A sampling of comments and
thoughts to think about when considering what we believe:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” “In
today's age of information overload, where falsehoods can spread like wildfire
across various media platforms, this idea holds even greater significance.
Propagandists, politicians, and advertisers have long understood the
effectiveness of repetition in shaping public opinion. By constantly bombarding
individuals with a particular narrative, regardless of its truthfulness, they
can mold thoughts and beliefs to suit their agendas. The importance of this
quote lies in its ability to remind us to question the information we
encounter. (www.socratic-method.com)
Theologians generally divide the history of the
new covenant church into four distinct eras: ancient, medieval,
Reformation, and modern.
Irish philosopher Edmund Burke wisely remarked that
“those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Indeed, without a basic
knowledge of church history, individual Christians and churches are prone to
repeat the same doctrinal errors and foolish mistakes of former days. Jon Payne,
Why Study Church History? (www.ligonier.org)
In many ways, the Reformation was the spiritual side
of the Renaissance. Renaissance thinkers in the fifteenth century reacted
against huge swaths of medieval culture, calling for a return to the more
ancient and, they believed, healthier culture found in classical Greece and
Rome. Their well-known motto was ad fontes— ‘to the sources.’ For
some, this came to include rejecting almost all medieval theology and
spirituality and returning to the original sources of Christianity, namely, the
Bible and the early church fathers. The fathers were seen as better
interpreters of the gospel than the medieval scholastic theologians. Nick
Needham A Century of Change. (www.ligonier.org)
The history of the church has been largely one of
believers refusing to trust the way of the crucified Jesus and instead giving
in to the very temptation he resisted. It’s the history of an institution that
has frequently traded its holy and distinct mission for what it thought was a
good mission. It is the history of an organization that has frequently forsaken
the slow, discrete, nonviolent, sacrificial way of transforming the world for
the immediate, obvious, practical, and less costly way of improving the world.
It is a history of a people who have too often identified the kingdom of God
with a “Christian” version of the kingdom of the world.
For the first 300 years, this wasn’t so. Followers of
Jesus during this time saw themselves as “resident aliens.” They were a
persecuted minority and as such did not dream of corporately exercising power
in order to control political systems. Indeed, the church of this time grew not
by Christians fighting for their rights, as so many do today, but largely by
Christians being put to death. It was during this time that the word martyr,
which originally meant “witness,” came to mean “one who dies for their faith,”
for dying was one of the primary ways these early Christians witnessed for
their faith.
It’s difficult
to overemphasize the change that occurred when, in AD 312, the emperor
Constantine was converted. Just prior to an important battle, legend has it
that Constantine had a vision in which he was told to paint Chi Rho (the first
two letters of the Greek word for “Christ”) on the shields of his soldiers.
Allegedly, a voice in the vision announced, “By this sign you shall conquer.”
Constantine
obeyed the vision and won the battle. The magic apparently worked, and so
Constantine and his administration dedicated themselves to the Christians’ God.
This was the first time anyone ever associated the Christian faith with
violence, but its success stained the church from then on.
Constantine
legalized Christianity in AD 313, and because of its association with him, the
religion immediately exploded in popularity. Within seventy years it was
proclaimed the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first recorded
instance of Christians killing pagans occurred shortly after. In short order,
the militant church extended its power by conquering lands and peoples
throughout Europe, compelling them to become baptized Christians or die.
The
cross-centered kingdom became a violent kingdom that embraced the sword. The
church had become “the church militant and triumphant,” and the kingdom of God,
manifested in the crucified Jesus, had become the empire of Christendom.
The
sacrificial love and humility that characterized Christ and the early church
had to be reinterpreted at this time to accommodate the new power that the
church leaders believed God had given to the church. The lifestyle of Jesus and
the early church came to be understood as a provisional inconvenience that had
to be tolerated until Christianity could gain status in the world. Jesus and
the early disciples had to be humbled and suffer, it was argued, because they
didn’t have the power to do otherwise.
They argued
that since the church knows the truth and thus knows what is best for all
people it would be positively immoral to lay this power aside. Rather, the
church used its newfound power to compel (by force) heathens and heretics to
agree with it and be saved.
For the sake
of the kingdom of God, we must rethink all of this. We must once again proclaim
with our lives, and with our words when necessary, that the sole criteria for
whether something is a manifestation of the kingdom of God or not is the person
of Jesus Christ. Kingdom people need to lead the charge in proclaiming that the
church has nothing to do with the kingdom of God whenever it wields the sword
instead of loving. Only to the extent that the church looks like Jesus, dying
for those who crucified him and praying for their forgiveness—to that degree
can the people of God be said to manifest the kingdom of God. Adapted
from The Myth of a Christian Nation, pages 75-82 A Brief History of
Political Power and the Church, (https://reknew.org/2016/08/brief-history-political-power-church/)
What Is a New Testament
Church? by Bob Deffinbaugh, Published May 26th, 2004. (https://bible.org)
A. A New Testament church is a church which
derives its doctrine from the New Testament. We should all agree that a New
Testament church is a church which believes and teaches the doctrines of the
New Testament.
There must, however,
be agreement in what are the so-called ‘fundamentals of the faith.’ By this I
refer to the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the
virgin birth, the literal, bodily resurrection of our Lord; the substitutionary
atonement, the second coming of Christ, and the doctrine of the trinity.
Without adherence to these fundamentals, no church should have the right to
call itself New Testament.
If this were the only
measure of a New Testament church, then every church which is orthodox in its
doctrinal statement could be legitimately identified as a New Testament church,
but there is much more that is necessary than this.
B. A New Testament church is a church which is
structured and governed in accordance with New Testament principles and
practices. Some would be so bold as to say that the New Testament sheds no
light on the life and practice of the church in the twentieth century. For
example, Donald G. Miller states: “No particular structure of church life is
divinely ordained.”
All of this is appealing, except for the distressing
fact that Paul equated his practices with the principles that he taught: I
exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. For this reason I have sent to you
Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind
you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church
(1 Corinthians 4:16,17). Are you saying, then, that I am to believe that the
truly New Testament church should carry out every practice recorded in the New
Testament? Wash feet, greet one another with a holy kiss, meet in the Temple
or in private homes, do away with full-time ministers? The answer to these
four questions should help us to discern what New Testament practices we should
persist in following today.
1. Was
the practice in question universally and consistently followed in the churches
of the New Testament?
2. 2.
Is the New Testament practice directly related to a principle which we would
violate by neglecting that practice?
3. 3.
Is the practice in question a right or a responsibility?
4. 4.
Is there any higher principle involved, which might override a New Testament
practice?
(a) There
is only one church, or the unity of the church.
(b) Every
Believer in Jesus Christ is a member of the church of Jesus Christ,
(c) Jesus
Christ is the Head of the Church,
(d) Every
believer in Jesus Christ is a priest,
(e) In
the church, as in marriage, the man is to reflect the headship of Christ and
the woman is privileged to portray the submission of the church to her Lord.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH By Geo (https://icotb.org)
I. The Church Is of Divine Origin.
1. The idea of creating the church originated in the
mind of God.
2. Man did not think of it. The idea of the church was
new to man. Jesus had taught his apostles for three and a half years, yet they
did not grasp the idea of the establishment of the church until they had been
"endued with power from on high." (Acts 1:6-8).
3. Man would not have thought of it. The idea seems to
be contrary to the thoughts of men. They do not see that the church is
necessary for their salvation.
4. If the church had been of human origin, it would
have failed.
5. The establishment of the church was not dependent
upon the wisdom of men. The Lord would not permit the apostles to begin their
work until they had been "endowed with power from on high." (Luke
24:49; Acts 1:6-9; 2:1-3).
II. The New Testament Church is The Original Church.
l. Date of origin: Day of Pentecost, A. D. 33. (Acts
2:47).
2. Any church that originated later than the above date is
not the church of the New Testament.
3. Churches of later date have some of the original
doctrines, but many errors, also.
III. By Whom Was It Built?
l. The Lord. (Psa. 127:1; Matt. 16:18).
2. The churches of modern times were built by man. The
Church of the New Testament was built by the Son of God. (Acts 2:47).
IV. Where Was the New Testament Church First
Established?
1. Jerusalem. (Acts 2:1-5; Luke 24:46-49).
2. Zion. (1 Pet. 2:6; Isa. 46:13).
3. Any church established elsewhere is not the New
Testament Church.
V. The Church That Was Established at Jerusalem on the
day of Pentecost by The Apostles of Christ Was the Original Church.
1. It was the model congregation. (1 Thess. 2:14).
2. It met the approval of God.
3. Every congregation that meets the approval of God
must be "built according to the pattern" shown us at Jerusalem.
VI. The New Testament Church Was a New and Original
Institution.
1. The church was not a remodeled house, but it was a
new building in which the Lord placed new blessings. The Lord did not "put
new wine in old bottles." (Matt. 9:17).
VII. The Original Church Was Equipped with Everything
Necessary for Its Existence, Edification and Perpetuation.
1. "Ye are complete in Him." (Col. 2:10).
2. Scriptures "completely furnished" man of
God unto every good work. (2 Tim 3:16, 17).
------
o ------
A common
thread among scholars is that Christian assemblies before the first Council of
Nicaea were very different to the institution that became the Roman Church. The
consensus is that for over two hundred years believers worshipped in homes.
Gatherings were for believers only. Most believers were of the lower level of
society. The most common and successful means of spreading the gospel was by
the personal influence of each believer. What has been largely overlooked is
that all the writings of the so-called New Testament were written to believing
Jews and converted Gentiles living in the last days of the first covenant. Jewish
Christians in that time were required to comply with the Law of Moses. Gentile
believers did not have to keep the law of Moses, nor were they participants of
the first covenant. Until the baptism of Cornelius only Jews and proselytes had
access to salvation.
Matthew
records that Jesus went through cities and villages preaching the gospel of the
kingdom. Luke wrote that Jesus said he was sent to preach the kingdom of God to
people; that was his purpose. Jesus taught the importance of continuously
seeking God’s kingdom and righteousness. According to Jesus, religious activity
and performing miracles in his name did not grant entry into the kingdom; that
privilege, was reserved for those who do the will of God. Jesus taught that it
was almost impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom. A man asked Jesus
what he had to do to gain eternal life; Jesus told him to keep the
commandments. The man said he’d done that from childhood and asked what he was
still lacking? He was told to sell everything and help the poor. Jesus made it
known that “the sons of the kingdom” would be cast out, and the kingdom given
to others.
The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man
who sowed good seed in his field. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard
seed which a man took and sowed in his field. The kingdom of heaven is like
leaven. The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field. The
kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls. The kingdom of heaven
is like a dragnet cast into the sea. The kingdom of heaven is like a head of a
household who brings out of his treasure things new and old. Unless you are
converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of
heaven. For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early
in the morning to hire laborers. The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a
king who gave a wedding feast for his son. The kingdom of heaven will be
comparable to ten virgins. The parable of judgement,
The
King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For
I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you
gave me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited me in;
naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and
you came to me.'
The righteous denied having done anything for the king, who responded, “to
the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of mine, even the least of
them, you did it to me.”
I do not find any reference to ritualistic or institutional practices in
the teaching of Jesus concerning the kingdom. Jesus said his kingdom was not
connected to the earth. The kingdom Jesus spoke of is spiritual.
The
children of Israel after being rescued from Egyptian slavery, camped near the
base of Mount Sinai. God made an exclusive covenant with them contingent on their
obedience. They were to be a kingdom, a theocracy in which they were priests.
They would live in the Promised land. They were designated as God’s εκκλησια at Sinai. God gave Moses
the Law that would govern Israel. An earthly land, and kingdom. A physical
εκκλησια.
God
promised a new covenant, not like the first. A law written on human hearts, not
on stone. A heavenly kingdom not a land bordering the Mediterranean. The assembly
of Jesus, not the assembly at Sinai. The spiritual Israel is open to all
nations, not exclusively for the children of Jacob.
Israel’s religious practices in the first
century were a diluted form of those instituted through Moses. Jesus said, man-made
rules and traditions had taken the place of God’s commands. The expectation of
the Messiah was a manufactured model different from the Messiah the prophets
spoke of. Leaders of the Sanhedrin rejected the claim that Jesus was the
Messiah. They quoted the prophecy which said the Messiah would be born in
Bethlehem; “Jesus came from Galilee,” but he was born in Bethlehem. Relatives
of Mary and Joseph would have gladly confirmed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
at the time of the census. Records kept by the Jews could also have confirmed
his place of birth.
Most people follow traditions, because most
people follow traditions. Jesus said, “the gate is wide and the road is easy
that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it.” The traditions
of the Church go back seventeen hundred years; most people don’t think to
question them. The doctrine of God, Jesus, the Trinity, assemblies, Sunday,
baptism, communion, the second coming of Jesus, any others. Jesus told the
Pharisees their teachings were human rules and doctrines. Would Jesus say the
same of our church practices? Are we different to Jews who accepted the traditions
and rules taught by their leaders?
I have a
commonly used hymnbook that contains over fifty hymns looking forward to the
second coming of the Lord. That’s interesting, because Jesus said he would
return in the lifetime of some of those who were listening to him. We have no
empirical evidence of Jesus’ return, but we should believe that Jesus meant
what he said, and we also know that Jesus didn’t lie. The atheist Bertrand
Russel scoffed at believers in his essay “Why I am Not a Christian.” He joked
that Christians at the time of his writing were still expecting Jesus to come,
when Christians in the apostolic period believed Jesus would return within
their lifetime.
I hear religious leaders telling people that we
are in the last times. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowd, “this is
what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'and it shall be in the last
days,' God says, 'that I will pour forth of my spirit on all mankind.” The
author of Hebrews wrote, “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and
various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us
by a Son…” Paul wrote, about the Israelites complaining in the wilderness who
were punished by God, “These things happened to them to serve as an example,
and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have
come.” I hear religious people singing about expecting the renewal that
was a promise to ancient Israel. Peter told Jews they were the ones receiving
the restoration of all things. According to most doctrines the new covenant came into effect without
affecting anything. People are still waiting for things Jesus said was near.
God said
the new covenant would be different to the first. God’s law would be written on
hearts, sins would be forgiven, people would have a relationship with God. What
law, rule or ritual did God say would be needed to receive benefit from the new
covenant? In what way was Jesus’ sacrifice deficient that people must contribute
their efforts to God’s plan? Ask Paul! He spoke to Athenians “The God who made
the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not
dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as
though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and
all things…”
Jewish believers were under the first covenant
and were obliged to obey the law of Moses until the destruction of the temple?
Gentile were required to obey God’s universal laws regarding eating blood and
immorality, they were not included in the first covenant. Peter answering those
who believed Gentiles must be circumcised, said Gentiles do not have to be
circumcised. He concluded his remarks by saying, “…we believe that we (Jews) are saved
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they (Gentiles) also
are.” The structure of his comment recognized that Gentiles were saved outside
God’s covenant with Israel, and apart from the law of Moses. Paul wrote, “If
you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if
you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, do
not handle, do not taste, do not touch?” There is no ritual, and no religious
practice, that has any part in God’s salvation.
New
Testament Christianity existed in the last days of the first covenant period.
The destruction of the temple meant that there could be no more sacrifices.
Jews eventually substituted recitation of prayers in place of sacrifices. There
is no record that Jewish Christians dropped their national identity after the
temple’s destruction. The historical evidence suggests that whatever Christians
were doing prior to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, they continued
doing elsewhere. With the temple gone the Jewish religious practices were no
longer applicable. The destruction of the temple meant Israel and its religion
were rejected; the people of Israel were no longer God’s chosen people.
Jerusalem was destroyed and the land given to Israel was no longer sacred. The
first covenant and law of Moses were superseded by a new covenant and new law. The
promise to Abraham was also fulfilled.
The change
from the first covenant to the new covenant was a metamorphosis; the physical
covenant became spiritual. The law written on stone became God’s law written on
our hearts, earthly kingdom changed to the heavenly kingdom, and ritualistic
worship to spiritual worship. God promised a new covenant, one not like the
first, why do we still follow first covenant period concepts, and practices?
The church
is a human institution. It, like the synagogue to the Jews can be helpful to
Christians. The synagogue did not take the place of the temple, nor does a
church take the place of the personal relationship of a believer with God.
