreter”; thus Paul said we needed an interpreter of tongues in the meeting. Irenaeus proved the point, Mark by the Spirit would interpret Peter’s tongues in the meeting.
Irenaeus wrote about the change the Spirit made in Peter by using the experience at the Gate Beautiful, when Peter told the lame man, “Silver and gold I have none; but such as I do have give I thee, In the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk”. The evidence was the man leaping and praising God, rather than sitting, and praising Peter.
Irenaeus like other saints knew the difference between weakness and wickedness, the weakness in Peter before Pentecost was Peter’s misconception of his strength. Peter felt he could do anything, even protect the Lord, indicating his weakness. Judas on the other hand was wicked, he formed his agenda and plan, then put it into motion. Only when it didn’t turn out the way he wanted did he seek repentance, but it was self-repentance. Paul knew his weaknesses, he knew Christ was strong where Paul was weak. Accordingly Paul knew by himself, and of himself he was weak, the only true strength was Christ in him.
Irenaeus reported how the heretics would find a way to introduce their greatness, and importance in their acts of self-exaltation. The heretics attempted to copy many things, they were pseudo-prophets who talked in riddles, then interpreted their own jabber, but it always pointed to the self, or introduced man’s greatness and ability, rather than pointing to the Greatness of God.
There were the Polemicists who unlike the Apologists had backgrounds in Christian culture and attacked heresy, whereas the Apologists approached heresy from the aspect of preaching the truth in love. Many of the Apologists had been converted out of heretical systems, making them able to approach the corrupt systems by speaking on the failure of the heretical system. The Polemicists were more firm in their approach, they were like unto a prophet with a rebuking message. They would expose the false by exposing their ways; whereas, the Apologist talked about how to avoid the false.
Irenaeus also looked at Paul’s writings as intended, he never said there was a “gift of salvation”, but he did point to the Gift of Grace over and over again as the vehicle given by God to reach salvation.
After the church fathers laid out all the correctness of seeking the Spirit, along would come those who trusted in the mundane theological premises of men. Great theological debates over matters of little difference started, problems with understanding Mercy and other areas would also surface. The result wasn’t the purposed beginning, but nonetheless the Lord knew what would happen before He went to the Cross. We can’t look with disdain at the result, but we must seek to be among the Few who walk with the Lord.
On the brighter side the Cannon of Scripture began around 180 AD, it appeared important to preserve the writings of the early disciples and fathers. Many writings were about, many felt the Rapture would happen at any second, but as many of the disciples as well as the disciples of the disciples passed, there was a concern to preserve their writings.
The four pillars of the corruption of the Body are much different from the Five Pillars of the Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers and Pastors designed to be Servants to lift the Saints. The Four Pillars of corruption surfaced near the end of the Persecution; the Cultist invasion started in 250 AD with the Sacrament perversion, then Gregory added days, seasons, and times. The Constitution or Polity, which put one person as the leader began around 313 AD, the Creed or Intellectual Natural Theology started around 325 AD, which would lead to “critical thinking”, thus man began to use his own intellect to ascertain who God is, what God wants, or how to reach God. The Tower of Babel was being reconstructed by the hand of man, yet God still had a purpose and a function. Choice without choice is no choice at all, if everyone in the Body was raising the dead, healing the sick, preaching with authority and walking by the Spirit, it would be obvious, thus God formed vessels of dishonor to hone the vessels of honor. If we are among the Few who walk with Jesus, we can be assured there seems to be more vessels of dishonor than honor, but it doesn’t mean there are, neither does it mean we have to be among the bad fish. Few is only relative to the number it’s taken from, if we count everyone who said they were Christian since Pentecost, then a Few would be a number one couldn’t count.
We also know man equates numbers with success, it’s obvious God doesn’t, rather God looks to quality. The errors of history are not written for the people who committed them, they are written for us. The Correctness was not written to give honor to the men of Correctness, it was written for us to enter our Correctness in our Time in this Season. The choices were granted to them, as to us, but the test is on us. Even today we have many choices, what Manuscript will be believe? Do we really believe the Holy Ghost is the Author? Or do we think man was? Choices are presented to the Just and Unjust, the decisions tell which is which.
Jesus specifically said, If our brother repents, we forgive, no if’s, and’s, or but’s, forgiveness must be applied by Mercy in order for us to be forgiven by God; however, during this time in history the concept went by the wayside, along with Grace. Donatism was a Schism (division) caused by a churchman named Donatus to lash out at some. During the Persecution there were some who were weak, they succumbed to the pressure of Rome, after the Persecution many of them came back repenting, by asking forgiveness. Caecilian was a bishop consecrated by Felix, but Felix was accused of being a traitor under the Diocletian Persecution. Donatus said, the failure to remain true during the persecution invalidated the power of Felix to ordain anyone, since Donatus considered Felix, or anyone who succumbed to denouncing Jesus as the unpardonable sin. Donatus’ misconception of the unpardonable sin, coupled with his refusal to forgive, caused a split. How could the sin be unpardonable if the person was asking to be pardoned? The unpardonable sin in this case was the refusal to pardon.
Other great theological problems came about; Did the Holy Ghost come from the Father? Or from the Father and the Son? Or from the Father at the request of the Son? No one considered, Do we have the Spirit? Another question came, Do we use unleavened or leavened bread for Communion, never mind judging ourselves, what type of bread do we use? These questions became the seeds of critical thinking, placing a Yoke on the Neck of the Body. To show how bad it became, we find few, if any writings talking about the anointing after 330 AD. We find some who had the anointing, who were the Good Fish who appeared to bring hope to a hopeless situation; however, for the most part it was “I think”, or “I demand”. This is not to say we worship the anointing, but it’s still a good sign when God is moving, Amen?
Heresy within the walls of the Body became more common; around 318 AD Alexander preached on The Great Mystery Of The Trinity In Unity, but one Arius had a theological fit, he felt the sermon failed to show a clear distinction between the persons of the Godhead. Arianism brought the Chistological Controversy, as Arius (from whom the name Arianism came) denied the true divinity of Jesus. Arius taught the Son of God was not eternal, but created by the Father, as Christ being a separate element of God, and Jesus became the Christ and Son through obedience. Arius based this on Christ being a different (Greek Hereros) substance from the Father, thus created from nothing, as the earth was created from nothing. His error was in using the title Christ, rather than looking at the Son as the Word, who was before the beginning. Arius mixed the Body of Christ with Jesus Christ, thus making his conclusion faulty. Rather than see the Body as a product of the Covenant between the Son and Father, which began as the Rock, he saw Jesus as a product of creation, rather than the purpose. This also supposes the Father is a product of creation, thus Arius was equating God to man, or man to God, a basic fault of heresy. The questions came, Could Christ save man if He was merely a demigod? What was the relationship between the Son and the Father? What was the relationship between the Holy Ghost and the Son? These questions, among others had two answers, one was of course the Bible answer, the other was natural reasoning. We have the advantage of having a printed Bible, we know In the beginning was the Word, showing the Word was before the beginning; however, these people also had the writings of John, or Polycarp who quoted John many times. The error was making the words of John the words of a man, thus making them subject to natural reasoning. Peter wrote how the holy men of Old were moved by the Holy Ghost, thus there is no private interpretation. The efforts of natural interpretation end in heresy, not interpretation. Arius wanting a special something to make him greater than others in the Body. Some seek a position in the Body to serve, some seek a position to validate their existence in the Body, some seek a position to be exalted, Arius fit the last group. Some seek a special knowledge, or book, or writing making them assume they are greater than the rest of the Body.
Division over the Trinity drove a wedge in the Body, in the summer of 325 AD the council held their meeting in Nicaea. For the first time the Body was now facing political leadership in the Body, the Yoke grew tighter. A minority of those present thought Jesus did not exist from eternity, but had a beginning through a creative act of God. Athanasius (296-373) brought forth a view becoming the Orthodox view. He insisted Jesus had existed from all eternity with the Father, as the same essence (Greek Homoousios) as the Father, although Jesus was given a distinct personality to equate to man as the Son of man, yet nonetheless was the Word of God. This was both John’s and Paul’s view.
To Athanasius this was a serious matter, he felt man’s salvation was at stake, if Jesus was mere man who became Righteous by the Baptism, than all men could be God-man, yet none could. If Jesus was mere man, then the Authority He granted us was faulty, and marred. Athanasius said Jesus was coequal, coeternal, and cosubstantial with the Father, of course he was exiled five times for his views, but later those views were accepted as Cannon. Athanasius wrote the De Incarnation, showing how God by the Word (Logos), came by union with manhood to restore man through the Cross, to bring man into the image of God by the Spirit (New Birth), thus the death and Resurrection provided man a benefit Adam never had. Athanasius was not alone in his views, the evidence was in their hands, many of the fathers used the phrase “In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God (internal), and the Word was God”. They understood the concept, thus many died holding to the Promise provided by the Resurrection. The heresy not only placed Salvation in the hands of man’s natural ability, it also made the Scriptures man breathed leaving Salvation as an act of self-righteousness. The misconceptions of water baptism began to grow at this time, yet others knew the Truth, and used Paul’s letter to the Corinthians to show baptism was important, but the Spirit more so.
John Chrysostom (347-407) was a patriarch of Constantinople as one of the four Eastern fathers of the Body. The son of Christian parents, John was educated in rhetoric, later in theology by Diodore of Tarsus. Feeling the call to the monastic life, he practiced a strict asceticism at home; later in life he retreated to a mountainous area. On his return to Antioch he was ordained a deacon (381 AD), then a priest (386 AD). In 398 AD, John was consecrated as patriarch of Constantinople. He administered the diocese with courage, especially in a series of reforms. John was unable to be subservient to the emperor Arcadius and his wife, Eudoxia, the problem was the attempts of the emperor and his wife to interfere in church activities. John kept the line between submission and invasion intact; however, in so doing he also became tactless. When idealism united with the opposition, he was condemned and deposed at the illegal Synod of the Oaks in 403 AD. After a brief return to Constantinople, he angered the empress again, and was forced to leave the city in 404 AD, later he died during a forced journey to Pontus.
John was a Greek preacher, his eloquence gained him the name of “Chrysostom” (golden mouth). Most of his writings are in sermon form, depicting how he knew the Holy Ghost interprets the Word, and how one needed faith in Jesus before the Scriptures could have life. He was noted as having the unusual facility of seeing the spiritual meaning of Scripture, while also providing practical application of the Scriptures. Chrysostom was endued with Power from on High enabling him to see the intent of the Author.
Macedonius a bishop of Constantinople between 341 and 360 AD taught the Holy Ghost was “a minister and a servant” like unto the angels, a creature subordinate to the Father and Son. Those without the Holy Ghost find it difficult, if not impossible to define the Spirit. The Holy Ghost never speaks of Himself, attempting to define the Spirit by the attributes of the Holy Ghost is a mistake. The Holy Ghost brings the Gift, the Gift is the Seed of God known as the Holy Spirit. The Report consists to the Father, Word and Holy Ghost, thus before the beginning the Word was. The Witness on earth consists of the Water (Father’s mercy), the Blood (shed Blood of Jesus), and the Spirit (Gift of the Holy Ghost – I Jn 5:7-8).
God is Love, thus the Spirit is also Love, but it still doesn’t define Him. God is Spirit, and so is the Holy Spirit, but it still doesn’t define Him. The study of the Spirit is termed Pneumatology, or the study of spiritual things, especially the Holy Spirit. We found the title Holy Spirit is only used seven times in the Bible, referring to the New Man. The confusion is mixing the authorities; if we were to say Jehovah has given us a Covenant, Elohiym has granted us a position, El is our Almighty God, would we be speaking of One God? Or many? One of course, but each Name represents a place of authority wherein God is dealing with us. So it is with the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost delivers the Seed, the Seed is the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, the Greater He, Another Comforter, New Man, Spirit, yet in each area there is an authority identifying the title, it is not a bunch of different spirits, but as Paul said, One Spirit.
For the most part the study consists of what the Bible says about spiritual matters, but it still doesn’t define the Holy Spirit. We know His course, attributes, abilities, and desires, but it still doesn’t define Him. Unless we include the Holy Spirit into the New Birth, as we hold the connection as the greatest, most complete Gift God has ever given man, we will not respect the Gift as we should. The Holy Ghost still teaches by comparing spiritual to spiritual, yet Macedonius entered denial, lacked spiritual awareness, yet he was made a bishop nearly 350 years after the Cross. It didn’t take long for the Tares to invade the Rock, but the Wheat was still becoming the Church.
There was also the danger of making Mary more than she was, or removing her from being who she was. Apollinarius taught Jesus had a true body of flesh, a soul like unto man, but the Spirit in Him came by the Logos, rather than Jesus being the Logos from the Beginning. Paul said Jesus was made (not created) the Son of man (Seed of David) according to the flesh, but declared the Son of God by the power of the Resurrection (Rom 1:3-4). The view of Apollinarius was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381; however, the concept even condemned, still planted corrupt seeds; today we still see the Apollinarius heresy taught in some circles.
The Apollinarius concept was another effort to lower Jesus to being mere man, while making Mary less than a handmaiden of the Lord. Why would one even think this in light of the Scriptures? The answer? The spirit lusting to envy, the same lust makes man think he can be equal to Jesus, without having the Spirit. Worldly religions all center on the precept of self-righteousness, man making his own conclusions regarding holiness or righteousness, yet it’s the spirit of man defining holiness, hardly a valid insight. We still judge a person by their Ways, self-righteousness usually finds itself joined to religious conceit, producing religious pride.
In order to reverse this plague of Apollinarius’ thinking, the Council took the position of Mary one step past the intended “handmaiden” of the Lord, by giving her the name Theotokos (God-bearer), later to be known as Mother Of God. There are variables, and constants, a constant never changes, but a variable is subject to change. Mary was special, but nonetheless a vessel, she was changed like all the rest on the Day of Pentecost. God changes not, Jesus as the Word made flesh stood as the Son of man, but He was still the Word, still the Son of God, still God the Son, it was the Resurrection Declaring Him the Son of God, it didn’t make Him the Son of God (Rom 1:4): we become sons of God by having the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.
The Council overacted by rejecting the difference between Son of man and Son of God; thereby holding Mary as the mother of God, rather than following Scripture which shows Jesus was made the son of David, but declared the Son of God by the Power of the Resurrection. Nestorious (381-452) disliked the term Theotokos, since it seemed to exalt Mary unduly. Nestorious admitted Mary was the holder of Jesus, but he also noted she was not the source. He held Mary was the mother of the human side of Jesus, the God side came solely from the Father via the Holy Ghost, but this was taken to mean Jesus was some Siamese Twin in fashion. Nestorious felt, Jesus was the God-bearer, not Mary. This view maintained the Divine Nature of Jesus, later the Council of Chalcedon took the view proclaiming Jesus was “complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man” having “two natures, without confusion, without change, without division”; however, this last aspect seemed to deny the physical Body of Jesus being changed in the Resurrection into complete Incorruptibility. Jesus separated the purpose of the Body, from the Blood, yet joined them in the Communion. The concept of the Body being Christ on earth seemed to get lost in the debates which centered in moot questions having little to do with Grace, or Salvation.
Then came the question of Will’s, did Jesus have a separate Will from the Father, if so how could He be of the Father? Which Will was divine or human, which was subordinate, which supreme? The dispute was based on the Garden prayer, but it wasn’t a dispute of Wills, it was in reference to method and acceptability; thus it was over the “Cup” of the Wrath of God; the will of the Son, and the will of the Father were in union. The Father didn’t want to pour out the Cup, neither did the Son, but for the suffering of the Son it must be done by the Son.
Then the issue of Sin came around with the questions: was man sinful from the beginning? Sinful at some point in time? Are there those who are not bound to Sin without hope? The sin nature, and committing sin are different, we are all born under the sin nature, since that born of the flesh is flesh. We are more prone to commit sin, than not, as evidenced by Adam. The first opportunity when we discovered the use of the self could gain us favor with ourselves, or gain for the self, wherein we gained pleasure for the flesh, we did Commit sin. From then on we were sold to sin, it guided us, defined good and evil for us, we were then disobedient. The Ten Commandments were a written conscience for those sold under sin, but Jesus paid the Ransom, by the Cross and Resurrection to set us free from the realm of sin. Death was not the issue, it was the element leading to death. A rose dies, does it go to hell? No? Why not, sin does prevail on the earth. A rose has not sinned, although it will die. Death as a result of sin began with Adam, thus man from Adam is much different than all the other creations.
Pelagius believed all men were created free of sin as Adam was prior to the fall, but under the sin nature. Each person had the power to choose good or evil, each soul is a separate creation of God; therefore, uncontaminated by the sin of Adam. He failed to connect the flesh to the equation, he didn’t see the flesh as a reproduction, nor Adam’s flesh as a reproduction of the earth which was in darkness and void. His argument was based in his dislike for infant baptism; therefore, since there was no original sin, infant baptism was a useless act. The one element he forgot was the Belief issue, in the verses pertaining to water baptism belief is required for the candidate. Even under John’s baptism repentance was the call, thus for one to repent they had to know they committed sin. In order to counter something he felt was wrong, Pelagius went to the other extreme. It is easy to do, we can catch ourselves beating a dead horse to prove it’s dead.
Augustine believed man was originally made in the image of God, free to choose good and evil, but Adam’s sin bound all men because Adam was the head of the human race. He insisted the only possible method of regeneration was exclusively the work of the Holy Ghost, not man. The Holy Ghost called men to repentance, and without the calling, man is incapable of making the decision, rather man will follow his flesh. Many assumed Adam’s fall was the fault of Adam-female, rather than Adam-them, thus the assumption placed the blame on the female; however, Paul said the woman was deceived, the man knew what he was doing (I Tim 2:14), regardless, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
St. Augustine’s viewpoint became the basis for many medieval theologians, such as Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Pascal, who drew heavily on his works. Some of his works pointed to how his thoughts before his conversion, some after, if one mixed one into the other, they would assume the old was new, or the new was old, his views changed considerably after his conversion.
Pelagius was a learned and moral monk but held: 1) Adam would have died even if he had not sinned; 2) the sin of Adam injured himself alone and not the hold human race: 3) newborn children are in the same condition as Adam before the fall; 4) the whole human race does not die because of Adam’s death or sin, nor will it rise again because of the Resurrection of Jesus; 5) the Law of Moses as well as the Gospel offers entrance to heaven, and 6) even before the coming of Jesus there were men wholly without sin or iniquity. His concept of children was correct, before either Jacob or Esau were born, or before they had done either good or evil, God knew which would serve, and which would rebel (Rom 9:11-12). The rest of his concepts are heretical, opposed to many Scriptures. Did God know the Body would be invaded in this manner? Yes, the church fathers saw how choice without choice is no choice at all.
Pelagius held a type of a Hyper-Calvinism view, wherein man need only cooperate with the divine to obtain salvation, once obtained, man could not lose it. His view held man didn’t need the Spirit, rather by man’s cooperate effort he could be saved, which we know is the basis for self-righteousness. The same view shows how self-righteousness becomes unrighteousness. Hyper-Calvinism still says By Grace You Are Saved, but adds “by my intellect I have made it”, thereby giving man more credit than God. Hyper-Calvinism introduces self-righteousness into the premise; although it claims Grace, it also introduces the “gift of salvation”, which is nonexistent in the Scriptures. Hyper-Calvinism is the common heresy of our day, a concept of man being able to save his own soul, but it’s based on the false concept of Salvation being the gift. Hyper-Calvinism depends on critical thinking, while denying the Power of Christ, unless it fits the thinking of the Hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinist thinking places intellectual endeavors in a higher position than the Mind of Christ. It’s not whether or not one is walking in the Spirit, it’s whether or not they hold the proper degrees of theology from the proper institutions. This attitude take it upon itself to change the Bible to fit the dogma of Hyper-Calvinist thinking.
What caused all this? How did they move from Belief in the Name of Jesus, to all these foolish questions? During the very early days faith was the call, not intellect, but when the Persecution stopped the theological questions came. During the Persecution people would hear the Gospel, submit to water baptism, learn of the Holy Ghost, receive the baptism to have the Spirit, with a confidence in their Lord and Savior to the degree wherein they would die in the most horrid ways, rather than deny Him. Some die for a religious thought process, some thinking their death is a one-way ticket to heaven, but the Persecution saw these people die based on their Love for the Lord. Theology was not the basis of their thinking, Faith and Love by the Spirit was.
Jesus also said, if the Branch fails to produce fruit, it will be cut off, thus it’s always the Fruit making the difference, not the Acts. The institution of various orders, including, but not limited to the papacy came after 313 AD. The martyrs proved Faith is the course, not reasoning; they proved the Spirit brings a relationship to bring forth the Strength of Christ, not failing theology. When the persecution stopped, the people wanted to see the Head of the Body, they wanted to touch the Head of the Body, they wanted to have pleasure for a season. Historians give us written conclusions, by telling us, “I have read, what I have read”; however, in reference to the first birth stages of the Body until 300 AD the mass of evidence was found on the walls of the tombs, then the historian has to tell us, “I have found, what I have found”.
Along the way there were many heretical writings, the word heresy means Self-defined, or a doctrine based on ones opinion. The heretical writings came from men writing their own history, or using their writing as a source to begin their own sect. The same practice is termed as an attempt at Private Interpretation, it continues today. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD) opposed the allegorical system of interpretation, insisting on an intellectual understanding of the grammar of the text, coupled with knowledge of the historical background of the text in order to understand the meaning of the writer. His error came from the misconception of men being the authors, rather than seeing they were merely scribes, the Holy Ghost is Author. Within those same Scriptures Mopsuestia felt they could only be interpreted by intellect, yet Peter’s warning was not to us intellect as the interpreting guide (II Pet 1:19-21). Mopsuestia became the father of using Scripture to interpret Scripture, which then developed into natural men using the Bible to interpret the Bible, neither did they consider Faith comes by hearing, the hearing by the Rhema. If the Spirit doesn’t speak of Himself, neither does the Son speak of Himself, how can the Bible speak of itself? The Bible defines itself, it does not interpret itself. The Holy Ghost still interprets the Scriptures, the Scriptures speak Of Jesus, they are not Jesus. Interpretation is not the understanding of the writer, but the purpose in the mind of the Author who moved the writer.
Going back to the time of the Persecution we find there were several Emperors of Rome involved in the persecution. Nero began the persecution by saying Christians must be punished for “their hatred of the human race”; he also blamed the Christians for setting fire to Rome, although he did it. Nero was born at Antium (Anzio) on December 15, 37 AD, he died in Rome on June 9, 68 AD at the age of 31 from suicide. Second was Galba, or Servious Galba Imperator Caesar Augustus, who was born near Tarracina on December 24, 3 BC, he died at Rome on January 14, 69 AD at the age of 72 as the result of an assassination. His reign was only one year, some don’t even count him among the reigning emperors. Otho, or Imperator Marcus Otho Caesar Augustus was next, he was born on April 28, 32 AD, he died at Brixellum on April 16, 69 AD at the age of 37 from suicide. He reigned less than a year, he was also considered by some not to be counted among the reigning emperors. Next was Vitellius, born on September 7, 12 AD, he died on December 20, 69 AD at the age of 57 from assassination during the Flavian Revolt. His body was dumped into the Tiber River, he too reigned less than a year; so much for job security. Then came Vespasian born at Falacrinae on November 17, 9 AD, he died in Rome on June 23, 79 AD at the age of 70 from illness, he reigned 10 years. Then came Domitian (Titus Flavius Domitianus) who was born on December 30, 39 AD, he died on September 13, 81 AD. He reigned two years, he was the last Roman emperor of the Flavian dynasty. Domitian had several campaigns against the tribes beyond the Rhine and Danube rivers with mixed results. He sponsored a number of important domestic reforms; however, these achievements were overshadowed by the reign of terror he initiated in 89 AD. Provoked by a rebellion in Germany, Domitian began to attack senators and officials he mistrusted, as well as suppress even the mildest forms of dissent. Not surprisingly, these autocratic excesses inspired conspiracies of the sort Domitian had feared. He managed to survive most of them, but on September 18, 96AD he was murdered by assassins who were in the pay of his wife, Domitilla. His dealings in the Persecution was not against Christians in general, but against those who rejected the Roman gods. Why didn’t the Romans also persecute the Jews? Because the Jews didn’t attempt to convert Romans. It was during the reign of Domitian when John was exiled to the island of Patmos.
Trajan is a different story, Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) was born on September. 18, 53AD, he died in August of 117AD. He was a Roman emperor from 98 to 117AD, he pursued an aggressive policy of expansion, gaining a Roman reputation for “benevolence”. Although born in Roman occupied Spain, he was nonetheless considered “Roman”. He worked his way up in the ranks by distinguishing himself early on with military and political posts until 97 AD when he received a position with Emperor Nerva, with the rank of Caesar holding a share of imperial power. Supported by the military, Trajan became sole emperor at Nerva’s death. An effective administrator, Trajan reduced taxes and sponsored subsidies for the poor, began a massive building program with the admission of provincials to prominent positions. He became best known among the Romans, and some historians for his campaigns against the Dacians (101-02, AD and 105-06, AD), which led to the creation of a Roman province north of the Danube. Also noted in his historical past is the war with the Parthians in 113 AD, who were Rome’s principal adversary in the East. Trajan captured Ctesiphon the Parthian capital, then marched to the Persian Gulf but could not eliminate the resistance. By Trajan’s death the Parthians were again in control of most of the overrun territory. Hadrian, his successor, retained the province of Dacia but renounced most of Trajan’s eastern conquests.
Trajan’s role in the Persecutions was somewhat overshadowed by his concerns to expand Rome, thus we find some historical letters from a Roman named Pliny to Trajan showing the role Trajan played. Pliny was the governor of Pontus (a place not the person), and Bithynia, the region was in upheaval with unrest and corruption. Apparently Trajan wanted the region brought to order by sending Pliny to correct the situation. The trouble according to Pliny was centered in social, political and religious clubs. The Romans were afraid of “secret societies”, yet they had many of their own. Trajan figured the secret societies were the problem, so he banned them, but in the process they also banned any and all religious activity “unless” such religious activity was conducted toward the various gods and goddesses of Rome. Therefore, the only allowed religion was idol worship, but it was not the only problem facing Christians, according to the Pliny letters it was a capital offense simply to be named Christian, thus many people were brought before the governmental authorities changed with the Roman crime of being Christian. Some were accused by family, or friends, some by anonymous letters; whatever the source, once the charge was made there would be a trial. Pliny’s method of gaining evidence was simply to ask the person whether they were Christian, if they confessed, he would ask a second, or third time with threats of punishment increasing if they continued to admit they were Christian. If they retained their stand, Pliny would have them executed. However, if one of the Christians claimed Roman citizenship, they were dispatched to Rome for trial, then executed.
According to Pliny the execution was the easy task, his question came about when someone who claimed to be Christian denounced the faith in face of execution. According to historical records there were several, but it doesn’t take away from those who stood in the faith, it only shows there were weaknesses in some. Pliny wrote how some of the Christians who faced him, “recited a prayer to the gods at my dictation, and made supplication with incense and wine to your statue,….. moreover they cursed Christ”. The question being, since they did renounce Christ, should they still be tried for the crime of being Christian? In Trajan’s reply he set the policy, which existed for decades: “There was to be no official persecution, but being a Christian was to remain a capital offense”, further he added, “They are not to be sought out, but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished…yet on this condition, whoever denies himself to be a Christian and makes the fact plain by his action, that is, by worshipping our gods, they shall obtain pardon on his repentance, however suspicious his past conduct may be”. Interesting how Trajan felt “repentance” was an act of turning from Christianity to idol worship, the complete opposite of the true meaning of the word.
The name “Christianity” was banned in Rome, which brings in the Jews. The Jews were unhappy, to say the least when they heard Trajan’s ruling, although it was illegal to be Christian, the reluctance of Rome to hunt them down caused the Jews to set out on their own hunting expedition. However, after a period of time Rome saw the Jewish exercise as a threat, much like Pharaoh’s thinking against the Jews, Rome felt if the Jews would kill the Christians, they might kill the Romans as well. The Jews were ordered to stop killing Christians, but many continued until the Persecution stopped.
Next would come Publius Aelius Hadrianus who was born on January 24, 76AD, he was known as Hadrian, becoming the emperor of Rome from 117AD to 138AD. On the death of his father in 85AD he was made a ward of his cousin Trajan, who would later become emperor (see above), as it turns out Hadrian soon became a favorite of Trajan’s wife Plotina. Trajan’s elevation to the imperial throne in 98AD assured Hadrian’s political career, but not until just before his death in 117AD did Trajan formally adopt his ward to designate him as his successor. In domestic matters Hadrian followed Trajan’s practices, but he rejected his predecessor’s imperialistic policies. He retained the province of Dacia beyond the Danube, but did not attempt to recapture the Parthian territory which Trajan’s troops had temporarily occupied. During a series of tours of the provinces around 125AD, Hadrian developed a new defensive strategy, he authorized a great wall in to be built in northern Britain. This wall separated Rome from the world, but at home things were not so separated.
Hadrian admired Greek culture, under different circumstances, he might have devoted his life to literature and philosophy rather than politics. He clearly considered his election as archon of Athens (112AD), and his dedication of the Temple of Olympian Zeus during his visit to Greece in 128-129AD among the high points of his life. He was notably less benevolent in his attitude toward the Jews. His prohibition of circumcision, and his decision to build a shrine to Jupiter Capitolinus on the site of the Temple of Jerusalem incited a serious Jewish revolt (132-135AD), which he ruthlessly crushed in 138AD. The rebellion and his success over the Jews gave him an idea, take the land, change the name, and soon the Jews will fade. He did change the name, he did take the land, but the Jews didn’t fade. He changed the name of the territory to “Syria-Palestina”, later the land would be divided into two separate lands, one named Syria the other Palestine. Therefore, Palestine obtained its name from a Roman, who was set on removing the Jews from the face of the earth. When we add the Ishmael factor, we can see why there is so much conflict in the land today. The Jews claiming the land was unlawfully taken from them, the Palestinians claiming the land was given to them by a ruling order.
Hadrian died on July 10, 138AD, his successor was Antonimus Pius of a Gallo-Roman family. Then would come Constantine, bringing an end to the Persecution. All this was to show how anyone, even if they claim to be Christian cannot “come against” Christians, the result is the loss of their “kingdom”.
Things could get confusing if one thinks each emperor had their own time of persecution against the Christians, historical we find Ten Persecutions, some of which were carried on by the following emperor, which is the case with Trajan and Hedrian. The Ten Persecutions are seen as the first under Nero, the second under Domitian, the third under Trajan, then jumping to Marcus Aurelius for the fourth, the fifth commencing with Severus (AD 192), then under Mazimus for the sixth, the seventh under Decius, the eighth under Valerian, the ninth under Aurelian and then the tenth under Diocletion around 303 AD, giving us nearly 250 years for the Persecutions.
Marcus Aurelius (161-180) felt Christians were in conflict with his extreme Stoicism, he was right. Then there was Septimius Sevrus who was responsible for some of the most horrid martyrdom’s. In 202 AD he forbade conversion to Christianity, he had a Spiritual woman from the African church named Perpetua imprisoned and executed in the arena at Carthage. Tertullian, a church father recorded the martyrdom of Perpetua, he also made a strong appeal to Sevrus for toleration of the Christians, which produced some minor effects. Sixth was Maximus Thrax (235-238), who restored to strong persecution; he called the Christians “enemies of the gods”. Seventh was Decius (249-251), who in his short reign started the first systematic persecution of Christians. The Eighth was Valerian (253-260) who was at first mild toward Christians, but banished ministers and prominent laymen, taking their property, as he prohibited religious assembly. When these acts failed to stop Christian worship, Valerian started the persecution again. Ninth was Aureliam (270-275), who wasn’t as bad as the others, but nonetheless persecuted the Body. Lastly was Diocletian the last of the Ten who would be the last devil of the Ten Days (Rev 2:10). He centered all worship on himself, making his palace the Domus Divina (House of the Divine). His nephew Maximin Daza issued an edict in 308 AD, commanding all Christians to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
The Body during this time did suffer poverty, mainly because it was very hard to do any business without it being known one was a Christian; however history also shows they did have their needs cared for. These Christians held tight to the Promise, so tight they placed a great deal of hope in the Rapture coming before 500 AD. The persecution fits with the view of the church of Smyrna, even reflecting why it’s the second church. It was after Smyrna when the Balaam’s and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes invaded Pergamos, and Jezebel with her children in Thyatira, leading to Sardis who has a Name, with a few who have not defiled their garments.
Cyprian (200-258) was the bishop of Carthage, he was a theologian of the early African church. The son of wealthy parents, he was a teacher before coming to Christ in 246, soon after he was ordained a priest and elected bishop of Carthage (246). Cyprian was forced to flee Carthage during the persecutions (249-251) of Emperor Decius. After his return he turned to the growing problem of the Christians who failed to stand firm during the persecution. Cyprian favored the re-admission of such Christians to the Body but under stringent conditions. Opposing the schism of Novation, who believed lapsed Christians should be permanently excluded, he argued baptisms performed by the schismatics were invalid. This confirms the concept of water baptism as a Token regarding entrance into the Body; accordingly if the schismatics were rejected, they could not introduce anyone into the Body. On this issue he was opposed by Pope Stephen I, in the renewed persecution of Valerian’s reign, Cyprian was beheaded near Carthage. Cyprian still held if one repented, even of the sin of denying the faith in the face of the persecution, they should be forgiven and restored. He often used Peter’s denial of the Lord coupled with Peter’s conversion in the last chapter of John to prove his point (although the Bible didn’t have chapter and verse then, he still used the language therein).
If the time of the Persecution fits the second church, what about the First, the church of Ephesus? One need only read Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians to find they left their first love. The Romans and Corinthians were called to be saints, they were yet to reach the position (Rom 1:7 & I Cor 1:2). The Galatians were falling away from Grace, by entering Judaizing thoughts. Their concept of Love the Lord thy God, moved to, What act of the flesh can I do to please God?
When we view History we see the word Catholic doesn’t refer to the Roman Catholic church, rather the word Catholic means Universal. The Universal Church came from the Command of Jesus to “go ye” into all the world. From the Universal roots came all the Christian Movements, including the Protestant, with the many branches thereof, yet it’s still the Body of Christ. Jesus didn’t destroy the Body, and neither did man, rather Jesus was still building His Church from those in the Body.
We will find various holidays instituted by the papacy and Orthodoxy, but the holiday isn’t at question, our intent for keeping it is. Jesus kept the Feast of Dedication, yet it wasn’t in the Law of Moses, rather it was only 170 years old when Jesus kept it, but His intent and purpose for keeping it was to establish His reason for coming. The early church prior to 300 AD held two holidays, Passover and Pentecost; Passover is always on the 14th of Abib, every since it was established in the days of Moses. Pentecost is 50 days past Passover, anyone can look at a calendar and find the Jewish Passover day, then count fifty days forward to find the Day of Pentecost.
The Bible doesn’t tell us when Jesus was born, but it does tell us when He went to the Cross, and was Resurrected, it also shows when the Church was born. The early church didn’t keep the day we call Easter, rather they incorporated the day of the Anointing in Bethany, the Passover, and the Discovery of the Resurrection into one Love Feast for the entire week. Pentecost was the holiday to celebrate the Birth of the Church, they incorporated Pentecost with the Ascension Day as one Feast; therefore, they held Five Feasts in Two time periods.
Later there were other holidays added, the Birth of Jesus was celebrated on the 25th of December, not saying He was born then, rather it was picked because of the Dedication of Lights is on the same date. The reasoning is how Jesus celebrated a day not in the Law, thus since Jesus is Light, as He grants us Light they picked a day pointing to the Oil and Lights. Some claim it was some pagan day, but it’s still not the day, it’s man who makes it evil or not. One could claim Passover was a bloody day of death, and reject the Resurrection since it was connected to Passover. Things are things, days are days, if we keep the day, keep it unto the Lord, if not, keep it not unto the Lord, but don’t make it doctrine, nor force the keeping, or not keeping on people (Rom 14:1-7 & 14:13-14).
The Byzantium period ran from 330 to 1453 AD, since Byzantium and Rome started from the same premise we find similarities in their beginning, but not in their end. The Byzantium was termed the New Empire, so named with the hope of taking the place of old Rome. Byzantium saw the growth of architecture and art, evidenced by many mosaics found in several churches. Many of which became patterns for what we see as pictures of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles, although none of those who painted these pictures ever saw Jesus, Mary or the Apostles. Many used models, or what they supposed the figures would look like. The painting was a painting, giving it worship was wrong, which began the error of icon worshiping.
The idea of moving the capital of Rome to the east was not new, Julius Caesar suggested it in 45 BC, but it came to pass under Constantine. When Diocletian became emperor in 284 AD he attempted to maintain the empire by dividing it into the eastern and western halves. Diocletian continued the persecution of the Christians, but his successor, Constantine would have a reported experience changing the course of events. When Constantine was going into battle he saw a vision of Jesus; some say the vision said, Fight for Me Constantine; others said the words of the vision were, “Constantine why do you persecute Me?”. Like Paul, Constantine made a decision, he carried the “sign of Christ” on his shield, the sign was an X, the Greek letter standing for Christ, it’s used in such terms as XMAS. Constantine didn’t give the empire to the Christians, rather he opened the door for Christian worship under him. Constantine wanted to call his city New Rome, but it quickly became known as Constantinople (City Of Constantine). Constantine stopped the persecution, but he merely did as God knew he would. The “ten days” of persecution was over, it would appear as if Constantine did a holy thing, but we will find he still refused to give himself to Jesus.
Constantine reached a compromise with the Christians, he took the title “The Thirteenth Apostle”; this was more of a warning to future generations, than an honor for Constantine. The twelve apostles before the cross were sent to the Jews, they were endued with Power from on High on Pentecost, but still sent to the Jews first, but the order changed around 60 AD. From our study in Acts we found Peter wanted to fill the position of Judas before Pentecost, but failed to see what the position represented. The Jewish tribes were thirteen, not twelve: twelve refers to government organization, the thirteenth tribe was Levi, the religious order, who was separated from the government; however, in our case, the Five Fold Ministry is like unto the government order, only the number Five represents Grace. The New Testament order was suppose to remain separated from the governments of the world by being joined to the Kingdom of God. Paul was no doubt an Apostle, but his calling to the position came when the Holy Ghost said, “Separate unto Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). Man taking on the role of the Holy Ghost to appoint people into any of the five-fold offices is usurping authority, thus the number of rebellion is 13.
If we are set on the number being “12”, or presume the positions are appointed by man, we have problems from the outset. We would have to count Matthias as the replacement for Judas, then the beheading of James reduces the number back to eleven, but then the Holy Ghost appointed both Barnabas and Saul (Paul) as apostles, making Barnabas the twelfth, with Paul the thirteenth apostle. However, if we see there are 12 positions, or office functions, then we would have to see the appointment of Matthias was out of order, thus not ordained by God. If Paul was appointed by God as he said, and the Holy Ghost set him in the office as the Scriptures show, then we can see Barnabas replaced James, making Paul the Twelfth. The Offices and the person in the office are different, the Office makes the person, not the other way around. Peter attempted to replace the man, rather than fill the office, thus he made two mistakes in the same meeting. Leadership does appoint Bishops, Deacons and Elders, but the positions are assigned to Helps. No less important in the order, but things must be in Order if we want Order in our ministry, leadership concurs the appointment to the Administrations of the Lord as they hear from the Holy Ghost. The biggest problem was yet to come, making the five fold Offices subject to Helps, reversing God’s Order.
As soon as the title was bestowed on Constantine a division started to take place. The Greek words, Orthodox and Heresy became an issue; Orthodox means a person who follows an official belief, we already know what the word Heresy means, thus a Heretic is one who refuses to follow an official belief. What Rome did to the Christians, the Christians were now attempting to do to one another. The controversy came, but the question became what is an official belief? To the heretic they held the official belief, to the Body they held the official belief. The Orthodoxy Byzantine order remained in Constantinople, the Eastern segment became the Roman Catholic body, yet both Branches were from the Catholic (Universal) church. For all intents and purposes, the Universal, or United Body ceased, but the Few who followed Jesus were nonetheless the Universal Church whichever church in the Body they attended.
Within months after the appointment of Constantine the first split took place, one could say denominationalism started with The Roman Catholic Body divided from the Orthodoxy Catholic Body, since both were still in the Body. Nonetheless man builds the Body, Jesus builds the Church. Paul said if the hand says it is not of the Body, does it make it so? If the arm says the foot is not of the Body, does it make it so? No, we are placed in the Body by God. Division is always a sign of carnal behavior, whether the division is entirely carnal or not remains to be seen. The carnal can separate from the spiritual, or God can call the spiritual out from the carnal, but it doesn’t mean one can make an independent decision of forming a New organization assuming they are not of the Body, or the Body is not of them. The Body remains unbroken until the Rapture, whether we like it or not, members of the Body are members indeed.
The early times in the Byzantine Empire produced “creedmakers”, resulting in the Nicaea Council. This Council laid out many premises, producing the Official Policy. There arose another order, the Byzantine Emperors became the heads of the Body, producing the first papacy order. Rather than Christ being the Head, it became Peter. In essence, Constantine became the first Pope, although he was never considered as such. The Pope position has it’s roots in the Latin, as strange as it may seem it means “father of bishops” in the Latin, in the Greek it means “papa”. It’s referred to as the Bishop of Rome, or the Head of the Roman Catholic church on earth. It was also known as “the patriarch of Alexandria”, or the “Coptic patriarch of Alexandria”. The most interesting aspect is how it remains as a Bishop position, thus the formers knew they could appoint a Bishop, without crossing the line into Governments, but they moved the Bishop office into Governments, removing the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher. The position of Cardinal would come later, this in no way is against the Pope, or the office, it merely shows the roots, since the Protestants seem to make Helps over Governments.
From the persecution where they faced lions in the circus, they now used it as a circus, everyone sought the church’s blessing on everything, fishing, hunting, moving, houses, children, money, thoughts or most anything else. Rather then pray to God, they sought an official in the church to pray for them. They produced another Veil by placing a human between man and God. The purpose was Order, but it was forced order. This expanded their view of Peter, he was no longer a piece of the Rock, but the entire Rock. The greatest problem is of course at the time when Peter was called of the Rock he was not Born Again, he didn’t understand spiritual matters, and within a few verses Jesus told him, “get behind Me Satan”. Nonetheless, the change placed a human as the Head, which in turn removed Jesus as the Head. The exact warning Paul gave the Corinthians in First Corinthians chapter 11 came to pass again, a yoke was placed on the Neck of the Body.
The Byzantine influence regarding icons and images came from Rome, thus both branches of the church were exposed to the practice. The Byzantines worshipped icons and images, they had to see their god, or see to whom they were praying. The concept of their god speaking to them was out of the question, they could speak to God, but not the other way around. A bitter controversy erupted in 726 AD when Leo III banded the worship of icons in the Byzantine order. This wasn’t Leo’s thinking, rather some in the Body considered the worship of Mary and/or the Apostles idolatrous, demanding for Leo to put a stop to it. It does show there were Believers who did hear the voice of the Holy Ghost, by rejecting icon worship; the icons weren’t the problem, worshipping them was.
On the other hand the practice flourished in Rome, becoming a pillar in their worship. With all the icon worship it was bound to happen, the Image-smashers surfaced. They white washed, or defaced thousands of church paintings and sculptures. Today the Image-smashers are called barbaric, or “destroyers of fine art”; however, we would call them defenders of the faith. If their acts would have been successful, the history of the papacy would have been much different, but Rome considered the Image-smashers more barbaric than Atila the Hun.
The Byzantine order was much different from the Roman influence, although both were considered Roman in concept. Byzantine and Roman Catholic were both subject to the government, both had influence on the government. When Constantine died in 337 civil war broke out almost immediately, the Byzantium empire was assailed by Goths, Huns, Persians, Avars, Buglars, Slavs, Vikings, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, Normans and even Christian Crusaders. The Crusaders needed money, the Byzantine empire had money, thus it was Christian against Christian for the sake of money.
In 527 AD Justinian I became the emperor of Byzantine, he built hundreds of churches, including Hagia Sophia, which means, the church of Holy Wisdom located in Constantinople. Justinian devoted his long reign of 38 years to recreating the old Roman Empire, but with a Christian theme. By 555 AD all Italy with the southern part of Spain were in Byzantine hands under Justinian’s armies. The Legal Code Of Justinian became the basic Roman Law, much of which is still around today. Instead of capital punishment for the minor offenders, Justinian listened to the church, instituting the placing of a minor violator in a monastery for the good of his soul, producing the first attempt at rehabilitation; however, the Law also called for punishment. Instead of locking a thief in jail, they cut off his hand. Some public executions were held in the Hippodrome, which was located a short distance from the church of Holy Wisdom. The basis for the Law was the family order, thus Justinian and his wife Theodora brought the first Woman’s Rights. The Body at this time still had spiritual individuals who rightly interpreted Paul’s letters, both Justinian and Theodora agreed with the spiritually minded, mothers were given equal authority with fathers in the upbringing of the children.
Justinian had absolute authority, he had many of the higher offices occupied by eunuchs. He believed a eunuch would spend time viewing the Law without viewing the person bringing the Law. This practice moved to the Body in what is termed Clergy Celibacy. The premise they used to support the move was the saying of Jesus, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Matt 19:11-12). It’s only the last of the three classes of eunuchs pertaining to the kingdom of heaven, one must know why one becomes a eunuch in order to understand the saying. Eunuchs were used in the Bride’s Chamber, they could be trusted with the protection of the Bride. These verses have nothing to do with Celibacy, they refer to the responsibility of taking care of the Bride. Men and women who make the decision to protect and serve the Bride of Christ, as a Eunuch would take care for the King’s Bride with honor. Peter was married, thus if being a eunuch was a hard fast rule, then Jesus violated it by appointing Peter. As Paul noted to the Corinthians, if one desires to remain a virgin and serve the Lord, fine, if they want to be married and serve the Lord, fine as well (I Cor 7:25-40). It was up to the person, yet it became a requirement for holding office. The problem is of course a forced regulation on someone who is weak, usually can’t keep it. Like keeping or not keeping a day, Paul felt if one could remain a virgin fine, if not fine, but they had to settle the issue between them and the Lord, rather than allow it to become Dogma (I Cor 7:36).
Until 650 AD the Byzantine Empire suffered many enemies (noted above) until they came with their secret weapon of “Greek Fire”, a mixture of sulfur, naphtha, quicklime and salt-petre, a formula helped in part by certain monks in the church. The mixture was fired through tubes mounted on fast moving ships, since it contained naphtha, the more water tossed on it, the more it burned. Greek Fire caused the enemies of the Byzantine Empire to flee in fear, until the Arabs discovered the secret, then used it against the Byzantines. The proverb, “form a weapon against man, and man will use the weapon against you” became fact, as will as “give and it shall be given back to you”, only in the case of the Byzantine would rather not “receive”.
In the 9th Century under a dynasty of emperors including Michael III (842-67), who was also known as Michael The Drunkard, the tide turned to worshipping idols again. Under the regency of his mother, Theodora (not related to Justinian) the worship of icons was restored. Michael was murdered by one of his own grooms, who became Basil I in 867. Basil began the Macedonian dynasty which held the throne of Byzantium for the next two centuries. Next would come Nicephourus II (963-9); then John I (969-76). After John came Basil II, the titles give us a clue to the names of the Popes who continued the order of the Byzantium’s. Jesus didn’t call James the brother of John “James I”, or the other James “James II”; rather it was James, and James the Less, no one was called The Great nor did Jesus allow anyone to be called Holy Father but the Father. A process was beginning to form, which would last for several years.
The placement of a person between God and man revisited the people called of God, but not by God’s design, yet allowed for a purpose. Instead of the Law of Moses, it was a position, but nonetheless it imposed a restriction between the congregation and the Head of the Body. The Bible tells us the Government is the Shoulder, not the Neck of the Body (Isa 9:6). Paul warned the Corinthians of the folly of allowing anything natural or carnal to separate the leaders from Christ (I Cor 11:1-16). How to repair this? Paul’s suggestion was to come to the Lord’s table (I Cor 11:16-34) by faith, with the expected anticipation of coming face to face with the Spirit of the Lord.
The decline of the Byzantine Empire began after a terrible defeat by the Turks at Manzikert in 1071. By the middle of the 13th Century the Byzantium Empire was little or nothing, then would come the fullness of the papacy. The Byzantine order would remain to some degree until the power of Islam under Mehmet II took Constantinople in 1452. Some of the remaining Byzantine Orthodoxy members submitted to the Roman Pope order, others, especially the leaders moved to Russia to become leaders of Russian Orthodoxy.
The history of Islam depends on how one looks at Abraham, or history. We know from Genesis 16:1 Ishmael was born to Abram and Hagar, and from Genesis 21:10 how God said Isaac was the heir: because God said the “promised son” would come from one man, Abraham, and one woman, Sarah. We also know how Paul said Hagar was the bondwoman, Sarah the free. Keeping it in mind we find the view of Islam is much different, but we also know the beginnings of Islam didn’t come to pass until well after the Cross of Jesus. Anyway, according to Islam, Abraham lived in the desert with his two wives, Sarah and Hagar. Sarah was childless, but Hagar gave birth to a boy, named him Ishmael. So far it’s close, but the Bible tells us Ishmael was not born to Abraham, but to Abram, yet Hagar was not his wife, but his wife’s slave (Gen 16:1-16). The Covenant with Abram came in Genesis 15:6, but the token was not until Genesis 17:1-2. The Token secures the Covenant, thus the Covenant was not Sealed until after Ishmael was born, separating him from the Promise, yet Ishmael still was circumcised of the flesh, because he was of the house of Abraham.
According to Islam when Ishmael was ten years old Sarah gave birth to Isaac; however, the Genesis record shows when Ishmael was born Abram was 86 years old (Gen 16:16), but Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Gen 21:5), making Ishmael nearer to 13 years of age. God did tell Abram how Ishmael would be blessed, and would produce 12 princes, but Ishmael was never a king (Gen 17:20). The most interesting aspect about Ishmael was how God heard Ishmael, but God spoke to Sarah, to Hagar, to Abraham, but not to Ishmael. No where in the Genesis account do we see God actually speaking directly to Ishmael.
According to Islam Sarah feared Ishmael would claim to be the heir, or receive the first-borns share of his father’s inheritance, thus she pleaded with Abraham to have Hagar and Ishmael banished. Abraham was grieved by Sarah’s wishes, but sent Hagar and the boy away. When Hagar and Ishmael were in the desert the heat became unbearable, Hagar sat on a rock and started to weep. Ishmael stood beside her and kicked at the sand, all of a sudden a well of water sprang forth. When Abraham heard of this miracle in the desert he came to Hagar and Ishmael calling the well Zemzem, nearby he built a temple, and called it Kaaba (cube). Then he sat a “black stone”, which Islam claims was handed down to Abraham from Adam, when Adam took it from the Garden of Eden, which of course makes Adam a thief. Accordingly Hagar and Ishmael remained at the place calling it Mecca, then Ishmael had a family; Islam feels because of the birth right, and the miracle of the well Ishmael is the true promised son, not Isaac. Unfortunately the Genesis record was written well before, showing God picked Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen 17:16-19 & 17:21). From Isaac would come David the anointed and appointed king, then Jesus the King of kings. Of course the controversy still produces conflicts in the Middle East, nonetheless the Bible and the Prophets have spoken on the subject making it clear.
On the other side of the coin was Rome, with Leo I’s accession to the Episcopal throne in 440 AD, the Roman bishop began to claim his supremacy over other bishops. The Pope seat was based on two factors; first there needed to be one leader, since the people wanted a leader they could see. Next there had to be some form of authority to place the Pope on the seat of leadership. The conclusion was the “keys to the kingdom”, coupled with the assumption of Peter receiving actual keys, gaining the conclusion, “Peter had the keys and the keys are the papacy”. Orthodoxy had icon worship, Rome had the papacy, but both had drifted from the Power of the Holy Ghost. The drift didn’t come overnight, rather it took from 313 AD to 900 AD before they would separate themselves. We understand the Keys refer to deny yourself; pick up your cross, forgive as you are forgiven. Nonetheless the ground work was laid, then taken advantage of.
At the time Rome used everything to promote religion, including God. God became the tool, making religion a god, the result was carnal thinking leaders who Yoked the Body from the Head. None of these factors came into being until land became an issue, they wanted a kingdom on earth, rather than a Kingdom in heaven. The Body began a process of gaining treasure on earth, in spite of the warnings in the Gospel.
It came to a head when Gelasius I, Pope from 492 to 496 AD wrote in 494 AD how God gave both sacred and royal power to the Pope and the king, with the Pope being over the king, thus all rulers should submit to the Pope. The secularization of the church moved it from spiritual to carnal, with carnal purposes and goals. The veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus moved at a great pace around 590 AD, concluding in 1854 with the adoption of the doctrines of her immaculate conception, coupled with her miraculous assumption to heaven, neither of which were recorded in Scripture, or early writings. Of course at this same time the only thing the people knew about Scripture, was what they were told, there were no printed Bibles, or scrolls available to the general public.
Around 590 AD many false apocryphal writings surfaced proclaiming Mary did miracles before Pentecost, the Nestroian and other controversies of the fourth century resulted in Mary being called “Mother of God”. The virginity of Mary was not an issue, Clement, Jerome and Tertullian all testified she was, it was the thought without Mary there were be no Son of God, which caused the problem. God saw Mary believing the words of the angel before the foundation of the world, Mary had no idea how the miracle was going to happen, she believed and became blessed. Mary was chosen among women, she was not chosen among the “gods”, nonetheless she believed what she was told.
However there were the good fish, Tertullian a church father not only believed in the Trinity, he defended it strongly. Also in reference to the “wiles” of the devil, we find Tertullian had the same definition of the wiles In his paper “7 against Praxeas” the context is “Satan’s wiles against the truth, as they take the from of the Praxean heresy. The Praxean heresy could be termed a “Father only” thought process, this wile had a twist we might all remember. Tertullian begins by saying, “In various ways has the devil rivaled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth. He maintains there is one Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order he may promote his doctrine of the unity he has fabricated a heresy, he says the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old serpent has fallen out with himself, since, when he tempted Christ after John’s baptism, he approached Him as “the Son of God;” surely intimating God had a Son”. Tertullian goes on to prove what we would term the “Trinity”, although he doesn’t use the term, rather he used the more common term Unity in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, also known to us as the Report. The Praxeas heresy was named after the man who brought it to Rome from Asia; Praxeas, he used the wiles to disrupt the foundation of many new converts.
Augustine took it one step further, he taught Mary never committed actual sin, yet Paul said All have sinned and come short, thus it wasn’t the belief of Mary, rather it appeared as if God picked her because of her holiness. What started as acknowledgment of her belief became a thought she could stand for man and persuade Jesus to accept prayers from the masses. Again this places a person between man and God, negating the New Birth. If the lay person wanted to reach God, they had to go through a leader. If they wanted to reach God in their prayer closet, they had to go through Mary, in any regard they were separated from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All this took away from “Follow Me”, it also introduced sending someone in our place to make a request for us.
In the fifth century March 25th became the Feast of the Annunciation, which celebrated the angelic announcement of the birth of Jesus, then came Candlemas on February 2nd for the celebration of Mary’s purification after the birth of Christ. Which should have been the evidence showing she had sin, since the Law of Moses only called for purification of those who are sinners. From this grew the veneration of saints, then praying to the saints; even with the evidence in the Scriptures allowing those in the Body to pray directly to God in the Name of Jesus. These saints were “angels”, or messengers of God, yet the worshipping of angels is forbidden in the New Testament. John doesn’t show one saint under the altar interceding for the saints, rather they say, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, do You not judge and avenge our blood on them who dwell on the earth?”; therefore, Jesus intercedes on our behalf by His Blood (Rev 6:10).
Until 300 AD celebrations for the saints were merely gathering at their graves, or thanking God for the faith of the saints, rather than asking the saint to intercede. By 590 AD the purpose changed; instead of thanking God for them, it became prayer to God through them. Then Ambrose brought the special vestments; until this time there were no special vestments for the priests to wear, they were no different in dress from anyone else. When the leaders moved from the Power of His Christ, they needed outward adornments to show who they were. These issues are all important, the Body saw the errors, then attempted to reach back to what was, but we can’t reach behind the Veil, it must be ripped so we can become what God has said we should be.
How did the pagan icons and images become used to depict saints? When did the papacy move from the leaders of the Body to a person as the Head of the Church and why? Recalling Ignatius one of the early church fathers and his words to the Ephesians, we are reminded how he told them to stand in the Faith and Love of Jesus, and how they “took on a new life by the Blood of God” (Ignatius to the Ephesians). Ignatius commented on the Harmony with the Mind of God, which he termed was the combination of the Mind of the Father with Jesus, producing the Mind of Christ for the Body, it was this Like Mind which seemed to slip away. The Mind of Christ is Love, Mercy, Obedience, Endurance, and Patience (Ignatius to the Ephesians 3 & 4). Did God give up? Hardly, He kept sending Reformers and Prophets to the Body.
The Didache noted a true prophet as one who held the Ways of the Lord, but the false would always seek money, reward or promise of the same, or some self-generated reward. Greed is a ugly animal, a ruler of darkness. When greed takes over the mind the words become greed motivated: “if you don’t have enough people I’m not coming”, or “I didn’t make enough there, I’m not going back”, words from the heart of greed. The world demands payment for service, not the saint. Some think when they minister, they should be paid, it not only takes away from “freely you received, freely you give”, but it becomes the motivation behind a Balaam attitude.
We know Paul faced the heretics, but what about John? Did he have to face the heretics as well? There was a man by the name of Cerinthus who was around during John’s time, Cerinthus held many strange theological ideas. When Cerinthus ventured on the scene, John would leave, fearing the very sky would fall. John didn’t debate Cerinthus, he didn’t curse him to his face, John preached Jesus, not dogma. Cerinthus could best be described as an Ebionite, he said God didn’t create the earth, but the earth was created by an angelic being. He added, Jesus was a mere man, the biological product of both Joseph and Mary, not conceived by a virgin in any regard, Jesus became the Christ at the baptism when the Spirit came in the form of a Dove. We have no trouble in seeing this as heresy, but the intent of Cerinthus continues today. If man can place Jesus in the position of mere man, than all men can equal what He did by their efforts, rather than submitting to the New Birth. Placing mankind as an equal to Jesus rejects the Cross, Resurrection and Spirit, making man his own Christ.
Another group who was active at the same time was the Elchasaites (sacred power); they held to the Law of Moses, except for the blood sacrifices. They produced another gospel, one with a different method of obtaining. The Elchasaites were not satisfied with the deeds from the Law of Moses, they added Chaldean astrology and magic, assuming supernatural was the same as Spiritual. They used mystical ways and spiritualism, both of which are natural counterfeits to the Spiritual.
In 220 AD another group came to the surface, they used twenty books they called The Preaching Of The Apostle Peter. These twenty books were declared heresy based on their content being sensual (soulish), as well as being opposed to Peter’s letters. The introduction of these counterfeits made it appear as if Peter turned from Christ to paganism. They said Peter viewed Christianity as Judaism with the ambiguity and error removed. They said Jesus was a prophet, though greater than Moses, He was not the Redeemer, and neither true man, nor true God. They did use Scripture, but twisted it to support their writings, rather than use it to check the Truth of their writings. What was the root of their heresy? Pride, the desire to be lord, absent God.
Gnosticism was another heretical concept, discussed in part prior. Gnosticism taught all world matter is controlled and governed by an evil principle, which tends to be violent, the opposite was the spiritual world ruled by a good god; thereby introducing a multiple independent god theology. Gnosticism assumed all natural things were evil, created evil to be evil, which we know is not true by the Genesis record. Their teaching supposed Thought in and of itself was spiritual, but in so doing they made their minds a god, placing their god in the purposed temple of God, claiming their natural minds as God. The word Gnosis is a Greek word pointing to all schools of philosophical knowledge, the Gnosticism used the natural, carnal mind of man to save the self, truly a wreck in the making.
Like others, the Gnostics wanted an equal start with Jesus, instead of using faith, they trusted in intellectual knowledge. The Gnostics had many problems, they assumed the world and man were created by the Demiurge (middle god), who was an angelic being, inferior to the good and higher god, but still able to create. This places Creation in the hands of a creation, thus making creation higher than the Creator. Gnostics assumed Jesus could not have a real human body, since all natural things are evil. To get around their heresy, they brought another, by saying Jesus used a form of magic to make those around Him assume He had a body of flesh. If the Body of Jesus was not flesh, then man is not redeemed, if man is not redeemed how could the Holy Ghost bring the Seed of God? Gnostics produced more problems than they had answers; from their error came the Docetic Heresy. What was the source? Self-righteousness motivated by pride, if they could prove Jesus was not human in any form, they would have the ability to be as Jesus without the Spirit. Many of Paul’s writings repute the Gnostic thinking, as we will see.
One of the leaders of the Gnostics was a man named Basildes of Alexandria, he claimed to possess a Secret Tradition given directly to him by Peter. Basildes had the secret revelation the Body wasn’t ready for, whether it’s the revelation we’re not ready for, to some secret book, or special day, it’s still a lust to be the special of the special. This supposed Secret of Basildes included the concept of multiple gods; however, Peter said there was One God, which consists of Father, Son and Holy Ghost (I Pet 1:2-3). Basildes attempted to mix Greek and Roman mythology into the Christian Belief. The pillar of the Gnostics was not the God we know, they added the supreme god as God’s Nous or mind of God. There was the lower god of evil, yet all these gods never knew what the other was doing, thus the creator god could create without the other gods knowing. The Gnostics assumed all mankind had the Mind of Christ, but it could only be developed by intellect and schooling; the more intellectual, the more of the Mind of Christ one had; however, they also said one’s own mind was greater in ability than the Mind of Christ. This allowed the Gnostics to use man’s natural reasoning over the mind of Christ, thus it became a form of intellectual power to define spiritual matters. Paul used the Greek word Nous in his letter to the Romans by saying, We must renew the Nous from this world to the life of Christ (Rom 12:1-3). He also said “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Nous – Col 2:18). Were these heresies around in Paul’s day? Yes, but Paul knew they were products of the spirit of disobedience. His approach was to preach the Truth in Love, thus to rebut a heretic without sound Scripture presented through love, ends with one dog calling the other dog, a dog.
An example of one who held a religious opinion, then cast it away for the Truth can be found in the testimony of Origen (184-254 AD). At one time Origen taught all spirits were created equal, which is a Truth, but he added man’s spirit was Re Born rather than man being Born Again to have the Spirit. As he saw it, the devil made a choice causing his own self-destruction, thus all spirits who sinned became demons. He once felt man’s soul is prehistoric, thus each soul had fallen in the past prior to man taking on flesh. He mixed his teachings with mystical theology, which was termed a heresy in the First Council of Constantinople (553 AD). Origen’s early teaching was termed heresy, he did become a well respected church father after he was converted, he studied under Clement in the Catecherical School in Alexandria. According to Eusebius, thousands came to hear him after he was converted; however, according to Origen himself, his early thoughts were cleaned away by the washing of the Water by the Word. The weakness of Origen is the same as Babe, wanting truth so bad, anything sounding right is accepted. However, Origen developed a sound study discipline, becoming an example of how anyone can allow their mind to conjure up ideas or thinking lacking a Bible basis, yet when the fables are exposed they are cast away by the insertion of Truth.
What about some of the churches who endured? Ignatius wrote his epistle to the Ephesians around 70 to 90 AD, a time period when John the Apostle was still around. Ignatius congratulated the Ephesians on their ability to detect and reject false teachers. He noted how they held to the teachings of Paul, were Bible based, able to “close their ears to error” while “opening them to God”. Ignatius said the “spirit of deceit” was a “he”; does it mean the he no longer exists? John said this it was the he in the world, Paul called it the iniquity already working in his day, it’s still around today.
Ignatius in his letter to the Trallians described those who taught false doctrines as, “they also calumniate (make a slanderous accusation) about Him being born of a virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion, they do not believe His Resurrection. They introduce God as being unknown (made known), they suppose Christ to be unbegotten, and as to the Spirit, they do not admit He exists”. Ignatius didn’t refer to the Holy Ghost, but the to Spirit, or being Born Again. He also told the Trallians “be on your guard, therefore, against such persons, that you admit not for a snare for your souls”.
Around 155 AD or 170AD (depending on which calendar one uses) a man named Montanus came on the scene, teaching what we term Montanism. He claimed to be the spirit of prophecy, saying he was the Paraclete (Holy Ghost), teaching he was the one who Jesus said would come to lead them into all Truth (Jn 16:7). Aided by two women, Maximilia and Priscilla (or Prisca) Montanus founded a sect of enthusiasts who preached the imminent end of the world, as well as teaching austere morality with sever penitential discipline. They forbade second marriages, denied the divine nature of the Church, refused forgiveness of sins a person committed after baptism. Montanus called for less church hierarchy and more prophecy. Among his followers was Tertullian for a short period of time, Tertullian was drawn by the supposed Charismatic influence of prophecy, but was dismayed at the lack of knowledge. Terullian was able to leave the sect, later combined knowledge to the true Charismatic nature allowing him to be become a useful servant.
Another thought process called Monarchianism (a name given them by Tertullian), came along in the second century, this group like the Praxeas could be termed a “Father only” sect. They denied the Trinity; at the time any sect who denied the Trinity was classed as heretical. Two major types of Monarchianism existed, the Adoptionist, or Dynamic from, which viewed Jesus as a unique person, divinely energized, called to be the Son of God; then the Modalistic, also called Sebellianism and Patripassionism, proclaiming Jesus was the Father incarnated into the Son’s divinity. The arguments of Tertullian against these heresies was Bible based, showing they failed in their foundational theology.
Around 415 AD a teacher named Pelaguis was condemned twice for his teachings, but he continued to teach his heresies. He said Adam would have died regardless, all men were made to die, as well as Adam’s sin being personal to him alone. He also said Adam’s sin didn’t curse the earth or man, rather all men begin as Living Souls, and all men had the same start as Jesus. He said the only difference between Jesus and mere man, was Jesus didn’t sin, thus Jesus was not the Son of God by design, but by the efforts of Jesus. He taught how all humans would not be raised because of Christ, but because of their efforts to remain sinless. In essence Pelaguis was teaching self-righteousness in place of God’s righteousness, thus allowing man to use his lost soul in a feeble attempt to save his soul. There is concise Scripture saying with man salvation is impossible, but not with God, thus no man can save his own soul making Pelaguis a heretic without question or debate.
Arius was another, from him we obtain the term Arianism. He taught the Father was the only God, making the Son independent or different than the Father in all respects. He said the Son’s deity was given based on the foreseen righteousness, Jesus was not eternal, but created by the Father as an instrument for creating the world. Like others, Arius based his conclusions on his interpretation of the word Firstbegotten; however, he knew the Greek, he also knew Paul’s teachings discounted his views. Paul said Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God, the “firstborn of every creature”, then Paul listed all creations as the product, thus Paul showed before creation, there was Jesus. If Jesus was before anything was created, how could Jesus be created? The Greek word for Image means a Prototype, or the Original from which others are copied, not the copy itself. The Image became the Visible of the Invisible, but the Form or outside covering stood for mankind, it was not the other way around. Paul also used the Greek Eikon for Begotten, removing the concept of Jesus being created. The relationship between the Son and Father is not coincidental, or the Son being like the Father, but the Son is the direct Image of the Father, as the Son the Word took on flesh for all men who have sinned in the flesh. If Paul would have used the Greek Ktizo rather than Eikon, Arius would have a point, but the Greek shows Arius erred. John rebuked Arius’ by simply saying, In the Beginning was the Word, thus at the very start of any beginning the Word Was (Jn 1:1).
When Pope Pelagius died of the plague in 590, Gregory was chosen to replace him. Although he disclaimed the title of Pope, he exercised all the power of the title. John the Faster of Constantinople claimed the title of Ecumenical (Universal Pope) Gregory was quick to give battle. Gregory was willing to share, but not willing to let anyone use the title of Universal Pope.
When Phocas took over the civil throne in Constantinople, Gregory renewed friendly terms with him. Phocas was not a holy man, he was vulgar, he murdered the wife and family of the former emperor, but he was nonetheless in power and Gregory ceased the opportunity. Phocas sided with Gregory, making Rome the “head of all the churches”. In the new official position Gregory the Great sent missions into other lands (590-604). Gregory knew debate was a sin, but how could they show the Christian endeavor without being forceful? By this time the Holy Ghost was being ignored for the natural intellect of man. The Holy Ghost as the connection between the True Head of the Church and man, was replaced with a man being the head of the church making the church the head of God. Instead of the Body being the Rock, man made it the entire Body the Church, although Jesus was still building, as the Holy Ghost behind the scenes was still seeking those who desired to walk with Christ.
Gregory assumed if Rome was tolerant of the Christian, the Christian must be tolerant of the pagan. The introduction of Tolerance for the sin of man began with Gregory. There were some who were moved by the Spirit, with signs and wonders following, they didn’t need to debate the pagan, or be tolerant, they merely cast the devils out, and preached with Power and Authority.
When Gregory started the tolerance toward the pagan, the result became the use of pagan temples, icons and images, yet giving them new names. The Turks returned the favor by taking church buildings, and turning them into mosques. The church added many heathen festivals to the Christian calendar. They left the original Passover, but gave it the name Easter, which comes from the Norse goddess Eostre, who had a holiday in her honor every spring. Eostre was the Northern version of the Phoenician earth-mother Astarte, the goddess of fertility, whom Jeremiah called the queen of heaven (Jere 44:18-25). To celebrate the fertility rites to Astarte they used eggs as a symbol of birth, by painting pictures on the eggs to attract the goddess. Later we added the bunny as the great fertility king, bringing mother earth in union with the fertility king. Does this mean we should stop Christmas and Easter? Not at all, if we stop the celebration of Passover (Easter) we miss the Resurrection. If we miss the Resurrection we miss Pentecost, we simply remove the paganism, then focus on Jesus, the reason for the season.
What about the times after Gregory until the Renaissance? Some of the same old debates lingered on. The issue of the Filioque, or the concept of the Spirit coming from both the Father and the Son raised it’s head again. Photius (810-895 AD) came against the Filioque, but he also noted the debate counted as nothing if one didn’t have the Spirit. Debating if the Spirit came at the request of the Son, by the Faith of the Son, or through the Father can be resolved by knowing if one had the Spirit; then the Holy Ghost planted the Seed.
One element still stands, the Apostle’s Creed, which contained the basic elements believed by the Apostles. At first there were several documents, all of them contained the same points, perhaps in different wording, but basically the same points. The Creed was simple enough, it listed the elements of the Trinity, beginning with the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Ghost. The accepted Creed reads:
We (I) believe
- in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth;
- And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
- Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary;
- suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
- He descended into Hades; the third day He rose from the dead;
- He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
- from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
- And We (I) believe in the Holy Ghost;
- the communion (fellowship) of saints;
- the forgiveness of sins;
- the resurrection of the body;
- and the life everlasting.
It’s interesting how they settled on twelve points, yet one can see this is really a brief overview of the Gospel. The rudiments of the Doctrine of Christ are given in the Book of Hebrews, which we will go over later. However, even in the days of Polycrap the concern was for every convert to know the six basic premises to the Doctrine of Christ, as outlined in the Book of Hebrews. Without the awareness of those six points the convert would be subject to winds of doctrine. The six elements are not all the Doctrine of Christ consists of, but they are the fundamental pillars. They are listed in Hebrews 6:1-2, as 1) repentance from dead works, 2) faith toward God, 3) doctrine of baptisms, 4) laying on of hands, 5) resurrection of the dead, and 6) eternal judgment. All six are reflected in some way in the Creed.
The system changed over the years and became known as “catechism”, or “new believer classes”, or the such, which changed from the rudiments of the Doctrine of Christ to denominational premises, or doctrines lacking foundational elements of the Doctrine of Christ. How many of us remember being taught about “repentance from dead works”? Or “the doctrine of baptisms”? Simple milk premises, but some have ignored the Babes in Christ by suggesting they already knew these elements. If we should know them, why didn’t someone teach us? Good question, it needs to be explored.
While things were going on in Rome, there were things going on in other places as well, for instance, there was the Russian church.
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
Today there is some question regarding the office of the Apostle continuing beyond John; however, Ulphilas (311-383) was known as the Apostle to the Goths; Willibrord of the Netherlands was called the Apostle to the Netherlands (658-739). He was a champion of Romanism at the Synod of Whitby, he began missioniszing Europe. The title Apostle not only denoted a Leader, but it entailed the spreading of the Gospel to virgin areas, as well as bringing commandments. The Evangelist tossed the net to bring converts into established bodies, or begin new bodies in established areas. There are some who think being an Apostle makes them “boss”, but the Bible shows the disciples were called Apostles before the Cross (Matt 10:1-5, Mark 3:13-19, 6:7-13, 6:30, Luke 6:12-16 & 9:1-10). The First position established was the Apostle, then came Prophets, then Evangelists, then Teachers, then Pastors, all callings based on the gift for the Office, but none has ceased until He who now lets takes us out of here. The Apostle gives commandment, the Prophet delivers doctrine, the Teacher teaches the doctrine. The Pastor is the overseer of the entire local grouping, the Bishop the overseer of Helps, the Deacon the doer of Helps, the Elder the adviser. There is the Operation of God, or the manner in which God desires any local body to operate (I Cor 12:6 & 12:28). All matters of Order so the power of Christ can freely move through the Believer.
On the other hand, there were also the Crusades, which were really forced acts of Revival: “be Christian or die” was the gospel of the Crusades. The First Crusade (1096-1099) was to remove the Turks (Islam or Infidels) from the Holy Land. Emotionalism brought about the call; Pope Urban II said the “wicked race” holding the Holy Land had no right, God would stand with anyone who freed the Holy Land, he ended his sermon with “Deus Volt! Deus Volt!” (God wills it, God wills it); the call went out and many joined the cause. In June of 1098 Antioch was taken where they discovered the Holy Lance which was supposed to be the one used to pierce the side of Jesus. With this discovery, they gained more land until they took Jerusalem, where they set up Godfrey of Bouillon (Loraine) as governor of Jerusalem, then entitled him “Defender Of The Holy Sepulcher”.
The second Crusade (1147-1149) came as a result of the invasion, and recapture of Jerusalem by Edessa of Islam. The Crusade was led by Louis of France but failed; many of the crusaders never reached the Holy Land. The medieval Christians were astonished, how could the victory be preached in the name of God, yet fail? How indeed, the land was not given to the Christian, nor the Muslim, holding to it while it is not theirs to hold to is still being a thief, so how could God honor it? He couldn’t, and didn’t.
The third Crusade (1188-1192) came when Mohammedan under Saladin enforced the Holy Land with Muslim concepts. Richard I, king of England made a three year peace with Saladin (1192), which allowed small groups of crusaders to visit the Holy Sepulcher.
The fourth Crusade (1202-1204) under Pope Innocent III was a complete nightmare ending with Christians fighting Christians. This Crusade, rather than being a success, destroyed the bulwark which the eastern empire had formed against Islam, further embittered the relations between eastern and western Christendom. They proved natural minded people acting foolishly in the name of God produce foolish results.
Instead of leaving a profound impression on Islam, Islam left a profound impression on the Crusaders. It was during the thirteenth century when the use of the rosary came into prominence, influenced by the Moslem ritual of Tasbih. The Crusades enlarged the concept of Absolution, which edict said anyone could kill in the name of God and gain absolution for their sins. The concept came from the Muslim concept of “dying in a holy war”, of course we find the poison fruit of that folly today.
Not only were those who fought granted absolution, but one who gave money for the Crusades gained absolution for their sins, which is the sin of Simony. Repentance was based on how much money one had, rather than how much remorse one had. Many of the rites picked up from the pagans and other religions became the focus of the Reformation. The Cup became more important, than what was in it, beginning all sorts of stories about the “holy grail”.
The Crusades left another impression, the Cathari would protest against the Roman church, contending the True Church endures, it need not persecute in order to do so. Theologically the Cathari had many problems; they felt Jesus was an angel, not a human, He neither died, nor rose from the dead; they rejected the Cross, the Sacraments, instead of looking for the Resurrection, they held to reincarnation. What they saw, they saw, what they didn’t see, they couldn’t understand. Their concept of enduring was not by Faith, but by intellectualism, attempting to save their own souls. They denied reproduction, marriage and other things, considering the flesh as sin. Like similar groups who sprung up in later years with the same thinking they counted on new members to survive, thus they soon died out, leaving nothing behind.
The Western church was also moving, but in a different direction. Russia was shaped by European influences, both Kiev, and Moscow were primarily religious in nature. Valadimir the Grand Prince sought a national religion, one to best benefit God and man, he became a Christian in 988 AD. He made his choice after sending envoys to the Jewish, Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Byzantine Orthodox churches, when the envoys returned they commented on how impressed they were by the Orthodoxy and the Byzantine influence, they advised Vladimir to adopt the same concepts for the infant state of Russia. Although Vladimir received the Christian concept, he still held to some of his old thoughts; it was reported he had as many as 800 concubines. The ancestors of Russia were a group of Slav tribes who took up residence in the land around 400 AD. The area was wooded with great forests, allowing the men to become experts with the ax. Some could carve all sorts of things with an ax, including the great onion dooms adorning many of the Russia churches and monasteries.
The Russian people loved Christianity, over 200 churches sprang up almost overnight. By choosing the Orthodox church over the Roman, Vladimir set Russia on a path separating it from western Europe. The Russian influence also had icons, but refused worship toward the icons. Russian Christianity never became either Eastern or Western, rather it hovered often uneasily between the two.
The Kremlin was first a large church as the religious center of Muscovy. The seat of the Russian Patriarch who since the fall of Constantinople, became the leader of the Russian Orthodox church.
On the outskirts of Kiev was the Monastery Of The Caves, the first monastery in Russia. In this monastery the monks composed the first historical chronicles of the lives of the saints. The Monastery lasted through the Tarar years from 1237 to 1240; the Tarars were heirs to the empire of Genghis Khan. Russia survived during those years, mainly because the Tarars sought plunder and blackmail, not residence. Since there was nothing to be gained from the Christian church, the Tarars left it alone. it wasn’t until later when the Russia church began teaching how icons perform miracles they begin to move from their basic foundational precepts. The most famous was the Virgin of Vladimir, painted by an unknown Byzantine artist. It was credited with saving Moscow from foreign conquest on three occasions, including Napoleon’s invasion of 1812. God saved Moscow, not the icon. The danger in having to see ones God was answered by Jesus when He told Thomas, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jn 20:29). Jesus didn’t say, “have not seen Me”, rather it was a blanket statement, “have not seen”, which would include having to see a miracle before we believe in God being able to do miracles.
Even after overcoming the Tarars, the Russians still were unable to call the land their own; because their church was controlled by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The break came at the Council of Florence in 1439, when the Byzantine emperor tried to unite the Orthodox church to the Catholic church in Rome. The Muscovites opposed the union, based on the worship of icons, the papal seat, and other conflicts. Soon afterwards the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, leaving Moscow and the Russian church the sole representatives of independent Orthodoxy. The marriage between Ivan the Great and the niece of the last emperor of Byzantium in 1472 seemed to seal Orthodox to Russia alone.
Ivan the Great’s grandson, Ivan IV (1544-84) became known as Ivan The Terrible; he was the first ruler to be crowned as Tsar (Czar) a title derived after the Latin title “Caesar”. People were massacred, deported, or ill-used by Ivan the Terrible, the Russians suffered yet more sever tribulations during the Time of Troubles from 1605 to 1613. The situation was so bad, Poland fought with Sweden to determine who would get the leftovers. In 1610 Moscow fell to the Poles, but it was caused by the Russians giving rise to the patriotic party in Russia. In 1613 the city was freed, the party elected a new Tsar, Michael Romanov. The three Romanov Tsars varied from feeble to mild, but never became powerful.
Peter the Great would begin reforms toward the end of the 17th Century (1682-1725). From his time until 1905 the Orthodoxy church changed little; in 1905 the first bits of the Revolution emerged, the birth pains of the Soviet regime began with Lenin’s leadership in 1917. Josef Stalin was the Communist Party secretary, he attained full totalitarian power by 1928. The government became central in all things, the church was allowed to remain under strict restrictions. They could preach what the government allowed, really they could only do as the government allowed. When Christians are oppressed they fall to their knees, often it’s the first step to victory. The True Orthodoxy church went underground, but in the process they found something; many were Born Again, the Holy Ghost is not hindered by politics, or walls. Many were filled with the Spirit, there are many stories of healings, deliverance out of the hand of the government, miracles, and other works too numerous to mention here.
The evidence came out in bits and pieces until the end of the Soviet reign. People were hungry for the words of Christ, they loved to hear the Truth of God, but whenever people are hungry the birds bring their heresies as well. The Door to Russia opened, but both the Good and Bad Fish came; however, by this time many Russians were Born Again with ears to hear the Holy Ghost. Perhaps God allows what we consider horrid things to befall us so we will fight the good fight of Faith. For some reason we tend to blame the government, rather than take the lesson by falling to our knees before we’re knocked to them.
ENGLAND – FRANKS & OTHERS
The word Barbarian comes from the Greek BarBar meaning one who speaks with a strange language. The Franks were not simply farmers, nor were they simply mercenary raiders, but they were nonetheless classed as Barbarian. They sold slaves, wine, and swords in nearly every town in France. They also broadened their trade to the Atlantic countries, they founded a great market of the 7th Century until it was destroyed by the Vikings in the 9th Century. To the Mediterranean people, the Germanic Franks were barbarian, simple, uncomplicated brigands, who founded territory on the former Roman Empire. The Empire failed, while the barbarians succeeded. The Franks preserved much of what was Roman and Gaul, including the language and religion. The Saxons, later to be known as the Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea to settle in England. They drove out the Latin and brought the first non-Mediterranean literature.
Beyond the lands of the English, were the earlier inhabitants of the British Isles with the Celts (Britons). They included the Picts of the north and the Irish who often challenged the power of the Roman Empire. Until the coming of the Vikings some four centuries later the Picts and western Scots dominated Scotland. Finally the Scots of the west, with help from the Scandinavians took over western Scotland and the Pictish nation disappeared. Living in southern Scotland the Welsh speaking tribes remained.
The Irish were the first people outside the Roman world to be converted to Christianity since the splint in 330 AD. Traditionally Ireland is said to have been converted around 400 AD by a young Romano-Briton named Patrick, who also founded the church at Armagh. Patrick had the great task of teaching the Gospel, and the Trinity, yet the concept of the Trinity was so foreign to the people, it seemed near impossible. They believed in many gods, but One God who was Three in One, who could not be separated, yet was separated? Patrick found the land filled with a unique clover, a certain type of clover with three leaves joined to one stem. The famed Three Leave Clover would be the tool to show the Irish how something can be Three, yet One.
The Irish heard of the Christian persecution, and how the old Roman government burned crosses, thus they devised a method to tell the story of the Gospel in such a manner no one could burn it. They took great stones, carved them into crosses, then used the face of the stone to carve many Biblical scenes. Patrick was reported to rid the land of snakes; however, the historians confused snakes with serpents, Patrick took up serpents (malicious people and devils) converting them to Christians, the proof of Mark 16:18. Patrick became known as the Apostle of the Irish, making the Irish brand of Christianity a simple, pure faith based love doctrine, as he showed the people the love of God, rather than just talk about it.
Gregory was the first to consider using compromise to win converts. His conclusion was to stop killing the pagan, and start converting them by using the same technique as Patrick; however, Patrick didn’t use pagan idols or days, he used the love of God. Gregory would enter a pagan temple, see the statues and say, “Oh it’s not Diana, it’s Mary” or “it’s not Apollo, it’s John the Baptist”. He used their pagan holidays then interjected the names of Apostles and saints. When the pagans would have a festival, he would term it some historical Christian holiday, such was the case with June 1st being the birthday of John the Baptist. His idea seemed simple enough, the goal seemed Godly, but the means was turning stones into bread. By this time the assumption of December 25th as the birthday of Christ, thus if John was born six months prior, why not June first?
The worship of gods didn’t die out at once, Gregory had strict orders for the missionaries to leave the pagan shrines alone, and try to introduce Christian worship alongside of paganism. As noted this produced many problems, including the continual worship of icons and images. The English church turned its attention to its western and northern neighbors. In 663 AD a Council of the Old British church, and the New English church was held at the monastery of Whitby. The English church established by St. Augustine won the day, the English church was brought in line with Roman Theology. The Prayer Book of St. Augustine is still in use today. The date of Easter (Passover), and the manner in which monks shaved their heads were to follow Roman practice.
Nonetheless it was Gregory who sent St. Augustine to England toward the end of the 6th Century. St. Augustine established the English church much like the organization in Rome. The Bishoprics at Canterbury and Dorchester began known as the Episcopalian, or a church governed by Bishops. It was basically the same system as Rome, without the Pope. This was apparently a compromise, rather than a office appointment by the Lord. The body was established with Bishops only, leaving government still in the hands of Rome. However, it soon changed to making the Bishops leaders over the local bodies. The influx of making Helps the local Government rather than Pastor and Teacher, still left the appointment in the hands of leadership, but the Bishop was never intended to be Government, it was designed for Helps. This change introduced Deacon Boards to rule over Governments, a completely out of order system.
The church of England didn’t take on it’s complete form until Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Henry considered himself a good Catholic, he even put to death thousands of Protestants for heresy, but he also put many Catholics to death for treason. The Roman church refused Henry’s request, so he began his own church, thereby securing his annulment. We know how he later felt getting an annulment was a waste of time, he began to have his wives beheaded.
Under Elizabeth I the church of England emerged with the Prayer Book of 1552. Also under the reign of Elizabeth the Catholics were persecuted, if one was a practicing Catholic they stood the chance of being punished, or quartered. The Catholic priests were subject to death, it was brother against brother, the sin outlined in First John.
King James focused on having a Bible for the masses, his actions were seen many years prior when a Christian was burning on stake gave a prophecy saying the king of England would bring forth a Book of Scripture for the people. The King James Version (1611) is the result of the prophecy; although some say King James was anything but Godly, he was nonetheless the one to bring about the Version, which is more of a miracle than they suppose. The history of the King James Version has many elements showing it was inspired, not contrived, even the use of the word Version separates it from the mind of man. It’s interesting to see the motivations for the various translations, some “think” we need one, some are motivated by their theology, some want to make sure their views are in print, some want to change what is in a manuscripts to fit their theology. Yet, those who were picked for the King James had a much different motivation, even to the point of their names not being associated with the document. They wanted God to get the glory, not man.
The King James Version was the first to put chapter and verse numbers in the text, also the first to make it clear if a word or words were added by translators they were in italics to make sure it change was known. Some Hebrew and Greek sentences demand words be added to make the sentence read in English. Nonetheless the reader was able to know what was original, and what was placed into the text for clarification. The translators didn’t grab some text which was already in existence, then copy it, they took all the documents they could find, including some original letters and teachings. The proper method of translation is to use both the external and internal, the Textus is important, but letters written by others of the time help secure the text. The translators didn’t put the King James together over the week-end, or even in two or three years, they most certainly didn’t change possession or tense. The most prime example of this is Galatians 2:20, where the early text shows “the faith of Him”, not “our faith”. The possession of whose faith is vital, if our measure of faith can gain us heavenly ability by death, we don’t need Jesus. The Faith of Jesus has proven itself, by His Faith the path is opened for us, to assume our measure of faith is as great as the Faith of Jesus is very dangerous. It does take our faith with the New Man to find the path, but the command is still “have faith in God”, rather than “have faith in yourself”.
The external assisted the internal, but behind it we can see the hand of the Holy Ghost guiding the translators. The King James Version is the proof of Peter’s comments, holy men of old wrote the text as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, the translators of the King James translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Today we are faced with many translations, some private, some not, but regardless it still takes the Holy Ghost to interpret the words. Some men hold their theology above the Bible, they make changes based on what they assume the Text should say, rather than leaving the Text as written. Could it be, the common man with the Holy Ghost can understand more of God’s ways than some of our theologians? It doesn’t take away from a theologian who is Holy Ghost centered, but it does point out the difference between a Spirit run theologian, and a self-run theologian.
The classic Charles Dickens tale of Scrooge, or A Christmas Carol tells about a sinful man who lacks the Child of Bethlehem in his heart. The man sees his past, yet it’s not enough to change him; he sees his present, yet it’s not enough to change. He then sees “what might be” repents and changes his path by receiving the Spirit of the Mass for Christ or as we know it, Christ – Mass. The Dickens tale is about simple salvation, it too came about near the time of King James.
King James was the only child of Mary, Queen of Scots, as the first king to rule both England and Scotland. James was born on June 19, 1566, James was only 15 months old when he succeeded his mother to the Scottish throne. He received his education from tutors such as George Buchanan, he began his personal rule of Scotland in 1583. During the next 20 years James successfully asserted his position as head of church and state in Scotland, outwitting the nobles who conspired against him. Being eager to succeed the childless Elizabeth, who was the First to the English throne, he merely protested when his mother was executed for treason in 1587. James went to Scandinavia in 1589 to bring home his bride, Anne of Denmark, who bore him several children but annoyed him by becoming a Roman Catholic.
In 1603, James became the first Stuart king of England, he devoted himself almost entirely to English affairs thereafter. Although raised as a Presbyterian, he immediately antagonized the rising Puritan movement by rejecting a petition for reform of the church of England at the Hampton Court Conference (1604). Roman Catholic hostility, manifested in the attempt (1605) by Guy Fawkes who set to blow up both king and Parliament. James did not dissolve the English suspicion of him being pro-Catholic when he concluded peace with Spain in 1604. The suspicion intensified when James took only ineffective diplomatic steps to secure the restoration of his Protestant son-in-law, Elector Palatine Frederick V, after he had been deposed in the Thirty Years’ War.
Initially guided by Robert Cecil, 1st earl of Salisbury, an able chief minister, James subsequently allowed his court favorites; Robert Carr, earl of Somerset, and later George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckinham, effective control. The role of these ministers complicated James’s stormy relations with Parliament. The Parliament’s views of its rights, especially in financial matters, clashed with the king’s view of the royal prerogative.
Confident in his own wisdom and experience, James avoided hard work, preferring to hunt. He was fortunate in having the services of Lionel Cranfield, earl of Middlesex, a former merchant, who looked after the royal finances until he was impeached (1624) for corruption at the Behest of Buckingham. Parliament also impeached (1621) another able minister, Francis Bacon, then blocked James in his attempts to arrange a formal Anglo-Scottish union to exchange his rights to feudal dues for a permanent grant of revenue from Parliament. James wrote books about kingship, theology, witchcraft, tobacco, he also commissioned the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible. He died on March 27, 1625, having warned his son and heir, Charles the First, of future dangers to the monarchy from Parliament.
As far as the King James Version itself we find it’s a work not only prophesied about, but it held many interesting facets. Often our lack of information, as well as having the wrong information can cloud our thinking, so it is with a lack of knowledge regarding the King James Version. Some tend to think since it’s called a “Version” it isn’t really a translation; however, in 1611 the word Version didn’t stand for ones opinion, or ones personal concept of a matter, it went much further. Version as it was understood by the people of the time means, An adaptation of a work of art, or literature into another medium without changing the meaning, context, or the integrity of the work. The Preface of the original Authorized King James Version was very long, it set forth the concerns of the workers, as well as the reasons for their labor. The work itself took nearly 100 years to reach its final conclusion; although the people who did the work wanted to keep their names out of it, we do know who they were. The translating was done at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge. The First Westminster Company engaged in the translation of the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings. The team consisted of Dr. Lancelot Andrews, Dr. John Overall, Dr. Hadrian Saravia, Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson, Dr. William Bedwell. The Oxford Company translated from Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament, consisting of Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby, Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough. The Second Oxford Company translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine, consisting of Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot, Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament, it consisted of Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Snaderson. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books, it consisted of Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe, Dr. Samuel Ward, Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois, Dr. John Ward, Dr, John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten, Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft, with Alexander McClure heading up the Apocryphal Committee.
Many of the translators were gifted with talents, some knew the original languages, such as Francis Dillingham who was called, “The great Grecian” because of his ability regarding the original Greek language. The completed work was not a combination of many other works, but they used many works for reference. The Bishop’s Bible, the TR, and other documents were around at the time, as well as many other early manuscripts in the original tongues. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate was also used, since it was perhaps the earliest first complete work, but the King James is not a copy of the Vulgate. Jerome didn’t use the Greek Old Testament, rather he was well learned in the Hebrew language, thus he went back to the Hebrew. The completed King James was more than a Bible, Alexander W. McClure in The Translators Revived said, “It was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, it [the King James Bible] may serve as a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation” (The Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible, New York: Board of Publications of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church, 1855, p. 239).
The wording of the King James Bible represents the labors of almost one hundred years of Godly scholarship, men who were rightly filled with the “fear of God”, they knew any attempt at “private interpretation” would bring down the wrath of God upon them. Some of them only engaged in the work after much prayer and a sense of duty imposed on them by the Holy Ghost. They were very concerned about mishandling the translation, so much so there was little debate, but many deep discussions.
From Tyndale to the KJV several dozen of some of the best biblical linguists who have ever lived applied their minds and their prayers to translating into English Precisely what the Hebrew and Greek text stated. There are areas of question, not to the translation, but to the Author’s meaning. Paul’s comments on Virgins in First Corinthians is one area, the translators knew exactly what the context was pointing to, but refused to change the wording. There were other areas where the temptation would be to change the text to fit their theology, but they refused to, keeping the language intact. This was made clear in the Preface to the King James showing their great concern for integrity. They noted how they didn’t make a Version to make King James happy, or to make the Church of England happy, nor to make themselves happy, or famous. They felt God had moved on them, for some it became a life’s work. They showed how history itself sought after a “Bible for the masses”; they viewed the Scriptures as the basis of Doctrine.
They didn’t copy works of the day, as some suppose, all of them were well versed in the original languages, as they said, but now what piety without truth? what truth (what saving truth) without the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search John 5:39. Isa 8:20. They reprove those who are unskillful in them, or slow to believe them Matt 22:29. Luke 24:25. They can make us wise unto salvation 2 Tim 3:15. If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures [Saint August. confess. lib 8 cap 12], (for unto them was the direction) this was said unto Saint Augustine by a supernatural voice. ‘Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me’; saith the same Saint Augustine, ‘is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most fit for the refreshing of men’s minds, and truly so tempered, everyone may draw from thence which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a devout and pious mind, as true Religion requires.’ [S. August. de utilit. credendi cap. 6] Thus S. Augustine. and S. Jerome: ‘Ama scripturas, et amabit te sapientia etc.’ [S. Jerome. ad Demetriad] Love the Scriptures. S. Cyril against Julian; ‘Even boys are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, etc.’ [S. Cyril. 7 contra Iulianum] But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed or practiced, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection of the Scripture? ‘I adore the fullness of the Scripture,’ saith Tertullian against Hermogenes. [Tertul. advers. Hermo.] So Saint Justin Martyr before him; ‘We must know by all means,’ saith he, ‘it is not lawful (or possible) to learn (anything) of God or of right piety, save only out of the Prophets, who teach us by divine inspiration.’ So Saint Basil after Tertullian, ‘It is a manifest falling way from the Faith, a fault of presumption, either to reject any of those things written, or to bring in (upon the head of them) any of those things not written’. We omit to cite to the same effect, S. Cyril B. of Jerusalem in his 4::Cataches., Saint Jerome against Helvidius, Saint Augustine in his 3::book against the letters of Petilian, in many other places of his works. Also we forebear to descend to later fathers, because we will not weary the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them, of curiosity, if we be not content with them?”.
Their words indicate their knowledge of other documents, but it shows they used them. There were areas found in John and Mark which did not appear in two early manuscripts, but the external writings affirmed they belonged. There are some opponents to the King James, but one has to examine their motives, usually we find they dislike the King James because it conflicts with their doctrinal attitudes, or denominational theology.
As today there were challenges to the work then, some felt the translators should have copied the works around in their day, others accused them of doing just that. The translators felt their work called for something deeper, a work reaching back in time to take into consideration what the disciples of the Apostles understood from the teachings given to the Apostles. The King James was not a work to enhance the buildings called churches, it was for the home, the place where families could grow in the Scriptures. Of course there were those who feared putting the Scriptures in the hands of the “unlearned”, but the translators took it into consideration, as they answered with, “but how shall men meditate in what they cannot understand? How shall they understand what is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, ‘Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him who speaks, a Barbarian, and he who speaks, shall be a Barbarian to me.’ [1 Cor 14] The Apostle except no tongue; not Hebrew the ancient, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; [Clem. Alex. 1 Strom.] so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even Saint Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) [Saint Jerome. Damaso.] so the Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, Theophili fil.] calls the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: [2::Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab] so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complain, always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other called for an interpreter: [Cicero 5::de finibus.] so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is to open the window, to let in the light; to break the shell, so we may eat the kernel; to put aside the curtain, so we may look into the most Holy place; to remove the cover of the well, so we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as the person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, ‘Read this, I pray thee,’ he was fain to make this answer, ‘I cannot, for it is sealed.’ [Isa 29:11].”
By their words they knew the importance of their work, they were not ashamed of the Gospel, nor did they attempt to change it. They spent several pages addressing the various adversaries toward the King James Version, showing there was more to the King James, than a bunch of “thee and thou”, and other terms of the day. They felt from the beginning there was a need to go back to the original languages, yet they also felt there was no need to make a “New Translation”, thus indicating all others bad, nor to make a bad one of a good one, or a good one of a bad one, or take the many and make one. They wanted a work as much Lexicon as it was Bible for the common reader to not only enjoy, but to assist them in gaining a firmer relationship with the Lord.
They showed how translations which stood the test of time were God motivated and inspired as they noted, “Saint Jerome makes no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because he translated not the old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew”. There was a Greek translation of the Old Testament in the time of Jerome, so why didn’t he use it? Jerome himself said he was moved by God to reach back to the original language, rather than use a chain of languages. Jerome was the first to warn us of using translations to make translations. Taking the language from one source and putting it in another is one thing, taking a language from a source, then attempting to make it another language leaves large gaps in the translation. Using the King James to form another translation would fall into the area of mistranslation. One could view the King James and wonder what “charity” would mean in another language, then insert a word seemingly to fit “charity”, but the word may not fit the meaning of Agape. They could have used the Bishop’s Bible, or any of the others around at the time, and merely “check” to see if they were correct, but it still would not render the correctness of the language. They went back to many manuscripts, but they didn’t leave it there, they used letters and documents written in the time to determine how certain words were used by the people of the time. Something some of us fail to do with the King James, we take a “thou” and make it “you”, without thinking of what thou, or thee means. They indicate possession, just as “charity” today doesn’t mean the same as it did in 1600. To us charity is giving someone a helping hand, back in 1600 it meant to give up something for another without consideration of the loss to the giver.
There is much more regarding their concern for translation correctness, the four rules of correct translation were held intact, they never changed possession, they never changed meaning, they never changed the tense, and they never changed wording to fit doctrine. When one considers which translation they will use as a basis for teaching, they must take into consideration why the translation was produced, what doctrinal influence if any was there, and were the rules of translation adhered to.
On the other hand there was the church of England, who was so concerned about Roman intervention, it rejected any other religion from practicing in England. Of course this produced the move to the Colonies by those who desired to practice their denominational religion without government interference. Many of the denominations in the Colonies came from England, but they didn’t all originate there, some came from Rome, some from Europe, as well as some from other countries. The original influence was to practice a religious denomination in an area without restrictions. Of course some restricted the preaching to only the domination allowed in the area, which caused other problems, as we will see.
The first English Historian was the Venerable Bede, a monk at Farrrow. He left a vivid picture of the Anglo-Saxon England in his Ecclesiastical History. Bede recorded the Viking movement as the last great stronghold of paganism. the Vikings brought the one last onslaught against Christian Europe in the 7th century. In 793 the Vikings raided the monastery founded by St. Aidan at Lindisfrane; the monks and nuns were murdered or dragged off into slavery. The Northumbrian scholar Alcuin described the effects of the raid as, “Never before has such terror appeared in Britain as we have now suffered from a pagan race…Behold the church, spattered with the blood of the priests of God”. The Vikings were active in eastern Europe, but not as pirates, they were mainly traders. Their raids supplied them with goods to sale, including slaves, gold and the such. By the 9th Century the Danish Vikings settled in areas north of a line from Essex to Herefordshire England. The Dane-Law as it was called was soon brought under English rule, the Vikings left their mark throughout north England in a myriad of names, such as Derby (deer village), Whitby (white village) and Scunthorpe (Sluma’s farm). Many basic words in the English came from the Scandinavian, such as Law, Bread, Ugly, Husband, Ship and Mast.
Christianity in the Scandinavian countries came from Germany and England; Christianity in Africa was a different story. The Africans already had roots leading back to the Jew, we know Simon surnamed Zelotes and Matthew were both active in Africa and Ethiopia after the Gospel was introduced to the world. Prior the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon, thus she knew of Jehovah God. The tradition of the Asian, or other origins have roots in Christianity as well. As early as Paul’s ventures there were prophets from the area of Niger (Nigeria – Acts 13:1). The word Niger simply means one from Nigeria, other uses have nothing to do with its origin. The name Ethiopia comes from the Greek Aithiops meaning Dark Skinned, the Ethiopian Jewish community claimed the Queen of Sheba noted in the Bible as the Queen of Sabaea, was from an ancient kingdom of southern Arabia, whose people migrated across the Red Sea to Ethiopia. They also claim the Queen not only gained knowledge from Solomon, but a child as well, who became the emperor of Ethiopia, who founded the Solomaic dynasty. This line was purported to be the royal line from whom all Ethiopian emperors claim direct descent. We also know the first Gentile to be water baptized in the Name of Jesus was an Ethiopian Eunuch who was associated to Candace the queen of the Ethiopians (Acts 8:26 & 8:36-37).
In the 4th century king Exana of Axum was converted to Christianity by a Syrian Christian named Frumentius. The culture, religion, and written language of the Axumites spread to most of Ethiopia. Ethiopia remained free of Islam until the Portuguese arrived around 1500. The argument used by Islam during this time was the unholy condition of the Roman church, which seemed effective. A witness can be used in a good light, or our witness can be used by others against us, depending on the type of witness we portray.
The Portuguese found a mixture of African and Byzantine Christianity. Africa was a land rich in goods until they were convinced to move from Christianity to Islam, then the land started to suffer making the people suffer. Today we see the change is going back to Christianity, but the struggle between Christianity and Islam is evident. When Africa was Christian, she was rich and at peace, when she became Islam based, she found herself in slavery, subject to hardships in the land, or as we know it, under the curse. Does it mean Islam is evil? No, it means once a Christian, one better not change ships, they might find they can no longer walk on water.
The problem wasn’t being converted, rather it was those who converted them left them to fend for themselves. They were given base knowledge, but the missionaries failed to introduce them to the Skill of the Word, or the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to gain Power. This same lack of concern for the proselyte caused men like Voltaire to write horrid things about the Body. Today we hold Voltaire in contempt, but we must also understand what Voltaire was looking at to bring his anticlerical sentiments. Without a target, he had nothing to shoot at, but given the target? Voltaire declared himself a non-Christian, his attacks on the Roman church caused him to be exiled to England from 1726 to 1729.
Voltaire didn’t stop with his critical behavior toward the Body, he attacked the moral condition of England and Europe, he saw nothing but hypocrisy, the reformation to him was another form of man attempting to take control of God. Voltaire’s real name was Francois Marie Arouet, a Frenchman by birth, he was not English or Roman. Before Voltaire, came John Locke a reformist who wrote “Glorious Revolution” in 1688, Voltaire praised Locke, but continued to fail to see there were people of spiritual quality in the Body. Voltaire set his sights on leadership, but was attempting to sink the entire ship. It was the writing of Locke and Montesquieu whose writings led men into the American Revolution, and later became the basis for the American Constitution. Voltaire saw nothing but the vile, yet there was the Precious.
Prior to the Renaissance there were attempts to reform the church from within. Arnold of Brescia (1100 – 1155) was an Italian reformer: after studying in Paris, he became an Augustinian monk; he exposed what he saw was the worldliness of the church. He advocated church reforms, including a life of poverty for the clergy. Sounds tough, but he felt the indulgences had such a hold, the only way for the church to regain any confidence was to show how uninterested in money the clergy were. He also rejected the idea of confession to a priest, noting man repents in prayer to God, thus no man has the right to stand between man and God. In 1139 the Second Lateran Council condemned his views, Pope Innocent II ordered Arnold exiled, and his books burned.
Arnold was able to avoid prison, and for a short period of time he returned to Paris where he taught, until he was expelled from France by the royal authorities. He then traveled to Switzerland and Bohemia, until he achieved a reconciliation with Pope Eugene III, then he returned to Italy. Eugene III (sat as Pope 1145-1153) was a Pisan named Bernardo Pagabelli, who served as a Cistercian monk and abbot, who was also a friend of Bernard of Clairviaux. Eugene helped to promote the Second Crusade as he worked to reform clerical behavior. It may have been the connection to reform causing Eugene to grant Arnold reconciliation; whatever, Arnold returned and soon became the head of a political group in Rome setting up a republic, forcing Eugene III into exile (1155). A rather tough “thank you” to say the least. Arnold remained in Rome until 1155, when Pope Adrian IV banished him, within a year he was captured by Frederick I, then hanged as a political rebel. However, he did lay the seeds of reform which would grow.
The Lateran councils were five ecumenical councils of the Roman Catholic church, they were held during the 12th, 13th and 16th centuries at the Lateran Palace in Rome. The first council (1123) was called by Pope Callistus II to ratify the Concordant of Worms (1122), formally ended the lengthy investiture controversy. The “investiture controversy” concerned conferring of symbols of higher office in the church to members of the church hierarchy; the question was not the granting, but who should do it. When Christianity became the official state religion in the Roman Empire, the emperor approved and often nominated the higher clergy for office. In the medieval kingdoms, the secular rulers continued this practice. It goes beyond establishing a religion, it’s using the religion to place people in high ranking positions who will give the secular powers “approval”.
Pope Gregory VII (Pope from 1075-1085) was an active reforming Pope; following the Benedictine Clunian reform movement, and the Gregorian reform movement he enforced celibacy on the clergy, and fought simony. However, the practice of investiture was not considered simony by the secular powers since the person didn’t buy the office, the secular powers granted it, but they did so based on “favor” and political gain, which is the same as simony, which is how Gregory saw it. Gregory fought any and all political control over the church, his chief opponent was the “holy Roman Emperor” Henry IV, who could ill afford to have the German bishops become princes independent of him. Gregory handled it like most Popes, he excommunicated Henry, in so doing it caused Henry to lose much of his power. Henry saw the “handwriting on the wall”, as he did penance before Gregory at Canossa (Jan 25-28, 1077), forcing the Pope to remove the excommunication. The investiture controversy still lingered until Emperor Henry V and Pope Callistus II reached a compromise called Concordat of Worms in 1122. Worms is a city in south-west Germany on the Rhine river, it was the site of the “Diet of Worms” in 1521 in which Martin Luther refused to recant his beliefs on the Just live by faith.
The emperor guaranteed the free election of bishops and abbots, renouncing the right to invest them with ring and staff, the symbols of their “spiritual” duties, so much for the Holy Spirit being the Seal. Out of all this do we see something amiss? Yes, where is there room for the Holy Ghost to say, “separate unto Me”? They went back to “voting” the recourse left open to those who don’t hear the Holy Ghost. We also see how Authority was cast aside, they were appointing Offices, but they also took the Bishop position making it a government post, a very big mistake. No longer did they wait for “separate unto Me”, they began to appoint Offices, although it was the Bishop, they still made it a government position, a clear violation of Jesus giving Gifts unto men.
The Second Lateran council (1139) was called by Pope Innocent II to reaffirm the unity of the church after the schism of 1030-1038 of the antipope Anacletus. It also condemned the teachings of Arnold of Brescia (noted above). The Third Lateran council (1179) called by Pope Alexander III, ending the schism of 1159-1177 of the antipope Callistus III and his predecessors. It also limited papal electors to members of the College of Cardinals. Although each of the first three Lateran councils decreed a number of reform measures, the Forth would become the most important. Attended by will over 1,000 churchmen from throughout Christendom, the council sanctioned a definition of the Eucharist in which the word “transubstantiation” was used officially for the first time. It was a big deal, considering a majority taught the wine turned into the actual Blood of Jesus, and the Bread into His flesh when it entered the Believer. The council also attempted to organize a new crusade to the Holy Land, by encouraging crusading efforts against the Albigenses and Waldenses. Many of these precepts are still binding on the Roman Catholics, such as Easter duty, or obligation of annual confession and Holy Communion. In many respects the council marked a pinnacle in the power and prestige of the medieval papacy. The Fifth Lateran council (1512-1517) convened by Pope Julius II was called to bring about reform, but the main causes of the Reformation were left untouched. Its most significant decree was a the condemnation of conciliarism. Two questions now face us, what is Conciliarism? And what is an antipope? Is the antipope someone who is against the Pope? No, it’s a term given to someone who unlawfully has claimed the office of Pope, or who claimed to hold the office of Pope in the Roman Catholic church without being elected by the Cardinals. Throughout the history of the papacy, antipopes have risen for many reasons, including outright unlawful, forceful overthrow of the sitting Pope, as well as holding outside elections for the seat, some gained the seat by political differences between church and state, or by holding a new election because the previous was found invalid, or confusion over what constitutes a lawful papal election. Right back to the absence of the Holy Ghost saying “Separate unto Me”, all indications of a lack of spiritual awareness.
The next question is what is Conciliarism? Conciliarism is both a theory and a movement; as a theory it pointed to an ecumenical council being superior in authority to the papacy. This view sees the Pope as a constitutional ruler who receives his authority from the entire church membership, whose decisions may be viewed by the church community through an ecumenical council. This was to be a “safe guard” to save the church from whackos, but it removed the appointment from the hands of the Holy Ghost. In any regard Conciliarism was condemned by the First Vatican council (1869-1870). Along with Conciliarism we find Gallicanism, which is the name commonly given the complex theological doctrines and political views which emphasize the relative independence from the papacy of the Roman Catholic church in France including the French king. The Gallican theorists felt the decisions of the ecumenical councils had supremacy over the Pope, much like Conciliarism, but in this case it wasn’t the body, but the bishops who were the divine institution. This is the same as the deacon board ruling the Offices, a complete reverse from the intended. A more radical form called Parliamentary Gallicanism argued the church must be subordinate to the state, the state could then intervene in the church’s financial and disciplinary problems. This was the basis for the famed, “separation of church and state”, which still allowed the state to dictate by disallowing the church freedom in the state matters.
As all this was going on, there was another threat, one far greater, the Muslims in Jerusalem. Who ever heard of such a thing? Somebody do something? They did, several times by using “The Crusades”. Paul never address the Muslims, or Islam, because they weren’t around in his day; however, the thought of a person believing in One God, yet not accepting the Son of the One God determines if they are saint or devil. Paul, Peter, John and James all addressed the premise, only for them it was the Jews who held to One God, yet denied the Son. John told us, “who is a liar but he who denies Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son” (I Jn 2:22).
For some reason we address the classes in the world as Gentile, Jew and Arab, but it’s not the case at all. It’s still Gentile and Jew, thus the Arab is a Gentile, related to Ishmael yes, but still a Gentile, no different than the sons Abraham had with Keturah (Gen 25:1-6). Abram was a Gentile, from him came Ishmael, but from Abraham came the Jews, thus even Abram was a Gentile at one time. The Muslim religion gained support with Mohammed, as we will see. The point? The city of Jerusalem was to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, since the Arab is a Gentile, the prophecy has come to pass. As long as the Dome of the Rock Mosque remains in Jerusalem, the city is trodden under foot by the Gentiles. They can build the temple next to the Dome, under it, across the street, on top of it, but none of it will not remove the “trodden under foot”. If they attempt to tear down the Dome of the Rock Mosque, the biggest war of all time will begin. Arab’s are not the only Muslims in the world, we know of the problems in Europe and Africa concerning the Radical Muslims, evidenced by the conflicts. In essence not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs.
The Dome of the Rock Mosque isn’t some corner meeting place either, it holds special significance to the Muslim. Mecca is probably the most holy place for the Muslim, but the Dome of the Rock Mosque follows closely behind. The Dome of the Rock Mosque is covered with mosaic work, not just a tile here or there, but detailed work, taking years to complete. Mecca was the birth place of Mohammed, the tradition says he ascended into heaven from the “rock” upon which the Dome of the Rock sits. The biggest problem is the “rock” is Zion, considered the place where the 144,000 will be marked. As we can see the Dome of the Rock Mosque is a headache and a half to the Jew, it’s like putting a statue of Zeus or Baal on Zion. It’s one reason why they wait for Elijah to come back, to redeem Zion, and cause the false prophets to be killed. However, we know as long as the Dome remains then the prophecy of the city being trodden under foot remains, the end is not yet.
What do the Jews have now? The local synagogue, the Wailing Wall, with a hope of building the Temple again. Some of us wonder why would Israel even provoke the Arab’s? To begin with it’s based on something they know they haven’t received fully, yet were promised by God. The land they were promised went to the river Euphrates, which runs through Iraq. Nonetheless, Jerusalem is the center of all controversy in the Middle East, to the Muslim Jerusalem is like the “gate to heaven”, to the Jew it’s the center of their entire faith. There are two places called Jerusalem, Paul made it very clear, Jerusalem of the earth is in bondage, New Jerusalem is not, we are assigned to New Jerusalem.
Viewing the reign of Mohammed we find Mohammed was his last name, he was born to the Koresh tribe as Kutam Mohammed. His parents died when he was very young, his grandfather raised him until his grandfather’s death when Mohammed was six years of age. The age of six at the time was when a child entered school, but Mohammed went to live with his uncle, Abu Talib a camel trader. Although Mohammed could not read or write he nonetheless traveled with his uncle to many places, including Yemen, Syria, Abyssinian and many other places where he came into contact with Jewish and Christian traders, accounting for the mixture of Jewish and Christian beliefs in the Koran. Later in life Mohammed headed up in the camel business, then married a woman named Khadijah who was forty, he was twenty-five, but the marriage was reported to be happy. As was his custom during Ramadan, Mohammed went to cave to meditate; while in the cave he heard a voice say, “read Mohammed”, but he answered, “I cannot read”. This happened three times, the next morning he heard a voice say, “Oh Mohammed, you are Allah’s messenger and I am Gabriel”. Sounds a little like Peter on the roof, but Gabriel is the angel who brought the news about the Birth of Christ, did Jesus fail so bad God had to pick another?
Mohammed began to have visions, his wife obtained a scribe by the name of Abu Bekr to write all the things down. Mohammed began to preach his new found concept of Islam, but it was not well received. After his death Abu took the writings and became known as “Caliph Abu Bekr” or the Successor Abu Bekr. The writings were put into a book called the Koran (or Quran), or The Reading. The Koran became known as the “actual words of God given to Mohammed by Gabriel”, but in truth they were the visions Mohammed had. Muslims from the time claim they are the “True Believers”, of course Mohammed never said he came to take away the sins of the world, nor did he say he would die for the sins of many, nor did he say the only way to Allah was through him, more important he wasn’t resurrected, thus his followers have no hope of avoiding the second death. This is not against Muslims, they are classed among the other earthly religions who are not privy to the Holy Ghost or Spirit. The Record in heaven is still the Father, Word and Holy Ghost, the Witness is still the Water, Blood and Spirit. The Witness must be three-fold cord, which is not easily broken. We must have the Mercy of the Father, the Grace of the Son, and the Spirit by the Holy Ghost in order to have a Godly Witness. Out of all the religious orders on the earth, only one has the God granted permission and authority to baptize in water, to heal the sick in the name of the Lord, and to preach the Gospel of Peace. No brag, just fact, proven by the lack of power to overcome death by leaders and founders of the various earthly religions. The Resurrection is always a key factor, Paul said there were many eye-witnesses to Jesus being raised from the dead. Unless the leader and founder is raised from the dead, the follower has no hope beyond the grave.
THE CRUSADES
How about the Christian in all this? Now we come to the Crusades, and how we got involved in something we had no business engaging in. The causes for the Crusades were many and somewhat complex, mainly they were based in three reasonings, pilgrimage, war and money. The pilgrimage was to visit the holy land, the war part was to get the Muslims out of Jerusalem, the money was of course to finance the Crusades, yet a great deal of the money ended in the treasury, not in the Crusades.
Jerusalem had been under Muslim rule since the 7th century, but pilgrimages were cut off until the 11th century when the Seljuk Turks began to interfere with Christian pilgrims. For Christians, the very name of Jerusalem evoked visions of the end times, but they confused Jerusalem of the earth with New Jerusalem, assuming New Jerusalem was Jerusalem of the earth which should be in the hands of the Byzantine Empire.
The end time frantic thinkers were as many then, as now, they felt it was the “duty” of the Christian to summon in the Kingdom by freeing the Holy Land of the Muslims. As if Jesus wasn’t able to return unless they made a place for Him to land.
Of course the Muslims were not deaf to this, they felt they had a right to the city based on the life and teachings of Mohammed, they were willing to fight to the death to protect their religious heritage. When the Muslims (Turks) felt this pressure of pending attack, they attacked back, which caused a political call for help from the Byzantine Empire by the Christians in Europe. The year 1071 saw both the capture of Jerusalem and the decisive defeat of the Byzantine army at Manzikert, creating fear of further Turkish (Muslim) conquests. In addition, the hopes of the papacy for the reunification of East and West were slipping fast. The nobility’s hunger for land in a time of crop failures, the population explosion of the West, with an alternative to warfare at home all pointed the finger of war toward the Muslims as the cause. How could God allow this? Muslims defeating Christians? We had no right to attempt to take the land for our own self-glory. God had nothing to do with it, man’s self interest did. Just as we find in Acts chapter one, when we are out of order, God turns a deaf ear. The Voice of the Lord could have told Peter, “I said tarry, not vote”, but Jesus already said Tarry, like crossing the lake obedience was the call, not repetitive commands. When we are out of order, we have caused our own problems, until repentance places us back in order, we are left to our own reasonings.
The next question, how do we get Crusaders? Ahh, political incentive, religious incentive, mom, and apple pie will get a bunch of well meaning people all worked up by emotional means to battle to the death for an idea. However, there is an underlining factor in all this, the love of money, a desire to fill the treasury. Carnal minded leadership always seems to hide the intent behind, “it’s for the Lord’s work”. Yes it is, well some of it anyway. A nation going to war to protect its freedom from invasion is one thing, but to engage in war for financial gain is still the love of money.
For some reason these people felt if you weren’t Christian, you should be dead. Today there some radicals who think if you are Christian, you should be dead. All this taken to the Night shows us there is only one religion in the Night, all the knowledge about God will come from the Temple in Jerusalem. The Christian will be Raptured, or sleep in Jesus, the rest of man’s religions will fall when the great earthquake comes to shake the earth as a drunken man. No one is going to eradicate the Christian, when the time comes when we will leave here, until then, we still tell them about Jesus, the King of kings.
Many participants were lured by the fabulous riches of the East, this was before oil became a factor. Also a campaign abroad appealed as a means of escaping from the pressures of a feudal society with many poor and starving people; the Crusaders promised three meals a day, with a chance to have their sins absolved. Of course they also had a chance of being killed; there was no righteous cause for the Crusades, when a Christian gets involved in something lacking righteousness, they are headed for a fall.
On a larger political scale, the major European powers and the rising Italian cities of Genoa, Pisa and Venice all saw the Crusades as a means of establishing and extending trade routes, again motivated by the love of money. The Crusades had the flavor of “religious freedom”, but the smell of greed.
THE FIRST CRUSADE (1096-99)
The first crusade was launched by Pope Urban II in a speech at the Council of Clermont, France on November 27, 1095. Urban spoke of the need to help the Christians in the East in order to stop the desecration of the holy places. Especially those in Jerusalem, in the process of his speech he stressed the moral duty of keeping the “Peace of God” at home. Strange use of words, war in the East, Peace at home. The response was overwhelming, as the cry of Deus Volut! (God wills it!) thousands took the cross, and headed east. Bands of poorly armed pilgrims, most of who were poor and inexperienced set out for Constantinople under Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless even before the full army gathered. The result was a bunch of angry, war motivated people, instead of attacking the Muslims, they stopped along the way and engaged in massacring Jews in Rhine valley. Jerusalem belonged to the Jews by God’s decree, here they were off to save Jerusalem, but killed Jews to whom the city was given, then wondered why they failed? Many perished on their way east, the rest were destroyed by the Muslims when they crossed into Anatolia.
The main army then followed, who were mostly French and Norman knights under the baronial leadership of Godfrey Bouillon, Balwin of Flanders, Raymond of Toulouse, Robert of Normandy, Bohemond of Taranto, and others who assembled at Constantinople and proceeded on a long, arduous march through Anatolia. The group led by Peter the Great ended in Anatolia, but the main army captured Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the “Kingdom of Jerusalem”, where Baldwin was crowned king. Continuing rivalry among the leaders undermined any chance of consolidating these acquisitions almost from the beginning.
The “kingdom of Jerusalem” fell to the Muslims in 1291, but prior around 1140 it included Palestine from the Gulf of Aqaba to Beirut, claiming sovereignty over the other Crusader states to the north, the principality over Antioch, and the counties of Tripoli and Edessa. The history of the kingdom during this age falls into two periods separated by the reconquest of Jerusalem by the Muslim leader Saladin in 1187. Saladin whose real name was “Salah ad-din, Yusuf ibn Ayyub” was born in 1138, he died in 1193. He was a Muslim warrior and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, he was also an opponent of the Crusades. He was of Kurdish descent, recently we have heard of their plight in Iraq.
Saladin was raised in northern Syria, where members of his family were prominent government and military leaders under the rule of the Zangid dynasty. In 1152 he joined the staff of his uncle Shirkuh, later accompanied him and the Zandig army to Egypt where he helped the Fatmid rulers resist the Crusaders. Saladin was most noted as the leader of now famed “jihad” or “holy war”, the original concept was a war within a person, but it changed to war within the land. Accordingly a Jihad cannot go beyond the borders, according to the Koran, no Muslim can destroy a green tree, take the life of a child, or woman, if their enemy gives up, or desires peace, they must show mercy. Of course it all changes depending on who is running the war, or the political motivation. The intent of the “holy war” was to use self-righteousness to conquer the inner self, a lost hope to begin with without the Spirit. Later when the leaders needed incentive to cause the ill-informed to die for a cause, they devised the precept of dying in a holy war becoming a one way ticket to heaven. Recalling how the call of the Crusaders was “God wills it” we can see how Saladin made use of the phrase as did later leaders to defeat the Crusaders and other “infidels”. The concept of getting to heaven through violence is not in God’s character; it’s going to be a sad day when they find they died for nothing.
Not only did Saladin vanquish the Crusaders, but he also restored Egypt as a major power in the Middle East. Within Egypt he established a stable dynasty, encouraged education, and reformed the financial structure to support the armed Kurdish and Turkish cavalry. Saladin initiated a prolonged period of economic prosperity, population growth, and cultural revival. However, after he died in 1193 the Turks and the Mamelukes began to dominate the area. The point being, prosperity is not a sign of holiness, even the heathen can prosper, but their soul does not. Holiness is seen in the Mercy of a person, hardly an attribute of Saladin. As far as the “kingdom of Jerusalem” goes, the “kingship” was held by various dynasties, without regard for Jesus the King of kings.
THE SECOND CRUSADE (1147-49)
The second crusade had its immediate cause in the loss (1144) of Edessa to the Muslims of Mosul and Aleppo. Again the thought of “God wills it” appeared, but some asked “Does He really?”. The use of statements to make God fit our plans is evident in the Crusades, yet the same faulty concept was taken up by the Muslims. They held a meeting, their leaders make the decision if it’s a “holy war”, then they expect God to back them up. It’s the same mindset as the false prophets, they make statements, then demand for God to perform to their words. The same misconception invades our faith thinking at times: faith fits the plan of God, it’s not making up plans then attempting to make God fit them. The zeal may be there, the rhetoric may be there, the cause may be there, but the methods are still carnal, or self-serving. They are merely examples of the spirit of man becoming religious, then tempting to make God perform.
Challenged by Bernard of Clairvaux, King Louis of France, with the German King Conrad III tried to lead separate armies through Anatolia. What remained of their armies joined in an unsuccessful siege of Damascus. The only success of this Crusade was the capture of Lisbon, Portugal (1147) by the English and Frisian Crusaders on their way to the East by ship.
THE THIRD CRUSADE (1188-92)
The third Crusade was in response to the conquest (1187) of Palestine, including Jerusalem by Sultan Saladin, who had consolidated Muslim power in Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. This Crusade’s leadership included King Philip II of France, Emperor Frederick I, and King Richard I of England. This Crusade spun off the fable of “Robin Hood”, the protector of England while Richard was off “fighting the Crusades”.
Frederick drowned en route to the battlefield in Cilicia, the crusade disintegrated through attrition and lack of cooperation. Acre was recaptured (1191), but Philip returned to France soon after. Jaffa was secured, mainly through the initiative of Richard, who also captured Cyprus, giving Richard the title “Richard the lion hearted”.
THE FOURTH CRUSADE (1202-04)
Pope Innocent III attempted to reorganize the Crusading efforts under papal auspices, but the lack of funds to pay for the passage of the 10,000 plus crusaders forced a diversion of the mostly French army. At the request of the Venetians, who apparently paid for the Crusade, the Crusaders first attacked the Christian city of Zara, in Dalmatia. The purpose was to rid the city of any Muslims, but Christians attacking Christians is not a wise move on anyone’s part. They sailed on to lay siege to Constantinople, the Byzantine capital fell on April 13, 1204; it was looted particularly for it’s treasures of relics.
The Latin empire of Constantinople came into existence as a result of this fourth Crusade, which was primarily composed of Frenchmen, Venetians and other Italians, collectively called “Franks”. The Crusaders elected Baldwin as “Emperor Baldwin I”; his successors, Peter of Courtenay (1216-17), Robert of Courtenay (1217-28), John of Brienne (co-emperor 1231-37), and Baldwin II (1228-61) were weak and incapable. The empire in its final years depended on the Venetian navy and financial aid from Louis IX of France with some minor help from Venice. Baldwin II, who repeatedly visited western Europe in quest of aid, was forced to mortgage his son for a loan from Venice. After 1240 his authority scarcely extended beyond the city walls. The Latin states in Greece survived the fall of the empire.
There were other Crusades, during the 13th century several attempts were made to revive the declining enthusiasm for the Crusades. The Muslims under Ayyubid rulers were in firm control of Syria and Palestine. All these Crusades proved one thing, Christians are sent to spread the Word of Christ, not to use force and power. No where do we find a “Crusade” based on evangelism, they were based on destroying the Muslims, which never happened. The resolve of the Muslims was fortified by the failure of the Crusades, thus the Muslim influence gained, rather than declining. It could be said the non-Christian activities of the Christians caused revival among the Muslims. When we attempt to engage in Christian matters by carnal means, we become our own worst enemy.
The Palestine foothold on the land gained until the British took over the land. Palestine and the Philistine are different, there are no more Philistines, but there are Palestinians. Today the Palestinian lays claim to Jerusalem; however, for many years the British held the land, but the Palestinian lived there. After World War II and the Holocaust the United Nations granted Israel a separate nation in 1948, but it didn’t make Israel “free” by any means.
God promised Abraham the land to the river Euphrates, the promise still holds. Any tribe (nation) within those boundaries who attacks Israel, loses. The Six Day War and other like conflicts prove it, but nations outside of the boundary can still attack Israel. None have, and none will until the very last of the last days when the four protecting angels are removed from the Euphrates. In the meantime, or until the Time of Comfort there will be wars, with rumors of wars, but we are not to be terrified, the end is not yet. “Oh yeah, what about Hitler?”, Hitler never attacked Israel, he killed Jews, Catholics and anyone else who opposed him. Hitler was not “of God” in any sense of the word, but God nonetheless used him, just as God used Pharaoh. Prior to Hitler the Jews were satisfied to live as the dispersed; after the holocaust the call of the Jew has been “Never again”, their experience with Hitler gave them resolve to hold to the land God promised them.
As we know the land was given the name “Syria-Palsetina” by Hadrian, a Roman, thus the inhabitants gained their name from the Romans, but the land was given to Abraham. Therein is where the descendants of Ishmael lay claim, they feel the “firstborn” son of Abraham, regardless of the mother has claim and right to the promise. However, God promised the land to the son of one man named Abraham, whose wife was named Sarah. We also know the mother determines the nation, thus Isaac is the promised son.
SCHOLASTICISM
The term Scholasticism comes from the Latin word Schola meaning School, referring both to doctrine, and the method of teaching. It seems to have come about during the medieval times in European schools, then to their successive revivals, it remains to this present day. As a method, scholasticism involves the close detailed reading of a particular book recognized as a great or authoritative work of human or divine origin. For example, Aristotle studies regarding logic, Euclid for geometry, Cicero for rhetoric, Avicenna and Galen regarding medicine, and the Bible for theology. The second step in scholasticism was open discussion (Latin Disputatio) in strict logical form of a relevant question (Latin Quaestio) arising from the text being studied. As a doctrine scholasticism refers to the kind of philosophy, theology, medicine and law (cannon and civil) taught by the faculties responsible for the discipline. The four faculties of philosophy, theology, medicine and law constituted the medieval universities which began to organize around the 12th century, beginning in Bologna, Paris and Oxford. The most important faculties to the people were philosophy, referred to as the “arts”, then second was theology. The term scholasticism is usually in the context of two disciplines of the Arts and Theology. Scholasticism becomes an important issue, it formed many of the “schools of thought” we see today. The concept is believed to be a major part of the humanist movement, when philosophy was introduced into theology, taking on a life of its own. It admittedly did not involve the Holy Ghost, or the Witness in any study program, thus this system laid the groundwork for natural reasoning regarding spiritual matters, a serious problem, which always leads to heresy, or at the very least confusion.
In order to gain a grasp on scholasticism and how it can actually interfere with sound Bible study discipline we have to look at the players, and their influence. We know John and Paul told us the Word is Jesus, the very Logos of God, but the philosophy side of scholasticism has a different view. Plato was a student and admirer of Socrates; Plato was born in Athens in 428, both of his parents were from well known and powerful Athenian families, his stepfather was an associate of Pericles. It seems Plato was destined for an aristocratic political career, but the execution of Socrates in 399 caused a massive profound effect on Plato. After the death of Socrates, Plato retired from active Athenian life and traveled widely for years. In 399 he journeyed to Italy and Sicily, where he became friends with Dionysius the Elder. Plato returned to Athens, where he founded an Academy devoted to the research and instruction of philosophy. Plato’s writings consist of 26 dialogues on philosophical and related themes. Socrates is a focal character in all but a few of the dialogues, showing how profound the death of Socrates influenced the mind of Plato. Plato viewed things in a “what is?” thinking, with the famed “what is X?” concept. This questioning was suppose to cause one to think independently, unfortunately in most of the “What Is” cases the source was left out. For instance Plato’s “what is holiness?” left out the source of holiness.
The central area of Plato’s thought process was the “power of reason”, the premise of man being able to create peace by a political and individual level. The sought after “good life”, or the “harmonious and happy life” as considered by Plato to be a means of thinking, rather than engaging in repentance to acquire peace with God. To him the good life was grounded in knowledge refined into a view of philosophical education, in order to effect a harmony between reason and passion as a life of self-mastery in which reason governs the will, not something alien to it, but it’s still natural. This places the will of man as the guide, rather than the Spirit of Christ. This division of the philosophical from theology seems to place emphasis on natural thinking, and education. Natural education teaches us to read and write, it doesn’t teach us the things of the Spirit of God.
Plato’s doctrine of recollection is based on the learning and remembering of what he termed “wisdom”, from his view of “wisdom” we find the confusion today in reference to the term. Man’s concept of wisdom is the ability of man to reason, but it’s not God’s view of wisdom. God’s view is the manner in which a person deals with other people and situations, as outlined in James. Plato centered on the wisdom of man, the same wisdom James calls “earthly, sensual (soulish) and devilish” (James 3:15). Plato never told us to seek Wisdom by faith, rather his conclusion was seeking wisdom by the self.
Plato also had a different view of the Logos, to Plato the Logos was “reason” alone. This concept of Logos was the medium in which reason articulates, it is the central topic throughout his dialogues. Plato was impressed by the ability of language having the capacity both to articulate the intelligibility of the world and to belie (disprove) the world’s true being. He constantly addressed the question of how to purge language of its potential deceptiveness, but his mistake was in thinking deceptive language was the problem, rather than the deceit of man producing the deceptive language. Jesus said from the heart the language (words) come, thus Plato saw the logos as language, whereas the Bible sees the Logos (Word with all reasoning and purpose) as Jesus.
Next in line is Aristotle, another philosopher. Why even look at these people? Their influence will explain how carnal thinking and natural reasoning drifted into Bible study discipline. It was once said, “Bad things happen when good men do nothing”, but we will find bad things happen when good men do things they are not suppose to do. With the possible exception of Plato, Aristotle (384-322) was perhaps the most influential philosopher in western thought (reason, or logic). When we speak of Logic we wonder how many times the word appears in the Bible? Only once, it’s translated as “reasonable”, in Romans 12:1. Plato, Aristotle and some with like thoughts felt the reasonableness of man was to think on the things of the world; however, the Bible tells us presenting our bodies a living sacrifice to God is our reasonable (logical) service. We can see their error was using the natural process of man to define spiritual matters, which is always error.
Aristotle’s life began at his birth in northern Greece, his father, like Plato’s had influence with the government. Aristotle joined Plato’s Academy in 367, first as a student, then as a teacher. The purpose of the Academy was to train up young men for political careers in order to provide rulers. The thought of “peace by logic” became the purpose, showing how natural thinking ends in corruption, we find Aristotle moved on to the court of Philip II of Macedonia, where he became tutor to the young Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great held the “logic” scholasticism by putting it to use through war.
Aristotle’s writings were many dialogues, like those of Plato. All have been lost except for a few fragments, what remains are treatises apparently meant for use within the Academy. These form the so-called Corpus Aristotelicum; in addition there survives a mutilated version of his Constitution of Athens, some letters of doubtful authenticity, with some poems, including the elegy (dirge) on Plato. To Aristotle Logic was a theory of what he felt was formal truth and validity, originated in reflections on the practice of dialectic, a type of debate found in Plato’s dialogues. Aristotle became the source and authority for all philosophers. Even beyond the Renaissance we find his influence in at least one person’s thinking. Charles Darwin regarded Aristotle as the most important contributor on the subject of biology, he used the concept of “reason and logic” in his theory of evolution.
On the other side of the coin we find people like Philo of Alexanderia, also called Philo Judaeus, who was a Jewish philosopher and theologian of the Greco-Roman period, whose writings have survived. Their preservation is felt to have a heavy influence on the study discipline of some of the early Christians, especially the theologies of Clement and Origen who were both Alexandrians. Philo’s principle contribution was his allegorical interpretation of the Bible within context. Unlike Plato, Philo substituted the Logos or “divine Word” as both the actual creator and the intermediary between God (all Spirit) and man (all matter), while at the same time stressing the total transcendence of God.
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (a name of a person) was born in 480AD, he was educated in both the Latin and Greek. A friend and advisor of Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths who occupied Italy, he became a Roman consul in 510, then in 522 he became “master of the Palace”. Unjustly charged with treason in his relations with Pope John I, he was executed by Theodoric, so much for friendship. During his imprisonment at Ticinum (Pavia) Boethius seeing the civilization crumbling around him composed some, later to be important, theological treatises. These became the major source of early medieval education in the liberal arts, as well as most of the succinct (to the point) presentations of Christian Greek theology on the Trinity, the incarnation, and creed.
Boethius also laid out the discipline for study known as “medieval scholasticism”, which became the prerequisite to understanding the Bible, and the writings of the Latin church fathers. Rather than asking “what is X”, he moved to “why did you say this God?”. The premise leads one to the Author, then to proper interpretation regarding spiritual matters. One can either be a Bible teacher, or a teacher of Bible history, the former is far better.
In this early period there was also the dominant philosophical influence of Platonism, also known as Neoplatonism, particularly as it was reflected in the work of Saint Augustine. Augustine formulated the maxim, “Understand so you may believe, believe so you may understand”; an approach laying at the heart of scholasticism, he urged the use of dialectics (the art or practice of examining statements logically by question and answer within the confines of the statement to establish validity) in examining Christian doctrine. This method is used not to question the statement, but why it is there. Also this doesn’t ignore verses, it seeks to include all the verses on the subject to find where each fits. Augustine felt one could have one verse saying one thing, another saying the complete opposite, but through prayer and searching one would find a third linking the first and second making the matter one of completeness, rather than opposition. From this we can see how Augustine added prayer to gain guidance from the Holy Ghost, but he also noted the proper frame of mind, providing a sound study discipline required hearing the Holy Ghost. One cannot study to prove someone else wrong, or to prove their self right, they must center on “why did you write this God?”, the basis for the search of Truth.
Neoplatonism was a school of thought which flourished in the Roman empire in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It had a strong influence on religious thought, playing a part in the development of modern western philosophy. Neoplatonism originated in Alexandria where Plotinus, a Hellenized Egyptian, with his teacher, Ammonius Saccas (185-250) sought to revive Platonism, (the thoughts of Plato) as a viable contemporary philosophy. It’s major development as a school occurred in Rome, not Egypt, where Plotinus headed an influential philosophical academy from 244 to 270AD. In truth this type of Platonsim was not associated to Plato, the ideas seemed to be more Pythagorean and Stoic. It was still a study discipline translated into religious circles, it wasn’t the same as the “What is X?”, rather they began to search the Scriptures for the Truth. Of course at this time in history there was no printing press, thus the documents to be searched were few indeed. This limited the searching to a few available texts, but it doesn’t change the discipline.
Peter Abelard was another among those who were exponents of scholasticism in the field of theology. Born in 1079AD, he died in 1142, Peter was a French theologian who soon became recognized as a teacher. Although he was a teacher, he had a weakness and fell into an affair with the young niece of Canon Fulbert of Notre Dame. Peter was castrated by order of Fulbert, and publicly disgraced. Branded, and rejected, he became a Benedictine monk. He continued to devote his vast energies to theological studies, he never considered his fate the fault of God, rather he felt he was given an opportunity to seek God, without the hindrance of his flesh. He repented and accepted his situation, allowing God to make the best of it for the glory of the Lord. His works were not always accepted, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux had one of Abelard’s books on the subject of the Trinity burned (1121). In 1125 Abelard established a convent called the Paraclete, located near Troyes. The same young lady who became the subject of his disgrace by Fulbert became the prioress of the convent, enduing as a teacher. Both show what God can do with a repentant heart, although they both committed sin, it didn’t stop God from using them after their repentance.
However, the works of Abelard were again attacked by Bernard, only this time Abelard started off to Rome to defend the works. He was now in his sixties, the trip was proving too much, he got as far as Cluny; where Peter the Venerable, a personal friend of Bernard’s, who was known for his moderation in controversy. Peter listened to Abelard, then set himself to reconcile Bernard and Abelard. Peter felt the entire issue was two brothers in the Lord with aught, which had to be mended for the sake of all. The reconciliation was effected, thus Abelard spent the rest of his life in Cluny. All this leads us to the Renaissance, and how it effected mankind, as well as the Body of Christ.
THE RENAISSANCE
The term Renaissance means “rebirth”, it spread to other areas in Europe, even Italy. It was also connected to the rediscovery of ancient philosophy, literature and science, increasing the empirical methods of study. Increased awareness of classical knowledge created a new resolve to learn by direct observation and study of the natural world. Consequently, secular themes became increasingly important to artists; with the revived interest in antiquity came a new repertoire of subjects drawn from Greek and Roman history, coupled with mythology. The models provided by ancient buildings and works of art also inspired the development of new artistic techniques, with a desire to redevelop the forms and styles of classical art.
Central to the development of Renaissance art was the emergence of the artist as a creator, who was sought after and respected for his erudition and imagination. Art too, became valued, not merely as a vehicle for religious and social didacticism, but even more as a mode of personal, aesthetic expression.
Although the development of Italian Renaissance art was a continuous process, it is traditionally divided into three major phases: Early, High, and Late Renaissance. The last phase has been the subject in recent years of complex interpretations recognizing many competing, or contrasting trends. Some scholars date the beginning of the Italian Renaissance from the appearance of Giotto Di Bondone in the early 14th century; others regard his prodigious achievements in naturalistic art as an isolated phenomenon. According to the second view, the consistent development of Renaissance style began only with the generation of artists active in Florence at the beginning of the 15th century.
The Renaissance was broken into defined periods, the Early Renaissance had it’s principal members of the first generation of Renaissance artists; Donatello in sculpture, Filippo Brunelleschi in architecture, Masaccio in painting, all shared many characteristics. Central to their thinking was a desire for theoretical foundations of art, with the thought of development and progress were not only possible but essential to the life and significance of the arts. Ancient art was revered, not only as an inspiring model, but also as a record of trial and error revealing the successes of former great artists. Intending to retrace the creative process, rather than to imitate the final achievements of antiquity.
Early Renaissance artists sought to develop art forms with the appearance of the natural world, with their experience of human personality and behavior. The challenge of accurate representation concerning mass sculptural form, or the pictorial considerations of measurable space and the effects of light and color, was addressed in the intense and methodical inquiry. Of course this had a two-sided effect, on one hand it limited the art to the mind of the artist, but on the other it proved the interpretation was what the artist had in mind, not what the viewer perceived. This opened the discipline of study, coupled with the earlier “what do you mean by this God?”, helping to understand the difference between Interpretation, or attempted “private interpretation”. The “private” would be what the viewer thinks the words say, whereas the interpretation is what the Author says the words say.
Rational inquiry was believed to be the key to success; therefore, efforts were made to discover the correct laws of proportion for architecture and for the representation of the human body, to systematize the rendering of pictorial space. Although these artists were keenly observant of natural phenomena, they also tended to extrapolate general rules from specific appearances. They made an effort to go beyond straightforward transcription of nature to instill the work of art with ideal, intangible qualities, endowing with a beauty and significance greater and more permanent than the actual subject found in nature. These characteristics, as rendering ideal forms rather than literal appearance, with the concept of the physical world as the vehicle or imperfect embodiment of monumental supposed spiritual beauty, remained fundamental to the nature and development of Italian Renaissance art.
It would be during this period man conceived the idea of man being “spiritual” in nature without God, or man had a “spirit” making him able to reach above the stars. This was merely another Tower of Babel looking for a place to land, but nonetheless the idea took hold in the souls of man, thus man no longer considered himself a “soul”, but took on the concept of man being spirit and spiritual without needing the Spirit. Sounds like the same old temptation from the tree; they considered their ability in “creativity” as “spiritual”, with any contact with the supernatural as “spiritual”, both concepts fail in light of Adam being a “living soul”, rather than a “quickening spirit”.
The term Early Renaissance characterizes virtually all the art of the 15th century. Florence, the cradle of Renaissance artistic thought, remained one of the undisputed centers of innovation. Around 1450 a new generation of artists including such masters as Pollaiuolo, and Sandro Botticelli came to the forefront in Florence. However, other Italian cities, such as Milan, Urbino, Ferrara, Venice, Padua, Naples became powerful rivals in spreading the wave of change. Leon Battista Alberti’s work in Rimini and Mantua represented the most progressive architecture of the new Humanism; Andrea Mantegna’s paintings in Padua displayed a personal formulation of linear perspective, antiquarianism, and realistic technique; Giovanni Bellini’s poetic classic exemplified the growing strength of the Venetian school. The theological problem were the many paintings of Jesus, Mary, or the disciples, all of which were what the artist supposed, not what the actual figures looked like. When someone saw a painting of Jesus, they set their minds to conceive the painting is really what Jesus looked like. The seeds developed to worship the image, without knowing who the model was, the character of the model, or even if it was a model, or the figment of the artists imagination.
By the late 15th century the novelty of the first explosive advances of Renaissance style had given way to a general acceptance of such basic notions as proportion, contraposto (twisted pose), and linear perspective; consequently many artists sought means of personal expression within this relatively well-established repertoire of style and technique. The Early Renaissance was not, as was once maintained, merely imperfect, yet it was a necessary preparation for the High Renaissance art. In retrospect, however, Early Renaissance paintings seem to fall short of thoroughly convincing figural representation, it’s expression of human emotion is stylized rather than real. Furthermore, the strength of individual features of a work of art is disproportionate to the whole composition.
Then came the High Renaissance, a period of art termed by some to be great, however, it sought a general, unified effect of pictorial representation or architectural composition, increasing the dramatic force and physical presence of a work of art and gathering its energies into forming a controlled equilibrium. Man again fought to control his endeavors, then gave himself the credit. Because the essential characteristic of High Renaissance art was its unity, which was a balance achieved as a matter of intuition. The High Renaissance style was destined to break up as soon as emphasis was shifted to favor any one element in the composition.
The High Renaissance style endured for only a brief period (c.1495-1520) it was endowed by a few artists of quality, among them Leonardo da Vinci, Donato Bramante, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian. Leonardo da Vinci’s unfinished Adoration of the Magi (1481; Uffizi Gallery, Florence) is regarded as a landmark of unified pictorial composition, later realized fully in his The Last Supper (1495-97); Santa Maria delle Grazie, Milan. The Last Supper is a prefect example of how they used what they thought was more “artistic” then real. Leonardo had all the disciples sitting side by side at a table, when in truth the disciples would have been sitting on the floor. Copies of The Last Supper are found in many homes, there are those who presume it’s how Jesus and the disciples ate. It really doesn’t change the purpose of the Passover, but it does show how the artist used their own reasoning, rather than fact.
Leonardo is considered the paragon of Renaissance thinkers, engaged as he was in experiments of all kinds; having brought to his art a type of restless inquiry seeking to discover the laws governing diverse natural phenomena. In a different way, Michelangelo has come to typify the artist endowed with solitary ability. His talents are exemplified by the tomb of Julius II (c.1510-15), San Pietro in Vincoli, Rome; the Medici Chapel (1519-34), Florence; the Sistine Chapel ceiling (1508-12) and Last Judgment (1536-41), the cupola of Saint Peter’s Basilica (begun 1546). The works represented major accomplishments in the separate fields of sculpture, painting and architecture; however, they were still the thoughts of the man, or what man presumed God was like.
Raphael, a man of very different temperament, evoked in paintings of the Madonna and in frescoes, not overwhelming forces but sublime harmony and lyric, graceful beauty, but again “Madonna” was a model, not Mary herself; Raphael never saw Mary, there are no written descriptions of her: however, today many think his representation of Mary, is what Mary looked like. Even before the death of Raphael, in 1520, anticlassical tendencies had begun to manifest themselves in Roman art. Some early exponents of Mannerism, including Jacopo Carucci Pontormo, Parmigianino, and Rosso Fiorentino, contributed to the development of a style reaching its most extreme expression in the work of Giorgio Vasari, or Giovanni da Bologna. Mannerism was an aesthetic movement in the maniera, or the style of pomp behavior from which Mannerism takes its name. Many of the artists painted more pictures of Jesus and Mary, some are still around. This period formed the mental impressions of what man felt Jesus would look like, changing “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” to “I think this is what Jesus looks like”.
Other areas of the Renaissance were also active, as the Renaissance in the North. The Netherlands Debate continues regarding the concept of the Renaissance considered valid for Italy may be properly applied to the art of northern Europe prior to the year 1500. Fifteenth-century northern artists did not intensively cultivate classical sources, nor did they show the predilection for abstract, or theoretical systems of representation seemingly characterized in Italian art. Nonetheless, the radical transformation of northern artistic traditions took place during in the 15th and 16th centuries, although by no means parallel to Italian developments, it can be described as a Renaissance.
Jan van Eyck, the master of the Netherlandish school, is recognized as having been the first to exploit the new medium of oil painting. In his work, the Ghent Altarpiece (1432; church of Saint Bavo, Ghent), and in portraits such as the wedding portrait of Giovanni Arnolfini and his wife (1534; National Gallery, London), this technique is used to render minute detail, delicate textures, with luminous effects of light.
The enigmatic Master of Flemalle made an equally important contribution to the vivid, miniaturizing realism of Netherlandish painting. In his two most famous works, the Dijon Nativity (c.1420; Musee des Beaux-Arts, Dijon) and the Merode Altarpiece (c.1426), the Master of Flemalle, like van Eyck, combined his direct, fresh observation of nature with elaborate symbolic structures lending a profound dimension to mundane objects within religious scenes. These vivid likenesses provoked what we find today, people assuming the painting is the exactness of the event. In some cases a person will question the Bible based on a 15th century painting.
Rogier van der Weyden, famous for portraits and altarpieces such as the Descent from the Cross (1439-43; Prado, Madrid), worked in a more idealistic vein, instilling his compositions with unprecedented emotional intensity. With the rising importance of new schools of painting in the cities of Brussels, Louvain, and Haarlem, which came to rival those of Bruges, painting continued to flourish in the Netherlands during the mid and late 15th century. Van der Weyden, a idiosyncratic artist, exercised a dominant influence on many later figures including Dirk Bouts. Other notable artists were the short-lived painter Geertgen Tot Sint Jans, who specialized in tender, nocturnal scenes demonstrating a feeling for light effects; Hans Memling, whose style is characterized by a languid, delicate air; or Gerard David, whose works were more severe.
The hallucinatory paintings of the Dutch Hieronymus Bosch seem out of place in a period when artists were intent on portraying their impressions of what they felt was the beauty and nobility of humankind. The portrayal of humankind became the motivation behind many of the art works, although Bosch went into a type of “never, never land” with his works. In keeping with the Renaissance attitude there were others such as Hugo van der Goes, who was active in Ghent and Bruges. His Portinari Altarpiece (1474-76; Uffizi Gallery, Florence) is considered a work of crucial importance. Painted for the Florentine church of San Egidio, it introduced Italian artists to the realism of oil painting technique of the Neatherlandish. The realism captured the mind, to modern day natural thinkers it almost appears as a photograph.
Germany had its period as well; German art of the 15th century was dominated by many local, independent schools. Largely based on the Gothic International Style, German art received important influences from the Netherlands which intensified as the century progressed. The painter-sculptor Hans Multscher displayed a typically German blend of Gothic conventions, with a strange fascination for brutal aspects of human behavior. In Basel the painter Konrad Witz created a severe style indebted to van Eyck; whereas the pupil of Rogier van der Weyden, the painter-engraver Martin Schongauer, emerged through his graphic work, as a draftsman, eventually to serve as a model for Albrecht Durer.
The art of Durer’s contemporary Mathias Grunewald, most fully represented by the multipaneled Isenheim Altarpiece (1515; Musee d’Unterlinden, Colmar, France), is by contrast filled with high-pitched expressive power conveyed through agonized human forms, with brilliant, piercing color schemes. Both Durer and Grunewald had to contend personally with the questioning brought about by the Protestant Reformation. The conclusion was no one could depict the spiritual in the natural, especially in a painting. The many paintings of Jesus, Mary, Paul and Peter drew many “winds of doctrine”; people were more concerned with what the saints looked like, more then what they said.
It appears as if some of the protests did take effect, so personal had been Durer’s involvement with southern Renaissance ideals no established school developed in his wake. The Danube School, whose principal members of Lucas Cranach the Elder, Albrecht Altdorfer, or Wolf Huber reflected an extraordinary awakening of interest in landscape painting. Despite their diversity they shared a common sympathy for miniaturizing anticlassical tendencies derived from late Gothic art.
Hans Holbein the Younger, a painter who was originally a member of the Augsburg school, a rival in importance to the school in Nuremberg. He later practiced in Basel, then in England as court painter to Henry VIII, developing in the process a psychologically penetrating precise style of portraiture paralleled in many ways the work being done simultaneously in Italy and France. All these artists brought about many of the religions renditions we find today, however, one must keep in mind these were things the artists felt a saint would look like, not as the saint appeared.
France had it’s time as well, In the 15th century the art of France, like Germany, came increasingly under the influence of the Netherlandish school. The painter Jean Fouquet, or the anonymous artist responsible for the celebrated Villeneauve Pieta (c.1460; Louver, Paris) were also aware of contemporary Italian art. By introducing elements of stability in their work, they achieved a unique combination of formal weight with factual and portrait like design.
At the beginning of the 16th century Italian styles became extremely popular in France because artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Benvenuto Cellni, Francesco Primaticcio, Rosso Fiorentino, or Niccolo dell’Abbate (c.1512-71) were employed by Francis Features. The Italian Renaissance style was adopted at first by French artists in a rather superficial manner, producing effects of fascinating disquiet alongside native forms of medieval origin, the Chateau de Blois (1515-20), incorporated Italian decorative architectural elements with the medieval-style architecture.
Architecture regained fame with the construction of the massive Chateau de Chambord, or the Chateau de Fontainebleau. The court workshop established at the Chateau de Fontainebleau became known as the school of Fontainebleau. In its exaggerated complex fantasies of combining sculpture, painting and architecture, the school of Fontainebleau represented a high point in the development of Mannerism.
By the mid-16th century a number of highly talented French masters made their appearance, among them the architect Philibert Delorme, who reasserted a classical style based on measure and proportion. The painter Francois Clouet developed a polished style of court portraiture, during the last decades of the century Germain Pilon produced sculptures representing the achievements of the French Renaissance.
The term Renaissance merely describes the period of European history from the early 14th to the late 16th century, as we found the word is derived from the French word for rebirth, originally referring to the revival of the values and artistic styles of classical antiquity during the period, especially in Italy. To Giovanni Boccaccio in the 14th century, the concept applied to contemporary Italian efforts to imitate the poetic style of the ancient Romans. In 1550 the art historian Giorgio Vasari used the word rinascita (rebirth) to describe the return to the ancient Roman manner of painting by Giotto Di Bondone around the beginning of the 14th century.
It was only later the word Renaissance acquired a broader meaning; Voltaire in the 18th century classified the Renaissance in Italy as one of the great ages of human cultural achievement. Of course Voltaire was a humanist who considered anything man could accomplish as a move to show what God couldn’t. Voltaire failed to see three things, first if it was Good, then it came from God, next God knew about the Renaissance before the creation of the world; lastly the “genius” of these artists was housed in the God created soul of man.
In the 19th century, Jules Michelet and Jakob Burckhardt popularized the idea of the Renaissance as a distinct historical period heralding the modern age, characterized by the rise of the individual, scientific inquiry and geographical exploration, with the growth of secular values. Daniel termed this “knowledge increasing”, this period began the very concept of Daniel’s prophecy coming to pass. Too bad Voltaire didn’t see it.
In the 20th century the term Renaissance was broadened to include other revivals of classical culture, such as the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century or the Renaissance of the 12th century. Emphasis on medieval renaissance’s tended to undermine a belief in the unique and distinctive qualities of the Italian Renaissance, some historians of science, technology, and economy even denied the validity of the term. Today the concept of the Renaissance is firmly secured as a cultural and intellectual movement; most scholars would agree there is a distinctive Renaissance style in music, literature, and the arts.
The Renaissance as a Historical Period began with what is termed the “new age in Padua”, as other urban communes of northern Italy in the 14th century, where lawyers and notaries imitated ancient Latin style, or studied Roman archaeology. The key figure in this study of the classical heritage was Petrarch, who spent most of his life attempting to understand ancient culture, he captured the enthusiasm of Popes, princes, and emperors who wanted to learn more of Italy’s past. Petrarch’s success stirred countless others to follow literary careers hoping for positions in government and high society. In the next generations, students of Latin rhetoric and the classics, later known as humanists, became chancellors of Venice and Florence, secretaries at the papal court, as well as tutors in the courts of northern Italy. Renaissance Humanism became the major intellectual movement of the time, its achievements became permanent, later drifting into theology, thus man went from the Bible proving man, to the Bible having to prove itself.
Grace is the primary connection between the saint and God, evidenced by the Seal of the Holy Spirit. However, if one removes the New Birth from their theology, or induces another spirit, then Grace takes on a different meaning. The beginning of the Protestant movement, with Protestant theology centered on the dislike for the Catholic concept of Grace, they attempted to separate themselves from the concept to the point they almost removed themselves from the Bible form of Grace. Medieval Roman Catholic theology treated Grace as a divine power entering a person, in cooperation with the person’s own will, to transform him or her into one who loves God, in turn is loved by God. To a point it’s correct, Grace comes when the Holy Ghost planting the Seed of God, then the Seed being the Holy Spirit as a divine power bringing a change in our nature, and character, as Grace transfigures us, whereas Mercy transforms us. However, they took it further by assuming Grace is transmitted especially, perhaps exclusively, through the church’s sacraments (the “means of Grace”), changing the Sower to the priest who administers the sacraments; allowing room for human merit because the one who receives Grace must also cooperate with it in the process of transformation. To the Protestant there were several things wrong with the theology, of course the main one was the transforming by the sacraments, which was the concept of the wine becoming the actual Blood of Christ, and the bread the actual flesh from the Body of Christ within the person, removing the concept of “Remember”.
History is vague on how the premise began, but Jesus said take in “remembrance”, not take to become. We are the Bread, thus we are the Body before we take Communion. Even the early baptismal rites included Communion after the candidate was accepted into the Body. In Romans 12 the Charisma (actions, or workings) of Charis (Grace) are Spirit motivated, thus if one is Born Again they have Grace in them. The Protestants also disagreed with the word “cooperation”, which to the early Protestant view meant “works”, thus Grace is not of “works” that any man should boast; however, Grace has works of Grace.
This introduced the early Protestant concept of Grace, which was based on the rejection of the Catholic concept. In contrast to the ideas the sacraments transmit Grace, or one must cooperate with Grace, the Protestant theologians insisted Grace is given where God wills, it is not conditional on a person’s receptivity. Thus the sacraments are signs of Grace, but do not impart it, as salvation depends entirely on God, not at all on human will, a theme close to the idea of predestination without choice. Paul talked about Predestination, but he also included “choice”, if not the vessels of dishonor would not exist. Predestination merely tells us God has a plan complete as the Record in heaven, but we must by faith allow God by the Spirit to fit us into the plan by the Witness. At times we are so terrified, or angry at a concept, we take the complete opposite view. We claim the one we are opposed to is heresy, or traditional, yet we go so far to the other side we commit another heresy, or form another tradition, in this case it began the “the gift of salvation” tradition of man, without any Scripture to support the concept.
The early Protestant concept of predestination was without choice, it appeared as if God had an A list, and a B list. No matter what a person did, pray, beg, ask, if they were on the B list they would not be accepted. If they were on the A list, regardless of what they did, they were accepted. However, the Bible says, “whosoever”, if the desire of God is for all to come to the saving knowledge of the Gospel, He has provisions for all to make it. Clearly the choice of “receiving” is up to us, thus we have the Keys. God knows if we will or won’t, yet God doesn’t need Salvation, we do. This restricted view of predestination left no room for “ask”, no room for “repentance”, and no room for the “whosoever”, much less moral free choice.
There were Scriptures, although twisted making the premise not correct, regardless of the verses. God loved Jacob, and hated Esau, thus there was an A list and a B list, or so it seemed. Yet we also find it’s based on God’s foreknowledge, not God’s intervention. This view of predestination induced God’s intervention, but rejected God’s foreknowledge. Since Grace and the Spirit are one in the same, and since Jude said some who receive Grace can turn the gift into lasciviousness (Jude 4), it stands God gives to who asks, but asking is not a “work”, it’s a faith issue.
In many ways, the period of the Renaissance saw a decline from the prosperity of the High Middle Ages. The Black Death (bubonic plague) which devastated Europe in the mid-14th century reduced its population by as much as one-third, bringing about chaotic economic conditions. Laborers became scarce, industries failed, the economy stagnated. Probably the actual per capita wealth of the survivors of the Black Death rose in the second half of the 14th century. In general, the 15th century saw a modest recovery with the construction of palaces for urban elite’s, a boom in the decorative arts, and renewed long distance trade headed by Venice in the Mediterranean, or the Hanseatic League in the north of Europe.
During the 15th century, students from many European nations had come to Italy to study the classics, philosophy: eventually spreading the Renaissance north of the Alps. Italian literature and art, even Italian clothing and furniture designs were imitated in France, Spain, England, the Netherlands, and Germany, but as Renaissance values came to the north, they were transformed. Northern humanists such as Desiderius Erasmus of the Netherlands and John Colet (c.1467-1519) of England planted the first seeds of the Reformation when they endeavored to discover the original intent and meaning of the New Testament by applying to it the critical historical methods developed in Italy. The northern humanists, who, like their Italian counterparts, served as advisors to kings and princes created a flexible, colloquial Latin style so their writings would have a broad appeal. Through their efforts, knowledge of classical mythology, ancient history, Greek and Latin literary forms became widespread, and soon absorbed into the vernacular literature.
Philosophy, Science, and Social Thought were also popular during this time, no single philosophy or ideology dominated the intellectual life of the Renaissance. Early humanists had stressed a flexible approach to the problems of society, as well as a more active life in service of one’s fellow human beings. In the second half of the 15th century, Renaissance thinkers such as Marsilio Ficino at the Platonic Academy in Florence turned to more metaphysical speculation. Though favored by the humanists, Plato did not replace Aristotle as the dominant philosopher in the universities. Rather there was an effort at philosophical syncretism, to combine apparently conflicting philosophies to find common ground for agreement regarding what they felt was Truth, as did Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola in his Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486). Renaissance science consisted mainly of the study of medicine, physics, and mathematics, depending on ancient masters, such as Galen, Aristotle, and Euclid. Experimental science in anatomy and alchemy led to discoveries both within and outside university settings.
Under the veneer of magnificent works of art, the refined court life described in Baldassare Castiglione’s Book of the Courtier, the Renaissance had a darker side. Warfare was common, death by pestilence and violence was frequent. Interest in the occult, magic, or astrology was widespread, also officially sanctioned persecution for witchcraft began during the Renaissance period. Many intellectuals felt a profound pessimism about the corruption of society as seen in the often savage humanist critiques of Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) and Desiderius Erasmus. Sir Thomas More in his Utopia, prescribed the radical solution of a classless, communal society, void of Christianity, yet guided by the dictates of natural reason. The Renaissance thinker, Nicolo Machiavelli, in his Prince and Discourses constructed a science of human nature aiming at reform for the Italian society, with the development of civil life. Machiavelli’s Republican principles informed by a pragmatic view of power politics and the necessity of violent change were the most original contribution of the Renaissance to the modern world.
Erasmus lived in a time when the breakup of medieval feudalism, the increase of abuses and corruption in the church produced widespread anxiety and uncertainty, which in turn disintegrated Europe into religious factions. Erasmus sought peace, reconciliation and unity. Erasmus’ heart was right, the scope of his concern however seemed to spread too far. He sought a compromise, or a reconciliation between faith and reason in order to bring together Christianity with the culture of the times. Unfortunately the culture of the times was humanism; faith and humanism have no compromise. He lived at the same time as Martin Luther, like Martin, he was critical of the corruption of the church, although he did not repudiate as Martin Luther. Although his work appealed to the leaders of the Reformation, Erasmus was drawn into a conflict with them, his attempt to reform the church through gentle reason and tolerance was swept aside by the fanaticism of the Reformation. Erasmus was more successful in the literary field, in one of his works entitled Encomium Moriae (1509; The Praise Of Folly) he attacked the superstition, vulgarity, and foolishness of his day with merciless wit. His Christian background would shine, his translations of the Greek version of the New Testament, with his Latin version did show his concern, and zeal for the faith.
We have said all this to show how many of the paintings and icons we consider “actual” portrayals of Jesus, Mary, Peter, Paul, or others of the very early church age are merely the thoughts of some talented people, nothing more or less, yet to worship the images is the same as idol worship. Isaiah 54:17 tells us the smith forms his image in the coals, but no weapon formed against us shall prosper. Simply, the person who forms the image is a creation, the thing formed is not a creation, but a formation, thus nothing Formed by the creation shall prosper against us. It could be said by using Isaiah 54:17, God created the soul of the artist who formed the painting, yet no image formed by the soul of man shall prosper against the called of God.
It’s always strange how the mind of man thinks he is doing a great service for God and mankind, yet in the process the carnal natural endeavor is usually doing something God didn’t want done. Peter wanted to build three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah, the Father said, “hear ye Him”, so what did man do? As time passed man did build three tabernacles, even today people go to visit this “wonder”. Wonder? If Peter was rebuked for thinking it, what would be the result for doing it?
Time marches on, as it does, in all this there were some changes in Theocracy, changes slowly carved away at the very anointing making the difference between Christian and the worldly religions. Some of the changes went right back to the error in Acts 1, acting without the Power to do so, or doing something outside of the granted Authority. Acts 13:1-3, as well as many other Scriptures tell us only the Holy Ghost on behalf of Jesus can appoint to the Doma Offices, thus if man does, then man is usurping the authority of the Holy Ghost. Will it be allowed? Yes, God allows to show us what not to do.
Perhaps the greatest change was the change of helps offices, Bishop was no longer associated with Helps, rather it gained a ruling order over the offices, it would be second only to the Pope. The position of Pope had elevated from the “12” to the “1”, of course the position of Peter was no longer a piece of the Rock, but the “Rock”. Prior we viewed the major problem with making Peter the Rock, rather than a piece of the Rock. Jesus said, “upon this Rock”, rather than “upon you”, showing Jesus was referring to the combined unit of disciples. Reasoning out of order, leads us to the Humanist Experience.
By Rev. G. E. Newmyer – s.b.i. les18rev11/© 2003
