History of the Church
Lesson 4: Expansion and Persecution – AD 100 - 313

Speaker: John Phillis
Date: June 30^th and July 7^th and 14^th, 21^st, 2004, Wednesday Evening Adult Bible Class

Toward the end of the 1^st Century, the church was well established despite opposition and persecution, first from the Jews and then from the Romans. It had indeed become the “sect spoken against everywhere,” Acts 18:22. In addition to these attacks from without, there would also be attacks from within causing conflict and internal strife. These would eventually bring about organizational and doctrinal changes in the church.

In this study of the expansion and persecution of the church, we will be looking, primarily, at a period of time at the end of the 1^st Century. We’ll go back some into the 1^st Century, but the period of time is effectively from about AD 100 to about AD 313, a period of a little over 200 years, the 2^nd into the 4^th Centuries.

The Persecution of the Church, Begun by the Jews (Acts 6) and Continued for the Next Nearly 300 Years by Rome

By 100 AD, the church had really, in a sense, outgrown its Jewish connection, its Jewish origins. It was no longer being mistaken for just another “Jewish sect,” like the Pharisees or the Sadducees or the Essenes, and so on. Christianity had now become a “separate sect,” so to speak, and this new status meant that Christians no longer needed to fear persecution from the Jews, but it meant that they now had to face persecution from Rome.

Actually, Roman persecution had begun well prior to AD 100. Emperor’s names such as Nero and Domician are synonymous with persecution among the saints in the mid- to the latter part of the 1^st Century. But the real intensity of persecution from the Romans would not be felt for a while longer. Yes, these ones did persecute the Christians, but it was fairly sporadic; it was not really an organized effort on their part. It was somewhat regional. As a matter of fact, history tells us that during this period leading up to AD 100, and even beyond, many Christians in a number of the parts of the Roman Empire lived in relative freedom of persecution. They really weren’t bothered at all. The persecution, though, would sort of, well, “ramp up,” I guess you might say, to the point where in AD 300, the beginning of the 4^th Century, the persecution would be so severe that these ones here in the latter part of the 1^st Century and the beginning of the 2^nd Century would not have been able to comprehend just how bad it could get.

Causes for Persecution

Why were the Christians persecuted? What was it about them to cause them to be persecuted? Now, we know why they were persecuted by the Jews. That’s relatively clear to see, because the Jews hated what the Christians stood for. The Jews rejected the Messiah; they rejected Jesus, the Christ. They wanted to put Him out of the way. Their belief, their understanding, was that once the leader was gone, then whatever movement that He had begun and was a part of would die off as well. Of course, that didn’t happen. The Christians continued to grow in number, and so, the Jews, then, began to persecute. But again, that persecution would be relatively mild. Yes, there would be some, like Stephen, who would be killed. There were those who were quite zealous in pursuing and persecuting those early Christians, like Paul, prior to his conversion. But the real intensity of persecution would be brought upon our “relatives” in Christ those hundreds of years ago under the Roman control. Well, what was it about the Christians that caused Rome to persecute them?

First of all, Christians were persecuted by Rome for political reasons. For Rome, for the emperors, for the officials, even for the common citizens for the most part, the State was all important. So long as one was willing to participate in the State religious ceremonies, Rome was inclined to be rather tolerant.

Remember, now, that the Empire stretches all across a very, very large expanse of the known world at that time, not only there in the Mediterranean Basin, but up into Asia Minor, over into Africa, and so on. This was a very large, very expansive Empire. So, they had any number of cultures, any number of civilizations, which were a part of the Empire, people who had a wide, wide variety of beliefs and understandings. The majority, with the exception of the Jews and the Christians, were all pagans. They were heathens. They engaged in some type of idol worship. That may not have been the same type of “State-sponsored religion” that Rome had in mind, but you were free to practice your form of religion, you were free to worship your carved images or perform whatever practices you desired to do. The only stipulation was, you needed to also participate in the Roman religion, and that primarily came to be Emperor-worship.

Well, probably most of those cultures that were taken in and were a part of the Roman Empire had no problem with that. They were contented to do whatever they did—worship the animals or the trees or the stars or whatever it was—and when they were required to bow the knee to Rome, they would do that as well. No problem. However, the Christians wouldn’t do that. The faithful Christians would not. They refused to divide their loyalties. For them, devotion to God required that no other person (namely the Emperor), no other thing (the State itself), would be elevated to the place of God. And so, that caused a problem, because the Roman officials couldn’t understand why the Christians were this way.

Again, thinking about all of these cultures and all of these various religions and all of the various practices that existed within the Empire, why would this one group of people refuse to participate? Well, the only thing that the Roman officials could determine was that they were disloyal to the State, that they were subversive, that they had some hidden agenda to bring down the State. And so, for these political reasons, they were persecuted.

Christians were persecuted by Rome for religious reasons. Christians had no idols. They had no elaborate priesthood, no grand hierarchy of some sort, no impressive ceremonies or processionals. People who were not prepared to appreciate the spiritual significance of what the Christians did, of what they practiced, gave rise to considering them being atheists. In the sense of the word “atheist” that we use today, it’s not quite the same, but basically, the feeling by Rome was that they didn’t believe in anything, that they didn’t believe in any kind of god or gods. And this the Romans found troubling.

In conjunction with that feeling—I already mentioned that the Roman people didn’t appreciate the spiritual significance of the worship of the early Christians, of the way they lived their lives, and so on—add to that the fact that there were rumors about some of their practices. Again, without an appreciation of the significance of the Lord’s Supper, when you talk about “drinking blood” and “eating flesh”, what would one think about? What would come to mind? Well, some sort of ritualistic cannibalism, perhaps. And so, they were persecuted for religious reasons.

Christians were also persecuted for social reasons. As we’ve said, Christians refused to participate in pagan religious ceremonies or attend the theater or the games. Of course, this was the central part of the society, and to some degree, the economy as well. The Christians’ non-conformity, their unwillingness to participate in these kinds of activities, left them open to a charge that they were some kind of “haters of mankind,” and as such, they were considered to be a threat to society.

And since the practice and the belief and the teaching of Christians included the equality of all mankind, whether it was an aristocrat, or whether it was a slave, many people, especially those in the aristocracy, feared the effect of their teaching upon the Roman society, which was riddled with class distinctions. If these kinds of teachings would become popular among the Roman masses, then this would affect their status as being aristocrats.

Christians were persecuted by Rome for economic reasons. There was also the economics. You remember Paul had an experience that would, perhaps, preview some of the experiences that Christians would later have. In Acts 19, you remember how Paul received a great deal of antagonism from the silver smiths in Ephesus (in particular a silver smith named Demetrius), whose business had been crippled. They were in the business of making carved images that they sold, carved images of their pagan god, Diana. When Paul came and preached against these, the people stopped buying—those who were converted to Christianity stopped buying those pagan images. And there was an outcry from those who were involved in that trade, “Hey! He’s ruining our business!” We also know that the Christians did not patronize the pagan temples. Visits to the temples and prostitute worship and things like that also added to the coffers of the community.

When plagues or famines, earthquakes or other natural disasters struck, Roman leaders looked for a scapegoat. You know, they were very superstitious people. They worshiped images of all kinds. And so when something like this would happen, they would always look for a reason, and the Christians quite often became the innocent victims of their wrath. Because they couldn’t understand, they couldn’t explain, the natural phenomenon which had occurred, they would blame the Christians.

So we see, then, that the early Christians, beginning first in Jerusalem not too long after the church was established, began to feel the heat, the fire, of persecution, and that would continue with the emphasis being shifted eventually from the Jews to the Romans. The intensity of that persecution would continue to escalate.

Emperor Nero started the persecution in the mid- to late-1^st Century. The persecution would grow increasingly worse over the years, reaching a terrible crescendo about AD 300 under Emperor Diocletian.

The early days of persecution, the early experiences of persecution, were fairly sporadic in their nature. It would not be until around 250 AD when the intensity and the regularity of persecution would begin to escalate. I have some examples of some of the persecution that the people endured that I’d like to share with you—not the specifics—but just to share with you some of the history that is recorded for us. I think this is very interesting.

There was a persecution that occurred in an area that was known as Bithynia, also known as Pontus. It was under the reign of Emperor Trajan. This would have been early in the 2^nd Century, around 112 AD. There was this persecution that was being brought against, that was being brought upon, the Christians of this region. To give you a reference of where this area is, it is in modern Turkey. Of course, that was part of the Roman Empire in the 1^st and 2^nd Century and beyond.

Let me share with you a piece of correspondence that took place between the Roman Governor of Bithynia—his name was Pliny the Younger—and the Emperor Trajan in Rome. This is a letter that was written from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor:

Well, we see a number of things here in Pliny’s letter. First of all, we see that the Christians, while their belief was referred to as “superstition” by him, had, nonetheless, a certain amount of respect—respect because of the fact that those who were faithful would even stand up to being killed. And that invoked some praise, albeit critical, on the part of Governor Pliny. We also see that there were many, apparently, who did give in, who did cave in. We also see a little bit about their worship practices—assembling on an appointed day. Wonder what day that was? The first day of the week, no doubt. They assembled to sing a praise, to sing a song to Christ “as to a god.” So, from this historical letter, we really get a good look, I believe, at these early saints.

Now, I want to share with you Emperor Trajan’s reply back to Governor Pliny the Younger:

Well, I thought that was very interesting to see. This gives us, certainly, not only a picture of the early Christians there in this part of the 2^nd Century, but it also gives us insight, as well, to the persecution, to the punishment that they received, and the type that they were given.

In the middle of the 2^nd Century, there was a persecution which broke out in a place called Smyrna. That took the life of an aged saint. I’m sure you’re familiar with this name. His name was Polycarp. He was given a chance to recant—to repent, as Pliny characterized it—in order to save his life. But he affirmed his faith in words that exemplify the spirit that caused the church to grow, even in the face of this kind of persecution. No doubt, many of you have heard this quote before that Polycarp is credited with making. As they were beginning to light the fire to burn him to death, he would say, “For eighty and six years I have served Him, and He hath done me no wrong. How can I, then, speak evil of my King Who saved me?” So that was Polycarp’s reply to the Roman officials there in Smyrna who would attempt to get him to recant—attempt to get him to claim that he was not a Christian, and to worship their gods. And so we see in this one the spirit, no doubt, that was in many of the day.

I thought about what the Lord said concerning the church in Smyrna, Revelation, chapter 2, beginning with verse 8. Think about what we have just read, and considered about Polycarp, and listen to what the Lord now says—this would have been, probably 50 to 70 years prior to the time of Polycarp’s death: Revelation 2:8-10: “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, Who was dead, and came to life: 9 “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”’” Do you suppose that Polycarp thought about those words that were written by John? They were the Words of the Lord, describing, there in the latter part of the 1^st Century when that was written, the circumstance of that church at that time, and also “looking down the road” to the time of testing and trial. “Be faith until death.” And indeed, that good saint was.

Well, Christians in Rome suffered under Emperor Antonius Pius during the period 138 to 161 AD. Persecutions also occurred during the reign of his successor, Marcus Aurelius, 161-180 AD. Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher. He was one of the ablest and most conscientious rulers that Rome ever had. However, these very qualities caused him to attack Christians very, very severely, because he believed that Christianity, and those who practiced Christianity, would tear down, would undermine, the structure of civilization and the unity of the Empire that he was laboring so hard to preserve. Justin Martyr—I’m sure that you’re familiar with that name—suffered death under the reign of Aurelius. He wrote many things that we still have recorded historically in defense of Christianity.

Well, there was also persecution which occurred under Septimius Severus, 193 to 211 AD, especially in northern Africa. But for 40 years, following the reign of Septimius Severus, the church enjoyed a general respite from violent attack. History shows that during that period of about 35 years or so, when there was respite from persecution in northern Africa, the church grew by leaps and bounds.

But all of this changed very promptly in 250 AD when Emperor Decius, who had come to the throne the year before, brought a lot of persecution on Christians. The blessing was, though, that he was only around for about a year, because he would be actually killed in battle in 251 AD.

But then, more violent persecutions arose in 257 AD, under Valerian. In particular, the “bishops” and other church officials, along with other leading citizens who were Christians, were singled out for attack. Many of them suffered martyrdom, including a “bishop” in Rome who is known as Cyprian of Carthage. I also have an account of Cyprian of Carthage:

Cyprian was born around 200 AD in North Africa, of pagan parents. He was a prominent trial lawyer and teacher of rhetoric. Around 246 AD, he became a Christian, and in 248 was chosen “Bishop” of Carthage. A year later the persecution under the Emperor Decius began, and Cyprian went into hiding. He was severely censured for this. However, he did come back to Carthage and resumed his duties. But then, during the reign of Emperor Valerian, Carthage suffered a severe plague epidemic. Cyprian organized a program of medical relief and nursing of the sick, available to all residents, but this did not prevent the masses from being convinced that the epidemic resulted from the wrath of the gods at the spread of Christianity.

You remember, we said that that was one of the reasons Christians were persecuted sometimes, because of the superstitions of the Roman leaders. If they couldn’t understand a natural disaster, a plague of some type, whatever it was, they would blame the Christians.

Well, another persecution arose, and this time Cyprian did not flee. He was arrested, tried, and finally beheaded on 14 September 258. So, there is Cyprian of Carthage.

Once again, these persecutions under Valerian were cut short because of the war against the Persians. And then, relative peace followed for nearly a generation. But this peace was shattered in 303 when Emperor Diocletian unleashed the most violent, and systematic attack the church had yet experienced. Churches were destroyed. Copies of the Scriptures were burned. Christian leaders were tortured and executed, and on occasion, Christians were slaughtered in great numbers. This all-out campaign brought on by Emperor Diocletian lasted for about 10 years.

During the reign of Diocletian, there was a bitter struggle underway that was ongoing between rivals to the imperial throne in Rome. Constantine finally emerged victorious and, in the process, attributed much of his success to Christianity. No, he was not a Christian, but it is reported that he had seen a vision, a vision of a flaming cross with this inscription, “In this sign, conquer.” Well, inspired by this so-called vision, he went forth and he was victorious in battle. The following year, 313, the Imperial Edict of Milan was issued, and it granted complete toleration to Christians throughout the Empire. No, Constantine, as it’s often reported and believed, did not make Christianity the sole official religion of the Empire, but he did, in this Edict that he made, cause the citizens and officials to cease their persecution, to become friendly, if you will, to Christianity. And the church and Christians were granted many other privileges as a result of that.

In Spite of Persecution, the Church Continued to Grow and Prosper

Let me just mention the results of persecution. The church was born in the midst of persecution, going all the way back to Acts, chapter 6. We have mentioned that before. And for the next 300 years, the church would not be able to escape this shadow of persecution. Yet, it spite of persecution, the church continued to grow, continued to prosper. Persecution resulted, in one sense, in the purging of the church, even though there will be those who will attack the church from within—and we’ll see an apostasy that will take place and will come into view. For example, as we saw in that exchange between Pliny the Younger and Emperor Trajan, there were those who, when persecution was brought upon them, when pressure was brought upon them, would denounce their Christianity, would even curse Christ! Now, some would repent of that, but many never would. And so, in a sense, the ranks of the church were purged by this persecution.

There were also some other things which took place. For example, while that was a positive thing from the standpoint of purging the church, it also would develop into a very serious controversy, a controversy as to how to deal with, whether or not to accept back, those who had recanted their faith. I have a brief piece here, that I would like to read to you about that particular point. This is back to Cyprian of Carthage. This piece reads:

After the persecution had died down, it remained to consider how to deal with the lapsed, meaning those Christians who had denied the faith under duress. Cyprian held that they ought to be received back into full communion after suitable intervals of probation and penance, adjusted to the gravity of the denial. In this he took a middle course between Novatus, who received apostates with no probation at all, and Novatian, who would not receive them back at all, and who broke communion with the rest of the church over this issue, forming a dissident group particularly strong in Rome and Antioch.

And so, that’s just a bit of an example of other problems, internal problems, which were brought about because of this persecution. That completes the persecution portion of what we wanted to look at here.

PLEASE NOTE: What we have studied so far is a look at what is generally accepted as the “History of the Church,” and part of that history includes the apostasy of the church. Simultaneous to these persecutions, the church faced attacks from within by those who would be Legalists, those who followed Gnosticism, those who would change the organizational structure of the church, even such things as the rise of sprinkling and pouring for baptism—all of these things take place during this same time. These are actually simultaneous events—the attacks on the church and Christians from without (Rome) and the attacks on the church from within (“isms,” the development of church organizations and other doctrines, the rise of “baptism” by pouring and sprinkling—also infant “baptism,” changes in the Lord’s Supper, observance of various religious “holy-days,” and so on). In the next section of this lesson, we will be discussing these attacks from within the church, but keep in mind that these attacks from without and within are simultaneous events. Note that the apostasy of the church actually began at the end of the 1^st Century. Some of that is actually seen and forecast in Revelation, chapter 2 and chapter 3.

Some Initial Discussion

In this part of our lesson, we are going to continue to look at the history of the church from the 2^nd into the early part of the 4^th Century, and we’re going to see that while the church was being attacked from without—while the church was being persecuted by Rome—during this same period of time, simultaneous with that, there were also attacks from within the church. From these internal attacks, we’re going to see, then, the rise of various unauthorized changes, developments which are going to take place—developments in the organization of the church—how the church was organized; how the church was led. We’re going to see the changes, the challenges, which also came from doctrinal matters, and we’re going to consider that.

But, as to the matter of, “When did the church stop being the church? When did the church stop being the church of Christ, the church that belongs to Christ, and become a man-made institution, a man-made organization?”—it’s hard to say. I think I’m correct in saying that there just isn’t a date, a month, a year, or even a period of time when you could point to it and say, “Okay, prior to this point what we see here is the church—when we talk about those who were part of that church, they were, in fact, 1^st Century Christians, as we often refer to them an ourselves today. But, from this point onward, the church was in complete apostasy, and those who would even make the claim to be Christians probably were not.”

Well, in this regard, we know that apostasy had already begun even before the end of the 1^st Century. For example, we think about Paul’s warning that he gave to the Ephesian elders recorded for us in Acts 20 and verse 28, where he warned them that from among them—from elders—would arise those who would lead the sheep astray. And in fact, that’s exactly what we’re going to see will take place.

Speaking about apostasy within the church, we look in the book of Revelation for example and there the seven churches of Asia are addressed. We see that the church in Ephesus, according to the Lord Himself, speaking through the inspired apostle John, had already left their first love—they had already fallen, Revelation 2:4. Some in Pergamos and Thyatira, we read there, were practicing false doctrines, Revelation 2:14-15, 20. The church in Sardis was dead, Revelation 3:1, and the Laodiceans were lukewarm, Revelation 3:15. So, we see that apostasy is already underway, is already begun, even in this early period of church history.

BUT, here’s something for us to consider, something for us to think about. And that is, that because of the organizational structure, the doctrinal organizational structure of the church, congregations were autonomous, were independent, one from another. And so, because one congregation—for example, the congregation in Ephesus who had left their first love—had fallen, there would be another who has not fallen—for example, there was still the church at Philadelphia that the Lord had high praise for. So, there was not a mass apostasy at the end of the 1^st Century; it was not necessarily a mass apostasy that we see down through this period of history that we’re looking at here. We are looking at, and we are hearing about, the problems, the issues, the things that are recorded for us in history. Eventually, we know (and we are going to track this) we are going to see the rise of the Catholic church. That is where the apostasy, the general apostasy, so to speak, is going to lead, and we’re going to follow that; we’re going to track that; we’re going to see that. And that, of course, is clearly NOT the church of the New Testament; that is clearly not the church that Jesus built, that He purchased with His blood.

Here’s kind of a “thought question” for you, one that, perhaps, you have thought about before. I know it’s one that I have thought about, but it kind of fits here. You know, we’re going to be going through the period of the Middle Ages; we’re going to be looking at the period of the Reform eventually, into the 18^th and 19^th Centuries and the Restoration Movement, and the like. We’re going to be following the history of the church through this period. Of course, there is a very lengthy period of time, a period of about 1500 years or so, where what we’re going to be talking about, and what we’re going to be examining, is going to have to do initially with the Catholic church and the things that were going on there, and then the Reformation—the rise of denominational groups and the like.

But, here’ a question for you to think about: During all of these periods of time—during this lengthy period of time when we really don’t have any history to speak of about the one true church—did it exist? Did the Lord’s church continue to exist from the time of the Day of Pentecost in the city of Jerusalem right up through this very day? Or, is there a period of time—during this period of the Middle Ages, for example—when the Lord’s church just was not in existence, that every congregation had “bowed the knee to Baal”, had given in to apostasy?

While you think about that question, think about the promise that Jesus made in Matthew 16:18 when He promised to build His church. He said that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” And so, was there a period of time in history when the gates of Hades did, perhaps, prevail for a time, but it was only a temporary period? OR, has there NOT been a time when there was not, when there has not been, the body of Christ and the people of the Lord—has the church always existed? Something interesting to think about. (Someone suggested Matthew 24:35: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will by no means pass away.”)

Let me say that there have been and continue to be discoveries of historical information about various groups that, when the records are examined, they can see that even during these periods of the “Dark Ages” there were various enclaves in places like Russia and other places in Europe—evidence that there were small groups of Christians who were, indeed, following the New Testament in their organization, in their manner of worship, the manner of their lives, and so on.

The Church Faced Down Several “isms.”

During this period of time that we’ve been talking about, during the time that this persecution was going on, as I mentioned earlier, there had been simultaneous attacks that were mounted from within the church, and there was a constant struggle to keep the doctrine pure. I’m going to mention just a few of these attacks that are more well-known, that are more quantifiable.

Legalism

Actually, this problem with Legalism is one that plagued the church practically from the very beginning. Shortly after the establishment of the church, we begin to see how that ones who are called “Judaizing teachers” went about trying to fasten the yoke of the Law upon those who had become Christians, both Jew and Gentile. And even though the Jerusalem council that we can read about in Acts, chapter 15, had basically ruled against the Judaizers, the church still had to struggle throughout those early years until the end of the 1^st Century with this problem of those who were with the Jewish background who attempted to integrate various aspects, various facets, of Judaism with Christianity. By the beginning of the 2^nd Century this particular form of Legalism was no longer a serious threat, but Legalism kept appearing in various forms throughout this early history of the church.

Gnosticism

Then, there was something else—another –ism that is known as Gnosticism. This is one of the most serious threats, sort of an internal threat to the church during this period. It also begins to show its head during this period of the New Testament, but it really doesn’t reach a peak until about AD150.

Now, Gnosticism took many different forms, but basically it was an attempt to fasten a pagan philosophy onto Christianity. Gnostics, you see, believed that matter was evil. And since the Jehovah of the Old Testament had created matter, it was obvious that the Jehovah of the Old Testament was inferior to the God of the New Testament.

Now, Jesus’ incarnation, the fact that Jesus came in the flesh, posed a particular problem to them, you see, because Christ could not be associated with a physical body because it, after all, was matter, and matter was evil. So, Gnostics, therefore, argued that Christ’s body was either a phantom or was occupied by Christ for only a brief period of time during His earthly ministry.

Gnosticism had an elite following because it catered to human pride. The word “Gnosticism” comes from the Greek word, which means “to know.” Gnostics took pride in the fact that according to them they had knowledge that was denied other Christians. I believe that they were the first “know-it-alls” in the church. That’s just my opinion.

There was one who was named Marcion. He was a native of Pontus, and he is considered by many to have been a very key member of this Gnostic group. He was very prominent, and he was a very capable defender of these beliefs. Now, Marcion hated Judaism, and he rejected the Old Testament. He even rejected New Testament books that, to him, seemed to be too Jewish. For example, he rejected Matthew’s Gospel because it was written to the Jews. The book of Hebrews is written to Hebrew Christians, and so on. He was eventually expelled from the church, but he was not expelled before he had done a significant amount of damage by spreading this Gnosticism and also, he was not expelled before he had gathered a number of followers about him.

Montanism

Arising in a place called Phrygia, there is another –ism that plagued the early church, and this was Montanism. It began about AD 140, and it was promulgated by a teacher who was named Montanus. His “claim to fame,” or what brought him to the forefront, we might say, was to protest the rising formalism in the church and the increasing power that was being seen in the church among bishops [elders]. Well, these were both valid points. They were worthy of being protested, but unfortunately, as is often the case, this one, Montanus, went to extremes. In addition to extravagant claims that he made for himself, he insisted that his followers practice an aesthetic type of lifestyle—to deprive themselves of various types of foods and various types of material goods and so on, and that by living sort of an aesthetic lifestyle, this was equal to a level of righteousness.

Now, this movement had great strength in North Africa and also in eastern regions. Among its most capable advocates was one called Tertullian. If you know anything about the ones who are referred to as “the church fathers,” you know that Tertullian is one of the early “church fathers.” Montanism, like many reforms in the church, allowed itself to become fanatical about a few issues, but they then neglected many other aspects that were just as important.

So, here are three identifiable –isms, so to speak, Legalism, Gnosticism and Montanism, which really created a lot of problems in the early church. These were attacks, not from without, but these were from within. Now, what were the results of these attacks? What were the results of these internal struggles? Well, they came about, of course, during this same period of time when the church was involved in a life-and-death struggle with the Roman Empire. There is no doubt that the church was weakened because of these controversies. It’s very difficult to try to fight battles on two fronts—to fight an external battle; to fight an internal battle.

Yet, not everything that they brought about was entirely evil. For one thing, the church responded to Marcion’s “canon of the Scripture”—you remember, he is the one who we identified who hated Judaism and who rejected the Old Testament and even New Testament books if they were too Jewish. Well, he had put together his own “canon,” his own collection of the Scriptures, which excluded books like Matthew and Hebrews and others. However, the church responded to that, and so they began an effort (probably earlier than they would have, otherwise) to actually come up with a correct canon of the Scriptures.

Also, as a result of these attacks upon their faith, early Christians were forced to give considerable thought to theology, to actually work harder at knowing what they believed and why they believed it, and getting a firmer foundation upon which to stand so that individually and collectively they could withstand these assaults.

Also, the office of the bishop (now we are speaking of the office of the elder, the bishop) was greatly strengthened during this time, both from the external attacks, the persecutions, as well as from these internal problems, because the elders were looked to (and rightfully so) to stand for the Truth, to guard the flock, and so on.

Development of Church Organizations and Other Doctrines

Well, there were changes in the wind, however.

The Rise of the “Bishopric”

In the New Testament, we know that we have given for us God’s plan for the organization of the church, that each congregation is to be organized with elders—a plurality of qualified men who are serving the church, who are the shepherds of the flock, and so on. In the 2^nd Century, there begins to be able to be seen a division, a separation, between what would be called one who was a “bishop” and one who was an elder.

Now, again, we know that, according to New Testament Scripture, those two are the same office. However, it began to be separated. Each church came to have one “bishop,” and then several elders, or presbyters. This process, whereby one bishop [elder] was elevated above the others, was a gradual one, and it did not occur everywhere at the same time. As we said earlier, thanks to the autonomy of the congregations of the church (that was part of the wisdom, obviously, why God made it that way) not all congregations were affected simultaneously—some, perhaps, not at all. The presence of a strong “bishop,” this one central figure, over each congregation seemed at the time to be the best defense against persecution, against heresy, and, apparently, there were few who saw any danger in this departure from the simplicity of the New Testament plan.

At the same time bishops [elders] were being elevated, the relationship between and among congregations had been very loose, very informal, during the New Testament period, but during this time, it begins to take on a bit more definite, and eventually even a more rigid, form and relationship. Churches, for example, in the larger cities, in the more important cities, carried on aggressive evangelistic programs in that day. And this resulted, then, in people being converted, sometimes people from outlying regions being converted, and small congregations being established in these outlying, smaller areas, or rural areas. And so, it seemed quite proper that the larger church in the metropolitan area should maintain some kind of supervision, some kind of watch-care, over these newer congregations—you know, just to keep an eye on them; just to protect them; just to make sure that they were doing all right. Well, gradually this oversight fell to the “bishops” in the larger churches, and in the course of time, these smaller churches no longer had “bishops.” Their chief officers were “only” elders.

Well, in the 2^nd Century, “bishops” and, perhaps, other church leaders began meeting together for “consultation” and “common activity.” At first, the pronouncements of these gatherings (which were, by the way, called “Synods”) were not authoritative. It was not something that was expected, not something that was required, not something that was considered mandatory. But gradually, they became more and more generally accepted and they carried more weight.

Originally, these consultations were convened to deal with serious problems, common problems that were facing various congregations. For example, one of the first ones that we know anything about, that there is any historical documentation about, was held in Asia Minor in AD 160. And this was specifically to meet the problem of Montanism—you remember we talked about that problem, that internal problem called Montanism. They held one of these gatherings of “bishops” and church leaders to attempt to deal with this problem.

But after the passage of many years, these meetings that started out as “consultations” became official, and their pronouncements became binding. Thus, gradually and without any apparent conscious intent, leaders of the early church forged an ecclesiastical organization that eventually becameauthoritative. This organization began to bear the resemblance to the government organization, that is, the government of Rome, as far as how it was organized, with various departments and heads of departments, and also how it was organized on a regional basis, divided into sub-divisions, and the like.

Well, to strengthen the hands of the “bishops”, the doctrine of “Apostolic Succession” gradually developed. This doctrine affirms that the “bishops’” authority has been transmitted in a direct line from the apostles. And they were looked upon, then, as being direct successors of the apostles, and as such, they had the right to exercise many of the prerogatives of the apostles in setting things in order, in defending the church, in directing the activities of the church, and so on. Eventually, many came to believe that ordination to any church office must come through this line of succession, and that any other ministry—anything that fell outside of this area—was not valid.

Well, can we see something that is beginning to develop? Obviously we can, can’t we? We can begin to see the rise here, the beginnings, of the Roman Catholic church, the “bishopric,” the eventual establishing of “cardinals”, which would eventually lead to the establishing of the “papacy.” So, this is how it began; this is where it came from; this is the direction that it is going.

The Rise of “Creeds”

This period not only saw the assembling and the acknowledging of the New Testament, the canon of the New Testament, but it also saw the beginnings of what would become known as “creeds.” As we go along in this study of the history of the church, we’re seeing along the way how things developed that would eventually lead to the various types of apostasy in the church. And here is another one of those, this idea of developing certain creeds.

It’s generally felt that, like so many of the other things, some that we’ve already looked at and some we will look at as we through this study, that the development of creeds actually came from a good reason. It was believed that these were actually simple statements of faith that grew out of early baptismal services. Usually, these were something that were, maybe, a paraphrase of the good confession that Peter made there in Matthew, chapter 16 and verse 16, or perhaps, using the words of the Ethiopian eunuch before he was baptized by Philip, Acts, chapter 8 and verse 37.

And so, these were just simple statements, something like, “Jesus is Lord.” Well, is there anything wrong with that? Ah, well, no, not really, but as the doctrinal attacks and other attacks came upon the church, these creedal statements began to become more and more elaborate, started to become more and more involved in the content, and so on. And eventually, there would be developed the “Apostles’ Creed.” I’m sure that you have all heard of the Apostles’ Creed. I have a copy of it here. I thought I would share it with you. This has been revised many, many times over the years, but here is the Apostles’ Creed, which is generally accepted and used and recognized by a number of denominations these days. The Apostles’ Creed goes like this:

Well, that is the Apostle’s Creed, as I said, which is generally accepted by the Catholic church and some other denominations. Episcopalians and some others use a varied form of this, as well.

Well, as a result of the doctrinal controversies from the 4^th Century on, these creeds became more and more involved and more and more elaborate. They also came to embody very involved theological and philosophical statements, and even speculation. They also became divisive, and various and serious schisms in the church came about over these creeds. Just a turn of a phrase or two became controversial to the point where churches were separated. The first steps toward creed-making seemed like a good idea at the time, but would develop into controversy later, as was the rise of the strong “Bishop” that we talked about earlier, the development of ecclesiastical organizations. These seemingly inconsequential departures from the simplicity of the New Testament indeed had repercussions which continue to this day. We’re reminded of a phrase, which is used and is actually a secular phrase, but it’s appropriate to use oftentimes. I hear it in the Lord’s church, talking about “a slippery slope.” “Stay away from the slippery slopes,” some would say. There are some who would say, “Well, you know, we don’t need to be concerned about that. There’s nothing to be worried about in that regard.” But, I believe that these are worthy examples of the “slippery slope,” beginning something that seems to be right, that seems to be proper, that seems to, well, not really have any problems associated with it, but we can see that that’s not so.

The Rise of “Baptism” by Pouring and Sprinkling – Also Infant “Baptism.”

But here is another departure of the simplicity of the New Testament. This has to do with baptism and the rites associated with it. We know that, of course, baptism in the New Testament is very straightforward, very easily understood. In Romans 6, Paul characterizes what baptism is—the death, the burial and the resurrection. We can see that; it’s very simple; it’s very plain. We also understand who candidates for baptism are. We understand what a person must do. These things are very plain.

However, evidences begin to appear as early as the 2^nd Century that a departure can be seen from this simple, straightforward New Testament pattern for what one must do to be saved, and specifically, baptism. There was an early Christian writing, dated about AD 120 called theDidache, and it indicates that baptism by pouring water over the head of the candidate was acceptable in some cases of illness, although, if the person returned to health, they were expected to be immersed.

We also see, beginning about this same period of time, sprinkling began to be practiced, and by the end of this period, in the early 300’s, the early part of the 4^th Century, even the baptism of infants had its beginning, although many, many in the early days of this practice opposed it very strongly.

Changes in the Lord’s Supper

In similar fashion, a more involved ritual was also growing up about the Lord’s Supper. It was during this time that it came to be known as the Eucharist. That’s a familiar term that’s used in Catholic churches as well as some other denominations. It actually comes from the Greek Word which means “to give thanks.” And, once again, we know from reading the New Testament that we can see the pattern there; we can understand the purpose for the Lord’s Supper; we understand how it is to be observed; when it is to be observed, etc.

However, it was, again, during this period of time that the Lord’s Supper began to be looked at with…well, I’m reluctant to say…too much reverence and awe?—I’m not sure that’s possible—but it began to be looked at in the sense that it almost became a mystical thing among a number of people, so much so that a practice was begun where only those who were specially invited, only those who were able to specifically identify themselves as “Christians,” could participate. And so, special communion services—special Eucharist services—began to be conducted.

And then, another gradual departure along this particular line involved the fact that it became an accepted practice where only members of the “clergy,” as they were emerging from the “laity,” could preside over a communion service. Likewise, the members of the “clergy” were the only ones who could officiate at baptismal services.

And so, here again, we see these departures—departures from the simplicity of the New Testament pattern, which were beginning already in these early days.

Observance of Various Religious “Holy Days”

Well, it was also during this time that more and more attention seemed to be given to special days, days which came to be known as “Holy Days.” We get our word “holiday” from that. It was during this time that the observance of what we know as “Easter” became the most prominent of the “Holy Days.” And it would also be during this time, as well, that they moved from just having one special day to specially acknowledge and recognize the resurrection of the Lord, but they began to extend that period of time. And that would eventually grow into what would be known the “Lenten Season.” Again, this was not without controversy.

None of these practices, none of these departures, were without controversy. However, as we began to see during this period of time the rise of the power and the influence of “Bishops” having influence and authority over all, the simplicity of the Lord’s government of the church and the arrangement of the church—every congregation being autonomous, every congregation being independent one from another—did slow the progress of these departures. Where one congregation might develop a certain practice and begin doing certain things like we’ve discussed here, that would not necessarily, then, affect other congregations. However, with the rise and change in the organization of the church, we begin to see, then, that these practices begin to be observed, to be recognized, on a more widespread basis.

Well, this is the period in church history from the end of the 1^st Century into the first part of the 4^th Century. And we’ve noticed that in these lessons that we’ve had that during this time the church was under severe pressure—pressure from without, by way of persecution, but also pressure from within. And the church reacted to these pressures in some regard by elevating bishops [elders], making a distinction between a “bishop” and an elder. We know, again, that it was done to help to stave off some of the false teaching which went on early in the church. It was also done so that the “bishop” could be sort of a rallying point as Christians were being persecuted. What started out as “good intentions” had disastrous long-range effects.

We also see that during this period there was a definite canon of Scriptures, but also, a number of other departures like the forming of creedal statements, the observance of “holy days”, and the changes that began to be brought about in the plain and straightforward teaching in the New Testament about baptism, about the Lord’s Supper, etc.

Each of these actions had far-reaching results in the later history of the church. This fact should remind all Christians that actions have consequences. For this reason, every action taken should be viewed not only in terms of its immediate results, but in terms of long-range results as well.