A REVIEW
We began these studies with the church that Jesus built, the church that Jesus established—the apostolic church. And we have seen a decline, a degradation, of that pure apostolic church that we read about in the pages of the New Testament. We see a decline and a moving away from the New Testament teaching. Of course, this period of time won’t be any different. As a matter of fact, we will be looking at the continued development of the papacy. We had seen, during this last period of time that we examined, how that, from the eldership individual elders were elevated and became known as “bishops,” and then “bishops” began to exert their authority over more than one congregation. They began to meet together in “synods” and in “councils” and make decisions. And then we saw something develop that was called sort of a “patriarchal system,” where the “bishops” of major cities—cities like Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and so on—were eventually elevated to a position that was called “the patriarch.” And they exercised authority, then, over several areas, or several congregations in a region. Then we would see that the one who was the “patriarch of Rome” would really become preeminent, if you will, over these others.
INTRODUCTION
We begin this section of our study of church history at 590 AD, the date that Gregory I (often called “Gregory the Great”) became the “bishop” or “patriarch” of Rome. The nearly five hundred years that followed were difficult ones for “the church.” Through this period, “the church” faced numerous foes: barbarians and Mohammedans from without and corruption and power struggles from within. The amazing thing is not that the message and influence of the church [the church that Jesus built] were often perverted and even almost lost; the truly amazing fact is that the church [the church that Jesus built] survived in spite of all of these things.
THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
We see here in this study tonight that in the year 590 AD, one who is referred to as Gregory I, often called “Gregory the Great,” will be elevated to the position of “bishop” or “patriarch” of Rome. We see just a little bit about him, and I think that it may be useful for us to understand some things. He was born, history tells us, of wealth, of position, to a noble Roman family. He was born in a period of troubled times. However, he was destined for a career in either the legal area or governmental service. But, while he was still in his thirties, he would decide to give up his wealth and his position, and he would become, rather, a monk. And because of his devotion and some of the obvious talents that he displayed, he became very prominent in “the church.” And so, when the “bishop” of Rome died in 590, Gregory became his successor.
As we indicated before, historians are not exactly settled on who really was the first “official pope,” but Gregory, according to historians, exercised many of the prerogatives of a “pope.” Now, he did not, nor did any of his successors, actually take on the title of “pope,” but again, he exercised many of the prerogatives of that position that would eventually come about.
Gregory had a vital concern about missions. He was instrumental in sending people out into areas that had not heard of Christianity. He was also a capable administrator, and under his leadership, the affairs of the Roman “church” were handled quite profitably. Under his influence, also, the liturgy of worship was revised. And perhaps one of the best known… Well...I’m not sure I would call it a contribution, but that’s how it’s referred to by historians… One of his best known “contributions” was something that is called “The Gregorian Chant,” which came to prominence in the Roman Catholic worship service, and still has a place of prominence. I was interested to see if I could find some more information about this. I know just generally what it is, but I pulled up some information on the Internet. I typed in “Gregorian Chant,” and I got a few hundred thousand web sites where I could go to find out more. I decided I didn’t want to go that much.
Other strong popes or “bishops” would arise in this five-hundred year period that we are looking at. But none of them in this period were quite as influential in strengthening the position of the papacy as Gregory was.
Now, there was really something that took on more importance in strengthening this position—the position of the papacy—than the contributions which were made by these succeeding ones who would occupy the position. These are actually two documents. Both of these documents are considered somewhat spurious—questionable in nature—whether or not they are actually what they claimed to be, or they were something that was trumped up, something that was falsified [forgeries].
One of these was the Donation of Constantine. And it is purported [to profess or to claim as its meaning; to give the appearance, often falsely, of being, intending, etc.] in this first document that Constantine was healed of leprosy by the “bishop” of Rome. And you remember Constantine was the well-known Emperor of Rome in the 4th Century. Well, in gratitude, Constantine assigned to the “bishop” of Rome and his successors the city of Rome and the province of the West. Well, again, that has been called into question [as being a false document]. But, nevertheless, they became land barons in that way.
The second document (really a collection of documents), the Decretals of Isidore, asserted the popes’ supreme authority from Peter on (and of course, we’ve already spoken about the belief of the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first “pope” and we refuted that], but this document claimed that from Peter on, the popes’ authority was supreme, that the “archbishops” were to be subordinated to the pope, and regarded the “bishops” and the pope immune from secular control. [These Decretals of Isidore are known to be forgeries.]
Well, this was, I guess, what has been referred to—this period of time as well as succeeding periods of time we’re going to be looking at—as being an uncritical age. Of course, we’ll eventually get to Dark Ages, but this was an uncritical age, and thus, false documents were not seriously challenged, and as a result were used to reinforce the claims of the “popes.”
In the 10th and 11th Centuries, the papacy sank into depths of degradation, and therefore, lost much of its prestige and its authority. On occasion, during this period, the position was bought and sold, somewhat like political offices were. And, at times, there was more than one individual who claimed to be the pope. Now, the Roman Catholic Church denotes these rival claimants to be the “anti-popes.” Some of the popes during this period, history says, kept concubines and engaged in other gross immoralities. Yet, before this period closed—before the close of the 11th Century—there was a serious effort to reform the papacy, and this reform movement was so successful that in the latter part of the Middle Ages many of the popes were, without serious question, the most powerful individuals, the most powerful men, in the West.
THE CHURCH AND SECULAR RULERS OF THE WEST
We want to consider next is the “church” and its relationship with rulers, with secular governments, and that sort of thing. This is where we’re really going to cut the information fairly short. If you are up on your European history, then you will know some of this information.
The West, primarily the Roman Empire, was attacked by barbarians. It was weakened and it eventually disappeared. As the Roman roads fell into disrepair and travel became dangerous, Western Europe was broken up into numerous small states. Only gradually did some order begin to emerge out of this chaos.
During this time, there were other peoples, other powers, which came to pass, like the Franks, the Lombards—those aren’t family names; those are the names of powerful forces there in middle Europe in this period of time. But, there were a number of battles that were fought, territories that changed hands, and various power elements who came to pass. During this period of time, there was an effort on the part of the “leadership” of “the church,” as it was at that time, to cultivate various alliances so that they could curry the favor of whoever the ruling party, whoever the ruling power, was. And so, it came to pass that during this period of time that eventually something emerged from this that became known as “The Holy Roman Empire.”
Out of this chaos of competing kings and nobles arose a new ruling house, and these ones were called “the Frankonians,” and a new political entity, which was known as “the Holy Roman Empire.” Otto, who was Duke of Frankonia, was able to establish his authority over much of the territory of central and eastern portions of what had been Charlemagne’s Empire. Eventually, this control was extended to Italy, where in 962, he was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire, then, tied the church and secular authority even more closely together. And thus, the concerns of the Empire became the concerns of “the church,” and vice versa. This arrangement later led to a long series of struggles between emperors and the popes for ultimate supremacy. And we will see some of this in our studies to come.
THE RISE OF MOHAMMEDANISM
There is another major event which takes place during this particular time, and that is the rise of Mohammedanism. There was certainly a great deal of ebb and flow of the political tide, of various battles and wars which were won and lost, and territories which changed hands. While much of this was going on, there was something that was going on in the Arabian Desert. It was something that went largely unnoticed until it was probably too late.
One named Mohammed was born about AD 570, and he was born, apparently, of humble origin. For a number of years he worked for an uncle as a camel driver. Because of his travels, this brought him in contact with both Jews and those who claimed “Christianity.” In these contacts that he made with these Jews and “Christians,” he noticed that their faiths were so much different from the idolatrous paganism that he and his people practiced.
Eventually, Mohammed married a wealthy widow. With this acquired wealth and status, it gave him time to meditate, to reflect, on things that he had seen, things that he had witnessed, and he began to have what historians refer to, what he referred to, as “visions.” He believed that these “visions” were a revelation from God. Among other things that these “visions” told him, or instructed him concerning, was to oppose idolatry—the idolatry that was so prevalent in this region—specifically in Mecca. Now, he would receive a great deal of opposition for this stance that he took, and so in 622, he had to flee Mecca, and he found refuge in a place called Medina.
Mohammed called his religion “Islam,” meaning “surrender,” that is, obviously, to surrender to the will of God, whom he called “Allah.” The sacred book of Islam was and is called the “Koran.”
Well, that is the beginning of this movement, of this religion—a very militant and aggressive religion. Islam enjoyed an amazing growth. Its Arabic devotees became driven by religious fanaticism, but they were also motivated by a desire for wealth, for prosperity and for land. So, they began to move, they began to expand, they began to organize themselves, and so we see that in a fairly rapid period of time, and in fairly rapid succession, many of the major cities, major areas, of both central and eastern Europe would be overtaken by the Arabs. Damascus fell in 635; Jerusalem fell in 638; Egypt fell in 642. In the following century, after the death of Mohammed (632 – 732), Islam had swept across North Africa, and Spain, and far into France. We can see what an effect, and how quickly the effect of, this religion was.
One of the characteristics of Islam was that it was quite intolerant of “Christianity.” You know, we spent a good bit of time talking about the persecution of the early Christians. For several centuries, the Christians enjoyed—beginning with Constantine and following thereafter—a period of peace and prosperity without the persecutions. In fact, we pointed out last week [Lesson 5] that as “Christianity” became the favored religion and the official religion of the Roman Empire, some “Christians” began to persecute the pagans. Those who had been the persecuted had become the persecutors. Well, we see here that the tables have once again been turned—that the Arabs, that those practicing Islam, were not tolerant at all of “Christianity.” And as these regions began to fall, “Christians” were given two choices. They were either given the choice of the Koran or the sword. Well, under such pressures, many of those who professed to “Christianity” as their belief, as their faith, gave in—were converted, in effect, to Islam. Many took the sword. There are many examples of those who were martyred during this period as well. But, there were many more who sought ways to escape, to flee, or to practice their faith secretly.
During this period, Bibles were destroyed, “Christian” schools were closed, church buildings were converted into mosques, and so on. However, as time went on, the Arabs became fairly apt students of the culture. They came to realize that there was something to be gained, perhaps, by not taking such a strong stand against “Christianity,” so it eventually developed that there was a third choice that “Christians” were given: One was still the Koran; one was still the sword; the third was tribute. If you pay, you can practice your religion. And so, many “Christians” were able to keep and to practice their faith by paying tribute. But they were reduced to second-class citizens, and the “church” in these areas was permanently crippled.
Of course, it’s during these kinds of periods of time when we really don’t have the history, we really don’t have the information, to know just exactly who all of these ones are. Perhaps, some of those ones who were put to the sword by the Mohammedans were those who were off in apostasy, but they were firm in their belief of what they were practicing. They had, perhaps, strayed far away from New Testament doctrine and pattern of things, but they were put to the sword, nonetheless. There may have been those, as well, who were doing their very best to follow New Testament Christianity—trying to abide by the apostles’ doctrine—faithful brethren, if you will, and they, too, were put to the sword. It’s doubtful that the Mohammedans were too interested, necessarily, in “What ‘brand,’ what ‘flavor,’ of Christianity are you?” Simply, “Here’s your choice, the Koran or the Bible; Islam or Christianity?” And they made no differentiation between those in apostasy and those who followed New Testament Christianity.
[Note: At this point, some questions arose about this study of the History of the Church. Some points needed to be clarified, and John interrupted this lesson to do so. You will find these clarifications in Lesson 6 – Part 2, dated August 11, 2004. He then continued this lesson, Lesson 6 – Part 1, on August 18, 2004, with The Great Schism as seen below.]
THE GREAT SCHISM
By this time, the period of time is 1054. You can see that great turn on “The Path to Apostasy” in Lesson 6A. This is where the division comes between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, or Greek Orthodox, Church. We have been considering some external things, which have affected these ones, but this is a strife which occurs internally.
There were many theological differences that would end up causing this division, but it was not only theological differences. It was also political and cultural differences, as well. We’re talking about the political and cultural differences East to West.
Those in the East—the Mediterranean, the Mid-East to some degree—but those in the East had the Greek language, and they had a very much different culture and way of thinking than those who were in the West—those in Western- and Mid-Europe. The Grecian mind was very much oriented toward philosophy, and very much capable of shading various things. In other words, it wasn’t so much black and white; it was various shades of gray, perhaps. The West, on the other hand, their culture was very much different. They had the practical mind—the Roman way—of looking at life. And they were very much a black and white look at life itself and of theology.
Well, these differing outlooks on life, and the growing political and cultural isolation that these two groups had, one from another, eventually would cause this schism to take place. That would eventually lead to this divide between what was then the Roman Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church [also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church].
This break wasn’t a sudden break. It was something that gradually took place over a lengthy period of time—in fact, a couple of hundred years. But, over the years many differences arose. Many of them were rather minor in nature, but they had a cumulative effect. For example, just a few of the differences that I thought were interesting: Marriage was forbidden by this time to clergymen in the West, while in the East, clergymen below the rank of “bishop” could marry; priests in the West were shaved, while those in the East grew beards; the Western version of the Nicene Creed had the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son—the East disagreed. And there was also a difference in the way they viewed icons, or images. The East rigidly forbade images, and they, rather, were more interested not in images—they considered them to be pagan in nature—but in pictures and reliefs, while the West by this time had grown quite fond of various statues and various types of graven images. So, the traditional date for this break is 1054 AD.
MISSIONS
During this period of time, as well, there was a great bit of activity in the area of what was referred to as “missions.” There were those who were being sent out purposely by the Roman Catholic Church to spread the Catholic doctrine into other areas. There were some who went out on their own. But nevertheless, we see during this period of time that a number of those who were categorized, classified, as “missionaries” crossed the English Channel into Britain. We see the rise in interest in contact among the Scandinavian people, and among the Russians in places like Poland. We also see, interestingly enough, missionaries in Spain. Spain had been overrun by the Arabs in the 7th Century, but it would be in the latter part of this period—the latter part of this period of the early Middle Ages—when Mohammedanism would slowly begin to recede as more and more missionaries came in professing a form of Christianity.
DOCTRINE, LIFE AND WORSHIP
This is maybe instructive for us, or at least interesting for us, to see where and when, and perhaps how to some extent, some of the religious practices that endure even to this day had their beginnings. One of the practices that we see rise during this time in the Catholic Church is the doctrine of transubstantiation. Now, probably most of us know that the doctrine of transubstantiation has to do with the Lord’s Supper. It became the belief in the Roman Catholic Church that the bread and the wine (the fruit of the vine, as we call it) would literally and actually become—no, not just a representation of the body and blood of the Lord—but would become the literal body and blood of the Lord during their procedural practice. And of course, we know that that belief continues to this time to be the practice of the Roman Catholic Church, and it had its origin here these many years ago.
We spoke about one of the differences between the East and the West, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, being the idea of images. Well, it would be during this period of time that we would see the rise in the use and the affection, if you will, of images in the West—in the Roman Catholic Church. But in the Eastern Church, they would resist this. And you may have heard this word, the iconoclastic controversy. Well, an iconoclast means “an image breaker,” and it was during this period of time that there were a number of attempts to keep out images—statues and the like—that we see that are so prevalent today. And in the Eastern Orthodox Church, by the way, you will not find the kind of images, statues, and the like, and that continues to this day in the Roman Catholic Church. But what you will find are more pictures and low reliefs [the projection of sculptured forms from a flat surface]. And that practice has its origin back these many years ago.
Well, there was another aspect that became prevalent during this time, and that was that there were many pagans who were, if you will, “converted,” converted to Catholicism. And when they came into the Catholic Church, many of them brought their superstitions and much of their pagan religion along with them. And, too often, it seemed, that the worship of pagan gods was transferred over to the worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and to those that they refer to as “saints.” It was during this period of time that something called “the cult of Mary” had its origin and grew rapidly in popularity.
Also, during this time there were a number of new festivals which were added. A penance system developed during this time, as well. That is a practice that continues even today in the Catholic Church, where for one’s sins, you perform a certain “penance” to have that sin forgiven. The “penance” is usually prescribed by a “priest.”
And so, we see these things which are familiar to us, not because we practice them, but because we have friends and neighbors who do, and we have heard about these things.
There was something else that grew in popularity during this time. It was the growth of monasticism. It was during this period on the Middle Ages—the early part to the mid part of the Middle Ages—when individuals found it “fashionable”, I guess—I don’t know whether that’s the right word, or not—but people would go off into some isolated area—walk into the mountains; walk into the desert—and live in isolation. And they would sometimes go off individually, or go off in groups. And it was during this period of time that hundreds of monasteries and nunneries would be established and spring up all over the continent of Europe and elsewhere.
This is the period of time, then, that is known as the Early Middle Ages, from about 590 (the end of the 6th Century) to 1054 AD. The next section of time that we want to look at is the period of time known as the Latter Middle Ages. We’ll be looking at the period from 1054 to about the middle part of the 16th Century—so, from the middle part of the 11th Century to the middle part of the 16th Century. It’s during this period of time that we’re going to see, perhaps, even more things that will be familiar to us in the way of the beginning of various practices. For example, we mentioned that during the latter period, we saw the rise of the papacy, and then the decline of the papacy, and then they were going to “clean things up” and bring some respect back to that particular office. And it will be during this period of time that we’re going to look at next [see Lesson 7] where we see the real power struggle that will come about and be played out over a period of a number of years between the pope and the emperor as well as the kings of other countries, like France and England, and so on. That’s how far the influence and the power of the pope will be seen. We’ll also be looking at the crusades, which took place during this time. And so, there will be a number of things that I know will be interesting to you that we will be looking at in our next Lesson [Lesson 7].
Some Questions Answered
We are in a study of the church, looking at the history of the church. There were some questions asked last week [Lesson 6 – Part 1], and we were looking at the period of history about from the 6th Century AD to about the mid-part of the 11th Century AD—looking at some of the events contained therein. We will continue these studies next week, but first let’s clarify some points—answer some questions, and then try to make clear the path of the New Testament church in history as shown in these Lessons.
There were some questions that were asked at that time, and I didn’t have any answers. And I told you that I would research those questions, and that I would give you some answers. Before we get started, I wanted to answer those questions.
One of three questions that I remembered from last week had to do with the meaning of the world “pope.” We were talking about the term, the position, and so on, and one asked the question about the meaning of the word. Some of us speculated that it did have something to do with “father,” and indeed, it is from the Latin, which means “father.” The Old English in this particular reference that I looked up had the word “papa,” and I thought that was sort of interesting. As a matter of fact, some other languages—like the Spanish language—have a word which is very similar to our word “papa.” So, the meaning of this word “pope” is indeed “father.”
Now, another question that was asked in this regard had to do with when the title of “pope” was actually officially adopted and when it was begun to be used. It seems, at least from what I was able to find about that particular question, that there is some confusion about that, just as there seems to be confusion about who was to be credited with being the first pope. You know, we have mentioned that a couple times as we have been looking over this material. Some say it was Leo; some say it was Gregory I. But according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was Gregory I who was the pope, who was the “bishop of Rome” during the period about AD 590 to AD 604—who was first to adopt this title—this title of “pope.” You recall that initially there was the title of “patriarch,” and then the title “bishop of Rome,” and then eventually this title of “pope” came into being. However, I read from another source that Gregory eschewed this title—it was a title that he did not want to use. So, there is a bit of a conflict there. It does seem clear, however, that it was Boniface III who took the title for himself—actually bestowed the title on himself, if my understanding is correct, of “Universal Bishop of the Catholic Church,” and that took place in AD 606. He, thus, became recognized as the first head of the Catholic Church. Now, there were others, however, in this same period of time, who also used this title. Remember the word, the name, means “father,” and so there were some who were wearing this title as it had to do with their limited position—perhaps the “pope,” or the “father,” if you will, of a diocese or a region, or something of that nature. However, it would be Gregory VII, in the 11th Century, who would declare that the title “pope” be worn only by the “bishop of Rome,” or, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, “by the successors of Peter.”
The third question that I recall being asked was, when we were talking about the rise of the religion of Islam, of Mohammed, and the very rapid spread—we talked about some of the major cities that were taken over by these ones, one of those cities being Jerusalem. And the question was asked, who was in Jerusalem at this time—in this period of time? And this took place in the 7th Century AD. Well, according to Muslim tradition, Omar, the first Caliph after Mohammed, accepted the surrender of Jerusalem from the Byzantines. The Byzantine Empire is the following empire from the Roman Empire.
Clarification of these Studies
There was a question, or a point, that was brought up last time that had to do with what are really talking about here as we talk about and use the terminology “church.” What is it that we are actually referring to? It’s a good question and one that I want to make sure that we are clear on, because I sense that we haven’t been clear and have, perhaps, even been somewhat misleading in using this general terminology.
We’ve been talking about the history of the church, and we’ve been just using that word “church”, and it is misleading from the standpoint of what are we talking about, because as we have been going along, we have also been talking about some of the things that have happened along the way. And clearly, what had happened along the way (as noted in a number of the discussions that we have had) are things that have really been characterizing the apostasy of the church. And so, what I want for us to do is to really define what we are attempting to do, and we’ll go back a little bit and talk about where we started, and we’ll talk about where we’re going to go, so that we are clear on what we are doing, we’re clear on the terminology, and so on. It certainly would not be a good thing for us to be misleading in this matter for you who are here on a regular basis and certainly for anyone who might be visiting with us. And we certainly wouldn’t want to leave the impression with anyone that, when we are talking about some of these activities—the rise of the papacy and that kind of thing—that we are talking about the Lord’s church.
[John had a handout titled, “History of the Church,” showing the establishment of the Lord’s church in AD 33, and then showing the “Path to Apostasy.” Listed below are points that appeared on that handout:
John will refer to this information from time to time in this Lesson and in future Lessons.]
Well, as you know, we started these Lessons by looking at Jesus’ promise to build His church, Matthew 16, verse 18: “…thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church….” Of course, that is the confession of Peter. It is not an indication, as those who practice and follow the Catholic teaching, the Catholic doctrine, that Peter was the first pope. No, not at all. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence at all of Peter ever being in the city of Rome, and certainly Jesus’ statement there in Matthew 16:18 is not a confirmation of Peter taking that position.
But we also even went back a little bit further, as we started this study [this series of Lessons]. We went back and looked at the church in prophecy [Lesson 1 – The Church in Prophecy]. And we established the fact that the church was not something that was a secondary plan—some kind of an “emergency plan” that God had to come up with when the Jews rejected His Son and crucified Him. No, this church, this kingdom, this earthly kingdom, was prophesied in times past.
And so, Jesus makes the promise that He will establish His church. And then on AD 33, recorded for us in the 2nd chapter of Acts, we see that promise come to pass. And this, of course, fulfilled all of the prophecy that had to do with the coming of, with the establishing of, the church—that it would be established in Jerusalem; that the Holy Spirit would come upon these ones with powers, and so on—all of these things prophesied fulfilled.
Now, as we saw the establishing of the church, we looked at the New Testament record that goes along from Acts, chapter 2 and through the book of Acts, and through the epistles, all the way through the book of Revelation. And so, what we have is a period of approximately 70 years—70 years from the time of the establishing of the church until the end of the period of revelation, not just the book of Revelation itself, but God’s revelation to man.
And so, we looked along the way at the church there as it was established in the 1st Century and as it developed, as it grew, as it spread, and we saw there that all of the things that had been prophesied concerning all of the promises that had been made regarding the church indeed came to pass.
But, when that period of revelation came to an end, about AD 95 or 96, depending on the date of the writing of the book of Revelation, then the light, in effect, goes out from the standpoint of divine revelation. Well, what happens to the church from that point onward? From roughly the end of the 1st Century, what happens to the church onward?
Well, for that, we must rely upon history—secular history, the writings of a number of ones who are referred to as “the church fathers,” reliable historians, like Josephus, Eusebius and others. And that is the information, or some of the information, at least, that we have been relying on as we have been going along thus far in our study.
Now, I want for us to notice a couple of key passages, or actually several key passages of Scripture, which I think are important. [These Scriptures are listed above.]
The first one, of course, Matthew 16:18, we have already referenced. There is, of course, the section in Acts, chapter 2, where we see the church established. But then, turn over to 1 Timothy, chapter 4, and let’s look at a section of Scripture there in Paul’s letter to the young evangelist, Timothy. 1 Timothy, chapter 4 and beginning with verse 1. Paul writes and says, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the Truth” [1 Timothy 4:1-3]. Well, what’s Paul’s message here to Timothy? Obviously, it is, first of all, a warning, but it is also a prophecy, a prediction, if you will, that there will be those who will “depart from the faith”—they will leave the faith, they will leave the Truth of God’s Word, they will leave the apostolic doctrine that is still in the process of being recorded even as Paul writes this to Timothy. But, he says, people…will…depart—they will leave, AND…AND you notice there in verse 3…whether Paul or the Holy Spirit, perhaps, had specifically in mind some later doctrines that would be developed and practiced by the Catholic church. Well, I think that is what Paul had in mind through his inspiration by the Holy Spirit. But we notice there that Paul said that there would be those who would be forbidding some to enter into marriage; there would be those who would be forbidding people to eat certain foods, and so on. Well, we know that that is a part of the Catholic doctrine.
The next Scripture I want for us to notice is 2 Timothy 4, verses 3 and 4. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the Truth, and be turned aside to fables.” This is another warning, another prediction, another prophecy, about what is going to happen and the direction that some people are going to go in leaving the apostles’ doctrine, the apostles’ teaching.
Let’s notice also, in this vein, a warning from Jesus Himself—Matthew, chapter 7, and verse 15. We see Jesus here saying, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”
And then, over in Galatians, chapter 1 and verse 7, we see that Paul is going to say something that is quite similar to what the Lord has said here. Paul says, “…but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ.” Well, who’s he talking about here? Certainly he’s talking about those who would be Judaizing teachers, those who dogged his every step in his ministry. But, I believe he’s also looking forward here, as well, that in times to come there is going to be a continuing parade of those who will pervertthe Gospel. They are “false prophets,” as Jesus said. They will leave the teaching, the Truth of God’s Word, and teach other things.
And then, finally here, as one of these key Scriptures, we notice Acts, chapter 20, and look at verses 28 through 30. Of course, this is the occasion when Paul is meeting with the elders of the church in Ephesus at a place called Miletus, and this is part of Paul’s discussion with them. Verses 28-30 say, “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His Own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.” Paul says that savage wolves were going to come into the church, into the flock. The word image here that he has is, of course, the flock being a flock of sheep, representative of the church. Jesus, of course, is our “Chief Shepherd” [1 Peter 5:4]. We are part of His flock. And what was one of the greatest things that a shepherd feared. It was a wild animal, who would come in and wreak havoc upon the flock, and Paul is predicting and saying, “There are going to be ravenous wolves that are going to come in, and they are going to attempt to destroy the flock.” And then, moreover, there in verse 30, Paul warns and predicts that “from among yourselves [the elders of the Lord’s church] men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.”
Well, there are many other Scriptures that we could, no doubt, look to that would be “Key” in any discussion that we would have like this, but I think that these Scriptures set the stage for us about what is to be expected, about what is going to come to pass. Now, we know that, for example, in the period of time from the establishing of the church in AD 33 until the end of the 1st Century, or close to the end of the 1st Century, there were already problems, that there were already things that were going on. All we need do is to read the epistles of Paul, as he writes to the church in Corinth, as he writes to the churches [congregations of the Lord’s church] in the region of Galatia, and so on. There were already issues, already problems, going on. Some of those Judaizing teachers were coming in, and they were perverting the Gospel already.
But then, when the light grows dim, when the light of divine revelation grows dim at the end of the 1st Century, and we begin noticing and looking at history as our source of information, we see that in history…. And by the way, just a quick explanation, we see the church established in AD 33, and we see the church continuing on over time, even to this day. But we see, then, that another “track” is on-going, so to speak, which is “the path to apostasy,” and this is where we have spent some time over the past several weeks in our study [AD 150 – AD 606], noticing some of these things that have happened, some of these things that have gone on. We’ve only characterized here [on the handout—information seen above] just a very few of the things that we have talked about.
But beginning in about AD 150—and this only a little over a hundred years from the establishing of the church; this is only about fifty years from the end of the apostolic age—we saw that there were already changes underway in the church government [see handout]. We see that as Paul warned those elders in Ephesus that, from among themselves there would rise up those who would draw people away…well, where did we see the first apostasy coming from what we have noticed? Well, it had to do with the elevation of one elder over the other elders [and the “elevated one” came to be titled “bishop” as separate from “elder”]. And we saw where that led. We saw that that really was the beginning of what would become the papacy, patterned very much like the civil government in Rome, with several layers leading up to an emperor on the civil side, and to a pope, or the “chief patriarch”, on the other side.
We saw that, in the 4th Century, they began to adopt various creeds, and one of the most well-known creeds is known as the “Nicene Creed,” which came out of a meeting, out of a conference, where a group of “bishops” came together in Nicene to discuss problems that were universal problems within the church, and from that, they would develop this creed. From that point on, then, creeds became not just fashionable, but they became required statements of faith. And if you were unwilling to make that “statement of faith,” then you were considered to be a heretic.
Well, we see also—and we mentioned this just a moment ago—that around AD 606, Boniface III made the declaration that we talked about [it was Boniface III who took the title for himself—actually bestowed the title on himself—of “Universal Bishop of the Catholic Church”].
So, in effect, we are looking here, and have been looking here, at the path to apostasy, and it began almost immediately after the church was established, and it continues along this path away from (and we’re characterizing it as being “away from”) the Lord’s church, the true church.
Now, here’s the problem that we have with the terminology, and this is where we’ve not been clear enough to make sure that we are understanding exactly what we are talking about and what we are referring to. We’re probably oversimplifying it to say that we have two tracks going on—there really may have been many tracks, in a sense, but for the sake of being able to illustrate this, I’m trying to explain just two tracks. We saw these things that are going on (changes in government, creeds, the papacy, etc.), and one of the characteristics—at least in the early part of these things that led to the changes in church government (that is, changes that were changed from the apostolic doctrine, the teachings of the New Testament—the adoption of creeds, etc.) of these changes was that many of these things were done as a matter of something that appeared to be needed, something that was “good.”
You recall that the elevation of one elder over the other elders, the elevated ones being titled “bishop,” and how the ones who held this title of “bishop”—one from this congregation and that congregation and another congregation, etc.—began to meet together. And history tells us that their primary purpose in those initial meetings of these “bishops” was to talk about the persecution that was going on, and to try to do things to help the brethren to avoid and overcome persecution. Also, some of the initial meetings of these “bishops,” like the one at Nicene there in AD 325, were actually called by the Emperors, and “leaders” of the “church” attended that. And the reason that the Nicene meeting was called was because the Emperor was concerned that the “church” (again, in quotes—generally speaking, those who claimed Christianity)—“leaders” of the “church” were fighting among themselves over several different doctrinal matters, and Constantine was afraid that the “church” was going to fly apart. And so, he urged them to come together—the leaders, these ones who were in apostasy. But, the point is that, what led to these things that would become what we know they did become through history, and what they even continue to be today, in many instances were done for, shall we say, “good reasons”—shall we say, “out of expedience,” “out of need,” and so on. Now, that does not JUSTIFY what was done, because we can look back and see the results of it.
But, one of the things that we notice here is that the history—what we have in the way of history—is largely what is contained in this “Path to Apostasy” [see “Path to Apostasy” above]. From the end of the apostolic age, as I said, the light of revelation went out at the end of the 1st Century. We really have very little in the way of the HISTORY of the Lord’s church. We’ve discussed this. I know that most of you, like me, believe that the Lord’s church—from its establishment in AD 33 until this very day—has always been. But we have very little in the way of the history of it. Why? Well, we don’t know exactly, but none of the least of reasons would be, perhaps, because of the persecution that they underwent—first, persecution by the Jews; then persecution by the Romans. The Lord’s true church went underground in many places. They met in secret. They didn’t advertise their meetings. They didn’t have a building with a sign out front, you know, which would have been an open invitation, you see, to “Come get us here!” And so, we don’t know a lot about what the Lord’s church was doing through this period.
But, here is something that we do know: You know, as we talked about, for example, the persecution that these people suffered, especially up into the 4th Century under Rome, and we talked about the severity of that; we talked about how that the Roman government gave the people, in effect, a choice—either choose the Emperor or choose Jesus; if you choose Jesus, “Off with your head. We’re going to run you through with the sword”. There were many who chose the “off with you head” part, or the “we’re going to run you through with the sword” part.
Now, were some of them, perhaps, on this path to apostasy? No doubt. Were some of them on the path of the Lord’s true church? No doubt. And so, when we talk about “Christians” being persecuted in the 2nd Century, the 3rd Century, the 4th Century, and so on, who are we TALKING about? Well, again, the record is not clear, but besides the multitude on the path to apostasy, surely we are talking about brethren—those who were doing everything that they could to remain faithful, to genuinely follow the New Testament precepts for the government of the church, the organization of the church, the worship of the church, practicing baptism for the remission of sins—ALL of those things.
Last week, we talked about the rise of Islam—about the followers of Mohammed. We mentioned the fact that, once again, “Christians” found themselves at the point of the sword, because with this rapid rise of the followers of Mohammed and their move into areas where people accepted Christ, where people were attempting to follow Christ, there were people who, once again, were no doubt on this track—the Path to Apostasy. But there were also, no doubt, people in that 6th and 7th Century who were given the choice, “either the sword or,” this time, “the Koran” who were true Christians, genuinely following the New Testament pattern. And so, we see, then, that this is just a very broad, a very general characterization of where we have been going, and what we have been trying to cover.
Now, about where we stopped last week, one of things that we are going to talk about when we get back to Lesson 6 [on August 18, 2004] is going to be that very major schism that took place. Now clearly…clearly, we are talking here about what would develop into the Roman Catholic Church. When did that happen? Well, we can’t put a finger on a calendar and say it was “this date.” What we’re looking at here is, of course, the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and then that major break that is characterized as “the great schism,” one that was quite profound, at least on the part of those who were “claiming” to follow Christ.
[A comment is made] that those who were attempting to follow the apostles doctrine were, in fact, labeled as “heretics.” [John says,] As I mentioned a moment ago, if you wouldn’t adopt, if you wouldn’t state a creed, then you were labeled as a heretic. But again, history about that is so sketchy that we see very vague references to that.
I want to give you an idea of where we are going in these studies in future lessons. We will see a major split resulting in what is referred to either as the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. And then, in about the 16th Century, we’re going to look at something that’s called “The Reform” [the “reformation” of the Catholic church]. We’re going to see the activities of Martin Luther, of John Wesley, of John Calvin and others, and we’re going to see, then, that out of this “reformation” of the Catholic church come these various denominations.
After we have waded through some of this history—we’re not going to get bogged down in a lot of details; we’re not going to spend a lot of time looking at the Crusades and this kind of thing—we will identify some of the characters of the Reform to see where these denominations had their beginning, because I think that is useful to us.
But we want to arrive at the RESTORATION. I indicated the date of AD1809 [on the handout—see information near the beginning of this lesson]. There could be several dates there. I just selected that date—that was the date that Thomas Campbell gave his declaration and address. We could have put 1801 when Barton W. Stone preached at Cambridge, Kentucky. There are a number of dates that could be indicated.
We just wanted to show that in the latter part of the 18th Century and the early part of the 19th Century, there is going to be some activity which we are going to see—some independent activity initially, not just from this continent, but in Britain and some other places as well. What that is going to be about is not to reform the Catholic church, but rather, to RESTORE THE LORD’S CHURCH.
Now, we are not going to suggest that the Lord’s church died somewhere on the “path to apostasy,” and that it was only after 1809, then, that the Lord’s church was restored. No, not at all--we are not implying that, nor will we imply that. As I said before, the Lord’s church has gone on from AD 33 continuously. But what we will see, though, are going to be the efforts of some individuals, like Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, “Raccoon” John Smith, and others, who are well-known in the Restoration Movement, as it is referred to, to call people out of denominationalism and call them back TO the apostles’ doctrine—call them back TO the New Testament church. And so, we want to eventually, in a few weeks, arrive at the Restoration Movement and look in some level of detail at this Movement and see where that began, and see where it went.
We might look at this study that we’re engaged in and say, “Well, what’s the purpose? Why are we doing this? Why are we going to this trouble and into this level of detail that we are? I’d like to submit to you that there are 3 reasons, at least 3 reasons that I have in mind.
THREE REASONS WHY WE ARE ENGAGED IN THIS STUDY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
THE 1ST REASON:
To impress upon us that the warnings, the prophecies, in a sense, which were made in the New Testament about what would eventually happen to the church indeed came to pass. We reviewed some of those earlier in this lesson. Jesus, of course, had promised to build His church, Matthew 16, and verse 18, but He had also warned that we should beware of false teachers, that there would be those who would come—wolves in sheep’s clothing—and the would have the express purpose in mind of leading people away—leading people away from the Truth, the Truth of the Gospel.
And we also saw that Paul, in his epistle to Timothy, as well as in his churches to Galatia, would also warn that individuals would depart from the faith—they would leave the Truth. He also said that there would be those who would pervert the Gospel. He would also say that there would come a time when men would not endure sound doctrine, but they would seek out—and he expressed it in this sense—that they would have “itching ears,” looking for someone, in effect, to soothe that “itching ear,” but not an itching ear for the Truth, but rather, an itching ear for something that was, perhaps, more palatable. And indeed, that is exactly what we have seen happen, that down through the years, down through the ages, and beginning, really, not long after the apostolic period had ended, not long after the end of the 1st Century—that indeed, all of these things would come to pass.
We also noticed Paul’s warning that he gave to the elders of the church in Ephesus, Acts, chapter 20, stating that from their own ranks—in other words, from the ranks of elders themselves—would come who would arise and lead people into apostasy. And, once again, we see that those things came to pass.
So, that’s the 1st reason for us to engage in a study like this.
THE 2ND REASON:
The 2nd reason, I think, is, perhaps, more one of interest, maybe one of curiosity, to see how some of the things that we see in our world continuing today—the literally hundreds and hundreds of denominations that we see about us, the very large groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, some like these—developed. Where did they come from? What is their origin? What were the circumstances behind their coming into being?
Well, a look, a study, like we are having here is giving us that information. And, as I have mentioned on more than occasion, we’re really just “scratching the surface” here about much of this information. There is really a great deal more information that would look at, but for the sake of time—and also, not to get bogged down—we’re just kind of scratching the surface just to give us some background, just to give us some reference, about where these bodies, where these groups, have come from.
And I think that, also, can be helpful to us as we engage in discussion with those in these various denominations. If we know some things about where a denomination has come from—what its origin was, what some of the background and history is—I think it can be useful to us as we engage people in conversation in an attempt to persuade people that there, indeed, is one church, the church.
THE 3RD REASON:
As the well-worn, but, nonetheless, very appropriate cliché says, “Those who don’t pay attention to history are subject to repeat it.” And indeed, the church in every age must remain vigilant—constantly vigilant, because the church is under attack. It’s under attack from without; it’s attack from within. And so, by being familiar with some of the history, and seeing what has happened over the past, well, two-thousand years, I think, will serve us well by being aware that, indeed, we cannot “rest on our laurels”; we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security that these things, which happened long ago, can never happen again, because indeed, even as we speak, there are those who are attacking the Lord’s body, the Lord’s church. There are those who would lead the body of Christ into denominationalism. And so, by being aware of what has happened in the past, we may see the attacks and not repeat the errors, the perversions. And each one of us—of course, we look to our elders primarily to keep us, to guard us, and indeed, they do—but each one of us have a responsibility to be aware of past history.
That is my purpose for presenting this series, and I know from the feedback that I have been getting from quite a number of you that you are enjoying the series. And we want to continue on. As we continue on, it will become more and more apparent to us, when we are looking at what has happened to the church, that we are, indeed, not talking about the body of Christ—that we are not talking about the Lord’s people. But as time goes on, it becomes more and more apparent that we are, first of all, talking about what would become the Roman Catholic Church, and eventually the Easter Orthodox, or the Greek Orthodox, Church. And then as the denominational groups begin to spring up, we’ll be talking specifically about them. So, there should not be any confusion about our references there.