In Part 1, we acknowledged the superiority of the early church’s (AD 35-200) life for Christ—and the resulting power God gave them that enabled many souls to be saved for the Lord. Now let’s take a look at doctrinal divisions they had vs today that likely inspired their higher success and evangelism:
First apostolic doctrine we differ on: They believed in a Relationship with Christ is essential to be called “saved” when they die. Read John 15:1ff
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser…4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me… He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Abiding with Christ partly means obeying Jesus’ commands. Thus the early church was 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.
“Living as He has taught” suggests re-orienting your lifestyle to make Christ the center and Lord of your life. Many today would say Justin is underestimating God’s grace, which can cover long “vacations” from Jesus’ Lordship of their lives. But does His grace extend to someone who, despite their initial faith in the Lord, persistently is in rebellion to God—whose life has not really changed? What if a guy goes to church and attends a Men’s Bible Study, does that “do it?” We’re not talking about negotiating with Christ to give Him a few hours a week. We’re talking about a total reorganization of our lives to finally see our sinful lack of obedience, and endeavor to repair them as long as we live, asking for the Holy Spirit’s help.
All the early church fathers were just as strict as Justin Martyr. So who is right about God’s grace? The early church or modern pastors’ “just love Him” approach? Look at I John 2:4:
He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
“I know Him” signifies abiding in Him—and learning to know Him. What would He like me to do in this situation? Being humble enough to admit sin, both omission and commission. If you are honest with God, and have a sincere desire to please Him, He will not reject your confession. John reasonably concludes that a liar about that does not have the truth. Living in untruth is darkness rather than the light of God’s truth. Verses like this gave the early church a healthy fear to live after the teachings of Christ. Thus they were fixed on a relationship with Christ, and strove to give Him 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
How are we to be found is His number (i.e., for heaven)? By faith, first of all. But Clement has another requirement: also by earnestly seeking things pleasing to Him or are in harmony with His will, and by casting away worldliness—note the IF saying salvation is a process. So, you ask "are we required to strive with intentionality to do this on a regular basis as Christians? Is obedience really necessary? I thought this was covered by grace." Maybe that’s why thousands of people attend “Emerging” or “Progressive” churches that won’t talk about sin. It’s not important; it’s negative. But His Word is the real authority: What does it say? Well, it talks about “strive” too. What did Christ say in Luke 13:23-24?
23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
“Strive” suggests staying in salvation is a process. Assuming that the "narrow gate" is the gate to heaven, do we hear this necessity of striving in today's sermons? Do they talk about a particular sin in detail, how to avoid Satan's wiles and deception? Not in most churches. This means, the gospel that will truly save us in the end is seldom taught. So we have an important doctrinal division with the early power church. We are weaker because we are not in fear of God’s eternal punishment for continued disobedience. We're not motivated to strictly follow His commandments.
Second apostolic doctrine of difference from us: They believed in A stress on real kindness to the poor; and a realization 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 (for heaven) when their wealth fettered them like a chain. The Lord, forewarning for future times, says....”Sell all you have 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.
It’s easy to read that, and say, “Whoa, that guy’s intense, and that’s kind of weird; he’ll never be financially secure thinking like that." Well, the point is, his goal is not accumulating wealth to be financially secure. It gives away amounts over necessities, and his reliance is on the Lord for the rest. Do you see where he says, "perish by their riches?" Riches got in the way of his obedience for Christ, so he should avoid that by dispensing with them. Another phrase: who do you think is our “domestic enemy?” Our riches. Thinking of acquiring or maintaining riches is a genuine obstruction to heaven. 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 earliest church took radical Scriptures like that seriously. They looked at Scriptures...and obeyed what was said. Do we look at riches as a blessing? You should see it as a gigantic temptation that only the mature in the Lord can control it and stay on the path for heaven. If you are given this responsibility of wealth, and truly give it to the Lord’s control, He will most likely move you to give most of it away to the vast number of terribly poor people’s benefit. The temptation of it really makes it a curse. Is it not an eternal danger to our following the Lord? If it is a danger, as these verses and statements suggest, then why do we seek after it? It was Jesus who first said, “Store not up treasure here on earth, but in heaven.” It was Jesus who implied, in the parable of the Sower, that riches and cares of this life are a thorny ground that choke out the Word. (So that seed was unfruitful, therefore bound for hell.) It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor” and said “Woe to you rich.” That’s “woe,” as in: You poor guys; most of you are going to hell. It was Jesus who called His disciples to forsake everything they had, to follow Him.
If we believe Him on this doctrinal issue, many lives in America could be saved instead of dying and waking up on the wrong side of eternity.
Many churches today even have as a doctrine that is the opposite: Riches means you're on line with God. They think: If you’re well off, God must love you. If you’re poor, it’s because of your lack of faith—or your brand of faith left you with a crippled ideology of failure in this life. But didn’t the Bible say, God chose the poor to be rich in faith (James 2:5)? Things can even get flipped totally upside down in false doctrine. But we "like" false doctrine about getting rich; 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 (there are others, but these seemed the most relevant to today): They believed that Women were admired 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, who looked at women and compared them with the “dress modestly” that God would like:
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 a man—by increasing his lust to a desire of completion). As soon as he has felt a lust after your beauty, and has mentally already committed the deed—which is lust plenitude (ie, equal to the act itself)—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.
In their desire for obedience to Christ’s commandments, the Christian women felt sinful if they inflamed men's passions. A passion for lust, Scripture says, is just as bad as the adultery itself—see 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 "for a man to think about adultery is not an issue; he just should constrain himself from the act," that is NOT what Jesus said. Jesus goes so far as criticizing the thought, (using Tertullian’s words), as "lust plenitude.” I included vv 29-30, where Jesus includes the hyperbole about ripping off limbs to avoid hell because of the wrong thoughts! He doesn't want you to go to this extreme; but you get the point: He is obviously serious about this matter.
The Tertullian quote looks at the opposite side of the matter from the guilty man's thoughts—namely, the woman who shows off her body, inviting him to think of adultery. Her clothing invites sin. She has a responsibility too. (Warning: Prepare for fireworks in discussing this in today’s society. Too many love porn. Women refuse to take any blame for his thoughts.) Look at I Timothy 2:9, 10:
… in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
The inward beauty of the heart is that which is beautiful to God. Our goal is to love Him enough to do what He enjoys. He is the One to impress; not the world. If He wants modesty, let’s do modesty. The early church had faith: they knew that following His Word leads to the best loving relationship of our lives, 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 hopefully purer as a result. If you live by Scripture instead of the world, wouldn’t it be the supreme act of purity to feel shame when you notice someone looking at you with adultery in their heart? You should not want to appear “sexy.” Let's dress up for work or school according to Scripture, not per the worldly custom. Yes, we'll be laughed at; Christians are different, and they should expect to suffer persecution this way.
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, yet they did not lash out or scream "unfair." 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 here, and particularly David Bercot, believe that in any doctrinal differences among today’s denominations vs. the early church, if you’re wondering which way is correct, we should look back to what the primitive church believed (up to 250 AD) for an answer. Of course, Scriptures are the primary source, but there still exist doctrinal differences despite our 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 (see other blogs upcoming) 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 doctrines claim the same source, the true doctrine more likely is the prior one, 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 today’s 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 creates a doctrine 1500 years after doctrines have been bountifully covered by the early church fathers—doing that is 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 even the huge changes 2000 years later? How strongly do you feel about deciding to follow the early church fathers, and change your beliefs (something almost unheard of these days) if the change would place you on a different path than most of today’s society, or your family? 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, 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? They probably knew. What was the meaning of “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven?” The early church spoke and thought in Greek and could figure more answers to questions. 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 perhaps have seen my blogs, that I don’t fit the Baptist theology that I was raised. 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—following the voice of their Shepherd.
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