In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s lifestyle—and the power God gave them that enabled many souls to saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher lifestyles:
First apostolic doctrine we differ from them is: They believed that obedience to Jesus' commands is essential to be called “saved.”
Why was the early church so serious about obeying every word of Christ’s commandments? Listen to Justin Martyr’s interpretation of Scripture, 160 AD:
Those who are not living as He has taught are not Christians, even though they profess with the lips.
Many today would say, if you believe this, you are not understanding “God's unconditional grace.” But all the early church fathers said the same thing as Justin Martyr. So who is right? Look at I John 2:4 for Biblical proof:
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live following the commandments of Christ. Thus they were fixed on the clear relationship between love and obedience. Think about this comment from Clement of Rome (a companion of Paul in Philippians 4), written in 96 AD:
Let us earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him in order so we can share in His promised gifts. But how shall this be accomplished? With faith toward God, and if we earnestly seek the things that are pleasing and acceptable to Him, if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity....
"Wait," you say. "Are we supposed to “strive” as Christians? I thought grace means we don't have to worry about the Law. Is strict obedience that necessary?" If you are thinking that...maybe that’s why thousands of people come to “Emerging” churches that won’t talk about sin. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:24?
“Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
Is that verse really covered in sermons? Not in most churches. Many of them assume that with the Holy Spirit, your making righteous decisions will just kind of grow on you, without thought. This wayward view means, the gospel that will truly save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division that affects many life decisions. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience. We get divorces, we have sex outside of marriage, without even thinking about God, just for two examples.
Second apostolic doctrine we differ: They believed on stressing, and giving, real kindness to the poor; related to that, they believed that riches are a trap.
Why were the early Christians more generous with their assets, giving them away unreservedly? Read Cyprian, 250 AD, who liquidated his entire estate and gave them away when he got saved:
The truth, brethren, must not be disguised…a blind love of one’s own property has deceived many; nor could they be prepared for…departing (from their faith) when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says "..sell all thou hath and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven, and come and follow Me." If rich men did this, they would not perish by their riches. If they laid up treasure in heaven, they would not now have a domestic enemy and an assailant. Heart and mind, and feeling, would be in heaven. If the treasure were in heaven, he could not be overcome by the world…he has nothing in the world to overcome him. He would follow the Lord, loosed and free, as many who forsook their means, and did cleave to Christ with undivided ties. How can they follow Christ who are held back by the chain of their wealth? How can they seek heaven who are weighed down by earthly desires? They think that they possess when they are rather possessed.
Did you note that riches are called "a domestic enemy and an assailant?" (An assailant of our eternal souls). It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be rich thinking like that." Well, that's the point--that's not his goal. Riches got in the way of his calling for Christ.. Cyprian's thoughts are not weird; they are rational, actually. For proof, what does I Timothy 6:8-10 say?
And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
The merest desire to be rich is called a "temptation and a snare." When was the last time you thought about wealth like that? Only because the world trained us not to. The earliest church took Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures..and obeyed what they said. Do we see riches as a blessing? Or an eternal danger? If it is a danger, as these verses suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” He also said, Riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: "Judgement is on you, poor guys; most of you are going to hell." What did He say about rich people and heaven? It was almost impossible for the wealthy to get to heaven.
If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, we will give more away to the poor, and many lives of the givers could be saved instead of dying and waking up surprised on the wrong side of eternity.
Many churches today even have as a doctrine that your abundance of material possessions means that you have more faith in God. If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s a lack of faith. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith? False doctrine often flips totally upside down--you have to know what Jesus says to see it as false. But we "like" false doctrine; we think we can be complacent in our riches and still go to heaven. That’s not how the early Church saw Scripture. So we have another doctrinal difference.
Last apostolic doctrine we’ll look at: Women were noted for their purity and modesty in dress. They didn’t want to be looked upon lustfully, and were faithful to their husbands. Read Tertullian, 198 AD:
How many women are there who do not earnestly desire even to look pleasing to strangers..to have herself painted out and then denies that she has ever been the object of carnal appetite? Why excite toward yourself that evil passion? Why invite that to which you profess yourself a stranger? I know not whether He allows impunity to her who has been the cause of perdition (ed., in another). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude—he perishes; and you’ve been made the sword which destroys him. So that although you be free from the actual crime, you are not free from the disgrace attaching to it.
You assume Tertullian is blaming women for exciting lust in men. In today's #MeToo, this idea is heresy. Well, set the culture aside--is it not sometimes true? Actually, few women can plead ignorance when they show off every curve in their body. They want to appear sexy, to make the men pleased with them--sexually. Please, I'm not recommending burqas for every woman. I'm simply saying, if she repeatedly starts a fire, she can expect to at some point be burned. Another thing worth mentioning: her dressing that way stirs up lust, and she needs to realize that it's as bad for the man to do that as the adultery itself. That's his sin, but she was, shall we say, conspiratorial. I should definitely mention: Men are also guilty of dressing to appeal to sex. Observe what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-30:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Just in case you were thinking that the man's lust should not be equated to adultery, I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to show His seriousness about this matter. In any event, we, today, don't seem to be worried about this problem (like our lack of concern about porn), but the early church was extreme in their striving to attain God’s Word, and to call attention to the problem. Lest you think that Tertullian was a male sexist Neanderthal, consider how right on the money he has it with Scripture, (the real measure of morals), in I Timothy 2:9, 10:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety (propriety and moderation, NKJV); not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Yes, He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wants modesty, ladies AND MEN--let’s do modesty--with gusto. I didn't say, your color scheme has to be all grays and whites. The early church knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, for Him and for each other, and they didn’t shrink from acting on every verse in context. The primitive Church taught these verses seriously, so the women were modest, the Christian men were (mostly) pure. Wouldn’t it be an act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? And how about if our goal, ladies, is NOT wanting to appear “sexy?” It would be nice in today’s society to realize that’s a horrible (and dangerous) goal to achieve in your dressing up for work or school.
We don’t have space for the many other differences in doctrine with today. For instance, they strove to make their enemies their friends; they would never pick up a weapon and strike another to save their life, even if such a weapon were offered to them. But their extreme belief in non-resistance turned the hearts of many onlookers to salvation, particularly as they were killed in public. And saving souls is what it’s all about, isn’t it? This was before the “just war” clause was thrown into doctrine, and later “Christians” became killers of men in Crusades, in war, just like the rest of man. That’s the problem: “just like the rest.” In the earliest churches, though, they had it right, considering what Jesus said about loving enemies in Matthew 5:43-44:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…
Finally, I would like to make a personal note. Scott Schones (my source for this blog), and particularly David Bercot (source for many of my blogs), believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed for the more likely correct answer between the two. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our sincere reading. The reasons we look to the primitive church for solving differences are very simple and very powerful:
1.They were not theologians; they just read Scriptures literally, accepting it on its face, like a child—so they weren’t into twisting Scripture to make it agree with a pre-conceived objective. As you see above, every word of Scripture was precious, and given to us for disciplined obedience. Any Scripture that seemed to clash with other Scripture was merged into its context, and seeming contradictions usually disappeared. They wouldn’t buy into the fashion introduced by the Gnostics of “reasonable interpretation,” thus letting man decide which Scriptures to ignore and which Scripture they liked.
2.They had the advantage over us of time. Tertullian has an interesting quote on this one. Gnosticism was rampant then, and all realized it was a late-blooming doctrine. After first alluding to differences between true Christianity and Gnosticism, he says:
How can we settle this stand-off unless we use the principle of time? Authority lies with the one who is prior in time. Corruption in doctrine lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error.
Thus, when two opposite doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, the Early church fathers, since truth precedes falsification of truth. All historians use this principle for history, by the way. The closer you get to the actual event, the more truth you’re likely to find. A doctrine that comes up 1500 years after its source is suspicious on the face of it. The early church fathers we’ve quoted got to sit at the feet of apostles they revered. They asked questions we would never get to ask. On such an important issue, heaven vs hell, they asked and asked until they knew they got it right. And they wrote down their many thoughts on the meaning of baptism, of Christian living, etc. If we conclude that our doctrine is completely correct instead (John Calvin and Martin Luther have serious differences with the early church fathers), we need to analyze such claims carefully. After all, it would take a bold person to claim he is correct when he has done it 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully explained by the early church fathers—especially bold when there are significant differences between him and them. And we should analyze our own mind for what we really believe. Compare, as much as possible, your beliefs with the early fathers. Are we different? Are we willing to accept who is the more likely to be wrong? Would you want to read thoughts of men who lived 50 years after the event, or someone who wrote 1500 years after it—or you, 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about changing and following the early church fathers, if you would be on a different path than most of today’s society? What if society despises the doctrinal requirements of the early group? Are you willing to “man-up” and go against society, taking on the persecution, and going for the most truthful life to live as a Christian? Remember, this life is proven superior by the fact that it is the most powerful church in history, who Christ led through a wild ride, as Acts says. They didn’t often end well, on earth, but they’re in heaven saying, “I fought the good fight.”
3.They had the advantage of language and culture. Was the “camel through the eye of a needle” an idiom? What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and had the answer. But the language and cultural gap is so severe now that we may never know certain things until we get to heaven. Even if you live in the same area, language and culture changes a lot over the years. (Try reading Chaucer in the original English). Making a doctrine out of a language we can’t really understand is a tough way to go. I’d much more likely read the early church fathers, who explained things in detail—and they knew the culture and the language.
Please read each Scripture with an eye to obeying it. Please read the early church fathers (see recommendation below) for explanations of doctrine. You will find, as you have seen my writings (I was raised a Baptist), that your beliefs will change. You’ll be salt and pepper, taking Scriptural points from several different denominations. No one in particular will satisfy your need for an “all in one” church. Someday (maybe in persecution) the church will all be as one, as Jesus wished--as the goats drop off in the heat and the sheep remain.
May God we with you in this quest.
Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, CD, “A New Kind of Christian?” Scroll Publishing.
Recommended Reading: David Bercot’s book “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs,” Hendrickson, 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment