One early congregation made the following comment in a letter to another congregation:
"You well understand, no doubt, that those who seek to set up any new doctrines have the habit of very readily perverting any proofs they desire to take from the Scriptures to conform to their own notions.... Consequently, a disciple of Christ ought to receive nothing new as doctrine that is in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles." —Archelaus Manes
The early Christian leaders had a sincere desire to avoid accidentally straying from the practices and traditions of the apostles:
"Suppose a dispute arises relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with whom the apostles had constant dealings and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the question?" —Irenaeus
The practice of these words was continued up until the time of Emperor Constantine. That is when the Congregation of the Lord veered drastically off course, to which she has never recovered—not even with the Reformation.
Contrary to the definitions provided by modern-day congregations and denominations, separatists and schismatics are those denominational religious groups that have separated from the Congregation of the Lord on non-Scriptural grounds, such as ecclesiastical customs, forms, usages, and the like (Oriental Orthodox Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.). While there is a difference between malicious separatism (caused by spite and uncharitableness) and non-malicious separatism (the result of ignorance or prejudice not joined with intentional disregard of the principle of brotherly love), schisms are opposed to God's Word and are sinful.
To apply the terms separatists and schismatics to persons who separate themselves from erring congregations on account of their unsound doctrine or unscriptural practice is unjustified.
Pulpit & Pen (Jordan D. Hall?) wrote a small article in 2016 that utilizes the fallacy of 'Poisoning the Well.' In an attempt to defend their unbiblical beliefs and practices, those they received at the hands of the Gnostics, who Luther and Calvin would later copycat, they decided to label anyone who adheres to and obeys God's Word as a "Sectarian Minimalist," which they then falsely identify as a "heresy."
Pulpit & Pen claims such people "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church" and accuses such people of "a minimalist approach to ecclesiology that both insults and rejects the organized church." I hate to break it to you, Pulpit & Pen, but the organized church is the insult! It is an insult to Yahweh, it is an insult to Jesus, it is an insult to the Holy Spirit, it is an insult to the apostles, and it is an insult to the Word of God. You need to do your homework and research the writings of the early Christians, Pulpit & Pen, and educate yourself as to their beliefs and traditions. While you call many of their beliefs and traditions "heretical," they called your beliefs and traditions heretical. Who are the real heretics?
Pulpit & Pen also needs to learn not to impose their understanding of words upon the writings of the early Christians, because they will soon be embarrassed to learn that their usage of these words was vastly different from our usage and understanding. As Tertullian stated,
"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."
Why do Christians today choose doctrines that were first taught 1,400 years or more after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were taught within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the true biblical beliefs of faith? The early Christians (A.D. 70-313), or modern evangelical Christians (beginning 500 years ago and being 1,900 years separated from the apostles)? Pulpit & Pen, along with all other modern-day Christians who share the same fallacious argumentation as them, might do well to learn from Tertullian's defense:
"It is absurd to claim that the apostles either were ignorant of the whole scope of the message they were given to declare or that they failed to teach the entire rule of faith. Let us see if perhaps the congregations, through their own fault, altered the faith delivered to them by the apostles.... Suppose, then, that all of the churches have erred and that the Holy Spirit did not have enough concern for even one congregation to lead it into truth, even though that is the reason Christ sent Him to us.... Suppose, too, that the Holy Spirit, the Steward of God and Vicar of Christ, neglected His office and permitted the congregations to understand incorrectly and to teach differently than what He Himself was teaching through the apostles.
If that is the case, is it likely that so many congregations would have gone astray and all still end up with one and the same faith? No random deviation by so many people could result in all of them coming to the same conclusion. If the congregations had fallen into doctrinal errors, they would have certainly ended up with varying teachings. However, when that which was deposited [i.e., the Christian faith] among many is still found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of long established custom."
Try as you might, modern-day "pastors," theologians, and scholars, engaging in all the mental gymnastics you can concoct, but you will never be able to circumvent Tertullian's argument. Examine every denomination in existence today and you will find they all drastically fall short of the biblical congregations of the early Christians with their beliefs, practices, and traditions. Who is right and who is wrong? All modern-day congregations and denominations are wrong! Period. The early Christians called your beliefs and traditions heresy. The early Christians did not have the governments each denomination has installed and adhered to for the past 1,700 years. The early Christians followed the interpretations and practices that Paul and the other apostles had taught them as they visited their congregations during their travels. The early Christians are the only true orthodox believers. Today, anyone who claims "orthodoxy" does not understand the word, let alone the early Congregation's beliefs, practices, and traditions.
Three hundred years after the death of Jesus, orthodox Christians were still one united body. Three hundred years after the Reformation, Christians were divided into hundreds of dissenting groups and sects. That should tell you something. However, pride, arrogance, and stubbornness refuse to pay attention to such colossal red flags.
For three hundred years, Satan tried to coerce Christians by force. He failed miserably. They were too loyal to Jesus. However, when Satan, through Emperor Constantine, rolled out the red carpet and showed gifts, praise, and honour upon the congregation, she capitulated almost instantly. With the things President Donald Trump was doing for the congregation, we were seeing a repeat of history. Yet the American congregation was none the wiser, instead worshiping Trump as some sort of "saviour."
American Christians are especially disconnected from reality when compared with the early Christians. American Christians are frequently identified as "war mongers," because their attitudes are swift to desire war, or to desire harm upon someone else. Compare what the early Christians said about war and harming others with the attitudes of the American Christian. The early Christians refused to return harm against their assailant, while American Christians are all too eager to "blow away" someone who breaks into their homes. The early Christians obeyed the words of the Lord Jesus literally, while American Christians follow the heretical teachings of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, who denied Jesus' words and contradicted them.
Observe how the early Christians viewed war as morally wrong:
"We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war upon our enemies." —Justin Martyr
"Can it be lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that 'he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword'? And shall the son of peace take part in battle, when it does not become him even to sue at law? Shall he apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment, when he is not the avenger of his own wrongs?" —Tertullian
"Nowhere does He teach that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to anyone, however wicked. For He deemed the killing of any individual to be against His laws, which were divine in origin. If Christians had owed their origins to a rebellion, they would not have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character. [These laws] do not even allow them on any occasion to resist their persecutors, even when they are called to be slaughtered as sheep." —Origen
"The whole world is wet with mutual blood. Murder, which is admitted to be a crime when it is committed by an individual, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds [of war], not because they are guiltless, but because they cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale." —Cyprian
"We have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil should not be repaid with evil [Rom. 12:17]. That it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it. And that our own blood should be shed rather than to stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. As a result, an ungrateful world has now for a long period been enjoying a benefit from Christ. For by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and the world has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature." —Arnobius
Now compare those teachings with the heretical teachings of Augustine and the Reformers who contradicted Jesus when He told us to turn the other cheek:
"We are not here precluded from inflicting such vengeance as serves for correction, and as compassion itself dictates. Nor does it stand in the way of that course proposed, where one is prepared to endure more from the hand of him whom he wishes to set right. But no one is suitable for inflicting this punishment except the man who, by the greatness of his love, has overcome that hatred that normally enflames those who wish to avenge themselves.
For it is not to be feared that parents would seem to hate a little son when, on committing an offence, he is beaten by them so that he may not go on offending. And certainly the perfection of love is set before us by the imitation of God the Father Himself. . . . "For whom the Lord loves He corrects. yes, He scourges every son whom He receives." The Lord also says, "The servant who knows not his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes; but the servant who knows his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes." . . .
Form this source the most suitable example is drawn, in order that it may be sufficiently clear that sin can be punished in love rather than be left unpunished. Accordingly, one may actually wish that the person on whom he inflicts punishment not to be made miserable because of the punishment. Rather, he desires him to be happy by means of the correction." —Augustine"Unquestionably, Christ did not intent to exhort his people to whet the malice of those whose propensity to injure others is sufficiently strong. And if they were to turn to them the other cheek, what would it be but holding out such an encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious commentator to eagerly seize on syllables, but to attend to the design of the speaker. And nothing is more unbecoming the disciples of Christ, than to spend time in nitpicking about words, where it is easy to see what the Master means." —John Calvin (copycatting Augustine, as he typically did)
Augustine, Luther, and Calvin had no qualms about skillfully wiping out the teachings of Jesus. Where Jesus and James said that you should not swear oaths, Augustine had no inhibitions about contradicting Jesus, insinuating that Jesus' words were a mere suggestion and that you should only swear if someone insists that you do. Jesus said to love our enemies, but what did John Calvin say?
"It is obvious, as I have already said, that Christ does not introduce new laws, but corrects the wicked commentary of the Scribes, by whom the purity of the divine law had been corrupted."
The ordinary, uneducated Christians of the first two centuries clearly understood that Jesus' teachings made a church-state combination impossible, and that Christians could not possibly kill non-Christians in war, let alone fellow citizens of the kingdom. Yet, Luther and Calvin saw no contradiction between their teachings and the teachings of Jesus. They set themselves up as the popes of their own denominations, creating their own church-states, and did not hesitate to war against Catholics and other Christian sects they deemed as "heretical." They even warred against their own denominations in different locations!
Look! Either Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said, or you follow a different Jesus. It is that simple. Repent of your unbiblical, godless beliefs and traditions, and reform and conform your beliefs and traditions to that of Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians. Start living that obedient love-faith relationship and bearing fruit that demonstrates and proves your life is found in Christ Jesus.