David Kaiser
May 26th 2006, 04:36 PM
The Plain Truth about the Early Church
Found this quote on the Internet:
While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.
I will evaluate each statement this author makes.
A gradual departure?
The author says that most of Christianity gradually departed from the N.T. faith? The author must then be insinuating that some stayed loyal to this author’s perception of what he thinks Christianity was like in those early years. I would like that person to tell me where were those “some” in church history. History shows us that there were scattered groups that defied the Catholic faith during the course of church history, but history also has shown that much of these groups’ doctrines were even heretical by modern day fundamentalist Christian standards (See Baptist Successionism, A Crucial Question in Baptist History, McGoldrick, The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,1994). History also shows that no silver thread can be sewn to connect these scattered groups through church history, so what the author of the above statement is saying is that the gates of Hell did win out against God’s people during some generations. This logic of the author falls apart when examined under the light of church history. Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to keep the church of God alive during these supposed dark times? Evidently to the author He does not.
What is the N. T. doctrine of church government?
There is not a bit of evidence according to Scripture for how God intended the churches to be governed above the individual local church level. We see the need for appointing overseers and elders and deacons in the local church. We see the apostles planting churches and handling disputes between and in churches. But what happens at the death of all the apostles? No word is given us in the Bible as to how the churches are to organize as something bigger than the local church. The reason the various denominations differ so drastically on how they do interchurch government (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational) is that the Bible is silent on how it is to be arranged.
What is the N. T. doctrine of worship and practice?
Again, there is not a bit of evidence according to Scripture of how God intended the churches to worship. We see that some type of liturgy is going on at Antioch (Acts 13:2), but no details are given. Paul wants us to get the words right in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, so this sounds like he wants us to repeat those words every time we do a Eucharist. We see a rudimentary order of service in 1 Corinthians 14:26-32, but no details of how each element of the service was to proceed and if it was repetitive. I do not want to get into my theory that in the book of Revelation what John says was going on in heaven was modeled after a late first century church service on earth. So if we say that we must base all we do in church on the Bible alone we are lost as to what God wants, other than platitudes like John 4:23,24, Phil. 3:3 and 1 Tim. 2:8. Sola Scriptura does not help us here. We have to fall back on tradition of the early church for answers as to how the apostles and the ante-Nicene church worshiped (in this period the author quotes from 65-300).
Ceased to by autonomous?
The author is assuming that since the N. T. is quiet about the form that interchurch government should take, it was the will of God for local churches to be autonomous. Is that a fair assumption? Did the New Testament preach that churches are to be autonomous? Paul used the Jerusalem church as a model for the other churches. Paul encourages all the churches to be of one mind. How can you do that without some form of governmental control? Don’t give me the “Holy Spirit come back.” Even the church of the Acts (as spiritual as it was) had disputes and these disputes had to be resolved in interchurch councils (Acts 15). However, sola scriptura does not give us any indication how to do church councils. Why is James, the half-brother of Jesus, officiating at the Jerusalem council, instead of Peter? We do not know. The Bible alone does not help us in these matters. We are then left to fall back upon tradition of the early church to help us determined what might had been in the mind of the apostles and the disciples of the apostles and the disciples of the disciples of the apostles. During the biblical era we see that the interchurch government was in the hands of the apostles. What are we to do once the last apostle is dead? We see very early a tradition of apostolic succession developing (Acts. 1:21-26). Each leader was to groom his successor, who would take his place, upon the election of like-positioned leaders. These leaders would each have jurisdiction over a set area of Christendom. These apostolic successors would come together in council to dispute problems that developed (Acts 15), the hosting apostolic successor would give order to the council and would summarize the consensus view of the majority. I really do not see that being used as the form of government by the churches today in most denominations. Catholics would say that according to Matt. 16:18, that Peter’s successor should always be the leader, but that was not a tradition of the early church. That interpretation developed with the power of the Bishop of Rome in the justification of that power over the generations. Be that as it may, the biblical record or early tradition never supported an autonomous view of local church government as the above author asserts.
What is the worship of the heart?
Was the form of worship of the early church (the time period he uses is 65-300 A.D.)? The author is assuming that early worship was just done from the heart and had no form or substance, repeated weekly, which the author would say is ritualism. My research into the liturgy shows that church liturgy goes way back to apostolic times. How can we be sure the present liturgical tradition was how the service was done in earlier times and not picked up by adaptation from outside pagan influence? The general outline of the service of the Eucharist “is everywhere most remarkably the same after 300 years of independent existence in the widely scattered churches” (Gregory Dix, p.5) in the Mediterranean region. If the fundamentalist’s argument of pagan intrusion was the origin of the Eucharist service, we would expect to see widely diverse local customs surrounding the Eucharist service in the churches. We also have to remember that this remarkable similarity existed way before the rise of Papal dominance in Church. This similarity must come for a common origin that must date to the very beginning of the Christian movement, before its missionary expansion. Before the missionary expansion would land us still in apostolic times! The start of the liturgical tradition was not Gentile or pontifical, it was apostolic and Jewish in origin.
Did the ritual of early church come from pagan splendor?
We not only have the testimony of this amazing similarity, but we also have the testimony of early church leaders’ writings. One who wrote just 50 years after the Apostle John’s death is Justin, the Martyr. He describes in his writings the church service of his day. He describes praying, then the greeting with a kiss, the presenting of the cup and the bread, the thanksgiving prayer, the “amen” of the people, the deacons distributing the elements, and finally the taking a portion to the absent. This is all being written in 150 A.D. Some are fond of saying that after the first couple generations the visible church became rife with pagan additions and revisions. However, that would have been impossible, for the “Bible” of the early church was the Old Testament. The Old Testament with its stinging indictments of pagan customs “formed a useful barrier to the infiltration of purely pagan conceptions into Eucharistic theology, in the period before Christian thought in the Gentile churches was mature enough to protect itself” (Dix, p.3). If the later church leaders had tried to start a liturgical tradition as an adaptation from pagan ceremonial meals, the rank and file of the church would have rejected it. No such rebellion is ever recorded in early church history against the liturgy.
Sprinkled Pagans?
Is the idea that the church after 300 A.D. just allowed in droves of unregenerate people, with the only requirement that they be sprinkled with water, true? The idea that people were pouring into the church after 300, now that it was becoming a popular faith, and in this massive influx doctrine was becoming watered down and paganized is patently false. The church of those years had a very rigorous indoctrination program that lasted for two to three years before anyone was allowed into the church membership and allowed him or her to take communion. Most churches today have a couple nights of instruction in the faith and they allow people in. The church today is more lax than the early church ever was. I think the title “sprinkled pagans” applies more to the church today than anytime in its history. Yes, there are the famous stories of converting barbarian kings baptizing their countrymen in the river all in one day, but we are no longer talking about the formative years of the church in which the supposed doctrines of paganism crept in.
This author needs to do some research into the history of the church before he speaks. This person is taking the many conventions of reformed rhetoric about history and passing it on as if it is sacred truth.
Found this quote on the Internet:
While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of "bishops" ruling over hierarchies. The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.
I will evaluate each statement this author makes.
A gradual departure?
The author says that most of Christianity gradually departed from the N.T. faith? The author must then be insinuating that some stayed loyal to this author’s perception of what he thinks Christianity was like in those early years. I would like that person to tell me where were those “some” in church history. History shows us that there were scattered groups that defied the Catholic faith during the course of church history, but history also has shown that much of these groups’ doctrines were even heretical by modern day fundamentalist Christian standards (See Baptist Successionism, A Crucial Question in Baptist History, McGoldrick, The Scarecrow Press, Inc.,1994). History also shows that no silver thread can be sewn to connect these scattered groups through church history, so what the author of the above statement is saying is that the gates of Hell did win out against God’s people during some generations. This logic of the author falls apart when examined under the light of church history. Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to keep the church of God alive during these supposed dark times? Evidently to the author He does not.
What is the N. T. doctrine of church government?
There is not a bit of evidence according to Scripture for how God intended the churches to be governed above the individual local church level. We see the need for appointing overseers and elders and deacons in the local church. We see the apostles planting churches and handling disputes between and in churches. But what happens at the death of all the apostles? No word is given us in the Bible as to how the churches are to organize as something bigger than the local church. The reason the various denominations differ so drastically on how they do interchurch government (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregational) is that the Bible is silent on how it is to be arranged.
What is the N. T. doctrine of worship and practice?
Again, there is not a bit of evidence according to Scripture of how God intended the churches to worship. We see that some type of liturgy is going on at Antioch (Acts 13:2), but no details are given. Paul wants us to get the words right in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, so this sounds like he wants us to repeat those words every time we do a Eucharist. We see a rudimentary order of service in 1 Corinthians 14:26-32, but no details of how each element of the service was to proceed and if it was repetitive. I do not want to get into my theory that in the book of Revelation what John says was going on in heaven was modeled after a late first century church service on earth. So if we say that we must base all we do in church on the Bible alone we are lost as to what God wants, other than platitudes like John 4:23,24, Phil. 3:3 and 1 Tim. 2:8. Sola Scriptura does not help us here. We have to fall back on tradition of the early church for answers as to how the apostles and the ante-Nicene church worshiped (in this period the author quotes from 65-300).
Ceased to by autonomous?
The author is assuming that since the N. T. is quiet about the form that interchurch government should take, it was the will of God for local churches to be autonomous. Is that a fair assumption? Did the New Testament preach that churches are to be autonomous? Paul used the Jerusalem church as a model for the other churches. Paul encourages all the churches to be of one mind. How can you do that without some form of governmental control? Don’t give me the “Holy Spirit come back.” Even the church of the Acts (as spiritual as it was) had disputes and these disputes had to be resolved in interchurch councils (Acts 15). However, sola scriptura does not give us any indication how to do church councils. Why is James, the half-brother of Jesus, officiating at the Jerusalem council, instead of Peter? We do not know. The Bible alone does not help us in these matters. We are then left to fall back upon tradition of the early church to help us determined what might had been in the mind of the apostles and the disciples of the apostles and the disciples of the disciples of the apostles. During the biblical era we see that the interchurch government was in the hands of the apostles. What are we to do once the last apostle is dead? We see very early a tradition of apostolic succession developing (Acts. 1:21-26). Each leader was to groom his successor, who would take his place, upon the election of like-positioned leaders. These leaders would each have jurisdiction over a set area of Christendom. These apostolic successors would come together in council to dispute problems that developed (Acts 15), the hosting apostolic successor would give order to the council and would summarize the consensus view of the majority. I really do not see that being used as the form of government by the churches today in most denominations. Catholics would say that according to Matt. 16:18, that Peter’s successor should always be the leader, but that was not a tradition of the early church. That interpretation developed with the power of the Bishop of Rome in the justification of that power over the generations. Be that as it may, the biblical record or early tradition never supported an autonomous view of local church government as the above author asserts.
What is the worship of the heart?
Was the form of worship of the early church (the time period he uses is 65-300 A.D.)? The author is assuming that early worship was just done from the heart and had no form or substance, repeated weekly, which the author would say is ritualism. My research into the liturgy shows that church liturgy goes way back to apostolic times. How can we be sure the present liturgical tradition was how the service was done in earlier times and not picked up by adaptation from outside pagan influence? The general outline of the service of the Eucharist “is everywhere most remarkably the same after 300 years of independent existence in the widely scattered churches” (Gregory Dix, p.5) in the Mediterranean region. If the fundamentalist’s argument of pagan intrusion was the origin of the Eucharist service, we would expect to see widely diverse local customs surrounding the Eucharist service in the churches. We also have to remember that this remarkable similarity existed way before the rise of Papal dominance in Church. This similarity must come for a common origin that must date to the very beginning of the Christian movement, before its missionary expansion. Before the missionary expansion would land us still in apostolic times! The start of the liturgical tradition was not Gentile or pontifical, it was apostolic and Jewish in origin.
Did the ritual of early church come from pagan splendor?
We not only have the testimony of this amazing similarity, but we also have the testimony of early church leaders’ writings. One who wrote just 50 years after the Apostle John’s death is Justin, the Martyr. He describes in his writings the church service of his day. He describes praying, then the greeting with a kiss, the presenting of the cup and the bread, the thanksgiving prayer, the “amen” of the people, the deacons distributing the elements, and finally the taking a portion to the absent. This is all being written in 150 A.D. Some are fond of saying that after the first couple generations the visible church became rife with pagan additions and revisions. However, that would have been impossible, for the “Bible” of the early church was the Old Testament. The Old Testament with its stinging indictments of pagan customs “formed a useful barrier to the infiltration of purely pagan conceptions into Eucharistic theology, in the period before Christian thought in the Gentile churches was mature enough to protect itself” (Dix, p.3). If the later church leaders had tried to start a liturgical tradition as an adaptation from pagan ceremonial meals, the rank and file of the church would have rejected it. No such rebellion is ever recorded in early church history against the liturgy.
Sprinkled Pagans?
Is the idea that the church after 300 A.D. just allowed in droves of unregenerate people, with the only requirement that they be sprinkled with water, true? The idea that people were pouring into the church after 300, now that it was becoming a popular faith, and in this massive influx doctrine was becoming watered down and paganized is patently false. The church of those years had a very rigorous indoctrination program that lasted for two to three years before anyone was allowed into the church membership and allowed him or her to take communion. Most churches today have a couple nights of instruction in the faith and they allow people in. The church today is more lax than the early church ever was. I think the title “sprinkled pagans” applies more to the church today than anytime in its history. Yes, there are the famous stories of converting barbarian kings baptizing their countrymen in the river all in one day, but we are no longer talking about the formative years of the church in which the supposed doctrines of paganism crept in.
This author needs to do some research into the history of the church before he speaks. This person is taking the many conventions of reformed rhetoric about history and passing it on as if it is sacred truth.