Apostasy:

[RichardBurger]

Apostasy:

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.

Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:
"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)
　

 

[Episkopos]

Ignatius as well as Polycarp were disciples of John the apostle. We can benefit by their writings as this gives us a clearer view of a more "developed" Christianity. Where Overseers were being instituted in the NT writings...here we have these functions clearly entrenched...although assailed by self-seekers on all sides.

The gnostics rejected most scripture as un-inspired and chose Paul as their guiding light. His writings seem to be the only ones that they were able to twist to suit their notions.

Same as it ever was.....there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[veteran]

The original post is mostly a FALSE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS.

It's the false doctrine of Hyper-dispensationalism, and is the preaching of the false idea that there's TWO separate Gospels of Jesus Christ, one for Gentiles and another one for Israel.

There is only ONE Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is for both believing Gentile and believing Israelite. This is why Apostle Paul taught in Romans 11 that God had preserved unto Himself an elect remnant of Israel according to the election of grace, while also revealing the rest of Israel being blinded by God.


Biblical Proof That Apostle Paul Preached The Same Gospel As Christ's Apostles:

Rom 1:1-6
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By Whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name:
6 Among Whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
(KJV)

Paul was not the only Apostle called to preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the same Gospel God promised "afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures". Per Acts 10, Peter was actually the first to preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ to Gentiles.


Rom 1:16
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(KJV)

Paul said he was not ashamed of The Gospel of Christ, then points out that its power of God unto salvation for those who believe is to the Jew (Israelite) first, and... also to the Greek (put for Gentiles in general). If there were a different Gospel specifically for the Jews, then Paul would not have proclaimed The Gospel he preached being for the Israelite first.



Rom 16:25-26
25 Now to Him That is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
(KJV)

If the Gospel Paul preached was different than the Gospel first written of by the Old Testament prophets to Israel, then he would not have said that above. That's Paul admitting his gospel is the same as that spoken of by the OT prophets as given to Israel.


Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
(KJV)

Paul is speaking of separate 'apostleships' of the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, not two separate Gospels. Peter was called to take the One Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Israelites, and Paul was called to do the same among the Gentiles (and also to kings and children of Israel too, per Acts 9:15).


Gal 3:8-9
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all nations be blessed."
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
(KJV)

The same Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ God justified Abraham's Faith in, Paul applies to the Gentile believers among the Galatians also.



Eph 3:4-6
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel:
(KJV)

Paul preached that to believing Gentiles at Ephesus. He remarks how the mystery of The Gospel revealed to him was also revealed unto Christ's holy apostles and prophets, which certainly does not mean Paul only. Paul then remarks how that is about believing Gentiles becoming "fellowheirs, and of the same body", meaning among the same body with believing Israel. A dual gospel idea directly contradicts what Paul said there!


1Thes 2:9
9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.
(KJV)

Paul declares others also in that preaching of "the gospel of God", which he reveals just what is his gospel he was given to preach. The "gospel of God" covers God's Salvation Plan within the WHOLE... Bible, not just Paul's Epistles.



Eph 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In Whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In Whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
(KJV)

That foundation Paul preached was of and for Gentiles only?? Nope! It's the foundation "of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone". If Paul had preached another gospel, he would not have included the other apostles and Old Testament prophets. Because he did include them shows he preached the SAME Gospel of the kingdom that the other Apostles preached.


Acts 20:17-25
17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
19 Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
(KJV)

Paul declares he preached "the kingdom of God" in relation to the Gospel he preached to BOTH Jews and Gentiles. That reveals only ONE Gospel preached to both.



Acts 28:30-31
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
(KJV)

For two whole years, Paul preached "the kingdom of God" to Gentiles while captive in Rome.


Acts 8:12
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
(KJV)

There's Apostle Philip having preached the same that Paul preached.

 

[veteran]

How can I lay such a charge against Hyper-dispensationalism's act of preaching 2 separate Gospels as being a working of devils?

1. It seeks to divide Christ's Body when there is to be NO separation of Christ's Body per the one Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. It denies the Gospel preached to Abraham being of the same Faith as Gentiles have believed on, since they falsely preach the Gentiles are given a different Gospel than that to Israel and their heritage from Adam. Yet per Jude 1, even Enoch, the 7th from Adam, prophesied of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ with His saints.

3. It denies Scripture specifically not written by Apostle Paul as NOT being meant for Gentile believers. (Yes, you heard me right. They preach that ONLY Paul's Epistles are meant for the believing Gentiles).

4. It denies Christ's establishing of the New Covenant in His Blood, simply because Christ offered the bread and cup to Israelites at the last supper with no Gentiles present.

5. It denies the Gospel Salvation work which Christ called all His Apostles for among Gentiles, not just Israelites. And that contains a long, long... history of Christianity first established in the West, not by Paul only, but also by Christ's other Apostles.

6. It seeks to exclude God's Message of The Gospel first written in the Old Testament prophets, since that was written to Israel and not to Gentiles, even though it included prophecy of the believing Gentiles being included.

7. It seeks to divide God's Word into sections to keep believing Gentiles from doing proper Bible study in ALL... of God's Word, which is a requirement to understand Bible prophecy for the last days. In other words, it's a way for devils to CREATE a DIFFERENT ENDING for the last days, all in order to cause Gentiles to become deceived!

 

[prism]

Veteran,
Nothing like a straw man argument. I am interested in an argument against Mid Acts position but from one that represents accurately not from one that misrepresents. You sound like you had a bad experience with them?

Richard,
I would also stress that the Lord's Supper is a Proclamation of the Gospel as well as a time to bring to remembrance.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.(1Co 11:26)

And whatver else it is it is serious enough that you don't want to take it flippantly.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
(1Co 11:29-30)
Sooo, probably something more than a fond memory.

 

[veteran]

Veteran,
Nothing like a straw man argument. I am interested in an argument against Mid Acts position but from one that represents accurately not from one that misrepresents. You sound like you had a bad experience with them?

If you think those points I listed represent a "staw man argument", then you're probably just as deceived as Hyper-dispensationalists are. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is included in ALL... The Bible, not just starting in the Book of Acts, and not just starting with Apostle Paul's commission to the Gentiles. Apostle Paul refers back to the Old Testament prophets so much when preaching The Gospel of Jesus Christ that it's ludicrous for 'any' believer to even begin... to deny how all of God's Word is written for Gentile believers also, and not just parts like Paul's Epistles.

Yet false brethren will always... create their own... traditions outside God's Holy Writ to trap deceived brethren with, and cause them to listen more to them than to God's Word as written. And there'll always be deceived brethren to flee to their cause in ignorance.

 

[prism]

Like I said even in your reply you are misrepresenting. A good series you might want to look at to get a fair idea of mid-Acts is called ACTS-Dispensationally Considered by C.R.Stam. He presents well his case without all the 'put downs' against Covenant or Acts2 view.

 

[veteran]

Like I said even in your reply you are misrepresenting. A good series you might want to look at to get a fair idea of mid-Acts is called ACTS-Dispensationally Considered by C.R.Stam. He presents well his case without all the 'put downs' against Covenant or Acts2 view.

C.R.Stam was one the main founders... of the false Hyper-dispensationalist double-gospel movement, so there's no reason for any... Christian believer to heed his writings over God's Word as written. Thus the misrepresentation working is your doing by your suggestion towards the Hyper-dispensationalist movement and C.R. Stam.

 

[prism]

Again you are presenting nothing but empty accusations. I could just as easily say....

"Veteran is one of the main antagonists against the Mid Acts false Hyper-dispensationalist double-gospel movement, so there's no reason for any... Christian believer to heed his writings over God's Word as written. Thus the misrepresentation working is your his doing by your his accusations against suggestion towards the Hyper-dispensationalist Mid Acts movement and C.R. Stam.

See how easy and unsubstantitive that was?

 

[RichardBurger]

C.R.Stam was one the main founders... of the false Hyper-dispensationalist double-gospel movement, so there's no reason for any... Christian believer to heed his writings over God's Word as written. Thus the misrepresentation working is your doing by your suggestion towards the Hyper-dispensationalist movement and C.R. Stam.

You use the words "Hyper-dispensationalist" as if they describe something bad. But in truth they are just a label some have put on others that do not continue in the blended gospel of faith plus works.

Dispensationlist is the label given to those that study the scriptures from a dispensational view point.. To rise to the level of "Hyper" is to throw out all the religious party line and realize that the gospel given to Paul by Jesus for the church of His body has nothing to do with Israel nor with rituals and doctrines of men.

The gospel of grace in based on the shed blood of Jesus on the cross paying for the sins of mankind. All who place their belief, faith, trust and confidence in God's work on the cross will be saved,

But religious men will not accept the gospel of grace. They want to add works to it so they can be seen as religious and good by men.

So I have come up with a new label for those that insist that man is saved by faith +++ works, "Hyper-religious." I think that applies very well.

 

[Lively Stone]

You use the words "Hyper-dispensationalist" as if they describe something bad. But in truth they are just a label some have put on others that do not continue in the blended gospel of faith plus works.

Dispensationlist is the label given to those that study the scriptures from a dispensational view point.. To rise to the level of "Hyper" is to throw out all the religious party line and realize that the gospel given to Paul by Jesus for the church of His body has nothing to do with Israel nor with rituals and doctrines of men.

The gospel of grace in based on the shed blood of Jesus on the cross paying for the sins of mankind. All who place their belief, faith, trust and confidence in God's work on the cross will be saved,

But religious men will not accept the gospel of grace. They want to add works to it so they can be seen as religious and good by men.

So I have come up with a new label for those that insist that man is saved by faith +++ works, "Hyper-religious." I think that applies very well.

Thank you for voicing what I have been thinking.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Very interesting, well-written OP.

In the same spirit, consider Cain, Adam's firstborn. Adam made perfect, full of the knowledge of God; yet the next generation, a total loss.

Isn't it a marvelous and wonderous thing that the root and offspring of David, the vine of Israel spans the ages, longing for the moment he can anoint all whom he foreknew and graft them into the root. The life of the vine is not dependent on the cumulative obedience of saved sinners who have gone before. They falter and fail, but the true manna is fresh everyday. We are truly blessed.

But religious men will not accept the gospel of grace. They want to add works to it so they can be seen as religious and good by men.

But religious men will not accept the gospel of grace. They want to add works to it so they can be seen as religious and good by men, and by themselves.

 

[Phillip]

Apostasy:

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.

Evidence of a great doctrinal apostasy

This is the background of Christ's instruction to Gentiles (through Paul) during the dispensation of grace (that's us):

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me [Paul], as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon...

1 Cor 4:14-16 For I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. [the Kingdom Gospel? No, the Grace Gospel? Yes.] Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers [of whom? All the apostles? No...] of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.

1 Cor 11:1-2 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as [who? Peter? John? James? No...] I delivered them to you.

Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given [to who? All the apostles equally? No...] to me for you...

Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and observe them which walk according to the pattern you have in us...

Phil 4:9 Those things which you have learned and received and heard and seen [in who? the circumcision apostles? No...] in me, practice these things, and the God of peace shall be with you.

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil [Gr. pleroo, complete] the word of God;

2 Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Finally...

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
***

Looking at the record of history...did "faithful men" continue Paul's teaching? ------ Judge for yourself after examining the doctrines that cropped up soon after the apostolic era.

THE LORD'S SUPPER

Three of the "church fathers" --Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus--said the Lord’s Supper had some positive mystical influence on your spirit and physical body when you ate it. Ignatius went as far as to call the bread “The medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but have life forever in Jesus Christ.”

These folks weren’t into transubstantiation as we know it, but they had an early form of it (more like consubstantiation).

QUESTION: Is that what Paul taught?

Paul clearly taught that it’s a memorial (1 Cor 11:23-26)...an important, solemn memorial, yes, but it’s still just bread and wine with no mention of any mystical presence of the Lord. So who was right -- these early church "fathers," or Paul?

SALVATION, SUFFERING AND PERSERVERENCE

Ignatius longed for animals to tear him to bits because he seemed to have believed that suffering and martyrdom would prove his Christianity and ensure his salvation. He seems to have exhibited an attitude of "I must endure to the end to be saved." While Kingdom saints had to believe such dreadful truths (Matt. 24:13), Paul never did.

THE MYSTERY

Did Ignatius really have a grasp on the Mystery? He knew that the body of professing believers was comprised of Jews and Gentiles, but that was a fact clearly evident even to unbelievers. As to Paul's Mystery, he saw it as something else entirely:

"Ye are associates in the mysteries with Paul, who was sanctified, who obtained a good report, who is worthy of all felicitation..." (Eph. 12)

That's as close as can be found that Ignatius got to mentioning Paul's mystery revelation. But he did go into detail on this:

"And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord---three mysteries to be cried aloud--which were wrought in the silence of God." (Eph. 19)

Ignatius did not have a clue regarding the Pauline revelation, judging by what he wrote. Yet he considered the virgin birth and the death of Messiah to have been hidden from Satan. But they weren’t hidden, for both were prophesied in the O.T. What WAS hidden from Satan (and from the whole world) was the full scope of the Cross (1 Cor 2:6-8), which was not known until Christ revealed it to Paul as part of the Mystery. Timothy knew it. Titus knew it. The Ephesians knew it. But Ignatius appears to never have understood it. That scope being that through the atonement work of the cross mankind can be saved by the grace of God based on faith in what God (Jesus) did on the cross to pay for their sins.

WATER BAPTISM

This early doctrinal slide is most grossly evident when one examines these writer's opinions of water baptism. Ignatius wrote:
"It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God; that everything which ye do may be sure and valid." (Smy. 8)

"Let your baptism abide with you as your shield... (Poly. 6). Elsewhere he said, "...as your arm..."

What Ignatius meant by "shield" is clear - it's a reference to defense, possibly spiritual armor. However, Paul gave water baptism no such significance. Ignatius is paving the way for a ritualistic, salvational approach to baptism [i.e., Rome's] which is with us to this day, especially when he says only the bishop can perform it or approve of it.

Justin also said that one could believe but wasn’t actually saved until he/she was dunked. That’s a form of baptismal regeneration, from as early as 150 A.D. (some say they used the terms “baptism” and “regeneration” interchangeably). But did Paul EVER teach this? No! These Gentile philosophers sound far more familiar with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 than with Eph 4:5.

NOTE: The point of this post is that all this doctrinal confusion happened within ONE GENERATION of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles and dispenser of the mystery. Not 100 years after his death, gross doctrinal distortion had already set in and the Church believed, and practicing a mix of two dispensations, as well as things not even found in the Bible.

One thing is certain from what I’ve read -- the Asian fathers largely failed to acknowledge the uniqueness of the revelation Christ gave to Paul. Why? Because, as Paul himself wrote, Asia had already turned away from him even while he was yet alive. Those in Asia were even then “turning aside unto myths.” These church “fathers,” with their compounded mythical doctrines, are only the fruit of the apostasy that began in the first century before Paul died.

2 Tim 1:15
15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
(NKJ)
　

Yes, apostacy was rampant in Jesus and Paul's day, and got worse after the Apostles died, once those of "orthodoxy" got a hold of the Bible and began substituting man's commandments and doctrines, the worst of which is the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[aspen]

The Catholic Consensus of Greek, Latin, and Evangelical Christendom.

The Consensus is contained in the Scriptures, and in the œcumenical Creeds...
It may be more fully and clearly specified as follows:

I.—RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

The Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Canonical Scriptures in matters of faith and morals. (Against Rationalism.)

II.—THEOLOGY.

• 
  
  1. The Unity of the Divine essence. (Against Atheism, Dualism, Polytheism.)​
• 
  
  2. The Trinity of the Divine Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Maker, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. (Against Arianism, Socinianism, Unitarianism.)​
• 
  
  3. The Divine perfections. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, wisdom, holiness, justice, love, and mercy.​
• 
  
  4. Creation of the world by the will of God out of nothing for his glory and the happiness of his creatures. (Against Materialism, Pantheism, Atheism.)​
• 
  
  5. Government of the world by Divine Providence.​

________________________________________________
III.—ANTHROPOLOGY.

• 
  
  1. Original innocence. Man made in the image of God, with reason and freedom, pure and holy; yet needing probation, and liable to fall.​
• 
  
  2. Fall: sin and death. Natural depravity and guilt; necessity and possibility of salvation. (Against Pelagianism and Manichæism.)​
• 
  
  3. Redemption by Christ.​

________________________________________________
IV.—CHRISTOLOGY.

• 
  
  1. The Incarnation of the eternal Logos or second Person in the Holy Trinity.​
• 
  
  2. The Divine-human constitution of the Person of Christ.​
• 
  
  3. The life of Christ. His superhuman conception; his sinless perfection; his crucifixion, death, and burial; resurrection and ascension; sitting at the right hand of God; return to judgment.​
• 
  
  4. Christ our Prophet, Priest, and King forever.​
• 
  
  5. The mediatorial work of Christ, or the atonement. "He died for our sins, and rose for our justification."​

________________________________________________
V.—PNEUMATOLOGY.

• 
  
  1. The Divine Personality of the Holy Spirit.​
• 
  
  2. His eternal Procession (εκπόρευσις, processio) from the Father, and his historic Mission (πέμψις, missio) by the Father and the Son.​
• 
  
  3. His Divine work of regeneration and sanctification.​

________________________________________________
VI.—SOTERIOLOGY
1. Eternal predestination or election of believers to salvation.
2. Call by the gospel.
3.Regeneration and conversion. Necessity of repentance and faith.
4. Justification and sanctification. Forgiveness of sins and necessity of a holy life
5. Glorification of believers.
________________________________________________
VII.—ECCLESIOLOGY AND SACRAMENTOLOGY.
1. Divine origin and constitution of the catholic Church of Christ.
2. The essential attributes of the Church universal. Unity, catholicity, holiness, and indestructibility of the Church. Church militant and Church triumphant.
3. The ministry of the gospel.
4. The preaching of the gospel.
5. Sacraments: visible signs, seals, and means of grace.
6. Baptism for the remission of sins.
7. The Lord's Supper for the commemoration of the atoning death of Christ.
________________________________________________
VIII.—ESCHATOLOGY.
1. Death in consequence of sin.
2. Immortality of the soul.
3. The final coming of Christ.
4. General resurrection.
5. Judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ.
6. Heaven and Hell. The eternal blessedness of saints, and the eternal punishment of the wicked.
7. God all in all (I Corinthians 15:28).

Problem is - all these doctrines developed over the historically inaccurate 'apostasy'. I am wondering, Phillip,how do do you protect yourself from private interpretation of the scriptures if you reject key doctrines believed by the 3 main branches of Christianity?

 

[veteran]

Hyper-dispensatioinalism is worse than "bad". It's an extremist doctrine that even mainstream Dispensationalists don't want any part of.

Why? Because it denies most Books of The Bible as having anything to do with Gentile believers. So it teaches only Paul's Epistles need be heeded for Gentile believers.

The false idea of more than one Gospel of Jesus Christ also ought to raise an immediate flag, not to mention the false idea that The New Covenant hasn't even begun yet!

Thus Hyper-Dispensationalism is a doctrine of devils and false prophets.

 

[RichardBurger]

Hyper-dispensatioinalism is worse than "bad". It's an extremist doctrine that even mainstream Dispensationalists don't want any part of.

Why? Because it denies most Books of The Bible as having anything to do with Gentile believers. So it teaches only Paul's Epistles need be heeded for Gentile believers.

The false idea of more than one Gospel of Jesus Christ also ought to raise an immediate flag, not to mention the false idea that The New Covenant hasn't even begun yet!

Thus Hyper-Dispensationalism is a doctrine of devils and false prophets.

Your opinion is that of those who do not wish to study the scriptures for what they say, but only wish to have them conform to the false ideas of religious men.

Since you are so sure I am wrong when I say that no where in Matt. Mark, Luke and John do we see Jesus and the 12 do away with the law how about proving me wrong WITH SCRIPTURES and not your rantings. Ony Paul came with the gospel of grace under which the law has no effect.

Show us, IN ACTS, or the book of James, where Peter and James preached the shed blood on the cross that pays for our sins. If you can't do it then I suggest you stop your rantings against the gospel of grace as preached by Paul.

 

[Episkopos]

Apostasy from an errant doctrine created by twisting Paul's words?

The true apostasy is from Christ and the truth.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Apostasy from an errant doctrine created by twisting Paul's words?
The true apostasy is from Christ and the truth.

How do the words of Christ differ from "Christ and the truth"?

 

[Episkopos]

How do the words of Christ differ from "Christ and the truth"?

People replace a twisted meaning of words and confuse that with Jesus Christ the actual person...the living truth.

The bible records Jesus as saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life"

Using human understanding to decide what the meaning of Jesus' words are is against the Spirit. The words of God are not to be understood through private interpretation. Yet that seems the only way people are satisfied...through human reasoning.

 

[veteran]

Your opinion is that of those who do not wish to study the scriptures for what they say, but only wish to have them conform to the false ideas of religious men.

Since you are so sure I am wrong when I say that no where in Matt. Mark, Luke and John do we see Jesus and the 12 do away with the law how about proving me wrong WITH SCRIPTURES and not your rantings. Ony Paul came with the gospel of grace under which the law has no effect.

Show us, IN ACTS, or the book of James, where Peter and James preached the shed blood on the cross that pays for our sins. If you can't do it then I suggest you stop your rantings against the gospel of grace as preached by Paul.

The Scripture evidence for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Four Gospel Books being the SAME Gospel of Jesus Christ that Apostle Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles (even at the same time per Acts) has been shown to you over and over, over and over. But you'd still rather believe a doctrine those like C.R.Stam came up with over the simplicity of the written Word of God.