Simple Truth: March 2013

I've changed the man's name to protect his privacy.

Email 1:

You spoke in your email about "authority," particularly as it relates to
solving disputes. In fact, in a separate email you said to me, "We're not
in the time of the disciples in the New Testament church where a theological
disagreement could be settled by an authority." You used the "church
council" recorded in Acts 15 to support your assertion.

First of all, I believe that you and I would accept as true the words of
Jesus recorded in Matt. 28:19: "All authority has been given to Me." And
you probably know that Jesus' hierarchy is pretty much upside-down (and
illogical even) when compared to the world's system of thinking concerning
authority ("least shall be the greatest"; "servant shall be the master").

Secondly, it is my interpretation that the Jerusalem "Council" described in
Acts 15 was not assembled for the purpose of determining theological truth,
as you seem to believe. Or that it had the "authority" to do so. If you
look at the beginning of chapter 15, you will notice that "some men" had
come from "Judea" and were causing a lot of "dissension and debate" among
the believers at Antioch. As a result, Paul and Barnabas went up to
Jerusalem to try and put a stop to this nonsense. One could almost
interpret Paul and Barnabas' visit to Jerusalem as a ministry of correction.
Didn't Paul one time later even stand up to Peter publicly and rebuke him
(Gal. 2:11)?

The apostles were clearly on a journey (as are you and me) in understanding
truth. These trouble-makers from Judea obviously got along well with their
fellow believers in Jerusalem. Pretty much every male Christian there was
circumcised, and the apostles had no problem with that being the standard.
In fact, it wasn't until Acts 15 that they even began to address this
"doctrine."

Let me digress with an interesting example that I've recently discovered in
the book of Acts concerning the apostles' journey into understanding. Do
you remember the story in which the apostles called out the first so-called
deacons? There were problems going on with serving the "widows" (apparently
racially motivated). The apostles said, "It is not desirable for us to
neglect the word of God in order to serve tables." Can't you see in this
that the apostles were already straying away from some of the truth? Didn't
Jesus Himself tell them before that He came to "serve tables" (see Luke
22:27)? The apostles were too busy now with "spiritual ministry" to "serve
tables."

My theory seems validated by what follows in Acts 7 and Acts 8. Who is the
central figure in Acts 7? Why, it's the "deacon" Stephen (you know, one of
those guys that "served tables"). God used him mightily in his martyrdom.
In Acts 8, we see Philip (another "deacon") being used by God to reach
people. In Acts 9, Paul becomes the central figure, and the rest of the
apostles kind of fade away (we do have a record of Peter finally "getting
it" about the Gentiles in Acts 10 & 11).

Back to the "Jerusalem Council," look at what James said: "Therefore it is
my judgment..." (15:19). He wasn't speaking from "authority" but sharing
his understanding (or opinion). Acts 15:22 tells us: "Then it seemed good
to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church..." "Seemed good"
doesn't sound like "authority" to me, Robert (this phrase is repeated in
verses 25 & 28). The purpose of their letter was to discount the teaching
of the "some men" who had been harassing the believers in Antioch. Yes,
they do lay down some "essentials," with the exhortation that "if you keep
yourselves free from such things, you will do well." The purpose of their
letter was encouragement (Acts 15:31) and not to establish dogmatic
authority, in my opinion.

Again, since "all authority has been given" to Jesus, I personally never saw
a need to look for another "authority" to solve disputes. I personally
believe that God is "okay" with us not having this need met. We each have
The Truth living in us. Let us all walk in that Truth. The other "truths"
will eventually take care of themselves, even if we don't totally "get it"
all in this life.

I want to respond more to this matter of God working through "institutions"
in a separate email.

Peace,

Bill

Email 2:

I just wanted to let you know that I do not share your apparently optimistic
view of human reason and logic. To me, it is primarily a function of the
natural mind, and can even result in the gospel being "foolishness" (1 Cor.
1:23) to some, not to mention anything of a spiritual nature (1 Cor. 2:14).
Ironically, compared to God's wisdom, our logic is foolishness! Plus, there
is the subjective side to "logic" and "reason." It is YOUR logic and YOUR
reason, filtered through your understanding of what is.

Having said that, let me share one of my "principles of logic" (I know, in
light of what I just wrote, this would appear to be "illogical"): A
misconception at one point carries further misconception throughout. In
other words, no matter how sound my arguments may seem, if I have anywhere
at an earlier point a wrong assumption, my argument is no longer sound. For
example, there are two boats leaving port, one for Japan and one for
Australia. I accidentally get on the boat to Australia, although I meant to
get on the boat to Japan. I could spend those days at sea, learning the
Japanese language, cooking Japanese food, and practicing the Japanese
culture. It won't matter, because I'll end up in Australia!

The misconception that I inferred from your email about Frank Viola's
article is this: Because God works through something, it means that He
approves of that thing. This I got from your defense of the institution.
But, as I read the Scriptures, I realize that this could be a misconception.
Israel demanded from God a king, even though that was not God's revealed
intention. In fact, He told Samuel that their desire for a king was a
rejection of Himself: "They have rejected Me from being king over them" (1
Sam. 8:7). And yet, God certainly did work through the monarchy, even
making David a type of Christ (although through the divided monarchy, most
tribes were lost, and in the remaining monarchy most rulers led the people
astray). Did God approve of the monarchy? NO. Did He work through it?
YES, somewhat.

Now to the institution that's called the "church." I have preached many
times what I understand the nature of the ekklesia to be, and I've made it
quite clear that it is NOT an institution. So, I don't want to do a lengthy
email about that subject right now. I just want to address what you said
about the institution, as it concerns the things you've seen God do through
it.

You wrote: "Now we believe this life [of Christ] was operating in the
church when our Bible was put together. We believe the church was operating
through the life of Christ when it described the 'trinity'." Who is the
"we" in these statements, Robert (because it doesn't include me)? Was it
the "life" of Christ that was operating when the Council of Constantine in
393 finally decided that the 27 books we now have in our Bible (previous
councils actually had different totals) to be the New Testament? Or was it
now that because Christianity had become an institution (actually it had
become the state religion of Rome), it needed its own Scriptures, just like
the institutions of the Old Covenant had theirs? In fact, we begin to see
the N.T. treated like the O.T. in that it became the new "book of rules and
religion."

For the record, the O.T. Scriptures were already "the Bible" in the times of
Jesus and the apostles. Because of the O.T. institution, there had been a
repository (the temple) for the scrolls that had been written. When Paul
wrote to Timothy that all Scripture is "God-breathed," he was referring to
the O.T., because that is all that they had. Yes, Peter likened Paul's
writings to the Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16). But did this mean that God wanted
all these letters and books compiled into a "Bible" to be used by an
institution to control its members? I think not.

The "doctrine" of the Trinity was affirmed at the Council of Nicaea in 325
A.D. Of course, this council didn't "make the Trinity" true (anymore than
the Constantine council made the N.T. "Scripture"), but simply codified for
us an understanding of this doctrine. Is not what we read in the N.T.
concerning the Godhead adequate? Did God intend for us to have a "doctrine"
to define that which is incomprehensible? To deny the truths of what the
doctrine teaches is obviously a denial of what the N.T. teaches, but is it
absolutely required of a believer to know of this doctrine in order to
function in the Life of Christ?

What I find interesting is how long God waited for these institutions to be
created. In 318 A.D., Christianity became the state religion, and became an
institution in the process. How did God work through the ekklesia prior to
this institutionalization? Was not the "Spirit of Truth" that indwelt every
believer adequate?

Back to the 1 Samuel story, I see a similar thing happened to the "church."
Other religions have hired holy men and hierarchies. Why can't we? Other
religions have temples, why can't we? Other religions have rules and
regulations, why can't we? It looks like they got what they wanted, doesn't
it? Didn't they in essence reject Jesus as their Shepherd, and replaced him
with a system?

It is my opinion that God did not approve of the institution (using the
analogy of Israel and the monarchy). Did He work through it? Yes,
somewhat.

At least that's what I think. Hopefully I will email some more thoughts
concerning other assertions you made in your email in the future.

Peace,

Bill

My Response:

We all tend to agree what the Bible "says" but cannot always agree on what it "means."

This is a problem because understanding it is what is important. It is interesting that most cults you run into use the same Bible as you and I. The one I met with in the Philippines used the exact same Bible and would quote passages from Zechariah, Romans, and Revelations in order to show that true salvation was receiving a literal white rock. In order to receive it, you went and saw Jesus who is living in the Philippines and has a cell phone. So the meaning of the truth is a necessary issue of importance, because without knowing the meaning then just having truth does little good.

Simple example: A man is swimming in the water and big shark swims up behind him about to eat him. Somebody sees the shark, grabs a poster board, and writes down, “Look out! There’s a shark behind you”. The person starts shouting at the man in the water; the man sees the sign and does nothing. Why? Cause the sign was written in Spanish and the man doesn’t speak Spanish. The truth of the sign was evident, but the understanding was lacking.

Jehovah’s Witnesses use essentially same Bible as we do (except substituting Jehovah a whole bunch of times) and they draw vastly different conclusions. Is it the truth of what the Bible “says” that is lacking or the interpretation and understanding that is different? It would appear that what it “means” is the difference, and this difference is the difference between salvation and damnation.

This Person of Truth, I believe, we can ALL agree on.

As far as you and me agreeing on Him, the obvious answer is “yes”. However, there are people that believe in the truth of the person of Jesus yet don’t draw the same conclusions about Him being God, being unchangeable, and being risen again. The understanding of Him never changing is a matter of “informational” truth. It was never personally revealed to me or you. This means our understanding is based on information rather than personal experience. I’ve never been brought into a special revelation where God showed me that He was immutable. Instead, I learned this reality through the understanding of His promises in scripture.

I have always believed that Jesus is God and that He is Man. I have always believed that He died for my sins and that He was raised on the third day. I have always believed that He was born of a virgin, and that He never sinned. I have always believed that He will return again at the "end of the age."

This is not true, Bill. You did not always believe these things. You learned them as part of your path in Christianity. These facts are stated in the Bible, yes, but again it was through interpretation that you came to learn them. I could explain the whole chain quite extensively to show how far it has to be informational knowledge, but I’ll simply start with a simple, almost childish, example. Do you read ancient Greek? Not that I know of. But even if you did you would not have learned it from somebody who was not alive at the time of Christ. In fact it would have been learned from somebody else who learned it from somebody else that didn’t live at the time, and that chain would stretch back thousands of years. So the words you read in the Bible come from and understanding and interpretation of somebody else. You didn’t read the original manuscripts, and perhaps you’ve never even seen them. It was not God who specifically revealed these things to you; it was instruction from others (in the most general sense in order to even have the words to read or the specific sense as somebody actually taught you). These were not self-evident truths of life. Even the Greek you read on the internet is still interpretation through information. You can only trust the truth of it as much you trust the expertise of the translator. So your knowledge of the written Word comes through the information of others. Though you used the resources available to you, it was not you who just received this specially. It was “informational” truth that taught you even the basics that you hold about the “Person of Truth”.

First of all, I believe that you and I would accept as true the words of Jesus recorded in Matt. 28:19: "All authority has been given to Me."

Though this is true, it does nothing for proving any point. The issue being discussed is whether Jesus has chosen to delegate that authority, which was the point of showing you before how that has been the traditional approach God has taken with His authority from the beginning of creation.

And you probably know that Jesus' hierarchy is pretty much upside-down (and illogical even) when compared to the world's system of thinking concerning authority ("least shall be the greatest"; "servant shall be the master").

This here is an error of interpretation. God does not establish something “illogical”. I think it’s easy to see the difference that Jesus is talking about here is a difference in attitude and function. This is not a lecture on the hierarchy of the church. Because if you take the approach you just did, then you are agreeing that Jesus did just establish a hierarchy. The only qualification now is that the one in charge should be the slave. Your interpretation as a physical hierarchy being upside down then leaves Jesus actually claiming one to be the greatest; it is just somebody that somebody else might not think is the greatest. So now Jesus has established a “greatest” and a “master” if He is referencing a physical hierarchy. So this argument folds in on itself.

Secondly, it is my interpretation that the Jerusalem "Council" described in Acts 15 was not assembled for the purpose of determining theological truth, as you seem to believe. Or that it had the "authority" to do so.

This is the whole point of debate in your email on authority. Why does your interpretation mean anything beyond my interpretation? Do you have more authority on scripture than I? If not then by what grounds do we validate this interpretation?

If you look at the beginning of chapter 15, you will notice that "some men" had come from "Judea" and were causing a lot of "dissension and debate" among the believers at Antioch. As a result, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to try and put a stop to this nonsense.

So, we could describe this as follows: “Some men” had bad “informational” truth that needed to be corrected so that others would not be lead astray by bad “informational” truth. In order to correct the bad “informational” truth they were brought before an authority that could determine whether the “informational” truth they had was correct or not.

One could almost interpret Paul and Barnabas' visit to Jerusalem as a ministry of correction.

One could also interpret it as a trip for validation. Look at Galatians 2:2 “It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run in vain.” It looks like Paul is actually submitting his message to the leaders in Jerusalem for approval of the truth. Meaning, he wants to make sure that he is indeed preaching the truth and has not wasted his time.

Didn't Paul one time later even stand up to Peter publicly and rebuke him(Gal. 2:11)?

Did Paul rebuke Peter’s doctrine or his life style? The passage clearly shows that Paul is rebuking Peter for not living in the truth of Peter’s own, acknowledged, belief.

In fact, it wasn't until Acts 15 that they even began to address this "doctrine."

Why discuss doctrine if it’s not important? I guess there really is no reason. They could have just let the people go along their way causing problems. But why were there problems in the first place? Was it fights and beating people up? Nope, it was an error in doctrine. The reason this became such an issue is because this error changes how one views God. The entirety of salvation and grace changes due to a bad “informational” truth about the role and purpose of circumcision. This is precisely why it was brought forward and handled. It wasn’t alright for bad doctrine to be taught.

Let me digress with an interesting example that I've recently discovered in the book of Acts concerning the apostles' journey into understanding. Do you remember the story in which the apostles called out the first so-called deacons? There were problems going on with serving the "widows" (apparently racially motivated). The apostles said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables." Can't you see in this that the apostles were already straying away from some of the truth? Didn't Jesus Himself tell them before that He came to "serve tables" (see Luke 22:27)? The apostles were too busy now with "spiritual ministry" to "serve tables."

I believe it would be quite difficult to get a looser and more misconstrued interpretation of this passage. There is no hint of this being a bad thing at all in the chapter. In order to draw this conclusion you had to reach far beyond what is written. Luke makes no mention of this being a bad thing. There is no contrast set up being what the disciples have done here and the following chapters. Taking this perspective is very dangerous. It assumes that we can’t even trust the disciples at this point. You make it seem like later Peter learns the truth, but what about all the others? It simply goes far beyond anything on the page and beyond any hint found elsewhere in the entire book of Acts. One would think that Luke would have highlighted it.

My theory seems validated by what follows in Acts 7 and Acts 8. Who is the central figure in Acts 7? Why, it's the "deacon" Stephen (you know, one of those guys that "served tables"). God used him mightily in his martyrdom. In Acts 8, we see Philip (another "deacon") being used by God to reach people. In Acts 9, Paul becomes the central figure, and the rest of the apostles kind of fade away (we do have a record of Peter finally "getting it" about the Gentiles in Acts 10 & 11).

Unfortunately these passages actually show nothing to validate your theory. It appears the only thing validated is that the theory had to be pulled from something not on the page. The story of Stephen and the story of Philip do nothing to establish that there was some kind of failure in the leadership of the Jerusalem church.

Back to the "Jerusalem Council," look at what James said: "Therefore it is my judgment..." (15:19). He wasn't speaking from "authority" but sharing his understanding (or opinion).

Actually, basic Greek shows that when the word used for “my” is combined with the word used for “judgment” it denotes authority. So it would appear that James is actually making an authoritative judgment rather than just casting an opinion. A number of studies are available that discuss the role of the apostles and James in the Jerusalem church. It is essentially unanimous that James was the leader of the church at the time. Even the setup of the council shows that. Peter speaks first, but James speaks last. This type of format at the time indicated the final word and authority on the matter. Studying Acts reveals that the only apostle never questioned is James. His judgment never has a rebuttal. When Peter is released from prison it’s the whole idea of go tell “James and the other brothers” (Acts 12:17), again, showing a prominence in the place among believers. There are other places as well (like Acts 21:18-23 as well), but overall your opinion here of a lack of authority contradicts 100’s of brilliant scholars and theologians over the course of time from Jesus to now. So in order to draw the conclusion of it being another opinion in the pot, it will take more effort on your behalf to show your opinion as valid. It is a readily accepted position that James was the authoritative leader of the church of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:22 tells us: "Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church..." "Seemed good" doesn't sound like "authority" to me, Robert (this phrase is repeated in verses 25 & 28).

This is an out of context interpretation. The verse reads, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. . .” Therefore, the subject has shifted from the dispute (because it was just settled by James’s judgment) to the choosing of men. So what “seemed good” was “[choosing] men . . . to send”. This is not a doctrinal decision and therefore would not require the authority that was just used.

The purpose of their letter was encouragement (Acts 15:31) and not to establish dogmatic authority, in my opinion.

It says that “When they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.” Why was it encouraging? Well, probably the biggest reason is because prior to receiving the bad doctrine that was being spread “disturbed [them]” and was “unsettling [their] souls” (Acts 15:24). Now that they had received the assured truth from the apostles there was peace to be found. It would indeed be encouraging to know that now one could stand firm without question in one’s soul about the truthfulness of the doctrines of their belief.

Again, since "all authority has been given" to Jesus, I personally never saw a need to look for another "authority" to solve disputes.

Not an entirely true claim here, Bill. Indeed you do look to other authorities. You read other people’s interpretations. You inquire into history. You are constantly researching. These are all authorities that you hope to validate your position. Even the “dispute” between us now, you are attempting to settle through your authority. If that was not the case then there wouldn’t even be a reason for you ever to speak again against somebody you disagree with. For disagreements are disputes. And if it takes your authority to settle it, then you’re not trusting in Jesus’ authority to settle the matter for them.

I just wanted to let you know that I do not share your apparently optimistic view of human reason and logic.

I view logic as an expression of God and as such a means with which one can love God in return. God is logical and rational, so logic and reason are tools with which one can serve God and experience Him. It was not through puffs of smoke or bones rolled in blood that God chose to reach His people. Instead He used logical and rational statements that could be understood. Moses wasn’t trying to read the signs, he was speaking with God. If I wrote to you “apple snake up 10100001” it would mean nothing because it is irrational. There are still shamans and “spiritual” people all across the world trying to understand their illogical “spirits.” This is because they don’t know the logical and rational God that you and I serve; the God who has programmed the laws of nature and science; the God who designed the rationale of the universe defined by mathematics; and the God who spoke understandable words in a logical pattern so that people would know what He says.

Ironically, compared to God's wisdom, our logic is foolishness!

That’s like saying, compared to God [insert beautiful woman’s name here] is ugly. It’s irrelevant.

Plus, there is the subjective side to "logic" and "reason." It is YOUR logic and YOUR reason, filtered through your understanding of what is.

This is a false statement and an error in understanding of logic. The reason logic is so powerful is due precisely to it not being subjective. If it was subjective then there is no reason for you to try and present logical arguments to me because I could blow it off as illogical. However, when you present logical arguments I’m forced to look at them and investigate if they truly are logical indeed. What you do in return is try to investigate the logical arguments I present to see if you find error in them. That means that logic is actually a standard by which we can measure the believability of what either you or I argue. If it is subjective then it’s relative and if it’s relative then it can’t offer any kind of standard to compare to.

Your whole point about the boats is precisely a rule of logic. An argument based on false claims is false, even if parts of it are true. Jesus made a good example of the house on rock and the house on sand. Both are houses, but the one with the weak foundation can’t stand for long.

The misconception that I inferred from your email about Frank Viola's article is this: Because God works through something, it means that He approves of that thing.

This is a misconception on your behalf actually. What I inferred was that God chooses to work through the church because that is what He wants. So it’s not the reverse argument you expressed. However, the argument you expressed could be held to your position on the “organic church.” Just because God does work through it, it doesn’t mean He approves of it. Since two thousand years of understanding contradicts your conclusion of God actually not wanting the “institution” then the burden is on you to offer proof that God is not working through the “organic church” even though it’s contrary to His desire. Jesus never once bashed the institution; he attacked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. Read through and you never find God attacking the institution, but rather people ignoring it and perverting it. The problem was not the institution but rather sinful people. Since that is the problem, your “organic church” cannot escape the issue because it still has people.

But, as I read the Scriptures, I realize that this could be a misconception. Israel demanded from God a king, even though that was not God's revealed intention. In fact, He told Samuel that their desire for a king was a rejection of Himself: "They have rejected Me from being king over them" (1 Sam. 8:7). And yet, God certainly did work through the monarchy, even making David a type of Christ (although through the divided monarchy, most tribes were lost, and in the remaining monarchy most rulers led the people
astray).

The problem with this argument is that it does nothing to handle to the church. Hundreds of years before this God had established the tabernacle with Moses (Exodus 25). God actually created the design of the arc of the covenant that was to be held inside. The priesthood was established back at Moses and Aaron (Exodus 28:37-43), not at the time of David. After Joshua conquers the land, God again establishes priests through the line of Levi (Joshua 18:7). The entire structure of the building of the temple to the authoritative structure (including the settling of disputes) is all established by God. Even when God directly led the Israelites in the dessert, He had a function of the tabernacle that was quite strict. So, the whole idea of the king and God’s desire was simply a continuation of the intimate leading of God as he led the exodus from Egypt. This however does not change the establishment of the church in anyway. We actually see that God had every intention of keeping the institution of the church until the time of Jesus directly (Galatians 3:24-25). Meaning the Jews weren’t getting out of the rules of sacrifice and the practices of worship before Jesus arrived. Jesus was to be the fulfillment of those laws, which were established by God.

Did God approve of the monarchy? NO. Did He work through it? YES, somewhat.

This has to be the biggest understatement of the year. God worked through it “somewhat”? He brought about the entire salvation of mankind through it. Through prostitutes and through kings, God brought about the greatest thing ever to happen to humanity and that’s “somewhat” working through it? That’s quite the understatement.

You wrote: "Now we believe this life [of Christ] was operating in the church when our Bible was put together. We believe the church was operating through the life of Christ when it described the 'trinity'." Who is the "we" in these statements, Robert (because it doesn't include me)? Was it the "life" of Christ that was operating when the Council of Constantine in 393 finally decided that the 27 books we now have in our Bible (previous councils actually had different totals) to be the New Testament? Or was it now that because Christianity had become an institution (actually it had become the state religion of Rome), it needed its own Scriptures, just like the institutions of the Old Covenant had theirs?

This is a disturbing line of thought, Bill, due to the dangers it presents. Essentially you have just expressed thoughts that could be heretical. As if the Bible was created as a means to have a book. I can’t even go into the rest of the dangers of this line of thought or the complete error in it, because I don’t even know where to begin. The only thing I can say is, if the Bible was indeed formed to create another book then why do you trust the words, quote them, and use them as a means to your salvation? How come you trust the four gospels in our “institutionalized book” and not the other 28 gospels available? Why argue Acts if you don’t even know if it’s just something the “institution” threw in there or if it is indeed God inspired? What you wrote in this paragraph concerns me more than anything else you have written. It completely removes any value from your quotations of scripture since the scripture you are quoting from is actually just a book to fit the need of a state religion. You could claim you still believe in the authenticity of the Bible, but this is foundational impossible to hold without accepting the truth of the council. Because you did not find any of these books on your own and did not determine the authenticity of them yourself, you stand reading from a Bible that was deemed authentic and therefore persisted through the years. You now read that Bible and say that the book is right but the men were wrong. It’s simply illogical and an unsustainable belief. It’s like saying you read the Bible to learn you don’t need the Bible; it’s irrational.

But did this mean that God wanted all these letters and books compiled into a "Bible" to be used by an
institution to control its members? I think not.

No, they are to be used by the institution to share God’s words. Controlling people isn’t the role of the institution, but guarding the truth. This often is mistaken for control though. When people try to preserve something they have to prevent something else. So when the church tries to preserve the truth of God’s word it must prevent errors from being presented. I understand that abuses do happen in the church due to humanity. But if they are possible in the institutional church then they are just as viable in the “organic church”, so you actually escape and prevent nothing.

What I find interesting is how long God waited for these institutions to be created. In 318 A.D., Christianity became the state religion, and became an institution in the process. How did God work through the ekklesia prior to this institutionalization? Was not the "Spirit of Truth" that indwelt every
believer adequate?

This is historical error. There indeed was a church before Constantine ever did his work. History records Ignacious of Antioch being appointed bishop of Antioch by Peter himself. There was a house chapel in Pompeii found with a cross as part of the chapel. This is interesting because Pompeii was destroyed by A.D. 79. It seems the mark of the cross was used to mark the graves of Christians right after the death of Christ. Cemeteries have revealed that around A.D. 33 Christians began using specific burial grounds marking the graves with crosses. A thing such as people doing the sign of the cross on their bodies, specifically on their foreheads is recorded by Tertullian, who was born in A.D. 160. All of this points to a much more organized and formal church hundreds of years before Constantine arrived on the scene.

This is a good list of Church father and books: Didache (AD 100), Epistle of Barnabas (AD 120), Ignatius (AD 105), The Epistle to Diognetus (AD 150), Justin Martyr (AD 150), Clement of Alexandria (AD 195), Origen (AD 248), Tertullian (AD 197), Victorinus (AD 280), Anatolius (AD 270), and Peter of Alexandria (AD 310).

These all show something stunning. They show an organized religion that met on Sundays and took part in the Eucharist. Some of these even express that the message was liturgical with speaking and echoing from the crowd. Now, I’m not defending Catholicism but rather showing that you mistakenly gave Constantine credit for something, which many people who don’t study history thoroughly, do.

Other religions have hired holy men and hierarchies. Why can't we? Other religions have temples, why can't we? Other religions have rules and regulations, why can't we? It looks like they got what they wanted, doesn't it? Didn't they in essence reject Jesus as their Shepherd, and replaced him
with a system?

The answer to the question at the end is “no”. This idea of “why can’t we?” is actually distorted. The priesthood was God’s design and His ordained order. The temple was God’s design. The rules and regulations were God’s design (10 commandments and the rules of sacrifice, forgiveness of sins, even down to the roofs on houses were God’s). So accrediting these things to the desires of the Jews is simply a fallacy.

It is my opinion that God did not approve of the institution (using the analogy of Israel and the monarchy). Did He work through it? Yes, somewhat.

It is my opinion that this conclusion is the end result of an argument based on things taken out of context, questioning of the purpose of scriptures, and a rebellion against authority.

I could go into all the things about the essentials of doctrine and how it is needed in order to have any belief. I could go into the whole idea that most my points about the errors in Frank Viola’s article weren’t even addressed. However, I felt that these three email s were so full of errors that I needed to focus on those more than other things. Much of the reasoning has led to some very dangerous thinking. It is these dangers that scare me and make me feel compelled to expose the fallacious thinking rather than address those things which were lacking from your rebuttal to my review of Viola’s article.

Top Nav

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Bad Argument, Good Strategy: The Success of Liberalism in America

Saturday, March 30, 2013

I’m not gay, but some people I love are. Yet I still do NOT support same sex marriage!

A couple of emails of a debate from 3 years ago on church authority.

Email 1:

Email 2:

My Response: