The great doctrinal apostasy

[H. Richard]

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation [age] of grace.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, “”I”” have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus “”I”” have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of “”me“”. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of “”my”” ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of “””me,””” even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints under the law had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, law and grace, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death.

 

[Helen]

Amen.
Excellent and interesting post....thank you!

 

[bbyrd009]

Phygellus and Hermogenes.

it should be noted that these are not even real names, they are symbols, and fwiw many strong believers also came from Asia, etc

 

[Helen]

it should be noted that these are not even real names, they are symbols, and fwiw many strong believers also came from Asia, etc

Really? I never knew that!! I always thought they were people. Where do you find they are symbols? Thanks.

 

[bbyrd009]

Really? I never knew that!! I always thought they were people. Where do you find they are symbols? Thanks.

google search any name plus the word "etymology," i've found Abarim to be the most exhaustive--they will usually be third or fourth in any Bible-name search, but i don't want to choir direct here

"But since Paul most probably wrote often in a kind of literary code (read our article on the name Onesimus for more on this), the chances are excellent that Hermogenes (= A "New" Borne Message?) and Phygelus (= Avoider?) were code names for movements that were as illegal as Christianity was (which, from a political perspective, was a resistance movement against Roman totalitarianism, albeit characteristically peaceful) but somehow had taken to compromising and fantasies, or perhaps even armed revolt, which both Paul and Jesus openly abhorred." The amazing name Phygelus: meaning and etymology

 

[bbyrd009]

He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved."

strikes me more like "i want to commit suicide, to avoid my inheritance/duty" wadr

While Kingdom saints under the law had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

rolleyes
Paul specifically justifies the pov, and there is even a passage about his perspective of holding out to the end

don't get me wrong, i agree with most of your points, but you are once again trying to nullify "No Jew or Gentile in the kingdom" imo

 

[Davy]

Sounds like the start of the Dual Gospel theory by the traditions of some men, like C.R. Stam.

The Gospel that Christ and His Apostles preached is the SAME Gospel that Apostle Paul preached.

Paul was not called to preach The Gospel to Gentiles only! Per Acts 9 Jesus chose Paul to preach The Gospel to the Gentiles, AND to kings, and to the children of Israel. So if Paul had preached ANOTHER Gospel just for Gentiles, then he could not have preached to the children of Israel also!

So men's false tradition of TWO different Gospels, one for the circumcision, and another for the uncircumcision, is just a bogus idea from unlearned country preachers who can't determine the difference between the idea of two administrations of the SAME Gospel:

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
KJV

 

[ScottA]

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation [age] of grace.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, “”I”” have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus “”I”” have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of “”me“”. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of “”my”” ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of “””me,””” even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints under the law had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, law and grace, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

This is exactly what happened: from among the Gentile believers of Asia, false teachers DID arise, DID speak perverse things and DID draw away disciples unto themselves. All within 100 years of Paul's death.

Not only among the gentiles, but also among five out of the seven churches addressed by Christ in Revelation.

 

[H. Richard]

Sounds like the start of the Dual Gospel theory by the traditions of some men, like C.R. Stam.

The Gospel that Christ and His Apostles preached is the SAME Gospel that Apostle Paul preached.

Paul was not called to preach The Gospel to Gentiles only! Per Acts 9 Jesus chose Paul to preach The Gospel to the Gentiles, AND to kings, and to the children of Israel. So if Paul had preached ANOTHER Gospel just for Gentiles, then he could not have preached to the children of Israel also!

So men's false tradition of TWO different Gospels, one for the circumcision, and another for the uncircumcision, is just a bogus idea from unlearned country preachers who can't determine the difference between the idea of two administrations of the SAME Gospel:

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
KJV

***

Same gospel??? Then why are they separated in these verses? Show me where Jesus and the 12 said we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Jesus and the 12 preached that Jesus was the promised King of the promised Jewish kingdom on this earth. They still preached the law since the 12 still went to the Temple and James is proud of the Jews keeping the law in Acts 20:21.

IMO, if anyone refuses to believe that in this age of grace the only salvation available is faith in the work of Jesus on the cross then they are blinded by religion just as the Jews were.

 

[H. Richard]

google search any name plus the word "etymology," i've found Abarim to be the most exhaustive--they will usually be third or fourth in any Bible-name search, but i don't want to choir direct here

"But since Paul most probably wrote often in a kind of literary code (read our article on the name Onesimus for more on this), the chances are excellent that Hermogenes (= A "New" Borne Message?) and Phygelus (= Avoider?) were code names for movements that were as illegal as Christianity was (which, from a political perspective, was a resistance movement against Roman totalitarianism, albeit characteristically peaceful) but somehow had taken to compromising and fantasies, or perhaps even armed revolt, which both Paul and Jesus openly abhorred." The amazing name Phygelus: meaning and etymology

***
A smoke screen to keep people from believing the words in the scriptures. If you don't want to accept it as written just said it doesn't mean what it says and change the focus. They also do that with the words """hidden in God"".

 

[bbyrd009]

***
A smoke screen to keep people from believing the words in the scriptures. If you don't want to accept it as written just said it doesn't mean what it says and change the focus. They also do that with the words """hidden in God"".

you might reflect on your tone here v Abarims? Iow you are talking as if you know, you have reached conclusions, see, you have now "summed up" for yourself, and present your findings as truth, but you do not lay out any alt argument bc you cannot, wadr, right?

But note that the Abarim guy has put question marks in there, see, he is not assuming the position of Oracle, and even invites your perspective on the matter; but you have declined, and instead pass judgement?

yes, definitely, Scripture is written so that hypocrites cannot read It, not saying you are one or anything
the only thing worse than not understanding a Passage is saying that you know for sure what it means, i guess

 

[H. Richard]

you might reflect on your tone here v Abarims? Iow you are talking as if you know, you have reached conclusions, see, you have now "summed up" for yourself, and present your findings as truth, but you do not lay out any alt argument bc you cannot, wadr, right?

But note that the Abarim guy has put question marks in there, see, he is not assuming the position of Oracle, and even invites your perspective on the matter; but you have declined, and instead pass judgement?

yes, definitely, Scripture is written so that hypocrites cannot read It, not saying you are one or anything
the only thing worse than not understanding a Passage is saying that you know for sure what it means, i guess

***

According to you no one can understand the scriptures. But of course you can just say they don't mean anything they say, right?? I suppose that means you don't believe they mean anything too. Just what do you believe; what do you place your faith in? I don't really expect you to answer since it will leave you as the subject of ridicule just as you ridicule others for what they believe.

 

[bbyrd009]

According to you no one can understand the scriptures.

that is pretty far from my perspective, HR, even if there are passages i still don't get the spiritual intent of.
Understand and express "he who says he knows anything does not yet know" better, for yourself then, imo.

But of course you can just say they don't mean anything they say, right?

again, not my perspective, although i guess it comes across that way lol. My guess is that "Jesus wept" can be read logically, but other passages seem resistant even to dialectic thinking. I would put it more like we are prone to read what we want to believe, and words can be made to deceive, even after they are written

I suppose that means you don't believe they mean anything too.

i believe they mean whatever they mean for you, and verifying what is really meant is likely a painful process, especially if the truth runs counter to what you want to believe, yes. But fwiw i believe that the Bible contains all of the condensed knowledge of mankind up until then, and i doubt that we have added anything essential since then. i know you might object @ "mankind" there, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it i guess

Just what do you believe; what do you place your faith in?

let's come back to this one, ok. These two.

I don't really expect you to answer since it will leave you as the subject of ridicule just as you ridicule others for what they believe.

mostly so i can admit that yes, i have no tact, and if you are married to your opinions i am going to be especially abrasive. But you have just recently accused me of offending you, i forget which thread, and i even reacted to your post on that--a reply to someone else--before i erased it; but now you bring it back up, i'd like to ask which of those posts, that you chose to ignore, did you find most offensive?

there are no Jew or Gentile in the kingdom, HR

Christ is supposed to be in your midst, too, HR, don't you think?

don't get too intimately associated with fleeting beliefs, and then you will detect no fault being found, i guess.

The point being ppl come here to have their beliefs tested, but often end up leaving bc they are then offended that they personally have been found at fault, or at least so they think. Iow people tend to invest themselves wholly in beliefs now, quite often that is a person's entire identity, and questioning the belief = attacking the person, to their minds.

Similar to the scenario most football fans are very fam with, iow, otherwise known as the Hegelian dialectic, i guess, with beliefs substituted for teams.

noticing a pattern here yet? how have i ridiculed you anywhere?

you might reflect on your tone here v Abarims? Iow you are talking as if you know, you have reached conclusions, see, you have now "summed up" for yourself, and present your findings as truth, but you do not lay out any alt argument bc you cannot, wadr, right?

But note that the Abarim guy has put question marks in there, see, he is not assuming the position of Oracle, and even invites your perspective on the matter; but you have declined, and instead pass judgement?

yes, definitely, Scripture is written so that hypocrites cannot read It, not saying you are one or anything
the only thing worse than not understanding a Passage is saying that you know for sure what it means, i guess

where is it?
i'll make you a deal, you point it out, and i'll apologize for it, ok. Being challenged is not being ridiculed, HR, and i have no contempt or anything for you at all, ok. Sorry if you got that impression.

You are fine just like you are imo, and from now on we can just discuss the whether if you like

 

[Davy]

***

Same gospel??? Then why are they separated in these verses? Show me where Jesus and the 12 said we are saved by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Jesus and the 12 preached that Jesus was the promised King of the promised Jewish kingdom on this earth. They still preached the law since the 12 still went to the Temple and James is proud of the Jews keeping the law in Acts 20:21.

IMO, if anyone refuses to believe that in this age of grace the only salvation available is faith in the work of Jesus on the cross then they are blinded by religion just as the Jews were.

There is no separation of The Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Galatians 2:7-8 verses, nor any other verses in God's Word.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ can even be found in Genesis regarding Abraham's faith, even as Apostle Paul taught in Galatians 3. Just because those in the OT like Abraham didn't live to see Christ's crucifixion or thereafter, doesn't mean they didn't know about it, and like Abraham believed beforehand. Even king David was given a prophecy of events of Jesus' crucifixion a thousand years before it happened, down to the soldiers casting lots on His robes (Ps.22). Genesis 3:15 is a metaphorical reference to Christ's crucifixon. Isaiah was given to write of Christ's crucifixon (Isaiah 53).

News flash: when Jesus preached of His Kingdom to come, He was preaching The Gospel, because that is part of The Gospel of Jesus Christ! That's why Apostle Paul preached The Gospel of the Kingdom also:

Acts 28:30-31
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
KJV

 

[bbyrd009]

ya, we no longer exist now, i guess lol
the usual MO

 

[bbyrd009]

Just what do you believe; what do you place your faith in?[/QUOTE]i understand that these are the same subject for you right now, but they are distinct, two separate Qs imo, beliefs are mostly impediments to further wisdom, and as evidence i might offer that reviewing my posts from 20 years ago causes me to cringe lol--heck, 5 years ago even. Bc my beliefs have changed in the interim, whereas my faith has not.

Now, the arg can be made that since someone else's beliefs have not changed in 20 years, and they do not cringe at their 20 year old posts, perhaps they are the ones to be listening to

but nonetheless, i believe that you are on a dangerous path, with this insistence upon some rules/one Gospel for some ppl, and some other rules/other Gospel for some others, and i also believe that beliefs do reflect a person's faith even if they do not define it; except for those who are defined by their beliefs, who will necessarily ignore any posts that seem to challenge their beliefs

if that makes any sense.
Faith is turned into belief so that beliefs cannot be challenged, even though belief and beliefs are usually two different concepts.
For instance, i personally "believe" that humans evolving from the dust of the earth through some rat-like creature is completely in line with Scripture (to deliberately choose one that not many hold, iow); but if that turns out to be untrue my faith will not be affected

 

[bbyrd009]

So men's false tradition of TWO different Gospels, one for the circumcision, and another for the uncircumcision, is just a bogus idea from unlearned country preachers who can't determine the difference between the idea of two administrations of the SAME Gospel:

i agree. Now did ppl perceive themselves as Jew or Gentile, sure, right, and i could even refer to myself right now as a Gentile and be correct in a sense, while nonetheless being incorrect in another, the spiritual sense. Despite the fact that i am circumcised, due to that deluded country preacher mostly i guess

 

[Marymog]

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

Hi,

In all fairness should we not quote what else Ignatius and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus said about this matter instead of your partial out of context quote of one of them? Shouldn't we also FULLY quote what Paul said and include verses 27-29 instead of only 23-26????

Ignatius: I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His blood, which is love incorruptible. [Letter to the Romans 7]

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. [Letter to the Smyrnaeans]

Ignatius repeated what Paul taught: 27So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the LORD in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the LORD. 28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. Interesting how you didn't fully quote Ignatius and your mention of Paul's teaching (1 Cor 11:23-26) conveniently left out verse 27-29 which destroys your theory.

Justin Martyr: We call this food Eucharist,.....For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66).

Irenaeus: He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?"

I suspect you didn't know about these writings from those great men and scripture otherwise I'm sure you would have quoted them. Your welcome.

Historical Mary

 

[Marymog]

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:

"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practiced a mix of two dispensations, law and grace, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

Hi,

Paul gave water baptism no such significance??? Are you of Paul and not of Apollo's? (get it?)

Paul is not saying baptism does not need to be done or is not necessary to salvation. He is saying that if he personally had done more baptizing more people would be naming themselves after him instead of Apollo's. He is not saying that baptism is unnecessary but that he wanted as little as possible to do with this problem of division over preachers. Paul established the church in Corinth and the people there were baptized as a result (Acts 18:8). He himself was baptized (Acts 9:6) and he later taught that baptism is essential to come into Christ and into His death (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:27).

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was sent to preach the gospel. What else does the gospel say about baptism? It clearly says that baptism saves and washes away your sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16) so that is what Paul would teach also because that is what he was sent to do.

How about we fully quote Ignatius instead of your partial quote: Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid.

As you can see Ignatius continued and re-affirmed the practice of the bishop being the mouthpiece for Jesus teaching and the teachings/practices of the Apostles. For whatever they bound on earth was bound in heaven. The ritual of water baptism was bound on earth. Your theory that Ignatius paved the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism is an easily debunkable theory. If you take the time to read (which I know you won't) the Didache, Letter of Barnabas, Hermas of Rome and Second Clement about baptism you would learn your theory is mistaken. All of those were written BEFORE Ignatius.

Justin Martyrs teachings about Baptism mirrors scriptures teaching about baptism. Why should his writings reflect ONLY Paul's teachings? You have me confused.

Mary

 

[H. Richard]

Hi,

Paul gave water baptism no such significance??? Are you of Paul and not of Apollo's? (get it?)

Paul is not saying baptism does not need to be done or is not necessary to salvation. He is saying that if he personally had done more baptizing more people would be naming themselves after him instead of Apollo's. He is not saying that baptism is unnecessary but that he wanted as little as possible to do with this problem of division over preachers. Paul established the church in Corinth and the people there were baptized as a result (Acts 18:8). He himself was baptized (Acts 9:6) and he later taught that baptism is essential to come into Christ and into His death (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:27).

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was sent to preach the gospel. What else does the gospel say about baptism? It clearly says that baptism saves and washes away your sins (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16) so that is what Paul would teach also because that is what he was sent to do.

How about we fully quote Ignatius instead of your partial quote: Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church. It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or to hold a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid.

As you can see Ignatius continued and re-affirmed the practice of the bishop being the mouthpiece for Jesus teaching and the teachings/practices of the Apostles. For whatever they bound on earth was bound in heaven. The ritual of water baptism was bound on earth. Your theory that Ignatius paved the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism is an easily debunkable theory. If you take the time to read (which I know you won't) the Didache, Letter of Barnabas, Hermas of Rome and Second Clement about baptism you would learn your theory is mistaken. All of those were written BEFORE Ignatius.

Justin Martyrs teachings about Baptism mirrors scriptures teaching about baptism. Why should his writings reflect ONLY Paul's teachings? You have me confused.

Mary

***

Sorry Mary but I do not think Jesus is pleased by the religious theologies of man. It was the religious that persecuted the prophets and killed some of them. It was the religious that had Jesus killed. It was the religious that stoned Stephen to death. It was the religious Jews who believed Jesus was the Jew's Messiah and King but went around telling Paul's Gentile converts that they had to follow the Law of Moses. Somehow I just can't see that Jesus loves those of religion so much that He just set up an improved religion. You can believe it if you wish but I will not.

As far as the catholic church is concerned they have the blood of many on their hand. I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself. And this is not confined to the RCC and OC, it also applies to the protestant churches as well.

All religions - sooner or later - came up with a salvation system that requires whatever works and rituals they say are necessary...even though Paul said we're declared righteous by God because of His grace alone, thru our faith alone, without works.

Paul was taught his gospel, personally, by Jesus, and not from any man.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
(NKJ)

Show me another biblical example of a person who was 'personally' taught by
Jesus Christ ( in His ascended body ). He ascended to heaven after 40 days and 40 nights. However He came back, after that time, and gave Paul the gospel of God's grace.

Lets look at what your apostle Peter said about Paul.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation — as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
NKJV

Do you realize that Peter is saying the words written by Paul are scripture?