Faith Baptist Adult Sunday School

test

2006-04-24T06:15:00.003-07:00

test

2006-04-24T06:15:00.002-07:00

test

2006-04-24T06:15:00.001-07:00

test

2006-04-24T06:15:00.000-07:00

test

Lesson 28: The Anabaptists

2005-09-15T05:33:00.000-07:00

The Anabaptist movement began in 1525 at Zürich, as the radical wing of the Swiss Reformation which had begun there under Zwingli. Zwingli did not go far enough, they believed, and so George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz began to agitate for additional reform, including believer's baptism and a "gathered" or "pure" church, i.e. a church where members were there because they truly believed and been baptized, not because of state intervention or mandatory church attendance.

This more radical movement soon got beyond control, and some of its leaders were put to death, and others with their followers were banished.

In January 1525, a public debate was held in Zurich, with Zwingli and his colleague Bullinger facing Grebel and his friends, Manz, Reublin, and Blaurock. The radicals defended their views, denying that infant baptism had any sanction in the Scriptures. The city council ruled in favor of Zwingli and infant baptism.

Meetings of the Anabaptists were forbidden, and parents were ordered to have their infants baptized within eight days if they had not already done so, on pain of expulsion from the city. The response came on January 21 when Grebel, a layman, baptized Blaurock, an ordained priest. Hitherto the Anabaptists had openly opposed infant baptism; now by this fateful step, introduced the practice of believer's baptism.

The Anabaptists also pushed for communism. Its following, recruited especially from the working classes, became considerable, not only in Switzerland, but also in southern Germany and Austria. The Anabaptists' teaching added substantially to the causes of the Peasants' War which broke out (1524) in the very territory where the Anabaptists were influential. At first a revolt against feudal oppression, the Peasants' War became, under the leadership of Muentzer (an Anabaptist leader), a war against all constituted authorities, and an attempt to establish by revolution a utopia, with absolute equality and the community of goods. The defeat of the peasants meant, to a great extent, the dispersion of the Anabaptists. Additionally, some town councils, such as that of Zürich (1526) decreed the severest penalties against their adherents. Still in spite of defeat and constant repression, the Anabaptists thrived and spread across the continent.

The movement seemed somehow to answer a strong religious and social demand, and in spite of persecutions, and of an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 that every Anabaptist should be put to death, it continued to spread. Anabaptists embraced a wide variety of teachings, differing according to their leader or the locality; but the one thing which was common to them all, and which seemed most sharply to distinguish them from other Protestants, was their objection to infant baptism, and their insistence that adult Christians who had been baptized in infancy should be baptized again.

Their interest in the question of baptism was not their primary motivation. Their first concern was in the establishment of a "pure Church", consisting only of true Christians, reformed from the ground up by its strict adherence in every particular to the teachings of Scripture, which they accepted literally and tried faithfully to follow. Thus they believed that followers of Christ should not resist evil, nor bear arms, nor own private property, nor hold civil office, nor resort to law courts, nor take oaths; and their movement was largely a lay movement. In these respects they resembled the Quakers. In fact, the Quakers of England were influenced by their teaching and example. They also believed in separation of Church and State, and stood firmly for freedom of conscience and against religious persecution. In their view of religious knowledge they were mystics, holding that God makes his truth and will known to the souls of men directly, and they relied much upon the guidance of the Spirit.

The Five Points of the Anabaptists

Sola Scriptura—Anabaptists were sometimes more consistent than the other Reformers in their insistence on biblical authority for certain practices in matters of church polity and worship.
Separation of Church and State—Anabaptists saw the church as the assembly of the redeemed, antithetical to the world. For this reason they advocated separation of church and state.
Freedom of Conscience—because of the Anabaptists' convictions about the role of the secular state, they believed that the ultimate remedy for heresy was excommunication, not execution. They steadfastly opposed the persecution that was so characteristic of their age. They denied that the state had a right to punish or execute anyone for religious beliefs or teachings. This was a revolutionary notion in the Reformation era.
Believers' Baptism—The Anabaptists saw no biblical support for infant baptism. (Not all anabaptists made an issue of the mode of baptism, and some practiced sprinkling.)
Holiness of Life—Anabaptists emphasized the spiritual experience, practical righteousness, and obedience to divine standards. They had no tolerance for those who claimed to be justified by faith while living unfaithful lives. Anabaptists pointed out that Scripture says, "Faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:20). In this regard they were in agreement with the other Protestants. We recall that, in equation form, their collective differences from Rome can be expressed:

Rome: Faith + Works → Salvation

Protestants: Faith → Salvation + Works

The Anabaptists in relation to other Reformers

In the issue of how conservative the various reformation churches are generally breaks down this way: The Lutherans were the most conservative (meaning they deviated from Rome the least), the Anabaptists were the most radical, and the Calvinists in the middle.

Both the Lutherans and the Calvinists preserved the church-state liaison. This liaison was taboo with the Anabaptists, and caused a severe strain, especially with Zwingli who, as we noted earlier, not only depended on the state for financial support of his church but also viewed the militia as something of an arm of the church. Since the Catholics, the Lutherans, and the Calvinists all depended on the church-state liaison, the Anabaptist's insistence on the separation of church and state resulted in tensions with all other groups.

The conservative vs. radical label certainly applies to baptism. The Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists all preserved infant baptism, which they believe was the practice of the early church and also the biblical teaching. The Anabaptists, of course, disagreed. From their perspective we have the following:

Now the Anabaptists rejected out-of-hand (as did the Calvinists) that infants were regenerated. The Catholics and Lutherans held to baptismal regeneration (although somewhat different versions.) As such, it made sense that Catholics and Lutherans treated children as Christians.

Calvinists, on the other hand, were a bit of an enigma to the Anabaptists. At this time, it is useful to go into some detail about the positions of the Calvinists and the Baptists.

The Westminster Confession (1646), which can be considered the creed of the Calvinists, says this about baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

While the London Baptist Confession (1689), which adopted most of the text of the Westminster Confession, modified the chapter on Baptism, to read:

Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

The Anabaptists applauded the Calvinist rejection of baptismal regeneration, but still believed that the Calvinists were in grave error in baptizing infants. They worried that the Calvinists would inevitably slip into the more serious error of regarding the baptized children as Christians, even as they denied baptismal regeneration. The danger, according to the Anabaptists, was that evangelizing of the children would suffer—their conversion would not be "worked for" by their parents. Even worse, you would soon reach a state Christianity in say, Switzerland, when everyone had been baptized as an infant—that is you would reach a point where you had a nation of alleged Christians.

Calvinists have indeed had a tendency to make this mistake, of assuming the children Christians (as opposed to treating them as if they were Christian, which is something altogether different) and should thank the Anabaptists for their warning and heed their advice to diligently evangelize their own children. Children need to be made aware of there inherent lost position, rather than a presumed position of being converted.

Persecution of the Anabaptists

The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Reformation Anabaptists. Felix Manz became the first martyr in 1527. On May 20, 1527, Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism". This sickening joke—that drowning was appropriate for those who promoted immersion, is one of the sorriest chapters of Christian history.

The Anabaptism call for moderate living and wealth distribution also resulted in persecution. It has been said that a "16th century man who did not drink to excess, curse, or abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and thus persecuted." Some estimates are that thousands died in Europe in the sixteenth century.

The long line of the "true" church

God has always had a proper path for his children, so it is indisputable that there is a line from which, in a perfect world, the church would not stray.

In Old Testament times, Israel repeatedly strayed from the line, and God would lovingly bring them back, working through His prophets and supernatural intervention. This ended climactically in AD 70, when the Jewish age came to an end and temple worship ceased.

Mankind was "restored" back to the line by The New Testament church, as established through Christ by Peter, Paul, James and the other apostles. It wasn't long, however, until the New Testament church also wandered. We see this in the Roman Catholic Church both in her denial of the biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, as well as in her insistence on extra-biblical doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So the Reformation, as an outpouring of God's grace and providence, pulled Christendom back to the "true" line. Yet differences developed, and so even among the Protestants and least some, if not all, were teaching some false doctrines.

The hope was, of course, that on the essentials the Protestants could maintain unanimity. On reality, this proved to be a false hope.

In one area in particular, the Calvinists, who were the closest to the Anabaptists, nevertheless believed that the Anabaptists were the cause of the separation. It wasn't on the issue of baptism, but the Anabaptist doctrine of the pure church.

A "pure church" is one in which all members are true, believing Christians. This is, of course, a noble and worthy aim. But it should be regarded as a lofty yet unattainable goal. Why? Because as Augustine pointed out, it is not biblical to assume that this goal can ever be achieved. He taught of the visible and invisible church, and that in the visible church there would always be imposters:

²⁴Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. ²⁵But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. ²⁶When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. ²⁷"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' ²⁸" 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' ²⁹" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. ³⁰Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " (Matt. 13:24-30)

The parable of the weeds (and Christ's subsequent explanation) confirms that scripture tells us that at the end of history the visible church will contain both sons of God and sons of the devil. This is analogous to an individual's process of sanctification: while it is noble and proper and commanded that we imitate Christ, it is also just as certain and very unbiblical to assume than any human will reach that level of perfection. The apostle Paul, whom any Christian would hold up as the very model of how we should live, still spoke of constantly striving to perfect his own faith. Likewise, while the church should strive for purity, it is not only naïve to teach that it is possible for success, but also unbiblical.

In one way, the Anabaptists held to a rather Roman sounding belief in apostolic succession. In this sense, they were not reformers at all.

Apostolic succession

This is the theory that the Anabaptists were part of an apostolic succession of churches (or church perpetuity) from the time of Christ. That is, there had been a continuity of small groups completely outside the Catholic Church from New Testament times up to 1525, which continues on to today. Proponents of this view point out many common expressions of belief in these Catholic dissenters. The opponents of this theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups differed from each other, that they held some heretical views, and/or that they had no connection with one another. This view is held by some Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.

Justification by Faith Alone

Sadly, some of the Anabaptists in many cases rejected the Reformed understanding of justification by faith alone. They denied the forensic nature of justification as explained by Luther and insisted that the only ground on which sinners can be acceptable to God is a "real" righteousness wrought within the justified person.

"Menno [Simons], and Anabaptists generally, did not accept Luther's forensic doctrine of justification by faith alone because they saw it as an impediment to the true doctrine of a 'lively' faith which issues in holy living." [Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman, 1988), 269].

Perhaps it is fair to note that the Anabaptists thought they detected a tendency toward antinomianism in the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone. That was what they argued against. But in doing so they undermined the very foundation of the biblical doctrine of justification. They left people to try to devise a righteousness of their own derived from the law, rather than trusting the perfect righteousness of Christ which God imputes to those who believe (cf. Phil. 3:9; Rom. 4:5-6).

Anabaptist Heritage

Not just modern Baptists are the descendants of the Anabaptists. Several existing denominational bodies may be legitimately regarded as the successors of the Continental Anabaptists — Amish, Baptists, Brethren, Hutterites, Mennonites, Bruderhof Communities and Quakers. Some writers prefer to distinguish institutionally lineal descendants (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) and spiritual descendants (Baptists, Brethren, Bruderhof, and Quakers). Nevertheless, some historical connections have been demonstrated for all three of these spiritual descendants, though perhaps not as clearly as the notable institutionally lineal descendants. However, although many see the more well known Anabaptist groups (Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites) as ethnic groups, the Anabaptist bodies of today are largely not ethnically descended from the Continental Anabaptists. According to the Mennonite World Conference (MWC), "Today, close to 1,300,000 believers belong to this faith family; at least 60 percent are African, Asian, or Latin American."

Other legacies of the Anabaptists include:

Freedom of religion
Priesthood of the believer
Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
Ordinances, not sacraments

All those who hold the idea of a free church and freedom of religion (separation of church and state) are greatly indebted to the Anabaptists. When it was introduced by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was a radical idea, and unthinkable to both clerical and governmental leaders. Religious liberty was equated with anarchy.

Lesson 27 John Calvin (1509-1564)

2005-09-15T05:28:00.000-07:00

John Calvin was the greatest of Protestant divines, and, after Augustine, the most perseveringly followed by his disciples of any Western writer on theology. He was born at Noyon in Picardy, France, 10 July, 1509, and died at Geneva, 27 May, 1564.

Although the three great reformers are usually identified as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, John Calvin was really a second generation reformer. He never met Martin Luther and was, by his own reckoning, converted not long before Zwingli's death. By birth, education, and temper Luther and Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, were very different. Luther was a Saxon peasant, his father a miner; Calvin, like Luther in that he was born a Roman Catholic, sprang from the French middle-class. His father was an attorney in Noyon, where he practiced civil and canon law and served as the secretary to the Catholic Bishop. Luther entered an Augustinian monastery, took a monk's vows, was made a priest and ended up marrying a nun. Calvin never was ordained in the Catholic Church; his training was chiefly in law and the humanities; he took no vows and ended up marrying a Baptist. Luther's eloquence made him popular by its force, humor, rudeness, and vulgar style (once boasting about Rome's constant scrutiny of his every move that "If I break
wind in Wittenberg they smell it in Rome." Calvin spoke to the learned at all times, even when preaching before multitudes. His manner is classical; he uses the weapons of a deadly logic and persuades by a teacher's authority. He wrote French as well as Luther wrote German, and like him has been reckoned a pioneer in the modern development of his native tongue.

According to Philip Melancthon, John Calvin was "the theologian of the reformation." This in spite of the fact that Calvin, as a monergist and a predestinarian, who would argue that we had no more to do with our second birth than our first, was in direct opposition to Melancthon's synergistic view of regeneration. Interestingly, Melancthon and Calvin seemed to genuine affection for one another.

Some trivia: Calvin from the famous comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, was named after John Calvin. It is thought that this reflects the young male character's belief in predestination (as justification for his behavior). His stuffed tiger Hobbes gets his name from philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who held a dim view of human nature.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

In 1536 the near reformer Erasmus died. In Belgium, the English martyr William Tyndale was strangled and burned for translating the bible into English. And in Geneva, twenty-six John Calvin released the first edition of his systematic The Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is acclaimed by many as the greatest theological work (uninspired by the Holy Spirit) of all time. A few years earlier Calvin had been awakened by the Lutheran movement. The Protestants were under persecution in France, and interestingly enough Calvin dedicated Institutes to Francis I, King of France, attempting to explain to his king that his theology was not an innovation, and certainly not a heresy, but a return to classic, biblical Christianity. He also implored the king to take action to restrain the persecutions.

Calvin would make this point over and over: the Reformers were not heretics, and the reformation was actually a restoration of the ancient and forgotten beliefs of the early church. It was the Roman Church that, especially during the medieval period, had drifted into apostasy and heresy.

Like Luther, Calvin was greatly influenced by Augustine and quotes him liberally in his writings. However, Calvin did not view Augustine as inerrant, and considered his views on baptism to be in grave error. Whereas Augustine believed that unbaptized babies who died were bound for hell, Calvin was in the opposite extreme, believing that the newborns of believers were of the elect and perhaps even Christians, and should be withheld from the Lord's Supper only because they could not discern the body of Christ.

Luther and Calvin were in complete agreement on every important theological matter apart from one: the interpretation of the Lord's Supper. Calvin was a Lutheran, and Luther was a Calvinist.

Calvin is established in Geneva

After many vicissitudes, and avoiding persecution, Calvin ended up in Geneva. From 1536 to 1538 Calvin had great authority there. This was his first attempt at reform, but he pushed the reform too quickly. The city council banished Calvin and fellow reformer and friend, William Farel. The two went to Strasburg for three years were he preached at a Huguenot church. This was undoubtedly a great time of discouragement for Calvin. He later returns, solidifying his position in the city. He died triumphant in peace in 1654, just as the Council of Trent was ending.

In 1540, in Strasburg, he befriended John Storder and his wife Idelette de Bure. The two were Anabaptists and part of a community of French refugees. They attended as many of Calvin's sermons and lectures that they could. They invited Calvin to their home and warm friendship developed.
Calvin worked endlessly: he took his pastoral duties seriously; he lectured at the University; he enlarged his Institutes from six chapters to seventeen and saw it published. As a disputant, with his clear vision and sound theology as well as his ability to present arguments, he was chosen as deputy for Strasburg in several conferences which strove for political and ecclesiastical unity. In each case the result was a stalemate. The only pleasure Calvin got from the first conference was a meeting with Philip Melancthon, a great joy to both men of God.

The hospitality of the Storders must have been very welcome to him, though he never spoke about money. He loved to think of them, as they styled themselves, his disciples, and he on his side admired their knowledge and love of the truth and 'the simplicity and sanctity of their lives'.

There were but two years of this happy friendship before sorrow came when John Storder fell ill and quickly died from the plague.

Calvin's friends thought he ought to marry and have a home of his own. He wrote to a friend that he would like a wife, specifying: 'The only kind of beauty which can win my soul is a woman who is chaste, not fastidious, economical, patient, and who is likely to interest herself in my health' And that, 'If she answers her reputation she will bring, in personal good qualities, a dowry large enough without any money at all.' It appears as that it was his friends who suggested to him, 'What about Idelette?' and his eyes opened to see her worth. She was about his own age, comely, kindly, and very intelligent. Suddenly he began to court her, and in a very few months married her.

They had not been married more than six months when the first of three pressing invitations came to him to return to Geneva. On September 13, 1531, amid great rejoicing and enthusiastic ovation, Calvin entered Geneva a second time. In this ordeal, God worked a tragedy into a blessing, creating a situation in which the people of Geneva welcomed Calvin and his reform.

Idelette greatly helped Calvin, and when she died 1549 he was devastated. At that point, according to his own words, he threw himself into his work. He wrote a detailed commentary on every bible book except Revelation, which he found to be impenetrable.

Arminius, the originator of a theology opposed to that of Calvin's system, gave an unbiased opinion of Calvin's works, saying:

"Next to the study of the Scriptures, I exhort my pupils to pursue Calvin's commentaries."

It is easy to see the wonderful providence of God in bringing John Calvin back to Geneva. This free and independent city with its democratic institutions was at that time, of all the places in the world, the most admirably fitted to be the scene of the great reformatory labors of Calvin. The great Scottish reformer John Knox would call Geneva under John Calvin the most Christian city in history.

Upon his return to Geneva, Calvin drew up a Church Order, a set of rules for governing of the church. It was based upon the teaching of Scripture that Christ has ordained four offices in the church: pastors, teachers or professors, elders, and deacons. The cornerstone of Calvin's form of church government was the office of elder. Pastors were to preach and to exhort the people. Elders were men of unusual spiritual insight who supervised the people, and visited and assisted the pastors. Deacons were general servers. Through this type of government, based on the Bible, Calvin was able to instruct and discipline the people spiritually.

Calvin labored to set forth a theocracy that would be an example of Christian life and government, and also be a citadel of evangelical truth that would conquer the power of Rome in all other lands.

Calvin put great emphasis upon Christian education. He knew that the Reformation would only be effective as people knew and obeyed God's Word. He devised a catechetical system for the young which was carried all over Europe.

Calvin's view on baptism is brought to light considering his own baptism and that of his wife.

Calvin believed that he was converted in his early twenties, upon hearing the theology arising from the Lutheran Reformation. He had been a lifelong Catholic.
As a Catholic, he had been baptized by sprinkling at infancy.
Although not a believer until his twenties, he viewed his and all baptisms as a sign of the sealing by the Holy Spirit. No matter that it took over too decades before he was illuminated—his baptism as a Catholic was legitimate. He did get baptized again.
His wife had been baptized by immersion as an Anabaptist. After she and her former husband became disciples of John Calvin, she was not baptized again. Her baptism, like his own, was considered legitimate.
Calvin's first born son was baptized as an infant. His other children died in infancy, before they were baptized.

The Burning of Servetus

The one event in Calvin's life that has cast a shadow over his name, and which has left him charged of intolerance and persecution is the burning of the heretic Servetus.

Servetus, who some believe was castrated at age five, was a Spaniard who opposed Christianity, both in its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms. He denied the Trinity and was the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century. He opposed the teaching of justification by faith and infant baptism. He was religious and superstitious, but not Christian—more of an astrologist.

Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienna, France. Before he came to Geneva, he corresponded with Calvin, and Calvin did all he could to help this man see the truth of Christianity, but with no success. Servetus regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism whom he was determined to convert or overthrow. When Servetus first came to Geneva, he tried to align himself with the liberal city council that was somewhat opposed to Calvin. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved punishment. Servetus actions were in one sense sedition — because in a theocracy there is a mixture of state and church, his attempt to overthrow the church was an attempt to overthrow the government of Geneva. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial.

Calvin and other pastors in Geneva spent days with Servetus, trying to help him to see the error of his way, but Servetus was as hard as stone. He was convinced that the liberal council would throw Calvin out and let him out of jail.

The trial of Servetus was left to the civil court, which charged him with fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. The city council at this point was not favorable to Calvin. The libertines hoped to use the Servetus situation as a means of getting Calvin expelled from Geneva. The court's decision was:

"Inasmuch as you, Michael Servetus of Villanueva in the Spanish kingdom of Aragon, have been accused of terrible blasphemies against the holy Trinity, against the Son of God and other principles of the Christian faith, whereas you have called the Trinity a devil and a monster with three heads, whereas you went about to destroy poor souls by your horrifying mockery of the honor and majesty of God, too wicked to be mentioned, whereas refusing to be taught in any way, you called Christian atheists and magicians, whereas, whereas, whereas . . .

"We, the mayor and judges of this city, having been called to the duty of preserving the church of God from schism and seduction, and to free Christians of such pestilence, decree that you, Michael Servetus, be led to the place of Champel and be bound to a stake and with your book be burned to ashes, a warning to all who blaspheme God."

The verdict was "guilty," and the sentence punishment by fire. Calvin, agreeing that Servetus should be put to death, opposed the state's method of execution and pleaded for the sword to be substituted for the fire. The council refused Calvin's request. The final responsibility for the burning rested with the city council, not Calvin.

Had Servetus been executed in any other way than by fire, his death would have passed almost unnoticed. It should be remembered that Servetus was, at one time, captured by the Inquisition. Had he not made good his escape, he likely would have been executed by the Catholic Church rather than the City Council of Geneva.

Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics

anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death. (Lev. 24:16).

Calvin also felt himself providentially called to purify the church of all corruptions, and to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct toward Servetus.
We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards. We must remember that Servetus was given a fair court trial, which lasted over two months, and that he was sentenced by the full session of the civil council in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom.

It should be noted that no Catholic or Anabaptist was ever executed in Geneva for the sake of his religious conviction.

Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Reformers of the time. Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Besa all felt that Calvin and Geneva dealt fairly with Servetus. The city council sought the advice of the other cities in Switzerland as to the fate of Servetus and received the following answers:

From Zwingli's city: "No severity is too great to punish such an offense. Our preachers are in total agreement with what Calvin thinks of his doctrine."

From Schaffhausen: "Stop the evil, other-wise his blasphemies, like a crawfish, will eat away the members of Christ!"

From Basel: "Do what lies in your power to convince him of his error. If he persists in his folly, then use the power which is entrusted to you by God to prevent him by force from any further injury to the Church of Christ."

Even Melanchthon stated to Calvin in a letter, "I have read your book in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus . . . To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man."

Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with modern ideas.

When Servetus was informed of the decision of the council, he was stunned at first, and then began to rant and rave like a mad man. Again, Calvin went to Servetus, hoping to lead him to Christ, and said to him:

"Believe me, never did I have the intention to prosecute you because of some offense against me. Do you remember," he spoke now with a tender voice and not in a tone of reproach, "how, in danger of death, I wanted to meet you in Paris sixteen years ago in order to win you to our Lord? And afterwards when you were a fugitive was I not concerned to show you the right way in letters until you began to hate me because you were offended by my firmness? But let's not talk about me, nor of the past! Are you thinking of asking forgiveness of the everlasting God whom you have blasphemed on so many occasions? Are you thinking of being reconciled to the Son of God?"

Servetus became quite serious and humble as he faced the certainty of death. He asked Calvin to forgive him, and perhaps he asked Christ for forgiveness also. It is recorded that he spent the last twenty-four hours of his life repeating over and over again, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"

The Spread of Calvinism

As much as Calvin's practice in Geneva, his publications spread his ideas of a correctly reformed church to many parts of Europe. Calvinism became the theological system of the majority in Scotland, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany and was influential in France, Hungary (especially in Transylvania) and Poland.

Most settlers in the American Mid-Atlantic and New England were Calvinists, including the Puritans and Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam (New York). South Africa was also founded by mostly Dutch Calvinist settlers beginning in the 17th century, who became known as Boers or Afrikaners.

Sierra Leone was largely colonized by Calvinist settlers from Nova Scotia, who were largely Black Loyalists, African Americans who had fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.

Usury, Capitalism, and the Protestant Work Ethic

One school of thought about Calvinism is that it brought with it a revolt against the medieval condemnation of usury (lending money and charging interest), helping to set the stage for the development of capitalism in northern Europe. Furthering the cause of economic development was the widespread idea that a sign of being elect was good citizenship and hard work—the so-called Protestant Work Ethic.

Calvin expressed himself on usury in a letter to a friend, Oekolampadius. In this letter, he criticized the use of certain passages of scripture invoked by people opposed to the charging of interest -- he re-interpreted some of these passages, and suggested that others of them had been rendered irrelevant by changed conditions. He also said, though, that money should be lent to people in dire need without hope of interest.

German sociologist Max Weber noted that Protestants, especially Calvinists, played a prominent role in early-20th-century business success. He noted that "business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labor, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, [were] overwhelmingly Protestant."

Lesson 26 Colloquy of Marburg (1529)

2005-09-15T05:27:00.000-07:00

The Colloquy of Marburg is the name given to a conference of divines held in 1529 in the interests of the unity of Protestant Germany. Differences of opinion concerning the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper had arisen among the Protestants. Prince Philip of Hesse, recognized the political importance of achieving unity among all German Protestants. At one point it seemed that there was a basis for a provisional alliance in the shape of a formula drawn up by Bucer (who greatly influenced Calvin, and had an ecumenical spirit) in dealing with the Lord’s Supper. But it was obvious that a permanent coalition could not be expected unless some definite understanding on the debated point could be attained between the Swiss and German arms of the Reformation, so Philip dispatched to Zwingli an invitation to a colloquy, and received his prompt acquiescence.

The Colloquy of Marburg is no doubt the saddest event of the Reformation. If one views the Reformation as the greatest outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church since Pentecost, then it is hard to see the ultimate failure of The Colloquy of Marburg as anything less than the work of Satan. Normally we should think of Satan, against the church, as on the defensive. We are told by Jesus that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church—and gates are defensive in nature. Still, Satan does go on the offensive, especially one can safely assume at a time of revival.

The proceedings opened on October 1, 1529. It seemed wise, at first, to prevent direct debates between Luther and Zwingli, as both seemed to be too fiery. Thus the colloquy opened with conferences between Luther and Zwingli’s lieutenant, John Oecolampadius, and between Luther’s second in command, Philip Melancthon and Zwingli.

The Lutherans and Zwinglians agreed on everything, across the board, except one. The interpretation of Christ’s words “this is my body,” (Matt. 26:26) when instituting the Lord’s Supper. On all other aspects of the sacrament (ordinance) they agreed: That Christ commanded it, that it was of profound significance and importance to the spiritual life of the believer, and that is must be approached with great reverence. They agreed the Rome was in grave error in its policy of withholding the cup from the laity. But on the details of the interpretation, they could not agree. Luther held to consubstantiation and Zwingli to a memorial view.

Summarizing these views:

Transubstantiation (Rome): the elements actually change into the body of blood of Christ.
Consubstantiation (Luther): There is a corporeal presence of Christ in the elements, although the elements themselves do not change.
Memorial (Zwingli): Nothing happens to the elements; the Eucharist memorializes Christ’s sacrifice.

As regards this main point of contention, no agreement was reached. The Articles of Marburg, which summarize the results of the colloquy, contain the doctrine of the Trinity, of the personality of Christ, of faith and justification, of the Scriptures, of good works, of confession, of government, of tradition, and of infant baptism. The fifteenth article, treating of the Lords Supper, defines the ground common to both parties even in this debatable region, recognizing the necessity of participation in both kinds (bread and wine), and rejecting the sacrifice of the Mass. It then proceeds to fix the point of difference in the fact that no agreement had been reached on the question whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine. Nevertheless, the adherents of each doctrine are recommended to display Christian charity to those of the other. These articles were signed by the ten official members of the colloquy: Luther, Jonas, Melancthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brenz, Oecolampadius, Bucer. Hedio and Zwingli. The personal contact between Luther and Zwingli led to no mental rapprochement between the two; but in the following year the Articles of Marburg did good service as one of the preliminaries to the Augsburg Confession (1530), and remain a valuable document for the fundamental principles common to the Lutheran and Reformed Churches.

The sad part was, that while Luther signed, he actual spirit was of this mind: to Luther, his view on the Lord’s Supper, which maintained that the Christ was present corporeally, was non negotiable. He would agree that while Christ is the true vine (John 15:1), you did not pick grapes from him. And he would agree that while Christ is the door, he did not contain hinges. He insisted, however, that “this is my body,” was meant to be taken literally. Any other view, according to Luther, was heresy. There was to be no unity between the Swiss and German Reformations.

So we see, in spite of his signature, that the Augsburg confession of 1530, the first of the great Reformed confessions, contains these two articles (the first I include only because of its interest to Baptists)

Article IX: Of Baptism

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Article X: Of the Lord’s Supper

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

It is not easy to understand why Luther took such a stand. Even assuming his view is correct, it seems that his reaction indicated that Zwingli deliberately distorted Christ’s message concerning the Lord’s Supper. After all, as Baptists we may think the Presbyterians are wrong in baptizing children, but I think most would view the mistake as an innocent mistake, and we would not claim that fellowship is precluded, or that the Presbyterians are heretical. If our pastor ever became persuaded that infant baptism was biblical, then I suspect he’d be baptizing infants by the following week. Similarly with the manner in which Presbyterians view Baptists.

Luther, however, did not see Zwingli as in “innocent error.” His words were quite harsh. At one point, Zwingli argued, "Jesus also said I am the vine," and "I am the door," but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, "I don’t know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me."

Although Zwingli declared with tears in His eyes that there were none with whom he should like better to make common cause than the men of Wittenburg (Luther and his followers), Luther was hard and unyielding. “You are of another spirit than we,” he said. The story goes that Luther refused to shake Zwingli’s hand; but instead wrote the words: ‘This is My Body’ (hoc est corpus meum), on the velvet of table before him and stormed out.

Later we see an ironic postscript to this debate. It comes in the form of Calvin’s view of the Lord’s supper, which we’ll call the dynamic view. John Calvin taught that Jesus’ presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not corporeally. According to Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is far from memorial. Ironically, later, Luther (definitely) and Zwingli (possibly) later read Calvin’s writings on the Lord’s Supper and seemed to agree with Calvin’s views.

Some have speculated that it was Philip Melancthon who pressured Luther. The reason is that Luther, to a small extent, and Melancthon, to a much greater extent, held some hope of reconciliation with Rome. If so, Melancthon might have reasoned that compromise with Zwingli’s view on the Lord’s Supper would have squashed any hope of a reunification.

Philip Melancthon (1497-1560)

The German scholar and humanist Philip Melancthon (1497-1560) was the chief systematic theologian of the early Reformation and principal author of the famous Augsburg Confession of 1530.

Philip Melancthon was born Philip Schwartzerd at Bretten in Swabia, the son of George and Barbara Schwartzerd. His earliest education was supervised by his father and grandfather and, after their deaths in 1508, was directed by his grandmother's brother, the famous jurist and Hebrew scholar Johann Reuchlin. Schwartzerd means "black earth," and Reuchlin is said to have been so impressed with his grandnephew's scholarly talents that he insisted that Philip use the Greek form of "black earth," hence the name Melancthon. The young Melancthon studied at Pforzheim and Heidelberg, receiving a bachelor of arts degree from the latter in 1511. He took his master's degree at Tübingen in 1514 and began to lecture there on Latin and Greek literature.

Melancthon was already present at the first serious dispute between Luther and Rome, the 1519 Debates in Leipzig. During the debate with Johannes Eck, the astute Papal theologian, Melancthon wrote little notes to Luther citing Bible passages contradicting the preeminent position of the Pope--the contended issue in the debate.

Luther, the prophet among the Reformers, worked tirelessly on his new theology, but he often lacked a systemized approach. In 1521 Melancthon took over this task, writing the first valid summary of reformed theology (fifteen years before Calvin would pen his) the "Loci Communes" (Common Places). Luther felt so enthusiastic about this book that he even wanted to include it in the Bible.

The Diet of Augsburg

In 1530 the emperor Charles V convened the Diet of Augsburg. The threat of the Turks was great and the situation between Rome and those seeking reform was bringing disunity and weakness to Europe. Melancthon and the German princes wanted Charles and the Diet to grant them freedom to preach biblical doctrines and to worship with legal status. Melancthon drew up the famous Augsburg confession, and on June 25, 1530, the document was read aloud at the Diet. Many were astonished when they heard the graceful way Melancthon presented the propositions (most of the statements were positive affirmations of faith rather than attacks on the papacy).

Although the reformers did not receive what they had desired from Charles, they did have biblical articles of faith that remain the standard confession for conservative Lutheran Churches to this day. The events at Augsburg laid the groundwork for Protestant victories in the future.

While Luther was alive, it seemed to be the case that Melancthon regarded him with such awe that he never would disagree with him, at least in public. Melancthon once stated: "I would rather die than be separated from this man." Nevertheless, Melancthon had considerable influence, and probably was the power behind the failure, at Marburg, to achieve unification between the Swiss and German Reformations.

Melancthon never agreed with Luther’s strong predestinarianism, but he never argued with his hero. Melancthon, as it turned out, was more of a clone of Erasmus (the renaissance near-reformer) than of Luther. But on this matter he refrained from engaging in debate with Luther. Still, in hindsight it is clear that while Luther was teaching predestination as a central verity, Melancthon viewed the doctrine as a threat to evangelism and an unacceptable form of fatalism.

Luther died in 1546, after which Melancthon openly broke with Luther and began inching the church back to a semi-Pelagian position.

A drift from Luther is denied by the Orthodox Lutheran Church—which still venerates Martin Luther to a degree that far exceeds how Calvinistic churches view John Calvin. Indeed, in many ways the conservative Lutherans are among the most conservative Christians anywhere. For example, there has been more of a move in Calvinistic churches toward liberalization, for example in the roles of women, than in conservative Lutheran churches.

This paradoxical shift—away from Luther on a doctrine that he felt so vital—the doctrine of predestination—while at the same time steadfastly standing by Luther on virtually everything else (even where Luther erred) is the legacy of Philip Melancthon.

Actually, Melancthon tried to shift the Lutherans away from Luther in two areas. In the less important area, he met violent opposition and failed. In the more important area, he succeeded.

Melancthon attempted to inch the Lutheran view of the Eucharist, the consubstantiation view, closer to Calvin’s dynamic view. That is, from the idea of a real corporeal presence during the Lord’s Supper to a real, spiritual presence that was a means of grace—i.e. it was far from Zwingli’s memorial view (in which the believer did everything) to a supernatural view (in which God dispensed grace, as it were.) In a way, this was probably a radical change in Melancthon’s view—for he always seemed to have an eye toward reconciliation with Rome.

At any rate, on this effort he failed. His views on the Lord’s Supper made the Lutheran faithful suspicious, and he was accused of being a crypto-Calvinist.
To this day, although the term consubstantiation is not used, Lutherans proclaim essentially the same doctrine, and still teach of a corporeal presence of the Lord during the Eucharist.

Luther was Monergistic, Melancthon was Synergistic

In regeneration (monergism), the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ independent of any cooperation from our unregenerate human nature. He quickens us through the outward call cast forth by the preaching of His Word, disarms our innate hostility, removes our blindness, illumines our mind, creates understanding, turns our heart of stone to a heart of flesh -- giving rise to a delight in His Word -- all that we might, with our renewed affections, willingly & gladly embrace Christ.

The Century Dictionary defines it as follows:

"In theology, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration - that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated, and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration."

It means that the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly comes to through regeneration -- and if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, he/she ignore the teaching of the Apostles, for Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

It is in contrast to synergism which the Century Dictionary defines as

"...the doctrine that there are two efficient agents in regeneration, namely the human will and the divine Spirit, which, in the strict sense of the term, cooperate. This theory accordingly holds that the soul has not lost in the fall all inclination toward holiness, nor all power to seek for it under the influence of ordinary motives."

Luther, like Calvin to follow, was monergistic to the core. In his catechism, Luther wrote:

I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church he daily and abundantly forgives all my sins, and the sins of all believers, and on the last day he will raise me and all the dead and will grant eternal life to me and to all who believe in Christ. This is most certainly true.

Now, to be sure, the Lutheran version of synergism is not the same as the typical, semi-Pelagianism of most modern evangelicals. It can be put this way:

Reformed View: Regeneration, which is irresistible, precedes faith.
Evangelical View: Faith precedes regeneration
Lutheran View: Regeneration precedes faith, but that regeneration is resistible

Luther never, ever would have accepted the “Lutheran” view, because his own sense of sinfulness compelled to believe the biblical truth: if he could resist his own salvation, he would resist his own salvation.

The Lutherans Disagree

The Lutherans claim they are faithful to Martin Luther in all aspects. How is it that done? It is done by claiming that late in his life Luther changed his position. They will concede that when Luther wrote his greatest book, Bondage of the Will, in 1525, he was a stout predestinarian. It’s hardly an arguable point, since the book speaks for itself as one of the great works proclaiming the doctrine in clarity.

So what evidence to the Lutherans present? It is fairly weak, and it is entirely circumstantial. There are no writings to which they can point in which Luther retracts or softens his view on predestination. Indeed, he wrote such a definitive tome on the subject that had he changed his view he surely would have made a great deal of noise in doing so.

The evidence that the Lutheran Church proclaims is that, in the last years of his life, Luther stopped writing about predestination, and preaching about it, and instead focused his energy on the sacraments. Given that the sacraments involve human activity it is reasonable, according the Lutherans, to suppose that Luther softened his view on monergism.

However, the truth is simply that the lay of the land was such for Luther, during his latter years, that the issues he dealt with were with the commands rather than the decrees of God. What was man’s obligation and responsibility to God, and how should man approach the sacraments in a worthy manner. There simply was Lutheran controversy, during his lifetime, on the doctrine of predestination, other that what was apparently brewing in Melancthon’s heart.

For Calvin, it will be just the opposite. In his later years, he faced stern opposition to predestination, and so had a need to address the topic more and more as time marched on. This is part of the reason why the doctrine is erroneously associated much more with Calvin than with Luther.

The bottom line is that the Lutheran Church made two serious errors in following (or not) Martin Luther. They chose to stay with Luther where he erred, on the doctrine of consubstantiation, and chose to deviate from him in a far more important matter relating to the nature of our salvation.

In choosing between Luther and Melancthon, they followed Luther in his Eucharistic error, and followed Melancthon in his sotierlogical error.

Lesson 25: Zwingli

2005-08-01T06:29:00.000-07:00

Ulrich Zwingli was born at Wildhaus in Switzerland, January 1, 1484, the same year as Martin Luther.

He died on October 11 1531. Luther lived fifteen years longer.

While Luther, in many ways, had a medieval upbringing and education, Zwingli was in a product of the renaissance. He received his early education at Wesen under the guidance of an uncle. For his advanced studies he went to Berne. He matriculated at the University in 1500. Two years later he returned to Basle where he devoted himself to the study of theology. In 1506 he completed his studies and a Master of Theology. Shortly before his graduation the parish of Glarus had selected him as its pastor.

As pastor of Glarus from 1506 to 1516, the continuation of his humanistic studies was one of Zwingli's chief occupations. He studied Greek, read the Classics and the Fathers of the Church, and entered into discussions with the Humanists of the time, most notably Erasmus, the almost-reformer who would also dialog with Luther. He also taught, though his public life he was most notable for his political activity. In the Italian campaigns of 1513 and 1515 he served as army chaplain. His earliest writings are all concerned with politics, with his first book being a biblical criticisms of Swiss social conditions. These works, which reveal Zwingli as the devoted adherent and champion of the papal party, won him the friendship of the powerful Swiss cardinal Matthew Schinner and an annual pension of fifty gulden from the pope. In fact, his papal support was so strong that his position in Glarus became untenable when the French party became predominant there in 1516, and so Zwingli left Galrus for Einsiedeln. ¹

Towards the end of 1518, when the post of preacher at Münster became vacant, Zwingli, at the invitation of a friend, applied. Like many other clerics, Zwingli was suspected of violating celibacy. These reports made his position there difficult. When his friend questioned him on this point Zwingli wrote from Einsiedeln that it was not, as had been asserted, a respectable girl, but a common strumpet with whom he had been intimate. His friends in Zurich succeeded in suppressing these reports, and on 11 Dec., 1518, the chapter elected Zwingli by a great majority. He was then thirty-five years old. ²

At this point, it is doubtful that Zwingli was even converted. It is clear that with a record of personal conduct that was far from unimpeachable, Zwingli preferred to engage in secular and political debates rather than pursuing new doctrine. That was about to change. The year was 1519; Luther had already nailed his 95 theses to the castle church.

Many men are converted after they are ordained. Luther himself seems to be such an example, as was John Wesley. In addition, it would seem to be through reading the word that these men were finally drawn to God in a saving manner. For Augustine and Luther it was the book of Romans. For Jonathan Edwards it was 1 Tim. 1:17,

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Tim. 1:17)

For Zwingli, it appears to be when he began a systematic, verse by verse study of the gospel of Matthew.

Difficulties with the Roman Catholic Church Begin

Zwingli’s fame spread through German Switzerland and southern Germany. He was admired not only for his sermons but for his patriotism, having opposed the practice of hiring the Swiss army to any one other than the pope as mercenaries. When an indulgence salesman named Bernhardin Samson appeared in the canton (1519), Zwingli successfully opposed him, and Rome recalled Samson. When the plague broke out in Zurich in 1520, Zwingli labored so tirelessly among his people that he fell sick himself and almost died. He used the position won by his devotion and independence to advance reform, but very cautiously and by attacking externals first.

Zwingli quickly attracted large audiences to the cathedral by expounding the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures chapter by chapter. These oral translations of the original Scriptures broke sharply with church tradition. Previously priests had based their sermons on interpretations of the Vulgate and on the writings of the Fathers of the Church. In 1519 an admirer placed a printing press at the reformer's disposal, and his bold new ideas spread far beyond the confines of Zürich.

During the same year Zwingli read for the first time the writings of his contemporary, Luther. Heartened by Luther's stand against the Church, Zwingli in 1520 persuaded the Zürich council to forbid all religious teachings without foundation in the Scriptures. Among these teachings was the church stricture against eating meat during Lent. In 1522 a group of his followers deliberately broke the rule and were arrested. Zwingli vigorously defended the lawbreakers, who were released with token punishment.

Proceeding step by step, with the assent of the Zürich magistracy, he nevertheless alarmed the local hierarchy, who appealed to their bishop at Constance. The bishop sent to Zürich an investigation committee which sat Apr. 7-9, 1522, but was powerless against the manifest satisfaction of the citizens with Zwingli's position.

The Bishop of Constance’s concern is hardly surprising. The Catholic Church was always quick to respond when signs of spiritual life appear. Warnings were issued, but Zwingli’s unique claim as a reformer and a patriot made him untouchable.

Next came a bolder step. Zwingli he prepared 65 theses, or articles of faith (nothing like the 95 theses of Luther, which were almost entirely on a single topic: indulgences). Zwingli's theses covered all the points of the gospel. In accordance with the Swiss custom of public debate, a meeting was held in the town hall of Zürich on January 29, 1523. All the clergy were invited. However, there was no real debate, only a dialogue between Zwingli and the vicar-general of Constance. The decision of the magistracy was that the doctrines Zwingli had preached were enjoined on all priests in the canton. This was real schism. ³

A second discussion, which was held during Oct. 26-28, 1523. The decisions of the magistracy after this discussion were radical. They removed the images and pictures out of the churches, made the vernacular the language of the religious services and simplified the Lord’s Supper.

Pope Adrian VI, angered by Zwingli's behavior, forbade him the pulpit and asked the Zürich council to repudiate him as a heretic. In January 1523, Zwingli appeared before the council. He asserted the supremacy of scripture over church dogma, attacked the worship of images, relics, and saints, and denounced the sacramental view of the Eucharist and enforced celibacy as well. After deliberation, the council upheld Zwingli by withdrawing the Zürich canton from the jurisdiction of the bishop of Constance; it also affirmed its previous ban against preaching not founded on the Scriptures. By taking these steps the council officially adopted the Reformation. Zwingli in 1524 marked his new status by marrying Anna Reinhard, a widow with whom he had lived openly.

By the end of 1524 church life in Zürich was quite different in many of its outward manifestations from that in any other Swiss city. The convents for men and women had been abolished, and music had been silenced in the churches, a strange initiative for one so fond of music as Zwingli. (Sadly he trashed the great organ in Zurich’s cathedral.)

The Mass alone remained, and that was so wrapped up with the life of the people that he hesitated to destroy it before the people were fully prepared to accept a substitute. At last it was decreed that on Thursday of Holy Week, Apr. 13, 1525, the Lord's Supper would be for the first time observed according to the liturgy Zwingli had composed. On that eventful day men and women sat on opposite sides of the table which extended down the middle aisle, and were served with bread upon wooden platters and wine out of wooden beakers. The contrast to the former custom was shocking to many, yet the new way was accepted. With this radical break with the past the Reformation in Zurich may be said to have been completed.

Under the Reformation, Zürich became a theocracy ruled by Zwingli and a Christian magistrate. Sweeping reforms were instituted, among them the conversion of monasteries into hospitals, the removal of religious images, and the elimination of Mass and confession. Eventually Zwingli taught that devout Christians have need of neither pope nor church.

It must be stressed that Zwingli’s reformation was independent of Luther’s. That is, Zwingli did not ride Luther’s coattails.

Zwingli and the Anabaptists

Among Zwingli’s followers in Zürich were Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz. Both agreed with the reforms proposed by Zwingli and Luther, but soon became convinced that neither Zwingli or Luther went far enough. What they wished for was a return to the simpler ways of the earliest first-century believers as depicted in the New Testament. The modern church had strayed far from this ideal, they felt, and needed much more than reform—it needed a complete rethinking of its basic tenets.

Grebel and Manz believed that church membership should be voluntary, and to this end proposed the shocking notion of the separation of church and state, i.e. not “state” church. The government, they felt, served one purpose and the church, another.

Grebel and Manz also held that the New Testament teaches pacifism, which ruled out believers participating in any sort of military service or condoning capital punishment. This was in opposition to Zwingli, who was a politician and a supporter of the Swiss military. Grebel and Mainz viewed the state as evil, while Zwingli saw that his military was a necessary form of protection against the forces of the Catholic Church.

But the issue that caused the greatest stir was that of infant baptism. The Roman Church, in its state-sponsored mandate to assimilate all citizens, received newborns into church membership by way of baptism. Grebel and Manz, however, found no precedent for infant baptism in scripture. Instead, they argued, baptism was a symbolic act that should be undertaken voluntarily by adult believers as a sign of their faith. Since infants could not decide to believe, it was meaningless to baptize them. Accordingly, in 1525, Grebel took the daring step of rebaptizing an adult believer in his group, and others quickly followed. They were dubbed Anabaptists, or “rebaptizers”, a term that was meant to be derogatory. We will discuss the Anabaptists more in a later class.

Zwingli and Luther

In 1529 friends of Martin Luther and Zwingli, concerned over doctrinal and political differences that had developed between the two Protestant leaders, arranged a meeting between them. At this meeting, held in Marburg an der Lahn and known since as the Marburg Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli clashed over the Lord's Supper; Zwingli denied any real connection between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. (Recall Luther’s consubstantiation view.) He believed that at the celebration of the Supper, which recalls to worshipers the words and deeds of the Lord, Christ is with them by the power of the Holy Spirit. According to Zwingli, the bread and wine recall the Last Supper, but no metaphysical change takes place in them. The conference failed to reconcile the two leaders.

Meanwhile, Zwingli carried his crusade to cantons other than Zürich. In all, six cantons were converted to the Reformation. The remaining five, known as the Forest Cantons, remained staunchly Catholic. The antagonisms between Catholic and Protestant cantons created a serious split within the Swiss confederation.

In 1529 the hostility between the cantons flared into open civil war. On October 10, 1531, Zwingli, acting as chaplain and standard-bearer for the Protestant forces, was wounded at Kappel am Albis and later put to death by the victorious troops of the Forest Cantons. After Zwingli's death the Reformation made no further headway in Switzerland; the country is still half Catholic, half Protestant.

A Brief Discourse on Predestination

Both Luther and Zwingli were strong teachers of predestination. Predestination is a foundational plank in Reformed theology. It is not the only plank, but one cannot really be said to be of a reformed theology without affirming the doctrine.

Interestingly, Zwingli and Luther came to the doctrine by different paths. Luther was convicted of it, at least at first, in an emotional manner: his deep awareness of his own sinfulness pushed him into it. He realized that he was too corrupt to do anything to contribute to his own salvation.

Zwingli, on the other hand, arrived at the doctrine in a scholarly manner. His habit of verse-by-verse preaching opened his eyes to the doctrine as he encountered passage after passage that seemed to support that view.

Since predestination is so identified with “being reformed,” it is worthwhile to revisit the doctrine at this time. In short, it can be stated this way:

Before the foundation of time, God chose certain (future) men (and women) to be saved. Not for anything that he foresaw that these particular individuals (the “elect”) would do that was meritorious, but solely for His own pleasure in fulfillment of His perfect will. He decided to show mercy on some. The rest receive justice, i.e., the eternal damnation that all sinners deserve.

The reformed view is that many will receive the Gospel call, but only the elect will respond positively. (That is, only the elect receive an efficacious call). This call cannot be rejected. Everything is by grace.

The Arminian view is that God will make an offer, through presentation of the Gospel, but the receiver of the offer must, at least at some minimal level, accept the offer of his own volition—which means the offer can be rejected as well.

The reformed view is that if God knocks you will open the door. The Arminian view is you must choose to open the door.

The reformed view is that you are dead to sins, without a pulse, and can do nothing to please God, and are in such a depraved state you do not have the ability to accept him (apart from grace). The Arminian view is that the sinner is gravely ill but has enough reserve strength to choose whether to consume or spit out the medicine that God places in his mouth.

The reformed view is that, without election, no one would be saved because no one would make the choice to follow Christ.

Reformed still witness because Christ commands them to and because it is a privilege to be an agent of the efficacious call to another believer. Arminians witness because Christ commands them to and because they feel a responsibility to give as many as possible the chance to accept, and to lead them to make the proper choice (while giving the credit and Glory to God). Calvinists do not feel as much personal responsibility as Arminians when someone doesn’t respond positively. Arminians, to their great credit, are generally more zealous in their witnessing.

Calvinists who say “why bother to witness” are guilty of ignoring the Great Commission and in fact are not really Calvinists, they are practicing one form of Hyper-Calvinism.

It is important to note that election does not mean that you have necessarily received salvation, only that it is inevitable that you will at some point, and that process is almost always carried out through evangelism.

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. (2 Tim. 2:10, NASB)

That’s not Fair!

There are almost always one of two responses from someone the first time they hear about Calvinistic predestination. One response is something like “cool, I can do whatever I want since I am either one of the elect or not. Might as well eat, drink, and be merry.” This is a serious heresy called antinomianism. Paul handles that in no uncertain terms in several places, for example in Romans:

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? (Rom. 6:15-16, NASB)

The second, and more common criticism is that it’s not fair.

You have to remember that everyone deserves hell, and God would be perfectly just and fair to send us all there. Those who are saved receive mercy, and mercy is a free gift, and gifts can be given to anyone at the giver’s pleasure.

Even if we look at “fairness” in the sense that people want to apply it, well then Calvinism is unfairly singled out as being unfair. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are “unfair”. In Calvinism, only some are of the elect, the rest are damned; it would have been better if they had not been born.

In Arminianism, some hear the Gospel and have a chance to respond, but millions die without hearing it and are damned. It would have better if they had not been born.

Calvinism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of some and the rest don’t have a chance. Arminianism says that God has guaranteed the salvation of nobody, but anyone hearing the Gospel has a chance.

In Calvinism, it is not possible that Christ died in vain. In Arminianism, in principle everyone could reject the offer leaving Christ with no people to call His own. His death would have been for naught.

Calvinism can be viewed as a covenant among the three members of the Godhead, each of which then plays a critical role in salvation. The Father chose some to be saved and given to the Son. The Son did what was necessary to redeem the chosen. The Spirit works within the elect to bring about sanctification.

Scriptural Support

And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord , in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (Ex. 33:19, NASB) )

How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You To dwell in Your courts. We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple. (Ps. 65:4, NASB)

"For many are called, but few are chosen." (Mat. 22:14, NASB)

"And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (Mat. 24:31, NASB)

now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? (Luke 18:7, NASB)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. ( John 6:44, NASB)

You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. (John 15:16, NASB)

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB)

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; (Rom. 8:33, NASB)

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED." (Rom 9:11-13, NASB)

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16, NASB)

And Isaiah is very bold and says, " I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME." (Rom. 10:20, NASB)

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love (Eph. 1:4, NASB)

For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, (1 Th. 5:9, NASB)

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Th. 2:13-14 1:1, NASB)

Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness,
(Titus 1:1, NASB)

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, … who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be (sprinkled with His blood: …. (1 Pet. 1:1-2)

All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. (Rev. 13:8, NASB)

… And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. (Rev. 17:8, NASB)

¹ The Catholic Encyclopedia.
² Ibid.
³ Teacher’s Paradise

Lesson 24 Martin Luther (1483-1546) Part Two

2005-07-05T11:31:00.000-07:00

Luther’s debate with Eck on the question of papal supremacy took place in Leipzig in July 1519. On points, Eck won the debate by maneuvering Luther into saying that John Huss, a condemned heretic, had been partly condemned in an unrighteous manner.

Luther, however, scored many points. He pointed out that the Eastern Greek Church had never acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops of Rome. Yet, it was admitted by all, that the Eastern Church was Christian. The papacy faced a dilemma. How could the pope claim supremacy over all the churches, and yet a large part of the Church, recognized as Christian, not honor that claim? In addition, Luther noted that the great ecumenical councils of the early centuries did not teach the supremacy of the papacy.

Following the Leipzig debate, support of Luther solidified. His motive all along was to bring needed change to the Roman Catholic Church, not to leave it. But now Luther had publicly rejected the supremacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church councils. The Leipzig debate crystallized the fact that irreconcilable differences existed between Luther and the Roman Catholic Church.

Excommunication

On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo ratified and signed the bull that officially excommunicated Luther. He also ordered that all of Luther’s writing be burned.

The papal bull had this preamble:

Arise, O Lord, plead Thine own cause; remember how the foolish man reproacheth Thee daily; the foxes are wasting Thy vineyard which Thou hast given to Thy Vicar Peter; the boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.

The bull went on to condemn forty-one propositions attributed to Luther. It was not his evangelical principles which were attacked but only his oppositions to the practices of the Roman Church. Finally, the bull ordered that all of Luther's writings be burned. One of the propositions of Luther which it condemned was Luther’s position that “certain articles of John Huss condemned at the Council of Constance are most Christian, true, and evangelical, which the universal Church cannot condemn.” Luther replied:

I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of John Huss are evangelical. I say now, “Not some but all the articles of John Huss were condemned by Antichrist and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.” And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Huss are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical.

Publishing the papal bull in Germany became the responsibility of Luther’s nemesis, Eck. It turned out to be a difficult task. Very few places would publish it, and what copies that managed to get produced were often seized by students and destroyed.

Meanwhile, Luther busied himself with writing. As an immediate response, he published a tract: Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist. This he followed with “The Three Great Reformation Treatises,” The first was To the Christian Nobility of Germany, which was a call to do away with Rome’s abuses. The second was The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in which Luther demonstrated the error in the notion that man could only be saved through a priest and the Roman sacramental system. The third, The Liberty of a Christian Man, was a short but influential book on Christian living.

Luther also decided to respond in kind to Rome’s order to burn his books. On December 10, 1520, a large crowd gathered outside the walls of Wittenberg. Under Luther’s direction they burned the books of canon law as well as the papal bull.

The Diet of Worms

Pope Leo had done all he could do. After excommunication, the Church had official played its best ecclesiastical hand. The only thing left is to turn to the secular arm, which meant to seek Luther’s execution.

Recall that the pope had hoped and lobbied for the election of Luther’s protector, Frederick the Wise, as Emperor. He failed (Frederick did not want to shoulder the expenses that came along with the imperial office.) Instead Frederick threw his support behind the Charles, King of Spain, who was elected and became known as Charles V. The pope requested, and Charles agreed, to summon Luther to the Diet of Worms.

Protected by an offer of safe-conduct, Luther left for Worms on April 2, 1521, convinced that he would never return. His journey was like a victory parade with crowds lining the street, waving and cheering as he passed by.

At four o’clock in the after noon on April 17, Luther appeared before the diet. Before the Emperor, noblemen, and the papal prosecutor stood a poor and powerless priest, the son of peasants. Charles V was twenty-one and dressed in splendor. Luther was thirty-seven, and wore the robes of an Augustinian monk.

An official asked Luther, pointing to a stack of books and pamphlets, “Are these your writings, and do you wish to retract them?” Luther spoke, first repeating the two questions. He answered yes to the first question, and asked to be given twenty-four hours to consider his answer to the second. Luther’s request for twenty-four hours was not a sign of wavering but a sly political move. The papal delegation wanted an immediate decision and tried to persuade Charles V to deny the request. Charles, on the other hand, did not want to appear as a papal puppet, so he granted Luther’s request. Luther, in effect, helped Charles to assert imperial authority over papal wishes.

The following day, April 18, Luther returned. He spoke at length, after which the Emperor demanded a plain, straightforward answer to whether Luther would recant. To this Luther gave his famous response:

If the Emperor desires a plain answer, I will give it to him. Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. God help me. I cannot do otherwise.

The Emperor gave a sign that the meeting was over. Luther turned and left the tribunal. A few days later, Luther was ordered to leave Worms and return to Wittenberg. The plan was, after the promise of safe conduct was nominally provided, that Luther would be seized and put to death as a heretic.

There is a small gate in the wall of Worms. By that gate, Luther left worms on the night of April 26. The gate is now known as Luther’s gate.

Luther traveled toward home, at times stopping to preach (which he had been forbidden to do.) On May 4, after preaching and enjoying dinner, he set out on the road. In the forest, five masked riders kidnapped him from his carriage and took him to Eisenach. This was done on the order of Frederick the Wise, who knew Luther would be seized when his safe conduct expired. Luther stayed in Frederick’s protection for ten months, before returning to Wittenberg to deal with excesses in reformational behavior.

Luther had transformed the world by holding fast to a doctrine known as Justification by Faith Alone, or sola fide. It is useful to look at this in detail.

By Imputation or Infusion?

The great mystery of salvation is justification. How are we made acceptable to a Holy and perfect God who demands an unattainable perfect compliance with His law? Clearly we can never, on our own, meet such a demand.

The problem is not that our sins are not forgiven. The problem is that the price of admission to heaven is an unblemished record. And once one has sinned, the record can never be expunged. Christ said “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13). The (mythical) righteous man has no need of justification.

Justification is like being acquitted of a crime, though not because the accused is innocent, but because an innocent third party (Christ) has made a satisfactory restitution to the offended (God). We get off on some clever legal maneuvering.

So exactly how does this happen? There is a substantive difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view.

More than a quibble over the word “alone”

The difference between the Roman Catholic view of Justification is sometimes cast as the “mere” addition of the word alone:

RCC: Justification is by faith.
Reformers: Justification is by faith alone.

However, there is another big question here, above and beyond the nontrivial insistence on the word alone. To wit, how does justification happen? And here we find another substantive difference between the RCC and the Reformers. It is not “just” the “aloneness” of justification, but also that way it happens.

The question is whether we can actually become righteousness (and are therefore acceptable to God) or whether God treats us as if we were righteous. The former is the view of the RCC, the latter of the Reformers.

Neither side holds the position that any sort of justification can occur apart from Grace (that is the heresy of Pelagianism). Both the RCC and Reformed position is that grace is necessary for justification. There is a difference as to whether it is sufficient.

Calvin wrote, summarizing the reformer’s view:

Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Calvin also writes that the justified is “deemed righteous” and “regarded not as a sinner.”

This makes it clear that the Reformed view is that man himself does not have inherent righteousness even after justification. The righteousness with which we present ourselves to a Holy God is by imputation; it is not inherent or infused into us. It is symmetric with the view that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished as if they were His own even though they were not.

Contrast Calvin’s view with what Rome declared at the Council of Trent:

… the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

We see here a very different view from Calvin’s. The RCC view is that we are justified not by an imputation but by an infusion. We acquire inherent righteousness, initially from the instrumental cause: baptism. Justification also requires cooperation. Furthermore, the state of being justified can be lost through the commission of sin and must be restored by another sacrament: penance. This is turns leads to the idea of congruous merit that is so alien to the reformed view and that Luther so despised.

The RCC disputes the Reformed view of Justification and holds that if we must be righteous before God then we must have a true, internal righteousness which, though accomplished through grace, is nevertheless “ours”.

The RCC and the Reformed views on justification are very different-- different enough to be the primary cause of the Reformation. It is very important to appreciate that these differences are not superficial (some have said that the only difference is the Reformers and the RCC interchange the meanings of Justification and Sanctification). There are additional ramifications when it comes to other doctrines such as predestination, perseverance, the atonement, original sin, types of merit, purgatory, and virtually all other salvation related topics. Whether or not these differences are substantive enough in our eyes to warrant the greatest schism in the history of Christianity, they were without question considered very important to both the Reformers and Rome.

Sola Fide

The doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is often attacked on two fronts. The first is the fact that the phrase never appears in scripture, except in the epistle of James, in which it appears to be refuted, which is the second and more difficult front of the attack.

When Paul talks about justification, primarily in the book of Romans, he never states explicitly that justification is by faith alone. However, what is not explicit is nevertheless abundantly clear.

When we say justification is by faith alone, it is understood that the faith itself is by grace. So grace is not excluded, obviously, from the restriction: faith alone.

That leaves only one other thing that could possibly contribute to justification: keeping the law, or works. Thus we have three possibilities:

Justification is by works alone.
Justification is by faith and works.
Justification is by faith alone, sola fide.

The first option is rightly rejected by all Christians. The debate is really between the second and third choices.

So if Paul wants to teach sola fide he has two possible basic strategies at his disposal: He could affirm it explicitly, or he could eliminate option 2, justification by faith and works, so that only sola fide remains as a possibility.

That is exactly what Paul does. He eliminates works as a contributing factor. If works do not contribute to justification, then the only thing left is faith, and faith alone.

²⁶ he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
²⁷ Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. ²⁸ For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Rom. 3: 36-28)

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. (Rom. 4:2)

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:16)

In light of these passages (and the book of Romans as a whole) one sees how weak the argument is that Paul does not teach sola fide simply because he never names the doctrine that he so clearly espouses.

The James Problem

This refers to the often quoted apparent refutation ofsola fide:

²¹ Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? ²² You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. ²³ And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. ²⁴ You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:21:24)

Here is the dilemma in a nutshell:

Paul teaches that justification is by faith alone.
Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith (Rom. 4:2). So does Moses (Gen. 15:6).
James seemingly denies sola fide, especially in James 2:24.
James teaches that Abraham was considered righteous for offering Isaac (James 2:21).

As an aside, this problem is always posed as a "James" problem for thesola fide crowd. It is equally (if indeed it were an actual dilemma) a "Paul" problem for those who deny justification by faith alone.

There are really only three possibilities.

James is wrong.
Paul is wrong.
James and Paul are talking about different things.

Clearly the first two options are not open for consideration. Although Catholics and Protestants disagree on the sufficiency of scripture, both agree on its inerrancy. The only real possibility is that Paul and James are using justification differently. This is the only solution that preserves the integrity and harmony of scripture.

In discussing this, it is vital to remember the context in which Paul and James speak of justification. Paul is laying out a treatise of the forensic view of justification, forensic because we are declared "legally" righteous before God by claiming Christ's perfect righteousness as our own. Paul is always discussing the theological ground for justification, which is faith and faith alone.

James' epistle is a much more practical, down-to-earth, in-your-face exhortation. James is addressing a dead orthodoxy and its cousin, antinomianism. James, unlike Paul, is not teaching first principle apologetics on the theological ground of justification, but its practical and inevitable manifestation.

This is most clear in the conflicting discussions of father Abraham. Paul refers to Gen. 15:6, where Abraham is made (credited) with righteousness because he believed. James refers to an event much later, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

The fact that Paul and James refer to Abraham's justification as occurring at different times, and as the result of different events, either worsens the dilemma or, as I believe, is additional evidence that Paul and James are talking about different things.

Note further what James wrote: Abraham was considered righteous (NIV) for offering Isaac. Considered by whom? God does not consider, God knows a man’s state. God knew Abraham was righteous because He made him (credited him) righteous earlier in his life. Abraham’s obedience made his justification manifest to himself, to Isaac, and most importantly to all of us. That is what James meant. For further evidence (and not dependent on the use of considered in the NIV) we note that James clearly views it as a display of righteousness (or justification), not the actual act of being justified, by also referring, in James 2:23, to Abraham’s ground for justification: faith.

In this view, James' teaching is clearly understood and in no way in conflict with Paul’s teaching of sola fide. James is telling us that if there is no fruit (works), then we are not justified, because justification (though by faith alone) always bears fruit. Both Paul and Jesus agree, teaching that, for example, a good tree is known by its good fruit (Matt. 12:33). God already knows which tree is good. Man does not know, except by the fruit, which then glorifies God.

Lesson 23: Martin Luther (1483-1546)

2005-06-17T03:50:00.000-07:00

Martin Luther was born in Eisleben, Germany, a century after the death of John Wycliffe. His father was a miner, and his parents provided Martin with a first class humanist education, with the hope that he would become a lawyer. God had different plans.

In 1505, Luther received his Master’s degree and proceeded to study Law. He wouldn’t be a law student for long. One day Luther was returning home from a visit to Mansfeld. As he neared the village of Storterheim, he found himself in the rages of a severe thunderstorm. Suddenly, a bolt of lightning struck the ground next to him, throwing him off his horse (and killing his friend and traveling companion). Terrified, Luther cried out, "St. Anne, help me! I will become a monk!" He kept his word. On July 17, 1505, Luther entered the most rigorous of the seven major monasteries at Erfurt, the Augustinian priory. Luther's father was outraged at the decision, and remained alienated from his son for some considerable time.

In 1507, Luther was ordained as a priest. He was sent from Erfurt to Wittenberg to become a tutor at the university. There he obtained his first degree, a Bachelor’s degree in the bible. After one year he was transferred back to Erfurt. There, at age twenty-six, he obtained his second degree in theology.

While teaching in Efurt, Luther was sent to Rome on monastery business. While there he was shocked by the city’s decadence. He also visited many shrines, including Scala Santa. The twenty-eight marble stairs carefully preserved in this handsome building are said in Catholic tradition to be the steps walked up by Christ on his way to trial before Pilate. St. Helena, mother of the Constantine, was a collector of relics, and the staircase is supposedly among her finds, brought to Rome in c.326 AD.

According to Luther’s son Paul (there is no other confirmation of the episode), when Luther was crawling up these stairs, about halfway up, he heard a voice saying “The just shall live by faith.” It is said the realization of what he was doing and its inconsistency with the words he heard caused him to get up, turn about, and walk down the stairs. Nevertheless, at this time Luther returned to Efurt as a loyal Catholic.

Shortly thereafter Luther returned to Wittenberg and earned a Doctor of Theology degree. For the rest of his life he would lecture on the bible at the university.

In the monastery, Luther lived a life of severe asceticism. He prayed, fasted, and chastised himself well beyond the strictest standards of the monastery. From fasting, he wasted away until he was skeletal, and even in the dead of winter his cell remained unheated. He would, at times, beat himself bloody with a whip. It is said that other priests dreaded taking Luther’s confessions, for each daily confession, covering only the sins since the previous day, could take up to six hours. Luther, in spite of the (perhaps apocryphal) insight on the steps of the Scala Santa, was trying to obtain salvation through his works. But no matter how hard he tried, he could never convince himself that he had done enough.

Some light shone in the darkness. He found comfort in the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux, who stressed the free grace Christ of salvation. He was greatly influenced by the writings of Augustine, so much so that although it occurred over a millennium after his death, some have said that Augustine, not Luther was the father of the Reformation. But most of all, he studied the bible.

Sometime toward the end of 1512, Luther was in his cell, having launched into a study of the book of Romans. There he read:

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (Rom. 1:17)

He would later say an unspeakable joy flooded his heart and his oppressive burden to prove himself worthy was lifted away. For Luther, Romans 1:17 was “a gate to Paradise”.

Indulgences Revisited

Indulgences grew out of the system of penance developed by the Catholic Church. In an indulgence, the Catholic Church allowed the penitent to substitute a cash payment for other forms of satisfaction. The Church would even issue an official statement saying that one had been released from other penalties. It was this official document that was called an indulgence. In a sense, the indulgence amounted to e receipt for payment of a fine.

Additionally, one could purchase indulgences for those who were dead, to reduce their time in purgatory. This was based on the Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit.

Catholicism and Merit

Catholics speak of three types of merit, each of which plays a role in salvation:

Condign Merit. This is merit attributed to our works for which God is obligated to give reward. This is like paying a laborer his due wages.
Congruous Merit. This is merit that is “reasonable”, but not obligated. In secular terms, it is something like a waitress’ tip. It is attained through works and penance.
Supererogatory Merit. This is the stuff of saints. It is their “excess” merit and it is deposited in a treasury of supererogatory merits. It can then be drawn upon to free people from purgatory. Attaining supererogatory merit is also possible for a priest living a life of celibacy in devotion to Christ. A layman can accrue supererogatory merit through regular church attendance and constant attention to the sacraments. Mary is thought to have contributed enormous excess merit into the treasury.

The Catholic doctrine of supererogatory merit is based on an interpretation of the story of the rich young ruler.

¹⁷And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" ²⁰And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth." ²¹And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." ²²Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:17-22)

According to Catholic teaching, the ruler was saved. The fact that he could do more means that there would have been further reward. That reward would have come in the form of supererogatory merit.

At Luther's time, the sale of indulgences had reached scandalous proportions. (Luther was not predisposed against indulgences, in fact at one time, lamenting over the spiritual health of his parents, he offered that, if they died, then at least through his purchase of indulgences there would be a way in which he could help them.) The most notorious of the salesmen employed by the Church to sell indulgences (and fund the construction of St. Peter’s) was a Dominican friar by the name of Johan Tetzel. Tetzel's territory included the area of Wittenberg. His sales pitch included the infamous: "The moment you hear your money drop in the box, your mother will jump out of purgatory."

The Ninety-five Theses

With his newfound peace—many would say as a result of his recent conversion while reading Romans 1:17—Luther could no longer tolerate the crass abuses of the church, personified by the indulgence salesman Tetzel. He went to his cell and put down his views in the form of ninety-five theses. Around noon on October 31, 1517, he nailed the theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. It should be noted that this was a common practice among academics of the time. Scholars would post theses (propositions) on any number of topics and challenge one another to public debates.

This was not the Reformation: Luther did not advocate a schism. But it was the first shot across the bow. Here are a few examples:

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

At this time, Luther was thirty-four years old.

The most striking thing about the theses is that they were far from central. They were concerned with relatively minor issues—questions of related to the sacraments, purgatory, and to indulgences and some criticisms of the pope. Nowhere in the ninety-five theses did Luther rise to defend the individual priesthood of believers or the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Although Luther, from his reading of Romans, was already stewing in Reformation juices, his theses were not very juicy at all. That is the reason why nobody was more surprised that Luther that his theses seemed to awaken all of Germany. The theses included a challenge, for any doctor of theology, to debate him. The challenge was not accepted for two years.

The news of the theses spread throughout Germany. Here we see God’s providence at work. The ruler of Saxony (the area that includes Wittenberg) was one Frederick the Wise. Frederick was a very pious Catholic. He had collected thousands of relics from all over Christendom. The Castle Church, whose door Luther utilized, had been built by Frederick to house the relics. He would put them on display for the public on All Saint’s Day, November 1st. Thus when Luther posted on All Saint’s Eve, the area was bursting with pilgrims who read his theses, copied them, and returned home to cities throughout Germany, spreading the word. Furthermore, printing had been invented, and soon the theses were translated from Latin into a number of languages, printed, and sent to cities throughout Europe.

The effect was tremendous, and almost stopped the sale of indulgences. The archbishop of Mainz, who was to receive a cut of all the proceeds from indulgences sold by Tetzel, was not thrilled. He sent a copy of the theses to Pope Leo X in Rome. At first, Leo did not regard it as a serious matter. He simply advised Luther’s superiors to tell Luther to keep quiet.

Tetzel published a set of theses of his own, defending the sale of indulgences. Mazzolini, a Dominican monk (and inquisitor) wrote a book highly critical of Luther’s position. A theology professor by the name of John Eck rebutted Luther in a pamphlet. Luther countered with a pamphlet of his own.

In April, 1518, the monasteries of the Augustinian Order held their annual meeting in Heidelberg. Luther encountered strong but mostly congenial opposition. Upon return, Luther wrote a book entitles Resolutions, addressed to the pope, in which he carefully defended his theses, point by point.

It has been said that from this time on, Luther lived in a glass house. Every word he spoke, and every word he wrote was carefully analyzed. He was on a cart, racing downhill, and he had no brakes.

Luther Summoned to Rome

The popularization of Luther and his theses hit the pope in two places: it challenged his power and it reduced his purse. When the pope was told that the meeting of the Augustinians had not silenced Luther, he summoned Luther to Rome, in July 1518. If Luther had responded to this summons, it probably would have meant death.

Fortunately Luther had a friend in the Elector Frederick (the Wise). He also had some history on his side: for years the German people had grievances against the Italian popes. A bit of German nationalism was Luther’s friend. Frederick had actually forbidden Tetzel to sell indulgences in Saxony—he did not want his country’s money ending up in Roman coffers. Furthermore, the university in Wittenberg was Frederick's pride and joy, and Luther was now its most famous professor. Frederick used all his influence to have the summons to Rome revoked. The reason the pope listened to Frederick was likely political. The emperor at the time, Maximilian, was dying. Frederick was one of three likely successors, and the one favored by the pope—who believed that Frederick would be easy to control. The pope granted Frederick’s request, both to signal favor toward him and a false signal that he had great respect for Frederick’s authority.

Cardinal Cajetan

At this time, the pope's legate, Cardinal Cajetan, was in Germany to attend a diet in Augsburg. The pope sent Cajetan a letter empowering him to summon Luther for an appearance. Cajetan was to speak to Luther in Augsburg and persuade him to recant. If Luther did not recant, Cajetan was to have him bound and sent to Rome. Having previously declared that Luther was "suspected" of heresy, the pope now dropped all pretenses and openly described Luther as a notorious heretic. Luther was once again in grave danger.

And once again, his patron Frederick came to his assistance. This time Frederick used his influence to obtain from the sickly Maximilian a promise of safe passage for Luther.

In October, 1518, Luther had three meetings with Cajetan, who by all accounts was imperious and arrogant. The discussions were hot and furious. In the end, Luther refused to recant. He stole away from Augsburg secretly in the night.

Cajetan, having failed, appealed to the pope to make an official pronouncement. The pope took an interesting approach. Without mentioning Luther by name, he issued a bull in which he declared that certain statements made by certain monks regarding indulgences were heretical. From then on, Luther could no longer make his claims while contending that the Church had not officially ruled on the matter,

A slight calm thanks to Von Miltitz

The pope's next strategy was to try to blunt the protection of Frederick. For this task he chose Charles Von Miltitz, who was a close friend of Frederick's private secretary.

Upon arriving, and before presenting his credentials, Von Miltitz went to see Luther. (He tried to see Tetzel as well, but was unsuccessful. (Tetzel was holed up in a convent, and expressed fear for his life.) Amazingly, Von Miltitz got Luther to promise not to speak about indulgences any more. The quid pro quo being that his opponents would also stop discussing indulgences. Luther also promised to send a submissive letter to the pope. (Luther did not completely trust Von Miltitz, and speculated to friends whether the kiss from Von Miltitz, signaling their agreement and the end of their meeting, was a Judas kiss.) The pope was so delighted upon receiving Luther's letter that he sent a very friendly response in which called Luther his dear son and invited him to Rome to make his confession. The pope even offered to pay the expenses of the journey.

After the reconciliation, the pope became preoccupied with another matter. In January 1519, the emperor Maximilian died. The pope busied himself in his effort to get Frederick the Wise selected. While the pope was distracted, two foes in Germany did not remain silent.

The Debate with Eck

One of Luther's university colleagues, Andreas Carlstadt, came out with a set of theses against Eck, professor of theology at the university in Ingolstadt. Eck was that man who had written a pamphlet attacking Luther’s ninety-five theses. Eck responded to Carlstadt with his own theses in which he expounded an extreme view of papal supremacy. Luther responded with counter theses of his own. In the twelfth of Luther’s theses, he argued that the claim of Roman supremacy over all other churches rested on only weak papal bulls of the previous four hundred years, and for the eleven hundred years before that, no such supremacy had existed.

The indulgences battle had a call for "internal reform." The challenge to Roman authority had the earmarks of schism. The reconciliation was history—the matter was even more serious than before.

An attack such as this on the papacy, from a man of Luther’s stature, was unprecedented. Eck (who may have been out to trap Luther) challenged Luther to a debate on papal supremacy. This debate was schedule for nine months later! During that time, Luther studied intensely, looking for arguments useful for refuting a doctrine that he had cherished most of his life. He engaged himself in a study of church history and canon law, and was dismayed to discover that many decretals of the church were forgeries.

The debate (disputation) took place in the city of Leipzig. Guards surrounded the duke's palace where the debate was held. More guards were stationed in the inns to keep the Leipzig and Wittenberg students from fighting.

As the debate began, it was obvious that both Luther and Eck were worthy opponents, matched in their verbal and intellectual abilities to defend their positions. However, not being able to argue his own position based on its merits, Eck cleverly got Luther to concede that he agreed with some of the teachings of Jan Huss, who had been condemned by the Council of Constance and sent to the stakes. Luther said Huss had been condemned in an unrighteous manner. As soon as Luther was perceived as siding with an officially condemned heretic, the psychological advantage went to Eck. A wave of astonishment swept over the listening audience. Duke George of Saxony was heard to exclaim, "God help us; this is the pestilence."

Despite the psychological advantage going to Eck, Luther did win the strategic advantage, in that he based his arguments on fact, using the historical process. Luther pointed out that the Eastern Greek Church had never acknowledged the supremacy of the bishops of Rome. Yet, it was admitted by all, that the Eastern Church was Christian. The papacy faced a dilemma. How could the pope claim supremacy over all the churches, and yet a large part of the Church, recognized as Christian, not honor that claim? In addition, Luther noted that the great ecumenical councils of the early centuries did not teach the supremacy of the papacy.

Though the immediate impression might have been that the debate at Leipzig was won by Eck, important results went with Luther. He was far from being defeated. Following the Leipzig debate, the supporters of Luther grew. Among those who joined in Luther's cause was Martin Bucer (1491-1551). In time, Bucer would become a leading Reformer in Strassburg and a colleague of John Calvin.

Besides gaining more converts, a second result of the debate at Leipzig was that Luther's own thinking was solidified. His motive all along was to reform the Catholic Church, not to leave it. But now Luther had publicly rejected the supremacy of the pope and the infallibility of the Church councils. The Leipzig debate main it painfully clear that irreconcilable differences existed between Luther and Rome.

At this point, everything was in place. Luther was in a position where reconciliation was impossible. He also had a large following. Schism was just ahead. Soon after the debate, Eck went to Rome to recommend Luther's excommunication. The pope complied.

Schism was in the air.

Lesson 22: Forerunners of the Reformation

2005-06-06T02:50:00.000-07:00

John Wycliffe

John Wycliffe (ca 1330-1384), born near Richmond (Yorkshire), was an Oxford professor who attacked some Roman Catholic doctrine, especially the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He also advocated a saving, personal faith and an independent church. He never, so it seems, advanced to the point where he proclaimed Justification by Faith Alone, but it is clear that his view of salvation was much closer to that which Luther and the other Reformers would formalize.

Wycliffe also had a strong view of scripture and proclaimed its inerrancy and authority both explicitly (whatever scripture says) and implicitly (whatever scripture, through sound exegetic deduction, can be said to imply.) Thus, while the bible never states that God is three persons of one substance, the fact that the Trinity is derived from the bible renders that doctrine binding to the conscience of every Christian.

Wycliffe gained prominence in 1374 during a prolonged dispute between the papacy and Edward III, king of England. The dispute was over the payment of a certain papal tribute. Both king and Parliament were reluctant to pay the papal levies. Wycliffe wrote several pamphlets refuting the pope's claims and upholding the right of Parliament to limit church power.

After the Great Papal Schism began, Wycliffe's views became more radical. In various writings such as De Ecclesia, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, and De Potestate Papae he rejected the biblical basis of papal authority, insisted on the primacy of Scripture, and advocated extensive theological reform. That same year Wycliffe and some Oxford associates defied church tradition by undertaking an English translation of the Vulgate.

In De Eucharistia Wycliffe repudiated the doctrine of transubstantiation. After he died on December 31, 1384, his teachings were spread far and wide. His Bible was widely distributed by his followers, called Lollards. Ultimately Wycliffe's writings strongly influenced the Bohemian religious reformer John Huss (Jan Hus) in his revolt against the church. Martin Luther also acknowledged his great debt to Wycliffe. In May 1415 the Council of Constance reviewed Wycliffe's heresies and ordered his body disinterred and burned. This decree was carried out in 1428.

In its most developed form, Wycliffe's philosophy represented a complete break with the church. He believed in a direct relationship between humanity and God, without the need of mediation through human priests. By close adherence to the Scriptures, Christians would, Wycliffe believed, govern themselves without the aid of popes and prelates. Wycliffe denounced as unscriptural many beliefs and practices of the established church. He held that the Christian clergy should strive to imitate evangelical poverty, the poverty of Christ and his disciples.

Jan (John) Huss (1373-1415)

Huss was born in Bohemia (Czechoslovakia) into a wealthy farming family. He attended the University of Prague, where he received his master's degree in 1396. Two years later he began lecturing at the university.

After English king Richard II's marriage to Anne of Bohemia in 1382, Wycliffe's ideas were introduced to Bohemian circles by Bohemian students who, as a result of the marriage, were given the opportunity to study at Oxford.

In 1400 Huss was ordained to the priesthood. In 1401 he became dean of the philosophy faculty. His reputation spread while he was a preacher. He became even better known upon receiving the prestigious position of Bethlehem Chapel's rector. There he upheld the Czech tradition of preaching in the vernacular.

His preaching responsibilities forced him to study the Bible more seriously. He continued reading Wycliffe's works, although he did not abandon the Catholic Church. Huss still acted as Archbishop Sbynjek’s agent in examining claims of miracles. Those investigations resulted in his first book Concerning the Glorification of All the Blood of Christ (1404). Huss attacked forged miracles and urged the faithful not to seek Christ in miraculous signs but in Scripture.

Huss caught fire from Wycliffe, and Luther from Huss, calling himself a Hussite.

The stance Huss took on Wycliffe soon brought reactions from his university colleagues who had condemned Wycliffe’s teachings (1403). At the same time, Huss's demands for clerical reforms incited complaints from fellow Catholic clergy. Huss was also attacked for his criticism of the papacy. As a result, he was forbidden by the archbishop to perform any priestly functions (1408).

Huss denounced various church abuses in his sermons. His disputes with authority did not concern basic doctrine, but rather matters of church discipline and practice. One of his most important assaults was upon the relatively new custom that, at celebration of the Lord's Supper, the bread was distributed to the laity, but not the cup. This arose because, after 1215 and the Fourth Lateran Council, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was declared as Catholic dogma, and now the liquid in the cup was viewed as the actual blood of Christ. The risk of the laity spilling Christ's blood was deemed substantial, in spite of the fact that scripture clearly indicates that all Christians should drink in remembrance of our Lord.

Rome, in this instance, decided that she would administer the Lord's Supper as she saw fit, not as scripture dictated. They argued, including Thomas Aquinas, that in reality they did not withhold anything from the laity, because the wafer was the body of Christ, and the body included the blood.

Huss also taught that the Catholic church consists of the number of the predestined, a view that would be adopted by the Reformers.

This was at the time of the Great Schism. The two popes at the time were Gregory XII in Rome and John XXIII in Avignon. The French pope, John, was pressured by the King of Naples, who supported his rival, Gregory. John XXIII offered indulgences for all who would come to his aid against the King of Naples. Before being influenced by Wycliff, Huss had been a supporter of indulgences, he even, on one occasion, spent his last dime to purchase one. Now he viewed them as abominations. Pope John XXIII excommunicated Huss. Huss, in turn, viewed his excommunication with contempt.

From 1414 to 1418, church leaders met at Constance (in present-day Germany) to resolve the Great Schism. Huss was summoned to appear, and was promised safe-conduct by Bohemian emperor Sigismund. Soon after his arrival, he was jailed. During his eight-month trial, he received little opportunity to respond to the accusations. Throughout the proceedings Huss defended his teachings with Scripture. His connection with Wycliffism, however, harmed his position. Consequently, the testimonies and arguments of powerful church leaders secured his condemnation for heresy. Sigismund refused to implement his safe-conduct. On July 6, Huss was humiliated and then handed over to the secular authorities with an empty recommendation "for mercy." He was immediately led outside the city where he was defrocked and burned at the stake.

The Renaissance

Renaissance means "rebirth." It began in the 14th century in Italy, and involved a return to classic Greek and Roman culture that was lost as a result of the Germanic barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire.

When the Renaissance moved north, it also moved from secular to theological emphasis. The new ways of thinking, including scientific methods, found new application in biblical exegesis. That is, theologians began to study scripture in a systematic and analytic manner, and much of what they "discovered" was in conflict with the teachings of Rome. The Reformation could not have happened without the Renaissance—or more accurately God providentially allowed the Renaissance to prepare man for the Reformation.

Non-Reformers who helped to pave the way

The Renaissance led to resurgence in scholarly activity. This was a time for scholars—and many of those scholars had a great influence on Luther—even though they never broke with the Catholic Church. It was this new (actually recovered) way of thinking—an analytic approach to theology, wherein reason and intellect were applied to the scriptures, that was so vital for Luther and the Reformation.

1) Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340)

He took the Franciscan habit at Verneuil, studied theology, received a doctorate in Paris and was appointed professor at the Sorbonne. In the famous controversy on the Beatific Vision he took sides with the professors against John XXII. (John taught that the dead would not see God until the final judgment and bodily resurrection.) He labored very successfully, both in preaching and writing, for the conversion of the Jews. Luther owes much to Nicholas of Lyra, but how widely the principles of Nicholas differed essentially from Luther's views is best seen from Nicholas's own words. "I protest that I do not intend to assert or determine anything that has not been manifestly determined by Sacred Scripture or by the authority of the Church . . . . Wherefore I submit all I have said or shall say to the correction of Holy Mother Church and of all learned men . . . " It was not what Nicholas of Lyra taught but how he studied that so influenced Luther.

2) Lorenzo Valla (1405-1457)

Italian humanist. Valla knew Greek and Latin well and was chosen by Pope Nicholas V to translate Herodotus and Thucydides into Latin. From his earliest works, he was an ardent spokesman for the new humanist learning of the Renaissance that sought to reform language and education. From the late 14th through the 16th cent., the humanists researched the texts of classical antiquity, believing that the spirit of Greco-Roman times that had been lost during the Middle Ages could be revived. By concentrating on the humanistic disciplines of poetry, rhetoric, ethics, history, and politics, they claimed a special dignity for human life and conduct. In a pioneering work of criticism, Valla proved that the Donation of Constantine (A document that puported to be a grant by Constantine of great temporal power in Italy and the West to the papacy. Its purpose was to enhance papal territorial claims in Italy by giving them greater antiquity.) was a forgery. At 26 he wrote De Voluptate which condemned monastic asceticism. De libero arbitrio demonstrated that theological disputes over divine prescience and human free will could never be resolved. His masterwork, the six books of the Elegantiae linguae latinae (1444), was a defense of classical Latin in which he contrasted the elegance of the ancient Romans' works with the clumsiness of medieval and Church Latin. This enormously influential work ran to 60 editions before 1536. Valla's investigations into the textual errors in the Vulgate spurred Erasmus to undertake the study of the Greek New Testament. Luther was influenced by Valla’s scholarship and especially his emphasis on studying documents in their original language.

3) Erasmus (1466-1536)

It is sometimes said that Erasmus laid the egg that his contemporary, Luther hatched. Erasmus was an ordained Catholic priest and studied at the University of Paris. He was the greatest scholar of his day and he was acquainted with most of the scholars of Europe. His circle of friends was especially large in England; it included Thomas More, John Colet, and Henry VIII. His editions of Greek and Latin classics and of the Fathers of the Church are classics. His Latin edition of the New Testament was based on the original Greek text. Erasmus combined vast learning with a fine style, a keen and sometimes sharp humor, moderation, and tolerance. His position on the Reformation was widely denounced, especially by Martin Luther, who had first looked on Erasmus as an ally because of Erasmus' attacks on clerical abuse and lay ignorance. Though eager for church reform, Erasmus remained all his life within the Catholic Church. Erasmus was finally brought into open conflict with Luther and attacked his position on predestination in On the Freedom of the Will.

In is interesting to note that, on the topic of predestination, there was (and is) a spectrum of views in the Roman Catholic Church. The views were not "random", but tended along the order to which one belonged—it is very much a true statement that the different Catholic orders are like different Protestant denominations. The Augustinian order, to which Luther belonged, are the most "Calvinistic" of the orders, while at the other end of the predestination spectrum were the Franciscans, who were generally staunch opponents to predestination.

4) William of Ockham (1280-1349)

At an early age, Ockham entered the Order of St. Francis. Towards 1310 he went to Paris. About 1320 he became a teacher (magister) at the University of Paris. During this portion of his career he composed his works on Aristotelean physics and on logic. In 1323 he resigned his chair at the university in order to devote himself to ecclesiastical politics. In the controversies which were waged at that time between the advocates of the papacy and those who supported the claims of the civil power, he threw his lot with the imperial party, and contributed to the polemical literature of the day a number of pamphlets and treatises. He was cited before the pontifical Court at Avignon in 1328, but managed to escape.

In his controversial writings William of Ockham advocates secular absolutism. He denies the right of the popes to exercise temporal power, or to interfere in any way whatever in the affairs of state. He even went so far as to advocate the validity of the adulterous marriage of Louis's son, on the grounds of political expediency, and the absolute power of the state in such matters. Luther, too, fell victim to this mistake, sometimes knows as "Necessary Lies", when he sanctioned the bigamous relationship of one of the Reformations political allies, Prince Philip of Hesse.

In science, Ockham is known for "Ockham’s Razor", a principle which states that given two competing theories or explanations that both explain a phenomenon, such as the orbits of the planets, the simpler explanation will be the correct one.

Ockham's attitude towards the established order in the Church and towards the recognized system of philosophy in the academic world of his day was one of protest. He has, indeed, been called "the first Protestant". Nevertheless, he recognized in his polemical writings the authority of the Church in spiritual matters, and did not diminish that authority in any respect.

Luther’s error on “Necessary Lies” has a foundation in Ockham, and so does another of Luther’s errors, the error of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation, which Ockham taught and Luther adopted, was as far away from transubstantiation that Luther was would allow himself to go, which is to say not very far. Whereas in transubstantiation the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, in consubstantiation the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine. Consubstantiation has been compared with Christ himself, analogous to the way in which His divine and human selves coexisted within the same body. Thus, both transubstantiation and consubstantiation proclaim the "real presence" of Christ during the Eucharist. Consubstantiation is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church.

5) Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498)

He joined the Dominican order and in 1481 he went to San Marco, the Dominican (next closest to Calvinism after the Augustinians) house at Florence, where he became popular for his eloquent sermons, in which he attacked the vice and worldliness (and humanism) of the city, as well as for his predictions (one being that God told him that the King of France would be used for divine judgment on the city of Florence.)

He was unwavering in his condemnation of the paganism of the times and called for a regeneration of spiritual and moral values and a devotion to asceticism. When Charles VIII of France invaded Italy in 1494 (as Savonarola had predicted), Savonarola supported him, hoping that Charles would lead the way to the establishment of a democratic government in Florence and to the reform of the corrupt court of Pope Alexander VI. Alexander, understandably infuriated, ordered Savonarola to refrain from preaching; however, he continued to preach, and the pope excommunicated him for disobedience in 1497.

Savonarola now declared Alexander a false pope, elected by simony. The people of Florence withdrew their support for Savonarola, having tired of his rigid demands, and also feeling threatened by Alexander. In March 1498, the government, threatened by a papal interdict, asked him to stop preaching. Savonarola and two disciples were arrested. Under torture he confessed to being a false prophet, or so it was announced. The three were martyred for schism and heresy.

When his priestly executioners brought Savonarola to the stake, they cried: We excommunicate you from the Church militant here upon earth!" to which Savonarola replied "But not from the Church triumphant in heaven!"

6) The Brethren of the Common Life

Around 1350 in the Netherlands and Germany, before the Reformation, the movement that came closest to actual Reformation, was called The Brethren (and later "Brothers and Sisters") of the Common Life. It was founded by a German by the name of Gerhard Groote and was a true grass roots movement. Groote's preaching was well received, and lead to a revival of sorts. This was a lay movement for the lay people. These were Christians living as Christians, and they seemed "alive" in Christ and did much charity and good for the common people.

The Brethren of the Common Life were strong proponents of Christian education, believing that reform would be a result of improved education. Luther himself attended one of their schools, as did Erasmus.

Another student of the Brethren school was John of Wessel. From 1445 to 1456 he was a professor of Erfurt in Germany, from which, a half a century later, would receive a Master’s degree. John of Wessel attacked indulgences and taught (although this point is disputed by the Catholic Church) the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. It is, however, hard to redact his quote: "He who thinks to be justified through his own works does not know what it is to be saved." He also taught that the elect were saved by grace alone, and wrote "Whom God wishes to save He would save by giving him grace, if all the priests should wish to damn and excommunicate him." He also taught against transubstantiation and priestly celibacy. Luther said of Wessel: If I had read the works of Wessel beforehand, it might well have seemed that I derived all my ideas from him. John of Wessel was tried for heresy by the archbishop of Mainz and recanted. Nevertheless he was put in prison, where he died in 1489.

The most influential member of the Brothers and Sisters of the Common Life may have been Thomas à Kempis, author of one of the greatest selling books of all time, The Imitation of Christ. This gentle masterpiece on meditation and prayer was written in a simple language, as opposed to the scholarly theological works of great thinkers like Aquinas. As such, and much like Pilgrim's Progress, its appeal was broad and deep.

Here is a quote that provides a glimpse of the style and substance of The Imitation of Christ:

Now, that which seems to be charity is oftentimes really sensuality, for man's own inclination, his own will, his hope of reward, and his self-interest, are motives seldom absent. On the contrary, he who has true and perfect charity seeks self in nothing, but searches all things for the glory of God. Moreover, he envies no man, because he desires no personal pleasure nor does he wish to rejoice in himself; rather he desires the greater glory of God above all things. He ascribes to man nothing that is good but attributes it wholly to God from Whom all things proceed as from a fountain, and in Whom all the blessed shall rest as their last end and fruition.

Lesson 21: Preparing for the Reformation

2005-05-02T02:50:00.000-07:00

Salvation by the Church

We are in the "high middle ages." Salvation by the church, which had been creeping in, reaches its climax. The Roman Catholic Church becomes a perfect expression of an imperfect idea. This idea, made manifest in the sacramental system, can be expressed this way: Salvation is by grace alone, but grace is available through the church alone. The Catholic Church never said that salvation was not by Jesus Christ, but rather you needed the church to avail yourself of God's grace. The saving gospel medicine comes from above, but can only be administered by the church.

God does use human agents, He always has. What was different here is that the Church guaranteed, monopolized, and effectively restricted those human activities. For example, God has to regenerate any believer. He may or may not do it at the time a person is baptized. The Catholic Church teaches that God will regenerate in a properly conducted infant baptism. To reiterate:

The Church administers baptism to infants, which brings regeneration
The Church administers confirmation, through which the believer is strengthened by the Holy Spirit
The Church administers the Eucharist, through which the believers are further strengthen to enable them to continue
The Church, via Confession, administered forgiveness and required penitence
The Church, through Extreme Unction, administered the transition of one’s soul to heaven

The Roman Catholic Church had essentially abandoned Augustine's view of the visible and invisible church. The Protestants would recover this idea. Recall that the visible church is the set of professing Christians (of any denomination.) Among this group we find both believers and unbelievers. The invisible church is the set of true Christians. The Catholic Church, by guaranteeing salvation through the sacramental system, had essentially declared that the invisible church could be made visible. In other words, they had no concept that any Catholic in good standing would not get into heaven (and that any non-Catholic could), although they may (probably) would have to spend time in purgatory. Protestant churches cannot make any such guarantee (which is not to say that Protestants do have a means of assurance, as we’ll talk about later.)

Purgatory

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about purgatory:

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

Temporal Punishment

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things, but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Num., xx, 12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (II Kings, xii, 13, 14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.

Venial Sins
All sins are not equal before God, nor dare anyone assert that the daily faults of human frailty will be punished with the same severity that is meted out to serious violation of God's law. On the other hand whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Hab., i, 13). For unrepented venial faults for the payment of temporal punishment due to sin at time of death, the Church has always taught the doctrine of purgatory.
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory supposes the fact that some die with smaller faults for which there was no true repentance, and also the fact that the temporal penalty due to sin is it times not wholly paid in this life. The proofs for the Catholic position, both in Scripture and in Tradition, are bound up also with the practice of praying for the dead. For why pray for the dead, if there be no belief in the power of prayer to afford solace to those who as yet are excluded from the sight of God? So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succoring departed souls. Those who have opposed the doctrine of purgatory have confessed that prayers for the dead would be an unanswerable argument if the modern doctrine of a "particular judgment" had been received in the early ages. But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation; and one has only to consult the evidence found in the catacombs to feel equally sure that the Christian faith there expressed embraced clearly a belief in judgment immediately after death.

Old Testament
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.

New Testament

There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares:

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt. 12:32)

According to St. Isidore of Seville these words prove that in the next life "some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come.”

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul:

11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor, 3:11-15)

While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine, is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians.

Indulgences

A problem that develops is how to shorten ones time in this temporary hell, the answer that develops is indulgences, the sale of which we will see plays a large role in the early stages of Luther’s debate with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines an indulgence this way:

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

The Catholic Way of Salvation

The problem with the Catholic way of salvation: baptism, confirmation, confession, etc. is that while the Church claimed that salvation was of grace alone, the penitential system made so, that in practice, it was quite something other than grace.

Ironically, the penitential system asked for works to be done to restore a person who had fallen from grace. Yet the bible tells us that, even in good-standing, these works bring no merit:

So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ ” (Luke 17:10)

Interestingly enough, the develop of the penitential system met be partly due to an error made by Jerome when he produce the definitive Latin translation (the Vulgate). Mistranslating the Greek, he rendered the word properly translated as "repent" to "do penance." Thus, for example,

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17, NASB)

is rendered in the (Catholic) Douay-Rheims as

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. 4:17, DRB)

One historian has said this: While the doctrine of Grace Alone (sola-gratia) survived the middle ages, the Augustinian doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace did not. But this only serves to point out the problems with the Catholic doctrine, for it represents a self-inconsistent blend of doctrine. Without predestination and irresistible grace, you cannot logically maintain grace-alone other than a fiction, for you have necessarily introduced requirements for man: man must choose, man must respond positively, mad must do penance. At best the system is grace "assisted."

The Church in the Wilderness

The question arises: Where was the invisible church during this period where the Catholic Church consummated her new gospel?

First of all, we must acknowledge the church would never vanish from the earth.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD .
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. (Jer. 31:33)

God has made a covenant with His people, which would preclude His people from vanishing from the face of the earth. So where were they?

Well, some were in the Roman Catholic Church. For the most part, there was no critique of the church at the time, and in most places there was nowhere else to go. It may be easy for us, as twenty-first century to say that the church had obviously slipped into error, but it was much harder for those close to the situation. As always, while we today, thanks to the providential work of the Reformers, proudly proclaim sola fide, or justification by faith alone, we must always remember that while we are indeed justified by faith alone, we are not justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

A few movements outside of the church did have some success, most notably the 12th century Waldensian movement. This was started by a rich merchant by the name of Peter Valdo from Lyon (1140-1217) who sold his possessions and began a movement called sometimes called “the poor of Lyon” to reflect the fact that its adherents lived simple lives (often going barefoot) preaching a very simple New Testament message of the gospel and salvation. They ultimately faced persecution by the Catholic Church (they had anti-cleric message to go along with the gospel) under the Inquisition and fled into the Alps, surviving up to the Reformation which they readily supported while at the same time declining to join any Protestant denomination.

It was as if they were a minority that continued to hear the Shepard’s voice even as the official church seemed to drown it out with her own salvific plan. Some have identified the Waldenses with the “wilderness” church of Revelation.

Discussion Question: If you were a good and faithful Catholic, would you have supported the Inquisition?

The Great Papal Schism

In 1378, the Roman Catholic Church split when the King of France decided that he did not like the Italian Pope and elected one of his own. The Great Papal Schism lasted for 68 years, during which time two popes claimed authority.

In 1309, Pope Clement V moved the papacy and his residence to Avignon, a city just outside French territory on the Rhone River. This allowed Phillip the Fair, King of France, to exert a great deal of influence over the church.

In 1377, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome. After Gregory died, an Italian Pope was elected. However, the French were were unwilling to recognize the new pope, so they elected their own, who ruled from Avignon.

Western Europe was divided over which pope to support. Of course France supported the Avignon pope. Along with France were Sicily, Scotland, and Portugal. On the other side, Rome supported the Roman pope, as did Poland, Hungary and Germany. Finally, between 1414 and 1418, the Council of Constance was successful in healing the Schism. The confusion, without question, caused some to question the authority and wisdom of the Catholic Church.

Forerunners of the Reformation

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (WC I.VI)

Wycliffe gained prominence in 1374 during a prolonged dispute between Edward III, king of England, and the papacy over the payment of a certain papal tribute. Both king and Parliament were reluctant to pay the papal levies. Wycliffe wrote several pamphlets refuting the pope's claims and upholding the right of Parliament to limit church power.

In 1376 Wycliffe enunciated the doctrine of "dominion as founded in grace," according to which all authority is conferred directly by the grace of God and is consequently forfeited when the wielder of that authority is guilty of mortal sin. Wycliffe did not state explicitly that he considered the English church to be sinful and worldly, but his implication was clear. On February 19, 1377, he was called before the bishop of London, William Courtenay, to give account of his doctrine. The interrogation ended when the nobleman John of Gaunt, who had accompanied Wycliffe, became involved in a brawl with the bishop and his entourage. On May 22, 1377, Pope Gregory XI issued several bulls accusing Wycliffe of heresy. In autumn of the same year, however, Parliament requested his opinion on the legality of forbidding the English church to ship its riches abroad at the pope's behest. Wycliffe upheld the lawfulness of such a prohibition, and early in 1378 he was again called before Bishop Courtenay and the archbishop of Canterbury, Simon of Sudbury. Wycliffe was dismissed with only a formal admonition, however, because of his influence at court.

After the Great Papal Schism began, Wycliffe's views became much more radical. In various writings such as De Ecclesia, De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae, and De Potestate Papae he rejected the biblical basis of papal authority, insisted on the primacy of Scripture, and advocated extensive theological reform. That same year Wycliffe and certain Oxford associates defied church tradition by undertaking an English translation of the Vulgate, or Latin Bible, completed c. 1392, a remarkable achievement for its time considering it was several generations before the age of printing and about a century and a half before the first printed English version of the New Testament by William Tyndale.

In De Eucharistia Wycliffe repudiated the doctrine of transubstantiation. This bold declaration caused such a furor that John of Gaunt withdrew his support. Standing his ground, Wycliffe in 1380 began to send out disciples, called Poor Preachers, who traveled the countryside expounding his egalitarian religious views. The preachers found a ready audience, and Wycliffe was suspected of fomenting social unrest. He had no direct connection with the unsuccessful Peasants' Revolt in 1381, but it is probable that his doctrines influenced the peasants. In May 1382, Courtenay, now the archbishop of Canterbury, convened an ecclesiastical court that condemned Wycliffe as a heretic and brought about his expulsion from Oxford. Wycliffe retired to his parish of Lutterworth.

After Wycliffe died on December 31, 1384, his teachings were spread far and wide. His Bible was widely distributed by his followers, called Lollards. Ultimately Wycliffe's writings strongly influenced the Bohemian religious reformer John Huss (Jan Hus) in his revolt against the church. Martin Luther also acknowledged his great debt to Wycliffe. In May 1415 the Council of Constance reviewed Wycliffe's heresies and ordered his body disinterred and burned. This decree was carried out in 1428.

In its most developed form, Wycliffe's philosophy represented a complete break with the church. He believed in a direct relationship between humanity and God, without priestly mediation. By a close adherence to the Scriptures, Christians would, Wycliffe believed, govern themselves without the aid of popes and prelates. Wycliffe denounced as unscriptural many beliefs and practices of the established church. He held that the Christian clergy should strive to imitate evangelical poverty, the poverty of Christ and his disciples.

Lesson 20: The Rise of the Papacy in the Medieval Church

2005-05-01T17:23:00.000-07:00

The Fall of Imperial Rome

During the glory of Rome, we have the notion of Pax Romana, describing the longest period of enforced peace in the history of the western world. (There was a time when people hoped for a Pax Americana, but nobody talks about that anymore.) Nevertheless, the Imperial Roman Empire came down in the fifth century, as barbarians with superior military strength began crossing the borders. As they began to eat away (and ultimately occupying) territory, the ultimate doom of the empire was inevitable.

We should stop and look at the sovereignty of God at play. God raised up Pharaoh for the purposes of bringing him down. Likewise he raised up Rome, it would seem, for the purpose of providing the infrastructure and stability needed for the rapid growth of the church. Then He brought Rome down—and ironically the "feeble" and army-less church would not only survive Rome's collapse but would end up conquering the conquerors, as many of the barbarians converted to Christianity.

Consider, for example, the case of Alaric, a leader of the Visigoths, pushed by the Huns and later followed by Attila the Hun. Alaric invaded Rome (for the second time) more-or-less unopposed in 410, an event that shocked the western world and is generally regarded as the end of the Roman Empire. It was a bishop with no military power that persuaded Alaric to leave. Likewise Attila the Hun, known as the “Scourge of God”, stood (in 452) on the road to Rome, with no opposition before him, when Pope Leo the Great left Rome, marched out to meet Attila and, in words that sadly have not been preserved, persuaded him to spare the ancient capital.

In 476 the barbarian Odoacer deposed the last (and by now impotent) western emperor and became, in effect, emperor himself. This would be the final nail in the coffin of Imperial Rome.

Later we find the barbarian King Theodoric (c. 454 – 526) become a Christian—so much so that he was the recipient of a false accusation of being an Arian heretic.

So Imperial Rome fell, and it is said of Imperial Rome that she tyrannized the bodies of been though the sword she wielded.

She was replaced by something even more powerful, an empire with not one but two swords: an ecclesiastical sword and a political sword. The rulers of this empire tyrannized the bodies and the souls of men. In that sense they were twice the tyrant of many of the Roman emperors—most of which, in the later empire, were tolerant in religious matters.

The Rise of Ecclesiastical-Political Rome

As we will see, the tyranny on the souls of men will be made manifest in the doctrine identified by the Latin phrase: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. It translates as "Outside the Church, there is no salvation." Now it should be pointed out that the statement, as it stands, is correct. It is a question of whose church are we talking about? There is indeed no salvation outside of Christ's church. However, this was in reality a pernicious code phrase meaning there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church. Why is such a statement tyranny? For the simple reason that men, especially the pope, had (and still has) the power of membership in the Roman Catholic Church. If your membership was revoked, your salvation was lost. The pope literally held salvation in his hands.

So the Catholic Church (from this point on, "Catholic Church" always means the Roman Catholic Church) had an ecclesiastical sword of awesome power—the very power of salvation. It also had a political sword of great power, but this sword it wielded indirectly. Officially, the state held that sword. But the state would be under the control of the Catholic Church. It was the state who executed, but it was the Catholic Church that pronounced the death sentence. It is this slight indirection that allows the Catholic Church to maintain the fiction that she never executed anyone, even during the Inquisition. (The Inquisition was a tribunal, presided over by Dominican friars, who were charged with rooting out heresy. Those suspected of heresy were brought before the tribunal and given a chance to recant. If they didn’t, they were handed over to civil "puppet" authorities, because "the Church never sheds blood.")

Papal Authority

We have discussed the general rise of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, whom henceforth we will call the pope. As we discussed in a previous lesson, non-Catholics generally regard Leo the Great as the first pope, at least in the modern sense of the word. For he was the first to use a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 as biblical support for his divine authority.

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matt. 16:18)

In a sense, three errors were committed that lead to the rise of the papacy.

A mistaken belief in the supremacy of Peter
The misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18
The invention of apostolic succession

Paul, not Peter, was the greatest Apostle

At first this must sound a little silly--arguing about who is greater than whom. But what is really silly, but understandable in today’s society, is to dogmatically proclaim that all apostles made contributions of identical value. They did not, and it should be obvious that such is the case.

Peter was a great and godly man, and a great leader, and was loved dearly by Jesus. But it was Paul, not Peter, who was the New Testament Moses. Paul wrote most of the New Testament. Paul explained the life and ministry of Jesus more comprehensively than any other inspired writer. Paul founded more churches than any other apostle, engaged in more missionary work than any other apostle, and who, in the book of Romans, provided us with the most thorough (inspired) doctrine of salvation. It was Paul who made two substantive visits to Rome. Peter probably made one short visit to Rome and probably, like Paul, was martyred there. What Peter did not do, and what some Catholics still believe, is spend twenty-five years in Rome as bishop.

Misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18

The misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18 can be stated this way: Catholics see "only Peter" in the passage. But it was not Peter the man that would be the rock upon which the church would be built, but Peter in faith confessing in the Lordship of Christ two verses earlier:

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16)

Peter, here, is the archetype Christian: one who believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, and Our Lord and Savior. Upon this "model" as it were, the church will be built. Catholicism sees only the man Peter, not the confessor Peter, and thereby elevates Peter well beyond Christ's intent. In effect, the position of the Catholic Church is that, at this moment in time, Christ has delegated to the Apostle Peter the power over salvation.

Amazingly, just a few verses later, just after Catholics say Jesus bestowed upon Peter the awesome power of salvation, the first pope makes a serious error:

²¹From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you." ²³But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." (Matt. 16:21-23)

The possibility that shortly after Peter was divinely appointed to a papal throne he was then called "Satan" by Jesus makes the mind reel.

(Note: some Protestants believe that Jesus isn’t even referring to Peter when he uses the word rock, which is feminine. That is probably not true. Jesus was probably referring to Peter throughout Matt. 16:18, but, as stated, not Peter the man but Peter the archetype Christian because of his previous, powerful confession.)

Invention of Apostolic Succession

The mistakes of exaggerating the importance of Peter and in misinterpreting Matt. 16:18 would be bad enough, but what the institution of the papacy requires is that Peter, who they believe held, through the keys of the kingdom, the power of salvation, passed along that god-like authority to subsequent Roman bishops. Even if you agree that Jesus abrogated his authority to Peter, nowhere in scripture is a successor to Peter mentioned, or even alluded to, a fact acknowledged by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church must find her support for apostolic succession not in scripture, but tradition, a subject we will talk about later.

The Investiture Struggle

One manifestation of the rise of papal power can be seen in what is know as the investiture struggle. This can be stated simply: Should the pope crown the king, or should the king crown the pope? (And who should ordain bishops?) This was a battle concerning the supremacy of church or state.

That the church would even presume that she should crown the king is a sign of how things had gone wrong. It is a sign that the church looked favorably upon the idea of a theocracy—and this is a serious error. (Today some conservative Christians support the notion of a theocracy—it remains a serious error.)

In Old Testament times, of course, Israel was a theocracy. But in the New Testament, we see two things that tell us that the time of theocracy is over.

The first is that the New Testament we are told to obey (secular) rulers:

¹Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. ²Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. (Rom 13:1-2)

The second and more important reason is that Christ tells us that His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36.) We are not to fight with secular authorities; Christ even rebukes Peter when Peter takes that approach at the time of his arrest.

How did Christ’s kingdom come to be, under the medieval Catholic Church, "of this world?" Well, for the most part people asked for it. People viewed the church as a preferred ruler, even on matters of state, and the state accepted the invitation.

This was unique to the west. In the east, the czars won the investiture struggle, and they remained in authority over the eastern church. And in Islam, the two parts are united in the Sultanate.

Three Important Popes

At this point, we examine three medieval popes who contributed substantively to the rise the papacy.

Gregory VII (Hildebrand) 1075-1089

The investiture struggle reached its climax under Pope Gregory VII and his battle with (German) King Henry IV (who had succeeded to the throne at the age of six). Over the investiture controversy, Henry IV deposed the pope, the pope in return excommunicated the emperor.

What happened next was astounding. Not only did Gregory excommunicate Henry, he freed the people from any obligation to submit to Henry’s civil authority. In effect, he established as a rule of law that the king had to be a Christian in good standing, and since Henry, having been excommunicated, was no longer a Christian, he could no longer rule. In response, Henry adopted a brilliant strategy. In 1077 Henry, having been excommunicated, stood barefoot in the snow, outside the papal palace, begging for forgiveness. Gregory was between a rock and a hard place. He was obligated by church law to forgive and restore any person with a sincere outward appearance of repentance, and not many men had ever looked more sincere than Henry. But if he forgave Henry, he was certain that Henry would use his restored power against him.

That’s exactly what happened. The pope forgave Henry and restored him to the church and his throne. Henry returned the favor by exiling Gregory. Nevertheless, and important and non-biblical precedent had been established: according to the Catholic Church and contrary to scripture, people were not subject to the authority of their rulers unless the church sanctioned that authority.

Innocent III 1198-1261

Under Innocent III, Papal authority reached its highest level. And under Innocent we see the seeds for the later Protestant Reformation being sown, for under Innocent the way to salvation changed from the biblical gospel: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved (Acts 16:31), to a gospel that is unrecognizable.

Innocent III presided during the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and may scholars agree that this is where papal authority reached its apogee, while at the same time (and not coincidentally) the Catholic Church sank to her lowest level, completely instituting her own way to salvation.

Innocent III commanded Crusades, presided over the introduction of the seven sacraments and the sacramental system, including making confession to a priest necessary, and instituted the penitential system.

Two of the sacraments are not relevant for this discussion. These are "holy orders", i.e., related to the ordination of priests, etc., and marriage.

The other five are:

Infant Baptism
Confirmation (at age 12)
The Eucharist (Lord’s supper of transubstantiated elements)
Penance
Extreme Unction (Last Rites)

What is so wrong with the sacramental system? The problem can be stated this way: if you did what the church instructed, and followed the sacramental system from womb to tomb, it essentially guaranteed salvation. You would likely spend time in purgatory, but you were baptized as an infant, confirmed at 12, partook of the Lord’s supper, confessed your sins to a priest, performed acts of penance, received Extreme Unction, and were buried on holy ground, you were on your way to heaven.

This represented such a grave distortion of the gospel that it is basically unrecognizable as related in anyway whatsoever to the scripture. What the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III tells you to do in order to be saved bears no resemblance to what Paul tells the Philippian Jailer.

Boniface VIII 1294-1303

Under Boniface VIII we find the most dramatic and blatant assertion of papal power. In 1302, Boniface issued the Papal Bull know as Unam Sanctum, which declared that submission to the pope was required for salvation.

Unam Sanctum begins this way:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins

And ends with these amazing words:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It should be noted, that, to the extent possible, the Roman Catholic Church views Boniface as something of an embarrassment.

Although bold in words, Boniface was weak in power, and was effectively deposed by King Philip. Because of his arrogant pronouncements yet ignominious end, it is said of Boniface: "he crept in like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog."

The Councils of the Church

There are many councils of the church. It is helpful, I think, to have a summary that tells us which ones, as Protestants, we accept.

325, I Nicea, Arius is a heretic—Son of one sunstance with Father—Nicene creed

381, I Constantinople, Reiteration of Nicea—divinity of Holy Spirit

431, Ephesus, Condemnation of Nestorius (Jesus is two distinct persons)—Mary “mother of God”

451, Chalcedon, Condemnation of of Eutyches

553, II Constantinople, Condemnation of 'Three Chapters'

680-681, III Constantinople, Condemnation of monothelism (Jesus had two wills)—condemnation of Pope Honorius

787, II Nicea, Images/Icons worthy of veneration (but not worship)

869-870, IV Constantinople, Ended schism of Photius

1123, I Lateran, Confirmed Concordat of Worms

1139, II Lateran, Compulsory clerical celibacy

1179, III Lateran, Determined method of papal election

1215, IV Lateran, Transubstantiation—confession and communion at least yearly

1245, I Lyons, Declared Emperor Frederick II deposed

1274, II Lyons, New regulations for papal elections (essentially the modern rules)

1311-1312, Vienne, Suppression of the Templars

1414-1418, Constance, End of great schism

1431-1445, Basel/Ferra Florence, Nominal reunion with Constantinople

1512-1517, V Lateran, Condemned schismatic council of Pisa

1545-1563, Trent, Condemned Protestant reformation—sacred tradition—denounced justification by faith alone and Sola Scriptura

1869-1870, I Vatican, Papal Infallibility

1962-1965, II Vatican, Liturgical renewal (native language) – social concerns – protestants as “separated brethren”

Well, we can agree with the first four, and probably the next two, but the instituting of image veneration in the seventh council (II Nicea) in some sense marks the point where the Catholic Church really began to diverge.

Lesson 19: Five Leading Churchmen

2005-04-13T02:52:00.000-07:00

The main aspects of Christian life from the mid fourth to the mid fifth centuries can be explored by examining the five leading church leaders of the era.

Chrysostom (347-407)

Also know by the more accurate St. John of Constantinople, this man became known as Chrysostom because of his great oratory skills. Chrysostom means “golden tongued.” He was an elder in the church of Antioch, but his fame arose when, in 397, at age fifty, he became bishop at Constantinople.

Before becoming an elder in Antioch, Chrysostom tried the ascetic life. Around age twenty he began to withdraw from his classical studies and to devote himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scriptures and frequented the sermons of Meletius, the bishop of Antioch. About three years later he was baptized and ordained. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the ascetic societies near Antioch. Prayer, manual labor and the study of scripture were his chief occupations, and we may safely suppose that his first literary works date from this time, for nearly all his earlier writings deal with ascetic and monastic subjects. Four years later, Chrysostom resolved to further withdraw and live in one of the caves near Antioch. He remained there two years, but then, as his health deteriorated, he returned to Antioch to regain his health and resumed his office as lector in the church.

He achieved great influence there following riots over excessive imperial taxation, in which statues of the Emperor Theodosius and his family were mutilated. Fearful of a merciless reprisal by the emperor, who was known for his fiery nature, Chrysostom set out for the imperial courts to plead for moderation.

During the same period, more precisely during Lent in the year 387, Chrysostom gave twenty-one sermons in which he asked the people to consider the error of their ways.

Theodosius’s response to the defacing of his image was somewhat subdued, and Chrysostom’s sermons became legend for the level of their eloquence. It was said that many pagans converted upon hearing Chrysostom preach.

Upon arriving in Constantinople to assume the office of bishop, Chrysostom soon made enemies of the clergy because of his strict disciplinarian nature.

The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the stairs from the top" He ordered a reduction in the expenses of the Episcopal household; he put an end to the frequent banquets. With regard to the clergy, Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep in their houses syneisactoe, i.e. women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had caused scandal. He even had to expel one deacon for murder and another for adultery. He also took corrective action in regards to the monks, very numerous since the time of Constantine. Some had taken to roaming about aimlessly and without discipline. Chrysostom confined them to their monasteries. Finally he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a worldly manner: he obliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock. As he had done at Antioch, so at Constantinople and with more reason, he preached against the extravagances of the rich, and against the ridiculous finery in dress affected by women “whose age should have put them beyond such vanities.”

He also fell into disfavor with the court, due in large part to the influence of a rival, Theophilius, bishop of Alexandria. Even worse, he ran afoul of the Empress Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius. The animosity arose from Chrysostom’s intervention in abuses of power by members of the court, including important women who were friends of Eudoxia. Eudoxia may have also been offended when Chrysostom preached a sermon in which he stated “Again Herodias rages; again she is confounded; again she demands the head of John [the Baptist].”

Chrysostom was banished from Constantinople for a short time in 403, and again the following year to Armenia, where he died in 407.

Chrysostom’s gift to Christianity was his skilled biblical exegesis, given in commentaries and other writings, which were so vital that the Roman Catholic Church refers to him as one of the “Doctors of the Church”. His most valuable works are his Homilies on various books of the Bible.

Chrysostom’s career illustrates how, in the eastern empire, the church remained dominated by the secular powers. Part of this was due to the fact that in the east (unlike the west) there were several sees (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem) competing for dominance and the emperor leverage the rivalries so as to increase his own influence. In the west, Rome’s place at the head of the table was never challenged, especially after the decline of the great North African churches in the sixth and seventh centuries.

Ambrose (339-397)

“I have know no bishop but Ambrose,” said the emperor Theodosius, so impressed by Ambrose’s leadership and authority as bishop of Milan.

Ambrose’s rise to power was a circuitous one. Ambrose was a civil servant in North Italy. He had the responsibility to maintain civil order during the election of a new bishop (an event that often led to civil strife) in Milan in 373. The election was contentious, with no claimant achieving widespread popularity, when a child’s voice was heard saying “Ambrose for Bishop!” This was taken as a sign of divine guidance, and the Christian populace insisted that Ambrose should occupy the see. Ambrose, although the son of Christian parents, was, at thirty-four, not yet baptized. Nevertheless he accepted the position and in short order was baptized, ordained, and consecrated bishop.

In spite of his lack of ecclesiastical preparation, Ambrose served well. His first act in the episcopate, imitated by many a saintly successor, was to divest himself of his worldly goods. His personal property he gave to the poor and his landed possessions he turned over to the Church, making provision for the support of his beloved sister. He wrote a number of Latin commentaries of skillful, allegorical exegesis, and is credited with being a founder of Latin hymnody.

His relationship with the emperor demonstrates the greater independence from secular intrusion enjoyed by western bishops. When Theodosius massacred seven thousand inhabitants of Thessolonica, Ambrose excommunicated him. After eight months, the emperor submitted to Ambrose’s authority and did public penance for his sin on Christmas day, 390.

Not all of Ambrose’s use of his authority and influence over the secular realm was done wisely. When Christian monks in the Euphrates region burned down a synagogue, Theodosius justly ordered that restitution should be made, but Ambrose, when advised of the situation, ordered that Theodosius should do no such thing. Thus Ambrose, sadly, played a role in the church’s rising anti-Semitism.

On a happier note was Ambrose’s role in the Arian heresy. Due to the nature of his rise to power, starting not as a cleric but a “rational” and worldly civil servant, many Arians believed that Ambrose would prove a champion to their cause. They were mistaken. He supported the orthodox view of Christ’s divinity and labeled Arianism for what it was: heresy. Ten years after he became bishop, the Empress Justina, regent for her infant son Valentinian II, took control in Milan. She was a staunch Arian and had the support of the military. She claimed that one church in Milan should be reserved for the Arian position. Ambrose rejected her demand. Only his widespread popularity among the populace spared him from Justina’s wrath.

Jerome (347-420)

Jerome’s greatness does not stem from his influence in the sphere of public affairs. His fame results from the Latin translation of the Bible he produced. It wasn’t the first Latin translation, but was far superior to all others. The existing Latin translations diverged both from the Greek texts and from one another, and none had been authorized by the church. Jerome put it this way: “If we are to rely on the Latin versions, then let us be told which of these we are to rely on, for there are almost as many distinct versions as there are copies of Scripture.” In those days, anyone who knew both Greek and Latin, it seemed, produced his own translation.

Jerome, a native of Dalmatia (Croatia) was educated at Rome and spent much of his life in the east, where he mastered Greek and Hebrew. While a knowledge of Latin and Greek was fairly common, including Hebrew in the mix set Jerome apart. In 382 he returned to Rome and was charged by Damasus, bishop of Rome, with the job of revising the Latin New Testament. Jerome was reluctant, knowing that he would be “blamed” by those who found their favorite translations altered, and this time with the Church’s authority. (Indeed, “I think the original must be wrong,” said one such malcontent when told that his favorite translation had been undone by an appeal to the earliest manuscripts.)

Jerome’s translation of the Gospels appeared in 384, soon followed by the rest of the New Testament. Then he proceeded to revise the Old Testament. This was more challenging. Until this time, Latin versions of the Old Testament had been based on a Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, produced in Alexandria in the last three centuries B.C. Jerome found this unsatisfactory and instead translated directly from the Hebrew. This caused a great deal of criticism to be unleashed upon Jerome, to which he responded in rather colorful language, calling his critics “two-legged donkeys” and “those who think ignorance is holiness.”

Jerome’s translation became the standard. It is known as the Vulgate, and the Council of Trent in 1546 declared it to be the one authoritative Latin version of Scripture, to which all theological disputes must make their appeal.

Leo the Great (c. 390 – 461)

Leo the Great was bishop of Rome from 440-461. He, in a very real sense, elevated the position of bishop of Rome to that of Pope.

It is true that from very early in Christian history, the church at Rome held a special place. However, this position of preeminence had always been honorary, not official.

At first, the seat of imperial power being in Rome lent prestige to the Roman church. And when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, the resulting power vacuum in that most important city (Rome) actually resulted in an increase of the bishop’s power as the most powerful leader still there.

There were, of course, other reasons. Rome was the only church in the west that could claim apostolic foundation, and she was accorded special veneration on that account. And in matters relating to purity of doctrine, the church at Rome had consistently exhibited to the church at large a worthy example.

The acknowledgment of the Roman church as a model for other sees led to the practice of consulting the Roman bishop on various questions of doctrine, procedure, and discipline. The Roman bishop’s responses to these questions were known as decretals, the earliest of which that have been preserved date back to the episcopate of Damasus (366-384). While these decretals had no binding power, their advice was generally heeded which, in apart, accounted for the uniformity that was present in the western church. Gradually, over time, they were regarded with increased moral authority.

The Council at Nicaea (325) which dealt with the Arian heresy recognized the churches at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as the leading sees of Christendom, and their bishops were given the title “patriarch.”

While councils and emperors and other bishops (at least in the west) agreed that Rome was preeminent, Leo sought a theological foundation for this belief. That he supposed he found in:

¹⁸And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. ¹⁹I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18:18-20)

Leo argued that since Peter was the founder of the Roman church, the Roman bishop inherited his authority, including dominion over the keys of heaven.

Augustine (354-431)

Augustine was discussed at length in the previous lesson, including his debate with Pelagius over the doctrine of Original Sin and natural man’s moral inability to seek or obey God. Augustine had a strong view on the Sovereignty of God. Later, many who would come to be called Calvinists, would argue (while not at all insulted by the name) that, at the very least, accuracy demanded that the label Augustinian rather than Calvinist. In particular, they claim that in Augustine’s teachings one can find the thread that links all five “points of Calvinism.”

Original Sin implied (is synonymous) with the doctrine of Total Depravity.

If unconverted man cannot be a party to his own conversion, he must be of the Unconditionally elected, or predestined to use another biblical term. Otherwise the doctrine of Total Depravity would mean that nobody was saved.

If a people have been chosen from the foundation of time, it meant that Christ’s atonement, while infinite in merit, was not efficacious for all men. Rather it achieved salvation for some rather than making salvation possible (but not certain) for everyone. This doctrine is rather unfortunately known as the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

If God is sovereign, and His will cannot be thwarted by man, and He has chosen a people, then when He calls His calling cannot ultimately be rejected, thus we have the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

Likewise, having converted, called, and justified His people, God will lose none of them, preserving them to the end. This doctrine is unfortunately called Preservation of the Saints, a name that mistakenly hints that the merit rests with the saint rather than for God. Accordingly, Preservation of the Saints is preferred.

Those whose adhere to the doctrines point to Augustine in support. It is generally agreed that Augustine did indeed hold to these positions, although the one for which there is some question (and for Calvin as well) is the doctrine of Limited Atonement. Part of the problem is that this doctrine is often misrepresented. In truth, if neither Augustine nor Calvin wrote much on this doctrine, it is likely because the rules of logic dictate that you cannot really hold to four out of five—these doctrines stand or fall together—and so there was no point in belaboring the obvious. Still, it is useful to review Limited Atonement.
Limited Atonement

Everyone agrees that only believers are made acceptable before God by imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which was completed once and for all by His death on the cross. This is an important point: Both Augustinians and their detractors agree that Christ’s atonement is efficacious only for believers—hence both camps actually profess a form of “Limited Atonement”. Only Universalists do not limit the atonement.
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. (John 10:11)

The non-Augustinian (semi-Pelagian) view is that Christ’s atonement had to be big enough for the entire world because, in principle, the entire world could accept the Gospel call. Again, however, they agree that the atonement is effective only for believers. So the semi-Pelagian view of the atonement is:

Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world).
Indefinite in effect (there is no countable set of predestined “elect”)

The incorrect representation of the Augustinian view is that the atonement is limited in extent and definite in effect. The first point is not part of the Augustinian view although it is frequently offered as the Augustinian or Calvinist position. Augustinians do not think that while Christ was on the cross there was a meter running counting the number of sinners that His suffering was sufficient to cover and, when the number reached the number of the elect, His suffering ended.

If you have to pick a single verse that is viewed as the most difficult to defend against (from an Augustinian perspective), it is found in chapter two of 1 John:

¹ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
² and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.(1 John 2:1-2, NASB)

This seems to fly in the face of “the elect”, as evidenced by the phrase but also for those of the whole world. Obviously Augustinians cannot take this verse literally.

But neither can semi-Pelagians. The only people who can rejoice in taking this literally are Universalists. For, if Christ is literally the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then the whole world has had its ransom paid and the whole world will be saved. This is contrary to a plain reading the rest of scripture and thus is rightly rejected by all Christians. So what do Augustinians say about this verse?

One possibility is that John was talking to fellow (Christian) Jews and was pointing out that Christ’s death was atonement not only for “our” (believing Jews) sins but also for the sins of the world (believing Gentiles). This us/world = Jews/Gentiles identification is of course used in other places in Scripture.

Another possibility is related to the extent as opposed to the effect of the atonement. Somewhat in parallel with many are called but few are chosen-- it might be that Christ’s death was sufficient to save everyone in the whole world – but nevertheless will be efficacious only for the elect. If God wanted everyone to be saved he could do it, and Christ would not have had to suffer more—he already suffered enough for everyone. Yet God has chosen to save only some—for reasons that we will not fathom this side of glory (and perhaps not even on the other side).

While both points may be true, it is, in fact, this latter “possibility” the represents the actual Augustinian view of the Atonement:

Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world, Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism agree).
Limited (or Particular or Definite) in effect (for the elect only)

The two views do not disagree on extent of the atonement—both agree that it was big enough for the whole world. In this sense it was unlimited—which is why the term Limited Atonement, because of the confusion it causes, was not a good choice.
Augustine asked himself, is there any passage of Scripture which can be taken unequivocally to mean that God has deliberately undertaken not to extend his saving grace to certain people who, if that grace had been extended to them, would have responded affirmatively? It appears that there is such a passage. Augustine (Enchiridion, Chap. 103) has this observation: "The Lord was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said frankly, would have repented if He had worked them."

²⁰Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. ²¹“Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. (Matt. 11:20-21)

And other, similar and difficult passages, such as

¹⁰And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. ¹¹And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, ¹²so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven." (Mark 4:10-12)

Lesson 18: Augustine and the Pelagians

2005-04-05T17:32:00.000-07:00

The greatest theologian of the first millennium if not all Christian history was St. Augustine.

Augustine was born on November 13, 354, in Tagaste, Numidia (Algeria). His father, Patricius was a pagan who later converted to Christianity. His mother, Monica, was a devout Christian who strived for her son's conversion and provided him with a Christian education. (Monica is a saint of the Roman Catholic church.) Augustine was educated as a rhetorician in the former North African cities of Tagaste, Madaura, and Carthage. Between the ages of 15 and 30, he lived with a Carthaginian woman whose name is unknown; in 372 she bore him a son, whom he named Adeodatus, which is Latin for “the gift of God.”

Unfortunately, his faith, like his morals, was to pass though a terrible crisis. In 373, Augustine fell into the snares of the Manichæans.

Manichæism is a religion founded in Persia in the third century. It was designed as a synthesis of all the religious systems then known, and actually consisted of Zoroastrian (Zoroaster was a sixth century B.C Persian “prophet.”) Dualism, Babylonian folklore, Buddhist ethics, and some superficial sprinkling of Christianity. As the theory of two eternal principles, good and evil, Manichæism is classified as a form of religious Dualism. It rapidly spread in both East and West and maintained a sporadic and intermittent existence in the West (Africa, Spain, France, North Italy, the Balkans) for a thousand years, but it flourished mainly in the land of its birth, (Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Turkestan) and even further East in Northern India, Western China, and Tibet, where, c. A.D. 1000, the bulk of the population professed its tenets and where it died out at an uncertain date.

With its fundamental principle of conflict between good and evil, Manichaeism at first seemed to Augustine to correspond to experience and to furnish the most plausible hypothesis upon which to construct a philosophical and ethical system. Moreover, its moral code was not unpleasantly strict; Augustine later recorded in his Confessions: “Give me chastity and continence, but not just now.” Disillusioned by the impossibility of reconciling certain contradictory Manichaeist doctrines, Augustine abandoned this philosophy and turned to skepticism.

About 383 Augustine left Carthage for Rome, but a year later he went on to Milan as a professor of rhetoric. There he met the bishop of Milan, St. Ambrose, then the most distinguished ecclesiastic in Italy. Augustine presently was attracted again to Christianity. One day, he seemed to hear a voice, like that of a child, repeating, “Take up and read.” He interpreted this as a divine command to open the Bible and read the first passage he happened to see. He opened to Romans 13:13-14, where he read:

¹³Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. ¹⁴Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Rom. 13:13-14)

He immediately resolved to embrace Christianity. Along with his natural son, he was baptized by Ambrose on Easter Eve in 387. His mother, who had rejoined him in Italy, rejoiced at this answer to her prayers and hopes. She died soon afterward in Ostia.
In 388 he returned to North Africa and was ordained in 391. He became bishop of Hippo in 395, an office he held until his death. It was a period of political and theological unrest, and for the decline of the empire. (Rome was sacked by barbarians in 410.) Augustine fully engaged himself in the theological battles of his day, including the Donatist schism. His more important work was in the Pelagian heresy (more, anon) named for a British monk who denied the doctrine of original sin. In the course of this conflict Augustine developed his doctrines of original sin and divine grace, divine sovereignty, and predestination.

Augustine is a saint of the Catholic Church. The great reformers such as Calvin and Luther claim Augustine as their spiritual father. However inaccurate, it is often quipped that the Reformation was a battle between Augustine’s doctrine of the Church and his doctrine of grace.

It is not surprising given some of what we have studied—debates over the unforgivable post-baptismal sin and the Donatists (who effectively demanded sinless clerics) —that it often is taught that the doctrine of grace went underground from the end of the apostolic age to Augustine. The doctrine of grace, of God’s unmerited favor toward sinners, and His free gift of forgiveness and salvation, a doctrine that Jesus taught:

⁴¹"A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. ⁴²"When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. (Luke 7:41-42)

and Paul expounded upon, a doctrine that seems to clear to us, was abandoned for more than three hundred years. In may be due in part to some similarities: both Paul and Augustine both experienced radical conversions in their early thirties, Paul from Pharisaic Judaism and Augustine from a life of licentiousness and philosophical dabbling. Both were deeply cognizant, as reflected in their writings, of their pre-conversion sinfulness. Similarly, both acknowledged that they had received divine favor freely and undeservedly. Augustine, reading Paul, would have no trouble grasping the concept of grace, for it spoke directly to his condition.

However, Augustine’s doctrine of grace does not all come from introspection. It is inextricably ties to the titanic struggle he fought with the Pelagians.

Pelagius

Pelagius was a native of the British Isles, although whether he was Irish or English is not clear (Augustine calls him English, Jerome calls him Irish.) He is the first Briton to make a contribution to literature, writing a Latin commentary to the Pauline epistles.

Pelagius cam to Rome in 384 and was shocked at the debauchery he encountered. Unlike Augustine, it appears that Pelagius had a lifelong high moral standard.

Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin. Let’s take a moment to review the doctrine.

According to the Belgic confession:

We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race.

It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.

Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God's children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy-- not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the "body of this death." (Rom. 7:24)

So original sin is not, in my opinion, that Adam’s sin is in our debit column, as if we had committed it. It is far worse than that, and renders the debate over that question somewhat academic. Original sin means that we are so totally corrupted that sin is inevitable, right from the womb.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Ps. 51:5, NIV)

Original sin is essentially the same doctrine as the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity. There we find the same theme: man is born in rebellion to God. Children are not innocent. Natural man is incapable of any act whatsoever that is pleasing in God’s sight.

The list below looks at our condition prior to regeneration, a result of original sin.

The intent of our heart is "only evil continuously". Gen. 6:5
Our "righteous" deeds are filthy garments. Isa. 64.6
Nobody is good. Luke 18:19
We cannot see the Kingdom of God . John 3:3
We are not righteous. Rom. 3:10
We do not understand; we do not seek God. Rom. 3:11
We have turned aside; we are useless. Rom. 3:12
None of us does good. Rom. 3:12
We do not fear God. Rom. 3:18
We are hostile to God. Rom 8:7
We are unable (not just unwilling) to submit to the law of God. Rom 8:7
We cannot please God. Rom 8:8
We were dead (not just gravely ill) in our sins. Eph 2:1
We walked according to Satan. Eph 2:2
We lived in the lusts of our flesh. Eph 2:3
We were children of wrath. Eph 2:3

Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam’s sin affected him alone. He believed that, at birth, infants are in a state identical to Adam and Eve’s before the fall. Consistent with this view, he looked at baptism of infants as not in a cleansing them from sin but in imparting a higher sanctification through union with Christ. He didn’t really have a developed theology of baptism—it was a simple matter that it did not cleanse you of original sin because original sin did not exist. Augustine, in contrast, taught that infants are baptized to purge them of the sinful nature inherited from Adam.

Pelagius disputed Augustine’s famous prayer:

Grant what You command, and command what You desire.

Pelagius argued that it is unnecessary for God to “grant” what he commands of us. Instead, according to Pelagius, it is possible for man, on his own, to fulfill God’s commandments. Pelagius believed that moral responsibility implied moral ability; it would be unjust for God to demand that we obey and yet arrange it so that we are born with the inability to do so. Yet that is exactly what the bible teaches—and original sin, put differently, is that Adam’s sin resulted in his progeny being left in this dismal state.

Augustine (and Reformed theology) teaches something quite different: you have moral responsibility but, in your natural state, moral inability. In other words, apart from grace, you cannot choose not to sin. The fall did not change the requirement of obedience, but it changed us radically. And, apart from grace, we are doomed.

Pelagius had a role for grace: it facilitates our quest for moral perfection, but it is not required. At least in principle we can do without grace. Augustine, on the other hand, argued that grace is not only helpful but required.

Attacking Augustine and his doctrine on original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created good. In fact, we stay good. Sin does not change our essential human nature—we always will be “basically good.”

At the heart of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine is the thorny issue of free-will. Pelagius argued that Adam was given a free will, and his free will was not corrupted by the fall. Nor, as we have said, was man’s moral character affected by the fall. (in fact, according to Pelagius, nothing if anything was affected by the fall.) Everyone, according to Pelagius, is born free of a predisposition to sin.

Harnack summarizes Pelagian thought:

Nature, free-will, virtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of God - were the catch-words of Pelagianism: self-acquired virtue is the supreme good which is followed by reward. Religion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit; they are at any moment by man's own effort.

Augustine, in contrast, argued that sin is universal and that man is a “mass of sin.” Man cannot elevate himself to doing good without benefiting from God’s grace.

Sproul writes:

Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.

Pelagius was condemned at the synod of Carthage in 418. Subsequent councils affirmed the condemnation of the Pelagian heresy and reaffirmed the doctrine of original sin.

Sproul writes:

Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it.

Pelagianism Today

In Pelagius’s teaching that man is basically good, we can see aspects of the modern humanist movement. But has Pelagianism been eradicated from the church? The answer is no. First of all, many Christians today are inclined to agree with Pelagius that babies are “innocent” and, if they are baptized, it is not a cleansing but a “lifting up,” not in part but in whole.

Second, we note with sadness that a recent Gallup poll of professing evangelicals showed that a majority agreed with the statement that “man is basically good.”

Third, we look at a more subtle form of Pelagianism in the church, a tacit agreement with the Pelagian view that God would not demand obedience of a people who are born without the ability to obey. To paraphrase the debate:

Pelagius: God would not punish people for how they were born.

Augustine: Yes He would.

Now consider the modern debate over homosexuality:

Homosexual apologist: I was born this way.

Christian: No you weren’t, you decided to be gay

Notice that both sides in this debate accept the Pelagian position: God would not punish someone for how they were born. Both sides deny original sin. The proper Christian response is:

Maybe you were born that way, but that changes nothing. We’re all born sinners.

Augustinianism vs. Semi-Pelagianism

At least a majority of evangelicals would identify with Augustianism over Pelagianism. However the “semi-Pelagian view”

Grace is necessary for conversion but so is man’s assent prior to conversion

Is the overwhelming majority position, while the Augustinian (Calvinistic) view

First you are converted as a complete act of Grace then you choose God

Is the minority report.

Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church

Pelagius (and his own life) caused Augustine to develop his doctrine of grace. However, it was the Donatists who caused him to develop his doctrine of the church.

Recall the Donatists broke from the catholic church early in Constantine’s reign. Furthermore, they were centered in Augustine’s diocese of Northern Africa. Ultimately they were suppressed by force after the synod of Carthage in 411, when the imperial commissioner heard both sides of the debate and sided with the catholic church. For an extended period prior to military action, Augustine reasoned with the Donatists, but to no avail.

By this point the Donatists were basically requiring a sinless clergy. Or, perhaps more accurately, a closed-communion or an exclusive model of the Church. Any who gave evidence of being substandard must be excluded.

Augustine argued for an inclusive model, using the parable of the wheat and the tares, which were permitted to grow together until the end of the age. His point was that the church will always contain wheat and tares. The Donatists no doubt responded that the wheat and tares refer to the whole world, not to the church.

Augustine also used Noah’s ark, arguing that in the ark (representing the church) there were clean and unclean animals. There was hope for salvation for the unclean animals inside the ark, but no hope for clean animals outside the ark. So, according to Augustine, within the Church there is the possibility of salvation for the biggest of sinners, while outside the church there is no salvation even for the most upright.

Here we see the germ of the Reformation idea of the visible and invisible church. The former being those who are members of the church and profess Christianity, and the latter being the actual Christians. The Donatists were dedicated to making the two groups the same, while Augustine believed it would never happen.

Augustine first opposed the use of force against the Donatists, but later he relented, agreeing that the peace of the Church justified the means. He even used

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. (Luke 14:23)

In his reasoning, thereby setting a horrible precedent.

Augustine was also adamant that the sacraments (ordinances) were the essential means by which God dispensed grace. Still, he argued that salvation is not promised to all:

It is only the Church predestined and elect before the world’s foundation, the Church of which it is said, ‘The Lord knows those who belong to Him’ (2 Tim 2:19) that shall never be led astray.”

Lesson 17: The Council at Nicaea

2005-03-07T04:25:00.000-08:00

Last time we saw that Constantine’s intrusion into the Donatist controversy was not successful. Today we look at an even more important debate, the Arian heresy. To set the stage, we must review the third century debates on the trinity.

Monarchianism and Sabellianism/Modalism

According to this school, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three roles played by God. The Sabellianists do not deny, for example, the Apostle’s creed, for it describes the three manifestations of God while saying nothing of His inner being. One of the leading Monarchianists was the scandalous Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata.

Tertullian, Novatian, and Origen had a more accurate view of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, there had been no definitive ruling by the Church. Various baptismal creeds, which gave perfectly acceptable descriptions of the Trinity, were accepted, but the different churches disagreed on their interpretation.

Alexander and Arius

In 318, a debate arose between Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, one of his presbyters. Arius had been instructed at Antioch by the scholar Lucian, who was martyred in 312. Lucian himself had been a disciple of Paul of Samosata.

The Antioch and Alexandrian schools of theology were often at odds, and suspected one another of heretical tendencies.

Arius accused (probably with merit) his bishop, Alexander, of Sabellianism, that is of “confounding the persons” through his insistence on a strict unity of the Godhead. Arius erred in the other direction, by “dividing the substance”, which is to say that he insisted on a real difference in the essence of the deity of the Father and the Son.

Now there is a bit of a surprise here: Arius is linked, educationally, to Paul of Samosata. And Alexander is bishop of Northern Africa, home of Tertullian, so you might expect their positions to be the reverse of what they actually were.

The real defect in Arius’s teaching stems from his adoption of the Greek, Gnostic-like notion that God the Father is too remote, too removed from men, and too “wholly other” to come into direct relation with them. Arius taught that Christ, the Mediator, was neither God nor man, but something in between. This is, of course, in direct conflict with the orthodox view that Christ is fully God and fully man. It is, perhaps, our general relegation to the category of “a nice curiosity” the doctrine of man created in God’s image that opens the doors to this way of thinking. A full appreciation that man was created in God’s image should make the idea that Christ is fully God and fully man easier to accept.

Arius went further, teaching that Christ was a created being, in the literal sense (unlike Origen who used the idea that Christ was created as more of an analogy.) Christ, according to Arius, was the first creation and he expressed this view in his statement: “There was a (time) when He was not.” His ideas were spread through effective marketing: verses expressing his views, written to be sung to the tune of the day’s pop music, were all the rage among the rank and file believers of Alexandria. It should be noted that Arians were in every way devoted Christians and were especially noted for their evangelical zeal. (In so many ways, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) But still, it has to be remembered that Arianism is dangerous, and had it taken over Christendom it would have rendered Christianity a short-lived phenomenon, for a Christ who is not fully God would not, in the long term, have sustained the belief in His power to redeem and save.

Bishop Alexander convened a local council in Alexandria in 321. At that council, Arian was removed from the office of presbyter. Arius, however, had a great deal of support. The dispute spread beyond the confines of Egypt and it looked as if Christianity in the eastern empire would suffer a major schism.

In 324, after victory in two major land battles and one naval battle over Licinius, the eastern Augustus, Constantine gained control of the entire empire. Constantine was concerned about the possibility of schism in the east. He sent letters to Alexander and Arius offering himself and his good offices as mediators in the dispute. He had not yet learned his lesson that it was hopeless for well-intentioned laymen to settle theological disputes. When these first efforts proved fruitless, Constantine convened a major council of all Christendom.

The council opened at Nicaea (in northwest Asia Minor) on May 20, 325. Constantine urged the bishops to achieve unity and peace. This was the first ecumenical council of the church—meaning that representatives were invited from the entire Christian world. Over two hundred bishops attended, even some from Persia and Scythia, which were outside the empire. The western part of the empire, however, was underrepresented. The bishop of Rome, Silvester, did not attend (instead he was represented by two presbyters.) Only one bishop came from Gaul. Carthage sent Caecilian, the enemy of the Donatists, and Hosius, Constantine’s spiritual advisor was sent to represent Cordova (Spain).

Leaders of the Arian side included Arius himself, as well as the bishop of Nicomedia (which is close to Nicaea) who was Arius’s student. Alexander was represented by his fellow bishops and especially by his talented deacon Athanasius.

The Historian Eusebius, of whom we have often referred, was also present. He attended in his capacity of bishop of Caesarea. He tried to perform the role as peacemaker. To this end, his put forward the baptismal creed of his own church as a basis of agreement:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, Son only-begotten, Firstborn of all creation, begotten of God the Father before all the ages, through whom also all things were made; who became flesh for our salvation and lived among men, who suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead;
We also believe in one Holy Spirit.

The repetition of the word “one” preceding the description of each person of the Trinity is probably due to the influence of two passages:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Cor 8:6)

⁴There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; ⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:4-6)

Eusebius’s confession, perfectly orthodox, was also perfectly useless. For it gave no answer to the question the council was addressing, namely the similarity or difference in the essence of the Father and the Son. The council did not adopt it. Instead, they formulated a much more anti-Arian confession:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is to say of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of the same essence of the Father: through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth: who, for us men and for our salvation, came down and became flesh and lived among men who suffered and on the third day rose again, ascended into heaven, is coming to judge the living and the dead;
We also believe in one Holy Spirit.
But those who say, “There was a time when He was not,” and “Before He was Begotten He did not exists,” and “He came into being from that which was nonexistent,” or those who maintain that the Son of God is “of another substance or essence,” or “created,”, or “capable of change,” or “subject to alteration,”—those the holy catholic and apostolic Church pronounces accursed. (Let them be anathema.)

The italicized words were those intended to make the creed explicitly anti-Arian. The regrettable practice of adding anathemas to the creeds began here.

It is perhaps worth noting here that the creed given above, which was the product of the council of Nicaea, differs from what we today call the Nicene Creed, although it is substantively similar. The so-called Nicene Creed was sanctioned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Unlike previous creeds, the Creed of Nicaea was doctrinal, not baptismal.

This is the first of many councils where what is true of drawn-up agreements between conflicting secular parties is true for theological agreements as well: both sides can agree, but by applying their own spin they depart just as divided as ever. Many who were sympathetic to Arius accepted the creed, confident that it provided enough wiggle-room for them to continue teaching as they always had. Of the more than two-hundred bishops in attendance, only two refused to sign their agreement. They, along with Arius, were excommunicated.

The phrase “of the same essence” was a difficult one for many to accept, although in the end the overwhelming majority agreed. There were two problems with this phrase. First, it appears nowhere in the Bible. And second, as you may recall from a previous lesson, it was coined (in the preceding century) by the heretical bishop Paul of Samosata to explain his teaching of Christ as an “emanation” from God—like a ray from the sun. Many questioned inclusion of the controversial phrase, but (according to Eusebius) it was suggested by none other than Constantine. The Arians immediately took exception, whereupon the anti-Arians seized upon it as indispensable (easily grasping the political advantage) since no other term is quite as inherently and perfectly anti-Arian.

Other Council Business

In addition to the Arian dispute, the council addressed some other issues, including bringing Syria in line with Alexandria and Rome in calculating the date of Easter. It also attempted to deal with another localized schism—similar to that of the Donatist. This took place in Egypt, and once again the issue was who did or did not maintain fidelity to the faith in the face of persecution. Here the issue was not about who turned over scripture for destruction but on those who succumbed to the edict (304) forbidding the gathering for worship. Bishop Peter of Alexandria fled the country, and when Melitius of Lycolpolis arrived in Alexandria he was scandalized by the absence of worship and pastoral care. Melitius named two new bishops (one of which may have been Arius) and when Peter returned, the minor schism was evident. The council failed to resolve the dispute, and the schism continued for some time.

Other matters that the council addressed included church discipline, the procedure for regional councils, and the consecration and ranking of bishops. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were acknowledged as the most important sees, and their bishops were afforded the ancient title “patriarch.” Ten years later, when the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople, that city’s bishop was afforded the rank of patriarch and eventually took precedence over Alexandria and Antioch. The bishop of Jerusalem was granted the same rank a hundred years later, in 451. (Much mischief would from the introduction of this new, lofty rank.)

As for the date of Easter, the Alexandrian bishop was charged with the responsibility of fixing the date (based on the lunar calendar) each year and then informing the rest of Christendom. So each year the bishop of Alexandria would send a “Festal Letter” to the other bishops announcing that year’s date for Easter. While Athanasius was bishop (he succeeded Alexander in 328 and, apart for numerous banishments, held the position for forty-five years) he used the Festal Letters to discuss other important matters.

In his Festal Letter of 367 he dealt with the canon of scripture. For the Old Testament, he listed twenty-two books. Still, it corresponds almost perfectly with the thirty-nine of the Protestant bible, missing only the book Esther and deviating by appending Lamentations to Jeremiah as well as Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. The remaining inconsistencies came from counting double books (e.g. Chronicles) as one and in combining all the books of the minor prophets. Athanasius adds that there our other useful but non-canonical books handed down by the fathers, including The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobais. Of theses, Esther is in the Protestant Bible; all (and Baruch) are in the Roman Catholic Bible.

What is truly noteworthy, however, is that it was the first known enumeration of precisely the twenty-seven books of New Testament that we now accept as canonical.

The Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople

The Arian controversy was not put to rest by the Council of Nicaea. Although, under the watchful eye of Constantine, the council condemned Arianism, emperors from that point on would differ in there patronage: some anti-Arian, some Arian, and some ambivalent.

In fact, Arius himself was reconciled with Constantine a scant two years after the council excommunicated him, after convincing the Emperor that he accepted the orthodox faith.

However, Athanasius, who (in 328) succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was never convinced of Arius’s orthodoxy, and would not permit Arius to return to Alexandria. Constantine would alternate between blaming Athanasius and Arius for the stand-off, but ultimately became exasperated at Athanasius’s steadfastness. As F. F. Bruce put it: “Athanasius stood for principle at any price; Constantine for concord at any price.”

Athanasius had many enemies (and Arius, many friends) an so Athanasius found himself charged with any number of crimes, including illegal consecration, venality, rapacity, sacrilege, assault, and murder! These did not withstand investigation. Still, Constantine concluded that unity was impossible with Athanasius in power (especially after it was reported to Constantine that Athanasius threatened to halt the supply of grain from Egypt to Constantinople.) So in 335 Constantine exiled Athanasius to Germany. However, the bishops who took over Athanasius’s duties also refused communion to Arius. Arius returned to Constantinople and died shortly thereafter. Two years later, in 337, Constantine was baptized and soon died, after which Athanasius returned to Alexandria.

After Constantine, his son Constantius (337-361) was emperor. He tried, without success, to foster unity by adopting an intermediate position. The next emperor was Julian the Apostate (361-363) who tried to exacerbate the dispute as a way of weakening Christianity. Athanasius, for his part, was exiled four more times following his return after the death of Constantine. He essentially spent his entire life battling in favor of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity as expressed by the creed of Nicaea..

At the second ecumenical council, the Council of Constantinople, held in 381, the creed of Nicaea was declared to encapsulate the sole legal religion of the empire. You will recall that Constantine, for all his faults, had even more virtues, among which was a reluctance to commit violence in the name of orthodoxy. (Recall that even the Donatists maintained an episcopate in Rome.) Theodosius, who was eastern emperor at the time of the council at Constantinople was not so tolerant, and those who did not accept the creed of Nicaea found themselves in trouble with the secular authorities as well as the ecclesiastical. This is exactly how imperial patronage can ruin the goodwill of the populace toward the church.

The council at Constantinople condemned (as had several provisional councils) the doctrine of Appolinarianism. Unlike Arianism, which dealt with the relationship between the Father and the Son, Appolinarianism concerned itself with the two natures of Christ. Appollinarius, bishop of Laodicia (and friend of Athanasius), upon reading

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

concluded that the Divine Word took the place in the man Jesus that which is usually occupied by the human mind and/or spirit. So while Arius placed Christ above man and below the Father, Appollinarius accepted that Christ was fully God but that he was not fully human. In other words, Arius denied the divinity of Christ, and Appollinarius denied the incarnation, agreeing only that Christ was “like a man.”

The Council at Constantinople also examined the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It declared Him to be a person, equal in the unity of the Godhead to the Father and the Son, and “proceeding from the Father.”

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, (John 15:26)

If the Council of Nicaea is known for affirming the deity of Christ, then the Council of Constantinople plays a similar role for the Holy Spirit ad so, in effect, finalizes the doctrine of the Trinity.

Following the death of Athanasius, the mantle of orthodoxy was passed to “the three great Cappadocians” (Cappadocia being a province in Asia Minor.) They were Basil of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nazianzus, and his namesake of Gregory of Nyssa. We all are indebted to the diligence of Athanasius and the three Cappadocians.

The Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus

Fifty years after the Council at Constantinople came the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council at Ephesus in 431. Two heresies were addressed at this council: Pelagianism and Nestorism. We will deal with Pelagianism, which is a heresy not about the doctrine of God but the doctrine of man, and length in a future lesson (no, we haven’t forgotten about Augustine.) For now we confine our remarks to the heresy of Nestorius, who became bishop of Constantinople in 428.

As with many heresies, we find Nestorianism rooted in good intentions “run amok.” Appollinarius before him has erred by denying Christ’s human nature. Nestorius stressed Christ’s manhood to the extent that there were two distinct personalities—one divine and one human—within the same living consciousness. The litmus test of Nestorianism was an interesting one: whether or not you were willing to grant Mary the title theotokos, or “she who gave birth to the child who is God,” or more informally, “Mary, Mother of God.” Nestorius and his followers were unwilling to grant Mary that title, arguing that she bore only the human half of the duality. Now of course (and for no real good reason) many Protestants are loath to use the phrase “Mary mother of God,” because of its association with Roman Catholicism

Nestor was opposed by Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, and the bishop of Rome, Caelestine. Cyril’s opposition was more political than theological: any discredit befalling the “metropolitan” bishop of Constantinople would serve to enhance the importance of his own see. (A metropolitan bishop was the bishop of the capital city of a province and is roughly equivalent to an archbishop.) Cyril may have been alarmed and angered by the fact that Nestorius had been appointed to investigate complaints against Cyril alleging that he treated the faithful harshly.

As is also common, the heretical are highly evangelical, and it was the Nestorians who went east in their zeal, through central Asia and into, by the middle ages, western China.

Nestorius believed he would prevail at Ephesus, confident that those who disagreed with him would show themselves to be Appolinarianists. He underestimated both the influence of Cyril and the emotional response to his derogatory “Mother of God” statements. Nestorius seemed to have a way with words. In arguing his position that the divine and human natures of Christ were separate, he stated that “God was never a two month old baby.” Although the council was not a total victory for Cyril, Nestorianism was condemned, but the price was high, for there resulted great division within the church as a result of the heavy-handiness used by Cyril. One example: Cyril had fostered the incorrect rumor that Nestor did not believe that Mary was the mother of God because he did not believe that Jesus was God.

Lesson 16: Constantine

2005-02-14T02:29:00.000-08:00

We now enter an era where the ruling, secular powers will extend patronage to the church. While this is obviously preferred over persecution, it does not come without a downside. Being “in favor” with the government would, in many instances, make Christianity very unpopular. Christian leaders would succumb to the temptation to exploit their privilege, often when it meant sacrificing the cause of justice for the “greater good” of the church. Furthermore, in order to preserve their position, church leaders were often willing to permit the secular powers to exercise too much control over the church. This was certainly the case with Constantine.

It is true that the western world’s attitude toward the conversion of Constantine and its consequences has generally been more ambivalent than the eastern. In the West there has been more consideration given to his negatives as well as his benefits to the church.

And when the church gets its taste of political authority, her leaders will be far from immune to the well-know corrupting influence of power.

We will encounter, during this era, the following:

The emergence of world-wide ecclesiastics
The emergence (as if to balance) of extreme practices of asceticism
Christianity-professing nationalities waging brutal war upon one another
Deadly intolerance toward non-Christians and Christians with different doctrine
Unreasonable insistence on uniformity in nonessential matters, such as the date of Easter

Recap of the state of the empire as the fourth century began

Near the end of Diocletian’s reign (284-305), persecution suddenly reappeared in 303. It was mainly due to his son Galerius, who was Diocletian’s junior colleague in the eastern province (recall the empire had been spilt, east and west, with a senior and junior ruler for each region.)

Galerius viewed the rapid growth of Christianity as ominous. He and other conservatives decided that if action wasn’t taken against Christianity, it would soon be too late. The first action in 303 was an edict ordering the destruction of church buildings and scripture. After several fires in the imperial palace were falsely blamed on Christians, a second edict was issued ordering the arrest of all clergy. In 304, an edict was issued that all Christians should sacrifice to the state gods, on pain of death. Diocletian’s Christian wife and daughter (who was Galerius’s wife) recanted. The tendency among the populace was to protect their Christian neighbors. As crowds lined up to pay tribute to the gods, officials often turned a blind eye to Christians who just walked by without taking the prescribed action.

The severity of this persecution varied with local circumstances. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, which Constantius ruled as the western Caesar, there was hardly any. He did not go beyond destroying some churches. No one was executed. When he died on July 25, 306, the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as Emperor.

In Egypt and Palestine, the persecution was fierce, especially after Diocletian’s abdication in 305, when Galerius was elevated to the eastern Augustus, and his like-minded nephew Maximian became his eastern Caesar.

Constantine

Constantine, like his father, worshiped the pagan sun god of the Sol Invictus (Invincible or Unconquered Sun) cult. This cult appeared in the Roman world around the middle of the second century and had been supported by the Emperor Aurelian (AD 270-275 A.D).

Constantine regarded the Unconquered Sun as his patron deity, but there was already Christian influence in his household (he had a half-sister named Anastasia, which means “resurrection”).

While Constantine’s understanding of Christian doctrine is somewhat shrouded in mystery, it is certain that he attributed his most significant military victory to the intervention of the Christian God. In A.D. 312, with an inferior force, he attacked Italy and his rival Maxentius in Rome. Inexplicably forfeiting the advantage offered by Aurelian’s walls (6 m high, 3.5 m thick), Maxentius came out to meet Constantine and was defeated at the Milvian Bridge, an outcome so surprising that it was easy for many to accept that Constantine had indeed been the recipient of divine favor. The Roman Senate erected an arch in Constantine’s honor that still stands by the Coliseum, depicting the drowning of Maxentius’ troops and with the inscription describing Constantine’s victory ‘by the prompting of the deity’. The deity to whom they referred was the Unconquered Sun. But the Christians believed the one god whom they worshipped had given Constantine victory.

Before marching into battle, Constantine, by his own testimony, and that of Eusebius: "a most incredible sign appeared to [Constantine] from heaven" had a vision of a cross in the sky. On the night before the battle at the Milvian Bridge, he was commanded to mark his soldier’s shields and his standards with the monogram of Christ, using an overlay of the two first (Greek) letters from Christ’s name, chi and rho as a talisman. The coinage under Constantine also includes the symbol. Everything about Constantine’s vision and dream has been embellished through the ages, but there is no doubt whatsoever that, from that point on, Constantine viewed himself, if not necessarily a Christian, as having receiving special favor from the God of Christianity.

So Constantine is the first to engage in battle and, in effect, claim that his army would prevail because “God is on our side.” This is a troubling line of reasoning given passages such as:

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. (Matt. 26:52)

Nevertheless, it has continued to this day, and to present-day conflicts.

To the modern Christian, it is no doubt surprising that neither Constantine nor many others of his era thought there was any tension or mutual-exclusiveness between Christianity and the pagan worship of the Unconquered Sun. The transition from solar monotheism, the most popular form of paganism of Constantine’s time, to Christianity was not difficult. Consider the following (as enumerated by Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin, 1967).

In Old Testament prophecy, Christ was not only the “son” but also the "sun" of righteousness
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. (Mal. 4:2)
Clement of Alexandria speaks of Christ driving his chariot across the sky like the sun god.
The mosaic in a tomb, recently found at Rome, probably made early in the fourth century, depicts Christ as the sun god mounting the heavens with his chariot.
Tertulian says that many pagans imagined the Christians worshiped the sun because they met on Sundays and prayed towards the east.
Moreover in the fourth century, there began in the West the celebration of December 25, the birthday of the sun god at the winter solstice as the date for the nativity of Christ.

Chadwick also writes:

How easy it was for Christianity and the solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by a fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the sun on the steps of St. Peter’s before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica. Conversely under Julian (the Apostate), some found it easy to revert from Christianity to solar monotheism. The Bishop of Troy apostatized without fear for his integrity for even as a bishop he had secretly continued to pray to the sun. (Chadwick, The Early Church)

So pagan sun worshippers found it easy to become “nominal” Christians, and add pieces of Christianity to their cult. Likewise, under Julian the Apostate’s reign (361-363) when Christianity’s favor would be briefly suspended, these nominal Christians found it easy to return to full-fledged solar monotheism.

Following the victory, Constantine and Licinius , his counterpart emperor from the east, announced the settlement of Milan. This agreement promised tolerance for all religions throughout the empire, and the restoration of all property confiscated from Christians during the persecutions. The Milan settlement did not establish Christianity as the state religion (as is sometimes asserted) nor did it include a statement of Christian faith by Constantine.

For the next twelve years, Licinius remained the eastern Augustus. However, in spite of the agreement, there were numerous skirmishes between Constantine and Licinius. Constantine’s domain moved eastward. Licinius began persecuting Christians—suspecting them (for good reason) of harboring sympathies for Constantine. In 324, after victory in two major land battles and one naval battle, Constantine gained control of the entire empire.

F.F. Bruce writes (some paraphrasing):

Constantine went well beyond “tolerating” Christianity. He acknowledged his debt to the Christian God, and long before he committed himself to the Christian faith he showed in a variety of ways that Christians enjoyed his special favor. Christianity thus became fashionable, which was not really a good thing. It meant a considerable ingress of Christianized pagans into the church—pagans who had learned the rudiments of Christian doctrine and had been baptized, but who remained largely pagan in their thoughts and ways. The mob in great cities such as Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria became Christian in name, but in fact it remained an unruly mob. There was a great temptation for ambitious ecclesiastical statesmen to use the mob for their own ends.

Bruce also discusses the “good side” of the Christian ascendancy to the mainstream within the empire:

Christian humanitarianism began to have an effect on imperial legislation. The doctrine of man as the image of God let to the restriction of branding in an edict of 316; it must not be performed on the face. An attempt was made to discourage the practice of exposing (abandoning) unwanted children by making family allowances from the imperial treasury—and by the less Christian device of legalizing the sale of children by their parents. Laws were passed to safeguard the sanctity of marriage, and greater protection was extended to slaves.

Church and State

The Catholic Church and the state became entangled, to the detriment of both, at least in many instances. As one French Catholic historian J. R. Palanque put it:

It was a fatal mistake, and the two powers were destined to suffer long from its unfortunate consequences. Thus the church was scarcely freed from the oppression of its persecutors when it had to encounter a trial more terrible perhaps than that of hostility: the embarrassing and onerous protection of the state.

This problem was evident throughout the reign of Constantine. He had a noble lifelong cause: unity in the church, but he often sought this unity through councils over which he was the “bishop of bishops”, even though he had little (it appears) understanding of the theological causes of the disunity. The Church, grateful for his patronage, was not in a position to call his authority or his acumen into question. The net result is, while going after the honey, the Church mortgaged her liberty.

Interestingly, the idea of the emperor as a divinely appointed sacred personage, survived for many centuries in the east, essentially until 1917 and the fall of czarist Russia.

The Donatists

The interference that the Church granted Constantine, in deference to his generosity, is apparent in two schisms with which he felt obligated to intervene. The second and more important of these, the Arian controversy, will be discussed next time. The first, The Donatist schism, we’ll take up now.

In order to trace the origin of the schism we have to go back to the persecution under Diocletian. The first edict of that emperor against Christians, in February of 303, ordered their churches destroyed, and their Sacred Books to be delivered up and burned, while they themselves were outlawed. Severer measures followed in 304, when the fourth edict ordered all to offer incense to the idols under pain of death.

When Constantine ordered that property should be returned to the church, he ran into a problem in northern Africa, where two bodies claimed to represent the Catholic Church and therefore the rightful recipient of returned land and largesse. Constantine obliged himself to settle the dispute.

Hosius, Constantine’s spiritual advisor and the Bishop of Cordova, advised him to place his trust in Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage. On this matter, he faced opposition by the party of the Donatists.

The Donatists adopted a position which we have heard before: one that was unforgiving to those who showed weakness during the Diocletian persecution. (Some of this mindset can be traced back to Tertullian who, a hundred years earlier and in the same region, taught that flight from persecution was not permissible.) The Donatists were particular incensed at any leniency shown to those who turned over the sacred writings for destruction.

In fact, they objected to the consecration of Caecilian because the bishop who consecrated him was one of the “traitors” who had succumbed and turned over sacred writings during the terror. (Said bishop, in his own defense, argued that he had himself taken the Sacred Books of the Church to his own house, and had substituted a number of heretical writings, which the prosecutors had seized without asking for more) The Donatists appealed to Constantine, and he appointed a commission to investigate. The commission consisted of three bishops from Gaul and was chaired by the bishop of Rome (who promptly co-opted 15 more Italian bishops to serve on the commission.) This commission found in favor of Caecilian.

The Donatists appealed once more to Constantine. This time he held a council at Arles (Gaul) in August 314. One noteworthy factoid: this council included three bishops from Britain. The council acquitted Caecilian of all charges.

The Donatists withdrew from communion with Caecilian, and, in 315, consecrated their leader Donatus as anti-bishop of Carthage. He remained as schismatic bishop for forty years. They held that they were the true church, and excommunicated not only Caecilian, but anyone who was in communion with him. That would be all other Christians, everywhere, since Caecilian’s office was sanctioned by the Catholic Church. After they appealed yet again to Constantine, in 316, he formally and imperially declared Caecilian innocent and instituted sanctions against those who did not accept his decree, which only served to further enrage the Donatists.

Indeed, far from “solving” the schism, the state’s meddling prolonged it, for it fueled African nationalism against Roman imperialism. The schism lasted for over a hundred years. Amazingly, from 318 to 411 there was even a Donatist bishop in Rome to attend to a tiny group of adherents living there!

The Donatists acquired a motto Quid imperatori cum ecclesia? –what has the emperor to do with the church?—which is a bit haughty given the number of occasions on which they appealed to the emperor for their cause.

They had a paramilitary wing of armed (with clubs) militant nationalists called the circumcelliones who essential scoured the countryside terrorizing Catholics. This could not be tolerated—as so it invited more secular government intervention. (According the Donatists it led to accounts of severe persecution and massacre at the hands of state police.)

Constantine’s Legacy

Under Constantine, various economic concessions were made to the clergy. For example, in 315, their lands were declared exempt from taxation, and they were spared various municipal obligations.

At the same time, preventative measures were taken against the possibility of massive ordinations (for the purpose of exploiting the benefits.) The numbers of clergy were limited by statute and the imperial government made it clear that the clergy should be drawn from the ranks of the poor, for the rich had their duty to the state. The Church, not wanting to risk losing the underlying generous benefit, calmly accepted the “reasonable” restrictions.

Other carrots included that slaves could be emancipated in the presence of a cleric. Civil suits could be transferred to the jurisdiction of a bishop. In 321, Sunday was declared a public holiday. An inscription found near Zagreb records that Constantine changed the old custom of working for seven days and holding a market day every eighth day, directing farmers to hold their market day each Sunday. This is the earliest evidence for the process by which Sunday became not merely the day on which Christians met for worship, but also a day of rest. The courts were ordered closed on Sunday, except for the purposes of freeing slaves. It should be noted that, in this matter, it is not clear whether Constantine’s intent was to honor the sun or the Son.

The copying of scriptures and the building of churches also received imperial financial backing. Some of the most beautiful and elaborate Bibles were created at this time, at great expense.

Constantine assigned a fixed portion of provisional revenues to church charity. This amount was so large that later, when it was restored to only a third of its previous amount after suspension during Julian the Apostate’s brief resurrection of paganism, it was still considered generous.

Among the churches built at Constantine’s direction we find, of course, the Basilica of St. Peter at Rome on Vatican Hill. Also built under Constantine was the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. St. Peter’s was built on the sight where Peter’s “trophy” had been located, and the side of Vatican Hill was excavated for its foundation at great effort and expense.

Constantine’s Last Visit to Rome

In 326, Constantine went to Rome for the last time. It was a visit with disturbing consequences for his family. His son Crispus was put to death due to suspicions of disloyalty. Then the empress Fausta was executed, possibly at the request of Constantine’s mother Helena, for having fueled the suspicions that led to Crispus’ death. Constantine left Rome, and gave Fausta’s palace to the bishop of Rome for an official residence. It continued in that use until 1308.

From 330 to 334 Constantine was engaged in building a new capital at Byzantium, renamed Constantinople, and now known as Istanbul. Rome was demoted, in a secular sense, to secondary importance. His mixing of sun and Son worship is still evident: He placed in the forum a statue of the sun god bearing his own likeness, and also a statue of the mother goddess Cybele, although she was represented in attitude of prayer, which caused an uproar among the pagan populace. (You just can’t win.)

Even this, the relocation of the imperial capital, had unintended ecclesiastical consequences—for the power, in some sense—never really left Rome. However, the emperor’s absence created a power vacuum. The Bishop of Rome (the pope) became regarded as the most important person of the city.

Constantine was baptized in 337. He wore the white robes of a neophyte until his death later that year. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of his faith. It was common, at the time, to delay baptism until the end, so as to forestall the awesome responsibilities that it was thought to incur, including, among some (as we discussed) the belief that post-baptismal sin could not be forgiven. It was considered especially prudent to delay baptism if one’s duties, and was certainly the case for Constantine, included authorizing or participating in state torture and state executions.

Next we will examine the first great church council, the council of Nicaea, called to address the Arian heresy.

Lesson 15: Defining the Faith

2005-02-03T05:54:00.000-08:00

Let us quickly review the early church heresies that we discussed last week.

Docetism

This was a denial of the incarnation. There were variations, but a common view was that the Christ-Spirit came upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and departed from him at the crucifixion, leaving the man Jesus to die. Another Docetic school held that Jesus’ human form was an illusion, ghost, or phantom. As we saw last time, a form of Docetism is even found in the Koran:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. (Koran 4:157)

Gnosticism

Gnosticism generally included Docetism, but went way beyond it. It was, and is, in many ways, the most dangerous of all heresies for its enduring ability to attract advocates. In the modern era it is represented by the New Age movement, Astrology, Eastern Religions, etc. It incorporated the idea of knowledge as being the path to salvation. The goal of acquiring the special knowledge was to awaken the divine within us—remnants of the creation of the material world by a misguided demigod. Jesus was a messenger of the supreme god, come to enlighten us as to how we could return to the intended spiritual state.

Gnostics, unlike Christians, do not believe that God created the earth, or that creation of the material world was “good.”

The identification of the physical as evil resulted in one of two extreme lifestyle choices: asceticism or, following the logic that the flesh is irrelevant, “anything goes.”

Marcionism

A sort of minimal Gnosticism in which there are two gods: the lesser god of the Old Testament, who did the unsavory act of creating the material world, and the loving merciful god of the New Testament, who was Jesus’ father. Recall that Marcion’s rewriting of scripture provided the incentive for the Church to make great strides in organizing the canon.

Montanism

One could debate whether this is properly labeled as a heresy or just a misguided sect. While Gnosticism exaggerated the importance of the intellect, Montanism overemphasized the experiential. The Montanists believed that the age of the Son had ended and the age of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) had begun. They exalted prophets and prophetess, who spoke not as messengers, “…Thus saith the Lord,” but rather as if they were possessed by God, such as Montanus: "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete." The greatest known Montanist was Tertullian.

Defining the Faith

The church had to respond to these early heresies. One important way was through early creeds, used for the most part, especially in the earliest days, during baptisms. The creeds were modified from time to time to arrest the spread of error. Thus the early baptismal creed had to be extended beyond the line:

I believe in God the Father.

Since, for example, Marcion could affirm such a statement, to

I believe in God the Father, maker of heaven and earth.

This, neither Marcion (nor any of the Gnostics) could affirm, for it identified the God the Father—whom they would consider the New Testament god—with God the creator, or the Old Testament god. Irenaeus (115-190), Bishop of Lyon, and author of Against Heresies (Full title included Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge, i.e., this work was meant to refute Gnosticism) summarized, around A.D. 180, the church’s beliefs as:

"...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Here it is again made plain that God the Maker is also God the Father, and that the current Christian dispensation is vitally connected to the Old Testament, since through the Holy Spirit it was proclaimed through the prophets.

Here we see our threefold confession: In God the Creator and Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The orthodox understanding relationship among the three personalities, however, would not develop so easily, but more of that anon.

The Apostolic Tradition, usually credited to Hippolytus (?-236, and the first antipope) contains the following baptismal liturgy

When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works." After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you." Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water. When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?" And the one being baptized shall answer, "I believe." He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?" When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the third time.

Note that from the earlier creedal statement, we see the expansion of the description of Christ. This is adapted into the so-called Apostle’s creed, which we present below annotated so as to clarify its response to Gnosticism.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth,

Gnostics taught that the material world is evil, and that God the Father did not make it.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,

Gnostics (and Docetists) denied that God had taken human nature or a human body. As stated, many believed the Christ-Spirit came upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and departed from him at the crucifixion, or that Jesus’ human form was an illusion. Against this denial of the Incarnation, the Church affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit, refuting the Gnostic claim that the Spirit had nothing to do with Jesus until His baptism, that he was born (i.e., he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin (which implied that he had been special from the first moment of his life, and not just from His baptism).

Suffered under Pontius Pilate,

Affirms that Jesus, in his deity, suffered—he was no whisked away leaving just a human shell to suffer. Recall that Docetic literature such as the Gospel of Peter denied that Jesus as God suffered.

was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hades.

The explicit reference to dead and buried, and the descent into Hades (Hell), make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.

The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic church,

Gnostics believed that the most important Christian doctrines were reserved for a select, intellectual elite. The creed affirms that the fullness of the Gospel was to be preached to the entire human race. Hence the term "catholic," or universal.

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,

Gnostics denied that men needed redemption or forgiveness, but enlightenment. Ignorance was the only unpardonable sin. Some of them, believing the body to be a snare and delusion, led lives of great asceticism. Others, believing the body to be quite independent of the soul, held that it did not matter what the body did. They accordingly led libertine lives. Either way, the notion of forgiveness was alien to them.

the resurrection of the body,

The chief goal of the Gnostics was to shed the body, which was but a prison of the spiritual. Their goal was to return spiritually to the heavenly realm. They totally rejected any idea of the resurrection of the body.

and the life everlasting. AMEN

The Nature of the Threefold Revelation

Although the baptismal and doctrinal creeds did much to combat Gnosticism, there still remained the difficult question of the exact nature of the relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This complex issue resulted in additional heresy.

Monarchianism

Monarchianism had a noble goal: addressing the criticism that Christians were tritheists, that is they worshipped three gods. (Today, many non-Christians including Jews, and even some who call themselves Christians, still view orthodox Christianity’s claim of monotheism as being patently absurd.) The various schools of thought know as Monarchianism taught that Jesus and the Spirit were but emanations from God, or that they were merely different forms in which the Father chose to manifest himself from time to time.

One Monarchian school was Dynamism. Christ, according to the Dynamists, was a faculty, feature, or emanation of God, like the rays of the sun or a stream from a fountain. The bottom line: the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but a single Person. One of the leading proponents of Dynamism was the scandalous Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, whom we met earlier (Lesson 11). In 268, the Church condemned him as a heretic. He was accused of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their handkerchiefs, of admitting women to live in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy.)

Ironically, this Paul, a heretic, is noteworthy for introducing into the theology of the trinity the Greek adjective homoousios (of the same substance) which will be important in the orthodox formulation.

Dynamism was usually coupled with Adoptionism, which taught that Jesus the man was promoted to the rank of Son of God because of his perfect obedience. This heresy makes its way into classic literature, when Milton, in Paradise Regained, puts these words into the mouth of the Father:

This perfect Man, by merit call’d your Son.

A more popular school of Monarchianism was called Sabellianism (after Sabellius, priest of Northern Africa, ~215) or Modalism. According to this school, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three roles played by God. The Sabellianists do not deny, for example, the Apostle’s creed, for it describes the three manifestations of God while saying nothing of His inner being.

The Sabellianists were also called Patripassians, (pater –father, passio –suffering) for their doctrine implied that the Father and the Son are essentially the same person, and so the father suffered on the cross. The Sabellianists, according to Tertullian, “drove out prophecy and brought in heresy, expelled the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) and crucified the Father.”

In the same way that Marcion stimulated the church begin formalizing the canon, Monarchianism forced the church to examine the scriptures to formulate the correct view of the triune God. In particular, Sabellianism (Modalism), while not completely unattractive, was simply incompatible with scripture that spoke of the Father sending the Son, or the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit, or the Son praying to the Father, etc.

that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:23)

that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. (John 17:21)

And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal. 4:6)

¹⁶I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever– ¹⁷the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:7)

The problem, then and now, is summarized succinctly by F. F. Bruce: Our conception of God must fall short of His real being, and our language about him must fall short of our conception.

In defining an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, it has proved extremely difficult to find the right terms that avoid error in the two extremes: Modalism, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are just three ways that God alternately reveals himself, or tritheism, in which the three are so distinct as to constitute three different gods.

It must be established that, axiomatically, Christianity, and the New Testament, affirms monotheism as ardently as Judaism. Whatever else we may, as Christians, say about the nature of God, we solidly affirm that He is One. As Christians, we agree with the Jewish creed of Maimonides that states:

I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is a Unity, and that there is no unity in any manner like unto His, and that He alone is our God who was, is, and will be.

But, unlike Jews, we do not see the unity of God as a monolithic unity. As the early theologians struggled to find ways to express this, we must remember that they were not merely waxing philosophical, but trying to find expression that did justice to revelation and experience. God had revealed Himself, and had been experienced, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in His word. God did not, as the Adoptionists taught, wait around until a man of Jesus’ stellar character arrived; God took the initiative in sending the Son.

Among the church fathers, Hippolytus was forceful in his attack on the Roman bishops (popes) Zephyrinus (202-217) and Callistus (217-222) in what he regarded as their complicity in the spread of Sabellianism, although it must be added that Callistus eventually excommunicated Sabellius.

It was, however, Tertullian who provided the greatest service in developing the terms that began to express what Christians believed but couldn’t say.

It is to Tertullian to whom we owe the word “Trinity”, and also the language of one substance in three persons. And though we still use the words substance and persons in describing the trinity, they do not mean exactly what they meant for Tertullian, and so in some ways our expression of the Trinity suffers somewhat.

For Tertullian, the Latin word persona denoted one who played a part or performed a function in society. Tertullian adopted the word to theology, and spoke of three persona in the indivisible Godhead. Today, the word means more that it did to Tertullian, essentially meaning “persons”, but three persons is closer to a tritheist view that we really want to go.

Likewise, when Tertullian used the word substance (Latin substantia) we again have a problem. Tertullian did not mean it as we do today; for us the word substance is inextricably tied to materiality. We view “of once substance” as meaning “made out of the same stuff.” Tertullian would have meant something closer to the modern meaning of “essence” rather than substance. For Tertullian and other third century theologians:

God is one Being, eternally existing the threefold relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each of these three is “the one God, thinking, willing and acting, in one of His three eternal spheres of thought, volition and activity… the indivisible Godhead subsisting and operating in one of the essential relations of His Tripersonal life.” (H.B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church)

Origen of Alexandria, probably the church’s greatest thinker and scholar of the first three centuries, also struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. In Origen’s reaction to Monarchianism, he went too far. He thought that the Father, Son, and Spirit occupied a hierarchical position within the unity of the Godhead. The Son was subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. He even taught that the Son was a creature, not in the sense that he was a created being but that the Son’s being was derived from the Father’s and is subject to His will. (He was not, however, an Arian—a heresy of the following [fourth] century that denied the divinity of Christ, which we will discuss later.)

The third century did not end (if indeed it ever has ended) the debate on the doctrine of God’s inner being. The next big advancement would come with the Arian controversy.

Lesson 14: Early Christian Heresies

2005-01-10T10:23:00.000-08:00

Docetism

Before the end of the first century, indeed before John wrote his gospel, the Greek belief that matter was inherently evil manifested itself in an early heresies. The name of one earliest being docetism, from the Greek dokein, which means “to seem.” It was especially a problem in the region of Asia Minor.

There were variants, but the common theme was a denial that the Son of God really became a man and really died. The incarnation, according to Docetic thought, was an illusion. John goes out of his way to address this heresy (attesting to its early appearance) and to affirm the humanity of death of Christ. In his gospel he wrote:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

Christ did not assume “the appearance” of flesh, but actual flesh. He also wrote:

But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. (John 19:34)

Which emphasizes that Christ died in the flesh. John also addresses Docetism in his epistles:

this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God (1 John 4:2)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 7)

One school of Docetism followed Cerinthus, a contemporary of John. Cerinthus taught that the Christ-Spirit came upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and left him at the crucifixion. According the Docetic Gospel of Peter:

¹⁰ And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the ¹¹ Lord between them. But he kept silence, as one feeling no pain. And when they set the cross upright, they wrote ¹² thereon: This is the King of Israel. And they laid his garments before him, and divided them among themselves and ¹³ cast the lot upon them. But one of those malefactors reproached them, saying: We have thus suffered for the evils which we have done; but this man which hath become the ¹⁴ savior of men, wherein hath he injured you? And they were wroth with him, and commanded that his legs should not be broken, that so he might die in torment. ¹⁵ Now it was noonday, and darkness prevailed over all Judea: and they were troubled and in an agony lest the sun should have set, for that he yet lived: for it is written for them that the sun should not set upon him that hath been ¹⁶ slain (murdered). And one of them said: Give ye him to drink gall with vinegar: and they mingled it and gave him ¹⁷ to drink: and they fulfilled all things and accomplished ¹⁸ their sins upon their own heads. And many went about with ¹⁹ lamps, supposing that it was night: and some fell. And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me. And when he had so said, he was taken up. (The Gospel of Peter)

F. F. Bruce comments:

The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.

Other tidbits about the Gospel of Peter: It is quite anti-Semitic, and completely whitewashes the complicity of Pilate.

Another form of Docetism taught that Jesus’ humanity was of a “phantom” nature, and that those who crucified him were deceived. Jerome (~340-420) would later write:

While the apostles were still surviving, while Christ's blood was still fresh in Judea, the Lord's body was asserted to be but a phantasm. (adv. Lucif. 23)

Finally, there was also a school that taught that it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified while Jesus looked on from a place of safety.

Docetism is even found in the Koran’s teaching on Jesus:

And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. (Koran 4:157)

Gnosticism

Gnosticism is another early Christian heresy, and in fact the most dangerous, but its roots are much older (and new research keeps pushing back the origins.) Gnosticism is best described as a mythology that collided with Christianity and then absorbed some of its features and attempted to carry the mantle forward.

Perhaps the origins can be stated thusly: There was, even before the Christian era, a mythological belief regarding the structure of the universe, or cosmology. This view, in addition to corrupting early Christian thought, bifurcates into Astrology and the quasi-scientific astronomy of the second century astronomer Ptolemy. The former line continued the Gnostic way of thought, alive and well today as “New Age” thinking, while the latter ultimately lead to true Astronomy.

This early, pre-Christian cosmology taught that the universe was comprised of clear, hard, earth-centered concentric spheres. Each planet had its on sphere upon the surface of which it was constrained to move, and beyond these was the sphere of the “fixed” stars. Beyond the sphere of the stars lay the realm of the supreme god.

Each of these astronomical objects was the spirit ruler of its particular sphere. In scientific terms, this represented an advancement over earlier cosmologies that, for example, viewed the earth as the floor of a giant tent.

The theology associated with the cosmology held that the lords of the spheres served as intermediaries between god and man, and that the supreme god could have no direct contact with man.

This new way of thinking was given the name gnosis, from the Greek word for knowledge. However gnosis was used in a more substantive way—much like we sometimes use Science instead of science—as in “Science tells us.”

Those who possess gnosis were called Gnostics. When Christianity arose, they attempted to shoehorn its beliefs into their schema. There were many sects of Gnosticism, and they despised one another as much as they hated the orthodox. In general, however, they agreed that garden-variety orthodox Christianity was for the unenlightened, and only they, the intellectual elite, could attain the truth.

The material world was the mistaken creation of a demiurge, not the supreme god. The supreme god had created and intended only a spiritual world. So to Gnostics, unlike Christians, the earth is not of divine creation, but the mishap of a far lesser being. Some Gnostic sects identified this demiurge with the God of Israel, which brings to mind the teachings of Marcion that we discussed last week.

However, since the creation was the work of a (flawed) spiritual being, there are still bits and pieces of the spirit realm sprinkled here and there, trapped in the flesh. The Fall, to the Gnostics, was the fall of this divine element into the material realm. Our spirits are “asleep” in our bodies, and Christ is the spiritual messenger who has come to reawaken our true nature. Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each human soul, but more of a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to what they were before an error (on the part of a lesser god) brought matter into existence
The Gnostics and Docetists had much in common, including their disdain for the material. But the Gnostics went much, much farther, for they believed that gnosis lead to salvation. In other words, they possessed a special, secret knowledge, reserved for the enlightened, and that knowledge was the key to salvation.

Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the one obtains salvation by obedience of mind and will to the God, i.e. by faith and works, (in Christianity, of course, by faith alone through grace alone) it is Gnosticism that uniquely ties salvation to the possession of knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge.

What the Gnostics borrowed from Christianity was a bastardized notion of redemption. Christ was the redeemer, but not by His blood. Instead the Gnostic Jesus descended the lower world (earth) in order to release the divine element that had become imprisoned in the flesh, and to lead it back to its true home.

Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance, which in Gnosticism is the equivalent of the unforgivable sin. Nor did Christ in any sense benefit the human race by his sufferings. Nor does he immediately and actively affect any individual human by the power of grace. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the truth, the knowledge of which alone can save.

Many Gnostics did not claim to be Christians, only those that proclaimed Jesus as the spiritual messenger come to reawaken the essence trapped within the flesh. Some sects proclaimed other redeemers, including one branch prevalent among the Samaritans that proclaimed Simon Magus (Simon the magician of Acts 8) as the redeemer. Thus many afford Simon the dishonor of being the first Christian heretic (for this Simon, according to scripture, believed and was baptized.)

However, even the Christian Gnostics are, in fact, pantheists. Well they recognize that one god is the supreme god, there is a whole zoo of other lesser gods, at least in most Gnostic theologies. The least pantheistic Gnostics are the dualistic Marcionists, which we’ll discuss in a moment.

To Gnostics, a human being is really an eternal spirit, or part of a spirit, that became trapped inside a body. Since the body is a prison, it is necessarily evil, therefore the ultimate goal of the Gnostic is to escape the body and the material world, and to reunite with the spiritual.

Since the flesh is evil, the Gnostics reject the humanity of Christ. They may have allowed that Jesus had a body, but it was not human body, but a spiritual body masquerading as physical. Naturally they also reject the birth of Christ, for this would imply an unimaginable defilement of the spiritual within a womb of flesh. (One could attribute a slight Gnostic flavor to the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, insomuch as it is supported by the notion that Christ could not be placed in a sinful womb.)

Many Gnostics held to the concept of an “elect.” Not all humans contained remnants of their spiritual creator—some were fully carnal. Thus only some humans were destined for enlightenment, while others were slated for destruction when the material world ceased.

So how should the present life, then, be lived? The bulk of the Gnostics argued that since the body is inherently evil, all its urges and lusts must be fought against. Hence, a common expression of the Gnostic lifestyle was an extreme form of self-denial or asceticism. On the other hand, a minority of Gnostics believed that since the body was essentially irrelevant as far as the spirit is concerned, they were free to adopt an anything-goes libertine philosophy.
All Gnostic sects baptized. The formulae used by Christian Gnostics seem to have varied widely from that taught by Christ. The Marcosians said: "In the name of the unknown Father of all, in the Truth, the Mother of all, in him, who came down on Jesus.". The Elcesaites said: "In the name of the great and highest God and in the name of his Son, the great King". Elsewhere we find the formula: "In the name that was hidden from every divinity and lordship and truth, which [name] Jesus the Nazarene has put on in the regions of light".
Magic was important in Gnosticism (which explains the rise of Simon the Magician). For example, power is attributed to the utterance of the vowels: alpha, epsilon, eta, iota, omicron, upsilon, omega. The Savior and His disciples are said to have at times broken out in an interminable gibberish of only vowels. Gnostic magic spells have come down to us consisting of vowels. Probably each vowel represents one of the seven planets, and the seven together represent the Universe, but without consonants they represent the Ideal and Infinite not yet imprisoned and limited by matter.
How old is Christian Gnosticism? Well, scripture addresses both schools of Gnostic thought addressed above. To the Colossians, Paul writes:

⁸See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Col. 2:8-10)

Here he addresses the nascent form of Christian Gnosticism, with a reference to elemental spirits, reminding the Colossians that the fullness of Christ’s deity resides within the body of Christ, and that as Christians they have been filled with Christ, not sparks from the spiritual realm.

(Some translations use “basic principals” in place of “elemental spirits”, but in any case the Greek word translated here was used to mean the gods of the stars and planets.) A little bit later, Paul really lays it own, also attacking the useless asceticism of the Gnostics:

¹⁸Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, ¹⁹and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. ²⁰If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-- ²¹"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" ²²(referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings? ²³These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Col. 2:18-23)

In the epistle of Jude, the brother of James (and half-brother of Christ), the antinomian expression of Gnosticism is rebuked.

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)

⁷just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. ⁸Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (Jude 7:8)

Marcionism

In the middle of the second century, Marcion was clearly influenced by both Docetism and Gnosticism. He shared this with those earlier (and still thriving) heresies: an insistence that the material world is evil, a strict asceticism including a denouncing of marriage for himself and his followers, and the belief that a demiurge created the material world since the supreme god would not contaminate himself with the physical.

Marcionism’s distinctive feature can be found in the profound reference that its founder, Marcion had for Paul. It has been said of Marcion: he was the only man in the post-apostolic world that understood Paul, and even he misunderstood him!

In particular he misinterpreted Paul’s teaching of the supremacy of the gospel over the law to mean that the Old Testament had no authority for Christians. Marcion’s Docetism is evident in the very beginning of his rewritten gospel (of Luke) which begins:

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus came down to Capernaum. (Marcion, The Gospel)

It was to be supposed that it was “down from heaven” from which the adult Jesus came.

Again, as we noted last time when discussing his unintended but beneficial effect on the formation of the canon, Marcion was perhaps the first to teach that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was the Gnostic demiurge who created the material world. So in some ways Marcion was a minimalist Gnostic, having but two Gods, the righteous Jehovah (who created the world) and the “good” Father.

Amazingly, since its prohibition against marriage meant that it could not perpetuate itself, Marcionism survived as a rival church for many generations. In fact, the basic tenet of Marcionism, the repudiation of the Old Testament, manifests itself now and gain throughout Christian history.

Montanists

While the Gnostics over emphasized the intellectual, believing that special knowledge led to salvation, the Montanists, a movement of the second century, placed excessive importance on the experiential. It is debatable whether they should be described as heretical—but schismatic they certainly were.

We have already seen that prophets were a part of the apostolic church. The Montanists were the result of enthusiasm for prophets being taken to an exaggerated degree.

This reached a head in Asia Minor, which is to heresies what Virginia is to presidents, around A.D. 156. Montanus began teaching that while the dispensation of the Father had given way to the dispensation of the Son when Christ came, so now the dispensation of the Son is ending and the dispensation of the Spirit is beginning. He claimed that Christ’s promise of the coming Paraclete (Holy Spirit) had been fulfilled, and that he, Montanus, was the Spirit’s mouthpiece. Furthermore, this signaled the imminent return of Christ and the establishment of the New Jerusalem in one of the towns of Asia Minor. It has been said that this idea also recurs throughout history, “when the new wine of a new spiritual movement is too potent to be contained in the old wineskins of the established church.” The features of Montanism may be summarized:

An emphasis on the Holy Spirit
A belief that the Holy Sprit was increasing manifested supernaturally through prophets and prophetesses
A stern and exacting standard of Christian morality
Rigorous fasts and penances for purity
A tendency to set up prophets against bishops
A belief that the second advent was near, and along with it an indifference to ordinary human affairs.

What distinguished Motanistic prophecy from other prophecy was that it was given in first person rather than third. There was no "Thus saith the Lord," but rather “possessed by God” utterances such as Montanus’s "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete." He also prophesied: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come"

By the end of the second century, the movement reached Africa, and there it attracted its greatest convert: Tertullian, probably attracted by its stern Puritanism.

According to the Catholic Encylopedia:

But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi", written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: "In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In fact Tertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences… the Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love to remarry.

A Montanist sect called the Tertullianists lasted in Northern Africa until the fifth century, and Montanism, in Asia Minor lasted until the sixth.

Lesson 13 The New Testament Writings

2005-01-02T15:38:00.000-08:00

There was an interesting issue that troubled early Christianity: the question of sin after baptism. This was a very difficult subject. The source of the problem can be traced to a passage in Hebrews:

²⁶If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, ²⁷but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. (Heb. 10:26-27)

This was interpreted to mean that there was little hope for forgiveness post-baptismal sin. This was one of the reasons some of the church fathers (Tertullian, in particular) supported adult baptism: once baptized there was no turning back. In order to fit their severe view of post-baptismal sin, it was taught that it was possible for man to live a post-baptismal sinless life.

To see how seriously this was taken, let us look at the appearance of a milder view, which is found in the allegorical The Shepherd of Hermas by a Roman writer, sometime early in the second century. This work was a sort of Pilgrim’s Progress for the early Christians and was widely distributed among the churches. Addressing post-baptismal sin, you read in The Shepherd:

Hermas 1[29]:8 "Certainly," saith he, "if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God. For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry. This is the manner of acting enjoined on husband and wife.

In other words, the radical new idea was that believers could be forgiven for post-baptismal sin, but just once! Tertullian, for his part, refers to Hermas’s work as "The Shepherd of the Adulterers".

After some time, necessary expedients were developed. Of course, not all sin was equally heinous, and some sin was mild enough that confession and repentance sufficed for complete restoration. However, the big three, that is the three major sins in Judaism: murder, perjury, and adultery, were excommunicable, as was apostasy -–which is self-excommunication at any rate. So a new issue arose concerning whether one who was excommunicated could ever be restored.

A serious dispute arose in Rome over this question in the early part of the third century. Callistus, Bishop of Rome (Pope Callistus I) from 217 to 222, ruled that the sincerely repentant may be readmitted even after adultery or fornication. Tertullian was outraged and responded with venom from across the Mediterranean at what he viewed as a “peremptory edict” issued from “the Bishop of Bishops” (intended sarcastically.)

There was also serious opposition from within Rome, and it lead to an early schism. Hippolytus, considered by some to be the greatest scholar in the Western world of his time, complained of Callistus’s “criminal laxity.” Then, with his followers, he withdrew from fellowship and established a rival Roman church, giving him the distinction of being the first antipope (a false claimant to the papacy) in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. A great scholar, yes. A great theologian, no. Callitus’s psotion more accurately reflected the gospel. The schism was short lived. Hippolytus was banished to Sardinia in A.D. 235, during a period of persecution, along with Callistus’s successor, Pontainus (Pope St. Pontian). The rival popes were reconciled before their martyrdom, and Hippolytus is now a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church.

A little later, during the persecution under Decius (249-251) you might recall that many believers renounced their faith, unable to persevere when faced with the prospect of torture and death. Another debate arose concerning whether they could be restored. To some, who conveniently forgot the example of Peter himself, those who lapsed were analogous to traitors to an army, and reconciliation was impossible. To more reasoned others, a distinction was sought to differentiate between those who took active measures to renounce their faith and those who recanted under torture. Dionysius, Bishop of Rome (Pope St. Dionysius) was of the moderate (and, in this case, correct) camp who argued against those who said that restoration was impossible, calling them “those who slander our most compassionate Lord Jesus Christ as unmerciful.” Once again, controversy led to schism. This time the antipope was a man by the name of Novatian. Novatian, c.200-c.258, was a Roman theologian and the first writer of the Western church to use Latin. He had himself consecrated bishop of Rome in 251 in opposition to Pope Cornelius, believing, as mentioned, that Cornelius was too lenient toward those who had apostatized during the Decian persecution and had then sought readmission. Novatian was excommunicated, but his followers formed a schismatic church that persisted for several centuries. Novatian himself was probably martyred in the persecution of Valerian.

The New Testament Writings

Some would like to couch a portion of the dispute between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church in this way: The former believes that Jesus rose from the dead because he reads it in the New Testament, while the latter believes it because the Church says it is true. In fact, that’s a distinction without a difference (which is not to say there is not considerable differences between Protestants and Catholics to be found elsewhere.) Both the New Testament (the scriptures) and the church are a consequence of Christ’s resurrection. The New Testament did not create the church, nor the church the New Testament. As some have put it: the two grew up together.

Throughout the first Christian century, the apostles’ writings were conveyed both orally and in writing. This was true from the earliest days of the Church. When Paul was at Ephesus, he heard of problems in the church at Corinth, and he immediately dispatched an epistle. Later, in Corinth, he sent a letter outlining the essentials of Christian theology to the church at Rome. By about A.D. 60, there were several letters from Paul and other apostles in the hands of various churches and individuals.

The need for a written account became acute when the apostles advanced in age, for it was clear that at some point they, the eyewitnesses, would not be around. The Roman church asked Mark to write down the message that Peter had delivered to them. At an earlier time, written collections of the sayings of Christ took shape. Shortly after Mark’s account was written down, Luke penned his two part history of Christianity, the gospel that bears his name and the book of Acts. Then in the Syrian region, another gospel appeared: the gospel of Matthew. Later in the century, at Ephesus, the gospel of John, the last surviving apostle, appears.

As long as these documents were scattered about, there was in no sense a New Testament. Not that the documents were not accepted as authoritative, for they certainly were, as were Paul’s correspondence, even though (for example in Corinth) there was some questioning of Paul’s apostolic authority. Paul himself wrote:

If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. (1 Cor. 14:37)

Here we see that Paul is affirming the absolute authority of what he is writing.

What was lacking, in this early period, was a canon, or an officially recognized list of sacred writings. Now an example of such a thing did exist: the Old Testament. What was needed was a similar compendium of apostolic writings.

Toward the end of the first century, a movement developed to collect the writings of Paul, which consisted entirely of letters. The motivation for the movement is uncertain, but some have speculated that Luke’s Acts of the Apostles became widely known and extremely popular around the year 90, and this sparked interest in Paul. It is know that about this time various churches began searching their records and archives for Pauline correspondence.

By about the year 95, the “Vatican Library” of the time held Paul’s letter to the Romans, his first epistle to the Corinthians and possibly one or two others letters of Paul. It also contained the letter to the Hebrews, and First Peter, some of the gospels, and the Greek version of the New Testament (the Septuagint).

An incontrovertible piece of evidence is the letter written to the Corinthian church in A.D. 95 by the bishop of Rome (Pope) Clement, in which he wrote:

Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas [Peter] and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties. (1 Clement, 47)

So without question Clement had access to Paul’s first Corinthian epistle. Since he nowhere quoted Paul’s second letter in his own correspondence to the Corinthians, even though parts are apropos to what he writing, it is concluded that Rome did not have a copy of that correspondence.

So the effort to collect Paul’s writings continued, and by the end of the first century, it is evident that there existed a Pauline corpus that was in the hands of various churches. At first it contained ten letters, but shortly thereafter the three pastoral letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) were added.

At the same time, another collection began to circulate among the churches: the four gospels. From the beginning of the second century, the Catholic Church used these and only these gospels, even though the occasional gospel of someone-else appeared.

So in the early years of the second century there were two books in circulation: The Gospels, with contents According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and The Pauline Corpus, with subheadings To the Romans, First Letter to the Corinthians, etc.

The church was making admirable progress in establishing a canon. And then something happened to expedite the process.

Marcion

Marcion was son of the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus (Asia Minor), born c. A.D. 110, evidently from wealthy parents. Around the year A.D. 140 he traveled to Rome and presented his peculiar teachings to the elders. They found his ideas unacceptable, to say the least. Marcion’s response was to leave the church and form his own heretical sect.

Marcion’s heresy anticipates some that will follow, and we will have more to say about it next week. For now, we note that Marcion (1) denied the authority of the entirety of the Old Testament and (2) denied the authority of all the apostles except Paul, because only Paul (according to Marcion) did not allow his faith to be defiled by mixing it with Judaism. Only Paul had not apostatized from the teachings of Jesus.

Marcion was perhaps the first to claim that the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament. Jesus’ many appeals to the Old Testament notwithstanding, Marcion believed that Jesus Himself placed no authority in the Old Testament and had come to liberate man from the bondage to the Old Testament God.

Jesus, according to Marcion, was not the son of the God of the Old Testament, but the son of the superior God of goodness and mercy of the New Testament whom Marcion called the Father.

The sacred writings (including Paul’s letters), Marcion taught, had been corrupted by Judiazers if not directly by the Jewish sympathies of the apostles (excluding Paul). All scripture was in need of a cleansing under Marcion’s direction.

So Marcion deleted the Old Testament, and developed his own canon consisting of two parts: The Gospel, a sanitized version of Luke’s gospel, and The Apostle, a similarly sanitized version of Paul’s first ten letters. Marcion’s canon provided the impetus for the Church to redouble her efforts to establish a proper canon of her own. Immediately there was anti-Marcion pronouncements that voiced support for the Catholic writings, but still, those writings were not officially delimited into a collection of sacred scriptures.

On the other hand, the situation was not hopelessly muddled, not by a long shot. The church did have an effectively recognized ad hoc canon, but it lacked official sanctioning. Documents discovered in the twentieth century attest to the fact that by 140-150, the collection of writings accepted by Rome was virtually identical with our New Testament.

So the Catholic response to Marcion was this: (1) We accept the Old Testament because Christ fulfilled them and stamped them with his approval. (2) The divinely inspired books of this new age do not supersede the Old Testament but stand beside it. (3) The Gospel contains not one but four accounts, including the one that Marcion mangled. (4) The Apostle contains not just ten of Paul’s letters, but thirteen, and it also contains correspondence of some of the other apostles. (5) Special emphasis was placed on Luke’s second half of Christian history, the Book of Acts, which Marcion omitted from his canon. Its special place was now recognized: it bridged The Gospel to The Apostle. (It was at this time that the book became known as The Acts of the Apostles, although in some anti-Marcion literature it was dubbed The Acts of All the Apostles.

Another response to Marcion was to write prologues for each of the gospels in order to establish their legitimacy. The prologue to Matthew’s gospel was lost. Part of Mark’s prologue reads:

…Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.

Luke’s prologue has a lengthy biography:

Luke was a native of Syrian Antioch, a physician by profession, a disciple of the apostles. Later he accompanied Paul until the latter's martyrdom, serving the Lord without distraction, for he had neither wife nor children. He died in Boeotia at the age of eighty-four, full of the Holy Spirit. So then, after two Gospels had already been written - Matthew's in Judea and Mark's in Italy - Luke wrote this Gospel in the region of Achaia, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. At its outset, he indicated that other Gospels had been written before his on, but that the obligation lay upon him to set forth for the Gentile believers a complete account in the course of his narrative and to do so as accurately as possible. The object of this was that they might not be captivated on the one hand by a love for Jewish fables, nor on the other hand be deceived by heretical and vain imaginations and thus wander from the truth. So, right at the beginning, Luke has handed down to us the story of the birth of John [the Baptist], as a most essential [part of the Gospel story]; for John marks the beginning of the Gospel, since he was our Lord's forerunner and associate both in the preparation of the Gospel and in the administration of baptism and the fellowship of the Spirit. This ministry [of John's] was foretold by one of the Twelve Prophets [i.e. the minor prophets]. Later on, the same Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.

The anti-Marcion flavor of this prologue is evident when it is understood that included in the considerable mischief Marcion made with Luke’s gospel, he completely excised any reference to John the Baptist, since John the Baptist was a link between the new age and the Jewish past. Furthermore, the explicit reference to The Acts of the Apostles is a not very subtle reminder that Marcion rejected that work.

The most intriguing is John’s prologue:

The Gospel of John was published and given to the churches by John when he was still in the body, as Papias of Hierapolis, John’s dear disciple has related in his five exegetical books. He wrote down the gospel accurately at John’s dictation. But the heretic Marcion was rejected by John, after earning his disapproval for his contrary views.

There are several inaccuracies that jump out—certainly the apostle John was not a contemporary of Marcion.

Another anti-Marcion document was a list of books that represents the canon near the end of the second century. It was discovered by L. A. Muratori in 1740. The beginning is missing, and the first book mentioned is the gospel of Luke and it’s called the third, so it is reasonable to assume that it included Matthew and Mark as the first and second books.

I. ...those things at which he was present he placed thus.²³ The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name²⁴ in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself²⁵ as one studious of right.²⁶ Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began²⁷ his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.²⁸ And hence, although different points²⁹ are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit,³⁰ which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,-the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future. What marvel is it, then, that John brings forward these several things³¹ so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that have we written."³² For thus he professes himself to be not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer; and besides that, the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the Lord in their order.

2. Moreover, the Acts of all the Apostles are comprised by Luke in one book, and addressed to the most excellent Theophilus, because these different events took place when he was present himself; and he shows this clearly-i.e., that the principle on which he wrote was, to give only what fell under his own notice-by the omission³³ of the passion of Peter, and also of the journey of Paul, when he went from the city-Rome-to Spain.

3. As to the epistles³⁴ of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object³⁵ in these;-which it is needful for us to discuss severally,³⁶ as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown-i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.

4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,³⁷ and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public³⁸ in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. Of the writings of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Miltiades, we receive nothing at all. Those are rejected too who wrote the new Book of Psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides and the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians.³⁹

So from this we see what books are in the canon around A.D. 200. The four gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, two epistles of John (the second of which is possibly what we now consider the second and third.) Revelation, and a second Revelation due to Peter. This book is known and was read in some churches –its lurid treatment of the state of the damned is believed to underlie much medieval writing on the subject including Dante’s Inferno.

Some believe the epistles of Peter are omitted by error. Regardless, we have essentially a recognizable canon, with the notable absence of Hebrews and James.

Lesson 12 Worship in the Early Church

2004-12-24T03:20:00.000-08:00

In the previous lesson, we discussed the political climate from the end of the first century until the ascendancy of Constantine in A.D. 312. Now it is time to look at how these early Christians worshipped.

Documentation is much more available for the second have of this period. From about A.D. 60, where Luke’s history (The book of Acts) ends, to about A.D. 180, there is no continuous account, and what little is known must be pieced together.

By the time the picture clarifies, toward the end of the second century, it does so in a (perhaps) surprising manner. We do not find highly independent Christian communities scattered throughout the world, but something much more like a universal or catholic church, which we might as well call the Catholic Church, a loose but definite confederation of churches that, while disagreeing on certain things, nevertheless distinguished themselves from others that might claim the Christian mantle. The way in which this distinction was manifest is that they functioned as an ecumenical body with a “rule of faith” and a recognized body of scripture that served as the guideline for judging the veracity of anything that might be thought of as a question of faith or doctrine.

Charitable Works

From the earliest days, one of the commonalities among groups of Christians was the practice of charity and mutual aid. Recall that one of the first acts of the second Christian community, the church at Antioch, was to send gifts to the first community, the church at Jerusalem, to alleviate their suffering in the face of famine. In the Jerusalem church itself, wealthier members placed their property in a common pool for use by those in need. The first institution of deacons in the church was intended to distribute goods to the needy.

In later apostolic times, after Paul had founded churches throughout the Mediterranean region, we see additional efforts from a number of them to provide assistance to the poverty stricken Jerusalem church.

¹Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. ²On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. ³Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. ⁴If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. (1 Cor. 16:1-4)

While these apostolic era churches were administered independently, with their own bishops and elders, it was clear they felt a sense of being part of a catholic body, as evidenced by readiness of one community to assist another.

Widows were another area in which the early church practiced charity. Widows were not only to be taken care of, but also put to work in the church, primarily in the distribution of charity to others in need. This is evident in the instructions regarding widows found, for example, in 1 Tim. 5.

The charitable and mutual aid aspect of Christianity made its way into the period’s secular literature. In the second century, and Greek satirist by the name of Lucian describes Christian practice in one of his works. The character is a charlatan named Proteus Peregrinius. Proteus is depicted as joining the Christians. When he ends up in prison, Lucian writes that the Christians “left no stone unturned” in their effort to secure his release. When they were unsuccessful, they looked after his needs in all matters with “untiring solicitude and devotion.” From the crack of dawn, widows and orphans are waiting at the prison doors, and church officers bribe the jailers so that they might spend the night and being him meals and partake of their “sacred formulas.”

The fact that Christian charity did not go unnoticed is, of course, also testimony of the fact that it was unusual. This is an important part of the explanation of how the church grew even us it suffered repeated persecutions.

Caring for children (orphans) is another mark of the Christian communities, and one which distinguishes them—for this was an era when children were exposed (instead of murdered in the womb) if unwanted by their parents. This practice of abandonment is well documented in the Greco-Roman world, and these children were often picked up by “baby farmers” to become slaves or courtesans.

An example: a letter, written in 1 B.C., from an Egyptian to his wife. Though written in a loving manner to his pregnant spouse, the writer gives these matter-of-fact instructions: “If it is a boy, keep it; if a girl, expose it.”

In addition to attending to the needs of widows and orphans, the church also distinguished itself by caring for the sick. When Alexandria was devastated by a plague in the middle of the third century, the bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius, wrote about the devotion of Christians in tending the sick, often catching the plague and dying of it themselves in consequence, whereas their pagan neighbors “thrust from them those who showed symptoms of the plague and fled from their nearest and dearest. They would throw them into the streets half dead, or cast out their corpses without burial.”

In these and other matters (e.g., slavery) Christians were not just “doing what any decent folk would do,” but were setting an entirely new standard in treating all human life with respect and kindness.

Baptism

It would be nice if a study of the nascent church demonstrated a definitive point of view when it comes to baptism, both in the question of who gets baptized (children and professing believers, or only professing believers) and in the mode of administration of the sacrament (ordinance). Alas, it does not, and many of the same debates that rage in our day were also present (although the arguments were couched differently) in the earliest days of the church.

One of earliest documents to speak on this is the Didache (~A.D. 120), which has the full title The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. (Its neglect of Paul suggests it was at first a document of Jewish Christians, probably of Syrian origin.)

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: After reviewing all of this teaching, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in living (running) water. But if running water is not available, then baptize into other water; and cold is preferred, but if not available in warm. But if neither is available, pour water three times upon the head in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the overseer fast, and also the one being baptized, and all others who are able; Be sure to instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before. (Didache 7)

Notice a sort of non-dogmatic reasonableness, cold running water is preferred, but if not, warm static water is fine. Neither dunking nor sprinkling is declared as the “only” method; the meaning of baptism (whatever they took it to be) is more important than the method. Since fasting is mentioned, it is also interesting to look at what the Didache has to say about that:

Be careful not to schedule your fasts at the times when the hypocrites fast. They fast on the second (Monday) and fifth (Thursday) day of the week, therefore make your fast on the fourth (Wednesday) day and the Preparation day (Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath-Saturday). Likewise, don't pray as the hypocrites, but as commanded in the Gospel in this manner:

Our Father in heaven,
Sacred is Your Name.
Your kingdom comes.
Your will is accomplished,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us each day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debt
in the manner that we forgive our debtors.
And do not allow us to fall to temptation,
but deliver us from evil,
for Yours is the power and the glory forever.
Amen!

Pray in this manner three times per day. (Didache 8)

The admonition against fasting like the hypocrites brings to mind:

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (Matt. 6:16)

But in the Didache, fasting like the “hypocrites” is extended to avoid the very days in which they fast (second and fifth), i.e., the days when the Jews fasted!

As for the Lord’s Supper, the Didache throws a curve: it instructs the partaking of the cup first:

Now concerning the Thanksgiving meal, give thanks in this manner.

First, concerning the cup:

We thank You, our Father,
For the Holy Vine of David Your servant,
Whom You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever.

Concerning the broken bread:

We thank You, our Father,
For the life and knowledge
Which You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever.
As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains,
And was gathered together to become one,
So let Your Body of Faithful be gathered together
From the ends of the earth into Your kingdom;
for the glory and power are Yours forever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, "Do not give what is holy to dogs." (Didache 9)

Back to baptism. Some of the earliest evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the early church comes from those who argue against it. For example, Tertullian:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary--if (baptism itself) is not so necessary --that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred--in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom--until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. (Tertullian, On Baptism)

Tertullian is not arguing against a hypothetical, it would seem, but an actual practice in the North African church. He did not dispute the validity of infant baptism, but questioned its necessity and pointed out what, in his mind, were its risks “If people understood the obligations of baptism, they fear receiving it more than delaying it.”

Origen, on the other hand, was in favor of baptizing children, claiming and preaching that it was apostolic. He wrote:

Little ones are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Which sins? Or at what time have they sinned? Or how can there be the slightest reason for the baptism of little children, unless it is to be found in the passage “No one is free from taint, not even he whose life upon earth lasts but a day”? Even little children are baptized. Because the taint which we have at birth is removed in the sacrament of baptism.

Cyprian (200-258), Bishop of Carthage, was another ardent supporter of infant baptism.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to he hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to he observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. (Cyprian, Epistle LVIII)

In spite of evidence that infant baptism was practiced and that some of the great church fathers and first-generation apologists supported it, a great deal of evidence points to the widespread practice of “believers baptism” (implying also withholding baptism from children). Many church fathers, those of Christian parents, were not baptized until the end of their “student days,” e.g. Augustine.

We can also turn to Justin Martyr, and look at his teaching concerning baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Isaiah the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin, Apol, 1, 61)

Justin appears to have an unresolved and rather odd view –he seems to teach baptismal regeneration while denying the common view of original sin.

Concerning Communion, Justin writes:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (Justin, Apol, 1, 65,66)

Concerning weekly worship, Justin instructs:

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savoir on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (Justin, Apol, 1, 67)

Lesson 11: The Next 200 Years

2004-12-14T06:59:00.000-08:00

[Note: The source for most of this material is The Spreading Flame, by F.F. Bruce.]

For the next two hundred years, the Christians of the Roman Empire would endure periods of persecution of varying intensity as well as brief respites of tranquility. The common thread is that the church maintained her faith (as always, imperfectly) and propagated it so successfully that her numbers always increased.

At this time, the first post-apostolic apologists appear, scholars who preferred to defend the church with pen rather than sword. The earliest known is Quadratus,

Emperor	Reign
Nerva	96-98
Trajan	98-117
Hadrian	117-138
Antoninus Pius	138-161
Marcus Aurelius	161-180
Lucius Verus	161-169
Commodus	177-192
Sepimius Severus	193-211
Alexander Severus	222-235
Philip the Arab	244-249
Decius	249-251
Valerian I	253-260
Gallienus	253-268
Aurelian	270-275
Diocletian (E)	284-305
Constantius (W)	305-306
Galerius (E)	305-311
Maximian (E)	307-308
Constantine (W)	312-337
Licinius (E)	308-324

The historian Eusebius (~260 - before 341) wrote regarding Quadratus:

After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years [Hadrian] became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Savior was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 3:2)

In the middle of the second century, the most notable apologist is Justin (A.D. 100-165), a Greek philosopher from Samaria who had been converted to Christianity. Ultimately he would die for his faith, and so is known to us as Justin Martyr. He defended Christianity to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his two adopted sons.

One early anonymous apologist from the mid second century sums of the state of Christianity in the world:

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred..

To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul, and wars against it, though itself suffering no injury, because it is prevented from enjoying pleasures; the world also hates the Christians, though in nowise injured, because they abjure pleasures. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and [loves also] the members; Christians likewise love those that hate them. The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. The soul, when but ill-provided with food and drink, becomes better; in like manner, the Christians, though subjected day by day to punishment, increase the more in number. God has assigned them this illustrious position, which it were unlawful for them to forsake. (Epistle to Diognetus, 5-6)

Although the author is unknown, he is considered one of the most eloquent writers of the era. Indeed, its beauty is the prime reason why the epistle is not credited to Justin.

None of these apologetic writings had any effect on their intended recipients. The authorities had no interest in defenses of Christianity. If Christians wanted to prove their loyalty, then they could burn incense for the state gods, just like the pagans did.

Justin, who was bona fide Greek philosopher, was martyred under another philosopher, the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius. Brought with six companions to Rusticus, prefect of Rome, we have an accurate account of the dialog:

"The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Savior."

Under Marcus Aurelius, it was political turmoil within the empire that intensified persecution against the church. The year A.D. 166 was a year of great calamity, when havoc was wrought by plague, flood, famine, and invasion from beyond the Danube. In those times many Romans looked around for who, Jonah-like, was bringing the wrath of the gods upon them. Often the “atheistic” Christians were just the group.

The most notorious persecution of Marcus’s regime began in Gaul in 177 the church at Lyons. The outbreak began not with an official edict but mob violence that was given a blind eye by the local magistrates. When some of Christians turned out to be Roman citizens, the Emperor’s ruling was sought. Marcus replied that those who don’t recant should be beheaded, if Roman citizens, and tortured to death otherwise. The survivors sent a poignant and detailed description of the persecution to the churches at Asia Minor. Neither age (young or old) nor gender spared one from death. The ninety year old bishop of Lyons, Ponthinus, was a victim as were children. The most memorable martyr was a slave-girl Blandina. From the Catholic Enclopedia:

Among these Christians was Blandina, a slave, who had been taken into custody along with her master, also a Christian. Her companions greatly feared that on account of her bodily frailty she might not remain steadfast under torture. But although the legate caused her to be tortured in a horrible manner, so that even the executioners became exhausted "as they did not know what more they could do to her", still she remained faithful and repeated to every question "I am a Christian and we commit no wrongdoing." Through fear of torture heathen slaves had testified against their masters that the Christians when assembled committed those scandalous acts of which they were accused by the heathen mob, and the legate desired to wring confession of this misconduct from the Christian prisoners. In his report to the emperor the legate stated that those who held to their Christian belief were to be executed and those who denied their faith were to be released; Blandina was, therefore, with a number of companions subjected to new tortures in the amphitheater at the time of the public games. She was bound to a stake and wild beasts were set on her. They did not, however touch her. After this for a number of days she was led into the arena to see the sufferings of her companions. Finally, as the last of the martyrs, she was scourged, placed on a red-hot grate, enclosed in a net and thrown before a wild steer who tossed her into the air with his horns, and at last killed with a dagger.

Up to now there was a trend: those emperors that were most brutal in their persecutions were those who, after their deaths, were denounced by their pagan subjects as well. Namely: Nero and Domitian. Here the rule is violated: Marcus Aurelius presided over heinous violence against Christians, but is known by historians as one of the “five good emperors” who ruled during the Pax Romana heyday of the empire: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.

Marcus’s son Commodus, who succeeded him, is known to historians as a bad emperor, a scoundrel, but Christians had a much easier time under him. That may be due to his wife Maria who may have been a Christian or at least regarded the Christians favorably.

After Commodus’s death, Rome was ruled by a succession of soldier-emperors. The first of these was Septimius Severus who was known from campaigns in Roman Britian. (He reconstructed Hadrian’s wall and died in York.) In 202, Severus issued a first-of-its-kind decree officially forbidding anyone from converting to Christianity.

At this time there was an outbreak of persecution in Egypt that was so severe that many thought it heralded the apocalypse. It was at this time that Leonidas, the father of the great Christian scholar Origen, was beheaded by command of the prefect of Egypt, Lactus. (The fifteen year old Origen wanted to join his father when he was arrested, but could not because his mother hid his clothes!)

Farther west on the African coast, at Carthage, there was another famous martyrdom, that of Perpetua and Felicitas. We have accurate account of their martyrdom, including the fact that Perpetua a free-born matron and Felicitas, her slave, entered the amphitheater hand in hand bearing witness not only to the enduring Christian faith but also attesting to its making class distinctions irrelevant.

Perpetua was about 22 years old and had recently given birth to a son. Apparently, she was a relatively new Christian, too--she was actually baptized while in prison. Felicitas, her slave girl, was like a sister to her. And she too was a new mother, giving birth shortly after her arrest.

Three times Perpetua's father was allowed in to beg her to change her mind. No decent daughter in this patriarchal society would deny her father's pleas and cause him public disgrace. The resolve of the two young women and their friends was unshakable. To deny Christ was worse than death. To follow Him was their first loyalty, no matter what the cost. Shortly before her trial, Perpetua received a series of visions from the Lord, reassuring her of his strength and presence.

When the fatal day came, Perpetua and Felicitas left the prison for the arena "joyfully as though they were on their way to heaven," as the eyewitness account puts it. Before a raging crowd, the Christians were thrown to the wild beasts. A mad heifer charged the women and tossed them, but Perpetua rose and helped Felicitas to her feet. She was ready, even eager, to die for the Lord.

"You must all stand fast in the faith and love one another," she called to the other martyrs, "and do not be weakened by what we have gone through!" When the beasts failed to kill the women, soldiers came to finish them off. But the soldier who came to Perpetua was trembling so much that she had to guide the sword to her throat, indicating that she was giving her life willingly. (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps001.shtml)

The greatest of the early apologists was Tertullian (~160 – [220-240]) who lived during the suppression under Septimius Severus addressed the Roman governors. He complained about Christians being the scapegoats for everything:

The term conspiracy should not be applied to us but rather to those who plot to foment hatred against decent and worthy people, those who shout for the blood of the innocent and plead in justification of their hatred the foolish excuse that the Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds its rain, if there is an earthquake or famine or plague, straightaway the cry arises: “The Christians to the lions!” (Tertullian, Apologeticus 40, 1-2)

Tertullian also “bragged” about the rapid growth of Christianity:

We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all the places that belong to you—cities, islands, forts, towns, exchanges, the military camps themselves, tribes, town councils, the senate, the market place; we have left you nothing but your temples. (Tertullian, Apologeticus 37, 4ff.)

Tertullian goes into veiled threat mode, writing that it is well for the Empire that Christians do not really take up arms against it, they are numerous enough to do it effectively if they were so minded; or depopulate it by packing up and going to a distant corner of the earth. And if they were in truth the incendiaries that some alleged them to be, they could do considerable damage with torches some dark night.

Following this wave of suppression came a half century of relative peace. Some of the Emperors of that period were from the east, including Philip the Arab (244-249) of Damascus. They were more tolerant of Christianity, which had its roots in the eastern provinces. Alexander Severus (222-235) included Christ in his pantheon. And his mother was instructed by Origen.) This period of tranquility brought even more growth to the church.

In the middle part of the third century, there was more trouble for the empire. She faced a two fronted war against barbarians: Goths on north and Persians on the east. The war with Persians was especially problematic for Christians in the eastern provinces, for official Rome worried that they would have questionable loyalties: Christianity was in their minds an eastern religion and so Christians might look at Persian invaders as liberators. During this time, Decius (249-251) adopted the policy of “One Empire, one religion.” No more “merely” punishing Christians, Christianity itself had to go. In 250, an edict was issued that everyone in the empire must sacrifice to the state gods, and must get a certificate attesting to the fact that he had done so.

This sudden attack after a half century of relative peace led to turmoil within the church. A large number of Christians, those who found it easy to join in peaceful times, proved unable to endure the persecution and instead offered the sacrifices.

There was something different about this persecution. Unlike those of earlier years, the pagan populace as a whole did not go along. There was no mob uprising; the persecution was carried out by police. The hatred against Christians from “every day folk” (pagans) had largely disappeared, and slender against Christians, accusing them of horrible atrocities, had ceased. Christianity had grown so large, that everyone knew and was probably related to a Christian. In many cases, the pagans in general society tried to protect the Christians. One of the victims of this wave of persecution was Origen, who was “imprisoned and barbarously tortured, but his courage was unshaken and from his prison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxxix).

A few years of peace followed the persecution under Decius. Valerian (253-260) acted favorably toward the Christians for the first few years of his reign. He changed his mind in 257, no doubt in part due to the advancing Persian army who reached Syrian Antioch. He issued an edict prohibiting Christians from holding meetings and banning access to their cemeteries. It is believed that at this time the relics of Peter and Paul were removed from the Vatican hill and the Ostian road to find temprorary security in a place called Ad Catacumbas where the church of St. Sebastian now stands on the Appian Way. From here we get the word catacombs which eventually
came to refer to all Christian cemeteries.

A further edict in 258 spelled out the penalties: The clergy would be executed upon conviction; Senators and knights were to be degraded from their rank; ladies of rank were to be punished by confiscation and exile; employees of the imperial household were to be sent to forced labor camps on the imperial estates. Xystus, bishop of Rome (Pope Sixtus II) while seated on his chair in the act of addressing his flock he was suddenly apprehended by a band of soldiers. There is some doubt whether he was beheaded forthwith, or was first brought before a tribunal to receive his sentence and then led back to the cemetery for execution. Cyprian the bishop of Carthage was also executed in accordance with this edict.

Valerian himself was taken prisoner by the Persians and died in captivity. Following his death, though the Empire was still besieged on two fronts, there came almost forty years of peace for the church. Gallienus (253-268), Valerian’s son and successor, revoked the anti-Christian edicts and restored their property. Aurelian (270-275) planned to fuse all religions into a single state religion, but fortunately his death precluded his plan from being enacted.

One interesting “first” occurred under the reign of Aurelian: the first time the state was asked to settle an ecclesiastical dispute. In 268, the Church condemned Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, as a heretic. (Paul was accused of of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their handkerchiefs, and so forth. He had caused scandal by admitting women to live in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy.) He was removed from office but refused to leave. At this time Antioch was part of the kingdom of Palmyra, whose ruler Zenobia was Paul’s patroness. In 273 Aurelian conquered Zenobia and regained Antioch. He heard the appeals of both sided, and ordered that the church property be handed over to the party recognized by the bishop of Rome.

In the peaceful closing decades of the third century, the numbers of Christians once again rose rapidly, to a point where they were at least a powerful minority in most of the empire, and a majority in certain parts.

Diocletian (284-305, whose wife and daughter were Christian) decided to reorganize the empire. He divided it into two parts, each ruled by a senior Emperor (with the title: Augustus) and a junior colleague who held the title Caesar. While this worked as long as Diocletian ruled (who was the first among equals) it effectively resulted in four wannabes vying for power after his abdication in 305.

Near the end of Diocletian’s reign, persecution suddenly reappeared in 303. It was mainly due to his son Galerius, who was Diocletian’s junior colleague in the eastern province. Galerius, it would seem, viewed the rapid growth of Christianity as ominous. He and other conservatives decided that if action wasn’t taken against Christianity, it would soon be too late. The first action in 303 was an edict ordering the destruction of church buildings and scripture. After several fires in the imperial palace were falsely blamed on Christians, a second edict was issued ordering the arrest of all clergy. In 304, an edict was issued that all Christians should sacrifice to the state gods, on pain of death. Diocletian’s Christian wife and daughter (who was Galerius’s wife) recanted. Once again the tendency among the populace was to protect their Christian neighbors. As crowds lined up to pay tribute to the gods, officials often turned a blind eye to Christians who just walked by without taking the prescribed action, such as throwing incense on the altar.

The severity of this persecution varied with local circumstances. In Gaul and Britian, which Constantius ruled as the western Caesar, there was hardle any. In Egypt and Palestine, the persecution was fierce, especially after Diocletian’s abdication in 305, when Galerius was elevated to the eastern Augustus, and his like-minded nephew Maximian became his eastern Caesar.

Although sever in certain areas, the persecution was short-lived. Galerius himself rescinded the anti-Christian measures before his death in 311. Maximian became Augustus of the east, and attempted some dimwitted propaganda against Christians, but he was quickly defeated in battle by his rival Licinius. Meanwhile, Constantine, the son of Constantius, had established supremacy over his rivals in the west, restoring church property in his part of the empire.

In 313 Constantine and Licinius held a meeting in Milan where the two victors agreed upon an official policy of tolerance for all religions in the empire.

Lesson 10: Those Crazy Sixties

2004-12-08T04:44:00.000-08:00

In A.D. 64, Rome burned and Nero launched his persecution of the Christians. By A.D. 68, Nero had lost complete control of the senate and was deposed. He was to be arrested and executed in a most hideous manner, but before that could happen he committed suicide. Suetonius wrote:

Finally, when his companions unanimously insisted on his trying to escape from the miserable fate threatening him, he ordered them to dig a grave at once, and then collect any pieces of marble that they could find and fetch wood and water for the disposal of the corps. As they bustled about obediently he muttered through his tears: "Dead! And so great an artist!"

A runner brought him a letter from Phaon. Nero tore it from the man's hands and read that, having been declared a public enemy by the Senate, he would be punished in 'ancient style' when arrested. He asked what 'ancient style' meant, and learned that the executioners stripped their victim naked, thrust his head into a wooden fork, and then flogged him to death with sticks. In terror he snatched up the two daggers which he brought along and tried their points; but threw them down again, protesting that the final hour had not yet come.

Then he begged Sporus to weep and mourn for him, but also begged one of the other three to set him an example by committing suicide first. He kept moaning about his cowardice, and muttering: 'How ugly and vulgar my life has become!' And then in Greek: 'This certainly is no credit to Nero, no credit at all,' and: 'Come pull yourself together, man!' By this time a troop of cavalry who had orders to take him alive were coming up the road. Nero gasped: 'Hark to the sound I hear! It is hooves of galloping horses.' Then, with the help of his scribe, Epaphroditos, he stabbed himself in the throat and was already half dead when a cavalry officer entered, pretending to have rushed to his rescue, and staunched the wound with his cloak. Nero muttered: 'Too late! But, ah, what fidelity!' He died, with his eyes glazed and bulging from their sockets, a sight which horrified everybody present.

In between the burning of Rome and suicide of Nero, the Jewish revolt against Roman rule began. The war didn’t end until after Nero's death (which in fact escalated the conflict since it emboldened the Jews)

The Destruction of Jerusalem

Today, we underestimate the magnitude and horror of the Roman response to the Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70). We view it as something similar in degree to the British torching of the White House (after enjoying a complementary dinner for 40 that had been prepared for Dolly Madison and friends, but abandoned as the canon neared) in the war of 1812.

Prior to its destruction, Jerusalem was a large and formidable walled city. As the Romans began responding to Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) throughout the land, the population of Jerusalem swelled as many sought safety within her walls.

The historian Josephus was captured by the future Roman Emperor Vespasian who, early in the Jewish Revolt, led the assault on city of Jotapata. Josephus was the General in charge of defending Jotapata. Some accounts state that Josephus survived the ensuing slaughter (following a 45 day siege) by hiding in a deep pit. Josephus claimed that Vespasian spared him because of his incredible valor. Much of what we quote below comes from Josephus’s book The Wars of the Jews.

Jack Van Deventer lists some of the atrocities committed by the Romans in a “dateline” manner, most of the information gleaned from the writings of Josephus.

Jerusalem (June 3, 66 A.D.)--"So the [Roman] soldiers did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its [Jewish] inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they did not spare even the infants themselves), was about 3,600."
Cesarea (66 A.D.)--"Now the people of Cesarea had slain the Jews that were among them. . . [I]n one hour's time above 20,000 Jews were killed, and all Cesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them to the galleys."
Scythopolis and other cities (66 A.D.)--"The people of Scythopolis watched their opportunity, and cut all [the Jews'] throats, some of them as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was above 13,000, and then they plundered them of all they had." "Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew 2,500, and those of Ptolemais 2,000, and put not a few in bonds; those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison."
Alexandria (66 A.D.)--These [Roman] soldiers rushed violently into that part of the city which was called Delta, where the Jewish people lived together [The Jews were] destroyed unmercifully; and this their destruction was complete, some being caught in the open field (Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. (Matt. 24:40).), and others forced into their houses, which houses were first plundered of what was in them, and then set on fire by the Romans; wherein no mercy was shown to the infants, and no regard had to the aged; but they went on in the slaughter of persons of every age, till all the place was overflowed with blood, and 50,000 of them lay dead upon heaps. . . ."
Jotapata (July, 67 A.D.)--"[T]he Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding places, and fell upon those that were underground, and in the caverns, and went thus through every age, excepting the infants and the women, and of these there were gathered together as captives twelve hundred; and as for those that were slain at the taking of the city, and in the former fights, they were numbered to be 40,000.

The widespread slaughter of the Jews continued for several years. Many of the Jews fled to Jerusalem for safety.

²⁴When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" ²⁵All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (Matt. 27:24-25)

The Jews asked that the blood be upon their hands. And so it was. In Jerusalem alone, Josephus records that 100,000 were captured, and 1.1 million killed. This does not include the Jews killed in other cities (as described above) as the Roman Juggernaut pushed forward.

After the Roman armies reached Jerusalem a lengthy siege ensued. The Romans bombarded the city with 90 pound stones hurled as far as 1200 feet by catapult

When the food ran out, civil war broke out among three Jewish factions. Murder and starvation were rampant. Josephus wrote that civil war inside the walls of Jerusalem wrought more carnage than the conquering Romans. People who were thought to have consumed food were sometimes killed and disemboweled in search of food within their stomachs. There were many reports of cannibalism. Many tried to escape starvation by sneaking out of the city. Most were captured by the Romans, killed on the spot and disemboweled: the Romans believed that the Jews hid their valuables by swallowing them. If a father was killed searching for food, his wife and children became targets within the city.

Josephus also described a scene of horror concerning a starving mother. In the midst of the famine she suddenly withdrew her nursing infant from her breast. She killed, roasted and ate half the child, and offered the rest to astonished and horrified bystanders.

It is interesting to read Josephus’ accounts of the events leading up to the war. In addition to "rumors of wars", Josephus records that there was a rise of false Christs and prophets.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration…. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives…( Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 2.13.)

Note that the Egyptian false prophet appears to be corroborated by the bible, Recall that Paul was arrested (although it was as much a rescue as an arrest) in his last trip to Jerusalem. The commander mistakes Paul for the false prophet Josephus described: "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" (Acts 21:38).

Vespasian arrived to lead the Roman response in the spring of A.D. 67. Nero was emperor (he dispatched Vespasian to squelch the revolt). In A.D. 68, Nero died at his own hand. The following year was a bad one for Rome, the "year of the four emperors" viz. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally stability with Vespasian. When Vespasian returned to Rome, his son Titus took over the military campaign. It was Titus who led the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The siege began in April A.D. 70 and by the end of August the Temple was first occupied then destroyed. Josephus describes the actual attack on the temple:

WHILE the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests were all slain in the same manner;

AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value.

What happened to the Christians?

According to the historian Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) Christians escaped from Jerusalem either before the siege, as the Roman armies surrounded the city, or during a lull in the fighting. The bulk of the Jewish Christians probably left Jerusalem in A.D. 66 when war broke out. For this they would later be branded as traitors by their Jewish countrymen.

By A.D. 70: James had been stoned in Jerusalem. Paul and Peter, had been martyred in Rome, by beheading and crucifixion respectively. Nero was dead. Jerusalem had been sacked, and the temple destroyed, and with its destruction came an end to Jewish temple worship. Over a million Jews died during the wars. It was, in many ways, the end of the Jewish age. We now turn to Rome as the center of the Christian world, and what happened there after Nero’s persecution.

Post-Nero Rome

Nero was identified by the early Christians as the antichrist. This is a fascinating story. It is entwined with that fact that after Nero’s suicide, many in the eastern provinces (where he was popular) did not believe he was dead. Indeed, for about twenty years there arose a series of pretender Neros. After that, the hope shifted into an expectation that Nero would return from the dead to reclaim his sovereignty. This superstition continued almost to the end of the second century. Some attribute the early church identification of Nero as the antichrist as stemming from this pagan superstition.

Who was the sixth king?

This is a provocative side-question arising from the book of Revelation

⁷When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. ⁸The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. ⁹"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. ¹⁰They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. ¹¹The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.(Rev 17:7-11).

Many identify the kings as Roman emperors on the basis of the "seven hills." Only one city is known throughout history as the "City of Seven Hills:" Rome (Palatine, Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, Viminal, Quirinal, and Capitoline). The passage indicates that at the time of writing, five emperors have fallen, the sixth presently reigns, and the seventh has not yet come, but when he does come, he will reign for just a little while.

The most natural counting scheme of Roman kings (emperors) is:

Julius Caesar (49-44)
Agustus (31-14)
Tiberius (14-37)
Caligula (37-41)
Claudius (41-54)
Nero (54-68)
Galba (68-69)
Otho (69-69)
Vitellius (69-69)
Vespasian (69-79)
Titus (79-81)
Domitian (81-96)

This enumeration is not universally accepted (the debate is whether to begin the count with Julius Caesar or Augustus, the first to oficially hold the title), but it is found in various ancient sources including Josephus, who refers to Augustus as "the second" and Tiberius as "the third." This enumeration has Nero as the sixth and "current" king from the perspective of the writer of Revelation places the writing of Revelation much earlier that is often taught, and most importantly it fixes its writing as having occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Note that no enumeration results in Domitian as the sixth king (many believe the book was written during Domitian’s reign, circa A.D. 90). The most biased in that direction is to start with Augustus and skip (as inconsequential) Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. That still results in Vespasian, not Domitian as number six. That is still a much earlier date than many would like—but it is after the destruction of Jerusalem.

What does Revelation say about the destruction of Jerusalem? Nothing. Like with all the books of the New Testament, there is a deafening silence. This is the strongest internal evidence for the early date for Revelation and in fact evidence that all scripture was completed by the time of Nero’s death, If Jerusalem had already been destroyed, with well over a million Jews killed, hundreds of thousands of others in bondage, and the rest scattered, not to mention the temple in ruins, it is reasonable to expect that such a catastrophic event would warrant a mention.

Recovery from Nero’s Persecution

Nero's persecution of the Christians was horrific but not fatal. However, for the next two hundred plus years, until a Christian sat on the throne of Augustus, the story of Christianity is one of a constant struggle against Imperial Rome. It should be noted that the Gentile Christians did not seek confrontation with the Roman state, the citizens of which they desired to evangelize. That had nothing equivalent to the party of the zealots that incited the Jews to rebel. Paul, a Roman citizen, regarded the magistrates as ministers of God in place to contain crime, and Christians faithfully paid their taxes (a recurring source of tension for the Jews.) Even at this early stage, Christians saw the hand of God behind the empire and the infrastructure it provided to help in spreading the gospel. In short, Christians viewed the empire as a good thing, but it had to shake its paganism.

The respect was not mutual. At this time, Christianity was held in low esteem by Roman society. Evidence suggests that it was viewed as a combination of atheism and Judaism. Certainly it was clearly recognized as distinct from Judaism and so it ranked as an illegal cult. Any hope to win official recognition was pointless. Unlike Judaism, which was the religion of a distinct sub-nation with the empire, Christianity was not the religion of any particular nation or people, nor did it boast of any long-established customs. To many it was a vulgar innovation whose religious aspect was probably a façade hiding something worse. Recall Tacitus referred to Christians as "a class of men loathed for their vices", and Suetonius called Christianity "a novel and baneful superstition".

Christians were atheists, in the minds of many, for they worshipped no visible god. And they were haters of the human race, because Christian scruples prevented them from engaging in the normal social intercourse. Also, since the fire of A.D. 64 that launched Nero’s persecution, the imperial police took great interest in their gatherings, forcing them to meet in secret, which increased the perception that they had something to hide. And exactly what were their alleged secret activities? Stories circulated about ritualistic cannibalism and ceremonial incest.

Titus held the throne for only two years, and was succeeded by his younger brother Domitian who would rule for about fifteen years. Both Vespasian and Titus had been revered and were afforded the posthumous honor of being deified. Domitian was despised and in some sense wisely did wait for death for deification, for if he had he would not have received the honor. Instead he declared himself "Lord and God" and demanded the oath "by the genius of the emperor".

Domitian’s reign was characterized by suspicion, and for good reason –he had many enemies in the senate. His deification created a crisis for the Jews and caused embarrassment for the church as well. This only served to increase Domitian’s paranoia. He took some repressive action against the Jews, including increased penalties for proselytizing and severe taxation.

Among those who fell victim to imperial suspicion were his cousin Titus Flavius Clemens, consul in the year 95 and his wife Flavia Domitilla, the emperor’s niece. What is intriguing is that Domitilla was put on trial for this nebulous mix of Judaism and atheism, which many have taken as meaning Christianity.(Probably the real reason Domitian brought charges was to remove a perceived threat, and he used the religious accusations to find a crime the senate would recognize.) Clemens was executed, and Domitilla was exiled. This familial purge is all the more intriguing because the childless Domitian had designated Clemens and Domitilla’s sons as his heirs. Their fate is unknown.

The historian Dio Cassius writes about this period:

At this time the road leading from Sinuessa to Puteoli was paved with stone. And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. (Dio Cassius, History (Epitome), LXVII, 14.

Bear in mind the significance of the possibility is that just thirty years after Nero’s persecution, a Roman family of the highest social and political ranks (and at one point a heartbeat away from the throne) might have been Christians. It bears further examination of the evidence beyond the mere fact that they had suffered the same accusation that is known to have been used against believers.

More circumstantial evidence comes from the historian Suetonius who wrote of Clemens "[he is] a man despised by all for his inactive life." This so-called inactive life, once again, often indicated Christians who withdrew from societal excess.

There is also archeological evidence. One of the oldest Christian burial places in Rome is called Cemetery of Domitilla. Evidence indicates that (1) its usage began at the start of the second century and (2) the land beneath which the burial place was hollowed out belonged to Flavia Domitilla. The burial grounds contain the remains of martyrs and shows evidence of being used for a devotional place up through the fourth century. It seems unlikely that the family land would not have been used as such had Flavia Domitilla not been a Christian.

The point is that by the end of the first century, Christianity have both recovered (from Nero) and changed. It no longer was the exclusive province of the lower strata of the Roman populace.

Lesson 9: The End of the Apostolic Age

2004-11-27T07:52:00.000-08:00

Paul spent the winter of A.D. 56-57 in Corinth (Acts 20:2). While there, he wrote a letter to the church in Rome, to prepare them for his planned visit to Rome on his way to Spain:

I planned many times to come to you, but have been prevented until now. I long to see you, so that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. God is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times. I thank for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. I have seen some fruit as a result of my activity in other parts of the Gentile world, and I should also like to see some among you as well. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel to you who are at Rome, for I am not ashamed of the gospel. Not that I desire to settle down in Rome, for that would be building on someone else's foundation –the very thing I have avoided doing. From Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. So after I have completed this I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. (Summary of Rom. 1:8-26, 15:14-29)

As we will see, Paul does make it to Rome, but not until three years had passed, and not as he planned. From Rome, we find that he did head west, but most believe that he did not make it to Spain.

Two obvious questions arise from this letter: First, there is already a significant community of believers in Rome. Where did they come from? And second, who is this other man who laid a foundation in Rome?

As he stated, Paul first set out for Jerusalem, his last visit, arriving in May of 57 along with delegates. (This is spite of being warned [Acts 21:10] by the prophet Agabus who told Paul that he would be bound (arrested) by the Jews in Jerusalem. This Agabus had credibility: you may recall that fifteen years earlier predicted the famine in Jerusalem [Acts 11:27-28]].) Together they bore gifts for the church in Jerusalem. James and the elders welcomed Paul, but there was an undercurrent of a problem. A subtle variant of the old Judiazer issue: while it had been decided by the council that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or follow Mosaic Law, James was concerned that Paul was also teaching the Jews of the dispersion likewise, and that was not acceptable:

Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. ²¹They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. ²²What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, ²³so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. ²⁴Take these men, join in their purification rites… (Acts 21:20-24)

Paul, always willing to compromise on all but the gospel, went along with the request to prove that he was a law abiding Jew. As we find in his letter to the Corinthians:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (1 Cor. 9:20).

The Church at Rome

This is no explicit account of the formation of the church at Rome. What we know must be pieced together. We are aided by the fact that, unlike Jerusalem, there has been no breach in continuity of Rome from apostolic days.

Recall that included in the crowd at the feast of Pentecost in A.D. 30 were pilgrims from Rome (Jews, not Gentiles). Since Romans are the only Europeans listed in the account (Acts 2:10) we feel justified in assuming that some of them believed Peter’s message and carried the gospel back to the Imperial City. Regardless, all roads lead to Rome, and Paul’s missionary journeys had created churches along major arteries which must have resulted in the message being carried to Rome.

The history of Jews in Rome is fascinating. There was a Jewish colony in Rome in the second century B.C. When Pompey (who had battled the rebellious slave Spartacus) captured Palestine for Rome in 62 B.C., he returned with many more Jews who were ultimately set free. Successive Roman emperors safeguarded the rights of the Jews, and at least a handful of synagogues flourished.

Rome, however, had the habit of purging itself of “oriental” incomers, including the Jews. In A.D. 49, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome, and expulsion that included Priscilla and Aquila. Whether it was a literal or an “effective” expulsion is the subject of debate. The historian Dio Cassius (155-?) writes:

As the Jews had again increased in numbers, but could hardly be banished from the city without a tumult because of their great numbers, he [Claudius] did not actually expel them but forbade them to meet in accordance with their ancestral customs.

Another writer, the biographer Suetonius (75-160) wrote that “Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Chrestus was a variant spelling of Christus. Here we may extrapolate that Suetonius, writing seventy years later, mistakenly assumed that this “Chrestus” was a leader of one of the Jewish factions in Rome. In a sense he was right: the rioting was likely between Jews and "Nazarenes". It is probable that Priscilla and Aquila were already Christians when they arrived in Corinth, a theory bolstered by the fact that their conversion is not mentioned in scripture.

Another amazing reference is found a few years after the expulsion, in A.D. 52, when a writer named Thallus describes the preternatural darkness that covered Palestine on the day of Christ’s crucifixion. The darkness was attributed to a solar eclipse. That explanation is impossible, since the Passover season falls at a full moon, at which time a solar eclipse can not occur. Even if Thallus was only referring to Christian “stories” of the darkness, it still points out that details of Christ’s death were being retold in Rome by the middle of the first century.

In the same year Paul wrote to Rome, Pomponia Graecina, wife of the Roman conqueror of Britain, was charged (later acquitted) with having embraced a foreign superstition. This could not have been Judaism: for Judaism was a legally recognized religion. An embrace of Judaism would have been scandalous but not illegal. Accounts of her lifestyle, which included a withdrawal from Roman society and its idolatrous excesses, have caused many to speculate that the foreign superstition was Christianity.

More evidence of the maturity of the community of Rome comes from the end of Paul’s letter, where he sends greetings by name to various Roman believers. This includes a couple named Andronicus and Junias, “my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” He also mentions Rufus “chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too”. This Rufus may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene who carried Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21). Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila who had returned to Rome.
Paul’s Circuitous Route to Rome

Paul arrived in Rome around February of A.D. 60, in the custody of Roman "federal marshals." How did this come about? As stated, he under went a purification rite to demonstrate his “Jewishness” to the Nazarenes. However, it was the Jews who were the real problem, and his appearance led to a riot in which he was nearly lynched. Paul had been charged by the Jews in Jerusalem of violating the sanctity of the temple. In particular, he was the victim of a rumor claiming he escorted a Gentile into the inner court of the temple, a crime punishable by death. (Notices in Latin and Greek separated the inner and outer courts, announcing that Gentiles were forbidden to proceed any further, under pain of death.) So serious of a crime was the violation of this edict that Rome even authorized the execution of Roman Citizens for this offense.

"Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." (Acts 21:28)

Fortunately the commotion caused by Paul was huge, so huge that his summary execution was prevented by a Roman garrison rushed in to secure order. A lengthy litigation followed. Eventually Paul, fearing that the procurator Felix might be inclined to seek favor of the Sanhedrin, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome. He would spend two years awaiting trial in Rome, enjoying the company of friends such as Luke, Aristarchus, and John-Mark, with whom Paul reconciled.

How Mark arrived in Rome leads us to the question of who laid a foundation in Rome. Since the time of the rift between Paul and Barnabas, Mark (the cause of the dispute) had become attached to the apostle Peter. At some point in the fifties, Peter appears to have launched his own missionary journey, with Mark serving as his chief of staff. It appears most likely that between 55 and 60 Peter reached Rome (ahead of Paul) . When Peter left, Mark stayed behind and recorded his gospel, essentially transcribing what Peter had told the Romans. When Luke visited Roma with Paul, he probably used Mark’s writings to help him draw up his own history of Christianity.

Paul’s case probably went before prosecutors at the end of A.D. 61, just before the expiration of the statute of limitations. It is likely that Paul was released and left Rome for a period, for Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth (~A.D. 95) that “Paul reached the furthest bounds of the West”, which may or may not have meant Spain. Playing phone-tag, when Paul leaves Rome, Peter returns, where he pens 1 Peter, writing from "Babylon" as he puts it, and referring to Mark as his "son" (1 Pet. 5:13). In his epistle, Peter refers to a coming "fiery trial" during which Christians would suffer, not for law-breaking but merely for being Christians. The Christians are susceptible because they can no longer protect themselves as a “sect” of Judaism—they are seen by all as a separate religion one that, unlike Judaism, is an illegal religion. The blind eye being cast by the emperor (now Nero) can open wide at his pleasure.

Adding to the peril of the Christians was that, not only was unstable Nero the emperor, the empress Poppaea was a friend of the Jews which meant an enemy (of sorts) of Christians. This information comes to us via Josephus:

But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome... At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea there were certain priests of my acquaintance… whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. … Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship. And when I had thus escaped… I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, Caesar's wife, and took care, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty. And when, besides this favor, I had obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned home again. (Josephus, Life, 3).

Rome Burns

In A.D. 64, Rome was largely destroyed by fire. The fire was probably accidental, but rumors quickly spread. Nero himself as the culprit was the subject of much consideration. This is probably false, and in fact he actively worked to help those who had been devastated by the fire. Nevertheless, he had to deal with the rumors, which he did by redirecting them onto a scapegoat: the Christians. The historian Tacitus wrote:

To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following. First, then, those who confessed themselves Christians were arrested; next, on their disclosures, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for hatred of the human race. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Note that Tacitus despised the Christians, but nevertheless acknowledged their innocence in the conflagration, their punishment not stemming from guilt as arsonists but rather for “hatred of the human race.” Among the brutalities: Nero used Christians as human torches to light his gardens. When Saint Peter’s was rebuilt in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a number of bodies wrapped in linen and placed in stone coffins were discovered. Also uncovered were stone chests filled with ashes and burnt bones—presumably the remains of those burned by Nero.

As for a Christian account, we have Clement of Rome:

But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body. (1 Clement 5:2-6)

The "vast multitude" of martyrs referred to by Clement is identified with the "vast multitude" described by Tacitus. Furthermore, it is a natural inference to conclude that both Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time. (Clement’s refrain of jealousy is meant as jealousy toward, not by, the apostles and believers. The dangers of jealousy forms the substance of his letter to the Corinthian church.)

Roman Catholic insistence on the continuity of the Roman church back to Peter’s preaching at Pentecost in A.D. 30 has at times caused some (Eusibus and Jerome) to favor the notion that Peter arrived in Rome as early as A.D. 42 and launched a twenty-five year episcopate lasting to A.D. 67, but this is very difficult to support. At the beginning of that period, he was known to be in Jerusalem and Antioch, and in A.D 57 when Paul wrote his Roman epistle hid did not greet Peter (so one can infer he was not there) nor does it appear that Peter was present when Paul arrived in custody in A.D. 60. Some Catholic scholars acknowledge this, for example the French scholar Jacques Zeiller writing in 1927:

How long had St. Peter lived in Rome before his martyrdom? Here we must confess an almost complete ignorance. The so-called tradition of the twenty-five years of Peter’s episcopate rests on no historic data…of Peter’s life in Rome we know for certain only the last act: His martyrdom.

No, Peter spent those twenty-five years proclaiming the gospel throughout the provinces, only to arrive in Rome after Nero’s ascension to the throne in A.D. 54. Most consistent with the facts is that when Nero became emperor he rescinded the expulsion (five years earlier) of the Jews by his predecessor Claudius and that shortly thereafter Peter arrived (with Mark) and helped reconstitute the Roman church and laying the foundation upon which Paul was hesitant to infringe upon. The bottom line is that Nero was already the emperor when Peter arrived in Rome.

A Roman presbyter by the name of Gaius wrote (~A.D. 200) that the trophies of Peter and Paul, meaning either the locations of their martyrdom or their tombs, are found on Vatican Hill and the Ostian Road respectively. This is why the emperor Constantine erected the basilica of St. Peter on the slope of Vatican Hill.

Tradition teaches that Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded. (The tradition that Peter was crucified upside down is probably apocryphal.) The manner of their deaths is consistent: Paul, as a Roman citizen, would have been afforded the less ignominious death.

The death of James, the brother of Jesus

In A.D. 61 the procurator Festus died. In the three months before his successor Albinus arrived in Palestine, the Jewish High Priest Ananus was able to cause trouble. From Josephus:

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. … this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: (Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9, 1).

Thus we see that by about the mid sixties of the first century, Peter, Paul, and James had been martyred. In a few years, civil war would break out. The Jews, encouraged by the party of the Zealots, were emboldened by the news of the death of Nero in A.D. 68, only to be crushed and nearly exterminated at the hands of Titus, the son of Vespasian, the successor of Nero. The temple, no longer important to a people who had access through their High Priest Jesus Christ to the heavenly realm, was destroyed in A.D. 70, as had been prophesized by Jesus:

¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt. 24:1, 34).

From here the next stage of Christianity begins, a stage in which its ties to the temple have been severed.

Lesson 8: Paul's Second Missionary Journey

2004-11-13T02:33:00.000-08:00

After the Jerusalem council, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, along with two others, described as “prophets”, Judas and Silas.

Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over the usefulness of Barnabas’s cousin John-Mark, with Paul arguing that John-Mark had deserted them on their first missionary Journey. The result of this rift is that for Paul’s next journey, he would have Silas as his companion.

The Second Journey

Paul and Silas traveled to Derbe and Lystra, towns in which Paul and Barnabas had previously established communities of believers. In Lystra, Paul and Silas picked up another companion, a young man named Timotheus (Timothy), a member of the Christian community. Timothy’s father was Greek, and his mother a Jew. In light of the recent council and its pronouncements, what Paul has Timothy do is surprising:

Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:3)

The reason would seem to be that Paul, whose plan as always would be to first go to the synagogue, wanted Timothy to be “less” of a Gentile and more of a Jew.

From Lystra they made their way to Troas, where they picked up Luke. In the book of Acts, written by Luke, you find the subjects of travel changing from “Paul and his companions” to “we”, indicating Luke’s inclusion.

Paul intended to head toward Ephesus, an ancient Greek city and capital of the Roman province of Asia. The Holy Spirit had other plans, and He blocked their way. In Mysia, once again the Sprit blocked their planned route. Finally, the Spirit gave positive direction: Paul had a vision of a Macedonian asking for help. Paul and his three companions (Silas, Timothy, and Luke) agreed that they were being summoned to Macedonia. So the four of them crossed the north Aegean into Macedonia.

Upon landing in the port town of Neapolis, they traveled on a great Roman highway to the town of Philippi. Philippi had been a Roman colony since 42 B.C., when Antony and Octavian settled their veterans there after their victory over Brutus and Cassius, the assassins of Julius Caesar.

The missionaries did not, as they usually did, go to the synagogue. The reason is that there were not enough Jews in Philippi to warrant one. (The quorum for a synagogue was and is ten Jewish men.) Instead, the Jews and God-fearers met to pray on the bank of the river Gagites outside the city gate. One of those present was a dealer in purple cloth by the name of Lydia. She and her household were baptized, and she opened her house to Paul and his companions.

Paul and Silas proceeded to get themselves in trouble with the authorities when they exorcized a demon from a slave-girl. This particular girl had a quite interesting method of attacking Paul and Silas: she followed them around singing their praises:

¹⁷This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." ¹⁸She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her. (Acts 16:17-18)

Her message was good and true, but she must have been delivering it in some annoying and disruptive manner.

Casting out the demon is of course a good thing, except that it left the girl unable to earn money as a fortune teller, which enraged her owners, who filed a complaint. The chief magistrates heard the complaint, handed Paul and Silas over for a beating and imprisonment. The next day, the magistrates were mortified to discover that the two were Roman citizens. Paul and Silas received an apology but were sent packing, the responsibility of protecting the two unpopular Roman citizens was too great for the local authorities. Paul, Silas, and Timothy left, while Luke remained behind.

Continuing along the highway (the Egnatian Road), the next significant stop for the three was at Thessalonica, capital of the province of Macedonia. Here the familiar pattern is mostly followed: speaking at the synagogue, proclaiming that the ancient prophecies are fulfilled by the risen Christ, establishing a new community comprised of God-fearers and some Jews, and then being run out of town, this time by a professional mob that the Jews had recruited from the market place.

However, there are some variations. This time the message, while appealing, as always, to the common classes, was also received by prominent woman, but not their husbands—who presumably were local leaders of the community.

Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. (Acts 17:4)

Also, a new friend of Paul’s had to put up a monetary guarantee that Paul would not return and cause more commotion:

Then they made Jason [who was housing the missionaries] and the others post bond and let them [Paul and Silas] go. (Acts 17:9)

Although the community they established thrived, it is likely that the husbands of the prominent woman converts denigrated Paul and Silas—perhaps by asking what type of men would stir up trouble only to run away at the first sign of personal risk. This sense that their characters had been assaulted was evident in the letter that Paul wrote to the community at Thessalonica shortly after leaving.

¹You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. ²We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. (1 Thess. 2:1-2)

Paul wanted to return to set the record straight and face his detractors. However, his hands were tied, for in doing so he would cause Jason to lose the bond he had paid to ensure that Paul would stay away. Paul saw his dilemma as being of sinister origin.

¹⁷But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you. ¹⁸For we wanted to come to you--certainly I, Paul, did, again and again--but Satan stopped us. (1 Thess. 2:17-18)

From Thessalonica the three headed south to Berea. There they enjoyed one of their easiest stops in the sense that they were warmly received at the synagogue by the Berean Jews and God-Fearers, who were “nobler” than the Thessalonians and famously studious when it came to the scriptures. Here, for the first time, they might have taught in peace. No, it wasn’t to be. Once again a posse of angry Jews rolled into town, this time from Thessalonica. With Timothy and Silas staying behind in Berea, the brothers escorted Paul to Athens. Paul sent word for Timothy and Silas to join him as soon as possible.

Paul at Athens

Athens’s glory days were behind her, but she was still regarded as a center of thinking and culture. As in the days of Pericles and Demosthenes, the Athenians gathered at the Agora (marketplace) to engage in public debate.

Paul, brought up with respect for the second commandment, was disgusted by this city full of idols.

At the Agora, Paul debated with followers of at least two of the great schools of philosophy that were flourishing, the Epicureans and the Stoics. The Epicureans were borderline ascetic, championing life’s “simpler” pleasures and tranquility and freedom from fear through knowledge, friendship, and temperate living. The Epicureans are the presages of the scientific classes, and they denounced superstition and divine intervention and the afterlife. The Stoics were like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock: free of the passions of love, hate, fear, pain, and pleasure. Some translations use the word “babbler” to depict how these philosophers described Paul and his arguments, but the actual word was Athenian slang: spermologos, which was used for a sort of pseudo-intellectual charlatan who retailed scraps of learning that he picked up during his travels.

Actually, Athens was a pseudo-intellectual paradise:

(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) (Acts 17:21)

The two predominant terms in Paul’s discourse, Jesus and Anastasis (resurrection) were interpreted by the listeners as something along the lines of “healing” and “restoring”, and so they thought that these were two new deities (foreign gods) that Paul was commending for their worship, and so they ridiculed him.

But Paul’s teaching did intrigue enough of his listeners that he was invited to the Aeropagus. Once the city’s homicide court, by Roman times it was a sort of aristocratic court or council of religious and moral thought with control over public lectures.

For the text of Paul’s speech, he used an inscription he found on an altar in the city: Agnosto Theo, “To the unknown God.” Elsewhere it is written that once, during pestilence, the Athenians send for the Cretan wise man Epimenides (6^th century B.C), who advised them to release some sheep on a hill, and to offer sacrifices at the spot where the sheep rested. As a result, “anonymous altars” were found in the region as late as the third century A.D. It was one of these altars that Paul saw. To the assembly at the Aeropagus, Paul said “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.” He continued, telling them of the God who revealed himself in creation, the God of whom all men are offspring. No race could claim superiority, as the Athenians did. This message would have appealed to some, for it describes God in much the same terms that Epimenides used in describing Zeus:

They carved a tomb for thee, O holy and high one!
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies!'
For thou dost not die, thou art ever alive and risen
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

Paul even quotes this quatrain in his letter to Titus:

Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." (Titus 1:12)

The Cretans were “always liars” because they refused to retract their claim that Zeus’s tomb was on Crete.

After connecting with (at least some) of his audience with a description of God, Paul went on to a distinctly Christian message, saying that while God had overlooked their ignorance, that had now ended, for all men have been called to repent, and that God had assigned the day when all would be judged. The man through whom the judgment will occur has been appointed, and “He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” Here, he alienated many of the philosophically oriented, for they viewed the body as a prison that, upon death, the soul was only too glad to cast aside. Immortality was acceptable (except for the Epicureans) but resurrection was utter nonsense. It was represented in their literature that the Greek god Apollo himself had said:

But when the earth has drunk up a man’s blood,
Once he is dead, there is no anastasis (resurrection)

The anastasis proclaimed by Paul was even more bizarre than they had thought—for it was the ultimate fate of all men. Some were polite and asked Paul to speak again, some scoffed at Paul’s strange views, but a few did believe, even a member of the court of the Aeropagus, Dionysius who it believed eventually became Bishop of Athens.

Paul had been in Athens for just a few days when Silas and Timothy arrived. Paul sent them back to Macedonia, for he was interested in how the churches he started were faring, and in particular he was concerned about the believers in Thessalonica.

As for Paul, he went on to Corinth where he met Aquila and Priscilla, recently arrived from Rome. When Silas and Timothy returned with a good report from Macedonia, Paul had his strongest team yet. Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half and built up a large community, which we discussed in Lesson 2.

“Diana” of the Ephesians

Since we have already discussed Paul’s work at Corinth, we will move on to Paul’s next stop: Ephesus. He arrived in the autumn of A.D. 52 and spent two and a half years there. To say that he left his mark on Asia Minor is an understatement. The Christianity established at Ephesus lasted until 1923 when the Greeks were expelled. While Paul spent most of this time in Ephesus, he sent his colleagues out to the cities of Asia. It is likely, for example, that the seven churches of Revelation were founded at this time. Also the “cold” church at Colossae and the “hot” church at Hierapolis (in addition to the lukewarm church at Laodicea.

It is likely that Christianity reached Ephesus ahead of Paul, but not under apostolic direction (for Paul had a policy of not building on another apostle’s foundation—rather Christianity arrived by “unofficial” word of mouth, not surprising considering the traffic that passed through Ephesus.

One evidence that Christianity had already arrived are encounters such as this:

Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples ²and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." ³So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. ⁴Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." ⁵On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

Paul’s work had an impact on a widespread practice in Ephesus: magic. So common was this practice, that the name used throughout the region for scrolls containing magic instruction was “Ephesian letters.” Luke gives us an interesting account of the fate of many of these scrolls:

¹⁸Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. ¹⁹A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas. (Acts 19:18-19)

One interesting tidbit has been learned about the content of these scrolls: The ineffable name of the God of Israel was blasphemously employed in the most powerful of the magical spells. The arrival of a new name to invoke illegally is behind one of the more humorous accounts exorcism which took place in Ephesus:

¹³Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." ¹⁴Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. ¹⁵One day the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" ¹⁶Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding. (Acts 19:13-16)

If it had been a practice at the time, Luke would have used quotes in this passage, i.e., “Jewish chief priest”.

Mostly through his epistles, we can surmise that Paul faced many life threatening episodes while in Ephesus. Consider:

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Cor. 15:32)

By the syntax used, many believe this does not refer to a literal occurrence where Paul faced actual lions, but a metaphorical reference to some other life-threatening danger that he faced. At another point, things were so bad that Paul despaired of life itself:

…about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. ⁹Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. (2 Cor. 1:8-10)

However, of all these perils, the danger most linked with Paul’s stay in Ephesus is the riot of 55 A.D. started by the artisans who made their living supporting the widespread worship of Artemis of Ephesus.

The KJV and NKJV refer to her as Diana. The NIV and NASB refer to the goddess as Artemis. Sorry KJV only types: you are wrong in this case. Diana was the name of a Roman goddess whom they identified with the Greek goddess Artemis, and for some reason the KJV made the decision to use the Latin names of Roman counterparts when discussing Greek gods.

Artemis (who was not the Artemis of Greek mythology) was worshipped in Ephesus with a special veneration. An earlier temple had burned down. Its replacement was so magnificent as to be named one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. And the image of the goddess enshrined in her temple was not made by man, it fell from the heavens:

After quieting the crowd, the town clerk said, "Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of the image which fell down from heaven? (Acts 19:35)

It was, evidently, a meteorite, and there are other instances in ancient times of meteorites becoming objects of worship.

The silversmiths of Ephesus drew the bulk of their income creating miniature Artemis shrines, some of which had survived. With the work of Paul, the supremacy of Artemis began to wane, as former devotees turned to the Way. This was bad for the shrine business. The guild held a meeting under the leadership of Demetrius, in a theater that later excavation revealed to boast of a capacity of 25,000. The demonstration was ostensibly for the goddess Artemis, in reality it was against those who did not worship her: Jews and Christians. The fact that the Jews were not responsible for their loss of business was too fine of a distinction, even though the Jews tried to disassociate themselves from the Christians. It took a clever town clerk, fearful that rioting would bring in the Roman army, to quite and disperse the mob.

This would not be the last time that Christianity was blamed for the hard times of a local business. For example, sixty years later in Bithynia (north-west Asia Minor) the business that catered to the sacrificial system (animals, fodder) would complain—because Christianity had reduced the need for commodities related to animal sacrifice.

And the end of his stay, Paul headed to Jerusalem. After that he had his dream trip on his mind: Spain and Rome.

Lesson 7 The First Church Council

2004-11-05T10:46:00.000-08:00

Samaria lies between the regions of Judea, in the south, and Galilee, to the north.

In the eight and seventh centuries B.C, when the elite of Samaria were deported by the Assyrian kings, they were replaced with colonists from other parts of the Assyrian empire. These imported peoples gave up their foreign worship and were assimilated into the Samaritan Israelites, but the Judeans always considered the Samaritans as half-breeds.

In the parable of the good Samaritan, in Luke 10:25-37, many (perhaps) incorrectly assume that the Samaritan was a practitioner of some other religion, but many Samaritans, while holding separate traditions and teachings, were still Jews.

When the Persian kings allowed the exiles to return, the Samaritan Israelites offered to cooperate with the returning Judeans, but their offer was rejected. This caused the Samaritans to build a temple at Mt. Gerizim to rival the temple in Jerusalem. Sometime around 130 B.C. the Hasmomean kings (recall the Maccabean revolt against Macedonian king, Antiochus) conquered the Samaritans and destroyed their temple. Then came the Romans, and the Samaritans exchanged their Jewish yoke for a Roman one.

It was against this backdrop of this long-standing animosity that, after the persecution broke again against the Hellenists, Philip traveled to Samaria and proclaimed the gospel, and it was well received by the Samaritans who, like the “mainstream” Jews, had a Messianic hope, based mostly on

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. (Deut 18:15)

The Samaritans called this Moses-like prophet the “restorer”, and Philip identified the restorer as Jesus, whom the Jewish religious leaders had turned over to the Romans for execution. One of those who followed Philip was a famous magician, known throughout Samaria, Simon Magnus.

⁹Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, ¹⁰and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power." ¹¹They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. ¹²But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. ¹³Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. (Acts 8:9-13)

Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, the apostles heard of Philip’s success in Samaria and sent Peter and John to investigate. They had an interesting encounter with this Simon:

¹⁵When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, ¹⁶because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. ¹⁷Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
¹⁸When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money ¹⁹and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
²⁰Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! ²¹You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. ²²Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. ²³For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." (Acts 8:15-23)

Tradition teaches that Simon did not repent, and went on to start Gnosticism, which we will be discussing. Simon’s attempt to buy spirituality is the basis for the word simony.

This is about the time when Gentiles are being converted in Antioch, and Peter is visiting the home of the Gentile Cornelius (at the council of Jerusalem, Peter claimed to be the first to speak the gospels to the Gentiles.) When Peter returned, as we discussed, he convinced the skeptical apostles that this was God’s intent.

Political Intrigue

Here, in A.D. 40, we see some remarkable political developments. Since the time of Augustus, a daily sacrifice had been made in the Jerusalem temple for the Roman emperor. Gaius, better known as Caligula, who had become emperor in A.D. 37, had declared himself to be a divinity and was no longer satisfied with this custom. When a delegation of Jews told Gaius that daily sacrifices and prayers of thanksgiving were offered for him in the temple, he responded: “That is all very well; you have offered sacrifice, but it was to someone else, even if it was on my behalf. What good is that? You have not offered sacrifice to me.” In Jamnia, in western Judea, the Gentile population built an altar to Gaius which the Jews, who comprised the majority of citizens in the populace, promptly tore down. Gaius responded to the news of this insult by ordering that a statue of him be erected in the Jerusalem temple. He knew, of course, the Jews would never comply so he ordered Petronius, imperial legate of Syria, to march to Jerusalem with two legions to enforce the command. Petronius marched south, making it as far south as Ptolemais on the Galilean coast. There he was met by a delegation of Jews who told him that the nation would die before allowing such an abomination, but Petronius allowed as to how he had no choice but to follow orders. Still, Petronius hesitated, knowing the consequences of what he had been commanded to do.

In the meantime, King Herod Agrippa, whose kingdom included Galilee (but not Judea) made a plea to Gaius, who was a personal friend. Gaius relented, sending a message to Petronius that if the statue was already erected it must stay, but if it had not been erected no further action would be taken. At the same time, Petronius had already sent a letter to Gaius stating that there was no way to carry out the command short of exterminating the Jews. Even though Gaius had already rescinded, he was not happy with Petronius’s hesitation, and replied with a letter ordering Petronius to commit suicide because of his insubordination. However, before that letter arrived, Petronius received word that Gaius (Caligula) had been assassinated and replace by Claudius.

Claudius, like Gaius, showed great favor to Herod Agrippa, adding Judea to his kingdom. Agrippa was intent on winning the goodwill of the Judean Jews. The Mishnah relates that when, as required Agrippa read the law of the kingdom:

¹⁴When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, "Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us," ¹⁵be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite. (Deut 17:14-15)

Agrippa wept, but the Jews called out: “do not weep, you are indeed our brother.”

To summarize, it is ten years since the persecution against the Hellenists. Peter has witnessed to Gentiles, and a Gentile church has been established in Antioch, so the Nazarenes are no longer supported by any school of Jewry. Judea has a new king, one who seems to have found and assiduously seeks to prove his Jewishness. All these work together to precipitate the first persecution against the Hebrew Christians. With the approval of the Judean community, Agrippa moves against the church. In Acts 12, (where Agrippa is referred to as King Herod) James the brother of John was put to death by the sword (beheaded) and Peter was arrested, only to escape miraculously.

The Ascendancy of James, the Brother of Jesus

One of the first signs of the rise of James the brother of Jesus is when Peter escapes Agrippa’s prison, heads to Mary’s (the mother of John-Mark) house, which seems to have been an early meeting place for the community. Upon arriving, we read:

¹²When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying. ¹³Peter knocked at the outer entrance, and a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer the door. ¹⁴When she recognized Peter's voice, she was so overjoyed she ran back without opening it and exclaimed, "Peter is at the door!" ¹⁵"You're out of your mind," they told her. When she kept insisting that it was so, they said, "It must be his angel." ¹⁶But Peter kept on knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. ¹⁷Peter motioned with his hand for them to be quiet and described how the Lord had brought him out of prison. "Tell James and the brothers about this," he said, and then he left for another place. (Acts 12:12-17)

If this is only suggestive, then confirmation occurs two years later, when Paul and Barnabas arrive, during the famine, with their gift from the church at Antioch. When Paul relates his encounter with the Jerusalem church leaders (in Gal. 2) he refers to the pillars of the church: James, Peter, and John –in that order.

So James had assumed a leadership role, and his wisdom was needed in just a couple of years as the church faced a major crisis.

The Council of Jerusalem

Even after the incorporation of Gentiles in the church, some Jews, especially those with past connections with the Pharisaic school, still believed that Christianity was another Jewish party. They are called “zealous of the law” in Acts 21:20.

Theses “law zealots” did not argue that Gentiles should be excluded. Peter’s experience with Cornelius had rendered the mere question of whether Gentiles should be part of the new community as “asked and answered.” But they still believed that the Gentile proselytes should be circumcised and required to obey the ceremonial law.

While they accepted the ramifications of Peter’s experience with Cornelius, they missed the importance of Peter’s vision in which Peter learned that no man should be considered pure or unclean (Acts 10). Moreover, when Paul and Barnabas visited with their gift, they were accompanied by a young Greek convert named Titus (who may have been Luke’s brother), and none of the leaders raised the issue of his being uncircumcised.

So the picture is this:

The church at Antioch had adopted the liberal view that neither circumcision nor adherence to the ceremonial law was required. The new churches in Asia minor resulting from Paul and Barnabas’s missionary journey followed suit.
The apostles in Jerusalem, influenced by Peter’s vision, accepted this, at least by all the evidence we have. The acceptance may not have been enthusiastic, it may have been resignation, but it was there.
There was a rank and file of Jews that accepted the Gentiles, but still pushed for the usual requirements for conversion.

This sort of uneasy alliance came to a head when a delegation of the Jerusalem church visited the church at Antioch and exceeded the terms of their commission. They told the believers there that they must be circumcised in order to be saved:

¹Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." ²This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. ⁴When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. (Acts 15:1-4)

The conflict went beyond the fundamental question of salvation. The Judiazers also considered the uncircumcised unclean, and would not have fellowship with them. This included the new meal instituted at the Lord’s request to commemorate his death. It is easy to see the strain this must have placed on the church at Antioch.

Not only did these visitors introduce an awkward situation into the church at Antioch, they also precipitated one of the more amazing confrontations in the bible. Peter was in Antioch when the visitors arrived. Before their arrival, Peter ate freely with the Gentile Christians. After the arrival of the visitors, he withdrew from the Gentiles, no longer eating with them. This must have exacerbated the despair of the Gentiles in the Antioch church, especially when their beloved leader Barnabas, recently returned from his missionary journey with Paul, was inclined to join Peter.

Paul was clearheaded on this matter. He saw that requiring circumcision for salvation undermined the gospel, in fact it transformed it into a non-gospel.

¹¹When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. ¹²Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. ¹³The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. ¹⁴When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? ¹⁵"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' ¹⁶know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (Gal. 2:11-16)

Peter appears to have understood Paul’s rebuke, for this is the only time that his appeasement to the party of the circumcised is recorded.

The problem was not confined to Antioch. Judiazers went to the new churches on Asia Minor with the same undermining message: you must be circumcised and obey the ceremonial law, initiating what was probably Paul’s first epistle, to the Galatians.

⁶I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- ⁷which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! ⁹As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal 1:6-9)

Here those “people” preaching another gospel, people who Paul states should be eternally condemned, are members in good standing of the Jerusalem church!

Something had to give. The church in Jerusalem is now politically vulnerable. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles has publicly rebuked the leader of the original apostles who walked with Jesus during his ministry. Emissaries from the Jerusalem church are visiting the new churches and telling the Gentile converts that they have to do something else to ensure their salvation, and Paul has written that these visitors should be damned.

The internal tension had to be released. The Antioch church charged Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem, and in A.D. 49 the council at Jerusalem convened. The Judiazers had their say, but the contrary arguments won the day. Peter reminded the conferees how God had shown His pleasure at the conversion of Cornelius and his household by His bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Paul and Barnabas told of the work of the Spirit among the Gentiles they saw converted.

But perhaps the coup de grace was delivered by James, the brother of Jesus. As leader of the church at Jerusalem (by this time, not only was he the leader, but neither Peter nor John were often in residence) it is likely that the Judiazers counted on his backing. If so, they were disappointed, for not only did James back Paul and Peter’s position, he quoted the Old Testament (Amos 9:11-12) as if to say, and you ought to know better:

¹³When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. ¹⁴Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. ¹⁵The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: ¹⁶" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, ¹⁷that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' ¹⁸that have been known for ages. ¹⁹"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Acts 15:13-16)

The remaining question was one of practicality—how to deal with the fact that there were Jews and Gentiles worshipping together, and that the two groups had very different customs. The answer was the form of a letter written to the churches, and the tact taken by the letter is the basis for guidelines in the area of Christian liberty: the strong and mature should accommodate the less secure. In this first case, ironically, it was required of the “stronger” Gentiles to make concessions to the “weaker” Jews:

The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. ²⁴We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul-- ²⁶men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. (Acts 15:23-29)

While all acknowledge that the church at Antioch was delighted with this outcome, some have said that Paul would have been less than pleased with the mild “requirements” of the letter. This is wrongheaded. Not only were they presented as proper living but not salvific, but they were the very archetype of many of Paul’s suggestions for proper lifestyle and compromise. He himself would later write that those who were strong but emancipated should curb their liberty in eating habit should it be a stumbling block to less mature believers:

¹Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. ²The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. ³But the man who loves God is known by God. ⁴So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. ⁵For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), ⁶yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ⁷But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. ⁸But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. ⁹Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak (1 Cor. 8:1-9)

What Paul wrote to the Corinthians mirrored what the Jerusalem council wrote to Antioch.

The council at Jerusalem was a major success. It set to rest the false gospel of the Judiazers and gave the church the unity it needed to continue to grow through evangelizing to the Gentiles.