Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity
The Church Jesus Built ^ | 1997? | Various

Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC

The Rise of a Counterfeit Christianity

"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

Jesus Christ told His apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. Most people who are familiar with the Bible realize those apostles zealously embarked on that mission. Their converts were first called Christians in the city of Antioch (Acts 11:26). Since then, so many people have been born or converted into the hundreds of denominations known collectively as "Christianity" that it is one of the world's most popular and dominant religions.

People assume that all, or at least almost all, who bear the name Christian follow the beliefs, teachings and practices of Jesus Christ. But the Bible tells us that not everyone who accepts the name of Christ is really a Christian.

Jesus predicted that some would claim His name but deny Him by their actions. He said they would "call Me 'Lord, Lord,'" but "not do the things which I say" (Luke 6:46). Christ and His apostles spoke of false prophets, false apostles and false brethren. They revealed that two opposing ostensibly Christian religions would emerge. One—the Church Jesus founded—would be led by God's Spirit and remain faithful to His teachings. The other—guided and influenced by a different spirit—would accept the name of Christ but twist His teachings to create a convincing counterfeit of the true Church of God.

Both would use Christ's name and claim His authority. Both would perform works that would outwardly appear good and right. Both would claim to be following Christ's true teachings. But only one would faithfully represent its founder, Jesus Christ. The other would capture the minds and hearts of humanity by attaching the name of Christ to biblically insupportable religious customs and doctrines that Jesus and His apostles neither practiced nor approved.

The apostles repeatedly warned Jesus' followers to beware of false teachers who would introduce counterfeit-Christian beliefs. Jesus Himself warned: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

The New Testament presents a concise historical sketch of the roots of these two religions that profess to be Christian—one real, one counterfeit. Christ's apostles described the origin of each and their fundamental characteristics.

We have already examined the apostles' description of the Church Jesus founded. Now let's look at the record they left us of another supposedly Christian religion—one that distorted and corrupted the truth and grew to become far more powerful and influential than the small Church Jesus promised would never die out.

Teaching the traditions of men

Where do most churches get their teachings and practices? Most of their members assume they come from the Bible or from Jesus Christ Himself. But do they? Jesus commanded His apostles to teach others exactly what He had taught—"teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:20, NIV). He condemned the replacing of God's commandments with traditions and human reason. Speaking to the Pharisees, He said, "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:8-9).

Jesus taught that His Church should keep the commandments of God: "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). He warned: "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied [preached] in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (Matthew 7:22-23). He knew that false teachers would arise who would reject the commandments of God for a distorted gospel of no law—lawlessness!

Like Jesus, the apostles consistently taught obedience to God. Peter and the other apostles risked their lives to make it clear that "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Paul expressed the same commitment he shared with the other apostles—of a life of obedience. "Through him [Christ] and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith" (Romans 1:5, NIV).

Paul later cautioned members of the congregation in Colosse to hold fast to what he had taught them. "As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught . . ." (Colossians 2:6-7).

Following Christ's example, Paul warned the Colossians not to accept traditions as replacements for the commandments of God: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8; compare Mark 7:8-9, 13).

Why did Jesus Christ and the apostles sound such urgent warnings to avoid the traditions of men?

Subversion from within the Church

As the apostles strove to establish still more congregations of believers among the nations, a phenomenon arose that eventually produced an alternate and outwardly Christian religion—but one quite different from the Church Jesus and His apostles established.

New and different doctrines were subtly introduced. Some began subverting the Church by challenging and contradicting the teachings of Christ's apostles. Paul warned, "For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain" (Titus 1:10-11).

To counter this trend, Paul instructed fellow elder Titus to carefully consider the background, knowledge and character of anyone being considered for ordination: "Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless . . . He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (verses 7, 9, NIV).

Increasingly, "false apostles" began contradicting and undermining the teachings of the true apostles of Christ. Paul cautioned the church in Rome: "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise in what is good and guileless in what is evil" (Romans 16:17-19, NRSV).

Competing religious leaders, masquerading as ministers of Christ, began teaching their own false doctrines "in opposition to" Christ's apostles and other of his faithful servants. At first they came predominantly from a Jewish background. But then false teachers emerged from people of other backgrounds within the Church. The subversive doctrines that eventually grew to be the most influential were a blend of pagan and misguided Jewish philosophies synthesized with the mysticism popular at that time.

Simon the Sorcerer was one such false teacher mentioned early in the Scriptures. After his baptism by Philip, Simon attempted to buy the office of apostle from Peter, hoping to obtain the power to grant others the Holy Spirit. Motivated by his greed for power and influence, he faked conversion to appear Christian (Acts 8:9-23). Later historical sources indicate that he blended various elements of paganism and mysticism into a counterfeit-Christian philosophy.

A dangerous trend was established. Soon "false apostles," "false teachers" and "false brethren" abounded.

A counterfeit Christianity was born.

A different gospel gains ground

The impact of distorted teachings devastated the early Church. For example, Christians in the Roman province of Galatia turned en masse from the teachings of the apostle Paul and to a corrupted, cunningly devised but counterfeit gospel promoted by these false apostles.

Paul described the approach they used and the effect the false teachers had on Christians in Galatia: "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-7). The brethren in that area were being swept into one of the many sects making up the emerging false Christianity. Paul had to contend with religious strife generated by Jewish and gentile elements in the Galatian congregations.

These cunning pretenders did not reject outright the gospel Paul taught. They simply perverted aspects of it. Then they seduced the Galatian Christians into accepting their gospel—a deadly mixture of truth and error. It contained enough truth to appear righteous and Christian, but it contained sufficient error to prevent any who would accept it from receiving salvation.

Notice Paul's blistering condemnation of that "different" gospel: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed" (verses 8-9).

A gospel of no law

Jesus warned His apostles this would happen: "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:11-12). Jesus explained that lawlessness, the key element in the message of the false teachers, would make their ideas appealing and popular. Disregard for God's law would finally become the foundation of a popular and successful counterfeit Christianity.

The false prophets devised their message and doctrines by verbally acknowledging Jesus as "Lord" while refusing to obey Him (Luke 6:46). Jesus Himself warned of their deceitful, cunning approach: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15).

Jesus made it clear that teachers of lawlessness, who outwardly appear as innocent sheep performing devoutly religious acts, are not His apostles or servants: "Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'" (verses 22-23).

God's law: the religious battleground

Controversy over God's law erupted within the Church as soon as the first gentiles (non-Israelites) were converted. Certain Jewish believers wanted to force circumcision and other physical requirements on the gentiles. They demanded that gentile converts be physically circumcised to receive salvation (Acts 15:1).

The apostles refused. They pointed out that even Moses had taught that the circumcision that made one acceptable to God was a matter of the heart (Deuteronomy 30:6; compare with Romans 2:29 and Colossians 2:11-12). Also, God had declared Abraham to be righteous in His sight before he was circumcised (Romans 4:9-12). Therefore, they explained, physical circumcision should not be regarded as a requirement for the gentiles' salvation (Acts 15:2, 5-10). For further proof, Peter noted that God had recently given the Holy Spirit to several gentiles without their being circumcised, demonstrating His will in the matter (verse 8; Acts 11:1-4, 15-18).

The same Jews also demanded that gentiles observe the temple ceremonies and rituals that pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. The apostles insisted that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the forgiveness of sins through the grace of God (Hebrews 7:26-27).

The temple sacrifices and rituals were only temporary institutions until the sacrifice of the real "Lamb of God" (John 1:29). The apostles taught that they were no longer required (Acts 15:11; Hebrews 9:1-15) because they were "concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10).

But the apostles never regarded God's spiritual laws, summarized by the Ten Commandments, as being in the same category with "fleshly ordinances." They always supported obedience to God's commandments. Paul made this clear: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters" (1 Corinthians 7:19). He concluded: "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31).

Distorted view of God's grace

Just as Jesus had foretold, unscrupulous teachers pounced on the teachings of Paul and the other apostles and twisted their meaning (2 Peter 3:15-16). By distorting the apostles' words, first about grace and then about those "fleshly ordinances" that are no longer necessary, they discovered a way to excuse their unlawful behavior. "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness [shameful behavior] and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4).

To them, grace excused sin—the breaking of God's law—by allowing them to disregard scriptural teachings they did not like. They twisted Paul's explanation that we cannot earn salvation with our own "works" into an excuse for making no effort to obey God.

Peter pinpointed their real problem. They "despise authority": "They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries . . ." (2 Peter 2:10). A dominant characteristic of these deceivers was their eagerness to verbally attack and undermine the apostles and elders who were the true shepherds of God's flock.

As a consequence, said Peter, "they have forsaken the right way and gone astray . . ." (verse 15). "For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption . . ." (verses 18-19).

Now a problem even more sinister developed among the scattered congregations of God's people. False teachers, instead of trying to impose more law on gentiles, began exploiting God's mercy—the grace of God—to advocate the idea that Christians have been liberated from the law and no longer need to obey it. However, God says transgressing His law is sin (1 John 3:4).

These teachers misrepresented God's law as an unnecessary burden. John responded: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

Contrary to the idea of being liberated from law, James calls God's commandments a "royal law" and the "law of liberty" (James 2:8-12). God designed His law to guarantee freedom from the consequences of such evils as adultery, murder, theft, fraud and covetousness.

It is sin, not God's law, that enslaves us (Romans 6:6). We become free from the enslavement to sin by obeying God (verse 17). Paul explains that obedience and righteousness are inseparable. "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous" (Romans 2:13, NIV).

Satan the devil: master deceiver

Those who promoted these lawless principles were influenced by Satan. Paul said: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

Satan hates God's law. He is a master deceiver. Naturally, he will spare no effort to infiltrate the Church Christ founded.

To accomplish his purpose, Satan uses people to mislead other people. It is easy for him to influence human beings who desire to teach others when they are motivated by personal ambition. This is especially true if they lack a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Satan simply takes advantage of their desire to be spiritual teachers. He seduces susceptible individuals to pay lip service to Christ while creating their own new sets of doctrines and ignoring or disobeying portions of God's laws.

Paul told Timothy to "charge some that they teach no other doctrine" and have a "pure heart," "good conscience" and "sincere faith, . . . from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1 Timothy 1:3, 6-7). Sincere but misguided religious leaders can and do accept doctrines that permit them to break some of God's commandments. Then they persuade others to believe as they do. Sadly, through the devil's influence, they convince themselves that their misguided concepts are righteous—that God is pleased with them. They believe the false doctrines they teach. Although sincere, they are sincerely mistaken.

Paul says, "The coming of the lawless one [a future teacher who will advocate doctrines contrary to God's laws] is according to the working of Satan . . . with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie" (2 Thessalonians 2:9-11). Probably none of the misguided teachers perceives he is in reality advocating Satan's point of view.

However, by creating a counterfeit-Christian religion—one that is not entirely different from the true Church but rejects some of the essential biblical teachings that lead to eternal life—Satan is attempting to thwart God's plan for the salvation of mankind. Remember, Jesus says, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). That is exactly what the devil wants to prevent.

He promotes a lawless Christianity that teaches we can selectively obey—or even ignore—God's commandments.

Lawlessness in varying degrees is the centerpiece of Satan's counterfeit doctrines. His purpose is to convince people that they are serving Christ while cutting them off from salvation by clouding their understanding of what sin is so they will continue in sin—so they will practice at least some degree of lawlessness.

To accomplish his purpose, Satan exploits human nature. He sways people to believe his deceptions (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9). Satan retains just enough truth in his doctrines to persuade people they are following Christ. But he introduces sufficient error to prevent them from living the way that would ultimately lead to eternal life.

Why disobedience appeals to human nature

Satan is successful in deceiving humanity for good reason. The apostle Paul explains that the natural mind of man—the mind that is not guided by God's Spirit—cannot always see the purpose behind God's laws. "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

Most people are not overtly hostile toward many of God's laws. They usually recognize that deeds such as murder and theft are wrong. However, they are hostile—perhaps without recognizing their innate hostility—toward laws that challenge their own personal, natural way of thinking. In that sense lawlessness appeals to people. Paul explains why disobedience can appeal to our baser instincts: ". . . The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be" (Romans 8:7). The carnal, or fleshly, mind not only lacks spiritual discernment, it resents God's authority as expressed in His laws. The New International Version translates this verse: ". . . The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so."

We call this sinful tendency human nature—a combination of human weakness and acquired attitudes resulting from Satan's influence on people. Satan exploits human nature. He uses his false teachers to convince other people that they are "liberated" from the laws of God, thus excusing their tendency to be hostile toward God's laws. So, rather than abandoning a life of lawlessness, those led astray by this deception continue in sin. Thinking their disobedient actions are permissible to God, they fail to recognize, at least in some of their beliefs and behavior, the gravity of their sinful actions.

But the apostle James makes it clear that this approach and attitude to God's royal law are entirely wrong. "For whoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10). The context shows James is speaking of the Ten Commandments (verses 8-9, 11). God's fundamental law is made up of 10 points, and He requires us to observe them all—in letter and spirit.

A falling away from truth begins

Christ praised the church in Ephesus for refusing to follow false apostles who tried to take advantage of their human nature and seduce them. "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2).

But not everyone in every congregation followed the example of the church in Ephesus. Many accepted the teachings of the false apostles and reverted to sinning. That is why Peter wrote: "For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them" (2 Peter 2:20-21).

People began turning away from the teachings of Christ's true apostles. They accepted the philosophies of false teachers. Peter had explicitly warned that this would occur. He said false teachers would arise "among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed" (2 Peter 2:1-2).

Peter anticipated that not just a few—but many—Christians would turn aside from the truth to follow doctrines that were more appealing to the carnal mind. Later John confirms this happened. "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us" (1 John 2:19).

Barnabas and Saul (later renamed Paul) encountered a false prophet determined to turn people away from the truth. "Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus . . . But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith" (Acts 13:6-8).

On other occasions the problem lay with false brethren (Galatians 2:4). Paul referred to his trials "in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren" (2 Corinthians 11:26).

These false Christians had not become a genuine threat just to Paul's safety and effectiveness, but they had also become a significant part of the visible Christian community. Some may have finally gone out from God's special people but continued calling themselves Christian. Others became members of new and supposedly liberated sects that retained the name Christian. Still others probably remained in the fellowship of true believers and over time subverted congregations to their own heretical teachings.

A false Christianity was beginning to take a firm hold.

True Christians forced out of congregations

As the teachings of false ministers gained in popularity, their followers gradually grew to be the majority in some congregations. The apostle John records one such tragic example: "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church" (3 John 9-10).

Incredible as it sounds, those who were faithful to the teaching of the apostles were expelled from this congregation. They had become the minority. The majority had chosen to follow Diotrephes, who, in his own lust for power and influence, falsely accused the apostle John. Satan had succeeded in placing his minister over this congregation, expelling the faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

Remember, Jesus had already warned His true servants that this would happen: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:13-15).

He also said: "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: 'These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:6-8, NIV). Now we can understand why Paul explained to Christians in Rome the appropriate response to those who were stirring up division within the Church. "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).

Counterfeit Christianity dominates

By the end of the third century the true servants of God had become a distinct minority among those who called themselves Christians. The counterfeit Christianity had become the majority.

False teachers had successfully gained a far larger following than the faithful ministers of God. However, history shows the counterfeit sects were not united in their beliefs. Many factions existed among them.

Nevertheless, divided and unconverted as it was, this new brand of Christianity rapidly expanded its membership and became the visible Christian church. Purporting to offer salvation, but without the necessity of real repentance, it held just enough truth to appeal to the masses.

In spite of its faults, it appeared to offer a hope unequaled by any pagan religion at that time. None of the pagan religions offered a believable way for people to receive forgiveness of sins and obtain eternal life. This new religion seemed to offer just that. Little did its followers realize that its promises, without real repentance, were made in vain.

By the end of the third century this counterfeit Christianity was a squabbling, bitterly divided religion. But at the beginning of the fourth century two things happened that abruptly altered the course of Christian history. First, the Roman emperor Diocletian intensified the policy of many previous Roman emperors of persecuting Christians and ordered that all Christian manuscripts be burned. This dramatically renewed a climate of fear throughout the Christian community.

Ten years later another emperor, Constantine, came to power. He had defeated another powerful contender for the right to replace Diocletian as emperor, but he still had many enemies, and his political position remained insecure. In all the empire, only Christians were unaligned politically. Constantine immediately saw an opportunity to use this formerly persecuted and politically alienated religious body to strengthen his hold on the empire.

First he legalized Christianity. Then, only two years later, he called all the divided professing-Christian groups together to hammer out a unified system of belief. He wanted a united religious body that was politically committed to him.

To achieve this, Constantine presided over doctrinal deliberations and dictated statements of belief whenever disagreements could not be resolved amicably. He soon successfully molded the bickering groups of counterfeit Christians who were willing to accept state control into a strong and unified vassal of the Roman Empire. Williston Walker, former professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale University, tells us that, in 323, "Constantine was at last the sole ruler of the Roman world. The church was everywhere free from persecution . . . But, in winning its freedom from its enemies, it had come largely under the control of the occupant of the Roman imperial throne. A fateful union with the state had begun" (A History of the Christian Church, 1946, p. 111).

A religion transformed through syncretism

As this new religion—now supported by the Roman emperors—grew in power and influence, it sought to become a truly universal church. In its ambition to add more members, many new converts—and many new practices—were welcomed into its fold.

Charles Guignebert, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Paris, described the process: "Now at the beginning of the fifth century, the ignorant and the semi-Christians thronged into the Church in numbers . . . They had forgotten none of their pagan customs . . . The bishops of that period had to content themselves with redressing, as best they could, and in experimental fashion, the shocking malformations of the Christian faith which they perceived around them . . .

"[Properly instructing converts] was out of the question; they had to be content with teaching them no more than the symbol of baptism and then baptizing them en masse, postponing until a later date the task of eradicating their superstitions, which they preserved intact . . . This 'later date' never arrived, and the Church adapted to herself, as well as she could, them and their customs and beliefs. On their side, they were content to dress up their paganism in a Christian cloak" (The Early History of Christianity, 1927, p. 208-210, emphasis added throughout).

What was the result? This state-dominated Christianity became a bizarre synthesis of beliefs, practices and customs from many sources.

As Guignebert explained: "It is sometimes very difficult to tell exactly from which pagan rite a particular Christian rite is derived, but it remains certain that the spirit of pagan ritualism became impressed upon Christianity, to such an extent that at last the whole of it might be found distributed through its ceremonies" (p. 121).

In those early centuries the counterfeit Christianity that the apostles of Jesus Christ had fought so hard to contain grew in size and popularity. In later centuries this religion would fragment repeatedly into competing denominations. Tragically, however, none completely returned to the original practices and teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles. This fact is recognized by many modern biblical scholars. (See "Changes in Christian Scholars' Perspective on God's Law," p. 44.)

Meanwhile, those who, through these many centuries, have faithfully continued to yield their lives to God in sincere obedience to His laws are still, comparatively speaking, only a "little flock" in a confused world.



TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: christ; christianity; god; nontrinitarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last
To: InHisService
Nice post. But what I was really looking to see was examples of how modern day churches are turning from the truth of the gospel. Such as ordaining homosexuals, accepting homosexuality, redefining marriage, etc. Any articles on that? Thanks

I think those are just symptoms of further falling away. When some segments of Christianity turned toward a gospel of the freedom to violate God's laws under the guise of grace, this was the natural outcome.

21 posted on 07/08/2006 9:22:43 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

You are welcome, to be sure. I would suggest you also attempt to address the points spmb raises, which are the background to which I referred in extreme compression.

Like that commentator, I firmly believe that the Church is both Apostolic and Catholic precisely because she has remained under the godly rule and admonition of her Apostolic bishops. Wherever the bishops have gone wrong, they have taken people into heresy and schism. Also, whenever 'prophets' have proclaimed a new revelation (or at best unknowingly repeated an already-ancient one, which is what this article does), they also lead people into heresy and schism. I need only mention the names Montanus, Nestorius, Paul of Samosata among Church elders who developed a novel understanding of Scripture and inaugurated heresies both long-lasting (that is, right up to today) and divisive. To reject the Holy Catholic Church in all her parts is equally divisive, no matter how much Scripture is cited in the process.


I only have two additional points to make:

The Eucharist is the mystical communion of the faithful, believing partaker with Christ, who is mystically present in the bread and wine. He told us to eat of His flesh and to drink His blood. I take that as a direct order which I humbly obey. My basic difficulty in this is how to find bread and wine which are mystically His Body and Blood. Our Lord consecrated bread and wine at the Last Supper, broke the bread and gave it to His Apostles and told them to do likewise. He did not say 'this is a memory of Me'. He said 'This is an anamnesis of Me', that is, the bringing into the present of that which existed in the past. At the end of His earthly ministry, He then ordained the Apostles, laying His hands upon them and breathing the Holy Spirit into them and directed them to go into the world, baptizing all people and teaching them to follow all of His commandmenets. That He comannded them to celebrate the Eucharist must certainly be one of those commandments. That He ordained them AND NO OTHERS to do this meant that they were empowered through Him to do this. That we must always do this is why we inferred that the authority to do so could be passed on, SO LONG AS IT WAS PASSED ON IN THE SAME WAY AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED. The Apostolic ministry in the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican Church has always done this. And so there is today an access to the Body and Blood, so long as faithful Christians partake of bread and wine consecrated by authentically consecrated bishops or their delegate presbyters. There is no other way to obey this command. We sin if we wilfully disobey what cannot be taken as other than a direct order from our Lord and Savior.

Is the Eucharist also a memorial? Yes, but that is the least important facet of this holy mystery. As I say, the Eucharist is an anamnesis rather than a memory, despite many faulty translations suggesting the two words are synonyms. They are not.

The other point relates to the Canon of Scripture. You have stated that God canonized Scripture long before men did. This probably has significant analysis behind it, but for humans to know that a given text is canonized or not, some human or group of humans is going to have to say that the text is canonized, so everybody else will know. That group is going to have to have authority to say that this text is canonized while that one is not and the Church as a whole is going to have to then ratify that the decision is valid.

This all happened, but it happened in historic time by humans we can name. It was generally ratified at Councils we can also name and date. Now, does this eliminate God's authority? I suppose it could, if the humans performing the canonization ever suggested they were trying to personally take credit for having identified canonical text. They never did and no one has ever accepted a text as canonical that has not been repeatedly validated and authenticated by a wide variety of Church bodies. So the Body has spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as to what constitutes the true Word of God as written for our salvation and edification.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that someone, somewhere had a special revelation that made them personally the witness of God in these matters. Do you have such a candidate to advance? If not, then the authority must have been the various Apostolic witnesses, Church councils and Church Fathers who have attested that they agree that the books we receive as the Old and the New Testament are indeed all that is necessary for salvation and the Canon of Scripture for all time.

Thanks again for the discussion and may God bless you in all your ways and may His Holy Spirit lead you into all truth and to final salvation.


22 posted on 07/08/2006 9:24:22 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (www.stjosephssanford.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; DouglasKC

This article is crap. Can anyone here actually provide any evidence, any evidence at all,
and by that I mean actual documented cause and effect, that shows pagans entering the Church
(which would mean they became Christians!) changed a single Church teaching?

I have heard this claim before, and not surprisingly it always seems to come from Protestants
(wishful thinking) or rationalists (hoping against hope) just as with the two "scholars" mentioned
in this article. But where's thr proof? Why isn't there a single document anywhere in the world
which says something along the lines of,
"Ever since we started letting those pagans, gee, they've changed the Church's teachings"?

19 posted on 07/08/2006 10:12:52 AM MDT by vladimir998

The Council of Nicea was summoned, and presided over, by the Emperor Constantine.

Constantine, Pontifex Maximus of the Roman state religion.

He called all the bishops of the eastern and western churches to attend.

The bishop of Rome was invited to attend but he chose not to attend.

One of the titles of the Roman Emperor was Pontifix Maximus,
a title given to the Roman Emperor by the king of Ephesus
who had inherited the title from Babylon

This title goes all the way back to Babylon and the beginnings of the mother-child
cult under Nimrod of Genesis 10 and his wife Sumerimus. Later,
Julius Caesar was elected Pontifex Maximus and when he became Emperor,
he became the supreme civil and religious ruler and head of Rome
politically and religiously with all the power and functions of the Babylonian pontiff.

Here was the magnificent temple of Esculapius, a pagan god
whose idol was in the form of a serpent.
The inhabitants were known as the chief temple keepers of Asia.
When the Babylonian cult of the Magians was driven out of Babylon,
they found a haven in Pergamum.

The title of the Magian high priest of Babylon was "Chief Bridge Builder"
meaning the one who spans the gap between mortals and Satan and his hosts.
In Latin this title was written "Pontifex Maximus,"

Y'shua spoke to the church at Pergamus when he said:

Revelation 2:12 "And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write:
The One who has the sharp two-edged sword says this:

Revelation 2:13 'I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is;
and you hold fast My name, and did not deny My faith
even in the days of Antipas, My witness, My faithful one,
who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

Revelation 2:14 'But I have a few things against you, because you
have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam,
who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block
before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
to idols and to commit {acts of} immorality.

Revelation 2:15 'So you also have some who in the same way
hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

b'shem Y'shua
23 posted on 07/08/2006 9:30:38 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BelegStrongbow
Thanks again for the discussion and may God bless you in all your ways and may His Holy Spirit lead you into all truth and to final salvation.

Thank you and I extend the same prayer for you. I'll try to respond a little later tonight. I'll be leaving soon to attend sabbath services.

24 posted on 07/08/2006 9:44:10 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

The problem with your historical analysis is the fact that the Council of Nicea decided against Constantine's leanings, which were towards Arianism, which was condemned by the Council.


25 posted on 07/08/2006 9:44:56 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
The problem with your historical analysis
is the fact that the Council of Nicea decided
against Constantine's leanings,
which were towards Arianism,
which was condemned by the Council.

25 posted on 07/08/2006 10:44:56 AM MDT by Pyro7480

I think the question was on the introduction of Paganism

ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER.

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week].
We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command;
for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil
, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.

from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325

This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.

Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire

He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest

In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.

They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day."

b'shem Y'shua

26 posted on 07/08/2006 10:10:59 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Hosea 6:6 I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Another historical error: Constantine may have held the title of "Pontifex Maximus" with regard to being emperor of the Roman Empire, but he was not a pontiff of the Catholic Church.


27 posted on 07/08/2006 10:19:15 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Hello Douglas. I appreciate this thread.
I have personally experienced some of this and now currently fellowship in homes vs. man-made "churches" (buildings).


28 posted on 07/08/2006 10:36:20 AM PDT by MeekMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Hidden deep within this web page is this statement...

"Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization."

Leftovers from the defunct Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong churches.

Now we know what their agenda is.

The "unbiblical" practices mentioned is when their church accepted Trinitarian Christianity and moved into real biblical beliefs and deserted the H D Armstrong positions.


29 posted on 07/08/2006 10:54:07 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (I was going to jump on you till I saw you donated to FR! Now I can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I think the question on the table was the introduction of Paganism.
b'shem Y'shua

30 posted on 07/08/2006 11:15:38 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Isaiah 26:4 Trust in YHvH forever, because YHvH is the Rock eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

One should not be in a church which espouses homosexuality, the ordination of gay priests or bishops, or the marriage of same sex couples. Such practices stem from the new Counterfeit Christianity which is sweeping the world. If you belong to such a church, you should leave it immediately, stating your reasons why. If everyone did that, these "churches" would fall apart and these abominable practices would end.


31 posted on 07/08/2006 11:22:19 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (Evil never sleeps...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

If the question you're trying to prove is to be validated, it helps that the information being used is accurate.


32 posted on 07/08/2006 12:05:56 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

If the question you're trying to prove is to be validated, it helps that the information being used is accurate.


33 posted on 07/08/2006 12:05:57 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Can someone just let me know if this is more Judaizer propaganda? That way I know I can skip the thread and not waste my time.


34 posted on 07/08/2006 12:24:41 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

You wrote:

"The Council of Nicea was summoned, and presided over, by the Emperor Constantine."

Irrelevant. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“Constantine, Pontifex Maximus of the Roman state religion.”

Again, irrelevant. Constantine was emperor. All emperors were in charge of the state religion in pagan times. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.


“He called all the bishops of the eastern and western churches to attend.”

Again, irrelevant. A Christian emperor, and in belief Constantine made it clear he was Christian at that time, had the right to call together any assemblage of citizens he wanted. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.


“The bishop of Rome was invited to attend but he chose not to attend.”

He did not have to attend. He sent delegates. That is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.


“One of the titles of the Roman Emperor was Pontifix Maximus,
a title given to the Roman Emperor by the king of Ephesus
who had inherited the title from Babylon “

Wrong. It is an exclusively Roman title and some from Rome alone. There was a PM before Ephesus was a kingdom! Read Françoise Van Haeperen, Le collège pontifical (3ème s. a. C. - 4ème s. p. C.) in series Études de Philologie, d'Archéologie et d'Histoire Anciennes, no. 39.) and you’ll avoid making this “Hislopian” mistake. And in any case, that is not proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.

“This title goes all the way back to Babylon and the beginnings of the mother-child
cult under Nimrod of Genesis 10 and his wife Sumerimus. Later,
Julius Caesar was elected Pontifex Maximus and when he became Emperor,
he became the supreme civil and religious ruler and head of Rome
politically and religiously with all the power and functions of the Babylonian pontiff. “

Uh, Hislop was wrong. You do realize that don’t you? You see, those of us who actually are Church Historians know that to be true. Even Ralph Woodrow, a former Hislop adherent figured that out. And no information about Caesar is proof, nor have you documented it, of a pagan intrusion into Christianity.


Look, when you actually want to talk about REAL Church history and not Hislop let me know. No reputable Church historian alive today takes Hislop seriously. There’s a reason why. He was wrong.



35 posted on 07/08/2006 2:22:44 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Would you not consider the introduction of Easter
in place of Passover or the introduction of Christmas
as Paganism?

The Traditions of man replacing the Holy Word of G-d.
The sabbath as outlined in the Holy Word of G-d in
Leviticus 23 is replaced by man's tradition of Sunday,
the day to worship the Sun god as directed by Constantine.

b'shem Y'shua

36 posted on 07/08/2006 7:54:04 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Isaiah 26:4 Trust in YHvH forever, because YHvH is the Rock eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

You wrote: "Would you not consider the introduction of Easter in place of Passover or the introduction of Christmas
as Paganism?"

No, since that isn't what happened. As anyone, who has ever actually studied Church history knows, Christmas, for instance, was set at the date it was to combat paganism not become it. Don't believe me? Read Manfred Clauss' THE ROMAN CULT OF MITHRAS where he quotes an early Christian author who gives ample evidence of exactly that.

"The Traditions of man replacing the Holy Word of G-d."

No, just your silly assertions without evidence.

"The sabbath as outlined in the Holy Word of G-d in
Leviticus 23 is replaced by man's tradition of Sunday,
the day to worship the Sun god as directed by Constantine."

Oh, please learn some history! The Church began worshipping on Sundays LONG BEFORE CONSTANTINE WAS EVEN BORN. Even other anti-Catholics get this right: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qworshipsunday.html

Look, you're just embarrassing yourself here. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OR NOT?


37 posted on 07/08/2006 8:46:58 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

So if I'm reading this correctly, only about 10 people will be raptured - and those will be folks who've read scripture in every original language and managed to get every detail exactly right along the way.


38 posted on 07/08/2006 9:27:05 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; Larry Lucido
The apostles repeatedly warned Jesus' followers to beware of false teachers who would introduce counterfeit-Christian beliefs. Jesus Himself warned: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name . . . and will deceive many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

Early on in the article, this is a curious bit of editing. What was left out?

4 Jesus said to them in reply, "See that no one deceives you.
5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah,' and they will deceive many.

Oh, my.

Can't very well claim that they are saying 'I am the Messiah', can we?

It's curious to begin an article by "helping" Jesus to say what he "really" meant by modifying the word of God.

A Scriptural absolutist might take that as a hallmark of counterfeit teaching.

39 posted on 07/09/2006 6:37:16 AM PDT by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
Early on in the article, this is a curious bit of editing. What was left out?
4 Jesus said to them in reply, "See that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah,' and they will deceive many. Oh, my. Can't very well claim that they are saying 'I am the Messiah', can we? It's curious to begin an article by "helping" Jesus to say what he "really" meant by modifying the word of God. A Scriptural absolutist might take that as a hallmark of counterfeit teaching.

It wasn't left out for any nefarious reasons. I'm sure it was omitted because it wasn't salient to the point and watered down the message.

That being said, it could easily have been left in:

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

The phrase "I am Christ" could be understood two ways. Jesus could have been saying that they would claim that they are Christ OR he could have been saying that they will say that HE (jesus) was Christ. In other words, these deceivers would come in the name of Jesus, and say that Jesus was the Christ in order to advance their agenda.

40 posted on 07/09/2006 6:47:34 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson