The Power of Personal Discipleship

I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one,[1]

For centuries people have preached, taught, or written about Church unity. The words from Jesus’ prayer are for many the clarion call for unity; “that they may be one, as we are one.” This particular scripture was key to the ecumenical movement which began with the World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh in 1910. The Catholic Church in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) officially took part in the ecumenical movement. However, the ecumenical movement has not been fully accepted. There has been token acceptance among some denominations not to see each other as enemies or competitors but as fellow Christians. In opposition to the movement there are theological, political and institutional challenges, from fundamentalist groups as well as mainline Churches. To its opponents ecumenism is a negative term, like syncretism, doctrinal relativism and indifferentism.[2] Facing the issues hindering ecumenism Cardinal Kasper suggests, “Our response to this situation cannot be only and primarily an institutional and organizational one.” Kasper’s comment suggests to me that, the main cause of failure facing the ecumenical movement is the exclusivity of Churches. The language coming from proponents of ecumenism indicates that on a personal level unity is a greater possibility than at the institutional level. Ecumenism is doomed; common sense dictates that the reason there are so many Churches is the same reason there cannot not be unity.

Every Church exists because it offers a, belief, doctrine, or system, which is unique to that body. Every Church possesses exclusive attributes. Every Church holds objections to its neighbours, or believes it is doing a better job of leading people to salvation. These things are obvious, or there would be no reason for every Church to exist. Unity at the Church level is an impossibility. It has been suggested that greater interaction could take place toward ecumenism without betraying faith or conscience. When Church affiliation determines faith and conscience, I don’t see how any interaction can take place. As I think of the “unity” for which Jesus prayed, and look at the myriad of Churches existing today, I wonder if we have downplayed the importance of personal discipleship. Have you ever asked yourself, why you are a member of a particular Church? Why do you attend one Church and walk past another? Have you ever heard the preacher at your Church suggest you should attend a different Church? It would be thoughtful of a preacher to ask some of his congregation to support the effort of a startup congregation, or even a different Church.

Are you a Church member? Have you signed or otherwise committed yourself to membership in a Church? Do you recognize that you are expected to conform to the doctrines of that Church? Do you agree with the position your Church takes on, LGBT, abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, the death penalty, religious tolerance, racial equality, the environment, or Church organization? Do you accept all that your Church teaches? I ask these questions not to be facetious, but to make the point that very few people agree with everything their Church stands for or teaches. Institutional doctrines and policies sometimes conflict with personal values. Look at the questions above and it will be clear that a Church cannot answer any of them in a way that all of its members would be satisfied. It’s highly unlikely that the goal of unity will be achieved at the Church or denominational level. A Church is constrained by its doctrines and limited by its own exclusivity. Church policies, doctrines, or beliefs, set the boundaries of what governs the group. Every Church claims to have biblical support for its doctrines and practices, and that’s a problem. It is absolutely impossible for every Church to have support from the Bible when there are so many diverse interpretations. On the flip side, while it is impossible for all Churches to be right, it is probable that they are all wrong. It’s a scary proposition to count on having the right interpretation of every scripture in order to be acceptable to God. I feel way more comfortable trusting in God’s grace than in my knowledge.

A problem I see is, that people go to Church to be saved, not because they are saved. Church membership has become the means by which people are saved. A Church needs to be a gathering of disciples who are saved. Discipleship is a personal responsibility; discipleship is following Jesus. A disciple has to respond to issues the same way Jesus approached issues when he was on earth. Jesus looked at sinners as people needing help not condemnation. Jesus had the ability to see into the heart, whereas we can only see what’s on the outside. Perhaps that’s why Jesus said we shouldn’t judge. Another reason not to judge because we have sinned. We have no business condemning others, since we are sinners. Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin, mine, yours, and anyone who comes to him. Our task as disciples is to convince sinners that there is hope in Jesus. The most effective way to do that is to let Christ be seen in your life. People must see the influence of Jesus in how you talk, and how you walk. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. A disciple’s life is his or her picture. Church doctrines and policies have developed over many centuries.

It seems to me that our religious ancestors took a wrong turn somewhere. At some point it was determined that the path they were following needed improvement. To help unify the Empire Constantine insisted on religious unity. He convened the Council of Nicaea which centralized religious power in Roman. Congregations throughout the Empire were subjected to the authority of the bishops in Roman. Congregational autonomy was lost. The right to appoint their own bishops in local congregations was given up to Rome. Approved doctrines originated in Rome. The Roman Church became the official head of Christianity, supported by the Emperor. A sad day in history, when citizens of the kingdom of God were compelled to submit to the authority of the first Church. Up until that point believers assembled in autonomous groups. Disciples were “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people”[3] with the mandate to proclaim the wonders of God in their salvation. True Christianity was driven underground due to the brutal persecution of those who did not submit to the Roman Church. Through the period in which the Roman Church held a monopoly on religion, even during and after the Reformation, I am confident that disciples of Jesus lived as witnesses of God’s enduring love.

I believe in the power of personal discipleship. Jesus was the representative of God on earth, in the way disciples are to represent Jesus. While on earth Jesus was “The Light” personifying God’s love. Disciples are lights reflecting God’s love. Each and every disciple is commissioned to be a light in darkness. The only way for people to know God is for them to know Jesus, and the only way for people to know Jesus is by observing his disciples. Personal discipleship mirrors the example and teaching of Jesus. As a disciple of Jesus I do not have to agree with the lifestyles of LGBT, but I am obligated to love people no matter what lifestyles they choose. To love people is an irrevocable commission. I do not have to condone tax-evasion, or condemn it, I am obligated to love all people. By loving people Jesus can be seen in my life. The apostle Paul wrote, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.”[4] As a disciple I don’t require policies on the issues mentioned above. Only Jesus is Judge, and Saviour. As a disciple I am limited to loving people, whoever they are, and whatever they have done. There should not be any difference between being a Church member and a being a disciple of Jesus. That however, is not always the case. Some Churches require compliance with their programs, and support of their projects. I believe there are disciples in many Churches, I also believe there are disciples who do not go to Church. The power of personal discipleship is irresistible. When the persecution by Saul broke out, the early converts were scattered. That was not a victory for evil, it was an explosion of faith felt throughout the known world.

The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,[5]

The important phrase here is, “to equip the saints.” The task of gift-endowed leaders was to prepare believers for ministry and building up the body of Christ. The model given was for inspired leaders to train and mobilize the unstoppable force of personal discipleship. The true assessment of a Church is not how many people attend services, but how many people have been equipped to reflect Jesus in their everyday lives.

---

[1] Joh 17:20-22

[2] See, The ecumenical movement in the 21st century, 18 November 2005, Cardinal Walter Kasper

[3] 1Pe 2:9

[4] Rom 13:8 

[5] Eph 4:11, 12

The Kingdom of God is Inside You

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is inside you."[1]

The Greek word translated in the quote “inside” you, can also be translated “within” you.[2] There are arguments for both renditions. The only other place where the Greek word is used in the New Testament, it is translated “inside”. The concept of the kingdom of God inside the human heart is supported by prophecy.

The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.[3]

Know, ἐντός:

The simple meaning, to know, is its most common translation out of the eight hundred or more uses. One of the primary uses means to know relationally and experientially: it refers to knowing or not knowing persons (Gen 29:5; Exo 1:8) personally or by reputation (Job 19:13).[4]

The language of prophecy indicates a future personal relationship with God: covenant, my law within them, written on their hearts, I will be their God, they shall be my people, they shall all know me, and I will forgive them. Everything about the future covenant was to be personal as well as relational. God pointed out that he had a non-reciprocal relationship with Israel and Judah, saying, he had been a husband to them. That motif is further developed in the book of Hosea. Through Jesus, believers are in the family of God. God is Father to the faithful. As a result of Jesus’ sacrifice, believers are his siblings, and God is the Father.

What we do see is Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels. Because of God's wonderful kindness, Jesus died for everyone. And now that Jesus has suffered and died, he is crowned with glory and honor! Everything belongs to God, and all things were created by his power. So God did the right thing when he made Jesus perfect by suffering, as Jesus led many of God's children to be saved and to share in his glory. Jesus and the people he makes holy all belong to the same family. That is why he isn't ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters.[5]

At Moses’ first encounter with God, after Israel left Egypt, he was told, “Now if you will faithfully obey me, you will be my very own people. The whole world is mine, but you will be my holy nation and serve me as priests.[6] The people of Israel did not fully obey God, and as a result did not succeed as his nation of priests. In the gospel of John we read, “The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”[7] Through the prophet Jeremiah God said the new covenant would be different to the one given on Sinai. John provides the most significant difference between the covenants; the old covenant was based on works done by the people, the new covenant is based on God’s grace. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”[8] Peter affirmed that believers by God’s grace are his chosen people. “…you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”[9]

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"

Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.[10]

Jesus used the term Abba when praying in Gethsemane[11]. In no sense was Abba used disrespectfully; by using Abba Jesus was confirming he was the Son of God. In the New Testament Abba is only used when addressing God. Paul used Abba in his writing to demonstrate that through Jesus we are adopted as children into God’s family. From the time of its construction by Solomon to its destruction, the temple represented God’s presence among his people. Since Jesus, the temple of God is not a building, but “…you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?”[12] Some teach that the reference to the body being the temple in Corinthians supports the organization of the Church; it does not! Some suggest that the Church is the kingdom of God on earth; it is not! Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is inside you.”[13] The kingdom, the ἐκκλησία, the covenant, have no physical representation, other than the lives and actions of believers. That is what it means to be lights in the world; always reflecting the love and grace of God the Father.

The covenant and religion of Israel involved the temple, sacrifices, and ceremonial festivals. The covenant ratified by Jesus focuses on the individual because it is relational and personal. To some degree or another all Churches reflect the religion of Israel. The new covenant foretold by Jeremiah had God instilling his law into individual hearts. There is no place for religious hierarchies under the new covenant. In the new kingdom we are all God’s special people, we are all priests, and we are all holy. The word βασιλεία translated kingdom, according to Thayer’s Greek Definitions is always used “…in the N.T. to refer to the reign of the Messiah.” The kingdom of Israel was limited to the land promised to Abraham, but when the New Testament speaks of the kingdom, it is the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus told Pilate that he was born to be king, but that his rule was not earthly –his kingdom is spiritual.

The kingdom is inside us, Christ resides in us, the covenant has been written on our hearts; and yet, we seek the comfort of belonging to some institution, of seeking physical connection through ritual, and of having someone interpret the covenant for us. I wonder if this was the reason for believers going back to the Old Law, demanding male circumcision, special foods, and various Sabbaths.

---

[1] Luke 17:20, 21

[2] Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries

[3] Jer 31:31-34

[4] The Complete WordStudy Dictionary

[5] Heb 2:9-11 (CEV)

[6] Exo 19:5, 6

[7] Joh 1:17 

[8] Eph 2:8, 9

[9] 1Pe 2:9 

[10] Gal 4:4-7

[11] Mar 14:36

[12] 1Co 3:16 

[13] Luke 17:20, 21

God, and Jesus his Son

There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.[1]

 

There is all the pathos in the world in the simple saying: “He came to His own home—and His ,own people gave Him no welcome.” It. happened to Jesus Christ long ago— and it is happening yet.[2]

 

This passage from John’s gospel is a poignant reminder of humanity’s inability to recognize the Creator. The failure of first century Jewish leaders to recognize their Messiah was tragic in the sense that the Son of God was presented to the “people of God. Within their sacred scriptures prophecies of Jesus abound. Promises of the Messiah’s coming were a source of comfort and anticipation. John states a fact: his comments are not indicative of any surprise by God. The statements of John were an indictment on the nation of Israel, through whom the Messiah was to come. Israel was God’s holy nation, his chosen people, nurtured and defended by God for centuries. The history of Israel reveals how God protected his promises, pruning and purging evil from Israel. The twelve tribes of Israel were united under Saul, David and Solomon. Solomon through his many marriages invited foreign gods into Israel’s religious core. God would have torn the kingdom from Solomon had it not been for his previous promises. Ten tribes were given to a king not of David’s family. Known as Israel, the ten northern tribes were destroyed, and captives exiled among the nations of the world. Judah was reigned by monarchs of David’s descent. It too sinned and was destroyed, with captives taken to Babylon. From exile in Babylon a remnant representing all the tribes of Israel returned to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Israel was the custodian of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jews should have known their own Messiah, but to their minds he was beyond recognition. They had travelled so far down roads of their own choosing that very little to do with the God of heaven was meaningful to them. The Jews were religious; they had a highly developed system of rites and regulations. The Jewish religion of the first century was the problem, its ritualistic focus, and institutional leadership, blinded participants to truth. The religious elite openly and violently opposed Jesus. They mocked his claims, and were jealous of his acceptance among common people. The high priest and Sanhedrin held tentatively to what power was vested in them by Rome –at a cost. They were obliged to placate the whims of governors and those who belonged to Rome.

And all the prophets, as many as have spoken, from Samuel and those after him, also predicted these days. You are the descendants of the prophets and of the covenant that God gave to your ancestors, saying to Abraham, “And in your descendants all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.[3]

 

In the parable of the unjust tenants[4] Jesus told of caretakers refusing to give the owner the proceeds of the vineyard. The Pharisees who were listening understood that the parable referred to them. They were the evil tenants, spending the proceeds of the vineyard on themselves. They and the leadership of Israel abused their positions of authority by ignoring God’s requirements. They were in it for themselves, enjoying the material benefits of managing Israel, not concerned about the people of Israel.

 

What if anything does the gospel of John have to do with the modern world? From the point of view of Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, followers of Confucian, or people just not interested –not very much. In western societies “causes” and “clubs” often take the place of religion. The people of God in the first century were accused of rejecting Jesus their Messiah, the modern world is equally culpable of rejecting God and Jesus.

 

Those who deny the existence of God set themselves up as “knowing” what is true. Their position is that people who believe in God, are less intelligent, and more gullible than people who don’t. Deniers of God claim that evidence proves their theories. They point out that science supports the theory of evolution, and that there is no place for God. Arrogant and bombastic scientists mock believers, there is however a fairly large contingent of scientists from various disciplines, which accept a theory of design. When compared to the situation in the first century the modern word has more evidence of God available to it than people did at that time. The documentation of Jesus’ life and the Christian movement in its beginning, are better known today than in any previous time. Consider the statement by F. F. Bruce;

There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament”^[5]

With all the evidence supporting the existence of God, and the soundness of textual integrity related to Jesus the Son of God, the modern world is even more guilty of rejecting God and Jesus than those in the first century. Evidence is interpreted according to one’s belief. No one can prove God exists, despite the abundance of evidence. We believe God exists, and we believe he sent his Son into the world. Yes, there is evidence to back that up, but accepting God and Jesus is still a faith-based decision. Evolution and the non-existence of God are also faith-based beliefs, established on unknown events, accidents and great gaps in evidence.

 

Although evolutionary scientists will deny vehemently that their position is faith-based, it requires considerable adjustment to the “evidence test” to allow the evidences of evolution to be stated as fact. The evidence for evolution when ignoring glaring voids appears reasonable, but there is no way to replicate results. It takes a huge leap of faith to bridge the gaps which are plentiful in the evolutionary hypothesis. And, just because a bunch of scientists ignore the question of design in favour of an unfounded hypothesis, doesn’t make it fact –it is faith-based. When comparing faith-based evolution to faith-based creation, I will go with creation since basically, I have to believe in one unprovable element –God. Evolution on the other hand has to believe in numerous unknowns, and numerous unexplainable events. Unfortunately for evolutionists, life will end with a big bang rather than start with it.

 

If we apply the fourth point of Daubert’s test of scientific evidence, which is, “The extent of general acceptance by the scientific community,” to the discipline of religion, it would read, “The extent of general acceptance by the religious community,” obviously science has to agree that the evidence for the existence of God is sound. As far back as one can go in history people have believed in a supreme being. For over three thousand years Jews have accepted the existence of God. For almost two thousand years Christianity has existed in some form, both Jews and Christians recognize the evidence of God. There is no unchanged scientific theory that has been accepted by so many for such a long time. Scientific evidence is accepted when the scientific community agrees it is evidence. The evidence of design is accepted by people from every discipline, not just the religious community. Jews and Christians have for thousands of years acknowledged God as the designer and Creator.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"[6]

 

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.[7]

 

Empirical laws and scientific laws are often the same thing. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon," Peter Coppinger, associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, told Live Science. Empirical laws are scientific laws that can be proven or disproved using observations or experiments, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.[8]

 

Definition of empirical

1 originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2 relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

3 capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

4 of or relating to empiricism[9]

 

Note: “So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.”^[10] The evidence of God is therefore based on empirical law. God’s creation of the world can be tested in the same way as “the big bang theory”; as long as both theories are subjected to the same laws.

 

It is not surprising that definitions among scientists have become somewhat malleable. The term “general acceptance” applies to a group of scientist who for whatever reason agree with a theory. That group then claims to represent “true science” regarding its theory, at the same time denigrating and maligning scientists who do not get on board with the group’s proposal. In defense of their position “true scientists” blacklist scientists who do not agree with the group’s decision. It seems to me that the more fanatical the behavior of the group, the more unreliable its theory is bound to be. There are at this time two great fallacies parading under the banner of “true science”, evolutionary theories, and environmentalism. Evolution is a faith-based theory, there is no doubt about that. Environmentalism is an emotional movement based on a smattering of truth and an abundance of bad science. Doing what we can to alleviate pollution is wise, however, we are living the story of the king’s new clothes –somebody needs to tell the king he’s naked.  

…in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information.[11]

 

'Normal science' means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.[12] 

'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.[13]

Karl Popper in his quote provides the answer to why there are so many followers of evolution; most people are evolutionist, because it’s the ruling dogma of the day. It has nothing to do with evidence.

CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago

Top of FormIn a BBC article it is suggested that the universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years; that’s big. Considering that one light year is roughly ten trillion kilometers; that is really big! The universe according scientists is expanding. The more appropriate vastness of the universe should be written as the mathematical symbol for infinity. The order and precision of the universe enables scientists to research and predict with accuracy where a heavenly body will be in order to intersect with it at some future point. The laws which permit such calculations are fixed, they do not vary. Many scientists see precision and order as the result of a vast cosmic accident. There exists in the universe proof of constancy and predictability; Rather than leading back to a random event which changed chaos into order, observations and calculations point to design. Strange that people use the intricate design of the universe to conduct research, and yet deny the designer. For me, it’s simple, I believe that God exists and that he created the universe in which we live. God is responsible for the intricacies of the universe and wonders of the earth.  

 

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In the heavens he has set a tent for the sun…[14]

---

[1] Joh 1:6-14

[2] The Gospel of Saint John, Volume 1, William Barclay

[3] Act 3:24-26

[4] Mat 21:33-46, Luke 20::9-18

[5] Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell p. 50

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

[7] Common misconceptions about science: “Scientific proof”, Satoshi Kanazawa. Psychology Today

[8] Empirical Evidence: A Definition By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor

[9] Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[10] Empirical Evidence: A Definition By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor

[11] Empirical Evidence: A Definition By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor

[12] Thomas S. Kuhn

[13] Karl Raimund Popper

[14] Psa 19:1-4

Orthodoxy is Heresy

Through studies of historical records Bauer concluded that what came to be known as orthodoxy was just one of numerous forms of Christianity in the early centuries. It was the eventual form of Christianity practiced in the 4th century that influenced the development of orthodoxy and acquired the majority of converts over time. This was largely due to the conversion to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine 1 and consequently the greater resources available to the Christians in the eastern Roman empire capital he established (Constantinople). Practitioners of what became orthodoxy then rewrote the history of the conflict making it appear that this view had always been the majority one. Writings in support of other views were systematically destroyed.[1]

 

Bauer’s conclusions have been challenged by scholars holding to the traditional stance of mainstream Churches. Opposition to Bauer’s writing has been presented by a number of authors, as in the book The Heresy of Orthodoxy.

The authors of this book do more than expose the faults of this doctrine; they point the way to a better foundation for early Christian studies, focusing on the cornerstone issues of the canon and the text of the New Testament.[2]

One of the criticisms put forward is that Bauer used second century information. Bauer can’t be entirely wrong since evidence from the second century predates the orthodoxy of the fourth. From what has been written concerning Bauer’s postulation it is evident that those holding to “orthodoxy” are more than a little perturbed. With all the resulting study we have as one might expect a wide divergence of opinion.

Probably most scholars today think that Bauer underestimated the extent of proto-orthodoxy throughout the empire and overestimated the influence of the Roman church on the course of the conflicts. Even so, subsequent scholarship has tended to show even more problems with the Eusebian understanding of heresy and orthodoxy and has confirmed that, in their essentials, Bauer's intuitions were right. If anything, "early Christianity was even less tidy and more diversified than he realized."

As a result of this ongoing scholarship, it is widely thought today that protoorthodoxy was simply one of many competing interpretations of Christianity in the early church. It was neither a self-evident interpretation nor an original apostolic view. The apostles, for example, did not teach the Nicene Creed or anything like it. Indeed, as far back as we can trace it, Christianity was remarkably varied in its theological expressions.[3]

 

As some scholars have shown, accounts in the New Testament indicate differences and heresies. Paul warned the elders of Ephesus;

I know that after I have gone, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Some even from your own group will come distorting the truth in order to entice the disciples to follow them.[4]

Paul battled Judaizing teachers who enforce Jewish rites on Gentile Christians. Paul struggled with issues among the believers in Corinth. James spoke openly about the need to demonstrate faith by actions. Peter called for people to live holy lives. Much of what was written by authors of the New Testament was to either to combat division, or encourage people to live in accordance with the teaching of Jesus. Some of those who oppose Bauer speak of the “gospel” as though it were a compilation of regulations or doctrines. When Paul spoke of the gospel, or Peter referred to the gospel, neither spoke of a developed creed, but of the good news of salvation and the kingdom.

 

I don’t know that I agree with, or even understand all of Bauer’s proposal, but I believe that his presentation is more correct, than anything his opponents use against him. I have long believed that Constantine’s intrusion into Christianity was one of its darkest days. Constantine’s authority and money empowered heresy to become “orthodoxy”. That “orthodoxy” stifled truth, decimated opposition, and murdered believers. The Roman Church’s long corrupt and violent history bears more resemblance to the Roman Empire that anything to do with the kingdom of God. The near panic to discredit Bauer’s thesis is not unlike the “orthodox” persecution of Anabaptists and other Christian groups throughout history. The Roman Church depends on “orthodoxy” being in place with the apostles; without the existence of an authoritative regime popes are no more than imaginative figureheads. All modern Churches have succumbed to the lies of “history” as adjusted by the powerful organization brought into being by Constantine. The doctrine that “the Church” is founded on scripture is a foundational necessity of the Catholic Church. Following its cue all Churches accept that tradition of the Roman Church as being accurate with their modification.

 

Jesus did not establish an orthodox organization, he dealt with people. Jesus did not provide an orthodox creed, he taught people about God, salvation, and life in the kingdom. Jesus did not authorize a hierarchy of clergy superior to believers. That, he said was what pagans did. Jesus didn’t anoint Peter as his vicar on earth. That concept flies in the face of all Jesus taught.

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.[5]

 

The main point I take from Bauer and other scholars who suggest similar ideas is that, the organization of the Jesus movement was adjusted to suit the needs of the Roman Church, which vigorously and violently protected its structure and authority (politically assigned).

If a lie is only printed often enough, it becomes a quasi-truth, and if such a truth is repeated often enough, it becomes an article of belief, a dogma, and men will die for it.[6]

The notion that there was a New Testament Church is a fabrication of the Roman Catholic Church, yet gullibly, every Church since Constantine’s organization, has followed the same delusion. And, like all before them, modern Churches flock to the pages of scripture to secure “proof” of their particular version of the Catholic position. The Church is a New Testament invention, it cannot exist if the ancient scriptures are considered. The Greek Septuagint uses the same word translated Church in the New Testament, but never is it translated Church, it just wouldn’t fit! To the Catholic Church this is not a problem since with its usurped authority it decides what scripture says. Modern Churches not having that luxury must manipulate scripture to find support.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bauer

[2] The Heresy of Orthodoxy, ANDREAS J. KÖSTENBERGER AND MICHAEL J. KRUGER, acknowledgements

[3] Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman, p. 176

[4] Act 20:29, 30 

[5] Eph 2:19-22

[6] The Crown of a Life, by Isa Blagden p.155