“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. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.” John 16:12-14
Jesus said this to His apostles! Not to the crowds! Not to the other disciples! Not to us 2,000 years later! The idea that the Holy Spirit has taught or is teaching us things 2,000 years later that He never taught the early Church (AD 90-200) is abysmally asinine and fallacious. The idea that the early Church had "undeveloped" theology is likewise false. They were taught everything they needed to know directly by the apostles who were guided and taught directly by the Holy Spirit! If anything, our "theology" is overdeveloped through the opinions of men by the use of proof text methodology, eisegesis, and Scripture twisting.
Every denomination has their "scholars," their "experts." They all think their theology is "correct."
Shall we settle that argument?
We do realize that everything the apostles had to say is not contained in the New Testament letters, right? The early Christians were privy to the oral (by mouth) teachings and traditions of the apostles, while we are not. What the apostles taught the early Church by word (orally) or by letter is about 90-10. (I am being generous here. Realistically, it is probably more like 99-1.) Remember, Paul spent 4 to 18 months with each congregation he planted, teaching them orally (by word), and only wrote them a letter (from another location) when problems had surfaced. In other words, 10% of what they taught the early Church is contained in their letters. 90% is not! So when we see teachings from AD 90 that we think are “heresy,” we need to STOP and consider the 90%. Also consider the fact that the theology we believe was likely taught in error via proof text methodology and eisegesis. The early Church taught what they had received from the apostles.
It is important for us to remember that the early Christians shared the same language, the same customs, and the same culture as that of the apostles. It is also important for us to remember that the early Christians were taught directly by one or more of the apostles, or one or more of the disciples of the apostles, who were guided and taught directly by the Holy Spirit. So if we are going to claim that the Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth, then we need to remember that He also led the early Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries into all truth as well. In other words, our truth should be exactly the same as theirs. If it is not the same, then one of us has not been following the Spirit's guidance. Would you care to venture a guess as to who that is logically likely to be? We are reading from the same Scriptures; if there is any deviation from biblical truth, it has occurred with us—not with them!
Christianity is an Eastern religion. Until we recognize this, we will never be able to get into the mindset of the apostles and New Testament Christians. Next to the Bible, the writings of the early Christians are the most valuable documents in Christianity. Who better understands the apostles? Those who were directly taught by one or more of the apostles, or by one or more of the disciples of the apostles, who spoke the same language and had the same customs and culture as the apostles? Or us, who are removed from those teachings, the language, customs, and culture by 1,900 years? If the Christianity of the first three centuries seems distant, foreign, and strange to us, guess who has moved away from first century biblical New Testament Christianity as taught by Jesus and His apostles?
For the past 1,700 years (especially the past 500), no one has understood the New Testament. How could they? It is bound in a chaotic manner that is not chronological. You need background history of the Roman Empire, the nation of Israel, and the Congregation in order to understand why each book/letter was written. You are reading one side of a telephone conversation. What led to Paul's writing Galatians? In the eight years between the writings of Galatians (Paul's first letter) and Romans (Paul's sixth letter), what occurred in the Roman Empire, Israel, and the Congregation that prompted Paul to write Romans? Jews were forbidden from being in Rome, so Paul sent several of the veteran gentile Christians from congregations he had planted to Rome in order to establish a congregation there. Romans was written to these Christians.
We label as heresy many of the doctrines the early Christians taught. They labeled as heresy many of the doctrines we teach. So who are the real heretics? 300 years after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, orthodox Christians were still of one mind, one united Body. 300 years after the Reformation, evangelical Christianity had splintered into thousands of denominations, groups, and sects. If our theology disagrees with the teachings and traditions of the early Church, those who were taught directly by the apostles, who were guided and taught directly by the Holy Spirit, then WE ARE WRONG! Period.
If the Bible says "X" is true and you disagree with "X," you are wrong. Period.
Your opinion doesn't matter.
Your experience doesn't matter.
Your preference doesn't matter.
"X" is still true if God says it is true.
If you assume "X" means one thing, but the early Christians said "X" meant something else, you are wrong. Period.
Always go to primary sources! Since we cannot ask the apostles or their recipients (primary sources), our next stop in determining truth is to examine the course of performance of the early Christians. What did they understand? How did they put it into practice? They were either taught directly by one or more of the apostles, or by one or more of the disciples of the apostles. We are 1,900 years removed from those teachings, as well as the language, customs, and culture!
Our "leaders" will attempt to explain away the teachings and traditions of the early Church, as received from the apostles, and claim that the early Church had become "corrupted" within 50 years because what the early Church taught rubs against their particular flavour of theology. I will leave you with the words of Tertullian as a refutation to the lies of our "leaders":
"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 ever since the Reformation.] 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
A preacher's or "scholar's" ("expert's") or theologian's appeal to authority and credentials is a tell-tale sign of a weak argument! It is a sign of deep internal weakness and first magnitude insecurity on their part. In Christianity, theology is the last refuge of a spiritually weak church. Theology requires no faith, no love, no sacrifice, and no commitment. "Systematic theology" is just a fancy way of saying "Proof Text Methodology"; going through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation and ripping random, isolated verses entirely out of their immediate context and forcing them together to teach some concocted man-made "doctrine." 90% of all theological positions today reside in one ditch or the other; they have completely missed the road in the middle, and no one wants to see this. This is the problem with Reactionary Theology; group A goes to one extreme, and Group B "corrects" to the other extreme.
"A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian Church." —Josh McDowell & Don Stewart, Handbook of Today's Religions
This quote describes every single denomination in existence today. Every denomination is a cult to one degree or another. They certainly have cult-like mentalities.
Today's "church" can be carried out without commitment to anything beyond going to a building, singing some songs, listening to a sermon, and putting money in a plate. Jesus' Ekklesia (the Congregation), on the other hand, is present when a body of Jesus-followers are committed to Jesus and to one another in all aspects of the Kingdom and kingdom life. Ekklesia involves spiritual commitment with others to pursue the will of King Jesus. It is the life of Jesus flowing through the saints to carry out His purposes.
I cannot imagine how so many Christians go through their entire lives without ever thinking they could be wrong about what they believe. Regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I might presently believe, I am always praying that God conform me to His Word. Regardless of my opinions, my feelings, or my proclivities, I strive to subject myself and my beliefs entirely to the Word of God. If it contradicts me, then I am to submit myself to the Word of God—no matter the cost to myself. This is called death to self; taking up your cross daily. It is fundamental to being a Christian. The Word of God never submits to me, my culture, my ethnicity, or anything else! As Don Fortner has said,
"Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .
no creed to defend,
no denomination to maintain, and
no confession to bind our minds.
'What do the Scriptures teach?' That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God."
What is "sound doctrine"? Well, according to Paul in Titus 2:1-10, "sound doctrine" has to do with your behaviour, your conduct. Doctrine has to be practical: "doctrine that is according to godliness" (1 Tim. 6:3). Paul said, "let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (2 Tim. 2:19). Those who do not act according to this righteousness he says, "from such withdraw yourself" (1 Tim. 6:5). God cares more about our fruit than He does our particular theological dogma! Observe every verse in the Bible pertaining to the Judgment and you will discover that we will be judged according to our . . . (wait for it) . . . WORKS!!! (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:28-29; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Pet. 1:17; Rev. 22:12, 14; cf. Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:5-8; 11:19-22; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 10:1-12; Gal. 6:7-9; Eph. 5:3-8; Jude 1:3-5; et al.) Hmm... seems we need to start paying attention to what the Bible actually says and putting JESUS before our theology.
"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; brings to mind Jude 3)
"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, since we cannot ask the apostles or their recipients, as primary sources, who should we ask? The early Christians!)"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 [AD 90-199], 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
“Is the Christian church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one person? In most modern congregations there are some Christian people who by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and confront the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later.” —David Thomas, 1898
“[1 Corinthians 14] sheds a flood of light on what a church service was like in the early Church. There was obviously a freedom and informality about it, which is completely strange to our ideas... There was clearly no settled order at all... The really notable thing about an early church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that they had both the privilege and the obligation of contributing something to it.” —William Barclay, early 1900s
“[The ekklesia] was not the Jewish community over again, with a few minor differences, but was a new creation... [W]hen much of his spiritual teaching was forgotten...the church took on more and more of the character of an ordinary society. It sought its models deliberately in the guilds and corporations of the day, and before a century had passed a Christian church was almost a replica in miniature of a Roman municipality. It had a body of officers graded like those of the city, clothed in similar vestments and bearing similar titles. The conception of a unique society, representing on earth the new order which would prevail in the Kingdom, seemed almost to have disappeared.” —Ernest F. Scott, 1941
“Now Paul sketches [in 1 Corinthians 14] a picture of worship, a very flexible procedure to be open to anyone, but each is to be attentive to the good of all... What a revealing glimpse of a vital community, whose worship was in good measure unstructured, open to participation by all, and guided not by a pre-set program, but by the Spirit!...Apparently there was no one who regularly presided, in contrast to the almost universal practice of the later church.” —William A. Beardslee, 1994
Anybody who disagrees with the reality I have highlighted here is either a mouth-breathing fool, a dogmatic zealot, or a bad-faith actor with another agenda. They have no love for the truth. Scripture advises us to avoid such people.
WARNING: If you are unwilling to have your concept of "Christianity" seriously examined, challenged, and turned upside down, then do not read the early Christians (AD 90-200). This is a rabbit hole that will shatter a lot of Catholic, Protestant Reformed, and Evangelical perspectives.