APOSTASY TIMELINE .com



Mike Day

Fort Herriman Junior Seminary

DayJM@

(801)446-0929

APOSTASY TIMELINE

42-100 The death of the Apostles

100-200 The Apostolic Fathers

Purpose: To exhort and edify the Church

Those religious writers who followed closely on the heels of the early apostles are called the apostolic fathers. They did not write by way of revelation or commandment, as the apostles did, and their writings are not scripture. But because they had opportunity to record their views on church government, organization, and doctrine in a day when the apostasy was not yet complete, such views are of real value in the study of primitive Christianity.

"In addition to the New Testament books, a certain number of writings of the first two hundred years of the Christian Era of authors who had known the apostles, the `Church Fathers,' have survived. They include (1) The Letter of Clement of Rome, anonymous, but attributed to Clement, written about 96 A.D.; (2) The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, martyred, according to Eusebius, 108 A.D. in Rome; (3) The Teachings of the Twelve or the Didache, anonymous discovered by Bryennios in 1875 in the Patriarchal Library of Jerusalem at Constantinople; (4) The Letter of Barnabas, really anonymous, written probably during the first century; (5) The Letter of Polycarp, martyred, according to Eusebius, in 166-167 A.D.; (6) The Shepherd of Hermas, written by Hermas, brother of Pius who was bishop of Rome about 148 A.D.; and (7) Fragments of Papias. (Bruce R. McConkie, Apostolic Fathers, Mormon Doctrine, p. 48-49)

Clement of Rome- ( 30-100) Presbyter (elder) in Rome. Later bishop of Rome (88-97). Wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, c. 96-97 AD, traditionally called I Clement, even though II Clement is now known not to have been written by him. The general opinion is that Clement is the same as the person of that name referred to by Paul (Philippians 4:3). Clement admonishes certain members of the Corinthian church for rebelling against the leaders of the church, and exhorts them to restore their office and to submit to them. In many respects this is the best that the apostolic fathers can offer, and this epistle best lives up to the idea most would have about someone who was close to the apostle. His doctrine is mostly based upon the OT, but clearly also based on Jesus’ words and Paul’s doctrines. He emphasized the orderliness of the appointment of ministers (see chapters 42,44 especially). He equates bishops and presbyters as one office (chapter 44). He made clear statements as to the deity of Jesus Christ. Clement spoke of the apostles in the past tense and gave no indication that there were any still in the church. Some say that Clement is the immediate successor of Peter, while other historians place Linus as Peter’s successor; Latter-day Saints affirm that with the death of the original apostles the authority to govern the church was lost.

Ignatius of Antioch- (Martyred 106 or 116) It is said that Ignatius was the child that Jesus placed in the midst of his apostles (Matt 18:2). This at least indicates the period when he may be supposed to have been born. That he and Polycarp were fellow disciples under John is a tradition by no means inconsistent with anything in the epistles of either. He wrote an epistle to the Ephesians exhorting them to be unified and follow the leadership of their local bishop (chapter 4-5). Ignatius wrote to the Smyraeans warning against those who taught that Jesus was not literally resurrected (docetism)- “And I know that He was possessed of a body not only in His being born and crucified, but I also know that He was so after His resurrection, and believe that He is so now.” (Chapter 3). He also preached against the idea that God was unknowable- “do ye, therefore, notice those who preach other doctrines, how they affirm that the Father of Christ cannot be known, and how they exhibit enmity and deceit in their dealings with one another.” (Smyraens, chap. 6) We learn much about the early church from Ignatius by what he preached against. He said, “I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, "entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and "corrupting the word" of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, "Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil." For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate (to slander) His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power. Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons, that ye admit not of a snare for your own souls. And act so that your life shall be without offence to all men, lest ye become as "a snare upon a watch-tower, and as a net which is spread out. (Epistle to the Trallians, chap. 6-7) It is interesting to note that the highly esteemed Ignatius would be branded a heretic were he to have lived in the 4th century. His views of God are indicative of how the early Church viewed God before the Hellenistic mindset crept into the Church in the 2nd century. Had Ignatius been at Nicea in 325 he would have been forced to either sign on with the Nicene Creed or face banishment!

Concerning Ignatius Kent Jackson has stated, “Ignatius’s warnings show evidence that he was well aware of changes taking place in the church, of threatening doctrines and self-appointed teachers, and of the need to hold fast to the last remaining links to the apostles. But without even knowing it, he himself was an example that the church had already passed into the new age. Ignatius saw himself as a defender of orthodoxy, but Latter-day Saints will recognize in his words some troubling signs that the orthodoxy that remained was no longer that of the pristine Church. The widespread celebrity status that Ignatius enjoyed, though he was only a local bishop, seems out of harmony with the scriptures. The way he confidently took it upon himself to write letters instructing other congregations also seems irregular and points to a day in which there was no longer a central authority in the church. Most noteworthy, however, was his craving for martyrdom, a desire that has no precedent or justification in any scripture.” (Kent Jackson, From Apostasy to Restoration, p. 25-26)

Polycarp of Smyrna- (d. 156) Bishop of Smyrna and one of the apostolic fathers. Polycarp is known to us from his letters to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Except of a brief encounter with Marcion (Eusebius, H.E. 4.14.7), nothing is known of his life. Ignatius addressed his as the bishop of Smyrna, though Polycarp identified himself as an elder. His death is described in the Martyrdom, written by his church within a year of the event (M. Polycarp 18.3). Polycarp links the apostolic era with the next generation, for Irenaeus (Eusebius, H.E. 5.20.6) claimed that Polycarp sat at the feet of the apostle John and that he was appointed to this office at Smyrna by the apostles themselves. According to Irenaeus (Eusebius, H.E. 5.20.8), Polycarp wrote several letters to neighboring congregations, but only the letter to the Philippian Christians is extant. It was occasioned primarily by a request from the community at Philippi for copies of the letters by Ignatius. Polycarp honored the request and added a cover letter for the collection. A secondary occasion for the letter was the apparent abuse of his office by a certain elder, Valens. Valens and his wife presumably erred in some financial matter. That the church at Philippi would seek the guidance of Polycarp from Smyrna indicates the growing need for outside mediators. The question must be asked, where was the bishop in Philippi? Why was the church having outside bishops resolving their differences? The obvious answer is that the central authority of the Church was completely dissolved by 156 A.D. Otherwise, the dispute would have been resolved locally, and only if the local authorities could not resolve the dispute would general leaders of the Church been called in. The idea of one bishop overseeing problems in an area outside of his jurisdiction seems highly irregular in the Lord’s church.

The letter consists primarily of collected quotations, especially from the apostolic writings. Although he writes just after the death of Ignatius (ca. 117), Polycarp shows a significant knowledge of the New Testament. He knows a collection of the Pauline letters (3.2) but never mentions a collection of the four Gospels. The Christianity reflected in the letter of Polycarp parallels that found in the Pastoral Epistles: strong morality, anti-Docetism , respect for tradition, and a concern for the poor. No known Greek manuscript of Polycarp’s letter is complete. All extant copies end at 9.2 Chapter 13 is found in Eusebius, Church History 3.36.13-15. The entire text of the letter is in Latin.

In the Martyrdom, the church at Smyrna describes the arrest of Polycarp (6.1-7.3), his short trial (9.1-11.2), and his immediate execution, first by an unsuccessful burning, then by the dagger of the executioner (16.1). Not only is the Martyrdom of Polycarp the first Christian account of martyrdom, but it is the earliest witness to the practices of Christians having a meal for the dead, especially the martyrs (17.1-18.3), and the formation of a martyrs’ calendar (18.3).

Epistle of Barnabas- (probably written before 135 A.D.) identifies its time as the “last days” (eschatai hemerai), “lawless times” in which “the insidious infiltration of the Dark One” was taking place. (Epistle of Barnabas, 4.9; in Staniforth, Early Christian Writings, 197.)

Papias of Hierapolis- (70-155 A.D.) Bishop of Hierapolis, wrote a series of five books about the gospel, Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord, of which only fragments have been preserved in the writings of his contemporaries. He made a special effort to collect items of doctrine preserved orally by those who had actually heard the Apostles speak. He preferred what he heard from the “living voice” of the elders who heard the teachings of the disciples of the Lord over what was written in books. This would seem to indicate a degree of distrust in the early church of some of the prevalent teachings of the day, at least on Papias’ part.

Didache- (or teaching of the twelve apostles) Dates from somewhere between AD 70-100 is probably the oldest surviving extant piece of non-canonical literature. Its contents include moral teaching and instruction on various aspects of Church practice. Chapter 9 contains altered sacrament prayers, while chapter 7 has this to say concerning baptism, “But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.”

It is interesting to note immersion as the primary means of baptism- yet pouring water on the head of the candidate, while the least desired means of baptism was mentioned. Clearly infants at this time were not baptized, as the candidate was to receive instruction that they were to fast prior to the ordinance.

Chapter 15 verse 1 of the Didache states: “Elect (or appoint) therefore, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not covetous, and true and approved, for they perform for you the service of prophets and teachers.” This tells us that by the time the Didache was written, the idea of members of the congregations appointing their own leadership was acceptable. This is opposite of the prescribed order in the church, where the Lord appoints those who will lead his flock. This was the very problem in the early church: members did not listen to authorized servants, but instead appointed unto themselves leaders and teachers who taught things pleasing to the carnal mind. (See 2 Timothy 4:3-4, Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23)

Although the Didache was never officially rejected by the Church, it was excluded from the canon for its lack of literary value. It is believed that this work, originally composed in Greek, was written in either Syria or Egypt.

The Shepherd of Hermas- Written by Hermas, brother of Papias (who was the bishop of Rome 148 AD)-this document described the church as an old and failing woman. The Church will be blooming and ageless only in the world beyond, but not on earth. This document discusses baptism for the dead as if the reader should understand what is being taught: “It was necessary for them, to rise up through the water, that they might be made alive; for otherwise they could not enter into the kingdom of God… so these likewise that had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and entered into the kingdom of God. For before a man has borne the name of the Son of God, he is dead; but when he has received the seal, he layeth aside his deadness, and resumeth life. The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive. Thus to them also this seal was preached, and they availed themselves of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” When discussing the apostles and their mission the angel goes on to say, “Therefore they went down with them into the water, and came up again. But these went down alive and again came up alive; whereas the others that had fallen asleep before them went down dead and came up alive. So by their means they were quickened into life, and came to the full knowledge of the name of the Son of God. For this cause also they came up with them , and were fitted with them into the building of the tower and were builded with them, without being shaped; for they fell asleep in righteousness and in great purity. Only they had not this seal. Thou has then the interpretation of these things also.”

The Apologists

Purpose: To refute pagan criticisms and to convince leaders in the Roman Empire that Christianity is philosophically sound. The Apologists took Greek Philosophy and welded it to Christian doctrine.

Name Born Died Principle Work

Aristides 125 Apology

Mathetes 130 Epistle to Diognetus

Justin Martyr 110 165 First Apology, Second Apology, Dialogue with

Trypho

Tatian 110 172 Address to the Greeks

Melito of Sardis 160 177 Apology

Athenagoras 177 A Plea for the Christians

Irenaeus 120 202 Against Heresies

Theophilus 115 181 To Autolycus

Clement of Alexandria 153 217 Exhortation to the Heathen

Tertullian 145 220 The Apology, To Scapula, An Answer to the

Jews, A Treatise on the Soul, The Prescription

Against Heretics, Against Marcion, Against

Hermogenes, Against the Valentinians, On the

Resurrection of the Flesh, Against Praxeas

Origen 185 251 Against Celsus, On First Principles,

Commentary on John, as well as over 2,000

other works too numerous to mention here-

Origen wrote a commentary on almost every

book in the bible

Hippolytus 170 236 The Philosophic Refutation of All Heresies

(Hopkins, How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God, p. 17-18- see also Ferguson, et. al., Encyclopedia of Early Christianity)

Doctrinal shifts post 100 A.D.

110 -Ignatius on the flesh and blood of Christ- “They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins.” (Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.)

132 -Justin Martyr on transmutation- his first apology AD 148-155 written to Emperor Antoninus Pius

“And this food is called among us ukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

AS TO THE ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

As stated in the text, the date of origin of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has been much debated. The following summary is instructive. "Protestants combating the Catholic idea of the real presence of the flesh and blood in the eucharist-transubstantiation have endeavored to prove that this doctrine was not of earlier origin than the eighth century. In this, however, the evidence is against them. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing early in the second century says of certain supposed heretics: `They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins.' (Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.) So Justin Martyr, also writing in the first half of the second century: `We do not receive them [the bread and the wine] as ordinary food or ordinary drink, but as by the word of God, Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made flesh and took upon him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from him, and from which our flesh and blood, by transmutation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.' (Justin's Apology to Emperor Antoninus. First apology, p. 65-66) After Justin's time the testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist; but that proves-as we said of infant baptism-not that the doctrine is true, but that soon after the apostles had passed away, the simplicity of the gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from." (B. H. Roberts, "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History," p. 133.)

150-The Shepherd of Hermas on Penance

Ties Christian repentance to the doing of "penance," or at least a very early version of penance. Similitude/Parable 7, "... do you think, however, that the sins of those who repent are remitted? Not altogether, but he who repents must torture his own soul, and be exceedingly humble in all his conduct, and be afflicted with many kinds of affliction; and if he endure the afflictions that come upon him, He who created all things, and endued them with power, will assuredly have compassion, and will heal him, and this He will do when He sees the heart of every penitent pure from every evil thing . . ."

150- The Didache- 1. Altered baptism ordinance (ch.7), 2. Altered sacrament prayers (ch.9)-no mention of remembering the body or the blood of the Son of God, no mention of remembering him always that his spirit will be with us. It reads as follows, “First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread. We thank thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever. As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.” 3. There is mention of the congregations choosing or electing their ecclesiastical leaders in chapter 15 of the Didache.

150- God becomes the “One” of the Greek philosophers. Athenagoras (d.177) stated, “We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason…” (ANF 2:133, A Plea Regarding Christians 10). Clement of Alexandria (d. 217) when describing God stated, “No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly, terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator or Lord. (ANF 2:464, Stromata 5:12) Irenaeus (d. 202) & Tertullian (d.220) basically make the same comments regarding God, so that by the end of the second century the Father was identified with the “One” of the philosophers.

What evidence exists that the early church believed in an anthropomorphic God? 1. The Audians- a 4th century group refused to change their belief that God was in the form of a man. “Had not God said, ‘Let us make man in our image?’ then what form could He bear other than that of a man? they asked. (Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500, p. 181 see also Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church, p. 88) 2. Egyptian Christian monks (Wand, p. 209-210)- they termed the Greek version of God a “novelty”. 3. The apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew (chapter 2) makes strong emphasis on the body of the Father of Christ- it is similar to Luke 24 (the account of the physical body of Christ) with an added twist- note verses 13-22. 4. The Clementine Homilies- “But He has the most beautiful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart may be able to see Him, that they may rejoice because they suffered. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be subject to him.”(Clementine Homilies 17.7, ANF 8:319-320)

155- The Martyrdom of Polycarp- 86 year old bishop who warned against Docetism- the denial of the physical reality of Jesus Christ.

170- The Montanist Controversy- This was an ecstatic prophetic movement in the Christianity of Asia Minor, dating primarily to the late second and early third centuries. Montanism was named after its founder and first prophet, Montanus. (170 A.D.). Montanist prophets claimed direct ecstatic revelations from God to support their teachings. They differed from other Christians of the day in their insistence that a true prophet spoke in unconscious ecstasy and in their emphasis upon greater disciplinary rigor. Montanus began ecstatic prophesying in the Spirit in the village of Ardabav in southern Phrygia. He was joined shortly thereafter by two prophetesses, Maximilla and Priscilla. The theological aspect of the controversy turned on the point of whether a true prophet spoke in ecstasy without the cooperation, and hence potential corruption, of the prophet’s rational mind (the Montanist position) or whether the true prophet spoke in possession of his or her senses, that is, nonecstatically (the orthodox position of 170 A.D.). The first councils of the Church, in the late second century, were called in order to excommunicate the Montanists. The most famous convert to this movement was Tertullian. (Fergusen, Montanism, p. 778-779)

The Montanist controversy arose simply because by 170 the church had lost the gifts of the Spirit. Later generations of Christians would distrust those claiming revelation from God. The fact of the matter is, in the writings of those who fought the Montanists, we find no arguments supporting a living church with revelation. We find councils resolving the problems of the church- this controversy being the first to be put down by a council, thereby setting a precedent in the church for the next 1800 years.

185-251 Origen denies that the anthropomorphic view of Diety was ever taught in the Church! “After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us, but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that “he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man.” As he undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation. Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so superfluous a task as that of refuting them.” (ANF 4:621, Against Celsus 7:27)

253 -Novatus sprinkled on his deathbed; this is the first recorded baptism via sprinkling in the history of Christianity. (Christian Baptism, with its antecedents and consequences, Alexander Campbell, 1851, chapter 13)

Early 300’s- The doctrine of Subordinationism was the orthodox position of the Church. This doctrine held that Christ was somehow “less god” than his father. He was subordinate to God the Father. Hippolytus wrote that the Father is “the Lord and God and Ruler of all, and even of Christ Himself…” (ANF 5:189) Irenaeus taught that the Father surpasses the Son in knowledge, using John 14:28 and Matthew 24:36 to prove his point (Against Heresies 2:27:8, ANF 1:402) and he also tried to maintain a form of monotheism by asserting that the Father is the only true God: “This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the Apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the Apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to his disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.” (Against Heresies 3:9:1, ANF 1:421) Tertullian taught that there was a time when there was no Christ (or no Logos as Christ began to be referred to in the early 2nd century). Therefore Christ and the Holy Ghost (or Paraclete) were created and therefore subordinate to the Father- yet they were part of the substance of the Father (Against Praxeas 5-6, 9, ANF 3:600-601, ANF 3:603-604).

This left the church in a position where it had to decide who God was. Was God the “One” of the philosophers or was the Son subordinate to the Father? The “One” of the philosophers won out as the Arian Controversy unfolded bringing about the famous Nicene Creed.

319- The Arian Controversy- Alexander v. Arius.

Arius forced the Church to define its understanding of the divine nature of the Son and to say how the Son and the Father are related. For Arius the basic principle is that God must be understood absolutely as uncreated, unbegotten, and unoriginated. There is only one God, who cannot share or communicate divine being or substance with any other being or person. To do so would imply that God is divisible and subject to change. By 318 Arius began to preach that this eternal God decided to create the world by first creating a being superior to the rest of creation. This was the Logos, the Son, who was created by God out of nothing but had a beginning. The Son was God’s helper, or agent, in creating the world and thus stands in an intermediate position between God the Father and the created order of the universe. The Son is neither part of God nor of the world system. The Logos existed before all creatures as the instrument of their creation, but the son is not eternal and does not share in the divine nature of the Father. Since the Logos is a created being, Arius’s slogan became, “There was a time when he was not.”

Arius’s teachings roused the opposition of his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria who wanted to put down Arius’s subordination doctrine. Arius’s position was gaining support and causing controversy in the churches and even riots in the streets. A tavern song promoted his views:

Arius of Alexandria, I’m the talk of all the town,

Friend of saints, elect of heaven, filled with learning and renown;

If you want the Logos doctrine, I can serve it hot and hot;

God begat him and before he was begotten, He was not.

(Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points, p. 14-17)

325- The Nicene Creed – Primarily because of the Aryan controversy, Constantine held a conference to define who God really was. The point that makes this fact so ironic is that Constantine was not even a Christian at the time of the council, he was a sun god worshipper. Athanasius, a supporter of Alexander, stated, “that if Christ and the Holy Spirit were not of one substance with the Father, polytheism would triumph. He conceded the difficulty of picturing three distinct persons in one God, but argued that reason must bow to the mystery of the Trinity.” All but seventeen bishops agreed with Athanasius. (Durrant, Caesar and Christ, p. 660) Eventually only two bishops refused to sign, and they were quickly sent into exile. All of Arius’s writings were then destroyed.

Here is the creed that the bishops were compelled to agree upon:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father, through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and of our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten, and that He was made out of nothing, or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance (than the Father), or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, (them) the Catholic Church anathematizes.

367- Athanasius begins his quest to define orthodoxy by destroying “heretical” books and establishing the canon which will become the Bible of his time. He said, “I have tried to set in order for themselves the so-called apocryphal books and to mix these with the divinely inspired Scripture… which those who were eyewitnesses and helpers of the Word handed down to our ancestors, it seemed good to me… to set forth in order the canonized and transmitted writings… believed to be divine books.” (Pagels, p. 176) He sought out to cleanse the church “from every defilement” and to “reject the apocryphal books which are filled with myths, empty, and polluted” books that will incite conflict and lead the people astray. (Pagels, p. 177) It was at this time that one or more of the monks who heard this letter read at their monastery near the town of Nag Hammadi (in Upper Egypt) decided to defy Athanasius’s order and removed more than fifty books from the monastery library and hid them in a jar to preserve them where they would be discovered sixteen hundred years later in 1945.

384 Siricius on Roman Supremacy- uses the term Papa- the bishop of Rome is supreme. “Siricius was preferred and throughout his pontificate continued the emphasis of his predecessor upon Roman supremacy. He was also the first Roman bishop to use the title ‘pope’ in its modern sense…” (Chronicle of the Popes, p. 32) As to when the Roman Catholic Church had its beginnings, Kent Jackson states, “There is no convenient point in history to locate the beginning of what we now call the Roman Catholic Church, which evolved over the centuries after the departure of the apostles. The reign of Constantine (A.D. 312-37) is perhaps the best period in which to start, because many of the church’s distinguishing features were formalized during the fourth century after Christ. Though the term Catholic is attested earlier, the “Roman” and the “Catholic” character of the church developed over the course of later centuries. (From Apostasy to Restoration, p. 28)

400- Augustine on infant baptism, “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin… whosoever says that even infants are vivified (made alive) in Christ, when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ.” (Catholic Ency. Art. Baptism, p. 265 see also Campbell, chapter 13)

401- Innocent I & Roman Supremacy

412- Augustine v. Pelagius concerning original sin- see 529 “The Council of Orange”. St. Augustine, “man is in all his parts inherently perverted by sin.” Pelagius, “man is born on the same plane as Adam, sin is the result of Adam’s bad example, it is possible for a person to live a sinless life, divine grace is only an aid.”

440-461- Leo I “Spokesman for Peter” Leo wrote, “It is certain that the only defence for us and our empire is the favour of the God of heaven; and to deserve it our first care is to support the Christian faith and its venerable religion. So, because the pre-eminence of the Apostolic See is assured by the merit of the prince of bishops St. Peter, by the leading position of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of a sacred synod, let none presume to attempt anything contrary to the authority of that see. For then at last the peace of the churches will be preserved everywhere if the whole body recognizes its ruler.” (Leo Letter 11- quoting the Order of Valentinian III, emperor as found in Chronicle of the Popes, p. 37). Emperor Valentinian III acknowledged the claim to papal supremacy in an edict in 445 A.D. Pope Leo’s views on the papacy are important. He was a man grounded in Roman law and sought to clarify the notion of papal succession in terms of the existing Roman law of inheritance. Each pope, in law, succeeded St. Peter, not the immediately preceding pope, and thus inherited St. Peter’s powers. This view had the effect of separating the papal office from the person holding it, so that the prestige and the authority of the papacy would remain untouched (at least legally) by the individual failings or virtues of any particular pope. Hence the pope became executor of the office and his personality was of no account in the execution of papal powers inherited directly from Peter. (Chronicle of the Popes, p. 37)

529- The Council of Orange- was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. The Council held to Augustine's view and repudiated Pelagius.

905-956 Popes Sergius, John X, John XI, John XII, Theodora & Marozia

1054- The Great Schism- the church splits between east and west

1095- Pope Urban II & Indulgences

1096-1204 The Crusades- Pope Urban II “God wills it!” shouts the crowd

1208- The Crusades against the heretics

1215- The Fourth Lateran Council- This council, called by Pope Innocent III, made the unofficial doctrine of transubstantiation the “official” doctrine of the church. This doctrine had been taught in the church from as early as the second century- by making this doctrine the official church position communion became a critical part of salvation; being denied the sacrament of communion as in excommunication became dangerous to the soul. By having access to the very body of Christ, the priest played a critical role in the authority of the church. By being excommunicated a person was being denied access to Jesus Christ himself.

The council provided for the state to punish anyone disagreeing with the church by confiscating all property of said offenders. These “heretics” would face excommunication from the church and then lose not only their spiritual but their temporal welfare as well.

1377- John Wycliff condemned

1380- The Bible is translated into English

1378-1417- The Catholic Church has 3 popes- another great schism-

1415- John Hus burned at the stake. John Hus (1374-1415) spent much of his career teaching at the Charles University in Prague, Bohemia (modern day Czechoslovakia). He was also a preacher at the Bethlehem Chapel in Prague. Hus was a follower of John Wycliffe’s teachings (he hand copied Wycliff’s writings for his own use)- he emphasized personal purity, he also stressed the role of the Bible as the authority in the church. His work lifted biblical preaching to an important status in church services.

Thrown out of the church

The archbishop of Prague told Hus to stop preaching and asked the university to burn Wycliffe's writings. Hus refused to comply, and the archbishop condemned him. Meanwhile, Hus preached against the sale of indulgences, which were being used to finance the pope's expedition against the king of Naples. The pope excommunicated Hus and placed Prague under an interdict (meaning that the entire city was excommunicated and could not receive the sacraments). To relieve this situation, Hus left Prague, but he continued to preach in various churches and in the open air. And, like Jesus, "the common people heard him gladly."

Questions of authority

Why was the hierarchy so opposed to Hus? Not only did he denounce the immoral and extravagant lifestyles of the clergy (including the pope himself), but he also made the bold claim that Christ alone is head of the church. In his book On the Church he defended the authority of the clergy but claimed that God alone can forgive sins. He also claimed that no pope or bishop could establish doctrine contrary to the Bible, nor could any true Christian obey a clergyman's order if it was plainly wrong.

Hus could only meet with trouble for such teachings. In 1415 he was summoned to the Council of Constance to defend his teachings. In being conducted there he was victim of one of the dirtiest tricks ever played on a Christian. He was promised safe conduct by the Emperor Sigismund. And he had the papal assurance: "Even if he had killed my own brother . . . he must be safe while he is at Constance." Yet, Hus was arrested soon after he arrived. He was confined in a cell under a Dominican convent. His cell was right next to a sewer system. In effect, the Council had already made up its mind about this rebel Hus. The Council condemned the teachings of Wycliffe, and Hus was condemned for supporting those teachings. Especially under fire was Hus's statement that when a pope or bishop is in mortal sin he has ceased to be pope or bishop.

A chapel full of gold

Hus, sick and physically wasted by long imprisonment, illness, and lack of sleep, protested his innocence and refused to renounce his alleged errors unless he could be shown otherwise from Scripture. To the council he said, "I would not, for a chapel full of gold, recede from the truth."

I will gladly die

Formally condemned, he was handed over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. On the way to the place of execution, he passed a churchyard and saw a bonfire of his books. He laughed and told the bystanders not to believe the lies circulated about him. Arriving at the place of execution, he was asked by the empire's marshal if he would finally retract his views. Hus replied, "God is my witness that the evidence against me is false. I have never thought nor preached except with the one intention of winning men, if possible, from their sins. Today I will gladly die." The fire was lit. As the flames engulfed him, Hus began to sing in Latin a Christian chant: "Christ, Thou Son of the Living God, have mercy upon me."

1456- Johann Gutenberg & the printing press- the printed word permanently changes the world forever.

The Reformation is in full force with Martin Luther

(1513-1517) Pope Leo & Martin Luther

1538- John Calvin and original sin

1534- Henry VIII- Makes the king, not the pope, the head of the Church of England

1776- America the seedbed for the Restoration

1805- Joseph Smith is born

1820- The First Vision- the heavens are reopened

1830- The True Church is restored!

References

Bickmore, B. (1999). Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. Ben Lomond, CA: Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research.

Campbell, A. (1851). Christian Baptism, with its Antecedents and Consequences. Philadelphia: J. Johnson & Co.

Durrant, W. (1944). Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Ferguson, E. (1997). Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Hopkins, R. (1998). How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God. Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers.

Jackson, K. (1996). From Apostasy to Restoration. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

Maxwell-Stuart, P. (1997). Chronicle of the Popes. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

McConkie, B. (1966). Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.

McConkie, J. (1994). Sons and Daughters of God: The Loss and Restoration of Our Divine Inheritance. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft.

McKim, D. (1988). Theological Turning Points: Major Issues in Christian Thought. Atlanta: John Knox Press.

Nibley, H. (1987). Mormonism and Early Christianity. Provo, UT: Deseret Book Co. & Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.

Pagels, E. (2003). Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. New York: Random House.

Roberts, A. and Donaldson, J. (1885-1896). The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Publishing Company. Also available online at fathers2/

Roberts, B. (1979). Outlines of Ecclesiastical History. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book.

Staniforth, M. (1987). Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin Books.

Wand, J. (1937). A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500. London: Methuen & Co.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download