The Winners Write the History but Thy Word is Truth
If you note the wide variety of commentary from a diverse spectrum of opinions based on numerous philosophical slants, you will feel the vexation of trying to ‘find the truth’ in the forest of facts of today's political landscape. One need only examine the reporting on the “Jan.6th event” to see the run of the gamut regarding contradictory interpretations of what really happened. Different videos were shown, selected eyewitness accounts reported, injuries and deaths touted as evidence of various perspectives. Not to mention details that are not known which would dramatically alter an understanding of the events, such as whether and to what degree FBI or other government agents/informants were plants intended to direct the crowds and the media for propaganda or psyops.
Historiography
Now imagine someone trying to understand this event in this political climate in 17 or 1800 years from now. Furthermore, imagine that whoever gains political power intimidates, alters and destroys as much as possible the evidence in their favor. As historians must do, they will sift through and report facts by deciding which are relevant to prove their theory on what happened. They must decide what ideas drove what events, who influenced whom, which events are connected and what significance these events represented. They will also have to confront the lack of surviving evidence and deal with silences of history (Archival silences) as well as forgeries. Ultimately, they will appeal to what the probabilities of each event are. Accounting that the same complexities of human interaction and randomness existed in the early centuries of the church that we see today.
As layman who hold no degrees in the field, we must choose which historians to trust but hold an epistemology rooted in scripture, because of the impossibility of doing otherwise. Behind all historical reasoning is philosophy- such as uniformities in nature, causation, that objective laws of logic we use today apply in the past, personal identity over time, that people are today as they were in the past, etc. Every historical discussion of the importance and meaning of historical facts must eventually drill down to a foundation of abstract principles; and these principles must be made intelligible by your worldview. Ultimately history is subordinate to philosophy, and in our case bible philosophy.
We immediately recognize that “the bible” (canonicity digression) is self-authenticating and historical records are not. The bible provides us with the philosophical justification for epistemology and so it is foundational. The bible has a footprint in history, but it transcends history. Therefore, it will be pointless to argue ‘the historical church gave us the bible’ as anything relevant to meaningful authority since you must presuppose the truth in scripture from the beginning of your epistemology before you evaluate the history of the bible. The truth of scripture involves apodictic certainty, whereas historical documentation involves degrees of probability. How the book came to arrive in my hand would necessarily be secondary, and scripture must guide any evaluation of each step in history. For example, it is necessarily of secondary importance what church father was a disciple of which apostle, since there were heretics that arose simultaneously with the apostles themselves in the churches they established. (Ac.20:20-31, Gal.1:6-9, 1 Cor.11:18-9, 2 Cor.2:17,11:3-4, 12-15, Phil.3:2, 1 Tim.1:20, 5:15, 2 Tim.1:15, 2:17-8, 4:10, Tit.1:9-13, 3:10, 2 Pet.3:15-6, 1 Jn.2:18-9, 4:1-6, 2 Jn.1:9-11, 3 Jn.1:9-11, Jd.1:3-4, Rev.2-3) Paul commended the Bereans for searching his own claims with scripture without accepting them based on his person or authority. Just like he instructed the Galatian believers to do. (Ac.17:10-1, Gal.1:8) And just as he did regarding Peter’s dissimulation. (Gal.2:11-21) If you are circumspect, you see that at this point our Eastern Orthodox & Catholic friends’ ‘3-legged stool’ of tradition, scripture, and magisterium must be removed by the impossibility of the contrary. Sola Scriptura is a philosophical necessity.
When we encounter the field of New Testament (NT) studies, we see that there are Christian and secularists in effect competing for the validation or invalidation of the New Testaments ultimate veracity. As Presuppositionalists we are committed to the truth of Christianity as the foundation of epistemology as we stated. But when we see scholars in the field of NT history and language debating there is a pretense of neutrality. That they are just uninvested unbiased, openminded observers following the evidence where ever it leads them. (For example.) The self-promoting assumption of impartial honesty and integrity are insulting to the scriptures. (Rom.1:18-22) Everyone has a network of precommitments either for or against Jesus Christ. Either he is the Creator and upholder of all things (Jn.1:1-3, Col.1:15-7, Heb.1:1-3) or there is no evidence of this. Either the existence of evidence is evidence of God’s existence or evidence just is and laws of logic, math and physics just are and there nothing philosophically relevant going on here. But to engage in this pretense of philosophical neutrality as a believer in Christ is a losing game in NT studies, not to mention shameful. As professor and chair of religious studies North Carolina Chapel Hill (and Christian apostate), Bart Ehrman (featured in that link) who earned his Ph.D. under the revered Bruce Metzger, (arguably the greatest textual scholar in the world at the time) observes quite truly that if you are doing ‘history’ and not doing theology you approach the NT as any other collection of historical documents of antiquity (i.e. not inspired by God). In their discussion Ehrman holds this standard to Christian scholar Peter J Williams of Cambridge University, stating "History is not done by coming at it with a theological presupposition about what had to happen. You look at the evidence and then you see does the evidence move me that way or not." (52:31 mark) "If you're going to do proper history you cannot allow your presuppositions about God to effect the outcome." Ehrman calls Williams to task for in effect mingling an unquantifiable supernatural element into historical analysis. For instance, Ehrman says that Williams cannot appeal to the Spirit of God recalling the words of Christ (Jn.14:26) to explain the quotes of Jesus in scripture. This is Ehrman's precommitment to naturalism as every other research field does. This is equivalent to cosmologists assuming Genesis is not history. He is correct insofar as supernaturalists need some objective standard with which assertions of the supernatural can be justified. You can’t appeal to ‘God did this’ or ‘the devil did this’ arbitrarily. The only objective standard we can appeal to as Christians is scripture in its proper interpretation. If scripture is the foundation of epistemology, then all fields of research will necessarily be subordinate to it.
Ehrman summarized Williams as saying “Christian history isn’t the same as history”. That Christians use a double standard. He again is correct if Christians pretend a neutrality of objective truth that exists independent of the God of scripture. Again, the bible is historical but also transcends history. All truth is interconnected, and all truth is God’s truth. Bart fails to be consistent here himself in that naturalism doesn’t account for abstract laws of math and logic or the immaterial apparatus in humans to utilize these laws consistently in a contingent material universe. Or why he thinks everyone in history did as well. Bart has no answer for that and will sadly perish eternally for his sin and willful ignorance. And any Christian who wants to pretend neutrality in Ehrman's field of expertise (Prv.26:4) will likely embarrass himself (in my opinion) as did James White and Ehrman's peer Dan Wallace in their debates with Bart (which are instructive).
To test where Williams stands regarding inerrancy vs history Bart requests a harmonization of the 2 accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew 27:3-10 & Acts 1:16-20 that Ehrman considers totally contradictory. If Ehrman watched more rope swing fails on YouTube he might not find this as such a compelling example of a contradiction. People swinging upright (as someone hanging themselves might do) until branches or ropes break (which happens consistently) can literally flip upside down and fall headlong. Ehrman points to apparent contradictions in the bible as evidence against inerrancy because he assumes God would not have inspired scriptures that cause unbelievers with reprobate minds to stumble. (2 Thes.2:10-12, Mt.13:10-15) Or that he concealed things in the scriptures to try men’s hearts “to be exercised therewith”. (Prv.25:2, Ecc.1:13, Rom.16:25-6)
Walter Bauer
Scholars in the field of NT studies (other than Evangelicals) approach the bible as a series of independent accounts of Jesus’ life and death and teachings as well as the development of Christianities in the proceeding centuries. They do not assume the Spirit of God inspired them and that they all harmonize, only that they are strictly historical documents evaluated independently of each other and then contrasted. Ehrman reflects a view of Christianity that was popularized by Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy (which I have not read at this point) which he summarizes in his book Lost Christianities (which I have read- see here). "Walter Bauer (1877-1960) was a scholar of great range and massive erudition; his Greek lexicon remains a standard tool for all students of New Testament Greek. His most controversial and influential work was a study of theological conflicts in the early church. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (1934) was arguably the most important book on the history of early Christianity to appear in the twentieth century. Its precise aim is clear: to undercut the Eusebian model for the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy. The argument is incisive and authoritative, made by a master of all the surviving early Christian literature. Some scholars recoiled in horror at Bauer’s views, and others embraced them fiercely, but no one in the field has been untouched by them. The repercussions are still felt today, as Bauer’s analysis has changed forever how we look at the theological controversies prior to the fourth century." “Bauer argued that the early Christian church did not consist of a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities. Instead, earliest Christianity, as far back as we can trace our sources, could be found in a number of divergent forms, none of which represented the clear and powerful majority of believers against all the others.” (pg.173) So, one groups orthodoxy is another groups heresy.
The general agreement among scholars including Ehrman is that “orthodoxy,” in the sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere, simply did not exist in the second and third centuries. “(pg.173) This might appear problematic when we see Jesus words “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt.16:18) For most scholars there was no ‘church’ but competing churches, gospels and scriptures. Bauer sees an original diversity in Christianity to then a later imposed unity by Rome. “Bauer proceeds by looking at certain geographical regions of early Christendom for which we have some evidence—particularly the city of Edessa in eastern Syria, Antioch in western Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Rome. For each place, he considers the available Christian sources and subjects them to the closest scrutiny, demonstrating that contrary to the reports of Eusebius, the earliest and/or predominant forms of Christianity in most of these areas were heretical (i.e., forms subsequently condemned by the victorious party). Christianity in Edessa, for example, a major center for orthodox Christianity in later times, was originally Marcionite; the earliest Christians in Egypt were various kinds of Gnostic, and so on. Later orthodox Christians, after they had secured their victory, tried to obscure the real history of the conflict. But they were not completely successful, leaving traces that can be scrutinized for the truth.” (pg.174) By the 4th century “Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, and others had been more or less weeded out was there a majority opinion that asserted itself”. (pg.174) In this century the form of Christianity called ‘orthodox’ became preeminent. “For Bauer, this was the kind of Christianity that was found predominantly, though not exclusively, in the church of Rome, the capital of the empire, destined to become the center of Christianity. Is it a surprise that it was the Roman form of Christianity that became the Christianity of all people in the empire?” (pg. 174) Ehrman points to the 1st letter of Clement as evidence of Bauer’s thesis regarding Roman Christianity. “The book itself, however, does not claim Clement as its author or, in fact, even mention his name. It was probably written near the end of the first century. Its significance lies not only in being a proto-orthodox writing at least as old as some of the books that became part of the canon, but also in being one of the earliest instances of one church helping with (or interfering with, depending on one’s perspective) the internal problems of another. Scholars have not been slow to notice that it was precisely the Roman church doing this, the church that later was to become the center of Christendom, the church whose bishop was in fact to become the pope. Possibly this letter marks the beginning of bigger things.” (pg.142) “Within a century or so after the writing of 1 Clement, proto-orthodox Christians had become accustomed to opposing “aberrant” forms of Christianity by arguing that the bishops of the leading churches in the world could trace their lineage back through their personal predecessors to the apostles themselves, who had appointed them. This argument from “apostolic succession” is not found yet in full form in 1 Clement, as there is no evidence in the letter of a solitary bishop over the churches in either Rome or Corinth. But the argument is already here in nuce: According to the author, Christ chose the apostles, who appointed the leaders of the churches, who then handpicked their successors (chaps. 42, 44)” (pg.142-3)
For Bauer, “the internal Christian conflicts were struggles over power, not just theology. And the side that knew how to utilize power was the side that won. More specifically, Bauer pointed out that the Christian community in Rome was comparatively large and affluent. Moreover, located in the capital of the empire, it had inherited a tradition of administrative prowess from the state apparatus through a kind of trickle-down effect. Using the administrative skills of its leaders and its vast material resources, the church in Rome managed to exert influence over other Christian communities. Among other things, the Roman Christians promoted a hierarchical structure, insisting that each church should have a single bishop. Given the right bishop, of course, certain theological views could then be preached and enforced.” (pg.175) Buying influence is another facet of Bauer’s theory. “Roman influence, for Bauer, was economic: By paying for the manumission of slaves and purchasing the freedom of prisoners, the Roman church brought large numbers of grateful converts into the fold, while the judicious use of gifts and alms offered to other churches naturally effected a sympathetic hearing of their views. As the Dionysius of Corinth could say to Soter, bishop of Rome:
From the start it has been your custom to . . . send contributions to many churches in every city, sometimes alleviating the distress of those in need, sometimes providing for your brothers in the [slave] mines by the contributions you have sent. (Eusebius, Church History 4.23) Over time, the proto-orthodox views of the Roman community became increasingly dominant in the cities connected in one way or another to the capital, and since all roads lead to Rome, eventually that meant most of the cities throughout the empire. By the end of the third century, the Roman form of Christianity had established dominance.” (pg.175) (And perhaps if medieval monks and clerics could be prolific forgers to assist the Church state then ancient ones could create textual inventions that benefitted in the same way.)
Criticism of Bauer was his “attacking orthodox sources with inquisitorial zeal and exploiting to a nearly absurd extent the argument from silence". “Probably most scholars today think that Bauer underestimated the extent of proto-orthodoxy throughout the empire and overestimated the influence of the Roman church on the course of the conflicts. Even so, subsequent scholarship has tended to show even more problems with the Eusebian understanding of heresy and orthodoxy and has confirmed that, in their essentials, Bauer’s intuitions were right. If anything, early Christianity was even less tidy and more diversified than he realized” (pg.176)
“One final point needs to be made in support of Bauer’s basic thesis about the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy. He was working, of course, only with the materials available to him at the time, in the early 1930s. Since then, there have been additional discoveries, including entire documents that brilliantly confirmed aspects of his basic perspective, especially those of the Nag Hammadi library. Here was a collection of texts held dear by at least one group of Christians, possibly more, texts representing a wide sweep of alternative Christianities, by authors who assume, of course, that their views were right and that other views were wrong. Some of these texts attack proto-orthodox Christians for their false views.
Christianity was far more diverse, the battle lines were far more blurred, the infighting was far more intense than we could possibly have known depending just on Eusebius and the classical view of the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy.” (pg.179)
Historical theories are based on the randomness of surviving evidence and silences of history. Theories of 1st- 3rd century Christianity’s development obviously is somewhat based in arguments from silence simply because of the scarcity of the surviving materials as an accident of history. Also, a factor is the reality that we don’t know what we don’t know! Do the surviving 1-3rd century documents represent 1% or 25% or what exact percent of the total relevant documents from the time? Is there enough surviving evidence to conclude anything reflecting the reality of that era? Or are historiographers only harmonizing disparate pieces of data or accidents of history? Poorer people would write on cheaper materials which would tend to be lost to nature more easily. “Manuscripts were produced in many pre-modern societies in far greater quantity than is generally assumed, despite the fact that literate skills were usually restricted to certain privileged groups. A very great deal has been lost, and the randomness of survival has made that loss uneven”, observes Teresa Webber, Professor of Palaeography. (Trinity College, University of Cambridge) Can the scriptures give us any structured direction here?
Bauer & Scripture
We already noted some scriptural accounts that would in one sense corroborate Bauer’s idea that there were competing doctrines and teachers in the earliest days of the church. (Ac.20:20-31, Gal.1:6-9, 1 Cor.11:18-9, 2 Cor.2:17,11:3-4, 12-15, Phil.3:2, 1 Tim.1:20, 5:15, 2 Tim.1:15, 2:17-8, 4:10, Tit.1:9-13, 3:10, 2 Pet.3:15-6, 1 Jn.2:18-9, 4:1-6, 2 Jn.1:9-11, 3 Jn.1:9-11, Jd.1:3-4, Rev.2-3) The apostles themselves warned of heresies and false teachers, so this shouldn’t strike us as particularly scandalous. We obviously reject Bauer that there was not also a concurrent doctrine of Christ that we would consider “orthodox”. (Acts 2:42, Mt.7:24-7, Jn.14:26, 16:13, Heb.1:1-2, 2:3-4, Jd.1:3, 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:16, 2 Tim. 2:2) The Jew’s religion opposed and persecuted Christianity until the main antagonist became the main advocate to the Gentiles, the apostle Paul. (Ac.8:1-4, 9:1-6, 13:9, Gal.1:13-16, 2:8, Rom.11:13, 1 Tim.2:7, 2 Tim.1:11) And so, we see through the book of Acts a transitioning from the Jews exclusively to the incorporation of Gentiles into the church and the subsequent doctrinal disputations and learning that followed (as The Mystery of the Faith half way down). For example, when the gospel began to be spread to the Gentiles, the Jewish believers initially thought this was bad and inquired of Peter. “And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him”. Acts 11:1-2 Peter recounts what happened and v18 states” When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." This didn’t end the controversy of the Judaizers however, for they are still present later on. “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Acts 15:1-2 The scriptures are showing us that here and in the book of Galatians there were those teaching this in contradiction to the church’s conclusion in Acts 15. These factors apparently play into a tension between Jews and Gentiles as Christianity with its Jewish roots (e.g. the epistle to the Hebrews), spread to Gentiles. Ehrman in a lecture on the Apostolic fathers explores the question ‘How did Christianity move from being a Jewish sect to an anti-Jewish religion within 100 years?’ In summary, the idea of a suffering Messiah (from Christians) contradicts the Jewish idea of a reigning Messiah. Paul remains Jewish and he sees Jesus as the fulfillment of the expectation of the Jews. But the irony is the fulfillment of the Jewish law indicates that the law is not necessary for salvation. Judaizers and Christians became antithetical. Christians claim to be the heirs of the Jews religion and not Judaism itself. Jewish authorities persecuted Christians, and antisemitism arose around this tension.
Likewise, as the gospel spread through the Gentiles the early church experienced opposition from pagan philosophers (Acts 17:18-32, Col.2:4-8, 1 Cor.1:18-24). Paul and John both reference that the “mystery of iniquity doth already work” which is “that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world”. (2 Thess.2:7, 1 Jn.4:3) This is an attack upon the person of Christ and therefore his work of atonement. So, to Ehrman and Bauers point on the existence of competing “Christianities” we need to go no further than the New Testament to find present with the apostles, false doctrines, gospels, and Christ’s emerging simultaneously. (2 Cor.11:4, Gal.1:6-7)
Ehrman again, in his lecture series on the Apostolic fathers discusses the tension between early Christian and the pagan culture in which it spread. There are early ‘apologies’ written to counter the slanders and confusion surrounding the doctrine of Christ. The Letter To Diognetus , represents a response written in very good Greek as opposed to most early Christian writings. Ehrman summarizes that Diognetus was the recipient of the letter from an anonymous author. Diognetus means ‘born of Zeus’ thus likely a pagan.
It's written in elegant Greek but its theology is somewhat unsophisticated. It may be best to date the letter sometime to the middle or to the late second century. The author begins by saying ‘I hear you want to understand something about the Christians. I'll tell you about the Christians both why they don't worship many gods like pagans do and also why they don't follow the superstitions of the Jews.’ The 2nd half of the 2nd century apologies became more popular due to Christian recognition and persecution. It was able to provide apologies due to the conversions of intellectuals. History preserved evidence of the continuous and multiplied attacks of heresies against proto-orthodoxy in the centuries leading up to the religious system (“church”) in Rome emerging with political power. Ehrman summarizes the variety of heresies, forgeries and pseudonymies that manifested in the various regions and the surviving writings of early Christian leaders on pages 177-8. And he notes some things the early believers did in successfully fighting the various schisms:
“(1) The proto-orthodox claimed ancient roots for their religion—unlike, say, the Marcionites—by clinging to the Scriptures of Judaism, which, they insisted, predicted Christ and the religion established in his name.
(2) At the same time they rejected the practices of contemporary Judaism as taught in these Scriptures—unlike, say, the Ebionites—allowing their form of Christianity to be a universal faith attractive to and feasible for the majority of people in the ancient world.
(3) The proto-orthodox stressed a church hierarchy—unlike, say, some Gnostics, who believed that since everyone (in Gnostic communities) had equal access to the secret knowledge that brings salvation, everyone had an equal standing in the faith. The church hierarchy was invested with an authority that was used to determine what was to be believed, how church affairs (including worship and liturgy) were to be conducted, and which books were to be accepted as scriptural authorities.
(4) The proto-orthodox were in constant communication with one another, determined to establish theirs as a worldwide communion. Witness the allies who met Ignatius on his way to martyrdom and the letters he wrote in return, the letter written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, and the accounts of Christian martyrs sent out by the church of Smyrna on the occasion of the death of their beloved pastor, Polycarp. The proto-orthodox were interested not only in what happened locally in their own communities but also in what was happening in other likeminded communities. And they were interested in spreading their understanding of the faith throughout the known world.” (pg.179)
The temptation with #3 to utilize the newly found power of the state to stamp out competitors is what appears to Bauer & Ehrman to give rise to the Roman version of orthodoxy and the quasi-religious state chimera that has managed to hold onto state government power to this day. Not surprisingly the Protestants held onto this power themselves and utilized it in this way as well. Thankfully, in our country we have religious liberty with the assistance of Baptists who received persecution historically from both Protestant & Catholic religious systems (partly because they baptize believers and reject infant baptism and other distinctives). (See also: The Church that Jesus Built, by Roy Mason, Alien Baptism and the Baptists by William Manlius Nevins, Local Church Missions, by Charles K. Johnson, The Trail of Blood, J.M. Carroll, Also, The Baptist successionism debate, here and here as well.) Scripture delineates the respective roles and purposes of Church and State and they are not the same entity. “In the simplest terms, separating Church and State means that the institution and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church is separate from the institution and the civil jurisdiction of the state.” (pg.145, America’s Christian History, Gary DeMar) That they are not to mingle in the institutional affairs of each other. But this is the Roman Catholic Church history.
The Rise of Rome
As we consider Bauer on the rise of the Roman church authority grab, we can also see consistent with scripture is the rise of Rome as a center for spiritual oppression. (Rev.17:5-7, 9-10, 15,18) We will explore this idea next.
Most historians think the least problematic numbers for Christianity’s growth from 120 people (Ac.1:15) right after Jesus’ death to by the beginning of the fourth century about 300 years later where scholars have reasons for thinking that Christianity made up something like five percent of the empire. By the end of the fourth century Christianity had exploded onto the scene because the Roman emperor himself Constantine converted to Christianity. Once the emperor converted Christianity was no longer a persecuted religion but a favored religion and it became a very popular thing for people to become Christian. So, that by the end of the 4th century probably half of the entire empire was Christian so there was an explosion of conversions in the 4th century.
Most scholars put the empire's population at around 60 million people. So, we went from 120 people in around the year 33 to maybe something like 3 million people at the beginning of the 4th century.
W.M. Ramsey records 2nd century development: “In the actual development of a Church scattered wide over the world, the officials whose duty it was to guide the communications between the communities necessarily played a decisive part in framing the organisation through which the brotherhood developed into the Church. As it was completed in its main elements by A.D. 170, the organisation of the Church may be described thus: — 1. Each individual community was ruled by a gradation of officials, at whose head was the bishop; and the bishop represented the community.
2. All communities were parts of a unity, which was co-extensive with the [Roman?] world. A name for this unity, the Universal or Catholic Church, is first found in Ignatius, and the idea was familiar to a pagan writer like Celsus (perhaps 161-9 A.D.).
3. Councils determined and expressed the common views of a number of communities.
4. Any law of the Empire which conflicted with the principles of the Church must give way.
5. All laws of the Empire which were not in conflict with the religion of the Church were to be obeyed.
In this completed organisation the bishops were established as the ruling heads of the several parts, divided in space but not in idea, which constituted the Church in the Roman world. The history of this organisation is, to a great extent, the history of the episcopal power. The bishops soon became the directors of the Church as a party struggling against the Government... The view which I take is, that the central idea in the development of the episcopal office lay in the duty of each community to maintain communication with other communities. The officials who performed this duty became the guardians of unity. They acquired importance first in the universal Church; and thereafter, partly in virtue of this extra-congregational position, partly through other causes, they became the heads of the individual communities.
Such a vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in development.” (pg.363-4 The Church in the Roman Empire) The authority which was to be exercised in the local assemblies (“all authority” Tit.2:15, 1 Tim.3:5, 4:11-16, 5:17, 2 Tim.2:2) began to organize beyond local churches.
“The spread of Christianity had a political side. The Church may be, roughly speaking, described as a political party advocating certain ideas which, in their growth, would have resulted necessarily in social and political reform.” (Ramsey- pg.10)
Naturally as well, the temptation of lording over people’s faith as “the guardians of unity” with the expansion of ‘Church’ government would be greatly increased when Christianity moves from persecuted to preferred in the empire. Especially in a city that is very rich and very powerful. The temptation to use state power to stamp out competing views of Christianity (i.e. guard the unity) was too strong for some. (Job 2:4, Gal.2:11-3, 6:12, Mt.26:75) The “Union of church and state had been the common pattern since the era of Constantine, and all pontifical declarations of the 19th century rejected separation of church and state as pernicious.” (Encyclopedia Britannica) This union of church and state is optimistically explained by the Catholic Answers Encyclopedia as “The essential idea of such union is a condition of affairs where a State recognizes its natural and supernatural relation to the Church, professes the Faith, and practices the worship of the Church, protects it, enacts no laws to its hurt, while, in case of necessity and at its instance taking all just and requisite civil measures to forward the Divinely appointed purpose of the Church—in so far as all these make for the State’s own essential purpose, the temporal happiness of its citizens. That this is in principle the normal and ethically proper condition for a truly Catholic State should be evident from the religious obligations of the Catholic State as above declared.” (IV.) And further that “As a partial attempt at security against such evil consequences, the Church has for centuries established concordats with Catholic States”. A concordat is “a pact, with the force of international law, concluded between the ecclesiastical authority and the secular authority on matters of mutual concern; most especially a pact between the pope, as head of the Roman Catholic church, and a temporal head of state for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in the territory of the latter.”
Eventually one must ask ‘Is this the structure of the church that Jesus built?’ Did it have international leadership with a hierarchical administrative apparatus? This is assumed when speaking of international pacts and coordination between the pope, “the church” and heads of states. The Catholic Church is governed by the Holy See defined as “the universal government of the Catholic Church and operates from Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory. The Pope is the ruler of both Vatican City State and the Holy See. The Holy See, as the supreme body of government of the Catholic Church, is a sovereign juridical entity under international law” by our State Department. This religious structure exceeds anything resembling the church in the New Testament which in short humbly consists of independent local churches with elders and deacons (Phil.1:1) ministering the word and the Spirit to the flock. But we see in addition to these 2 offices the billion member plus Catholic Church has flattering titles (Job 32:21-2) like Pope, Archbishop, College of Cardinals, Apostolic nuncio, Primates, Vicor General, Priest, Diocesan Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, Monsignor, Sister, Brother, Moderator of the Curia, innumerable orders etc., and very complex international structure. Nor does scripture provide for or describe any necessary qualifications for these offices. Sola scriptura is no friend of Rome, and they will be the first to tell you.
Bart Ehrman believes that the seeds to this Roman ambition can be detected early in the Letter of 1st Clement. “Although the book is anonymous, it was later attributed to a man named Clement, who was thought to be the bishop of Rome. Tertullian indicated that Clement was the second bishop there, ordained by the apostle Peter himself (Prescription 32); more commonly it was thought, as early as Irenaeus, that he was the third bishop, following Linus and Anacletus (thus Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.3.1). The book itself, however, does not claim Clement as its author or, in fact, even mention his name. It was probably written near the end of the first century. Its significance lies not only in being a proto-orthodox writing at least as old as some of the books that became part of the canon, but also in being one of the earliest instances of one church helping with (or interfering with, depending on one’s perspective) the internal problems of another. Scholars have not been slow to notice that it was precisely the Roman church doing this, the church that later was to become the center of Christendom, the church whose bishop was in fact to become the pope. Possibly this letter marks the beginning of bigger things.” (pg.142, Lost Christianities)
In a lecture on the Letter 1st Clement, Ehrman instructs us that supposedly Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome and Clement was his successor, although not much is known about the founding of the church at Rome. Paul’s letter to the Romans is the earliest reference. Peter is never mentioned after an extensive list of names (Rom.16:1-16 Which would be very strange- Gal.1:18-9, 2:7-9). 1st Clement was written at the end of the 1st century so information on the church at Rome was 50-60 years later; around AD 95-6.
Ehrman offers reasons to doubt Clement was successor to Peter in that 1st Clement does not name him as the author and that name never appears in the letter. The use of his name would add weight to the information in the letter as Philippians 4:3 mentions a man named Clement. It is the Christians at Rome writing to those at Corinth. Dionisius mentions this letter in the 2nd century as authoritative. The letter was lost until it turned up in a manuscript in 1627. In 1633 it was published and scholars had access some 1500 years later. Apparently, not as important to God.
1st Clement describes and apparent ecclesiastical coup ousting the elders at Corinth creating a rift. Here the Roman church is addressing an issue regarding the church government at Corinth, intervening in their internal affairs. This is the earliest record of such interference. Ehrman again “Within a century or so after the writing of 1 Clement, proto-orthodox Christians had become accustomed to opposing “aberrant” forms of Christianity by arguing that the bishops of the leading churches in the world could trace their lineage back through their personal predecessors to the apostles themselves, who had appointed them. This argument from “apostolic succession” is not found yet in full form in 1 Clement, as there is no evidence in the letter of a solitary bishop over the churches in either Rome or Corinth. But the argument is already here in nuce: According to the author, Christ chose the apostles, who appointed the leaders of the churches, who then handpicked their successors (chaps. 42, 44). Since the (deposed) presbyters of Corinth stood in the lineage of leaders chosen by the apostles, to oppose them meant to set oneself against the handpicked successors of the apostles, who had been chosen by Christ, who had been sent from God.” (Pg.142-3) The structure of pope over cardinals over archbishops over bishops over priests gradually arose. (Church Structures In Early Christianity) Augustine (354-430 AD) used this argument as well against the Donatists who desired holiness in the church and separated over its union with the state among other things, according to Ernest Pickering. Augustine argued against the sin of severing the unity of Christ appealing to “apostolic tradition, church usage, custom, testimony and authority.” (pg. 26 Biblical Separation, citing Augustine Letter 141, 20:139) He further quotes Frend “The Donatist Church“ (pg.333) “Two contradictory interpretations of the Christian message took root. The germs of Catholicism and Dissent, the authority of an institution as against the authority of the Bible or personal inspiration, existed from the earliest moments of the Christian Church.” (pg. 26 Biblical Separation) In another Letter of Augustine that Pickering cites, he justifies physical persecution of the Donatists. “Is it not part of the shepherd’s care” regarding straying sheep “to call them back to the Lord’s sheepfold, by threats, or pain of blows if they try to resist?” The “Church imitates her Lord in forcing them.” (pg.28, citing Augustine Letter 185, 30:164-5)
As Christ built his church, he instituted authority and structured leadership which was exercised differently than the Gentile administration of commands and obedience. (Mt.20:25-7, 8:9) The pastoral epistles’ short list of offices to administer the mysteries of Christ to the local church consists of bishop and deacon. (1 Tim.3, Tit.1-2) Bishops are the same as elders, pastor/teachers, overseers, presbyters- Tit.1:5-7, Ac.14:23, 20:17,28, Phil.1:1, 1 Pt.2:25, 5:1-4, Eph.4:11, 1 Tim.5:17, 1 Cor.12:28. Contrast this with the Roman hierarchy listed above. (Again, “all authority” Tit.2:15, 1 Tim.3:5, 4:11-16, 5:17, 2 Tim.2:2 in the local church.)
The problem with multiplying authorities in the church is that the dominion of people's faith naturally follows. Lording over the flock tends to cruelty and spiritual manipulation. (2 Cor.1:24, 1 Pet.5:2-3, Ezk.34:4) In the Catholic Church the primary teaching (in contrast to Sola Scriptura) of Papal infallibility and apostolic succession has led to Inspired Tradition, Ex Cathedra Statements, Dogmatic Definitions, Infallible Teachings, Infallible Magisterium, Infallible Councils none of which can be disagreed upon to be in right standing with the Church. You might be reading the scripture alone and conclude Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was sent to the Jews primarily. (Rom.11:13, 1 Tim.2:7, 2 Tim.1:11, Gal.2:7-9) But Rome would say, no Peter is the prince of the apostles and bishop for the Gentiles. You might read the bible and think that Jesus as the High Priest died once for sins forever accomplishing propitiation and death no longer has dominion over him in his resurrection. (Rom.6:9-10, 1 Pet.3:18, Heb.10:10) But Rome will say that you incorrect and Christ dies every week everywhere the propitiatory Mass is performed by other priests than Jesus Himself ever since he rose again incorruptible. (Acts 2:24, Lk.20:36, 1 Cor.15:42) You might read the bible and find heaven to be a place of rest and ceasing from labor for the souls of the saints. (Rv.6:10-11, 14:13, Lk.16:25, 2 Tim 4:7) Which would indicate laboring in prayer ceases in his divine rest. (Col.4:12, Rom.15:30, Lk.18:1,7) And furthermore, that seeking to communicate with the dead is an abomination and that they are not aware of what happens on the earth. (Deut.18: 10-12, Isa.8: 19-20, Eccles. 9:5, 10, Luke 16: 23-31) But Rome would say, no you should communicate with the dead saints and ask them to labor in prayer in your behalf. And iconography and so on...
The child of God who desires to seek the Lord and His word among other believers (Psa.19:7-9, 119:24... the entire Psalm) is not permitted to stray in his mind from the iron yoke of Rome’s teaching authority without threat of a spiritual death penalty or a longer stint in purgatory. Because Sola Scriptura is denied while the grace of God they teach is regulated by their sacramental system and mediated by men usurping Christ’s priesthood. They control the treasury of merit and the keys to the kingdom. Your spiritual pursuit of truth must be outsourced to experts who in prior centuries didn’t want you reading the bible at all, (by the way the printing press was invented in the 1400’s and the Catholic church was in no hurry to get scriptures to the people as indicated when Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943). To receive grace, you must confess secret sins to a 'priest’ other than the only necessary and able mediator our Advocate Christ Jesus, (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24, 1 Jn.2:1-2) a practice prone to abuse and manipulation. Strangely, if you take the scriptures as the sole self-authenticating rule of faith and practice, suddenly Roman teaching becomes extremely blasphemous and wrong. Perhaps you think that sounds excessive to express it in that way. The Catholic Church would say it is freedom from the darkness of ignorance that the church provides through the infallible teaching outlets, not bondage. But is the man in a prison cell free from responsibility to provide for himself and others? Free from having to work for a living? Is this real freedom? We are responsible individually before God. (Jn.12:44-50)
One is reminded of a line from the Declaration of Independence regarding “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”. They saw it regarding England, but we should see it regarding Rome as well.
The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Nicolaitans as nothing resembling themselves. Catholic apologist Tim Staples says “The final point I want to make here is that Jesus himself has very strong words for these Nicolaitanes! These were basically anti-nomians who thought they did not have to obey the laws of the Church. When Jesus gives a personal message to St. John in the beginning of the Book of Revelation, he has a special message for those who would disobey the Church.” (Catholic Answers- see the bottom here)
The agreement of most teachers of the Greek language is that the name itself holds the Greek meaning of ‘conquer the people’ roughly. From the combination of two Greek words, nikos and laos. Nikos means "conqueror" or "destroyer," and laos means "people" or laity. The Pharisees in scripture match this idea. And Rome matches this description in Revelation 17. In John’s day it is Rome “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth” and is noted as sitting on 7 mountains. (Rev.17:5-7, 9-10, 15,18). It IS that great city; and not shall reign but reigneth. When the angel informs John that the 6th head of the beast IS (v10) it was Rome from where Caesar ruled (Lk.2:1, 4:5-6, Ac.25:10-12,23:11, in Italy Ac.18:2). The doctrine of Preterism as opposed to Futurism keeps these prophecies as in the ancient past no longer relevant; nothing to see in Rome.
If we simply look for people whom Christ issued the sharpest rebukes and threatened with greater damnation (Mt.23:14,Mk.12:40, Lk.20:47) who ruled over the people of God (laity), the Pharisees, scribes and lawyers are the primary candidates (Mt.23). And we do find quite a bit of information in the New Testament concerning false apostles (Rev.2:2) and teachers lording over the flock and having dominion over their faith. To distinguish themselves in an attempt to conquer the laity they wear embellished robes (Mt.23:5, Mk.12:38). Preferring their ‘interpretation’ and tradition over the rightly divided word of God (Mk.7:3-13, Mt.15:2-9) and to those that follow them they make you vain (Jer.23:16). They “have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered”. (LK.11:52) They love titles and names for themselves (Mt.23:7-10) and to be recognized by the rich men of the world. God resisteth the proud and those who justify themselves before men are an abomination unto him (which thing I hate, Jam.4:6, Lk.16:15). Multiplying flattering titles "Holy Father, Supreme Pontiff, Primate of Italy, Vicar of Christ, Pontifex maximus". (Job 32:21-2)
Jesus gave us an overview of the development of the kingdom in this age before his return as King of Kings. In Matthew 13 the consensus of the parables show a downgrade that increases until the time of the harvest. The word of the kingdom (v19) produces the children of the kingdom (v38) but will be mingled (Lv.19:19, Dt.22:9) with the children of the wicked one. (v38) The enemy hath done this (v28) and will continue sowing tares until the time of the harvest, the end of the world (not 70 AD). (v40-1, 48-50)
When the net is full (v48) or the harvest is come (v30) and the leaven hath leavened the whole (v33) we see a product of the children of the kingdom that gets infiltrated by the tares or children of the wicked one as unclean and hateful birds of the air (Rv.18:2, Eph.2:2, Mt.13:4,19) lodging in the branches. It becomes a support system for the enemy. Likewise, as 3 measures of meal that ‘an enemy’, the woman has leavened. Leaven can be doctrines of men that subordinate the word of God to traditions, (Mt.16:11-2, 15:1-12, Mk.7:1-13) As well as philosophical leaven of naturalism (anti-supernaturalism- Mt.16:6,11-2, 22:23, Acts 23:8) in an attempt to lord over them veiled in hypocrisy. (Lk.12:1, Mt.23)
So, Matthew 13 shows us from the time of Christ until his return a grown mustard seed- with birds lodged in it, three measures of meal- that has been leavened, the net drawn- containing good and bad fish, and the harvest at the end with good and bad crops. The sower is the Son of man (Mt.13:37), the seed is the word (v19) which falls by the wayside, stony ground, and among thorns simultaneously with good ground till the time of the harvest.
However, an alternate reading embraced by Rome and many Protestants is that the leaven and mustard seed represent their gradual ascendency to global political power in an amillennial view of eschatology. The people of God had originally held an apocalyptic premillennial view of Christ’s return. But with the help of those viewing the ‘leaven’ (Mt.13:33) as a good thing, amillennialism became the dominant view of Rome (and Protestants) thanks in large part to Augustine (354–430). Ehrman assesses “Even though the apocalyptic vision of Jesus, and then of Paul, faded, becoming lost to most of Christianity, the ascetic lifestyle it promoted lived on. A shift occurred in early Christian thinking, away from the sense that this world would be destroyed in a future act of divine wrath, toward the notion that this world was only a transient testing ground, a reflection of a greater reality, a mere shadow of the world that really mattered, the “real” world, the world of God. Christians for the most part stopped thinking in chronological terms about the present evil age and the future age to come, and started thinking in spatial terms about the present evil world (down here) and the good world of God (up there).” (pg.45 Lost Christianities) Regarding an imminent rapture “The apostle Paul, our earliest Christian author, believed that Jesus would return in judgment in his own lifetime (see 1 Thess. 4:14-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-52).” (pg.118) That blessed hope and helmet of salvation (Tit.2:13, 1 Thes.5:8, Eph.6:17, Phil.3:20-1) was taken from Rome's children further enslaving them. But if Christ was to build his church and spread the gospel he would insure that there are independent New Testament churches containing his teachings by the Apostles doctrine and the offices he ordained. (Matt. 16:18, 28:19-20, Acts 2:42) This would occur whether history knows every step or not and despite Roman and secular historiographers. The evidence is that we have his self authenticating word in our hands today.
History Bias
Church historian Mosheim observes (1693-1755) “Those who undertake to write the history of the Christian church are exposed to receive a bias from three different sources, from times, persons, and opinions. The times, in which we live, have often so great an influence on our manner of judging, as to make us consider the events which happen in our days, as a rule by which we are to estimate the probability or evidence of those that are recorded in the history of past ages. The persons, on whose testimonies we think we have reason to depend, acquire an imperceptible authority over our sentiments, that too frequently seduces as to adopt their errors, especially if these persons have been distinguished by eminent degrees of sanctity and virtue. And an attachment to favourite opinions leads authors sometimes to pervert, or at least to modify, facts in favour of those who have embraced these opinions, or to the disadvantage of such as have opposed them. These kinds of seduction are so much the more dangerous, as those whom they deceive are, in innumerable, cases, insensible of their delusion, and of the false representations of things to which it leads them. It is not necessary to observe the solemn obligations that bind an historian to guard against these three sources of error with the most delicate circumspection, and the most scrupulous attention.” (Intro, X) To the extent that this has happened in all ages with every recorder of history we do not know. An example of the influence of opinion can be explained here by bible scholar James Tabor , where he shows the contrast regarding the Essenes as recorded by Josephus compared with the Dead Sea Scroll writings that they wrote of themselves apparently. Josephus is writing for the Roman emperor Vespasian and presents these Jewish sects in a positive way to him with a “Hellenistic garb”. But, adds Tabor “don’t go to Josephus for your definition of Essenes” read their self-description. (about the 23:35 mark) History cannot be final authority, but scripture must.
Ehrman in his discussion of Eusebius 10-volume work called the ecclesiastical history or the church history in the early 4th century, explains that his book was designed to sketch the history of Christianity from its beginnings with Jesus up to Eusebius's own day up to the time of the conversion of the emperor Constantine. He often will quote sources, direct quotations of primary sources, many of which no longer survive. So, that in many instances Eusebius is our only access to previous Christian authors whose works have been destroyed or disappeared. Historians in the 20th century though came to realize that Eusebius cannot be taken as an objective outside viewer of the phenomenon of Christianity. Eusebius had a particular point of view and that point of view determined how he told the story. Walter Bauer’s view has replaced Eusebius’ work in our day. (Ehrman Church Fathers Lecture 24)
If the winners of government power write the history and remove opposing views then we would expect there to be a paucity of surviving contrary evidence with which to examine besides the accident of historical evidence in general. More is missing than not with which we can identify the track that the true churches of Christ took throughout its’ history. Poor and despised, not many wise, mighty or noble but the gates of hell did not prevail against it. They were considered the dissidents and heretics by the church state power brokers. “To obtain accurate information concerning these dissident groups as given in their own words is practically impossible. They were considered enemies both of the state and the established church; hence their writings were systematically destroyed. Most of the literature on which researchers must base their judgments was written by the groups' enemies. In commenting on the difficulty of correctly assessing the Albigenses, a "heretical" group of the Middle Ages, one writer commented:
What these Albigenses were it cannot be well gathered by the old Popish histories: for if there were any who did hold, teach, or maintain against the Pope or his papal pride, or withstand or gainsay his beggarly traditions, rites, and religions, etc., the historians of that time, in writing of them, do, for the most part, so deprave and misrepresent them (suppressing the truth of their articles), that they make them and paint them to be worse than Turks and infidels.” (Pickering, Biblical Separation, pg.32 Citing George Townsend, The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, 2:586)
Samuel Morland concludes relative to the antiquity of the Waldensian Ana-Baptists: "But when the Church of Rome began to corrupt itself, and would by no means be persuaded to retain the purity of that Apostolic Doctrine and Divine worship, then those of the Valleys began to separate themselves from them, and to come out from among them..." (pg.9, The History of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont)
With regards to ‘Baptists’ which would include those identified by Baptist distinctives, any church that has basic orthodoxy and rejects any Catholic and Protestant hierarchy would be ‘baptist’ by this broad definition. “The late Kenneth Scott Latourette wrote: [The Baptists’] record speaks for itself. That record is far from perfect. Indeed, no achievement in which we human beings share is free from defect. Every faithful account of Baptists has pages which we must view with sorrow and regret. Yet we who are its beneficiaries have reason for profound gratitude for the Baptist heritage. . . . Most of them were humble in the sight of the world and usually found no place in enduring human memory. . . . It has been a special privilege given to the Baptists, more than to any other body of Christians of comparable size, to preach the gospel to the poor. For the most part the poor leave no written traces of their lives. The historian is often baffled when he seeks to reconstruct what they have said and done. For this reason no history of the Baptists can ever be complete. . . .41 There is an identity problem among present-day Baptists and the gulf seems to be widening. As some so-called Baptist churches are being constituted under different names (often without the term “church” or “Baptist” in their name), it makes identity more difficult, and it will be a great burden for future historians to tell today’s Baptist story. Will this lack of identity be a future historical researcher dilemma? No doubt.” (pg.14 THE SUCCESSIONISM VIEW OF BAPTIST HISTORY* James R. Duvall)
What they call Baptists identified by distinctives; we might easily call independent New Testament churches. Who historically rejected a church state, unscriptural baptism, hierarchical priesthood, a hierarchy beyond the local church because they esteem the scripture as the sole rule of faith and practice. They historically being persecuted by the state church lived destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men."
1 Cor.1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
In summary historians will debate histories with all its limitations and mistakes. But they ultimately all must presuppose the truth of scripture. And we must believe the bible and evaluate history based upon it.
