What is the 'Rule of Faith'?

Prior to the Council of Nicea, every congregation held to the Rule of Faith, which contained the essentials of Christianity. These were apparently memorized at baptism by all new Christians. It was sometimes referred to as "the Rule" and "the Rule of Truth."

"Let us give up purposeless and fruitless cares and approach the holy and venerable Rule of our calling. Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ and see how precious that blood is to God, which has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. Let us turn to every age that has passed and learn that the Lord has granted a place of repentance to all that would be converted to Him. Noah preached repentance, and as many as listened to him were saved." –Clement of Rome

"The one who retains the Rule of the Truth received through baptism unchangeable in his heart will surely recognize the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures [by the Gnostics] but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them." –Irenaeus

What exactly is the “Rule of Faith” mentioned repeatedly by the early Christians?

"The rule of faith, indeed, is altogether one, alone immoveable and unchangeable. The rule is: To believe in the only one God Almighty, the Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, born of the virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, raised again the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right hand of the Father, destined to come to judge the living and the dead through the resurrection of the flesh." –Tertullian

In other words, the Rule of Faith is the Essentials of the Faith:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Corinthians 15:3-4

Why Our Theology Needs Correction

"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, one congregation writing to another congregation
In other words, new teachings, such as Dispensationalism, which is 200 years old, should be rejected by Bible-believing Christians and their theology should agree with the teachings of the first two centuries of believers.

"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

In other words, go to the primary sources. Since we cannot ask the apostles or their recipients, we should turn to the early Christians for their course of performance.

"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 churches, 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 church 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 churches 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 churches 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 churches had fallen into doctrinal errors, they would have certainly ended up with varying teachings. [As we have seen to be the case from the Reformation onward.] 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." —Tertullian

"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." —Tertullian

"The Holy Scripture is the fountain and lively spring, containing in all sufficiency and abundance the pure Water of Life, and whatever is necessary to make God's people wise unto salvation. ...The voice and testimony of the Primitive Church, is a ministerial and subordinate rule and guide, to preserve and direct us in the right understanding of the Scriptures." —Francis White, 1564-1638

"Can anyone who spends several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that learning the reading of the Fathers? The Fathers are the most authentic commentators on Scripture, for they were nearest the fountain and were eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea." —John Wesley, 1703-1791

Brad Chase's Delusional Defense of Pagan Practices

The book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices by Frank Viola and George Barna has never been credibly, or successfully, refuted or discounted. It is heavily sourced. Roman Catholic Brad Chase sets out in a sad, pathetic attempt to refute their claims in his book UnPagan Christianity, which is practically source-less, but only succeeds in hyper proof text methodology. Not only does he miss the several points made in Pagan Christianity, but his reading comprehension is appalling (unless he is willfully misrepresenting them and what they said—repeatedly).

Brad Chase attempts to defend every single pagan practice that exists in the institutional Roman Catholic church, engaging in hyper proof text methodology. He incorrectly attempts to attribute the origins of these practices to the Old Testament, but this is extremely misguided thinking. These elements have become common place and so in an attempt to defend them, he turns to the Scriptures and scours through them in order to rip passages out of their immediate context and use them as support for the existing elements. This is proof text methodology at its finest.

Not to mention that if he bothered paying attention to the vast writings of the early Christians (AD 90-300), they condemned a great many of the existing elements that Brad Chase is desperately trying to defend in his utter ignorance. One such example is their stance against iconography and relics. Here is just a handful of the quotes against such practices:

"They call themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material. They maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at the time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world. That is to say, they place them with the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." —Irenaeus, c. 180

"It is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you. . . . It leads you to pay religious honor and worship to images and pictures." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"Ages before, Moses expressly commanded that neither a carved, nor molten, nor molded, nor painted likeness should be made. This was so that we would not cling to things of sense, but pass to spiritual objects. For familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the reverence of what is divine." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"He who prohibited the making of a graven image would never Himself have made an image in the likeness of holy things." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"Works of art cannot be sacred and divine." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images, . . . does it not merit praise instead of penalty that we have rejected what we have come to see is error?" —Tertullian, c. 197

"We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images. But when images are set up, we know well enough, too, who carry on their wicked work under these names. We know who exult in the homage rendered to the images. We know who pretend to be divine. It is none other than accursed spirits." —Tertullian, c. 197

"Demons have their abode in the images of the dead." —Tertullian, c. 197

"'Not that an idol is anything,' as the apostle says, but that the homage they render to it is to demons. These are the real occupants of these consecrated images—whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods." —Tertullian, c. 197

"[This disciples of Carpocrates] make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time . . . and were fashioned by Pilate." —Hippolytus, c. 225

Brad Chase engages in the Straw Man Fallacy, erecting straw men arguments that he can easily blow over while ignoring and not addressing the full weight of the evidence Frank and George present. Brad Chase demonstrates that he is unable to argue the main point, never providing a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument, exposing himself as a person speaking by way of confession of intellectual bankruptcy.

Frank and George provide a multitude of sources to support what they are saying, while Brad Chase merely asserts they are wrong because "The Roman Catholic church says so" and spews a bunch of ignorant opinion backed by nothing.

Brad Chase argues that the "biblical source for temples" is 1 Kings 6, because "Solomon built a temple." *Listens to the crickets.* Wow! Such a compelling argument. A fine example of hyper proof text methodology at work. This displays Brad Chase's ignorance excellently, because he is so focused on trying to defend his pagan traditions that he ignores the clear teachings of the New Testament. Not only was Jesus the Temple, of which Paul says He was the cornerstone, but we are that Temple which the Spirit dwells in. New Testament Scripture makes it clear that God does not dwell in temples made with human hands; He dwells in us! Christians were never supposed to have physical temples to meet in. Jesus never commanded such. The apostles never commanded such. The early Christians even spoke against such. But Brad Chase is ignorant of all of this. Purposefully, no doubt.

Frank Viola and George Barna are merely pointing out the pagan origins of the traditions we cling to with these organized religious institutions falsely called "churches" in the hopes that we would reject those traditions that contradict the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians and restore the traditions they did teach. Not the corruptions that slowly crept in over time, but the pure teachings and traditions of the Word.

I encourage Brad Chase to come to his senses, repent, embrace King Jesus, and come out of the beast system of Roman Catholicism. Otherwise his soul is going to be lost forever. He has already received the mark of this beast system, consenting mentally and believing their lies (mark on the forehead) while conducting himself in accordance with those lies and acting upon them (mark on the hand). But Jesus is more powerful than this system. Today is the day of salvation. Come out of her, Brad.

Orthodox Christianity

The Orthodox church (Eastern Orthodox [Greek, Russian, etc.] and Oriental Orthodox [Coptic, Syrian, etc.]) is the oldest denomination in the world, but it was not founded by Jesus, and its beginnings are not chronicled in the New Testament. Her history cannot be traced in unbroken continuity all the way back to Jesus and His twelve apostles. Such a claim to the contrary is a LIE and lies are not becoming of those who profess to belong to King Jesus. Her history can be traced, however, in unbroken continuity all the way back to Emperor Constantine and his “Christianity.”

Rome forfeited its place in the Church of the New Testament, and the Protestant Reformation failed to return to the New Testament Church, but the Orthodox churches also left the Church of the New Testament. Do they meet in homes? Do they repudiate titles and positions of honour? Do they reject the unbiblical division of "clergy" and "laity"? Ergo, the Orthodox church is not the New Testament Church. Large cathedrals, fanciful garb, priests, division of clergy/laity, veneration (reverence) of icons; etc. None of these date to the early, pure Church; they date to the corruption of the Church under Emperor Constantine!

If Orthodox individuals believe that Yahweh God raised Jesus from the dead and confess Him as Yahweh God’s anointed King of the whole Earth and Judge of the living and the dead, earnestly pursuing to live holy lives set apart from sin, then I love them as my brothers and sisters in both the faith and the Spirit. However, if they are the least bit honest with themselves, and with the Scriptures and Church history, they will have to admit that a great deal of the elements they cling to not only cannot be found in Scripture or the early Church, but also cannot be defended from Scripture or the early Church. If any Orthodox priest wants to contact me and debate these issues, I will be waiting.

The Orthodox churches believe themselves to be retaining the practices and traditions of Jesus, the apostles, and the early Church, condemning all other branches of Christendom, from the Roman Catholics to the Protestant Reformers and onward, as having departed New Testament Christianity. They erroneously refer to the elements they hold to as “biblical ideas,” without regard for what the Scriptures actually teach or even what the early Church taught (A.D. 90-300). Let us examine some of their heretical practices and traditions, shall we.

Tradition #1: Why do Orthodox churches have cathedrals? Neither Jesus nor the apostles instituted any kind of temple for believers to meet in. Why? Because we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit! (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-22) For the first three centuries, Christians went from house to house meeting in homes. Temples were first introduced to the New Testament Church under and by Emperor Constantine. Orthodox tradition #1 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

Tradition #2: Why do Orthodox churches have a division of clergy and laity? Neither Jesus nor the apostles instituted any such division between believers. Read Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns titles of honour and says that if you want to be great you need to be like a slave. Elsewhere He says you need to be like the youngest member of the family. What kind of authority does a slave have? What kind of authority does the youngest member of the family have? Jesus said that "it is not this way among [us]" (Mark 10:42-45). While such divisions began appearing in the latter part of the third century, they became entrenched under Emperor Constantine. Orthodox tradition #2 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

Tradition #3: Why do Orthodox churches have priests? Neither Jesus nor the apostles instituted priests because every believer is a priest. Hence “the priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet. 2:5-9). Priests have their origin in pagan religions and the Jewish religion. They are not part of the New Testament Church. The New Testament Church knows only two terms, and neither is an authority over other believers: watchman or overseer (episkope) and ministers or servants (diakonos). Watchmen are also described as elders (presbuteros). Priests were introduced into the New Testament Church under Emperor Constantine. Orthodox tradition #3 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

"Our elders are proven men who obtain their position not by purchase, but by established character." —Tertullian

"As to anyone who teaches principles to live by and molds the characters of others, I ask, "Is he not obligated himself to live by the principles he teaches?" If he himself does not live by them, his teaching is nullified. ...His student will answer him like this, "I cannot practice the things you teach, because they are impossible. You forbid me to be angry. You forbid me to covet. You forbid me to lust. And you forbid me to fear pain and death. This is totally contrary to nature; all living creatures are subject to these emotions. If you are so convinced that it is possible to live contrary to natural impulses, first let me see you practice the things you teach so I will know they are possible." ... How will [the teacher] take away this excuse from the self-willed, unless he teaches them by his example, so they can see with their own eyes that the things he teaches are possible? For this very reason, no one obeys the teachings of the philosophers. Men prefer examples to words, because it is easy to speak—but difficult to act." —Lactantius

"[The elder] should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be proved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. ...For a proper ordination, all the neighboring overseers throughout the same province should assemble with the congregation. The overseer should be chosen in the presence of the congregation, since they are intimately familiar with his life and habits." —Cyprian

Tradition #4: Why do Orthodox church clergy wear fanciful robes and giant hats? Observe the photo below. Do you think that either Jesus or the apostles ever dressed this way? No, no they did not! None of the early Christians dressed this way. Some Orthodox individuals may attempt to connect the priest and this clothing to Moses and/or the Levites, but this is a false connection. This mode of dress, imitating the officials of Roman government, was instituted under Emperor Constantine. Orthodox tradition #4 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

Tradition #5: Why do Orthodox churches "venerate" icons (paintings and statues)? Iconography is idolatry! Have Orthodox churches never read Exodus 20:4-5 or Deuteronomy 5:8-9? "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." The early Christians repudiated such practices, and yet the Orthodox churches have made it part of their practices and traditions. Why? Because they embraced pagan practices and traditions that trace back to Emperor Constantine. Orthodox tradition #5 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

"They call themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material. They maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at the time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world. That is to say, they place them with the images of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honoring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." —Irenaeus, c. 180

"It is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you. . . . It leads you to pay religious honor and worship to images and pictures." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"Ages before, Moses expressly commanded that neither a carved, nor molten, nor molded, nor painted likeness should be made. This was so that we would not cling to things of sense, but pass to spiritual objects. For familiarity with the sense of sight disparages the reverence of what is divine." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"He who prohibited the making of a graven image would never Himself have made an image in the likeness of holy things." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"Works of art cannot be sacred and divine." —Clement of Alexandria, c. 195

"In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images, . . . does it not merit praise instead of penalty that we have rejected what we have come to see is error?" —Tertullian, c. 197

"We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images. But when images are set up, we know well enough, too, who carry on their wicked work under these names. We know who exult in the homage rendered to the images. We know who pretend to be divine. It is none other than accursed spirits." —Tertullian, c. 197

"Demons have their abode in the images of the dead." —Tertullian, c. 197

"'Not that an idol is anything,' as the apostle says, but that the homage they render to it is to demons. These are the real occupants of these consecrated images—whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods." —Tertullian, c. 197

"[This disciples of Carpocrates] make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time . . . and were fashioned by Pilate." —Hippolytus, c. 225

Tradition #6: The Orthodox churches think that their services closely relate to the practices of the New Testament Church. Much of their service follows a similar pattern to Roman Catholic Mass and Anglican Holy Communion. Let us put their claim to the test, shall we. Observe how Justin Martyr, who lived from A.D. 110 to 165, described a typical New Testament Church meeting:

"On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. There the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read, for as long as time permits. When the reader is finished, the presiding brother verbal instructs us and urges us to imitate the good things that were read to us.
Next we all rise together and pray. And as I related before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine [mixed with] water are brought. In like manner, the presiding brother offers prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability. And the people assent, saying, "Amen." Then the bread and wine are distributed to each person, and each partakes. The servants [diakonos] take a portion to those who are absent.
Those who are well to do, and are willing, give what they think fit. The funds collected are deposited with the presiding brother, who helps the orphans and widows, together with others in need because of sickness or any other reason. He also assists the prisoners, and any strangers who happen to be among us. In short, he takes care of all who are in need.
Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common meeting, because it is the first day on which God made the world, having worked a change in the darkness and matter. On this same day, Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead."

First Corinthians chapters 11 through 14 describe what typical meetings looked like, too. The fellowship was centered around a meal. This meal was known as the "love feast." Every member of the Body was allowed to contribute for the edification of the entire Body. "When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." Orthodox tradition #6 exposed, refuted, rebuked, and condemned.

The Orthodox church could benefit greatly from reading and paying attention to not only the New Testament, but the writings of the early Christians from A.D. 90-300. While some the Orthodox church's practices and traditions may trace back to these early centuries, several of them did not exist until Emperor Constantine turned Christianity upon its head and perverted it. A significant portion of their beliefs, practices, and traditions also originate from Augustine (such as the unbiblical idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin despite Scripture stating the opposite). The Orthodox churches have blindly clung to these unbiblical ideas and attempted to defend them via proof text methodology from the Scriptures. If they bothered reading and paying attention to the writings of the early believers, they would find that several of the practices and traditions they cling to, that were borne under Emperor Constantine, are condemned by the early Christians.

I love my brothers and sisters in the Orthodox church. I love and admire the Orthodox church, but they have some soul searching to do. They are not as in line with the teachings, practices, and traditions of the New Testament Church as they would like to think they are. We have just examined six elements where they have departed from the Church of the New Testament. If they are honest in the least, they will have to admit that this is indeed the case. Like every other denomination out there, they have some restitution that they need to do in order to return to the biblical standard of the New Testament Church.

There are no gifts that are "limited to those who lead the Church," as the Orthodox Study Bible claims. No one leads the Church except for King Jesus, through His Holy Spirit, as He is her Head and we are His Body. The Body does not consist of one mouth and many ears, as our denominations today practice (Rom. 12:4-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-31). Any other form of "leadership" is severing the headship of King Jesus and usurping His authority for themselves. He said in Matthew 23 not to call others Leader and not to be called Leader ourselves because hierarchy is not to be named among us as we are all equals. Anabaptists were closer to the biblical New Testament Church in practice than the Orthodox churches ever will be.

The Myth of "Sola Scriptura"

I hate to burst your bubble and break it to you, but "Sola Scriptura" is a myth. Anyone who claims to be "Sola Scriptura" is either ignorant or a liar. If you believe that "all I need is my Bible," then please tell me who wrote the first book that appears in our New Testament. Matthew? Why do you believe that? Where in the book does it identify the author? The names at the top of the books are not part of the original manuscripts. Paul did not write "1 Corinthians" at the top of his letter to the Corinthians (which is actually his second letter; the first is lost to us). So why do you believe that the first book was written by Matthew? the second book by Mark? the third book by Luke? the fourth book by John? Etc.

The reason you believe these things is because the early Christians said that is who wrote them. So accepting that is Extra Scriptura, it is outside Scripture. If you want to truly be "only Scripture," then you need to remove "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "John" out of our Bibles. Call them First Gospel, Second Gospel, Third Gospel, and Fourth Gospel instead. Same goes for First John Second John, and Third John. Call them First Anonymous Letter, Second Anonymous Letter, and Third Anonymous Letter instead.

Why do you believe the 27 books of our New Testament are canon? The apostles did not hand their disciples a completed New Testament. The first complete New Testament did not appear until about the end of the 3rd century. For the first 20 years after Pentecost, not a single word of the New Testament had been written. It took 40 years for the entire New Testament to be written. So why do you believe the 27 books we have are supposed to be there? Again, you need to go outside Scripture. The early Christians compiled lists of these books. These 27 books were consistent.

Even the Reformers, who touted "Sola Scriptura" as their battle cry, did not follow their profession. The Reformers made sure their readers would not have "Sola Scriptura" by inserting prefaces to each book and chapter of the Bible, steering the reader's attention away from parts that did not fit their theology. The marginal notes that "explain" the Bible make void the claim of "Sola Scriptura." The Geneva Bible was horrendous for this. This is the only good thing about the King James Version; the lack of running commentaries.

Evangelicals are no closer to "Sola Scriptura" today than they were in the sixteenth century. Evangelicals blindly prefer to purchase interpretative "study" Bibles that willfully steer them away from "Sola Scriptura." I am not merely talking about the poor addition of chapters and verses, which distract the reader from the context and main intention of the author, or about cross reference systems that are the result of proof text methodology. Some Bibles are helpful, such as the Thompson-Chain Reference Bible or the Newberry Reference Bible. But most these "study" Bibles add human interpretations and biases alongside Scripture, giving man's words equal weight with God's, influencing the average reader by essentially making man's opinions equal to the inspiration of Scripture, which they are not!

When you are reading the epistles, you are hearing one side of a phone conversation. You are missing important context. Not to mention that you are missing what the authors said to their audience in person. When Paul says things like, "And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed," you and I do not know. You and I were not privy to those in-person conversations.

When you read First Corinthians and come across difficult to understand passages, how do you determine to figure out what they mean? You will not find the answers in "Sola Scriptura." You need to go Extra Scriptura. Ideally, you should go to the primary source. However, since we cannot ask Paul, and we cannot ask the Corinthians, who can we ask? We can look to the early Christians and see how they understood these passages and put them into practice. If you want to understand Scripture correctly, you need to listen to the early Christians!

Nobody uses "just the Bible alone"! Anyone who claims to is a liar. Do they make use of Bible commentaries? dictionaries? handbooks? lexicons? Do you read references on historical and culture backgrounds? Do they read Christian literature? Do they listen to sermons? All these things are Extra Scriptura, but not all of them are helpful. If you do not use any Bible aids whatsoever, and do not read or listen to anything else, but only read the Bible, then you could try to claim you use "just the Bible," but if you listen to a "pastor," then you are not.

What Does John 16:12-13 Mean?

How many Christians have you heard argue using the following Scripture to support whatever it is they are personally invested in?

"When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."

I have heard this more times than I can count. In fact, I heard it again this past Sunday in our congregational meeting.

Let us examine the context, shall we? The setting takes place shortly after Jesus and the apostles had eaten the Last Supper. Judas Iscariot had already gone out. Jesus was giving some final words of counsel to His eleven faithful apostles. In due course of this counsel, Jesus says, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" (John 16:12-13).

Did you notice that these words were not spoken to the crowds? Did you notice that these words were not spoken to the seventy disciples Jesus had sent out? These words are not even spoken to you and me. These words were only spoken to the eleven apostles!

This passage is a reiteration of what Jesus had previously told His apostles moments before: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" (John 14:26). Did Jesus ever say anything personally to you? So how could the Spirit bring to remembrance in you all that Jesus had said?

The early Christians understood John 16:12-13 to apply only to the apostles—at least to direct revelation from God. Not everything Jesus said to His apostles applies to all Christians, or even to the same degree. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of context and Scripture.

If the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth, then He also guided the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries to all truth as well. Our truth should be the same as theirs. If it is not, one of us has not been following the Spirit's guidance. Guess which one that is logically likely to be?