Christian Monthly Standard » The Church

These are a few of my Favorite Things

Richard Vandagriff — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:53:21 +0000

Aurelius Augustinus (354 – 430) is known as Saint Augustine. I might offer evidence that suggests he was not a saint at all. You may find a hint of that as you read on. He was responsible for solidifying many of the doctrines of Catholicism. Augustine wrote dialogues on the Trinity and Mariolatry and on a wide number of other topics. His complete works measure at least eight full volumes on my shelves, having used up more words than the entire Holy Scriptures by a few hundred times. You might note that he lived during the early part of the period suggested for the start of Catholicism.

Here is just a smattering of his teaching:

He suggested that baptism ought to be withheld until a person was close to death such as with the emperor Constantine, and as was then becoming common in the Romanized churches; so that converts might have the majority of their sins behind them when they repented.

The notion that you have a full knowledge of sin and will not make any changes is monstrously wrong. This is the argument “I cannot control myself” that is so prevalent today; so at least we didn’t invent it. It is sheer escapist nonsense. Does God now accept the sinner carte blanc, or do we need to rid ourselves of as much of the baggage of sin as we can possibly jettison? It also does not accord belief that we can ever give up sinning – we just cannot stop, don’t you see that Jesus? Augustine writes quite a bit about how he did not want to get rid of his mistresses – and so he did not. I wonder? Is the spirit willing, but the flesh weak? Or, is it the other way around?

You might as well believe that you must travel to Mars or to the bottom of the sea to be baptized and become a Christian. You would have equal authority. Such thought and instruction is completely against anything taught in the scriptures; and it will have the end effect of doing absolutely nothing for one’s status before God. Hear, believe, repent, be immersed and remain faithful – that is the prescription offered by the Holy Spirit. And you change for God or suffer the consequences. It is a very difficult but simple equation.

Augustine believed that Adam and Eve never died but ate of the Tree of Life in Eden and lived on and were eventually carried up to heaven.

This indicates he never actually bothered to read the scriptures. That too remains a problem today. Mormons teach this also; so, along with many others, that must mean they never read it either. In any case, it displays an ignorance of the scriptures as the record states exactly how long Adam lived and, that after a life of nine hundred thirty years “he died” (5:5). Someone is wrong, and I believe that it isn’t God or His Word. The scriptures are silent about Eve, but then they are also silent about how long most of the women lived and when they died.

Augustine believed that infant baptism was a matter “rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority,” and that even without this, the church could form a “true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision…” He later posted this: “Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete on their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves.”

Uh huh! So, let me see if I have this one. The apostles handed down the authority for infant baptism, but the Holy Spirit forgot to record a word about it? Go figure. To paraphrase Elijah, perhaps God was busy that day. Then baptism, rather than being a token of faith and the anti-type to circumcision, became the NT parallel to it. So Peter got it wrong too. And the baby babble is not to be taken as a dedication to God because they, after all, are not able to speak. Who would have ever thought that? Ronald Reagan once posed, babies (which he compared to the federal government) possess “an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Some might suppose they have no responsibility period. If so, somebody had sure better do the dedication and talking for them. But how will we ever know when we get it right, babble being in need of serious interpretation, and the interpreters of babble but few?

Thank God, we have the right to believe whatever suits us, no matter how screwball and stupid. But in my simpleton’s view, this is certainly a giant leap of faith and a blinding misappropriation of both reason and logic. This is mind control theory at its very best; and thousands have championed it, while millions have been brought under their control. Yet it is a historical and religious lie with no evidence to bolster it and not so much as a shred of scripture behind any corner. As for the logic to the argument: there simply isn’t any.

But, just to be fair, Augustine here identifies original sin long before Jean Calvin ever thought it up. Which can only mean: Calvin did not think of it at all. To head straight down to the bottom of the rabbit hole, Augustine also tells the reader that he had inappropriate thoughts while at his mother’s breast; and thus as an infant he needed redemption. Perhaps these were some of those thoughts? How could we ever know? The more I read of these things, the more it makes me wonder.

There is so much more, it just boggles the mind. I have every intention to move further off in history (as I had said) with some similar records and remarks about what amounted to the universal or Catholic “Christian” religion during the Dark Ages. But the road both here and there is so completely strewn and spread over with heresy, blasphemy, lack of care and the pure rot of godlessness; it is hard to leave this part of religious history without offering some of the worst for us to ponder. It all makes the false teachers of today look like rank amateurs.

Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.

(2 Timothy 4:2, HCSB)

Where did all the Denominations come from? (Roman Catholicism pt. 2)

Richard Vandagriff — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:55:56 +0000

The Catholic Rule of Faith,with its “unanimous consent of the Fathers” is stated to be held in solemnity. It first appeared under Pius IV at one of the many sessions of the various Councils of Trent. It also appears in more recent Papal Creeds: “Nor will I take and interpret it (the Sacred Scriptures) otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” It might as well state that “I will not take and interpret the scriptures unless I possess the Sorcerer’s Stone” or some better fictional conjurers invention. It is after all the Roman Church that anointed everyone of these ancients known as “Church Fathers.” Too bad that, for the most part, they contradict one another and have nothing that might pass as unanimous consent on all except a single topic. So I plan to give credit where credit is due.

“Brethren, look into the Holy Scriptures, where are the true words of the Holy Ghost. You know there is nothing unjust or counterfeit in them.” (Clement from his letter to the Church at Corinth.)

“The blessed and renowned Paul… did with all exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth; and being gone from you did write an epistle to you, into which, if you look, you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith that has been delivered to you… I trust that you are well exercised in the Holy Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you.” (Polycarp to the Philippian Church.)

“Ignorance of the scriptures is the cause of all evils.” “The knowledge of the Holy Bible is a powerful defense against sin: while an ignorance of them is a deep precipice, a profound gulf. It is a great betraying of salvation to know nothing of the Divine Law, it is this ignorance which has given birth to heresies.” (Chrysostom’s third sermon on Lazarus.)

Then the Romanists came up with this at the Council of Toulouse in Canon 14: “We prohibit the laity from having the books of the Old and New Testaments; unless it be, at most, that any one wishes to have, from devotion, a Psalter, a breviary for the divine offices, or the honor of the blessed Mary; but we forbid them, in the most express manner, to have the books translated into the vulgar tongue.”

And finally this from the same Council of Trent: “It belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and that no person shall dare to interpret it in matters relating to faith and manners, to any sense contrary to that which the Church has held, and does still hold; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

You be the judge.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him or invite him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

(2 John 9 -11)

Where did all the Denominations come from?

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:33:01 +0000

Dating Roman Catholicism

I would not want to try to offer a specific year or date for the start of Catholicism. All my life I have heard 606 given as the year of the start of those things. But I feel fairly certain that the Roman Catholic denomination did not spring forth within the same year that the title of pope was first officially assumed. After all, they maintain that Peter was the first pope, and if that had any foundation at all historically or doctrinally, it would certainly force a much earlier date.

However, I do feel comfortable offering a range of dates for the beginnings of Catholicism. Things just don’t happen overnight – it takes time. And without an understanding of events including the complicity of the Roman emperors and the problems found within the early churches, we may not understand how things got started. It would never have gotten going without the persistence and diligence (can I say that?) of many. Yet if the apostasy of Western Catholicism had not happened, then something else would have fallen in place to start the denominational ball rolling.

The range I suggest for the start point of the first denomination would begin around the time of the second Edict of Toleration or by the Nicene Council, moving onward with the continuing decline of Rome. It would go along through the rise of Constantinople and end up somewhere in the seventh and eighth centuries with the rise of Islam.

It was both a process and a product, but a solid timeline is pretty hard to nail down. I start with dates around 325 heading up to 606 or beyond to 800 with the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire as was just noted. The mentioned 606 date heralds the ready assumption of the title of “Holy Father” and Pope by Boniface III, but things were already well formed by then. On the other end of the range during the seventh and eighth centuries you have Islam growing rapidly and the fear of it for a possible upper range point. You could span those years with some more or some less time as you might see things a little differently, but a similar range is not without some historical support – allowing for a half century or two either way. So I might conclude reasonably that Roman Catholicism had its beginning around 325 or even a little earlier, and was well constructed by 800. As said, you may differ with where to start or to end.

By the fifth century much of Europe had fallen to aristocratic feudalism and religiously had come under the control of Catholicism – which is another form of feudalism. It is only due to the resistance and intervention of the Anglo Saxons that England was a “late arrival.” To this day the Anglicans claim their denomination is “more an English church” than its Roman mother. Unfortunately it is more about traditions and ascendancy and has little to do with Christian doctrine. They may have been late to the party, but they were led by the nose into the pen without much of an outcry. Most of Europe and the Scandinavians had already fallen down on bloodied knee or were on a steady slide by 600. The Caliphs, the Sarasin and the rest of Islam would soon cause the gaze of Europe (and the power of Rome) to turn to the east, while adding to their increasing strength and numbers.

The Frenchman Pepin and his army managed to cede much of Italy to what would soon become the Holy See and aided in the legitimization of its power base by the mid seven hundreds. To quote Philip Schaaf: “But by this gift of a foreign conqueror he (the Pope, RAV) became a temporal sovereign over a large part of Italy, while claiming to be the successor of Peter, who had neither silver nor gold, and the vicar of Christ who said: ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ The temporal power made the papacy independent in the exercise of its jurisdiction, but at the expense of its spiritual character.”

Indeed.

Later by the time of the first crusades you have the rising response against the movement and expansion of Islam through the East and toward the West. And in these times there appeared, in the minds of some, a clear need to continue to consolidate power between state and church in order to meet headlong this fierce and defined foe.

The end product is that Rome and its church-states have successfully tightened the noose over the ensuing centuries and they will surely not release their grip this side of Judgment. It was in response at first to the changing face of Rome, and moved out into the control of the Germanic tribes and the rest of Europe. It built its walls higher in response to Islam and the East.

Today the Roman church is far and away the wealthiest organization in the world and although perhaps they wield the power more quietly now — they still exercise a form of rule over millions with acquired billions that should not be ignored. They have been reined in slightly by some long overdue accounting and some bits of reason. And they have been somewhat stifled in their overt political manipulations in the Americas due to the strength of the Protestants and the strength of political awakenings mainly in North America.

In my opinion, the Roman church still offers the gullible a legacy of apostasy and a “two door policy” – a closed door to the scriptures and an open door to destruction. And they use the poor and simple among us to heap riches to themselves. I apologize only half-heartedly for the assessment; but I see it as a church of men mostly serving each other. Again, this is not about people but about godliness and its opposite. I suggest that like the rest of the denominations that have followed them out onto the landscape: they have nothing at all to do with the Christ, his Word, salvation or the work of the apostles and disciples.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3: 1 – 7)

“There is one hope of your calling” (2)

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:57:58 +0000

We are told to all teach and hold to the same things. If we must teach and do alike, are we all to be Unitarians, Trinitarians or Universalists? Somewhere in time some folks decided that they must distinguish themselves and should be identified by a different set of instructions and names: some became Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Catholic, Adventists, and a myriad of others. That was done because they did not all teach and hold to the same things. But then they were not the first. And there is not so much as a thread of unity between all of these groups and disciplines.

Does any one of these broad groups and the rest have it right. Certainly they all cannot. And if there is only one faith and one hope, which one is the right one — which is The Way?

Recently the political question has again been raised: Is a Mormon a Christian? Perhaps we must all become Mormons and hold to their teachings in order to be found faithful? Surely Mormons believe that.

Let me pose some troubling questions. If you call yourself by some other person’s name than Christ’s, or by some name somebody else picked for you; or if you are called after an action or a process, and let’s suppose you post it over a door, in a text, on a marquee, or in your heart – does that make you a better Christian? Does it make you a Christian at all? It does make you different doesn’t it? Even if it is an afterthought, is what you practice under another name of any value to the state of your soul? If it is we had all better find out which one does the trick.

How about this: Does the Word of God date prior to 328, 606, 1312, 1439, 1609, or 1824? Did it appear recently as some addendum or did the new supersede what had originally been given? Did the renewed truth of God show up some place in the remote or not so remote past, in some other century early or in modern times? If it did doesn’t that make Jesus a liar (or was he simply mistaken)? Doesn’t that also say the same for all of the apostles and prophets of the NT?

Perhaps we ought to start by answering this question: Whose name is it that we are commanded to honor and to wear? I might quickly ask another: why do the scriptures call disciples Christians?

We could do the exact same form of dating and ask the very same questions about every name and every Christian religious group known. And we can ask the same things about every other variation we can possibly find with the same result – except that is for a single one: the assembly that Jesus founded and the apostles established and described – the only one found in both form and practice within the pages of a NT.

So how many ways can we have it and still get it right? Is it an open field full of fat game birds just ready to break for the tree line? Or is there just one bird standing alone? Bret Stephens, columnist and author, writing on the existence today of the religion of Zoroaster, noted that all of their sacred texts had been destroyed by Alexander the Great. That of course did not put a stop to things. They are still around. Some of those variations on Christianity are much the same. Some have no link to a thing in either the Old or New Testament. Some focus on a single verse in Mark sixteen and make it a calling card to the exclusion of other things,making snake handling a spiritual sign. Some seem to have made up everything they do. But pointing these things out will not stop the proliferation of doctrines and assemblies. Yet perhaps it may cause someone to have second thoughts and to start reading a bible.

I would suggest you should know this is not a multiple choice exam. And these are not rhetorical questions. Will any of us be saved by aligning ourselves with any one of the hundreds of groups, sects or denominations that exist today? Are these groups about serving God or more about serving men? If about serving God, then which one is IT? Jesus once asked, When the Son of Man returns, will he even find faith upon the earth? Well?

Perhaps we should attempt to join every group, supposing against all reason that every one of them teaches the truth? That would surely keep us busy. Though it sounds silly; aren’t there good people found in each one? Don’t they all believe in what they do and teach, just as the Muslims and Buddhists?

You should know that there are several people alive right now who claim to be the Christ, the Messiah, and some of them head huge organizations with millions of followers. Should we stop what we are doing and go and follow one of them? Which one?

Everybody claims to have some greater knowledge about The Way and The Truth. But Jesus told us that only He, The Word, is that.

Well then, does anybody bother to teach the truth today? If your answer to that is yes, how do you know they teach the truth? And if you said you’re certain and sure because you can find everything they do listed in the New Testament; then do you worship with them to the exclusion of all other distractions? And are you trying with all your might to get your friends and family through the proverbial front door? Does it matter for your soul and for theirs? If not, then please explain what are you doing?

The place I am going with this is obviously populated by many different things. I plan to offer, over the next few weeks, a partial, simple and insubstantial answer to the question: Where did all the denominations come from? I hope to offer a smattering of available information on some of the main groups, and where and how they got started. I may not be politically correct (horrors!); but I will strive for accuracy.

Rest assured, but not comfortably, that not a single one of these groups can ever trace themselves back in some unbroken line to the pages of the New Testament. But there is one assembly in form and worship that can find themself and what they teach and do in there. But then if we find the one that fills the patterns, perhaps we might ask the outlandish rhetorical question (or one like it) — if it looks like a duck, quacks, has feathers and webbed feet, what is it? Hmm, and it makes me wonder.

Hopefully we might all be able to answer the question: is the church of the bible still around today? I have no doubt, what about you?

Roots of Catholicism

Richard Vandagriff — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:40:29 +0000

Following the rule of Constantine the empire was given over to his sons and heirs (Constantine II, Constans and Constantius). Constantine II was killed by his brother Constans who was soon removed by another rival. This left the empire to a field officer named Magnentius, who was defeated and then committed suicide. The throne was then offered to the last son of Constantine the Great – Constantius. You may note when reading of these things, that the sons of Constantine were as much Christian as their father, and at least as much politician and conniver. After all, Constantine had been the disciple of Diocletian, and had attained to significance by being first a warrior and also the first true non-Latin Caesar; and by allowing that Christianity should become religio licita. So, the seed did not fall far from the tree.

These were followed by Julian the Apostate, who made every attempt to resurrect paganism. In this he also adapted some of the vestiges of Christianity, by aligning the pagan priesthood after the model of the rising apostate clergy. It was at this point that the remaining pagans began to use the priest as the mediator between god and man, as it was developing in the digressive churches. Christians were prohibited from teaching science and law in schools. And the temple properties were once again being returned to the state without indemnity. He immediately attempted to reestablish the intolerance and hatred of the empire through its system of temples and worship. He was unsuccessful. But while at it his writings acted as a historical nod to the authenticity of the Gospels and Acts. He quoted them all, and noted that they were the received texts of the Christians. He also referred to both letters to Corinth, that of the Romans and the Galatian letter. He also verifies the time frame of the Gospels and of Acts.

The next emperors were Jovian, Valentinian I and Theodosius. During the reign of Theodosius emperor worship and Roman pantheism was designated as paganismus: peasant’s religion. It had all but retreated from the cities of the empire for the final time. The empire or what remained was again split into two: eastern and western. The sons of Arcadius ruled in the east while Honorius held the west. Theodosius II ascended to the eastern throne and Valentinian II to the western. The temples of Roman emperor worship and paganism were destroyed by Theodosius II allowing them to be turned again into public buildings or Christian assemblies. There was persecution of both Christians and pagans throughout this period. But paganism also saw its final end as the religion of the empire by the conclusion of his reign. At the same time the seeds of Romanism had been sown and were now sprouting up into the “common or universal” (Catholic) church.

If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified.

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? Now, if the righteous one is scarcely saved, where will the ungodly and the sinner appear? Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good as to a faithful Creator.

(1 Peter 4: 11-19)

The Jerusalem Church (7)

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:33:14 +0000

First, once again the whole assembly was brought together. Second, the situation was presented and the truth was expounded. Finally, the false teaching was exposed and silenced. Do not be fooled or suspect that it was a simple matter and easily disposed of, for nothing is said of the time that was taken to finally end the matter, but it is unlikely that it was allowed to go on for months. And just because enlightened men were there did not seem to make the situation less difficult to deal with; and despite this it is before the whole church that the final decisions are presented.

The false reports of the intent of the Apostle Paul’s teaching also came before the church at Jerusalem. The work of Paul came into conflict in the ears of some in the church there, and a difficult situation might ensue if some of those who had not completely disposed of the trappings of the Jewish worship and perhaps were weaker in their new faith, were to observe that Paul did not participate in the Jewish customs.

In Acts 21 there is recorded how the church advised Paul to show the reports false by uniting with four Nazarites and paying for their vows and as being patron to their service in the Temple. This was advised by James and the elders of the church (likely the Lord’s half-brother — for the 12 apostles were apparently now off to other fields, and the apostle Paul was soon to depart Jerusalem for good). Although it was not a sinful thing for the apostle to pay for these and to observe the traditions, it certainly turned out to be bad advice. However, it is probable that any course taken would have ended in trouble with the swirling controversies surrounding Paul.

It was of course performed as suggested, but as noted it did not assuage the enemies of the apostle. It did serve to show that the Jerusalem church still worked at preserving good will, so that they might by any means, “gain some for Christ” where no sin was involved, and so in this too they remain a model for action and decision making within churches of God.

Through all of these things they were a model of steadfast faith though even under persecution. Overall as far as the history of the scriptures is able to show us, and as far as secular history complements the scriptures, the church at Jerusalem ceased to exist after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and so lasted only some 30 to 35 years. The persecutions started early and continued throughout its storied life. In Acts chapter 4 Peter and John and then all of the twelve apostles were persecuted, in chapters 6 through 8 Stephen was martyred and the record states that this events started a general persecution initiated by the Jews. Chapter 12 records the imprisonment of Peter and the death of Jacob Bar Zebedee (the Hebrew name of the apostle who we know commonly as James, brother of John) at the hands of Herod Agrippa’s henchmen.

We do not read of the last persecution in the scriptures, as it is not recorded in the Bible, but only by one secular historian. These stories of the death of this James, the Lord’s half brother, and of the church of Jerusalem in general, work up to the destruction of the city at the hands of the Roman legions; and Josephus records how the Christians fled prior to the encirclement of Jerusalem under Titus just as Christ had prophesied. And with this historical note, the church at Jerusalem then died as it had lived — obedient to Christ.

May God grant us the time that we may work to see the likes of such again. May we see its imitators one day fill the landscape far and wide, so that once more when the Lord returns to collect his own and to reckon with us all that he may find the model for churches reproduced in every congregation in this land and wide upon the earth: in every place where they call upon his name. And that he will say, “Well done my good and faithful servants.”

[The foundation of this lesson - the full 7 essays presented here - was based upon a sermon originally penned by J. W. McGarvey. It has been revised and worked by any number of teachers over the years, and is yet worthy of note.]

The Jerusalem Church (6)

Richard Vandagriff — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:09:30 +0000

You know we do it differently now. A preacher may have good response in a location, and he will pull up on his own and go elsewhere when he gets a better offer, or some members will pull him up and send him on his way with no offer at all. And we seem a lot more interested in converting in foreign lands than in our own living rooms. But the record of the Jerusalem church says this: “And the word of God increased and the number of disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly and a great company of the priests were obedient.” (Acts 6:7)

After these incidents came another concerning the Jewish converts and obedience to circumcision and the Law of Moses. The incident is covered in the 15th chapter of Acts beginning in verse one: “Certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.”

Who raised the question and started the controversy? In verse one it only says “certain men” from Judea began teaching this in the church, but in verse 5 it clarifies it some more. There the recorder states, “Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.’” Then it is clear that some of the converted Jews who were formally members or adherents to the teaching of the sect of the Pharisees had not let the traditions and laws of their religion go and they were teaching it to others as what they said was to be an indispensable part of the religion of Christ.

You should know that this is exactly how the gospel of Christ has been changed by the various teachers and denominations over time, and you should also know that this is why the worship of the church has varied so widely from the apostles’ doctrine and the examples set from within the scriptures.

The apostle Paul says this in Galatians 2: 4, 6: “But this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

We can note then that things started in that day have continued unimpeded to this day. That there is certainly, “nothing new under the sun.” There will always be those whose thought is to do as they feel compelled and not as God has dictated, and there will be followers for each one. The question remains, “Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”

The answer is sure – that God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth by those who seek him. And so the church will also endure.

The Jerusalem Church (5)

Richard Vandagriff — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:20:01 +0000

Peter knew the scheme that Ananias had devised along with this wife. When the dirty deed was done, Peter said, “Ananias why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained yours was it not under your power? And after it was sold was it not then still under your power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And while everybody there listened and looked on, Ananias dropped dead at Peter’s feet. The record states that the young men got up, wrapped up his body, and carried him out to bury him — just like that. He was not cold when he was put in the tomb. And notice that over the space of three hours no one ran to tell his wife her husband had died. What odd circumstances were these?

When she returned, Sapphira came back into the scene without anyone daring to warn her of what had happened to her husband and his death, and before she could ask that for herself, Peter said, “Tell me whether you sold the property for so much?” She answered: “Yes, for so much.”

You know those were her last words. Peter then said, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door and shall carry you out.” Certainly this was a trap to catch those who thought they could deceive God, or that thought such a thing as generosity was but a tiny matter and an unimportant thing that day in the new church, that with the swirling membership and great numbers, a little cheating might not be noticed. Yet it was all the while under the watchful eye of the Holy Spirit.

Just before her eyes closed in death due to the consequences of the things done, can you imagine the horror and the spinning thoughts going through her mind as she simultaneously found out that her husband had died and fallen into the hands of the Living God, and along with that, as soon as that thought struck home, she too then falls dead at the apostle’s feet with no further hope either right then or in eternity. With none that would help plead her case, she headed out to the same speedy judgment borne on the wings of God’s messengers. I sure would not want to pass into eternity that way. It truly is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

What dreadful business. How sure and final. There was no time think about it, no time for delay, not for tears, and there was no time given to repent beyond the time they had while they sat and concocted their little plot — it was just like judgment day — swift and overwhelming.

Whose work was this? Was it Peter’s? Or was it the work of the church?

No, it was the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit of God who exercised his authority here and disciplined the fledgling church so that there might be no mistaking the promptness with which sins must be rebuked in the church if that church is to remain pleasing to God.

This is a lesson, albeit a very harsh one, in church discipline. Without such discipline in the early church there, this sort of sin would have spawned more behind it, and again more, and with each new occurrence each threatening the very existence of the fledgling work of God.

Shall we learn from it or shall we (as many churches have long done) seek to keep the ungodly in the church under the vain delusion that in so doing we act in forbearance to one another and show mercy where heaven has shown none, or where we can fret about whether or not we are exhibiting proper meekness and a charitable attitude towards the workers of iniquity? God does not execute justice this way today, but he expects us to work the rules of discipline to keep ourselves “unspotted.” It is an idle and unlearned mind that believes that there is better hope to save a thoroughly wicked man or woman by keeping them in the church than if you throw the bums out.

Does God know more about saving the wicked than we do? What does the word of God say? Looking in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3 and in verse 6 we find this: “Now we command you brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you withdraw from every brother (and how many is that?), that walks disorderly and not after the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). What exactly does the word “withdraw” mean? If we are all together in a room and everyone in the room withdraws from me, exactly how many people will be left in the room when the withdrawing is complete?

But we would certainly have someone say that this kind of discipline will scare everybody away, that there would be no more additions. The funny thing is that it was meant to scare somebody away, and better yet, I am sure that it worked too. Any liars, cheats, and hypocrites that may have thought of joining up in Jerusalem probably concluded that such a place would not be very healthy. That if you were interested in cheating folks you might want to find a denomination a little more tolerant of thieves, or start your own group down the road. This particular one was too dangerous to bear those things at that time.

You might think that there might be a reaction to the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira that maybe would go like this: “Why that church is made up of hypocrites, why they have some who say they give a lot when I know that they lie and only give a little.” Or the opposite of that, “Did you hear of what those crazy Christians did to poor Mr. Ananias and his lovely wife, why they drove them into heart attacks by questioning their kind and giving hearts. I would never meet with such a group. You’ll never catch me there”

You do know there are people around today who might say these sorts of stupid things? And you might figure that these incidents could hurt the church. But then you would be wrong.

The real result is stated in Acts 5 and verse 11: “So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.” And in verse 14 is the following record: “And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women.”

So shall it ever be. We need a high wall and a deep mote between the world and the Lord’s church if we are to be saved.

The Jerusalem Church (4)

Richard Vandagriff — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:58:41 +0000

The church started with the notion of “no one said anything he owned was his own,” where needs were being met daily in a timely fashion, to in time missing the needs of some, either through overlooking a segment of folks who had developed a need (which is largely what happens today), or when some of the charity or sources of charity within the congregation no longer could maintain the level of support necessary to include everyone. Whatever may have been the cause, it ended up with some people whose needs were not being met and who were then being overlooked. When that happened they cried out in complaint to the apostles for assistance.

Can you imagine how this might be handled today? One cultural group has a problem in a mixed and diverse congregation, and a very large congregation at that, of the size of which we understand nothing. This was a congregation in which folks could not possibly have known every person who was a member just because of the sheer numbers — where groups of Christians had to have been strangers to one another. Add to this that there were only a few places that such a large group could even meet in Jerusalem and none of them were indoors; there were only the areas surrounding the Temple and on the outside of the Court of the Temple and the Roman circus, and none of these was built to house a body of this size comfortably.

As an aside, there is not a hint of truth to the notion that they met in several houses — the text says they went from house to house, teaching and taking their meals, but nowhere does it say they met as the church that way, nor does it ever imply that they ever met as the church in small satellite assemblies — rather it always implies that they all met together as a church publicly — which is after all what the word translated “church” means: a public assembly of purpose.

Can you imagine the logistical problems of dealing with the sheer numbers and the needs of such a group? Now add to this the rather small problem of a not very popular group having a very public difficulty and you then have all the makings you need for trouble, and a fine opportunity for a quarrel and heated discord.

I could line up on one side and someone else on the other and we could set up debates and write papers to publish our views and we could seek to convert disciples to our side. We could establish and organize in opposition. I would start with the accusation: “This is what happened,” and the other could say, “It’s not true.” Then you would have all you need for division and disorder. What if, in this case, the apostles had complained that their honesty and integrity had been called into question? They too could have acted just like brethren might today — but then we would not have a model for the perfect church, would we?

The record in Acts 6: 2 says that the apostles “called the multitude of disciples together.” This confirms what I just said about how they met and it also serves to lay to rest the tradition of the men’s business meeting. Is it not interesting how the word of God teaches so much by saying so little?

What happened next is that the apostles proposed and the congregation disposed. They said, “Choose out from among you seven men” of the given qualifications they listed. This was to allow that the things being left off could be taken care of and without the apostles having to leave the duty of teaching to take care of it themselves. Who is it that was chosen? Interestingly enough they are all Greek men (of Jewish descent) who met the qualifications.

There is not a single Hebrew name among them: Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolas, and Stephen. It seems the majority party selected men from the offended class: the minority party. This certainly helped to diffuse any smoldering disputes in a deluge of generosity. And some would say that there is no pattern to things.

The Jerusalem Church (3)

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 18 May 2007 11:37:22 +0000

Today some say that it is not necessary to do these types of things, to which I answer that it was not necessary then either. They did these things not out of any identifiable command, but as they felt compelled to, to aid and assist one another as much as they could with the means they had collectively at hand.

If churches had continued to follow the patterns given and as new congregations were established and each maintained the central premise of adhering to the teaching of the apostles’ doctrine, and if that had been closely followed and not debated as to its worth, and had they continued to maintain the pattern of good works given all churches, then all of these congregations would still be flying the flag of Christian union as far as the Christian faith has extended. But you know that is not and has not been the case.

If we are to seek unity today we must start with what we have and using that, set up one congregation that is united within its own. Does anyone reading this know of such an assembly? Do you know where it is located? Would you not be willing to travel many miles to meet with such a number? Even if it was only a small group, if it could be said that they were complete in knowledge and application of the word of God and striving to be all that they could to God, to Christ and to one another; where it could be said, “they were of one heart” and no one says anything he has is his own —would you not cross the county or the state just to locate them?

I am not distaining the work of those Christians whose assemblies come near this mark, for there surely are some. But until we have such churches on common ground and in every common place — how could we possibly have Christian union?

You and I both know that if we could bring together all of the so-called conservative congregations and have what would amount to a church convention that you would not have Christian union (do not get me wrong, I am not encouraging such things). You would have an amalgam of teaching and ideas, with some agreement, and some discord. You would get some argument, some head butting, a good fight here and there, and more than a few differences of opinion over the word of God and on the interpretations of things. Guess what? You would have precisely what you have in the religious world today and in churches right now. Nothing would be changed.

You know that some people look in the wrong direction for a restoration of the unity and the spirit that once for a time existed. It does not exist in some imaginary assembly of the future, where compromise and emotion set tones and trends. Nor is it in some church of long ago in days gone by and mostly forgotten. It is only found in the here and now.

Union must begin and end with the local congregation. What begins with a local assembly begins with each individual member. When a single-mindedness of purpose exists between all as they are guided by the word of God, that then becomes the will of the congregation. When one congregation becomes united in rightly dividing the word of God and in its purpose and duty under the authority of Christ — then you have the right starting point and the same start that the apostles made in the church at Jerusalem. With that accomplished, then another congregation needs to step up to the plate and set about doing the same things, following the same patterns, and doing the things with the same spirit, and then another and another, and so on and so forth. They would be united with one another and within themselves in the Lord, and the model would grow and promote itself exactly in what we are talking about, in Christian union. Well, if it is so simple, then what hinders us from setting to work right now?