Was The Apostle Paul the founder of

Christianity?

Did it take Martin Luther to explain what The Apostle Paul meant?

Rom 3:4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible let Luther’s own words judge him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Concord

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_their_Lies Rev 5:5

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:156553127

I am not a Protestant, the church I attend is not Protestant AND NEVER WAS! I do believe I attend God’s One and Only True Church, do you think any less of your church? I am not Jewish I believe Jesus Christ of Nazareth IS the Living Son of God, He died for my sins and God raised Him from the dead. It was determined that He would come as a sacrificial Lamb to be slain before the foundation of the world. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and gave His life for mankind’s sins. He is oing to return this earth as THE conquering King of Kings riding a white horse and He will usher in The Kingdom of God to rule this world. it has been foretold in the Bible. Which I consider the greatest story EVER told, of God’s great master plan for humanity from Genesis to the book of Revelation

By Faith Alone?

Martin Luther's famous cry "by faith alone" would seem to leave little room for works. Yet how we live our lives is vital to God, our fellow man and ourselves.

On 31st October, 1517, Martin Luther, the radical priest from Germany, turned the religious world of his day upside down. He nailed his 95 theses, concerning the sale of indulgences by the Church at Rome, to the door of the chapel at Wittenberg Castle, and unwittingly started a revolution.

Did you catch that “31st October” what else happens on “31st October” frt

A Background to Luther's Position

Luther, who spent three years as an Augustinian monk, was ordained a priest of the Roman Catholic Church in 1507. He was appalled at the church corruption he found while visiting Rome in 1517. In particular, the sale of indulgences caused him great offence. An indulgence was intended by the church to be a practical demonstration of repentance in a way that would benefit both the poor and the church. But Luther saw that this was not in line with biblical teaching. This practice had degenerated into a sale that became merely a semblance of repentance. Luther pointed out that such practices had become a cynical way of making money to finance church projects.

On his return from Rome, Luther denounced the Dominican monk Johann Tetzel, who had been sent from Rome by the Pope to sell indulgences that would finance the rebuilding of St Peter's Basilica. Luther's criticism sparked a furore that led to even stronger attacks on what he saw as a corrupt, unbiblical papal system, which at that time ruled most of Europe. Luther wanted to see reform within the church, but his actions had enormous historical implications, causing a fundamental schism that led to the emergence of new Protestant denominations; Luther is considered the father of the Protestant Reformation. Some 30 years later at the Council of Trent, an attempt by the Catholic Church to bring about internal reform led to the Counter-reformation.

Luther's lifelong thinking about "works" would be conditioned by the deficiencies and excesses of the Roman church, especially ideas about penance and indulgences. The more Luther read his New Testament, the more he saw that human works were not the way to God's righteousness. It was through belief (faith) in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ that a person's sins could be forgiven and one could be considered righteous in God's sight. Indulgences and the giving of money to the church played no part.

By Faith or by Faith Alone?

The apostle Paul summed up the concept of faith in his letter to the Romans:

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law (Romans 3:28).

Luther famously added the word "alone" to this statement, and "by faith alone" (Latin: sola fide) became his distinctive rallying cry or slogan. But all this begs a crucial question: because a believer is made righteous in God's sight by the work of Jesus Christ, does that relieve the person from an obligation to keep God's law? Put another way: what is the role of God's law in the life of a follower of Christ today?

Allowing Scripture to Guide Us

This question provokes a world of confusion and variant thinking that has divided religious people for centuries. But it is possible to arrive at a definitive answer provided we allow ourselves to be guided by what the Bible says and do not introduce extra-biblical ideas that distort our thinking.

One vital key to answering this question is to follow the context of Paul's thinking in Romans 3:28. Just three verses later he provides part of the answer:

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law (Romans 3:31).

Whatever faith does, it does not abolish God's law. On the contrary, the law stands firm. Paul, despite what many believe, claims he did not abolish God's law by anything he taught. Jesus Christ claimed the same:

Do not think that I came to destroy the Law [Pentateuch] or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill [to fill up or complete] (Matthew 5:17).

It remains a puzzle that so many people seem to believe that Christ and Paul meant precisely the opposite of what they clearly taught.

Let's clarify just how these two concepts of law and faith fit together.

To be "justified" in biblical parlance is to be made righteous. This is accomplished by the death of Christ whose sacrifice pays the penalty for the sins of the person who has faith in that sacrifice. All this, according to Paul, is accomplished "apart from the deeds of the law".

"Passive" Righteousness

Luther was passionate about this route to righteousness. He called it "passive righteousness" because there was nothing he could do to generate it. It did not come from political or ceremonial actions on behalf of the believer. It was not generated by the person keeping God's law or from his own good works. This was in contrast to what Luther called "active righteousness" - a person's own efforts to keep God's law and perform good works.

The introduction to the Book of Romans in Luther's German Bible of 1522 discusses his understanding of faith and its relationship to works. At the time, he had recently broken from Rome and his opposition to "works" had not reached the crescendo that it would in the coming years. In a more measured manner he stated:

Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. … Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favour that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! (Emphasis added throughout).

Paul explained this critical point of theological understanding in his letter to the Galatians.

But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith.' Yet the law is not of faith, but 'The man who does them shall live by them.' … You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace (Galatians 3:11-12; 5:4).

The Key: Abraham's Faith

In the Book of Romans Paul appeals to the example of Abraham, the "father of the faithful", to further explain his understanding. As we shall see, Abraham's example provides the seminal key to understanding the relationship between faith (belief) and works. The classic statement of faith is bound up with something that Abraham did:

… Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness (Romans 4:3, citing Genesis 15:6).

God had appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:1-2) and told him that if he would leave and go to a new land that God would show him, then God would bless him and make a great nation from his progeny. Furthermore, through him the whole of humanity would be blessed, a reference to Jesus Christ (Genesis 12:1-3). Abraham's wife Sarah, however, was barren. Yet as the story unfolds, God makes it clear that it is through Sarah that His promises are going to be fulfilled. So it took great faith for Abraham to believe God's promises, because a definite miracle was needed to bring them about. By the time this miracle occurred, neither Abraham nor Sarah was able any longer to have children, so a double miracle was needed.

Although there was nothing that Abraham could do by his own works to fulfil God's promises, he still needed to respond in faith to what God was offering. He could either leave Mesopotamia and proceed on his journey to the unknown land, or stay. Staying would have been evidence of lack of faith. Moving forward was evidence of his belief and trust in God. Because of his obedient response, God made a covenant with him making firm His promise to give Abraham and his progeny all the land from "the River of Egypt to the Great River", the Euphrates (Genesis 15:18). This was not a covenant "out of the blue"; it was predicated on faith and the response of obedience.

Does God Accept Us "Just as We Are"?

How does this relate to the life of a follower of Christ? God wants an obedient response to His invitation (calling) to receive eternal life. The Bible calls this repentance - a change in the direction of our lives. It precedes our formal acceptance of Christ's sacrifice at baptism. The idea that God will accept someone "just as they are" is open to misunderstanding. His acceptance of the sinner to be made righteous is based upon a person's willingness to change and submit in obedience to God. God may "accept us as we are", but with the understanding that we will not "remain as we are".

A Purpose of the Law: Defining Sin

According to Paul, this is where the first purpose of God's law comes in. The law defines sin. The penalty for breaking the law is death forever. When a person becomes convicted of breaking God's law, it leads to acceptance of Christ's sacrifice to remove the penalty (see Romans 7:7-12; Galatians 3:23-25).

But then what? When an individual has been forgiven for breaking the law and the penalty of sin has been removed, is that the end of it as far as the law is concerned? To find the answer we need to consider what God's law is all about.

Another Purpose of the Law: A Pattern for Living

The law (Hebrew torah or teaching) represents the pattern of living that God desires all people to incorporate into their lives. The point that so many misunderstand is that the pattern of living remains the same for the Church as it was for the nation of Israel. The second purpose of God's law for believers is that it defines the pattern of living we are to follow.

We can see this reflected in the life of Abraham. Some 13 years after the covenant God made with him, which was based on Abraham's faith, we see another aspect of the Covenant relationship based on Abraham's works. Abraham was commissioned by God to "walk before me and be blameless" (Genesis 17:1). Abraham was to circumcise his male offspring as a token of the covenant. Obedience to God and His revealed pattern of living is what was required. God later said that Abraham "obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Genesis 26:5). This is a remarkable statement of works, long before the law was written down and codified for the nation of Israel.

This is further evidence of Abraham's faith, which culminated in the famous account of the attempted sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22). Abraham demonstrated total obedience to God even though he was apparently required to sacrifice his son Isaac, the only means through which God could fulfil His promises. Abraham proved his obedience and Isaac was spared. Now God knew Abraham's obedience was total, He made His prior promises unconditional.

An "Epistle of Straw"?

The apostle James wrote about this experience and drew a startling conclusion that Luther did not like. Luther famously called James's letter the "epistle of straw", because it did not discuss the role of Christ and seemed to contradict Paul and what Luther himself thought he had learned. What did James write that so alienated Luther? Here is the heart of it:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." … You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only (James 2:21-24).

How do we make sense of this apparent conundrum? Is James contradicting Paul? Are we justified by faith or by works? Both Paul and James have appealed to the same scripture, Genesis 15:6, to support their teachings, although each puts emphasis on different aspects. Thus it would appear that the answer is both faith and works have a part to play. God's purpose for those He is calling to become part of His plan for humanity is to change their pattern of living, their thinking and their actions. God wants those He calls to take on His holy and righteous character. In fact, God's commission to the follower of Christ sounds just like the one to Abraham.

Therefore you shall be perfect [in character], just as your father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48: compare with Genesis 17:1).

Justification and Sanctification

So, what are we to conclude about the relationship between faith and works? The example of Abraham, and the covenant relationship God entered into with him, shows that both faith and works go together. We need faith in Jesus Christ to provide forgiveness of sin so that we can be justified - made righteous in God's sight. The firstt purpose of the law is to convict us of sin and so direct us to Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. Once this has been accomplished, God expects the Christian to live according to the pattern of life defined by God's law. This second purpose of the law is to define a godly pattern of living - called the way of holiness or sanctification in the Bible (see Leviticus 11:44 and 1 Peter 1:14-17). Put simply, the law sends us to Christ to be justified, and Christ sends us back to the law to be sanctified.

Martin Luther spent most of his time, especially after his break with Rome, terrified at the notion of God's judgment for sin. He correctly saw that a person could be made righteous before God through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ - something not possible through any human effort. But the purpose of all this was to take on God's righteousness as defined by God's law. Indeed, the follower of Christ is empowered by God to live by His law, which is internalized in the heart by God's Spirit - the very essence of the New Covenant promise (see Jeremiah 31:31-34). This was a point that Luther did not fully understand. Doctrinal errors that had crept into the Roman church in the centuries following Christ and the original apostles went unchallenged by Luther. His efforts at reform never went back far enough to recapture or restore the true apostolic expression of faith.

Living Faith or Dead Faith?

As the apostle James points out, there is living faith and there is dead faith. Faith accompanied by appropriate works is living faith. But faith without works is dead and leads nowhere (James 2:14-26). So faith alone is fine for justification. But that is only half the story. Verbal faith is insufficient and mental faith is not enough. We must become doers of faith. Living faith will lead to action, to obedience, to works defined by God's law. True faith will manifest itself in works of faith in harmony with God's law.

It becomes a problem when we think of faith (belief) as an intellectual thing - mental acquiescence or agreement with an idea or fact. But the Greek word for "belief", pisteuo, is an action word that means absolute trust and personal reliance on God and Jesus Christ. Such faith will result in a radically transformed life, living in harmony with God's law, the expression of His perfect character. The contrast between mere mental agreement and this action-based faith is powerfully illustrated by the apostle James when he noted that the demons also believe but tremble because their kind of belief does not result in obedience to God (James 2:19).

In Summary

1. Is a follower of Christ justified by faith? Absolutely! This is a biblical statement. But this faith will lead to obedience to God's law and a transformed character and way of life.

2. Are we justified by faith alone? Strictly speaking, this is an unbiblical statement - it appears nowhere in Scripture. If this implies merely mental acquiescence, or belief in an idea or promise without appropriate actions, then this, according to the Bible, is a dead faith.

3. Is a follower of Christ justified by works? Surprisingly, the answer is yes! This is a genuine biblical statement. But not in the sense that such works earn anything. True faith will manifest appropriate works of obedience, without which faith is dead. James 2:17

This is the experience of Abraham, whose life of faith-inspired works serves as an example to us all.

So what does this mean for us? Being a true follower does not rest on a dramatic emotional experience, even though repentance and conversion do involve emotion. Being a disciple of Christ involves a sustained commitment to God and a permanent change of lifestyle in harmony with God's revealed pattern of living.

The Bible teaches that when Christ's followers are granted the gift of eternal life, they will be rewarded according to their works (Matthew 16:27). Having been made righteous in God's eyes by faith in Jesus Christ apart from works, this living faith will manifest itself in works according to the pattern of living defined by God's law.

Paul: Founder or Follower?

A famous German theological historian in the 19th century, a man called Adolph Harnack, encapsulates this argument for Paul as the one who overturned Jewish Christianity when he wrote:

"It was Paul who delivered the Christian religion from Judaism."

But is that what happened? There are several arguments that support the view that Paul was not the founder of Christianity, but was, in fact, a true follower of Christ. That's what I would like to discuss this afternoon, and to demonstrate that he indeed followed Jesus in many ways.

There are many echoes in what Paul says. We find the things that Jesus said echoed in what Paul says. I want to concentrate on three areas today.

One scholar, David Wenham, a man I tried to interview a couple of years ago, had written a book about this very subject in 1995. He is an Oxford University Professor. He is an Anglican minister, and he does a very careful literary analysis of writings about Jesus, comments about Him, comments that Christ taught. He analyses those things and shows how Paul completely aligns with Jesus.

There are some scholars who see that that is the fact. One reviewer of the book says that it's a very important book because it shows:

"... that the wedge often driven between Jesus and Paul is a figment of scholarly imagination."

Wenham concludes his book this way:

"... Paul would have been horrified at the suggestion that he was the founder of Christianity ... Paul saw himself as the slave of Jesus Christ, not the founder of Christianity. He was right to see himself that way.

"The importance of this conclusion, if it is broadly correct, is great. It has implications for our understanding of the gospel traditions, for our understanding of early Christianity, and for our understanding of Paul.

"If the primary text that Paul is expounding in his writings, is the text of Jesus, then, instead of reading Paul's letters in isolation from the Gospels, it will be important to read them in light of the Gospels ..."

You and I do that, I hope! We see the whole thing as a unity. What are the implications of Wenham's conclusion for those who would follow Jesus Christ today?

If he is right, if Paul indeed was a follower of Jesus, then what difference does that make for people who want to follow Christ today, when they read Paul, who some people think contradicts Jesus? This idea overturns everything and forces people back to doing what you and I have learned to do, if they really follow the logical conclusion of this to its end.

The first thing we learn from what Wenham says, is that the gospels are a guide to Paul's practice. If we are to read Paul's epistles in the light of the gospels, then the gospels are what illuminate Paul's practice. They tell us what he did. That shouldn't be a surprise to us if Paul was a follower, not a founder. We should expect him to be saying and doing the things that Jesus did. Paul followed Jesus in observing and teaching both the Sabbath and on the Sabbath.

Luke even uses the same phrase to describe Jesus and Paul's practice on the Sabbath:

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
2 Then Paul, as his custom was ...

This is the phrase that appears also in Luke's gospel as we will see in a moment.

2 ... went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ."

Luke records Christ going to the synagogue in Nazareth.

Luke 4:16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was (exactly the same phrase used in connection with Jesus), He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.

The word for "custom" in Greek means: "as usual," or "as was his habit." So Paul was following Jesus in doing this. He also followed Jesus in not just keeping the weekly Sabbath, teaching on it, and teaching others to keep it, he also followed Him in keeping the annual Holy Days. The evidence for this is a bit more sketchy in one sense, but often the New Testament does not say things that don't need to be said. Because of the way people had already learned, he didn't need to tell them everything.

So we don't find, "Thou shalt keep the following Holy Days ..." in the New Testament. You find examples of people DOING it and dating various journeys or times of the year by Holy Days. That makes no sense unless you are keeping them. Mostly people don't do that. You don't say: "After the fast, I did this ..." if the fast doesn't mean anything to you.

So these Holy Days are mentioned in connection with Paul and with Jesus. We also know that Paul also taught Gentiles by word and example to keep to the Word of God as revealed in the Old Testament. The only differences between Old Testament and New Testament teaching were the result of Christ's coming and of His sacrifice.

Because Jesus revealed the Father and explained His own role in respect of the working out of the Father's plan, certain practices did change. Certain things change because Christ comes but they don't overturn everything in the Old Testament. They are a continuity. They may modify, but they are based in the Old Testament.

But they do change in the sense of their purpose being fulfilled. One example is the Old Testament observance of the Passover. Very clearly, on the evening before His death, Jesus changed the symbols of the Passover meal from roasted lamb, unleavened bread and bitter herbs, to simply eating bread and wine on an annual basis.

As the Lamb of God's sacrifice for sin, Jesus had removed the need for the Passover meal in the Old Testament form. His followers would now take some bread and wine annually - at the time, however, of the Passover - to remember His sacrifice.

But it doesn't mean that there was an overthrow of the religion that God had given to the children of Israel, and in its place, the establishing of Christianity. It doesn't meant that. This is hard for us to get our minds around sometimes. Because we think of Christianity being very different from Judaism. In many ways it is, but in many ways it is a continuity and it is important to understand that.

Paul nowhere speaks of "Christianity." That seems a bit odd. Nowhere does he mention the word. He doesn't mention the word "Christian." He never says he is a Christian. There are only 3 references to the word "Christian" in the Bible but they are all inconclusive as to whether the church knew ITSELF by that name. Each of those references is inconclusive.

Two are in the book of Acts. Luke mentions that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. It doesn't say who called them Christians first in Antioch. It just says that's what happened. It doesn't say they called themselves that.

The next one is when Paul is speaking with Agrippa and the king says to Paul: "You almost persuade me to become a Christian." But that doesn't prove that that's what Paul thought he was, either. Agrippa says: "That's what you sound like to me."

Thirdly, Peter says: "If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed." But that doesn't say that they call themselves "Christian" either.

What Paul does speak of is "THE WAY." He speaks of "the church." He speaks of "churches of God." He speaks of "the body of Christ." But the difference in his teaching between old and new was all related to the coming of the Messiah, promised in the Scriptures.

We just saw that Paul introduced Christ to synagogue audiences via Old Testament Scriptures that speak of Him. When he went to Thessalonica he said: "This is what the scriptures teach about the coming of a Messiah and I am here to tell you who He is." He goes back to the Old Testament as the basis for what he teaches.

One of the arguments that has been put forward by scholars is that Paul did teach the law to Jewish Christians, but that he didn't require it of Gentile Christians!

I have learned that this argument has been put forward down the road in Pasadena in recent weeks. This is in some way a justification of moving to Sunday as the day of worship. It's an OLD ARGUMENT! There's nothing new about it.

But think about it for a moment. Does that mean that Paul was giving "split sermons?" Paul would have to be schizophrenic to stand up in front of an audience, some of whom were Jewish, and some of whom were Gentile and say: "I am going to talk to all of you Jews over here about keeping the law, but all of you Gentiles over there don't need to listen to me. I'll come and talk to you afterwards, and then you Jews don't need to listen to that. That's what would have to happen in reality if that concept is true!

The much more sensible explanation is that he taught all people the same thing. In fact, the New Testament demonstrates that, and it points up the foolishness of the scholars at times.

I came across a quote from George Orwell, author of the book "1984." He said to someone:

"You must be a real intellectual to believe that. No ordinary person could be so foolish!"

Paul did not make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles once they were in the church.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

He also showed that in the WORLD there are Jews and Gentiles, but there is just one category of CONVERTED people.

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,

... referring to three separate categories of people: Jews, Greeks and the Church of God.

One book I read recently said that Paul spoke only of two kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles. But here he clearly speaks of three kinds of people, and he doesn't separate the Church of God into Jews and Gentiles. That is a very interesting Scripture.

Did Paul consider himself different to his ancestors in respect to the God he worshipped? How did he describe the continuity between old and new?

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son ...

Here is the continuity between the fathers and prophets in the past, and then speaking to us through His Son.

It is generally believed that Paul is the author of Hebrews. So he goes from the Old Testament, through Christ and says this is where the message comes from. He doesn't say: "By the way, I have all kinds of changes to make." He says that's the way the message has come down!

2 ... whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

Paul also plainly says that he himself followed the forefathers.

Acts 24:14 "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.

It's a very clear statement about his connection with his past. As Wenham says, we should read Paul in light of the gospels, and when we do, we have a much better understanding of the continuity between Christ and Paul, and between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Notice Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ mentions the things that are written in the law and in the prophets.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Paul certainly saw Christ as fulfilling the law and the prophets.

Acts 26:22 "Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come – 23 "that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

According to John Stott, the British theologian, the attitude of Jesus to the Old Testament was not one of destruction and discontinuity, but rather of a constructive organic continuity. He summed up His position in the single word - not ABOLITION, but FULFILMENT. Stott continues:

"The apostle Paul taught very clearly the same truth."

What Jesus meant by fulfilment was not just the predictive part of the Old Testament, saying that the Messiah would come. That is clear from the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, where He shows that the law is still in force, or continues to have authority over us, and is to be kept according to its deepest meaning at the personal level.

Jesus intended that we have an example in His life of how the law can be kept in the spirit, by the Spirit of God at work in us.

Stott also says:

"We must not imagine, as some do today, that when we have the Spirit we can dispense with the law. For what the Spirit does in our hearts is to precisely write God's law there."

Matthew 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ...

It doesn't say they will BE there. It just says they will be called least there.

19 ... but whoever does and teaches them , he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

But He goes further and says something that would have resonated with Paul's own experience as a Pharisee, when He says:

20 "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Paul describes himself in his preconversion life as a Pharisee; the son of a Pharisee.

Acts 23:6 ... I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee ...

He also says that he is ...

Philippians 3:5 ... of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;

Paul also knew the different in his status and understanding that the coming of Christ had made. He says that everything that he stood for in the past, he now doesn't count worth anything.

Philippians 3:7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

Talking about what Christ said in Matthew 5, John Stott says:

"We have no liberty to try to lower the law's standards and make it easier to obey. That is the casuistry [the wrong arguing] of Pharisees, not Christians. Christian righteousness must exceed Pharisaic righteousness. Yet the advocates of the new morality, or situational ethic, are in principle trying to do exactly what the Pharisees were doing ...

The people who call you and me a Pharisee are, in fact, doing what the Pharisees were doing in the time of Christ! It's very interesting! That's what John Stott says. Continuing ...

"True, they claim to take Christ's part against the Pharisees, but they resemble the Pharisees in their dislike of the law. They regard the law as rigid and authoritarian. And, just like the Pharisees, they attempt to relax its authority, to loosen its hold.
"In the strongest possible terms, Jesus asserted the law's authority as God's word written, and called His disciples to accept its deeply exacting interpretation."

Aside from the practice of God's law in the weekly and the annual Sabbaths, are there other obvious connections between the gospels and Paul's teaching?

I would like to look at three different ways that we can see a continuity, a parallel between Christ and Paul.

God as Father

Let's consider the concept of God as father. The word for "father" in Hebrew is Æab, or Ab, as in Abraham. The word Abba in Aramaic was the term used by children of their father. It's a friendly, familiar term for father. The word appears three times in the New Testament:

Mark 14:36 And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will."

That is one example where Christ calls the Father Abba. Another is in ...

Galatians 4: 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"

The 3rd one is in ...

Romans 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."

You will notice that in the two examples from Paul's writings, that the verb to cry out, is used. It isn't used in Mark, but Hebrews uses the same verb in describing what happened in Gethsemane:

Hebrews 5: 7 who, in the days of His flesh (talking about Jesus), when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,

The account of Christ agonising in the Garden of Gethsemane is framed in the same way. It talks about Him crying out. It talks about Him in tears, in great difficulty, struggling, and crying out: Abba!

When Paul writes about his spiritual battle with his own nature in Romans 7 and 8, he uses the language of anguish. He uses the Abba cry; the reference to Christ's death and resurrection, the opposition of spirit and flesh, and the need for prayer in weakness. They are all very similar.

During His ministry, Jesus also said that He had come to REVEAL the Father. His term for the Father signalled a new revelation. He taught His disciples to pray to the Father.

Luke 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.

According to Strong's Lexicon, the Greek word for father here (pater) describes those who, through Christ, have been exalted to an especially close and intimate relationship with God, and who no longer dread Him as a stern judge of sinners, but revere Him as their reconciled and loving Father. It's an interesting combination and a connection with the same concept that lies behind Abba. Even though we don't pray: "Our Abba," the concept behind it is the same. It's an intimate relationship, with a loving and reconciled Father.

The Return of Jesus Christ

Are there other indications in the gospels and Paul's writings that exhibit strong similarities?

Jesus was very clear about His intended return. When the disciples asked about it, He responded to their questions with the Olivet prophecy. In Matthew 24 and 25 Jesus speaks about His return on the clouds, as the book of Daniel says in chapter 7. This was the understanding of the church from the time of Christ. It was confirmed by angels as the disciples watched Christ ascend into the clouds, just before the first New Testament Day of Pentecost.

That Paul had the same understanding becomes very clear in some of his earliest writings.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?
1 Thessalonians 3:13 so that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

This parallels ...

Matthew 24:31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This was the teaching of Jesus that He had been given. Paul may well have just had a verbal account of it. He may not have had a written account of it, but he knew what the concepts were and he repeats the same language.

That this was teaching that Jesus had given and Paul was following, is indicated by ...

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

There's a final mention of Christ's return in chapter five:

1 Thessalonians 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Earlier in 1st Thessalonians 5, Paul alludes to one of Jesus teaching in Matthew 24.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

Matthew 24: 43 "But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into.

A further indication of parallel teaching is in ...

1 Thessalonians 5:5 You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness.

6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober.

7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night.

This is very much like the passage preceding the thief passage in Luke 12 where Jesus tells His disciples that wakefulness, or personal vigilance and readiness, is necessary:

Luke 12:36 "and you yourselves be like men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately.

37 "Blessed are those servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching. Assuredly, I say to you that he will gird himself and have them sit down to eat, and will come and serve them.

38 "And if he should come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

Some of the verbs used here and in the equivalent passage in Mark 13, are the very same ones that Paul uses in 1st Thessalonians 5:6, and they are not often used elsewhere by Paul. He just doesn't use these words very often, but here, the two things are tied together very well.

In Matthew 25, we have the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The phrase that is used in verse 6, going out to meet Him, is the same used by Paul in 1st Thessalonians 5:17 where he speaks of being caught up to meet the Lord in the air. It's an unusual Greek verb appearing only a couple of times elsewhere in the New Testament. So again, an indication of parallel teaching.

Was Paul a follower of Jesus? Or the founder of Christianity?

Marriage and divorce

When it comes to other issues, such as marriage and divorce, we find Paul echoing Jesus again. The next section of Scripture is very interesting. Perhaps we can learn something, or clarify our own understanding on the subject.

1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.

This matches Jesus' own words in effect, that marriage is for life.

The Pharisees came to Jesus, planning to test Him ...

Matthew 19:1 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan (a place called Perea on ancient maps). 2 And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.

This is the same area where John the Baptist was baptising - beyond the Jordan, a place called Bethabara. It may be the place that we did a little bit of filming in "Cheating God Out Of Christianity".

3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?"
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'
5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

That's the essence of Jesus' teaching. Here, Jesus confirms God's original intention. The demand was quite strict. Marriage was to be for life. The marriage agreement, one to another, is only annulled by death. That's why God later says that He says divorce, and speaks of it in terms of a violent act (Malachi 2:16).

When Paul speaks of divorce, he confirms Jesus' answer to the Pharisees. What was the context in which the question was asked? First, the Pharisees were putting Jesus to the test. They were trying to trip Him up in the territory of Herod Antipas who ruled Galilee and Perea.

Jesus cousin, John the Baptist, had been beheaded for his public opposition to Herod's marriage to his brother's wife, Herodias. Perhaps they wanted to see the same thing happened to Jesus.

The Pharisees were also divided among themselves about the grounds for divorce, according to the two main schools of Pharisaic thought: Hillel and Shammai.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary says:

"Followers of Hillel felt a man could divorce his wife for almost any reason. But others, following Shammai, thought one could not divorce his wife unless she were guilty of sexual offence.

Without getting involved in the Hillel / Shammai controversy, Jesus reminded the religious leaders of God's original purpose in establishing the marriage bond. When the Pharisees then asked about Moses and the certificate of divorce, Jesus explained the reason for it:

Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."

10 His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry."

"That's too difficult," they said.

Here Jesus confirms the strictness of God's view of marriage. It is for life. The disciples realise that Jesus is very strict on the matter and conclude that if there is no way out, except for marital infidelity, that it's better not to be married. It's better to remain single. Jesus replies that not everyone can remain single. He goes into a discussion of celibacy. Jesus said the only reason for Moses giving permission for divorce, beyond the exception for infidelity, was for the hardness of their hearts. It wasn't that God preferred it or desired it. But He did allow divorce for certain human reasons - hardness of heart. That can cover all kinds of things.

The woman whose husband had divorced her was allowed to remarry - but not to return to the first husband if the second marriage didn't work out either. We find that in Deuteronomy 24.

Similarly, in 1st Corinthians 7, Paul carries the teaching of Jesus further, to take into account unusual situations that Jesus didn't address at the time of His ministry. It doesn't mean that divorce is what God prefers. In fact, as you read through 1st Corinthians 7, Paul keeps coming back to the fact that people should stay where they are. They should keep the marriage covenant. They shouldn't try to get out of it. He is quite insistent about it, several times over.

So the principle in 1 Corinthians 7, over and over again, is: live as you are called. It addresses the single. It addresses converted / unconverted marriages. It addresses converted / unconverted unions.

In respect of marriage, Paul is upholding Christ's teaching. However, there are times when people simply do not wish to be together as husband and wife. What is the church to do in these situations? Jesus did not say that it was impossible to divorce. He gave an exception clause. Even then, it doesn't mean that everyone should take that option.

Repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation are always possible. But Jesus did mention the exception:

Matthew 5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Paul addresses these matters in the same manner. He tells when he is repeating Jesus' instructions and when he isn't:

1 Corinthians 7:10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord ...

Here's another of those overlapping sections between Jesus' teaching and Paul's teaching.

10 ... A wife is not to depart from her husband.

That's what Christ said.

11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

Here he frames the response by saying, "This is what Jesus said," showing consistency and knowledge of Jesus' teaching. He is addressing a converted / converted marriage.

The Greek word for depart, (chorizo) is also commonly used for divorce. If the wife departs or separates herself, she is not to remarry, and is still to try for reconciliation.

The converted husband is not to divorce (a different verb: aphiemi) his wife.

Next he tells us he has more to say to the rest, to another category of people. Here's a category that Jesus didn't address. Paul says:

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say ...

So here's some teaching that's not from the Lord. Does that mean it is bad? Let's read on ...

12 ... If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

It's the same principle. Don't divorce her. This is similar to the statement he makes later where he answers a question about the unmarried and what they should do at a time in history that he calls "the present distress."

25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress - that it is good for a man to remain as he is:

... not to be married. Does it mean that this is just his opinion, of no value or application unless we want it to be? Is this an example of Paul departing from Jesus' teaching, or is he addressing issues that the church was faced with, due to changed circumstances?

The church had come into being. People were in the church with converted and unconverted mates. That raised a whole new set of circumstances. He continues to say: "Remain as you are. Don't get divorced. Be reconciled." But he also makes allowances depending on the circumstances.

Paul also says that his judgments on these matters are valid. He says, "I have become trustworthy about this matter."

25 ... I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.

Going back to the new material he gives ...

1 Corinthians 7: 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (the converted wife), and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband (the converted husband); otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever departs ...

Here's the new condition ...

15 ... let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.

This is something that Paul said is for all the churches. It's a decision that he made. But within this passage is a statement that says a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases. There's an allowance given here where divorce and remarriage is possible. How is that? It rests on the words: "not under bondage."

The word bondage is from the verb douloo. From this word we get the word slave (doulos). It means to be enslaved, to be subservient, to be under obligation. It refers to such cases where the unconverted has departed. That departure can take place in many different ways. It doesn't necessarily mean walking out of the door and never coming back. You can depart from your mate by verbally or physically abusing them continuously.

There are different ways of departing the marriage arrangement. Generally speaking it means that one has walked out on the other; has deserted them.

In such cases where the unconverted have departed, the remaining partners are NOT under obligation. If you are not under obligation, what are you? You are free. Free to do what?

Some would say you are not free to remarry, but if you are free, you are free. It is not what God prefers. It doesn't say that. These concepts are reiterated in a slightly different context in ...

39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty (to be free) to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

When death has separated the married couple, there's no remaining obligation. The partner in the agreement no longer exists, and the widow or widower is not bound, and is at liberty - is free to remarry. The Greek verb for bound here is deo. In verse 27 it's also used in the context of marriage, in the phrase: dedesai gynaiki

- to be married; implying, being under the authority of.

27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

That's in the context of the present distress. So Paul makes the same point in verse 15 in concept, if not exactly in the same wording. He's talking about being bound, and being free. He's talking about being under obligation, and being at liberty. The same concepts are used in both places, although with slightly different language.

If you are not under obligation, and therefore at liberty, or free, then it's not difficult to figure out what your are free to do.

At the same time he advises against the practice of divorce if at all possible, and therefore upholds Jesus' teaching in a new circumstance. He also advises that it would be better not to marry at the time, but doesn't forbid it either. He says, "If that's what you need to do, then do it. But you might be better off not to get married."

So what can we conclude from this brief overview, from this look at Jesus' and Paul's teachings, beyond the correspondence we find in teaching weekly and annual Sabbaths observance, and keeping the law. Did Paul tell people not to keep the law? Clearly he did not.

We have looked at three areas where their teachings overlap a great deal:

• The matter of a relationship with God as "Abba," an intimate, fatherly, family relationship. They both speak about it.
• The expectation of Christ's return to the earth. Paul talks about it in great detail, chapter after chapter in 1st Thessalonians, one of the first books he wrote.
• And also the matter of divorce, marriage and remarriage. You find echoes in Paul's teaching of what Jesus taught, but he takes it further in a similar way to which Moses had to take it further in Old Testament times, because of the hardness of people's hearts.

Sometimes we, in the church, end up adjudicating marriage situations where we desperately want people to come back together, but they simply won't do it - and they may well both be converted, to say nothing of those situations where it's converted / unconverted and there are great difficulties.

Even when Paul teachings something additional as in this last case, he is consistent with the biblical teaching before him. So was Paul a follower of Jesus, or the founder of Christianity?

I have given a few thoughts today to help us understand that he was a follower. David Wenham concludes his book this way:

"The Old Testament is clearly the background to Paul's teaching but his focus is on Jesus. Jesus, specifically in His death and resurrection, is the centre of God's saving plan and the Christian life is essentially living in relationship to Jesus, living in union with Him, following His example, obeying His teaching, and looking for the future that He promised."

So there are scholars who can see that these two things are very well connected. Even though in the end they come to the wrong conclusion in terms of what we should do in our lives, some of these people are quite helpful in helping us advance the true argument.

That is what we would like to get into, and discuss in the next television programme, whatever we will call it, something provocative I suppose. That is maybe what we will begin to work on and began recording early next spring.

Is Christ Divided?

By Brian W. Orchard

Few would deny that a wise person derives understanding from the lessons of history. God instructs His people to seek both wisdom and understanding and to apply them in their daily lives. We are admonished to consider very carefully the path we walk (Proverbs 4:26).

Various historical events have impacted the present era of the Church of God, and specific time periods present us with invaluable lessons as we strive for unity in the Church today.

First, we will examine three ideologies that have had such an impact and we will seek to develop a more complete understanding of their origins and implications for us today. They are ecumenism, congregationalism and evangelicalism. Then we will consider some remarkable parallels as these movements began to influence the Church of God through the 19th and into the 20th century.

The Birth of Protestantism

Let's start by looking back at the birth pangs of Protestantism. The forces that led to the Protestant Reformation are many and complex, but at the heart were the roles of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. When the monk/cleric Martin Luther attached his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg in 1517 (Oberman, p. 190), it is unlikely that he had any comprehension of the magnitude of the storm his document would create throughout Europe and, ultimately, the world. What began as a reasoned appeal to the church over the issue of indulgences (a discharge from the debt of temporal punishment that the sinner owed) developed into a major schism.

The common people had long been abused by papal authority, and they responded vigorously to one of the church's own taking a stand against corruption and flagrant misconduct (Manchester, p. 143). As time went by, Luther was to discover "that he had become the voice of millions who suffered doubly from the Renaissance popes; impoverished by highwaymen like Tetzel [a Dominican monk who sold papal indulgences in Germany in 1517], they also grieved for their beloved faith, desecrated by rogues in vestments" (p. 144).

This direct challenge to what was then the most powerful institution in Europe bred significant philosophical and religious changes in the thinking of the people. Authority had been successfully challenged.

One result was that the humanistic philosophy, which had been quietly developing in the academic world of the universities, now raised its voice in the public arena. Humanism is defined as "a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centred on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition).

The Humanistic Influence

We see the humanistic influence having its effect in two specific ways; first, by diminishing the authority of the church and elevating the common man, and second, by challenging the concept of one true church. And so we come back to Luther.

According to William Manchester, "In defying the organised Church, Luther had done something else. He had broken the dam of medieval discipline. By his reasoning, every man could be his own priest, a conclusion he himself would reach in 1520-1521... Luther's challenge to ecclesiastical prestige encouraged a proletariat eager to demand a larger share in an increasingly prosperous Germany" (p. 143, emphasis added). Thus was born the movement known as congregationalism, which is defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th Edition) as "the name given to that type of church organization in which the autonomy of the local church, or body of persons wont to assemble in Christian fellowship, is fundamental" (s.v. "Congregationalism").

Another familiar concept has its roots in Luther's revolution. One author writing in U.S. News and World Report notes that "Martin Luther once described his ideal church as a 'priesthood of all believers,' where God and the faithful could commune without the intercession of a priest" (Geier, p. 76).

Luther's challenge eroded the concept of one universal church and led eventually to the acceptance of a multiplicity of denominations. According to The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity: "Christians came to terms with the existence of churches in the plural. The tremendous passions unleashed by the Reformation were being channelled into an insistence on individual conversion, a religion of the heart, deep and self-justifying, not dependent on the structure of routine conformity... More and more, theologians accepted the idea of 'the invisible church', an intangible reality above and beyond the fragmented Christian bodies. The eighteenth century was the 'age of reason', and defenders of a reasonable Christianity thought of a church in terms of the collective allegiances of its members rather than as a divinely commissioned continuing organic unity - ...'a voluntary society of men joining themselves together of their own accord...'" (McManners, pp. 272-273, emphasis added).

Multiplicity Accepted

By the mid-1600s this idea of a multiplicity of denominations was gaining acceptance. As long as certain essential doctrines were in place - those deemed necessary for salvation - other 'lesser matters' could be regarded as optional. This allowed for diversity in such matters as form of church government and for the development of interfaith activities. "The Philadelphian Society (founded in 1697...) was a meeting of Christians of every kind to exchange spiritual experiences, while the Deutsche Christentumsgesellschaft at Basle from 1756 onwards was the first international inter-church society, bringing Christians together in good works and mission enterprises" (McManners, p. 274). The Protestant Reformation thus gave rise to another important movement - ecumenism.

Ecumenism and Evangelism

It is helpful to examine ecumenism further, since other approaches have developed from the initial concept. A dictionary definition of the term ecumenical reads, "of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition). According to the Dictionary of Bible and Religion, the ecumenical movement is "the movement toward the goal of greater visible unity and ecumenical cooperation among all Christian churches... A desire to inwardly renew all the churches and to learn from the 'younger churches' of the mission fields, as well as a growing insight into the many beliefs and activities that already united the various churches, fueled the drive of the ecumenical spirit" (Gentz, s.v. "Ecumenical Movement").

Ecumenism has a close cousin - evangelicalism. As a result of its ongoing antipathy to Roman Catholicism, the Protestant movement attempted to unify Protestant groups under a common banner.

According to Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary (International Edition, 1960), evangelical is a term denoting "the adherents of a school of Protestant theology stressing the divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Scriptures... and denying in whole or in part the efficacy of the sacraments and the authority of the church".

In 1846 a group of 900 clergymen and laymen representing upwards of 50 sections of the Protestant church gathered in London to form an association known as the Evangelical Alliance. Their stated mission, as recorded in the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (s.v. "Evangelical Alliance"), was "to associate and concentrate the strength of an enlightened Protestantism against the encroachments of popery..." One of nine points adopted by the alliance was "the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures" (emphasis added).

Congregationalism

By definition and example, ecumenism and evangelicalism are closely related, though they address different aspects of the movement aimed at Protestant unity.

Congregationalism is also a closely connected concept. The 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (s.v. "Christianity") describes it this way, "The basic concepts of Congregationalism are: the understanding of the congregation as the 'holy people' under the regent Jesus Christ; the spiritual priesthood... of every believer and the brotherly exchange of spiritual experiences... between them; the equal rank of all clergy; [and] the freedom of proclamation of the gospel from every episcopal or official permission.... By virtue of the freedom of self-determination fundamentally granted every congregation, no dogmatic or constitutional union... developed in England. North America, however, became the classic land of Congregationalism as a result of the great Puritan immigration to New England, beginning with the Pilgrim Fathers on the 'Mayflower' (1620). In the 20th century, acknowledgement of the full authority of the individual congregation runs through almost all Protestant denominations in the United States... Congregationalism participates in the ecumenical movement within which it presses for awakening the independent activity of the Christian churches in the entire world in terms of a proto-Christian ideal of the congregation" (emphasis added).

The Dictionary of Bible and Religion adds, "Congregationalists are defined as Christians who hold that Jesus Christ is the only head of the church; that the Bible is the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice; that Christian character is the standard for church membership; and that sovereignty in church government lies in the local congregation, made up of God's people..." (Gentz, s.v. "Ecumenical Movement," emphasis added).

From this historical information, we can briefly outline a progression.

Those invested with authority to govern the Roman church "exercised lordship over" the people, grievously abusing their position.

In reaction to this abuse, a scepticism and distrust of all centralised church government developed. Thus, over time, the local congregation became the focus.

Hierarchy was weakened as church members were considered equal under the concept that "we are all the priesthood".

An openness developed toward differing practices, so long as essential doctrines appeared to be in place.

Parallels in the Church of God

In the light of this progression, it is interesting to consider the development of the Church of God through the nineteenth and into the twentieth century. There are some remarkable parallels that reveal how these concepts that developed within Protestantism have influenced many in the Church of God. Indeed, as Solomon wisely stated, there is "nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

During the early 1800s there were a number of Sabbath-keeping groups scattered throughout the northeastern United States. According to A.N. Dugger and C.O. Dodd, various Sabbatarian groups were becoming "cold and indifferent toward the truth" (p. 287). Into this environment William Miller, with his enthusiasm for prophecy and the coming of Christ, came as a breath of fresh air. He proclaimed 1844 as the year Christ would return. When this did not happen, the stage was set for a reorganisation. James White emerged as a leader of the Sabbath-keeping Adventists. He focused primarily on the Sabbath and the second advent of Christ, as the name of his paper, The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, emphasises. His leadership relied heavily on the visions and writings of his wife, Ellen G. White. Together their writings gained in respect and authority until, in the early 1860s, the Whites forced the issue of organisation and insisted that the writings of Mrs White be accepted as equal with Scripture.

A circular letter published in 1864 in The Hope of Israel (a newspaper published by the Michigan Church of Christ) states in part that Merritt E. Cornell, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ at Marion, Iowa, "held up, publicly, some other volumes by the side of the Bible, of a recent date, and averred that these recent publications were of equal authority, and binding forever with the Bible, and urged us to adopt their teaching also, as a rule of faith and discipline. A portion of us were unwilling to accept these new planks in the platform of our Church... The result was, about one half of the Church decided to receive these volumes as valid Scripture, and drew off from us, or rather repelled us from them, denouncing us as rebels, etc., etc., distinctly intimating that they no longer desired nor would tolerate our company in their religious meetings... We now discovered that... the real object was to put the visions of Ellen G. White on the same eminence with the Bible" (Coulter, p. 15).

Contending for the Faith Once Delivered

The letter was circulated among several congregations in Iowa as a call to organise a conference to provide unity in approach in the face of "watering down" the authority of the Bible. A letter of response from a member at the time sounds very similar to some letters written by members recently.

"I have received two numbers of The Hope of Israel, and it seems to us 'meat in due season'. It is very encouraging to hear that God still has some children who are going to contend for the 'faith once delivered to the saints'; and not follow the 'cunningly devised fables' of men... We started with the people called 'Seventh-day Adventist', on the Bible and the Bible alone; and when they began to introduce something else, we could not go with them" (Coulter, p. 16).

November 15, 1862, the date of the general conference conducted at Marion, Iowa, may be the beginning of the concept of a general conference within the Church of God. By 1884 a movement had developed to convene a general conference of the Church of God, the name having been changed from Church of Christ in 1875. The Missouri Conference expressed a strong desire to see a more unified approach toward the work the Church had to do. As they put it, "...we see the necessity of a more thorough work and a greater effort to advance the cause; also... we see the more necessity of a complete system of order, which could be carried out in a general conference of the different States..." They further wrote that "a more thorough organisation was sought and carried forward. The necessity of system is seen in all that we do, and by working according to it, it is seen that more work and more good can be accomplished... Some may not see much in organisation, and as far as individual standing and worship of God is concerned, it may be so; but in carrying out the apostolic commission to teach other people and make believers to preach the gospel into all the world and to take out of the world a people for the name of the Lord and for His coming kingdom, it is necessary for that work to be done to the best advantage, and all know this is best done by a concerted action and by a general oversight of gospel labor" (Coulter, p. 32).

Strong Leadership, a Common Objective

Apparently this approach toward a more centralised organisation met much resistance. The local conferences were reluctant to yield their local autonomy. Factional infighting and political manoeuvring continued throughout the late 1800s into the early 1900s. During this time the work of the Church survived but did not thrive.

In 1906, during this period of tumult, Andrew N. Dugger began his ministry with the Church of God. The significance of what follows should not be lost on us.

"During his tenure as president and editor, Dugger exerted much influence upon the Church. Throughout the early period of Dugger's leadership, the Church of God experienced some of its most rapid and greatest growth. During the period of the 1920s, the church experienced more growth than it had previously. A missionary spirit was exemplified by the Church and its leadership" (Coulter, pp. 41-42).

It is evident, then, that while the General Conference operated as a loosely knit confederation of autonomous groups, the work of God waxed and waned. When they pulled together with a common objective to their work, it reached out on an international scale. With strong leadership and an outgoing focus, the work of God reached into such areas as Mexico, Central and South America, Western Europe, Africa and the West Indies (Coulter, p. 42).

Division, Factions Again

Yet, in spite of the evident growth, by 1927 factionalism again racked the Church.

"Actions like that of the 1927 Conference began to engender contention and strife within the Church. The leadership was divided over the question of the amount of authority the Conference should exercise in matters of doctrine and policy. Unfortunately, the Conference's attempts to solve these problems were not effective. Dissatisfaction was about to erupt into an explosion that would bring division" (Coulter, p. 44).

By 1933 discontentment came to a head, and Dugger issued a pamphlet titled "Declaration for the Restoration of the Primitive Organisation of the Church of God". This call for "biblical organisation" resulted in a combination of boards and committees composed of 12, 7 and 70 members. Herbert W. Armstrong was chosen as one of the 70 elders "to go forth two by two to give the 'warning message of the hour'" (Coulter, p. 47). The Conference ended in division, with the Church of God (Seventh Day) dividing into two separate organisations - the Stanberry, Missouri, and Salem, Oregon, Conferences.

"The division of the Church of God (Seventh Day) caused the membership and leadership much grief. Many members and prospects were discouraged by the frequent attacks one church launched against the other. In some instances, ministers switched organisations, bewildering their membership. In other cases, the membership became pawns in the struggle between ministers who were vying for their loyalty and support. The membership growth of the 1920s was not realised or even approached in the decades of the 1930s and 1940s" (Coulter, pp. 54-55).

The net result of this fragmentation was summed up by one author this way: "Since the Seventh Day Adventists organised and changed their name from Church of God, those who would not go along with the White Party often were entirely against all forms of organisation... The 'I'll let no man or organisation tell me what to preach' syndrome was to ensure a disunited Church of God and precipitate the recurrent splits which exemplify Church of God history" (Nickels, pp. 363-364).

Out of the Ashes

Out of the ashes of disunity, God raised up a strong leader to once again focus the people of God on the need to unify in an organised effort to preach the gospel to the world. Herbert W. Armstrong well understood the diversifying effect of ecumenism. His developing understanding of church government (Armstrong, pp. 411-412) reflected the need to withstand the fragmentation such an approach can cause. Through his efforts, the work of the Church grew in scope and effectiveness.

Following the death of Mr Armstrong, forces have emerged similar to those that we have looked at in both the Protestant and Adventist schisms. Positions of leadership have sometimes been misused to introduce heresy and to "exercise lordship" over ministers and members. This has resulted in distrust toward authority. The outward vision of preaching the gospel has been subjugated to a more congregationalist approach, and the evangelical concept of a multiplicity of "Churches of God" has grown to be widely accepted.

Just as the Protestant evangelical stance sounded reasonable in light of the Roman Catholic Church's abuses, so the ecumenical approach today can sound reasonable in light of betrayal and abuse of authority.

Tearing up the Roots Again

As the basic foundational doctrines were torn up, many have turned to 'outside' sources for help in rebuilding the foundation. For some this has been an eye-opening experience as they have studied material they had not previously confronted. In some cases people who had left, or who had been disfellowshipped, have gained credibility as the government of the Church has crumbled.

There is, however, one major difference that should not escape our attention. God's Church is not a Protestant movement, nor is it just one part of an ecumenical Christianity. Either it is the New Testament Church of God that Jesus Christ built, or it is not!

The Fundamental Difference

There is a fundamental difference between the approach Mr Armstrong took and the approach of some we see today. Mr Armstrong accepted the Bible as the source of truth and used 'outside' sources only to support what had already been revealed from Scripture (Armstrong, pp. 292-309). However, it would appear that in reaction to the assault on biblical truth of recent years, some have turned to 'outside' sources to develop the understanding of a particular point of truth. The difference may be subtle, but when we see multiple groups, each claiming to represent the Church of God, but having differing opinions on points of doctrine, we are forced to conclude that the 'evangelical alliance' mentality is not only alive, but thriving.

One of the great admonitions from the lessons of history comes to us from the apostle Paul, presented in the form of a question: "Is Christ divided?"

Is Christ Divided?

What he wrote to the schismatic congregation in Corinth should make all of us contemplate carefully the path we have chosen to walk,: "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:10-13, emphasis added).

The biblical injunction regarding the unity of the body of Christ is clear. The truth is revealed by God through His Holy Spirit to those who have humbly repented and surrendered their wills to Him in obedience. These people are in unity and harmony. What takes place under the guise of ecumenism, congregationalism or evangelicalism is nothing more than the continuation of the attack upon the Church to further fragment and fracture the unity of the body of Christ, thus diffusing the energy of the Church and reducing the effectiveness of preaching the gospel. These movements must therefore be resisted by the Church of God if we are to fulfil our mission.

The Lessons of History

The lessons of history are there for us to learn. Satan's methods may appear under different names at different times, but his intent remains focused and consistent. His goal is the fragmentation and dissipation of energies that he knows are vital for the Church of God to accomplish the work of preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God in preparation for the return of Jesus Christ. If we are prepared to submit to God, and to one another, the work of God will go forward in strength to fulfil the great commission Christ gave to His Church.

Let us respond to Paul's urgent appeal to the Ephesian church to "...walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body..." (Ephesians 4:1-4).

References:

Coulter, Robert. 1983. The Story of the Church of God (Seventh Day). Denver: Bible Advocate Press.

Dugger, A.N., and C.O. Dodd. 1972. A History of the True Religion. 3rd ed. Jerusalem.

Geier, Thom. 1996. The Case of the Vanishing Priesthood. U.S. News & World Report, 30 December.

Gentz, William H., ed. 1986. The Dictionary of Bible and Religion. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Manchester, William. 1992. A World Lit Only by Fire. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

McManners, John, ed. 1990. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nickels, Richard C. 1977. A History of the Seventh Day Church of God. Vol. 1.

Oberman, Heiko A. 1989. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. Translated by Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart. New Haven: Yale University Press.

http://www.oocities.org/frtillman/cogbeliefs.html